Friday, July 28, 2006

"I do know how to veto something"


In the wake of President Bush’s veto of the stem cell research bill I’m feeling a little perplexed on what our fearless leader understands of “morals.” According to W, using leftover (a word that means on step away from the trashcan) embryos to conduct potentially life altering research is morally wrong. Funny because I feel like a lot of people would think getting behind the wheel of a car drunk and putting others lives at risk would be morally wrong. I feel like even more people would feel that executing hundreds of people (most of which lacked the money to get a fair trail) is morally wrong. I bet a ton more people would feel that lying about WMDs in an attempt to start a war in which a myriad of our countries finest young men are dying for no reason is morally wrong. This stuff doesn’t really bother W. However, leftover embryos being put to use at opposed to the trashcan really grinds W’s gears.

Now, I am about the most morally loose individual you are ever going to find. In fact, about the only thing looser than my morals is Paris Hilton’s axe wound. For those of you not up to date with pop culture, that’s pretty loose. I imagine that girl could sit on a grapefruit and not hit skin, but that’s neither here nor there. Anyway what I was getting at is that someone could come up with a bill that required crack whores to have abortions in their third trimester in order to harvest stem cell and I would be ok with it. However, something like that I could understand people having a problem with. What I can’t understand is how anyone had a problem with the bill W vetoed. I’ve heard people refer to it as “abortion” and “murder”. Murder, WOW! So let me get this straight, if a scientist were to drop a Petri dish containing 5 embryos, should we charge that person with 5 counts of involuntary manslaughter? If a freezer breaks at a lab and 1000 embryos are destroyed, is that a tragedy worse than the world trade center attack? Anytime an embryo fails to implant on the uterine wall, should we have funeral? Furthermore if those embryos are people, I bet they are enjoying life about as much as Terri shivo was.

This is just more closedminded think that hold everybody back. Long story short is that these embryos can go in the garbage or under a microscope, why would you not put them to use?

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Another day, another oversimplification of an economic issue by the media

If you wonder why the general public doesn't have a strong understanding of basic economic principles, you need to look no further than this article on MSNBC.com about a recent report from the US Treasury Department about the economic impacts of President Bush's tax cuts. The thesis of the article is essentially that making President Bush's tax cuts permanent would boost the economy, as long as other taxes weren't increased to offset the loss in revenue.

Wow! That sounds like Bush's method of economic stimulus might actually have the intended result.

The problem is, as the actual report from the Treasury Department points out and the MSNBC article merely skims over, is that positive economic growth assumes DECREASED government spending to offset the lost revenues from tax cuts. In other words, the economic growth is mitigated when you cut taxs AND spend more money.

My friends who are actual fiscal conservatives, and not just cheerleaders for President Bush, have been pulling their hair out about the President's budgetary policy. The one and only veto President Bush has to his name during his 5 years in office is the recent Stem Cell Research Funding Bill that he vetoed about a week ago. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill that has come across his desk since he started sitting at it.

So while tax cuts do help the economy in a very minimal way, the minimal gain is completely offset when the government does nothing to curb spending while decreasing taxes. The net result is a larger federal budget deficit, which pretty much every single economist in the world who isn't on the Bush Administration's take would agree is a huge economic hindrance.

Monday, July 24, 2006

No body says they want to work in Human Resources when they grow up

Don't you mean EAGLE Resources?

I wondered what would happen if I typed the phrase "Human Resources" into Google under images, just because I was secretly hoping that a picture of a giant turd would come up, but instead I found the above picture, which is quite amusing and probably strangely intimidating to trout or people who aren't very patriotic. The eagle means: "Don't apply for this job unless you really like America and/or birds of prey."

The reason that I was typing Human Resources into Google Images, was partly cathartic. I had a bad experience this last week with my paycheck, and it got me thinking about how ironic it is that the people in charge of screening job candidates are themselves only of limited value in terms of employment. Here are some reasons I feel this way (feel free to add your own under comments):

1) Human resources never cease to fuck things up at work. Remember that interview that you never got called back on? The expense reimbursement for your job that ended up being completely fucked up? 9 times out of 10 these problems are propogated by employees of human resources.

2) Have you ever noticed how long it takes to get hired these days? The department you applied to didn't post the job because they wanted to meet some new friends with similar career aspirations, they needed someone to work in a job, preferably in the next decade. Being completely bat-shit crazy, human resources does not understand this urgency.

3) There is a reason you can't major in "Human Resources" in college. Beacause anyone with three fingers between both hands and a bad attitude can work in Human Resources. Just like you don't need a degree to be a stripper or a donkey fluffer in Guadalajara, the skill set they're looking for in HR is more along the lines of "Do you enjoy fucking up people's tax withholdings because you can't tell the difference between a 3 and a god damned zero?"

4) Employees of Human Resources have no incentive to perform well in their jobs, since they make all the hiring decisions. If you work in Human Resources and get fired, just come back and apply for your old job in Human Resources, something tells me your connections, and that one-eyed lady who sleeps by the copier whom you made out with at the President's Day Gala, will get you your old job back, you nepotistic ass monkey.

5) Have you noticed the hours these people actually work? I am going to approach my boss tomorrow and be like "Can we close our department for like 6 hours out of a possible 8 hours that we're supposed to be working today, I just don't feel like seeing any people." Would that shit fly? Not in any other job, except the Human Resources Department. Those people work like 6 hours a month. And that's the manager of human resources at Microsoft, that over-worked son of a bitch.

6) Their mistake is your fault. Count on it. If they accidentally forget to pay you one time, just as an example compeltely out of the blue, it's probably because it's your job to make sure the people in Human Resources don't make mistakes, which is difficult since it's hard to figure out what they're supposed to be doing down there, aside from playing Bejeweled for 7 hours online against their cousin in Arkansas.

As you can see, I don't think a whole hell of a lot about the human resources department, and this has been a constant theme during my employment. In talking with people about this, I am finding this to be a universal truth, much like drinking 4 Jaeger-bombs will help you to see the universal truth about why Luigi from Super Mario Brothers should run for President with Wario as his running mate.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Attention Fashion moronic: Lay off the Giant Sunglasses















Left: How people who wear giant sunglasses think they look.
Right: How people who wear giant sunglasses actually look.


Okay, I know a lot of people are sitting at home right now wondering: what does CowboyLaw think about the current trend towards wearing sunglasses that are only slightly smaller than the windshield of a 1961 Cadillac? Well, to serve the needs of that small portion of society, allow me to present the answer: I think it's one of the worst abominations of fashion since elephant bells briefly came back. As with most fashion atrocities, this one strikes the nation's most vulnerable citizens: young women. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: no one looks good wearing oversized sunglasses. At best, you look like Jeff Goldblum halfway through The Fly, when he starts developing those bulging bugeyes. Is that really the look you're trying to emulate? In fact, scrutinize the picture above on the left. The conceit of the layout is that she looks good. The fact is, she doesn't look that great. And I crawled through A LOT of internet pictures to find that one.

This trend is only part of a growing tendency to borrow fashion trends from the 1970s. WHY???? The 70s was a ugly decade (and I should know: I was born smack dab in the middle of it). Not as dirty and earnest as the 60s, nor as clean and structured as the 80s. Like a party guest who is drunk enough to be obnoxious but not yet drunk enough to be funny and entertaining, the 70s was a tweener decade. It was the functional equipment of America's 13th birthday. No one was cool and hip when they were 13. It's a transitional period. Same thing for America in the 70s. As a nation, we need to develop the same shame vis a vie the 70s that each of us individually feels regarding the 365 days between when we turned 13 and when we turned 14. We don't talk about that year, just like we don't talk about Uncle Larry's drinking problem, the year Cousin Cleo spent as a male prostitute, or about "Aunt" Frank. At all. Ditto the 70s. Everyone on the same page?

The purpose of fashion accessories is to either compliment or camouflage. Case in point: I have a giant, oval, watermelon-shaped head. It generates its own weather. So, I wear glasses that are horizontally oval, to make my face seem a bit broader and less like I'm a Conehead. That's camouflage, courtesy of a fashion accessory. What, exactly, do giant sunglasses compliment or camouflage? I guess if your eyes actually came out of your sockets on eyestalks, giant sunglasses would help hide that fact and keep your alien identity a secret. But I doubt that's the issue here. If you were disfigured when a protestor threw acid on you at a G8 summit and consequently need to cover as much of your face as possible, the giant sunglasses would, once again, be the way to go. But the women I see wearing them generally appear to be incapable of balancing their own checkbook, so I doubt they've attended a lot of G8 or World Bank meetings.

In closing, let me just say this. If giant sunglasses really are the hottest thing going, let me suggest we cut the bullshit and really escalate this thing. Stylish and functional. Spark me up, Misti!

Friday, July 14, 2006

Not Another Post About Globalization!!!

This is the stock photo CNN uses to make it look like the Donkey and the Elephant are going to have a showdown on the roof of the Capitol Building with a giant flat in the sky overhead.

As CowboyLaw pointed out, I was going to make my next post about globalization, but I think it's never a good thing when one falls asleep while writing a post, so I scrapped that one. Instead I wanted to point out this article on CNN.com, which sounds like a great thing. It makes it sound like the Republicans are in trouble in Congress, which would be fantastic. Not that Democrats have been too fantastic lately either, but when the Senate Majority Leader steps down during an ethics investigation, the economy is in the toilet, and we're debating flag burning while US soldiers are actually on fire in Iraq, we need a change.

Which is the gist of the CNN.com article. Through a variety of polls, they attempt to make the claim that because 81% of self-described liberals, 56% of self-described moderates, and 24% of self-described conservatives have said they will vote Democratic in the November mid-term Congressional Elections, that the Republicans are doomed.

Unfortunately, this is incredibly tenuous logic. The survey cited in the article has 1000 respondents. Let's give the surveyors the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had at least one respondent from each Congressional District in the United States, which they probably didn't even have. Even if they had this, they are comparing the opinions of voters who will not be voting against each others candidates in mid-term elections.

For example, they call Aunt Martha out in Wyoming, and she is supporting the Democrat in her district. And they call Uncle Vinnie out in New York, and he's supporting the Democrat in his district. And they call Cousin Bodie out in California who will support the Democrat in his district. Wow! That's one hundred percent support for the Democrats. That means that Democrats will win all three races, simply because we got opinions from someone in that district.

Wrong. You see Aunt Martha may be the lone respondent from her district, but everyone else may be supporting Barbara Cubin, the worst Congress person in the history of the universe. It's a logcial fallacy that comparing voters across congressional districts will tell you very much about how the outcome of the election will be in each congressional district, which is the only thing that matters.

So, are Republicans in trouble? I hope so. They've been awfully pompous, considering the state of the nation and how crappy things have been going on their watch, and I think they deserve to be beaten, just on that basis. However, this CNN report is a classic example of overgeneralizing poll numbers, thinking that the polls can tell you more than they really are able.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

No more 'Mister Bling'...

No, I'm not going away. I won't make you all happy that easily. I just wanted to let you all know that I've changed my Xbox Live name from 'Mister Bling' to 'Lord Bling.' Consider it a promotion, if you will. :) So in keeping with the change, I've updated the name on this site as well.

Basically, I got tired of people online always calling me 'Master Bling'. It was funny at first, but got old quick. But anyone with a 2nd-grade education from a public school other than in Arkansas should be able to not misread 'Lord' as opposed to 'Mister.' Well, that, and I think people were just assuming I was Master, as in 'Master Chief' from the Halo games.


And the 'Lord' thing is a bit of an inside joke with a friend of mine. Oh, and I can also use it for blasphemy. So, multiple uses. Okay, that's enough of an update. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Finally, a presidential candidate I can stand behind. Or kneel before.

People sometimes ask me, 'Mister Bling, who's gonna get your vote for President in 2008?' Well, I've made my decision. Most of the likely Republican candidates are either too right-wing, they're flip-floppers on major issues (McCain, you never should've made nice with Falwell), or they talk the family values game, but sleep around in their marriages. And most of the Democrats either don't get it, or they try to tow the line as a 'centrist' or make attempts to steal votes from the right by trying to legislate how parents raise their children (Senators Clinton and Lieberman, I'm talking to you). I respect the Libertarian party for being completely ape-shit on things like drug legalization and automatic weapons for all, but until they get more than 200,000 registered voters, they're never going to make a difference at the national level.

That's why I'm supporting THIS man:


Expanded freedom? No more Iraq war? Universal health care? Corporate reform? Almost sounds too good to be true, but it's all laid out on his website, found here.

2008 can't come soon enough.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Primer on Libel and Slander law for Bloggers

Now, back to the show.

It seems like every couple of months, another blogger gets sued, or is threatened with a lawsuit, because of something they wrote in their blog. The most recent and hilarious example involves a blogger who had some interesting things to say about a former (veeeeeeery former) Playboy playmate. I won't weigh in on the exact issues presented, either in the blog in question or in the (theoretically upcoming) lawsuit. But I will say that bloggers need to have a decent, working understanding of libel and slander law here in the U. S. And so, in the spirit of helping my fellow Bloggers, I, CowboyLaw, hereby present this PRIMER ON LIBEL AND SLANDER LAW FOR BLOGGERS.

There are really only three things you need to remember about libel and slander law (which, for the sake of convenience, we'll just call defamation law): (1) only defame public figures; (2) make sure you have some basis for your defamation; and (3) the truth is always a defense. I will demonstrate each in turn.

1. Only defame public figures.

I can freely and openly state that President Bush recently murdered four children. This is not defamation (in part, for reasons I'll discuss below), and I won't get in trouble. However, if I was to say that my good friend Shaun Jackson is actually a crack man-ho, I would probably be committing defamation. Defamation is a statement about someone that is untrue and which damages their reputation. Obviously, both of the above statements count (more or less). However, people who are "public figures" like Bush get substantially less protection against defamatory statements. Why? Because we want the press to be free to criticize them without having to worry about constant defamation lawsuits (like they have in England). Public figure status isn't just limited to political figures, either. Thus, I can say things like "Tom Cruise finds the idea of sex with a man far more palatable than does Ann Coulter, who prefers the soft, yielding flesh of women," and fear no repercussion. Private people like Shaun Jackson, however, get a lot of protection.

2. Have a reasonable basis for what you say.

It's not enough just to pick on public figures. You also need to have some shred of evidence to back up your ludicrous claims. That should be no problem, because the internet will support almost any contention you want to make. Thus, for example, this website supports my comment above that Bush killed four children recently. As for Tom Cruise liking the taste of man-steak, Google turns up 2,780,000 webpages dedicated to talking about Tom's obvious preference for the hairier sex. My theory about Ann Coulter is strictly of my own devising, but c'mon: it's OBVIOUS this woman LOVES a good, New England clam bake. And this fact drives her insane homophobia (p.s., Google only reports 406,000 webpages which address the question of whether Ann Coulter frequently finds herself elbow-deep in another woman, probably because Ann Coulter is, amazingly, even more annoying than Tom Cruise). See, if you just go off spouting completely basis lies about a public figure (like, "Mr. Pennybags is a huge fan of glass plating), you can still get sued (and yes, I did just rip on the guy from Monopoly). So, have something to back up your outrageous statements.

3. Remember: if it's true, it's not defamatory.

I can call O. J. Simpson a killer all I want, and he can never (successfully) sue me. Why? Because even though a Los Angeles jury found there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of murder (mostly because the jury members had their heads shoved entirely up their own asses), another Los Angeles jury (in the civil lawsuit brought by Nicole Brown-Simpson's family) found that there was sufficient proof to satisfy them that O. J. killed Nicole (by the way, for those of you baffled, remember that the burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the burden of proof in a civil case is 51% of the evidence supports it). True statements, no matter how damaging they are to the subject's reputation, are never defamatory. But, they're also not that entertaining. It's much more interesting to speculate about how many double-dongs Ann Coulter owns, and whether she and Tom Cruise have ever shared one.

Remember, boys and girls: this isn't legal advice, and I don't advise you to defame anyone. Rather, this is an amusing (mildly) and accurate (mildly) picture of the state of the law. If you want real advice, you need to hire me.

CowboyLaw can predict the farking future!

I predict that, in the near future, the Midget will dedicate an entire post to my comments on the globalization issue.

3...2.....1......

Monday, July 10, 2006

Too bad they couldn't get this down to the reading level of My Pet Goat

President Bush is an avid reader.


Every once in a while there is a book that I read that I think every person who has the ability to read should pick up and consider regardless of political ideology, education, career etc. I recently finished the updated and expanded edition of The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, and this book is not only well-written but has some fabulous ideas related to globalization, the economy and the future viability of America's competitiveness abroad. I tend to be quite stubborn about my viewpoints, but reading this book completely changed how I thought about globalization.

The conventional wisdom about globalization is that it's generally a bad thing. After all, we lose jobs every day to developing countries where companies can make their athletic shoes by paying a 6 year-old 5 cents an hour to work 80 hours a week in poor conditions. While Friedman doesn't take the opposite viewpoint, since he does acknowledge many of the negative aspects of globalization, he does take the viewpoint that globalization is here, and it's in our best interest to figure out how to work within it, rather than opposing it and falling further behind competitively.

I am not writing a book report here, so if you want to know more about the book, take your curious ass on over to Amazon and order a copy or visit your local public library. This website is not a replacement for actual reading.

The main point that I wish people would understand and could get if they took the time to read Friedman's book is how critical education is to our economic competitiveness. India and China are kicking our asses right now in science and engineering. This should scare the shit out of us, but the public outcry has been pretty limited. Our complacency about education is going to put us massively behind other countries in terms of innovation, so that essentially if we continue to fall behind, we're going to be someone's bitch economically speaking. Our dependence on other countries for oil is already hosing us economically, and our lack of concern for the declining quality of education is only going to stifle economic progress in the long run.

The other fantastic point that Friedman makes as a positive aspect of globalization is that countries that are linked together economically, primarily through global supply chains, are highly unlikely to start wars against each other because of the vested economic interest each country has in the other. If you look at the countries that we tend to fight, they're not our economic partners. Globalization increases those linkages between countries, and will decrease military conflict in the future as more countries get a piece of the pie.

It's one of those times when I wish the President would read something other than the Bible and children's books, because I think he could take some ideas an really make improvements in his economic policy. Unfortunately, it looks like we've still got a few more years of "run and gun" left before we see the end of this era.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Make a Mental Note Conservatives!

Seattle in September?
I just wanted to post a reminder to our friends on the right, so that when this becomes an issue down the road, they can't deny it as they did when we invaded Iraq under false pretenses.
First of all, the Bush Administration obviously has changed their tune on the UN. Seems like they're relying on the UN quite a bit when it comes to the whole problem with Iran's nuclear capabilities. Why make note of this? Because I know in 9 months, the Bush Administration will be trashing the UN for it's effectiveness (again). Keep in mind, as well, that Iran doesn't have any nukes (yet) that we know of.
Move one news item down, and notice that North Korea is threatening the US with all out nuclear war. North Korea is not saying we will develop nukes, they're not saying we will someday have these capabilities, but rather "If you interfere with our nuclear test launches, we're going to put out nukes up your ass and pull the trigger 'til it goes click."
The interesting thing about these stories is that the Bush Administration is using completely different tactics than it did with Iraq, despite the fact that there are some significant similarities between North Korea and Iraq.
Crazy dictator - Check.
Citizens being killed and oppressed - Check.
Media controlled by regime - Check.
Functioning nuclear program - Check for North Korea, not for Iraq.
Do I think we will invade North Korea like we did Iraq? No. But, I think the Bush Administration's justification for going to war in Iraq, would also apply to North Korea. I realize there are strategic military issues here as well, but that's not the reasons that the President gave for his invasion of Iraq. He said it was because Saddam was a brutal dictator and because he had WMDs. Seems like the same could be said on a much more verifiable and threatening scale for our friends in North Korea. Interesting anyway.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Women Looking to Assert Your Individuality: Try a Butt Crack Tattoo


Okay, I hate to look like I'm copying the Midget, but I had an experience almost exactly like his, and I just had to share it. The other day, I saw a woman who appeared to have some kind of tattoo at the top of the crack of her ass. I was so stunned I had to take the above picture of it with my handy camera phone. I have to say that I have never seen any woman sporting a tattoo over the top of the crack of her ass. I was instantly intrigued. Here was a woman of sophistication. Intelligence. Individuality. An independent thinker. Not the sort of person to jump on some sort of bandwagon.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: it's going to be very distracting when we're having sex. You're absolutely wrong. There is no way in hell that you're going to find yourself obsessively staring at that tattoo during what should be an intimate moment. And I know some of you are also thinking that, once the woman in question hits 40 or 50, the tattoo is not going to look so hot. But, you're totally missing the point: why think about the future? Why wonder if you'll look ridiculous in the nursing home with 22 facial piercings and those awesome tribal ear-loops? The point is, you look totally killer NOW!

I hate to have to get into this, but in the interests of fairness, I also need to head-off another mistaken assumption you may be having. You may think that a woman sporting such a tattoo may be of questionable sexual morals. You couldn't be more wrong. Having seen the woman myself, I can tell you without a doubt that she was saving herself for marriage. She would be totally unacquainted with concepts such as fingercuffs, trains, and the Cleveland Steamer. She definitely does not go all the way on the first date. No, you'll have to meet her parents, pass a credit check, and have a good job with prospects before you two will have sex. And even then, it will be subdued, safe sex utilizing only the missionary position. She definitely will not blow you in the restroom of a truck stop. So don't even think about asking.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

West Coast Holla! (or something)


Not that anyone's noticed, or cared, but I haven't really been posting anything on this site for some time. This is because I've been busy relocating from Minneapolis to San Francisco. And, given that I had only 4 weeks to do so, it took an all-out effort. Indeed, Mrs. CowboyLaw is still in Minneapolis, tying up loose ends.

Having now begun my residency by the Bay, allow me to share the following preliminary thoughts on my new hometown, and its features (such as I know them).

1. This is no revelation, but I don't enjoy paying more to rent a small apartment than I paid for my 20-year mortgage on my palatal estate in Minneapolis. I have promised myself that I won't complaint about the price of housing, because, frankly, I'M why housing in SF is expensive: young professionals like me keep moving to SF, taking high-paying jobs (see below) and buying up all the housing. The City has enacted various laws which have the effect of holding the supply of housing essentially static. Meanwhile, the population keeps growing. It doesn't take an economics PhD to figure out that when supply is held constant and demand continues to grow, price will steadily increase.

2. Additionally, I certainly don't enjoy paying $250/month for the pleasure of parking my car two blocks from my apartment. However, it is marginally more enjoyable than circling the block for 20 minutes waiting for a spot to open up. There are few human endeavors I enjoy less than searching for a parking spot. If you gave me a choice between searching for a parking spot and being anally raped by a mountain gorilla, I would ask you the following questions before making my choice: (1) searching for a parking space for how long? (2) how well-endowed is the gorilla? (3) will I get lube if I chose the gorilla? (4) is the gorilla well-groomed? (5) is the gorilla diseased? and (6) will the gorilla hold me after it's over?

3. However, I love the ease and cost of public transportation. While it is technically accurate that I can walk to work (about 20 blocks), it bears noting that the commute involves approximately 750 feet of elevation change. And there's a significant uphill component no matter which direction you're traveling in. In Minneapolis, a 30-day pass for the bus costs $75. In SF, a 30-day pass for the bus, the Muni train, the cablecars, and BART (the subway) trips inside metro SF costs $45. In Minneapolis, the bus I could have caught to go to work arrived 5 blocks from my house every 20 minutes or so. In SF, the bus I catch to go to work arrives 2 blocks away every 2 minutes. It drops me off 5 blocks from work.

4. The relative costs of public transportation vs. my car, and the accessibility of the former, is leading me to believe that when the lease on my current car expires, I will be joining ZipCar, or another "car on demand" club. I haven't driven my car in a week, but that hasn't stopped it from costing my about $200 (1 week of lease + 1 week of parking + 1 week of insurance).

5. I like that I can walk a block to a decent local market where I can buy most of the groceries I need, or a fully-cooked chicken, or about a dozen different pasta salads, or (and here's where it's really better than Minnesota) one of about 200 bottles of wine they have, or beer (and the market has Fat Tire, which is awesome).

6. I do not yet like living in an apartment again. The apartment is in a great, beautiful old building, but the building was apparently built before sound-proofing (or even sound-reducing) building materials were invented. If I chose, I could probably have a conversation with my neighbor upstairs without raising my voice significantly. I anticipate that I will grow accustomed to this. I also pray that I will grow accustomed to this.

7. I like that my current job pays me about 50% more than my last job did. Frankly, it more than offsets the stuff listed above.

8. However, my current job is also a lot more work than my old job. Which is okay, but not flamingly awesome.

Enough of my thoughts for now. Even I get tired of my thoughts eventually. More updates as events warrant. Or when I feel like it.