Rilaly's Blog
Simple Truths

Archive for the ‘The Thoughts of Neighbors’ Category

The Notification that Should be Placed Outside Every Karaoke Bar

April 17, 2012

10) There are no A&R (Artists and Repertoire) men in the audience tonight. It’s just a bunch of nobodies listening to you, so sing your song and get off the stage.

9) Don’t feel your way through a song. There’s nothing we hate more than watching some fool “feel” their way through a song. Feeling your way through a song involves closing your eyes to spiritually feel your way through a song. It involves swaying, rhythmically dropping the mic between verses, and smiling or waving at people in the audience in the manner Crystal Gayle would. You’re not Crystal Gale, and there are no A&R men from any major record labels in the audience. Just sing your song and get off the stage.

8) Don’t suck if you sing. We’re not talking about you marginally talented people that are only on stage for fun. We’re talking about the inebriated, tone deaf people that attempt to overcompensate for their inability to sing by yelling and screeching their way through lyrics. You’re not Axl Rose or Kurt Cobain. There’s nothing to be gained by finding an octave that would cause a dog to bash its head into a wall.

7) Stop grading people when you’re in the audience. It’s all right to laugh at them. That’s what they’re there for. If you’re doing this from a point of superiority, however, you may need to reexamine your life for just a moment. You may have a mutual respect society built up at this bar, based on the fact that you can do a mean Bohemian Rhapsody, but remember that the people who have that appreciation for your talent will no longer feel that way when the bartender says last call.

Today’s Music Ain’t got the same Soul

April 14, 2012

As a former AOP (album oriented person), I have finally come to realize that most songs, on most albums, by most artists, are crap. It’s a tough admission for me to make, especially after decades of fighting against my “single-loving” friends on this very issue.

The Beatles were the exception to this rule. The Beatles made about five albums that were almost top to bottom perfect, but then again they had three bona fide superstar songwriters in their group. Those three songwriters could usually produce one to two great songs a piece for each album. When The Beatles broke up, however, these three artists continued this trend. They would write one to two great songs on their solo albums. One of those songs would get extensive airplay on the radio, and we would all run out and buy them. To our disappointment, there would probably be only one other song on their solo albums that could be enjoyed long-term. A couple of the other songs on those albums were self-indulgent, political rants, and the rest were just filler. Led Zeppelin maybe the only other another exception, but they sold their souls to the devil.

There are exceptions to the rule of course, and I’m sure you have a couple in mind, but were these exceptions to the rule the first release your guys made for a major label? If that’s the case, you have to ask yourself how many years did this artist(s) spend making this album? The first album is usually a greatest hits album of all the years this artist spent as a struggling, starving artist.

Obama attempts to rebalance the balance of powers

April 5, 2012

For years now, conservative radio and television commentators have made jokes about President Barack Obama being “the anointed one”. They have called him “the chosen one,” the “one that we’ve been waiting for,” and the many other nicknames that Obama and his followers have affixed upon the head of their favorite leader. These commentators have made these jokes based upon Obama’s belief in himself and his policies. The jokes are also based upon the titles the fainting, fawning fans have applied to Obama to add to his leadership mystique. Jokes of this nature are not usually funny if they don’t have a grain of truth to them. On Monday, 4/2/12, Obama added another grain to the truth to their truth.

Throughout George W. Bush’s tenure as president, liberals bemoaned the tyrannical nature in which the man tried to get things done. They claimed that Bush’s attempts to bypass Congress, through excessive use of the Executive Order privilege, brought the nation to the brink of totalitarianism. If we break these two presidential tenures down into months, however, we find that Obama is quite competitive to W. Bush administration in the average number of Executive Orders given per month. Bush was in office for ninety-six months, and he issued 291 Executive Orders. That gives us an average of roughly three Executive Orders per month. Obama has been in office for thirty-nine months, as of this post, and he has issued 115 Executive Orders. This gives him an average of roughly 2.9 Executive Orders issued a month.*

Another claim to bolster the liberal argument that Bush was bordering on the tyrannical was that Bush quadrupled the number of appointees put in positions of leadership without being confirmed in anyway by the Senate. (The media tabbed these unconfirmed appointees Czars while Richard Nixon was in office.) One look at the numbers bolsters this liberal claim. When President Bill Clinton left office, he had seven. There were twenty-eight Czars when Bush left office. That’s exactly four times as many Czars as Clinton had. If this is one of the definitions liberals have to support their claim that Bush was tyrannical, however, what does it mean to them that Obama now has thirty-three Czars?**

The Exit Strategy of Sitcoms

March 31, 2012

Tell a joke is an art form. Even when we tell jokes to our friends at the water cooler, all of us are trying to find the best way to get people to laugh. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is by mimicking the patterns of situational comedies (sitcoms). People already know those patterns, the rhythmic structures of their tones, and their exit strategies. People are more comfortable with these patterns and rhythms, so it’s just easier, and less taxing, to simply copy their patterns. We all do it in one form or another. We can’t help it, we want the laugh.

A friend of mine has chosen to emphasize the exit strategy of sitcoms in his joke telling. Before attempting this exit, he’ll bend down, put his hands on the desk before him, and avoid looking at his listener. He’s a nervous guy. He doesn’t speak well in public, and he and I never did break down the barrier between acquaintance and friendship. Long story short, he was nervous around me. Through the years we worked together, I attained some sort of upper-echelon status in his joke telling world. So, if he ever came across a fantastic joke, he felt compelled to come to me with it. Regardless how nervous I made him, he had to tell me the joke, but he couldn’t look at me when he did it.

So, he tells me the joke. I can’t remember the jokes. Most of them weren’t as great as he thought they were, but they weren’t bad either. The actual jokes didn’t matter to me though. What mattered to me were his exits. He had this whole routine down. He would tell the joke, and then deliver the punch line. He would pull his hands away from the desk swiftly and exit in an erratic fashion. This erratic motion was, somehow, supposed to add humor to the joke. It was supposed to add to the rhythm. “Get in, get out” was his strategy. Don’t stick around for laughter or questions. Those will follow you, as you work your way through the aisle before you, if you do it right. Get in, get out.

Obamacare and medical technology

March 28, 2012

By all accounts Obamacare is in its infancy stage at this point, and we’re already seeing massive transformations in our country. Private insurance companies are raising their prices, doctors are saying that they’ll leave their profession if it’s implemented, and medical device manufacturers are raising prices and laying off employees. It’s only in its infancy.

At this point, March 28, 2012, the question of the Constitutionality of the Obamacare law is before the Supreme Court in the form of oral arguments, and no one knows how the five non-liberal jurists will vote. Some have suggested that the votes of Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. are a fait accompli, and others have stated that Antonin Scalia and John Roberts past history dictates the manner in which they may vote, so that leaves one man to decide the future of our country: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If one were to tell The Founding Fathers that a piece of legislation that would transform this country in innumerable ways rests in the hands of one man, would they see this as a natural course of events, or would they roll over in their graves in shame? Would they say, for example, that if wasn’t a Supreme Court Justice, it might be a Senator being counted on for a sixtieth vote, or a president signing or vetoing a law? No matter who it is, they might say, most laws will come down to one man’s vote. We did our best to prevent it, with the separation of powers, but it’s impossible to stop in total.

Groundhogs, Led Zeppelin, and our Existential Existence

March 11, 2012

Who are any of us? Are we who we are now, are we who we used to be, or are we who we’re planning to be one day…once we get past that which we currently consider insurmountable?

Do groundhogs in an African desert ever sit around and contemplate existence, or is this a concept too foreign and complex for them to ever contemplate? Other than being afraid that someone was trying to eat me every day, I’m thinking that theirs would be a pretty stress-free existence. I wonder if they sit around and talk about the images of watching one of their bretheren being eaten. I wonder if they sit around and talk about how they miss their former family members? When humans die, we immediately characterize the individual who died so we can all live better in the aftermath. We usually say, “yeah, but he was old,” or he smoked, or he had been running himself ragged for so long. I wonder if groundhogs say, well he was slow. He didn’t work out enough, and all he ever did was build and rebuild his home. I knew he was going to die, and frankly I say good riddance. Now, I’m sure that other groundhogs will judge you based on the manner in which you keep your home, but you never have to listen to a certain style of music to get people to like you in the groundhog world.

A groundhog would never question spheres of existence in other words. If you live in their community, you’re accepted. I wonder though, if they castigate another groundhog based on that groundhog’s work ethic or his kids’ obnoxious behavior. I doubt though that a groundhog would ever exclude another groundhog that gave him a titty twister.

I used to love to give titty twisters to other fellas. Don’t ask me why. I thought it was funny. There were no sexual motivations, and I didn’t consider titty twisters a proclamation of dominance over a titty twistee. I just thought it would be a funny thing to do that to a guy that was just standing there. I did things to shake everyone around me of out the norm. It’s who I am, who I was, and who I will always be. I don’t force people out of the norm with physical actions in that manner anymore. I’m more subtle now. When I did it to this guy, he punched me in the chest for it. I twisted his titty. I thought it would be funny to do that to a guy that was tough, and standing there, and quiet, and all normal. I had to shake things up. Normally, I would’ve been doubled over with laughter at such a reaction, for I normally loved erratic reactions. This guy’s reaction carried a mean face with it though. I thought we were friends. His punch was an utter rejection of my existence, and he showed it in his face, our friendship never recovered. I’m sure groundhogs reject other groundhogs’ over the top attempts at humor, but do they hold grudges? This former friend told people he hated me after that. He gained a lot of mileage out of that hatred. It served him well.

It’s really a question of complexity versus simplicity of the species as far as I’m concerned. Does a groundhog ever try to shake up his simplistic world, or is he simply happy to be alive, and does it say more or less about the human being that we take life for granted to such a degree that we’re no longer happy to just be alive? Is it complex that we need to shake our lives out of the norm, or is this a simplistic desire?

Let’s put sex into our scenario. If a groundhog decides to perform his act in a different position, would this be seen as complex or simple? What if the groundhog began performing his act on other groundhogs when his mate wasn’t around? Would this be complex or simplistic? If we could see inside the groundhog’s brain, and we saw him fantasize about being shackled to a wall by alien invaders with the aliens intravenously feeding him some sort of semen producing agent while suckling on his organ for the nutrient they need to survive would we consider this a complex fantasy or a simplistic, base one?

Bob Kerry will run for Nebraska’s Senate seat

February 29, 2012

The moment we Nebraskans have been crossing our fingers over for so long that we nearly went blind is finally here! Bob Kerry has informed Democrats to inform MSNBC to inform people to inform people from Nebraska that he has decided to run for the Senate seat that Nebraskans allowed Ben Nelson to occupy for twelve years. For those broken hearted Democrats that have longed for this day, after being rejected so many times for better opportunies, Bob is apparently ready to scrape the bottom of the barrel and give us his representation.

Charley Reese’s final column on how Washington D.C. operates

February 15, 2012

There is an op-ed that is flying around the internet lately? It has gone viral as they say. Author Charley Reese, formerly of the Orlando Sentinel, calls it the Frankenstein column. He says he calls it that, because people rewrite and update it with current politicians’ names, but it could also be said that brilliant, common sense pieces such as this one never die.

The title of Reese’s column is 545 versus 300,000,000 people. It was Reese’s final column for the Orlando Sentinel, and it appears as though it unleashed the libertarian frustrations that had built up in him over the years regarding how our beloved country is being run.

It was written back on February 3, 1984, but you’ll swear it was written yesterday. Writing such as this is called beautiful by writers such as myself, because it’s brilliantly simplistic, and beautiful, brilliant, simplistic writing is timeless.

It was written during President Ronald Reagan’s tenure as president, but it is non-partisan in its condemnation. It was written after a tumultuous year (1983) of spending that led to a mountainous 1.4 trillion dollar debt. That was a leap in the debt of nearly 6.6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from President Carter’s last days. The final amount of the debt as a percentage of the GDP that enraged Charley Reese enough to write this prescient column in 1983 was 39.9%. The debt that we currently have, as presented by the fine people at skymachines in the link below, is nearly 16 trillion, as of 12/31/2011. The final amount of the debt as a percentage of the GDP for 2011 is currently listed at 99.7, a percentage increase of 15.6% for Barack Obama thus far.

Clash of the ‘ticians 2012

February 1, 2012

Now that Romney has won Florida, it appears to be what some French would call a fait accompli. A win is a win, as they say, but with the figures we now have rolling in, we may not want to don the FA cap on Romney just yet. I’m not saying that Gingrich or Santorum have a shot at this point, but I’m talking about the celebration that would surely ensue if any other such victory by any other candidate. There is still plenty to fear with Romney.

It took Romney a ton of money to put what many consider a group of lackluster candidates away in Florida. Estimates have that figure to be roughly sixty-five to one in favor of the former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. A win is a win, and Romney did whatever it took in this case to win, but every time the Yankees have won the World Series in the past decade, the sub story has always involved how much money they spent versus their opponent and the rest of the league. The underlying story was, what happens when the Yankees run across a team that is able to spend as much as they are? When the Red Sox reached that point, they beat the Yankees as often as they lost to them. The Yankees lost their mystique. When the Yankees won the Series, however, there was never a next day, a next opponent. If Romney is the Yankees in this scenario, he just won two games, on the road, against the Royals in the Championship Series. (No offense intended to the Gingrich, Santorum and Royals fans, I’m talking money here not quality.) In this money scenario, there are no comparative Red Sox analogies, and there really are no NL analogies, for no team has spent as much as the Yankees or The Sox in the past couple decades, but let’s just say for the purpose of this scenario that the Dodgers were on a scale comparable with the Yankees economically. Let’s just say that Obama is the Dodgers. Romney has just beat the Royals twice on the road. The sub story is Romney has done nothing to connect with voters more than Gingrich or Santorum, and he has done little to nothing to combat his opponents if they were on equal footing.

Buffet cries foul on secretary’s critics

January 27, 2012

Warren Buffet, the oracle of Omaha, and chairman of the Berkshire Hathaway mutual fund, launched his secretary into the limelight by saying that it’s unfair that she pays more in federal income taxes than he does. The first question many have had is if we’re going to reform this nation’s tax code based on how much this particular secretary pays in federal income taxes, shouldn’t we know how much she makes? Both Buffet and Ms. Bosanek have said that that’s private information. Buffet did announce that she’s paying 35.8%, and he’s paying 17.4%. Based upon those numbers, the next logical question is how are each of you declaring your taxes, as total income or dividend or capital gains? Buffet’s response to these questions, thus far, has been to call them personal attacks against Ms. Bosanek. He’s amplified his response by saying these criticisms are ‘ridiculous’.

In an interview with The World-Herald, Buffet said none of the online guesses about Bosanek’s salary are right, and the critics are missing his point. The next logical question to that statement is what is your point? Do you want to raise capital gains taxes and discourage investment in this country? Knowing Mr. Buffet’s position and stature in this country, one would think that that would be anathema to him, as he should understand how vital private investment is to the companies in this nation and the nation as a whole. Buffet has decided not to illustrate his point for us in this manner. He simply wants his complaints about tax rates out there, and he wants the statements he makes about the general unfairness of the tax code to be left as a general statement.

“I’m saying she is being treated unfairly in the tax code, as are tens of millions of others, compared to me,” Buffett said. “They shouldn’t change the rates on all the other people. They should change mine.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.