Several weeks ago, there was some media attention given to Twitter's tenth anniversary. Some of that attention focused on the negatives of Twitter, namely that it makes some people believe they're more important than they really are. (I'm looking at you, B-list celebrities and athletes.)
However, one article I read was someone's list of the 100 funniest jokes in the history of Twitter. It seems odd, but while some jokes are funny when spoken, others only work in print. The latter is one of the best things about Twitter, and it's made even better by the fact they have to work in 140 characters or less. The joke has to be short, therefore, it has to be smart.
Here are a few of my favorites from that list of 100, most of which would only work in print:
Most cutting thing you can say is "who's this clown?" because it implies they're a) a clown & b) not even one of the better-known clowns
ME: honey, it's really muggy out today
WIFE: if I go outside & all our mugs are on the front lawn, I'm leaving u
ME: *sips coffee from bowl*
When you’re cutting wrapping paper and your scissors start to glide is what I imagine heroin feels like
[ordering cake over phone]
"and what would you like the cake to say?"
[covers phone to ask wife]
"do we want a talking cake?"
"Anybody here named Jeff?"
Jeff: "Yes"
Geoff: "Yeos"
The best thing about trying to name a baby is realizing how many people you hate
-The name's Bond. James Bond.
-I've written Bond now.
-Oh. Can you change it or is it too late?
-When your coffee's ready they'll call Bond
I put the "baller" in "I just ruined my daughter's ballerina recital."
COP: u were swerving a lot so i have to conduct a sobriety test
ME: ok
COP: lets get taco bell
ME: no
COP: text ur ex
ME: no
COP: ok ur good
When parents say to kids "go to ur room & think about what you've done" it's really good practice for what you'll do every night as an adult
What my girlfriend thought, first 4 dates:
1. Nice shirt.
2. Wow. A second nice shirt.
3. Okay, first shirt again.
4. He has two shirts.
(•_•) (•_•)
<) )╯ ALAS
/ \
(•_•)
\(•_•)
( (> POOR
/ \
(•_•)
<) )> YORICK
/ \ (•_•)
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Friday, April 15, 2016
Mayo-praise
Due in part to a major medical issue from 15+ years ago, I occasionally go to Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota for diagnostic testing and check-ups. It started out as a kind of second opinion on treatment I'd already received, to help determine if there was a different / better course going forward. I got comfortable with doctor(s) I saw there, and it morphed into semi-annual, then annual, and now once every 3-5 years deal at my discretion.
I made my latest Mayo visit this week. It's about a 3 hour, one-way trip, and although I've done the entire visit in a day, I usually add a one-night hotel stay. When I go now, I'm contemplative about the prior visits, and why I still go there.
The bottom line is, Mayo is different than other health care providers. In dozens of testing appointments over the years, I've rarely had to wait. The staff has always been 'Minnesota Nice' in those times. Perhaps best of all, the diagnostic testing reports are done immediately, so I can visit the doctor, often in the same building, within a couple of hours to hear the outcome.
Factor in that the Mayo Clinic doctors are salaried staff. They don't get paid more for seeing more patients, or for ordering more tests. It's a very patient-friendly model, and from that perspective, it's almost infuriating that health care organizations aren't all mandated to operate in that same way.
However, it isn't the most financially-friendly model. It's definitely more expensive, for both the testing and the doctor visits. So, if you don't have insurance coverage, there may be a question of value, something that can't be overlooked.
Fortunately, I have insurance. I also have a desire to go to a place where I'll know about any medical breakthroughs related to my condition / treatment, if and when that happens. I still feel the trip to the Mayo Clinic is worth the extra time and cost.
I made my latest Mayo visit this week. It's about a 3 hour, one-way trip, and although I've done the entire visit in a day, I usually add a one-night hotel stay. When I go now, I'm contemplative about the prior visits, and why I still go there.
The bottom line is, Mayo is different than other health care providers. In dozens of testing appointments over the years, I've rarely had to wait. The staff has always been 'Minnesota Nice' in those times. Perhaps best of all, the diagnostic testing reports are done immediately, so I can visit the doctor, often in the same building, within a couple of hours to hear the outcome.
Factor in that the Mayo Clinic doctors are salaried staff. They don't get paid more for seeing more patients, or for ordering more tests. It's a very patient-friendly model, and from that perspective, it's almost infuriating that health care organizations aren't all mandated to operate in that same way.
However, it isn't the most financially-friendly model. It's definitely more expensive, for both the testing and the doctor visits. So, if you don't have insurance coverage, there may be a question of value, something that can't be overlooked.
Fortunately, I have insurance. I also have a desire to go to a place where I'll know about any medical breakthroughs related to my condition / treatment, if and when that happens. I still feel the trip to the Mayo Clinic is worth the extra time and cost.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Ratings > Perspective
Today there was a funeral for a Des Moines police officer, one of two killed last week in a late night interstate highway collision. The officers were transporting an inmate from another jurisdiction when they were hit by a presumed drunk driver, who was driving on the wrong side of the road.
As with the other officer buried earlier in the week, there were scores of other law enforcement personnel in attendance from other parts of Iowa and the country. That’s not a surprise. What is a surprise, at least to me, is the production scope of the visitation and funeral ceremonies, and the media attention being given to these events.
For the past four days, main roads have been shut down for extended periods so the bodies could be transported from funeral homes to churches to burial sites. These transports have included processions of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of police and fire department vehicles, with hundreds, if not thousands, of people paying their respects at the churches, or by standing along these procession routes. And in something I believe to be unprecedented, there has been live TV coverage of the funerals on multiple stations.
Don’t get me wrong, the death of these police officers (plus two others, including the driver of the other car and the prisoner being transported) is tragic. But can we at least agree that relative to other tragic deaths, the amount of attention being given to their funerals is somewhat disproportional to what happened.
Yes, they were on duty, and the law enforcement code rightfully gives them and their families an outpouring of support and respect. However, they were not doing anything heroic. Being killed by a (allegedly) drunk driver isn’t the same as being killed by taking a bullet, or running into a burning house, or trying to quell a riot. The manner in which they died could have, and has, happened to countless others before them, both on the job and off. And while those incidents often garner much support and attention, it isn’t anything like this. Not even close.
To put it into more perspective, consider a military member killed on the other side of the world in Iraq or Afghanistan or some other god forsaken place. Yes, the military gives that person tremendous respect, and the funeral is given much attention. However, it receives nowhere near the attention that the public and media are giving to these officers. And let’s be real, that military member deserves at least as much, probably more attention, given their sacrifice. They are doing something extraordinary, just being on the other side of the world for months or years, regardless of the cause of death.
I blame the local media for whipping up public sentiment beyond the pale. They’ve made it a race to see which TV or radio or newspaper or even social media outlet can show that they have more empathy about the local police officer deaths. Consequently, people are paying more than the usual amount of attention. That isn’t the fault of the officers, or their families, or I suppose even the police department. But the whole thing is out of proportion nonetheless.
It reminds me of many years ago when Princess Diana died, and then Mother Teresa of Calcutta died days later. Diana’s funeral became worldwide spectacle, covered live by international media. Mother Teresa’s funeral deserved every bit as much coverage, probably more given the circumstances, but only grudgingly got some. Ratings, you know. It might have gotten none at all without the guilt of the networks for their over-the-top coverage of Diana.
I’ve privately mentioned my surprise to a few folks, and no one disagrees, but no one dares say it out loud. Let’s just say the next time a local soldier is killed, I’d better see wall-to-wall media coverage about it. It’s just a matter of time before another law enforcement or military funeral doesn’t have the same coverage, when there will be some public backlash.
As with the other officer buried earlier in the week, there were scores of other law enforcement personnel in attendance from other parts of Iowa and the country. That’s not a surprise. What is a surprise, at least to me, is the production scope of the visitation and funeral ceremonies, and the media attention being given to these events.
For the past four days, main roads have been shut down for extended periods so the bodies could be transported from funeral homes to churches to burial sites. These transports have included processions of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of police and fire department vehicles, with hundreds, if not thousands, of people paying their respects at the churches, or by standing along these procession routes. And in something I believe to be unprecedented, there has been live TV coverage of the funerals on multiple stations.
Don’t get me wrong, the death of these police officers (plus two others, including the driver of the other car and the prisoner being transported) is tragic. But can we at least agree that relative to other tragic deaths, the amount of attention being given to their funerals is somewhat disproportional to what happened.
Yes, they were on duty, and the law enforcement code rightfully gives them and their families an outpouring of support and respect. However, they were not doing anything heroic. Being killed by a (allegedly) drunk driver isn’t the same as being killed by taking a bullet, or running into a burning house, or trying to quell a riot. The manner in which they died could have, and has, happened to countless others before them, both on the job and off. And while those incidents often garner much support and attention, it isn’t anything like this. Not even close.
To put it into more perspective, consider a military member killed on the other side of the world in Iraq or Afghanistan or some other god forsaken place. Yes, the military gives that person tremendous respect, and the funeral is given much attention. However, it receives nowhere near the attention that the public and media are giving to these officers. And let’s be real, that military member deserves at least as much, probably more attention, given their sacrifice. They are doing something extraordinary, just being on the other side of the world for months or years, regardless of the cause of death.
I blame the local media for whipping up public sentiment beyond the pale. They’ve made it a race to see which TV or radio or newspaper or even social media outlet can show that they have more empathy about the local police officer deaths. Consequently, people are paying more than the usual amount of attention. That isn’t the fault of the officers, or their families, or I suppose even the police department. But the whole thing is out of proportion nonetheless.
It reminds me of many years ago when Princess Diana died, and then Mother Teresa of Calcutta died days later. Diana’s funeral became worldwide spectacle, covered live by international media. Mother Teresa’s funeral deserved every bit as much coverage, probably more given the circumstances, but only grudgingly got some. Ratings, you know. It might have gotten none at all without the guilt of the networks for their over-the-top coverage of Diana.
I’ve privately mentioned my surprise to a few folks, and no one disagrees, but no one dares say it out loud. Let’s just say the next time a local soldier is killed, I’d better see wall-to-wall media coverage about it. It’s just a matter of time before another law enforcement or military funeral doesn’t have the same coverage, when there will be some public backlash.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Death With Dignity
Imagine being able to vote for reducing, and perhaps eliminating, human pain and suffering. Now, imagine voting against that.
This is what's happening in the Iowa legislature right now -- and I'm not even talking about medical marijuana! I'm talking about a proposed Death With Dignity Act, which is more widely (and crudely) known as physician-assisted suicide.
This may seem like a radical idea in Iowa, but it isn't elsewhere. Oregon currently has a similar Death With Dignity Act, and other states are considering it.
Under the Iowa version of this Act, "An adult patient who is competent, is a resident of this state, has been determined by the patient’s attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and has voluntarily expressed a wish to die, may make a written request for medication that the patient may self-administer to end the patient’s life…”
In short, this would allow some terminally-ill, suffering Iowans the option of a more peaceful, non-painful death. It would reduce human pain and suffering. So naturally, social conservatives (mostly Republicans) and our governor-for-life Terry Branstad, oppose it.
Taking one's life is obviously not something to be taken lightly. And this Act doesn't do that. It simply allows a competent person the freedom to make a choice to forego their pain, a choice that harms no one else.
It's different, yet in some ways the same as the medical marijuana debate. The old, white, conservative males who dominate the legislative and executive branch are either unable or unwilling to understand that science, and attitudes, change over time. They think they know better -- don't confuse them with evidence to the contrary.
The other day, a friend of mine put it about as eloquently as you can: Some people just don't believe in evolution, past or present.
This is what's happening in the Iowa legislature right now -- and I'm not even talking about medical marijuana! I'm talking about a proposed Death With Dignity Act, which is more widely (and crudely) known as physician-assisted suicide.
This may seem like a radical idea in Iowa, but it isn't elsewhere. Oregon currently has a similar Death With Dignity Act, and other states are considering it.
Under the Iowa version of this Act, "An adult patient who is competent, is a resident of this state, has been determined by the patient’s attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and has voluntarily expressed a wish to die, may make a written request for medication that the patient may self-administer to end the patient’s life…”
In short, this would allow some terminally-ill, suffering Iowans the option of a more peaceful, non-painful death. It would reduce human pain and suffering. So naturally, social conservatives (mostly Republicans) and our governor-for-life Terry Branstad, oppose it.
Taking one's life is obviously not something to be taken lightly. And this Act doesn't do that. It simply allows a competent person the freedom to make a choice to forego their pain, a choice that harms no one else.
It's different, yet in some ways the same as the medical marijuana debate. The old, white, conservative males who dominate the legislative and executive branch are either unable or unwilling to understand that science, and attitudes, change over time. They think they know better -- don't confuse them with evidence to the contrary.
The other day, a friend of mine put it about as eloquently as you can: Some people just don't believe in evolution, past or present.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Ruining A Great Invention
The internet, as we know it, has been around since roughly 1990. It was only for sending and receiving text at first, but by the mid-to-late 1990s, the World Wide Web became available. This allowed us to electronically visit places (web sites) with pictures and later videos, which we would ultimately be able to pass along to others.
With that brief history of the internet in mind, I would compare it to any of mankind’s greatest inventions. It may not be quite up there with the alphabet or the automobile, but it’s at least in the conversation with the printing press.
Unfortunately, that conversation would have to include whether the internet is now used as much for evil as it is for good, thanks in part to the proliferation of Facebook / Twitter / social media. I don’t just mean terrorist type evil, either. I mean the little bits of evil, things like trolling and bullying, and lies that get passed along as fact and influence behavior in a negative way.
I’m not the most internet-connected person, yet not a day goes by that I don’t see a false or questionable internet-sourced item that’s presented as fact. (This is particularly true in national political election years like this one.) It happened to me today, it happened to me yesterday, it will surely happen to me tomorrow.
I’m usually skeptical enough to figure it out on my own (sometimes with the help of snopes.com) but let’s face it, most people swallow whatever they’re sent as the truth. That wouldn’t be so bad, but in our instant gratification world, those fake-truth-swallowers not only agree with what they see, they also have to affirm it, often by sending it along to other fake-truth-swallowers.
Using the internet in this way this isn’t good for civilization, but short of another evil called censorship, there are no rules of engagement to keep it from happening. That’s a shame, really, for one of the greatest inventions of all-time.
With that brief history of the internet in mind, I would compare it to any of mankind’s greatest inventions. It may not be quite up there with the alphabet or the automobile, but it’s at least in the conversation with the printing press.
Unfortunately, that conversation would have to include whether the internet is now used as much for evil as it is for good, thanks in part to the proliferation of Facebook / Twitter / social media. I don’t just mean terrorist type evil, either. I mean the little bits of evil, things like trolling and bullying, and lies that get passed along as fact and influence behavior in a negative way.
I’m not the most internet-connected person, yet not a day goes by that I don’t see a false or questionable internet-sourced item that’s presented as fact. (This is particularly true in national political election years like this one.) It happened to me today, it happened to me yesterday, it will surely happen to me tomorrow.
I’m usually skeptical enough to figure it out on my own (sometimes with the help of snopes.com) but let’s face it, most people swallow whatever they’re sent as the truth. That wouldn’t be so bad, but in our instant gratification world, those fake-truth-swallowers not only agree with what they see, they also have to affirm it, often by sending it along to other fake-truth-swallowers.
Using the internet in this way this isn’t good for civilization, but short of another evil called censorship, there are no rules of engagement to keep it from happening. That’s a shame, really, for one of the greatest inventions of all-time.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Fiduciary Rules!
Within the next few months, the U.S. Department of Labor is expected to release final rules that will impose a fiduciary standard of care on financial advisors (including insurance agents) working with qualified retirement employer-sponsored plans and individual retirement accounts. While I'm generally against more regulations, this happens to be of the best and most overdue pieces of federal rule-making ever.
First, let’s clarify the two different rules under which financial advisors currently operate.
Suitability Standard of Care
Most financial advisors, including financial company representatives and insurance salespersons, operate under the suitability standard of care. Generally speaking, the suitability standard simply requires the advisor to 1) know the client and their financial situation, and 2) recommend products that are suitable for their situation.
Fiduciary Standard of Care
Some financial advisors, including Certified Financial Planner® professionals, must operate under the fiduciary standard of care. Under this standard, advisors must 1) put the client's best interest first; 2) act with prudence, meaning with the skill, diligence and good judgment of a professional; 3) provide full and fair disclosure of all important facts; 4) avoid conflicts of interest; and 5) fully disclose and fairly manage, in the client's favor, unavoidable conflicts.
While the general public often assumes financial advisors are working in the client’s best interests, in fact, most are not bound to do so. The new Labor Department rules would change that, making the fiduciary standard the actual standard in financial advising. It boils down to every advisor following the highest standard of care regarding investment advice and retirement planning.
Seems like a slam-dunk, right? In truth, large financial institutions (particularly insurers) are spending millions in a lobbying effort to stop the rules from being codified. There is only one viable reason for this: Greed.
Big financial institutions use the fecklessness of the suitability rule to sell lots of useless financial products to trusting people who don't need them, thereby capturing huge commissions and other fees. This is great for the company, while simultaneously terrible for everyone else. In short, those companies value profits over people.
Let's just hope this fiduciary rule regulation is made final, and comes with the enforcement it deserves.
First, let’s clarify the two different rules under which financial advisors currently operate.
Suitability Standard of Care
Most financial advisors, including financial company representatives and insurance salespersons, operate under the suitability standard of care. Generally speaking, the suitability standard simply requires the advisor to 1) know the client and their financial situation, and 2) recommend products that are suitable for their situation.
Fiduciary Standard of Care
Some financial advisors, including Certified Financial Planner® professionals, must operate under the fiduciary standard of care. Under this standard, advisors must 1) put the client's best interest first; 2) act with prudence, meaning with the skill, diligence and good judgment of a professional; 3) provide full and fair disclosure of all important facts; 4) avoid conflicts of interest; and 5) fully disclose and fairly manage, in the client's favor, unavoidable conflicts.
While the general public often assumes financial advisors are working in the client’s best interests, in fact, most are not bound to do so. The new Labor Department rules would change that, making the fiduciary standard the actual standard in financial advising. It boils down to every advisor following the highest standard of care regarding investment advice and retirement planning.
Seems like a slam-dunk, right? In truth, large financial institutions (particularly insurers) are spending millions in a lobbying effort to stop the rules from being codified. There is only one viable reason for this: Greed.
Big financial institutions use the fecklessness of the suitability rule to sell lots of useless financial products to trusting people who don't need them, thereby capturing huge commissions and other fees. This is great for the company, while simultaneously terrible for everyone else. In short, those companies value profits over people.
Let's just hope this fiduciary rule regulation is made final, and comes with the enforcement it deserves.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
RIP Glenn Frey
Already this year, two rock music icons have passed away, David Bowie and Glenn Frey. I was a little too young to appreciate them in their prime years, basically the 1970s. They both continued to put out new, popular music well into the 1980s, but their best recorded stuff was basically over once we hit the 1990s.
I was never a Bowie fan, he always seemed to me like some strange dude from England, although I will admit that the song Modern Love does take me back to my college days. Glenn Frey, however – that’s a different story.
I finally got to see an Eagles concert in person a couple of years ago, on one of their reunion tours. Frey couldn’t quite make it to the highest notes, but otherwise I thought he (along with Don Henley, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit) sounded a lot like their recordings from decades ago.
Frey’s solo career wasn’t as good as Henley’s, but it was decent, with saxophone-heavy tracks like The One You Love, The Heat Is On, and You Belong to the City. Regardless, he’s going to be remembered for all of the classic Eagles stuff, some of which I’m just starting to really appreciate for the first time.
One example of an Eagles tune that I never liked that much until the past few years, one in which Frey sings the lead-vocal, is Lyin’ Eyes. It was far from their most popular song, but the way the lyrics are laid out to tell the story is as good as it gets:
City girls just seem to find out early
How to open doors with just a smile
A rich old man
And she won't have to worry
She'll dress up all in lace and go in style
Late at night a big old house gets lonely
I guess every form of refuge has its price
And it breaks her heart to think her love is only
Given to a man with hands as cold as ice
So she tells him she must go out for the evening
To comfort an old friend who's feelin' down
But he knows where she's goin' as she's leavin'
She is headed for the cheatin' side of town
[Chorus]
You can't hide your lyin' eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise
I thought by now you'd realize
There ain't no way to hide your lyin eyes
On the other side of town a boy is waiting
With fiery eyes and dreams no one could steal
She drives on through the night anticipating
'Cause he makes her feel the way she used to feel
She rushes to his arms; they fall together
She whispers that it's only for awhile
She swears that soon she'll be comin' back forever
She pulls away and leaves him with a smile
[Chorus]
She gets up and pours herself a strong one,
And stares out at the stars up in the sky.
Another night, it's gonna be a long one.
She draws the shade and hangs her head to cry.
She wonders how it ever got this crazy.
She thinks about a boy she knew in school.
Did she get tired or did she just get lazy?
She's so far gone she feels just like a fool.
My oh my, you sure know how to arrange things.
You set it up so well, so carefully.
Ain't it funny how your new life didn't change things?
You're still the same old girl you used to be.
[Chorus]
I was never a Bowie fan, he always seemed to me like some strange dude from England, although I will admit that the song Modern Love does take me back to my college days. Glenn Frey, however – that’s a different story.
I finally got to see an Eagles concert in person a couple of years ago, on one of their reunion tours. Frey couldn’t quite make it to the highest notes, but otherwise I thought he (along with Don Henley, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit) sounded a lot like their recordings from decades ago.
Frey’s solo career wasn’t as good as Henley’s, but it was decent, with saxophone-heavy tracks like The One You Love, The Heat Is On, and You Belong to the City. Regardless, he’s going to be remembered for all of the classic Eagles stuff, some of which I’m just starting to really appreciate for the first time.
One example of an Eagles tune that I never liked that much until the past few years, one in which Frey sings the lead-vocal, is Lyin’ Eyes. It was far from their most popular song, but the way the lyrics are laid out to tell the story is as good as it gets:
City girls just seem to find out early
How to open doors with just a smile
A rich old man
And she won't have to worry
She'll dress up all in lace and go in style
Late at night a big old house gets lonely
I guess every form of refuge has its price
And it breaks her heart to think her love is only
Given to a man with hands as cold as ice
So she tells him she must go out for the evening
To comfort an old friend who's feelin' down
But he knows where she's goin' as she's leavin'
She is headed for the cheatin' side of town
[Chorus]
You can't hide your lyin' eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise
I thought by now you'd realize
There ain't no way to hide your lyin eyes
On the other side of town a boy is waiting
With fiery eyes and dreams no one could steal
She drives on through the night anticipating
'Cause he makes her feel the way she used to feel
She rushes to his arms; they fall together
She whispers that it's only for awhile
She swears that soon she'll be comin' back forever
She pulls away and leaves him with a smile
[Chorus]
She gets up and pours herself a strong one,
And stares out at the stars up in the sky.
Another night, it's gonna be a long one.
She draws the shade and hangs her head to cry.
She wonders how it ever got this crazy.
She thinks about a boy she knew in school.
Did she get tired or did she just get lazy?
She's so far gone she feels just like a fool.
My oh my, you sure know how to arrange things.
You set it up so well, so carefully.
Ain't it funny how your new life didn't change things?
You're still the same old girl you used to be.
[Chorus]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)