Tanning Beds This month I started going to tanning bed.
I did so for two reasons: To clear up skin blemishes and to look decent before the vacationing season.
Since I've started, several people have mentioned to me, "You look like you've got some sun." Each time, I admit that it's not the sun, but I've been going to the tanning bed.
Today, an interesting exchange took place.
I was told I looked like I got some sun. I asked, "It looks like I got some sun since when?" Two on-listeners already knew I have been going to the tanning bed and when my response wasn't immediately, "I go to the tanning bed," they giggled and nodded affirmatively to one another - as if they believed I was embarrassed about the origin of my bronzed god complexion (I'm not sure if that's what they really thought, but I'm ASSuming). The response of the original person was as expected - none.
What the others didn't know is that, in this case, it was the sun. I hadn't been to the tanning bed since the person had seen me last. I went putt-putting with my family. My sister was pink the next day - and although I wasn't burned, I'm sure I got "some sun."
Since I've only started going to the tanning bed this month, I don't have to defend those who go chronically; moreover, the only person whose opinion I care about on the issue is that of the one who gives and takes the gift of ass (If that shocks you, you need to get over it). That includes only one of you. On the other hand, I will defend chronic tanners because...why not.
Per usual, I am only responding to arguments made against tanning - not making my own argument. * It costs money and the sun is free: Of course the Sun is free, but you can't lay out in the sun on a weekday at 5:30 PM. The sun has at least three times less tanning ability as a tanning bed, so you have to layout longer. Where would you lay out if you don't have a pool - in the parking lot , or at the park? No tan lines at the tanning bed either - if you know what I'm saying. People buy things because they think the item or service is worth the exchange for money. For people who tan, the convenience and the results are worth the money.
*Who cares how you look? : I do. Some people are beautiful with milky white, smooth skin. On the other hand, the sight of a pair of pale, pasty legs generally makes me want to defecate, then vomit, or maybe in the other order. Until I have kids, I'll always want to believe that girls are percolating in my presence. I can't fantasize if my legs look like a pair of uncooked sausage links. (btw - do you wear makeup, do you wear clothes that fit, etc.).
Maple - fucking gross.
*Health: Ahh, fucking health. Working and going to school at a hospital gets you this crap all the time, "That's not healthy." It's not healthy to eat, it's not healthy not to eat, eating meat is unhealthy, not eating meat is unhealthy, lifting weights is/isn't healthy, cutting weight isn't healthy, being fat isn't healthy, spicy food isn't healthy, drinking isn't healthy, pop isn't healthy, using public toilets isn't healthy, drugs aren't healthy, whore's aren't healthy, wearing polyester isn't healthy, candy isn't healthy, blah blah blah - shut up. I'm 22 years old, 6'3", and weight around 200 lbs. How would you quantify my health - what is the standard? I'm stronger than the average person, I'm faster than the average person, I can run farther than the average person, I'm somewhat competitive in sports, I've got strong/straight teeth, I can hear well, my eyesight isn't too bad, I go to work every morning, I get a cold 1-3 times a year, I get a stomach virus 1-3 times a year, I have an unkown allergy that minimally effects me, and a few aches. What's the standard? How are you quantifying health?
Are you saying that going to the tanning bed will make a person live a shorter life? I'll bet that there is no definitive relationship between life expectancy and tanning beds that can't be diluted down with a mixture of other factors common to people that go to tanning beds. In fact, tanning beds haven't been around long enough for such a study in the first place.
But anyway, radiation does cause cancer. There's no doubt about it. Of course it's a stochastic effect, so there's no guarantee a person who went to the tanning bed every day forever would get it. Going to the tanning bed as a teen girl, more than 10 times each year, increases the risk of melanoma by 7 times (http://www.skincancer.org/artificial/index.php) (Being Caucasian increases your risk by 20 times), and melanoma accounts for 90% of skin cancer deaths. In the world, there are 132,000 melanomas globally (http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index1.html). So, not correcting for demographics, you have a 0.0022% of being one of those people each year. In a life time (80 years), you have a 0.2% chance of being one of those people at some point. If you go to the tanning bed more than 10 times a year, you increase to a whopping 0.15% and 1.2%, respectively. (Note: the statistic of melanomas each year already includes people who go to tanning beds, so the figures would be lower. However, it's ridiculously rough in the first place due to my population figure - 6 billion). One of every four people die of cancer. That's 25%.
The next point is going to be, "There's no need to increase your risk if you don't have to." If you drive to school or work, if you've ever flown, if you operate a toaster oven, if you've ever eaten fast food, if you eat anything, if you have a fireplace, if you live in California (where gum causes cancer), etc - you need to STFU.
I'm not embarrassed about going to the tanning bed and I don't fear for my fucking health.
John Travolta...no longer in the closet. "It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.
"Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.
"I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.
"I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry – otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now."
Thank God Travolta was able to make it to the UK, so he could spread the word of "Wild Hogs," other planets, and fucking dome fucking god damn cities. It's well worth 800 tons of carbon emissions (Note: I don't give a crap about Carbon Emissions, but this cracker jack thinks it's causing the apocalypse) for such enlightenment.
“Thou shalt not envy.” Person X and I disagree on the NBA’s minimum age rule.The rule states that no player can be drafted into the NBA until they are 19 years old, which means they will probably go to college for one year.
X originally stated that all NBA players should have to get a college degree, but reversed that opinion after much discussion.On the other hand, I disagreed from the beginning with the rule.It should be understood, that this is not a law, established by the government.It is a rule that the NBA and the Players Union championed.I agree that the NBA should be allowed to make whatever rules it wants, with team and player agreement; however, I think this rule is garbage.
Since X now agrees with me, it’s pointless to discuss the minimum age requirement.X took a turn, in the fashion of politics, to ignoring the original premise and attacking the players for another reason…their salaries.
The attack on salaries went something like this:
*It’s not fair that athletes get paid millions of dollars to play a game.
*If the athletes’ salaries were cut, the economy would be boosted.
*The boost in the economy would help with healthcare costs and other problems.
*They’re hoarding the money.
And a personal attack, in general:
*They aren’t doing anything with their lives.
To begin, if you believe in the market system, any salary is fair – you get paid depending on the revenue you generate.Well, the revenues they generate range from $ 78 mln to $181 mln (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/32/Revenues_1.html, Bobcats and Knicks respectively).That’s a total of $3.2 bln.The average salary in 02-03 was $4.5 mln (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2002-2003-nba-salaries-numbers.htm).I’ll up that to $5.5 mln.If there are 15 players per team and 29 teams, that makes $2.4 bln.That leaves $0.8 bln for the front office workers.Notice, that these revenues are just from stadium revenues – tickets and merchandise.The revenue numbers do not include TV spots, which totaled $766 mln in 2004 (http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/8-10cba.htm), or other retailers like Wal-mart, K-mart, etc.So, no we’re up to 1.6 bln for the front office, after adding just the TV revenues.Do the players deserve a share of the revenues they generate?Yes, it’s completely fair.If they weren’t worth it, their employers wouldn’t pay them.Moreover, if fans didn’t think it was worth it, they wouldn’t pay money to see them.If fan salaries weren’t sufficient, they wouldn’t go see them, etc.
If anyone gets paid that much money, why shouldn’t it be pro-athletes?Using the assumptions above, there are 435 players in the NBA.In the US, males of ages 18-25 make up around 6.5% (http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html) of the population.Assuming a population of 271 mln, that’s 17.6 mln.So, of draft age males, the NBA makes up 0.0025%.Sorry to say, but I’m not the best 0.0025% in anything and neither are any of you.I pick up on this point further below, but onto the second point for now…
On the second point, I must digress.It’s said often that pro-athletes should not be paid as much as they are because they blow their money on stupid things.I can’t say that X is in this category because of the final bullet….but X was in that category a few hours before.How can they be hoarding their money while spending it all?Point made.If we assume that they’re spending it all, then that money is going back into circulation, and that’s extremely good for the economy.If they’re hoarding it, you can assume that the money is in a bank, where it can be used by the bank to make loans, which is also very good for the economy.More likely, it’s invested – which is very very good for the economy. Bullet points 2 and 5 are insane.Neither hoarding money nor spending it hurts the economy to a measurable degree when we’re talking about the amount of money involved.Remember that NBA players are paid 2.4 bln dollars altogether.The US GDP (Admittedly, I don’t completely understand the GDP, but I know it has something to do with how much the US is worth) is $12.5 trillion.The salaries account for 0.02% of that; moreover, they spend a lot of the money, have it invested, or put in the bank – all of which helps the economy.
The third point is….ugh, ridiculous.The NBA is a business – it is not the government.Money is not being directly taken from Medicare or Medicaid and put into the pockets of NBA players.If the players didn’t get the money, the fat-cat owners would.Regardless of who gets the money though, it’s taxed, especially by the state.Guess what! Medicaid is a state-run and funded by taxes.Decreasing their salaries would do nothing to help healthcare costs – if anything it’s helping to alleviate them on a per state basis.
Finally, the personal attack.X says that pro-athletes are not doing anything with their lives.They’re the best 0.0025% at playing basketball (Actually, it’s even more dramatic than that because the NBA pulse from an international pool).Let me reiterate that neither you nor I are in the best 0.0025% at anything that’s measurable.NBA players are extremely good at what they do, extremely talented, and have probably worked extremely hard.Just by those standards, they have done something in my opinion.X, however, doesn’t feel that they are giving anything to society.Four billion dollars of fan money disagrees.They are entertainers – no different than artists, musicians, actors, etc.That’s still not good enough for X because that…means nothing if they get injured or once they retire.Of course, that’s insane to begin with – how many people work in a job that has no chance of injury?A huge majority of blue collar workers and a lot of white collar workers face injury every day.And once they retire, they’re retired; I’m not doing a damned thing once I’m retired.
To give back to society, I think of a few things – charity, innovation, production of jobs, community service, entertainment, etc.Entertainment might be controversial.If you find it so, you should comment as to why and we can discuss.On the other hand, X apparently believes that charity is the only way to give back to society (because, let’s face it – an NBA player isn’t going to produce the Grand Unifying Theory).Charity is certainly a good way to give to society and NBA players do just that.Check out (http://www.nba.com/nba_cares/).Active NBA players and the league office contributed 250,000 hours of hands-on volunteer service and raised more than $40 mln dollars in charity.X defies that – only pennies compared to what NBA players make and they won’t continue it after they retire.Actually, it’s 1.67 pennies in comparison to what they make, but the figure doesn’t include the fact that many of the players run their own, personal charitable organizations (http://www.nbpa.com/links.phpThere are definitely more than listed – for instance, Reggie Miller’s Charity for Burn Victims).I am not about to figure out how much each brings in, but you can imagine that each player isn’t going to shut his charitable organization down as soon as he retires.
There is no doubt that the NBA has some thugs in it and that it’s frustrating that they get paid more than college graduates; however, graduating college doesn’t make you the best 0.0025% in anything.Playing in the NBA does.Frustration, envy, and different standards for how people should fulfill potential should not dictate an NBA player’s salary.They deserve what they get.
I’m interested in comments – especially from X. I'd like nothing more than for X to represent him/her-self.
head transplant The first and only head transplant. The procedure is performed on a monkey, which retains all muscular function in its face and consciousness. It's able to eat and follow things with its eyes. The spinal cord was, of course, not re-attached.
SUPERBOWL! The Colts are headed to the Super Bowl! After completing the greatest come back in NFC or AFC Championship history (down 21-3, won 38-34) and defeating the bastard Patriots, the Colts are headed to the big show. Manning threw 27/47 for 349 yards and a touchdown. Manning said of trip to the Super Bowl, "That sounds good. It really does."
On the other hand, when asked how he felt, Freeney said:
Pray to God you don't drop that shit! Angela mentioned to me that Charlie Murphy, often seen on the Chappelle show, will be coming to the area. It reminded me of this classic clip, where our Commander and Chief is...black:
"Me and Jibbs, just coming back from Africa"..."Cradle of F*cking Civilization."
The following is mostly for Angela, who mentioned Trekkies today (Mike referred me to it):
David Wu has no shame...or he's just fucking hilarious.
On another note, a small oriental man, about age 30, was working out in the Rec Center yesterday. He was dressed in a nice pair of brown slacks, a yellow and brown plaid flannel shirt, eye glasses, smiley face socks, and shoes similar to these:
In many respects, he resembled William Hung. Anyway, I was doing Leg Extensions while he was using the bench press machine. Note that "using" in William Hung's vocabulary means, "sitting there, pushing my left nostril in over-and-over again while not lifting at all." As I finished Leg Extension, I headed to Pec Fly. To my chagrin, Mr. Hung beat me to it. I thought, "Fine, I'll just wait." I did every other lift I had to do: squats, calves, two ab machines, shoulders, triceps, and rows. The guy hadn't done a SINGLE set yet. He sat on one machine for 45 minutes, looking at himself in the mirror, and repeatedly pushed in his left nostril.
At the 45 minute mark, however, he did one set of four or five reps with 1 plate loaded. I guess he had to pump air from his nostril into his bulging pecs before he could rattle that gnarly set off. As someone over X-mas break said, "It was butt."
Once the machine was free, another guy jumped on it before me, but he was considerate enough to let me use it in between sets.
Current Mood:accomplished Current Music:Leave's Eyes - Farewell Proud Men
Representative Silvestre Reyes, the Democrats' Intelligence Chairman, is...an idiot.
First, when asked by Jeff Stein whether Al-Qaeda is predominantly Shi'ite or Sunni, he responded, "Predominantly, probably Shi'ite." Yeah, and I'm "predominantly, probably" theist.
Second, before President Bush announced his plan to increase troops, Rep. Reyes, had this to say, "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq...I would say 20,000 to 30,000." Of course, he changed his tone immediately after President Bush put his plan on the table, "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level."
I'm with Mr. Stein in saying, "He [Reyes] couldn't be more wrong."
This posting is mostly for Brittney, who cares about what's going on with me for personal reasons, and Angela, who cares about what's going on with me for her entertainment.
First, Angela and I had a conversation about the over use of "like," after some guys getting off the elevator used in three times in the two seconds. I referenced the following commercial:
As shameful as it may be, I love that commercial. "I think may..be our cheer leading squad should boycott tuna for a whiiile." But more pertinent: "Can I like get a new battery?" "He was like 'Whatever!' and I was like 'Whatever!'"
Also, I mentioned a period in Brittney's life, in which she excessively used like; however, she has been weaned of it since.
Second, I ordered a 170$ book from Amazon. I paid 17.99 for 1-day delivery. It should have arrived today. Instead, Amazon required a signature and it wasn't delivered because I wasn't home at 10:00AM. What self-respecting human is home at 10:00 AM Monday? The answer is not "the average self-respecting human," a class to which I belong. I paid $17.99 to get it to me ASAP, but Amazon - the assuming devils- thought I meant "ASAP, only if I'm home at 10:00 AM." Luckily, UPS left a paper I can sign and they'll leave it tomorrow. (That's not always the case, however).
Third, I bought a Linksys MediaLink from the Tennessee Expo. I fought it all Saturday and Sunday, but couldn't get the bitch to work wirelessly. It worked perfectly wired; however, it was slow and/or unresponsive to my netgear router and in ad-hoc mode. Anyway, I called Linksys Tech Support. Surprisingly they were very helpful. Other than the 45 minute wait, and 3.5 hours of talking ot the Technician, the experience was great. I hate the Linksys Medialink.
Fourth, I love this video - mostly just the beginning,
"This is Admiral Biatch to base camp. It seems the Storm Troopers have gone on strike and I have no experience with this type of shit...With my sweet slick sweet suit that's black like tar, fucking you up no matter who you are." "But Luuuuuke, don't forget....Bitches ain't nothing but hoes and tricks."
BTW, Angela, you can stay in Rich Text mode. Click on the CD-rom icon, "Embed Media," then just enter the URL (not hte HTML code) from YouTube.
Fifth and Final, The best Playoffs Commercial Yet:
Jim Mora was a shitty coach, but he was hilarious. Luckily E.T. (Dungy) coaches the Colts now. As a side note for Angela, Dungy's son committed suicide during the NFL playoffs last year - Talk about selfish. Thousands, if not millions of Colts fans, might blame him for E.T.'s shitty playoff coaching. Dungy's been ripping ass in the playoffs this year. If he can beat Belichick, I'll forgive him for all of his past performances.
BOTH hates filling out forms and taking poorly structured exams Johnstone returned our politics tests today. On the essay, I scored a 47/50, and on the "objective" part, I scored a 32/50. On my test he wrote, "What happened on the objectives part?" Well, I think what happened is obvious: the objective part was full of ambiguities.
Who makes this type of test: "Circle the correct answer or answers to each of the following:" 1. The Senate has a special role in foreign affairs because: a. of the superior importance of senators of representatives. b. of the Senate's control over the "power of the purse." c. the Senate is the Upper House of Congress. d. the Senate has constitutional powers in treaty making and appointments. e. the Senate with fewer members can more readily preserve secrecy.
My problem with the question is that a student can have supreme knowledge about the issue and lose a hefty load of points (this portion of the test is worth 50% of the test and consists only of 8 such questions).
A. Obviously wrong. B. Obviously right because the Senate does have the power of the purse and the power of the purse is quite important in foreign affairs, and the power is special because the Executive does not have it nor does the Judicial. But...it's obviously wrong because the power is not unique AND special to the Senate, since it shares the power with Congress. C. Obviously wrong because what difference does that make? Obviously right because the Senate is the upper house and the powers granted by the Constitution are to the Upper House/Senate, so its being the upper house gives it the powers that make it important. D. Obviously right, the Senate has those powers. But if answer B is wrong because the Senate shares those powers with the House, then this answer must be wrong because those powers are shared with the executive. E. Obviously wrong, that makes no sense. Obviously right - the Senate is, in fact, more secretive. Senators see themselves more as trustees than delegates; therefore, they do not feel the need to make public their proceedings as frequently.
Imagine a test with 8 questions of the same characteristic ambiguity.
Brothers of the Horse burn exams like this - they're worse than filling out forms.
Rosa Parks "That capital has actually been wasted incrementally all along the long march down the mountain - from the summit Martin Luther King achieved into the fever swamps of today - racial hate-mongers like Farrakhan and charlatans like Al Sharpton have replaced King and Medgar Evers; as lying delinquents like Tawana Brown have replaced true victims like Emmett Till; as figures like the corrupt Marion Barry, the felon Rodney King, the thug Damian Williams, the cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, and now OJ Simpson himself have all been embraced as heroes of the struggle as worthy of admiration as Rosa Parks. This inability to discriminate right from wrong and heroes from perpetrators suggest that what now calls itself the civil rights movement has not only lost its moorings and its morality, but in some sense has lots its mind as well."
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
deggial17's journal
amused
annoyed
blank
depressed