About a month ago, Christopher and I parted ways and officially ended our 3 1/2 year sometimes amazing, often tumultuous relationship. I won’t go into details, but there were some things about “us” that just didn’t seem to work and neither of us could get a handle on to fix.

We’ve decided to leave the site up, but at the moment, neither of us are particularly in the mood to post anything of real substance. Perhaps that will change with a little time.

This site was a gift from Christopher for me… it was sort of our “baby” and it, in many ways, chronicles our time together and we both very much enjoyed learning from the diversity of our loyal readers– the varying viewpoints, differences of opinion, and interesting perspectives. This blog was sort of our place to go when we wanted feedback– we’d always say “we’re bringing it to the blog to decide.” It was our place to pop in when we needed a stress-reliever from work. It was a place for us to let the world know who we are and how we felt about pretty much everything.

As much fun as it brought, it also started a few arguments along the way, and as it took on a life of it’s own, it brought us closer together at times, and at other times, wedged us apart.

I know that this announcement will cause most of our female readers to sit up and take notice. Yes, you heard right. That super sexy boy Christopher is single once again. I’m sure he’ll have no problem incurring an ungodly amount of female attention. He certainly stands out from the pack.

All things must come to an end. I know it’s an awful cliche, but my ability to express myself more eloquently seems to have taken leave for the time being. Endings are not easy, and at the moment, nothing seems especially easy, so I will sign off with that. But I know that things will get better eventually.

I know I can speak for Christopher when I say we wish you all the very best and thank you for being a part of our lives, even if only for a short time.

The first surprise for most people is the large proportion of Americans who actually get money back - not a refund, but a net payment-through the income tax system is huge. In 2005 (the most recent year available for the data), the bottom 40% of Americans by income had, in the aggregate, an effective tax rate that is negative: Their households receive more money through the income tax system, largely from the earned income tax credit, than they paid.

That means that the number of people who actually pay America’s income taxes-totally almost $1 trillion in 2005-is surprisingly small. Of those who filed returns(themselves a subset of the population), just half accounted for 97% of the Treasury’s total income tax revenue. The top half’s share of total payments has been growing steadily for the past 20 years. The top 10% of taxpayers kicked in 70% of the total income tax. And the famous top %1 paid almost 40% of all income tax, a proportion that has jumped dramatically since 1986.

Wait a minute. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama rail against President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich.” How does that square with the growing share of total tax paid by the wealthy? Are the richest Americans paying so much because they’re actually getting clobbered with a higher tax rates? No. Their effective tax rate - the total tax they pay as a percentage of their income - has declined substantially. The top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 23% in 2005, down from 27.5% in 2001.

So if the rich are paying more income tax, yet are being taxed at a lower rate, there can be only one explanation. Their incomes must be growing fast, much faster than the rest of the population’s. That is what is happening. Backing in 1985, an income of $119.000 got you into the top %1 club. By 2005 it took $365,000 to get you into the club. Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation; if corrected it turns out the price of admission still rose by 72%. By contrast the inflation adjusted definition of a median taxpayer-that is someone in the 50th percentile did not budge.

Now lets consider some of the recent heated tax controversies of recent years. Did Bush cut taxes for the rich? Yes. But he cut taxes for the poor even more. If we look at the measure that really matters, the change in effective tax rates, the bottom 50% got a much bigger tax cut than the top 1%. Did the dollar value of Bush’s tax cuts go mostly to the wealthy? Absolutely. It could hardly be otherwise. Since the well-off pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, any tax cut with a prayer of influencing the economy would have to go mostly to them. You could completely eliminate income taxes for the bottom half of the population and the Treasury would hardly notice.

The real issues here are clear. One is having a shrinking minority of citizens pay most of Washington’s bills. Social cohesion falls apart. The majority who pay nothing resent those with higher incomes; the minority who pay heavily resent those who don’t pay.

More fundamental is why some people’s incomes are growing so much faster than other people’s incomes. That, and not taxes is what the supposed tax debate is really about. Which candidate will make a substantive proposal for dealing with the issue, including how low-income citizens can get some of the earning power now going heavily to better educated. It’s a lot more complicated than changing the income tax rates.

This is mostly targeted toward the workplace and how when there isn’t a man available for the job to get a woman to work at maximum efficiency.

1. Pick young married women. They usually have more sense of responsibility than their unmarried friends, they’re less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn’t be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.
2. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally of physically unfit for the job.
3. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there make serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.
4. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they’ll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous studies have shown that women make excellent works when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they do lack the initiative in finding work for themselves.
5. Whenever possible, let the employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.
6. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair neat, apply fresh lipstick and file her nails several times a day.
7. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can’t shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirt and cuts off her efficiency.

The percent of Americans who reject evolution is close to 50 percent. About 35 percent believe the Bible should be taken literally, and if you are a Biblical literalist, evolution is not compatible with that view. For the rest-mainstream, nonliteralist Christians-it is mostly a matter of human exceptionalism: the idea that humans are different and unique from all other organisms. Par of that is the “ick factor” - “I’m not monkey!” If people understood more about animals, they’d appreciate that it’s hard to find lines that demarcate us from them.

At a Democratic presidential debate this year, three candidates raise their hands when asked who didn’t believe in evolution. These are not even the dumbest people in America; they’re just trying to court the “dumb” vote. Some churches believe that God put animal fossils on the earth to test our faith. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED GOD! What would these people need to see to believe in evolution?

2. The hot dog on the inside is usually shriveled and malformed suggesting it is inferior to the more visually aesthetic hot dogs that are destined to be served in buns.

3. The stick is only convenient for the first few bites. After that, you have to start eating from the sides, ensuring that eventually you will have to balance the last couple of bites on the deceptively narrow stick which is almost impossible to do, and more often than not, the last bite, no longer anchored, falls off the stick and onto the ground.

4. If you dip your corn dog into ketchup, the hot dog on a stick design inhibits you from really controlling how much ketchup gets on any one bite.

5. It’s impossible to put relish on a corn dog, eliminating one of the three most popular hot dog condiments.

6. The part of the breading closest to the stick’s handle often gets too dark and chewy.

7. They are the cheapest thing you can buy at CostCo implying that they may not be made of the freshest, most desirable ingredients.

8. They can roll around on one of those mechanical heaters all day and unlike any other consumable substance, remain virtually unchanged eight hours later.

9. They don’t taste good and leave you wishing you’d had a real hot dog because that’s what you were hungry for anyway.

10. If you try to grill a corn dog, it will catch fire and fall through the grates.

But that’s not the only reason we’ve been MIA. Since our big fight last week, Christopher and I aren’t really sure where things stand with “us,” and we may not be the “Chris and Chris” team much longer. We have a lot to think about on our own, and some things to talk about I suppose. I don’t really know.

What I do know is that I don’t think I’ll be checking in on the site for a little while. It’s just really hard for me and stuff.

I didn’t want anyone to think I’ve abandoned them– just taking some time for myself.

Carry on without me.

“Sigh” Mumbling to myself I think… “Who in the world is knocking at my door at 6pm… Christine? Nah… she doesn’t just show up… must be the neighbor.”

I’m not really one for checking the peep hole so I throw open the door and instantly realize my mistake as a man dressed in a shirt and tie and a woman dressed in a dress are standing there. Ughh.. Mormons.

Don’t get me wrong.. I really don’t any have anything against Mormons.. at least not anything I don’t have against every other group of religions people who think it is ok to show up at my house to convert me.

Anyway as I they start their spiel about whatever they are spieling about it occurs to me that I might be able to have some fun with this…. so despite the fact that a hardcore game of Call of Duty 4 is blaring in the background.. (and calling for my return) I invite them in.

C: “Hold on.. let me turn this down so I can hear you guys better…, wait.. actually you guys don’t mind if I finish out this game do you?”

MC (Morman Converter): “Ughh… no.. well how long will it take”

C: “Just a minute, I can’t let me team down… I’m playing online and without me.. my team will surely die to these bitches”

MC: “ok”

A few minutes of me swearing and laughing as I get murder countless bad guys pass and eventually the the MC’s start to squirm so I offer the dude a go at the game.

C: “Try it, it’s relaxing”

MC: (getting a glare from the girl)… “No… it’s ok, I’ll pass”

C: “OK, your loss… want a drink.. Beer (ok I have no beer in the house but I knew they would say “No”), Wine, Rum.. Wisky?” as I walk to the kitchen and break out the a few glasses…

MC’s: “Water.. if you have any”

I grab a couple of bottled waters, and the only good bottle of hard liquor I have (some Rum Christine bought for me) I walk back to my living room turn off the video game and start flipping through the channels. The whole time I’m thinking damn if I can manage to find a good porn channel that will be crazy funny.

C: “So.. want to give me your spiel?”

MC’s “We wanted to talk to you about the Mormon religion…”

C: “Fantastic.. I have always wanted to talk to you guys.. I have tons of questions!”

MC’s: “That’s great… go ahead and ask.. we’ll be happy to answer them.”

C: “I’ve always been curious how your religion justifies knowledge of technologies and that never existed in Mesoamerica during the time period described in the Book of Mormon (BOM). For example chariots when there were no wheeled vehicles of any kind, steel swords when there was neither steel nor swords, bellows for blacksmithing, and silk. The BoM describes a vast civilization of millions who inhabited cities for hundreds of years, yet no ruins from even a single BoM city have ever been identified. No BoM place-names were in use when Europeans arrived in the New World. Seeing how Mormonism…. is you know really just a Mesoamerica religion… what are you guy’s thoughts on that?”

MC’s:..”Ugm… well you see..” “That is a really fantastic question, if your willing to come and worship for awhile we have many people who can give you all the detailed answers your looking for”

C: “Ahhhhh I see. They didn’t get that far with the koolaid yet….. anyway I have a few other questions many you guys could answer..?”

MC’s: (slighly less enthused now)… “Ya.. we’ll do our best”

C: “I would really love to sign on to a religion….. really all I need is one that doesn’t fall apart right away ok…? So if you can help me through these.. issues.. I think I might have found a winner… after all I dig that you guys encourage threesomes”

C: “So I think the Book of Mormon has some biological fallacies like animals that did not exist in the pre-Columbian Americas or had been extinct in that region for thousands of years preceding the period described in the book. These include the ass, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, horse, ox, domestic sheep, sow, swine and elephants. Several common animals that actually existed in Mesoamerica (deer, jaguars, tapir, monkeys, sloths, turkeys, llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs) are never mentioned. Also described are crops that didn’t exist, such as wheat and barley. Actually ya know, the agricultural techniques required to produce those crops didn’t exist either. Once again, crops that were commonly known to Mesoamerica (chocolate, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, manioc) are not referenced…. I’m actually pretty these are fairly significant conflicts”

MC’s: “Chris, we’ve actually got a few more people we need to visit tonight but here is a pamplet. Good Night”

C: “Damn guys. I just found Playboy TV. Alright alright g’night and good luck and take some time and think about the stuff I asked you… and if you ever want to come back and explain it all to me that would be great, I would cherish the opportunity to enlighten you”

————————-
So this story started out as a funny listen how my night worked out it also sparked some deep thoughts.
I’m not sure that the label “fallacies” was appropriate — a fallacy is an error in the reasoning of an argument, not simply any error, lie, deception, etc. If I say “2 + 2 = 5,” that’s not a fallacy. That’s just a mistake. The above issues I pointed out in retrospect seem to be more accurately labeled as lies, not fallacies.

There is simply no getting around the fact that demonstrably untrue things are claimed — and claimed in a work that supposedly came from God, even if written down by someone else. What, didn’t God proof read the Gold Plates?

An additional point of interest occurs to me: if so many people could follow a religion that is so recent but with so many factual holes in it, how much easier would it be to follow a religion that would be much harder to fact-check, assuming that anyone was even inclined to do so in the first place? One of the claims made on behalf of Christianity is that the events upon which it was founded were so recent for so many people that they wouldn’t have followed if the claims weren’t true. After all, it would have been too easy to check. Here, however, we have an example of a religion making claims that can be checked, have been checked, and have been shown to be false — and it doesn’t change a thing. Why, then, expect Jews and Gentiles in the 1st century Roman Empire to be any more skeptical and doubtful?

Okay… whatever gets the point across, right?

I love the dresses, the red carpet, the interviews, the stars being themselves. I love seeing the movies that get nominated even though the Academy is hardly exempt from choosing the winners on a political basis rather than the merits of the film alone. But I love to see the craft of writing and directing and acting all come together to make something great. Did I mention the dresses?

I did see all the movies nominated for best picture this year, so I thought I’d give you my opinion on each one. While this year’s nominees pale in comparison to most years as far as I’m concerned, and nothing really stood out to me as deserving of “Best Picture,” here’s my quick take…

THERE WILL BE BLOOD
While I think Daniel Day Lewis certainly deserves the Oscar for best male actor in a leading a role for his performance in this film, I wasn’t particularly impressed with the movie itself. My general opinion on 2 1/2 hour movies is that they probably could have been told in 2 hours and someone (namely the producers) were too in love with the movie to cut the fat. The film is basically a character study about a man obsessed with success and competition (Christopher could relate ), an obsession which ultimately leads to his professional, personal, and psychological downfall. Will it win best picture? I’m not predicting it will… nor do I think it deserves it.

ATONEMENT
(Sorry– this one includes a spoiler)
I pretty much hate period pieces– and I also don’t like movies that have huge time gaps because they bring me out of the story. While this was probably my least favorite of the contenders, I think it has the best chance of winning simply because this is the “type” of film the Academy usually graces with an Oscar. I didn’t find any of the performances to be particularly noteworthy and while the concept of the story itself was good (depressing, but intriguing nonetheless), the “happy” ending followed by the “unbearably depressing” ending left me feeling more irritated than impressed at the lead’s half-assed attempt at atonement.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
(Sorry– spoiler here too)
A typical Coen brothers film– violent, unpredictable, dark. It’s a fun ride while you’re in the thick of it, but unlike FARGO, it leaves you wondering what the point really was. Sure, it reflects a reality where greedy bastards sometimes come out on top and there is no character that’s purely good or purely bad. Everyone’s bad and good, stupid and smart. The person most in control can easily be knocked off his high horse by something as random as flirting with a woman sitting near a pool or not paying attention to a car about to run a red light. The film offers its own sense of justice and morality, where keeping one’s word ranks superior to allowing innocent victims to live. Peppered with incredible performances and dialogue I’m jealous I didn’t come up with, I don’t think it will win best picture, but it’s certainly worth seeing.

MICHAEL CLAYTON
Not incredibly original, it felt more like a showcase for George Clooney than anything else. Somewhat ploddy at times, too much effort was spent on poorly integrated subplots, making the film about 15 minutes too long. Don’t get me wrong, Clooney’s certainly easy on the eyes and emerges as a likable protagonist early on, but does it deserve to be remembered along side other Best Picture winners like PLATOON and THE GODFATHER? No. But none of the nominees this year come close. I think the real competition will be between this film and ATONEMENT, even though my personal advice would be to wait until it comes out on DVD. Oh wait… it already has.

JUNO
My personal favorite of the bunch. A simple story told in an original way, but it’s the only movie I told people I’d go back and watch again in the theater if they wanted someone to go with them. Is it worthy of an Oscar– I don’t think so. It’s a great movie, not an amazing movie, but the writing, Ellen Page’s performance, and the directing all really came together in all the right ways. While Diablo Cody’s rather flippant attitude about her success is annoying to say the least, it’s that persona that had a big part in creating the funny, quippy dialogue and rather immature perspective on life and relationships Juno so lovingly embodies. I left the theater feeling uplifted, which in my opinion, sets this film apart from the others. It didn’t just tell a story, it hooked you emotionally in a way the others didn’t. If it were up to me, I’d give this film the Oscar, but I don’t predict the Academy will view it as Oscar-worthy. I’ll keep my fingers crossed though– just in case.

Basically all candidates are compared to Andrew Jackson…. if they can’t hold a stick to President Jackson, they won’t get my vote.

When the 1828 election rolled around, a lot of people were terrified when they heard Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson was running. If you’re wondering how a guy I’m calling a bad ass got such a lame nickname, it’s because he used to carry a hickory cane around and beat people senseless with it, and if you’re wondering why he did that, it’s because he was a fucking lunatic.

Former Democratic Senator and Secretary of the Treasurey Albert Gallatin feared a Jackson presidency because of his “habitual disregard of laws and constitutional provisions.” Or in other words, the man was a loose canon–17th Century Washigton’s answer to Martin Riggs. Sure, he probably didn’t have an irate black lieutenant to answer to, or a weary partner who was too old for this shit, but he most certainly had a death wish.

How do we know? Well, despite everyone’s best efforts, Jackson was elected to the top office, and when he wasn’t busy shaping the Presidency as we know it today, you could find him out back dueling. In case you haven’t been to the 18th century lately, this unmanly sounding activity actually involves standing across from an armed man and shooting at him while he in turn shoots at you. The number of duels that Jackson took part in varies depending on what source you consult; some say 13, while others rank the number somewhere in the 100’s, both of which are entirely too many times for a reasonable human being to stand in front of someone who is strying to kill them with a loaded gun.

On one occasion, he challenged a man named Charles Dickinson to a duel, (the reason behind it wasn’t important, not to us and certainly not to Jackson), and Jackson was even kind enough to give Dickinson the first shot. We’re gonna go ahead and repeat that: In a duel with pistols, Jackson politely volunteers to be shot at first. Dickinson happily obliged and shot Jackson, who proceeded to shake it off like it was a bee sting. When Jackson returned the favor, Dickinson was not so lucky, and that’s why his face isn’t on the twenty. The bullet, by the by, remained in Jackson’s body for 19 years because, we assume, Jackson knew that time spent removing the bullets would just fall under the general category of “time not dueling,” Jackson’s least favorite category.

Greatest Display of Badassedry:
Andrew Jackson was the first president on whom an assassination attempt was made. A man named Richard Lawrence approached Jackson with two pistols both of which, for some reason, misfired. With the possibility of an assassination taken off the table, Jackson proceeded to beat Lawrence near death with his cane until Jackson’s aides pulled him off the assassin.

The guns were inspected afterwards and it was discovered that they were in perfect working order, leading some historians to believe that it was an odds-defying “miracle” that Jackson survived, while we’re pretty sure that the bullets, like everyone else, were simply scared of Jackson.

Most Badass Quote:
“I have only two regrets: I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John C. Calhoun.”

That’s right. In a life rich with murdering people for little-to-no reason, Jackson’s only regret was that he didn’t kill quite enough people. People like Calhoun who, it should be noted, was Jackson’s vice president.