More importantly, I bought myself a fishing rod, and caught myself a fish on the second cast.
Result?
Triumphant Beer! My buddy was unwise enough to wager a free drink against my angling skills. I pray you do not make the same mistake.
So, this changes from time to time. I try something, I fail, I try something else, I fail. Someday, something will not fail.
CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?
Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.
I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.
The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.
It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.
The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.
The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)
The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.
The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.
The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.
Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.
The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?
Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

Right now, it's 71 degrees Fahrenheit in the Lantern's Manhattan office and 87 degrees outside. It takes a lot of electricity to cool this entire office building by 16 degrees—but it would take even more if people didn't use the two large revolving doors between the building lobby and the hot sidewalk outside.
Generally speaking, air flows in and out of a building because of differences in air pressure. (In the winter, heated air rises toward the top of a building, and—as long as there are any openings on the ground floor—cold air rushes in to replace it. The opposite happens in the summer, with the cold air flowing out the front doors.) Regular foot traffic in a large office building can result in air leaks of up to 30,000 cubic feet per minute.
How big a difference can using a revolving door make? In 2006, a team of graduate students at MIT conducted an analysis of door use in one building on campus, E25, where they found just 23 percent of visitors used the revolving doors. According to their calculations, the swinging door allowed as much as eight times more air to pass through the building than the revolving door. Applying average Boston weather to their equations, the MIT team found that if everyone used the revolving doors, it would save more than 75,000 kilowatt-hours of energy—about 1.5 percent of the total required to heat and cool the building—and prevent 14.6 tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted.* (By way of comparison, the EPA says an average American vehicle emits about six tons of carbon dioxide over a year.) The gains are also big enough that they could easily cover the energy needed to power an automatic revolving door like this one, which has a 250-watt motor.
When Chang stalled in the rankings, unable to get over the final hump, he attempted to transform himself from a grinder to a power player. To great fanfare, he had his racket company, Prince, design a stick that was one inch longer than the industry standard. It improved his serving angle but also reminded everyone that Chinese guys had to compensate for genetic shortcomings besides our height. Where did Prince add that inch of length? To the shaft, naturally.For the record, during my days of varsity tennis (Yep), I bought that exact Michael Chang Prince extra-long racquet for $200 bucks. And yes, that's basically what it's like to be Chinese in this country...extraordinarily stupid things spoken with such unassuming genuineness. (Bruce Lee was indeed a constant figure of reference in my daily life. As an uncle. Which white kids eat up like candy until you inform them that gullible is written on the ceiling. Don't look.)
...
As a junior player, I insisted on being as un-Chang-like as possible, hitting one-handed backhands and rushing the net. It worked: Unlike Michael Chang, I lost a lot. My coaches pleaded with me to put two hands on my backhand, stay on the baseline, and stop trying to hit fancy shots. But as long as kids at local tournaments would tell me that I looked like Chang (it had been Bruce Lee, before) or assume I knew him personally (I did not), I refused. The expectations weren't just from white people. When my parents' friends learned that I liked tennis, they invariably said something like, "Wah, maybe you can be the next Chang Depei!" They always used his Chinese name: "cultivated virtue," roughly.
For those of you who inexplicably made it this far, here's some footage: Seriously though, read the article...it'll somehow teach you a lot about me.Everything seemed to be going to form when Lendl comfortably took the first two sets 6–4, 6–4 and then broke Chang's serve in the opening game of the third set. But Chang broke back immediately and went on to claim the third set 6–3. Part way through the fourth set, Chang experienced a severe attack of leg cramps. Fighting to stay in the match, Chang resorted to some novel tactics. For a period, he began taking all speed out of the match by playing "moon balls", causing Lendl, who was known to be one of the calmest players, to lose his rhythm. He began to swear at the umpire and the crowd, especially after losing a key point in the fifth set when Chang shocked him by delivering an under-arm serve. Chang later explained, "I was trying to break his concentration. I would do anything to stay out there." (That underhanded serve achieved cult status among amateurs and, at least in Chang's hometown area of Southern California, it was not unheard of to see juniors emulate the swing in desperation while trying to come back from behind in a match during the 1990s.)
Barely able to stand, and screaming with pain after many of his shots, Chang continued to battle on. Despite being on the verge of physical breakdown, he fought his way to a 5–3 lead in the fifth set with two match points on Lendl's serve. Aiming to break Lendl's concentration one more time, Chang stood well inside the baseline, almost at the T-line in the centre of the court while waiting to receive Lendl's serve (normally an almost suicidal position when facing an opponent's serve). The tactic worked as Lendl produced a double-fault to give Chang the victory, 4–6, 4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3 in four hours and 37 minutes. Chang sank to his knees and broke down in tears at the conclusion of the match. Seven days later, he became the youngest male champion in Grand Slam history.

No, Fuck YOU! I AM studying.MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—The popular search engine Google announced plans Friday to launch a new site, TheGoogle.com, to appeal to older adults not able to navigate the original website's single text field and two clearly marked buttons.
"The Google will have all the same information currently found on regular Google, but with the added features of not stealing your credit-card numbers or giving your computer all kinds of viruses," said Rick Tillich, The Google project director. "All you have to do to turn the website on is put the little blinking line thing in the cyberspace window at the top of the screen, type 'thegoogle.com,' and press 'return'—although it will also recognize http.wwwthegoogle.com, google.aol, and 'THEGOOGLE' typed into a Word document."
Tillich added that he hopes the site will soon replace Yahoo Internet Website.com as the most popular search engine for users over 55.



Did my computer just crash? Is it refusing to turn on? Is it freezing instead of booting up? Is this something that happened without any reason out of the blue? Did I have to make a freakin' appointment at the Macstore? Do I now hate Macs?

In any case, I admit a general ignorance of Middle Eastern politics. I know the basics and a smattering of interesting details, which I must have picked up purely to fight with people with viewpoints I found irritating (yea, I'm a winner...) but I never understood the big picture. For example, I never understood the links between the House of Saud, the flow of petro-dollars, fostering Wahabbism and radicalism, nor have I understood the pan-Arab fear of Iran. This book, despite all of its sensationalized moments and oversimplifications, really sheds a LOT of light on how these things connect together, and ultimately how they foster terrorism. And in turn, how the US is implicated. Reading this book was breathtaking to me: There were moments where pieces would suddenly fall into place, light bulbs would flash above my head, and my brow would furrow as I muttered "oh my god" in the airport. Equally, there were moments where everything would the exact same except I would mutter "god we're fucked and I hate everyone." It's an upsetting book. But I do think you should read it, because I think it will change the way you see things forever. (Yes, you can ignore some of the conspiracy theory aspects of it...it's not that difficult.) I also want to declare once and for all, that if anyone wants to pretend we have historically been involved in the Middle East for ANY significant reason other than oil, I think you're stupid. End of discussion."They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." - George W. Bush, Sept. 2001(Forgot about that. Sorry. All of this is because they hate freedom.)

"You know there won’t be a victory. Everyday your war machines lose ground to a bunch of poorly armed, poorly equipped freedom fighters. The fact is that you underestimated your competition. If you’ve studied your history, you’d know that these people have never given up to anyone. They’d rather DIE than be slaves to an invading army. You can’t defeat a people like that. We tried, we already HAD our Vietnam. Now you’re going to have yours." - Colonel Trautman, Rambo III1) Rambo movies are awesome.
Mousa: God must love crazy people.
Rambo: Why?
Mousa: He make so many of them!
"Sir, do we get to win this time?" -John Rambo
"This Film is Dedicated to the Gallant People of Afghanistan." - Rambo III
"P1: Hey! That car cut me off!Crazian (2): a crazy asian who twirls their pens and do happy dances when they fail (fail meaning get lower than 100 on a test)
P2: Oh, it was just another crazian, don't worry."
"Tracey did a dance when she found out she got a 98 on the test because she is a crazian. Neen asked if she did good, and almost got her head bitten off by this pen twirling psycho."



Anyhow, I was pissed. So I gingerly shined my light around to look for others, and made it through the battlefield of my front walk into my house and grabbed my trusty Mortons. And then took special care to stay on the first step of my front porch to avoid stepping on any slugs who might be on the actual ground below. And then I commenced pouring. Action shot! (notice the salt is actually being poured on the left)

(vomits, shudders, and skin crawls) [Pours Salt]
AGH FUCKING GOD, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!??! OH GOD THERE WERE TWO!!!! OH! AH! GOD! FUCK! FUCK! OH THERE'S A FLOWER STUCK TO MY SHOE BY SLUG GOO! Oh the humanity!
WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!! WHO WOULD EAT THIS?!?!?!!!!
Good stuff. Makes me feel all virtuous. Just in case you were interested, I've also discovered that if you just toast some random nuts like walnuts or pecans in a frying pan over high heat, and then add a nice pour of maple syrup and stir, stir, stir, shake, rattle, roll, for a few minutes...you get these fantastically crispy, hard shelled, sweet, caramelized nuts. I add a little cinnamon, nutmeg, and a little cayenne pepper...but you don't have to at all. It's 5 minutes, and it's awesome.
It doesn't look too big, but notice the size of the quarter I threw down for comparison. (It would have been closer to the slug, but I had to throw the quarter or else risk coming somewhat close to the vile beast.) This isn't even it's size on full extension, which is probably a good inch or two more. If you're not completely grossed out and appalled, do me a favor and click on the picture and bring it up full size. Now hold a real quarter up to your computer screen: See how it's almost exactly the same size? Now look at that fucker. And tell me you don't want to cry. I dare you.