Not Bad

Bourbon Congratulations! You're 123 proof, with specific scores in beer (100) , wine (83), and liquor (78).

Screw all that namby-pamby chick stuff, you're going straight for the bottle and a shot glass! It'll take more than a few shots of Wild Turkey or 99 Bananas before you start seeing pink elephants. You know how to handle your alcohol, and yourself at parties.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 46% on proof You scored higher than 85% on beer index You scored higher than 84% on wine index You scored higher than 76% on liquor index

Link: The Alcohol Knowledge Test written by hoppersplit on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Oh yeah!

Geography Expert You scored 85% Accuracy!

If you landed here it means 2 things. 1st, you know your states. You got fooled by a couple of the trickier ones, but for the most part you know your stuff. 2nd, you didn't use a map. Unlike those folks that got 100%, your score was geniune. So great job. This state naming skill of yours will get your far. There are myriads of times where it is important to know the shape of the states. Ok, I lied, it doesn't really matter. But it does show that you know your stuff.

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 42% on Accuracy

Link: The State Locator Challenge Test written by kafkahateszeppo on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Eh. Not bad Rob.

Be Afraid. Be VERY Afraid!>

I'm not sure about this one

Haughty Intellectual You are 85% Rational, 0% Extroverted, 14% Brutal, and 57% Arrogant.

You are the Haughty Intellectual. You are a very rational person, emphasizing logic over emotion, and you are also rather arrogant and self-aggrandizing. You probably think of yourself as an intellectual, and you would like everyone to know it. Not only that, but you also tend to look down on others, thinking yourself better than them. You could possibly have an unhealthy obsession with yourself as well, thus causing everyone to hate you for being such an elitist twat. On top of all that, you are also introverted and gentle. This means that you are just a quiet thinker who wants fame and recognition, in all likelihood. Rather lacking in emotion, introspective, gentle, and arrogant, you are most certainly a Haughty Intellectual! And, most likely, you will never achieve the recognition or fame you so desire! Sweet! To put it less negatively: 1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive. 2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted. 3. You are more GENTLE than brutal. 4. You are more ARROGANT than humble. Compatibility: Your exact opposite is the Schoolyard Bully. (Bullies like to beat up nerds, after all.) Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Braggart, the Hand-Raiser, and the Robot. * * If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits. The other personality types: The Emo Kid: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Humble. The Starving Artist: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant. The Bitch-Slap: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Humble. The Brute: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant. The Hippie: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble. The Televangelist: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant. The Schoolyard Bully: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble. The Class Clown: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant. The Robot: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Humble. The Haughty Intellectual: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant. The Spiteful Loner: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Humble. The Sociopath: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant. The Hand-Raiser: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble. The Braggart: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant. The Capitalist Pig: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble. The Smartass: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 75% on Rationality You scored higher than 0% on Extroversion You scored higher than 9% on Brutality You scored higher than 65% on Arrogance

Link: The Personality Defect Test written by saint_gasoline on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Want to be President... Dont Identify with the NorthEast.

Here is the thing. Many people I know think Rudy Juliani will be the next president of the US. I say, not gonna happen. He might be well known, he might be loved my some spectra pf the electorate, but quite frankly, he has a huge problem. He identifies with New York, a NorthEastern city. That will be trouble.

Look at the trend in politics. Who have been the Presidents recently? Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon and Johnson. What do they all have in common? None of these guys identified with the Northeast. Bush II, while born in CT, never identifed with it. Clinton is from Arkansas. Bush I, born in Mass, also never identifed with it and moved to West Texas to be an Oil man, Texas Rep, CIA director, and eventually president. Regan was born in Illinois, but identifed as a Californian. Carter was in his own words "just a peanut farmer from Georgia". Ford was born in Nebraska but identifed with Michigan as his home. Nixon was born in California. Johnson was born in central Texas.

In fact if you take it further back all the way to 1900, the following presidents are NE presidents: kennedy, T Roosavelt and F Roosavelt, and Coolidge. Thats it. Lets review the years they were president. T. Rossavelt(1901-1909), Coolidge(1923-1929), F. Roosavelt(1933-1945), Kennedy(1961-1963). So since 1963 there has not been a Northeastern President. That is 40 years. The country has changed quite a bit in those 40 years.

Also, what a lot of people on the East coast just don't relaize is that you are not exactly the most well liked people. Many people from other parts of the country look down upon you with contempt. And lets be realistic, yall are not exactly the friendliest people nor are you the nicest. Yall have a tendency to really get under people's skin (especially that really annoying Boston accent). Yall tend to be quite arrogant, and look down upon other people. While you might say, "who cares", guess what, it isnt getting YOUR leaders elected to President. The fact is that there is a huge backlash against the Northeast right now. One of the rising stars of the Democratic party is a guy from Illinois named Barak Obama. Think he would be a rising star if he was from Masschestes? Not a chance.

One place this is especially true is in religion. Want to know how people who are not religious are winnign elections in religious communities? Its all in the language: "While I personally do not choose to utilize my spiritual practices to influence me, I realize that some people do and tht is their choice. I honor another person's choice to make the best decision for them." See. This is how you convince people to vote for you. Listen to the Northeastern Blowhards "You idiots. You let your religion guide your actions, which is so wrong. I don't follow your religion, so why should i listen to you." See. this is the way to LOSE national elections. Northeastern candidates have a tendency to say the later or infer the later. Want to keep losing elections? Keep up with your posturing. Want to actually win one int he next dew years, try appealing to Middle America. The REAL middle America. Not what you think it is.

Know YOur History, Dont Look Foolish like the NAACP

Yup. Thats right. The NAACP has done some good things, but their recent issues with the Georgia state flag was a complete disaster. The problem for them, is that they think they came out of theissue as the winner. If anything they look absolutly stupid and moronic. Why? Becuase they simply do not know American History.

Here was the issue. The NAACP was furious at Georgia for including the "confederate flag" as a part of their state flag. With the issues of slavery being a deep concern for the NAACP they put tremendous amounts of pressure on Georgia to change it. Here is what the flag looked like. If you look to the left you will be able to clearly see the "Confederate Flag" on the right part of the flag. In case you are unsure what section I am referring to, let me present to you this next image.





This is the section of the flag that I am referring to. During the Civil War it was not uncommon to see the Confederate units carrying this flag onto the battlefield. As can clearly be seen, this flag is clearly seen in the Georgia State Flag. So, the question is, does the NAACP have a case here? Sure they do. They have pointed out that the Georgia state flag contains the "Confederate Flag" in it. Case closed right? Well if it was that simple, why did I constantly refer to the flag on the left as the "confederate flag"?



Here is the reason. The flag above is NOT the Confederate Flag at all. It is actually the Confederate Battle Flag. See the Confederacy had several flags. One of them was the offical National Flag and another was the Battle Flag. The one pictured above is the Battle Flag, NOT the offical national flag. The offfical national Flag was the symbol of the confederacy.
Why am I tellign you this? Well I want you to keep this in mind.



Now, what is the new Georgia Flag? I am glad you asked. Well nothing really jumps out too fast. In fact it resembles the US flag a little bit. It has stripes like the US flag, it has stars like the US flag. It has the same colors of the US flag. Who could possibly have a problem with this flag? I mean, it does not seem like there is anything wrong with it. Some would even say it looks "kosher".




Here is the reason I referred to the "Confederate Flag" above with quaotes. The flag above is NOT the Confederate Flag at all. It is actually the Confederate Battle Flag. See the Confederacy had several flags. One of them was the offical National Flag and another was the Battle Flag. The one pictured above is the Battle Flag, NOT the offical national flag. The offfical national Flag was the symbol of the confederacy. Why am I tellign you this? Well I want you to keep this in mind.



Remember how I mentioned that there was a National Confederate Flag? Well, here is what it looks like. I will do a mini comparison in a moment, but just take a look at the two. Do they not look very similar? Actually the Confederate National Flag has 7 stars while the Georgia State Flag has 13. There were 13 states in the confederacy, so you can count the 13 stars that way. Or you can count them as the original 13 colonies. Either way, there is no denying the two flags look eerily similar.





Now look at these two flags and tell me if you can see any similarities. I certainly do. I see the same "stars and bars" pattern. One flag as 13 stars while the other has 7 . One flag has a small symbol in its blue area, but the fact is, they are in essence the same thing.



So what has the NAACP done when the new flag was debuted? They applauded Georgia for taking responsibility and for finally doing the right thing. They have since turned their attention away from Georgia. Why did they do this? Simple: they do not know their American History. Doing something like this makes the NAACP look really really foolish. The Confederate National Flag is far more of a symbol then the Battle Flag ever was. The very issue which the NAACP has tried to raise (that the confederacy stood for slavery) has not been resolved. While the NAACP might hem and haw that the Civil War was mainly about slavery(another place they look foolish) they have done nothign to resolve their primary problems. The winners here: The State of Georgia. the losers: teh NAACP. Just job guys. Maybe yall would like to go to Germany and help them redesign one of their old flags.

What would you RATHER Do?

I was on a football message board and someone asked the question, "if you were not doing your current job, what would you be doing?" That was an interesting question for me as it is not something I had really considered. Hmm. I am not really sure what I would be doing if I was not in my current field.

I suppose I would likely still be in some sort of a graduate school. I am pretty sure of that since I have always aspired for those tough to reach graduate degrees. But in terms of what area, I am not 100% sure. I do have a few ideas though.

I have always been interested in computers and technology, so perhaps I would be involved in that field. Maybe in robotics. Perhaps I would have been a comp sci major and be heavily involved in utilizing robotics to help humans do things. Perhaps I would have been one of those guys tht design robots so that they could do jobs that are too dangerous for humans.

Perhaps I would have become deeply involved in chemistry/biochemistry. Maybe I would have been a lab rat and become a researcher. Maybe work for Phizer or another one of those big drug companies working to create the medications of tomorrow.

Maybe I would have gone into medicine. Maybe I would have gone on to become some sort of a doctor. Maybe I would be one of those guys in a white coat running around looking important. Maybe I would have been a doctor that had a certain area of specialiation as well. Just a thought, as I am not sure if I could have been that.

When I was younger I was very interested in astronomy. Perhaps I could have been an astrophysicist. Maybe I would be that guy calculating orbital shifts, distance, and discovering new spatial phemomena. That could have been an interesting life to lead, and one quite different from the one I have now.

So there you go. Four different Big Tex's that could have been. Could YOU have seen me in any of these fields? If so, which? Also what do YOU think you could be doing in another time and another life?

Sucks to be YOU

So I was at my Internship the other day and it came to my attention( I was told) that we were going to interview someone that day for one of our 2 openings. I had seen a few people come in already, so I wasnt too surprised. I figured the interviewing person would come in and meet the group around 1045 or so since that is the time we have our daily meetings and its a great time to meet the group. When i was inteviewing, I met the group this way and so did every other staff member that worked with me.

So 11 comes and goes(the meeting ends at 11) and the new person does not show up. My indirect supervisor(the boss) seemed dissapointed the person did not show up and told us that it would appear that person would not be there. The person finally showed up around 12(almost 2 hours late) and said that she was sorry but she had taken the wrong bus. The boss ended up taking the person to interview, but it was fairly obvious she was not particuarlily thrilled when this person arrived so late with such a feeble excuse.

I ended up meeting her and afterwards, the boss asked my opinion of her. I simply told her this. "Clearly "Kate"*(*not her real name) has good credentials if you are interviewing her. I spoke to her and she sppears to be very interested in this population and even has some expierence in the area. The problem is, she showed up really, really late. I know that at a place like this, where such a team forward technique is used, being that late is an absolute no no. I mean, your chain is only as strong as your weakest link afterall. I have no doubt she would be great at this job, but showing up that late can mean a couple of things..." After asking me to further elaborate I said, "well if she is that late, the question is why is she that late? Does she not care enough about the interview to be on time? Does she subconsciously not care enough to get in on time? I really cannot answer these questions, but it is somethign to consider when looking at her application." After that I was thanked for my input and went back to work.

I was called into my supervisor's office later in the week. She thanked me for my honest opinion and let me know that the rest of the staff felt the same way. In fact apperently this "Kate" was on the short list of candidates, but lost her chance when she showed up so late. While she did call, being that late(or late at all really) was inexcusable. I would not have hired her and I am glad that my boss didnt.

For your information, another great person Sarah* came in and she has been hired instead. I look forward to working with Sarah.

Kate* screwed herself over by showing up late. My boss was nice enough to even interview her considering how late she even showed up. In my mind a late interview is a sign of non interest and more important rudeness. Kate got exactly what she deserved(well not really, she should have been shown the door posthaste). Kate's* loss is Sarah's* gain. And you know what, it SUCKS to be her!

Potporri

Yall really do. Some of the funniest things to read on other blogs is when people who attempt to voice an opnion on an issue and end up looking foolish in doing so. This typically occurs when someone has very little information on a topic and then attempts to try to inform the world of their opinion. Let me give you an example.

As I am sure yall know, Harriet Miers has been nominated by Bush to be the next Supreme Court nomination. Miers has spent most her career as a lawyer but has not held a job as an elected or appointed judge. While it is not a requirement, most supreme court nominations have spent some time on the federal or state judge level. To be quite frank, very little information has been revealed about her.

So what do many pundints come up with? They say how she will make a horible judge. This is not based on her expierence, but on... well. They do not actually say. Many of these "bloggers" (I use the term loosly) like to say that Bush is only appointing people he knows. Whats hilarious to read is the way these people moan and bitch and claim that Bush ia a misogynist when he nominates the very qualified Roberts. Then when he nominates a woman, they bitch and moan that they attack her choice of attire etc. If THAT is the most you have to complain about, you should take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if YOU are looking your best. My bet is that you arent.

But it is not just that. There are other great comments that I read. One great one is that "there are not enough minorities on the Supreme Court". Wow. What a truly condescending comment. The person who writes this comment is saying that we need to add minority justices in some sort of "quota system". What a horrible idea. Whatever happened to the idea of taking the most qualified, the best, or the most appropriate person?

Oh here is another one I like: There should some "real Black people on the supereme court" When asked what about Clarence Thomas, the answer is always that he is not "really black". Interesting isnt it? So the man decides to see things in a conservative viewpoint and he is not a "real black man". So what you are saying is that all black people should vote in a certain way or they are not really black? So apperently ethnicity is now decided by political ideology! Apperently Colin Powell and Condi Rice are also not black. According to Orwell, they would be described by these "intellects" as "UnBlack"!!!

The fact of the matter is that the people who are whining and bitching are the people that were losers in the 2004 Presidential election. They backed an incredibly weak candidate and now they are expecting Bush to listen to their preferences for Superme Court Justice. Afterall, why should he? He won the election and with it, the support of the majority to see things his way. Clinton had the same power when he installed Breyer and Ginsberg.

The simple fact of the matter is, all of this reduces to politics. These "intellectuals" do not really have anything to say about Miers. The fact is they are irriated that their candidate lost in 2004. The fact is that they need to get their party to select a GOOD candidate. The fact of the matter is that you need a person who can appeal to your base without irritating moderate voters. You must cherry pick moderates in order to win. Kerry did not give moderates a good reason to vote for him, and if the Dems want the White House back they would be well advised to choose a Left-Centrist candidate. If they follishly decide on Hillary Clinton, they might split the party beyond repair...