"Forever" stamps?

See this.

First of all, are we adopting stamps now?

Second, I question the utility of this idea. Supposedly, it is thought that these stamps "would help eliminate the need to purchase 2-cent stamps and also help shrink lines at the post office." There is not and never has been a need to purchase 2-cent stamps. I have a bright idea - how about: purchase 1-cent stamps! This protects you from any particular rate increase because the probability of the USPS increasing the rate by an amount which is not an integer multiple of 1.0 cents is effectively zero. And is it really that much more of a burden to put two or three 1-cent stamps on a letter instead of one 2- or 3-cent stamps? I submit, no.

In addition, I don't buy that lines will magically shrink because of these forever stamps. To begin with, I would be surprised if the purchasing of stamps accounted for more than five percent of the total customer transaction time. The majority of the transaction time consists of, as I'm sure anyone who has been in a post office would agree, sending packages. Especially when forms have not yet been filled out, or inconsiderate douchebags actually ask the teller to pack their packages for them! But beyond this low fraction of stamp-buying time, there already exist multiple methods of purchasing stamps without waiting in the normal lines: automatic stamp dispensers in (most) every post office, the APCs in many post offices now (I recommend using these for packages - very simple and fast!), and even at some ATMs, grocery stores, etc. So how, exactly, will the lines be shortened?

Failing all that, let's assume as a last argument that lines will be shortened because people won't have to buy 2-cent stamps any more. The USPS is proposing to issue stamps that can be purchased at today's rate and used tomorrow. Again, there is a simpler way: if the rate is now 41 cents, just don't return to sender letters with 39 cent stamps! See! No need to design and print a whole new set (or sets) of stamps! No need to increase the beauracracy.

Finally, there's one important assumption I make that was not clear in the article. Would the forever stamps cost the same as the current rate stamps, or more? If more, then no one would buy them (I know I wouldn't - would you?). If the same, then it doesn't seem to me to be a sensical business decision - the USPS would lose money and/or have to make the rate hikes larger, causing greater sticker shock in a society which already exhibits a bizarre overreaction to small and infrequent postage increases. And can you imagine the people that would buy and hoard vast quantities of stamps today, hoping to sell them for great profits in 10 or 20 years (or more!) when if they just put that same amount of money into bonds they would be almost guaranteed to make more money? (ebay2k50: "LOT OF 500 FOREVER 4EVER 4EVA USPS STAMPS UNCANCELLED - GREAT DEAL 4 U! NO RESERVE!")

In short: Why?Why?Why?

I have snow envy.

All we got down here was a lousy 1/4 inch of snow followed by a bunch of rain/sleet/freezing rain. What a let-down! The tv keeps taunting me with its snow total graphics, and Binghamton thumbs its nose at me as if it thinks it's cock of the snow-covered walk! 10-18 inches it is supposed to get/have gotten! Meanwhile Plainsboro's official total for the year must be about 4 inches.

I'm not joking about the snow envy, by the way. I literally feel a combination of anger, frustration, sadness, and general anxiety when I see the satellite pictures where I'm in the pink zone, and well out of the white zone. Last night I looked out the window every ten minutes to see if our fortunes had changed: "no, it's still freezing rain... if that." Is it normal to be so emotionally affected by the weather? ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS SOME FREAKIN' SNOW!

If you saw Epic Movie between 2.3.2007 and 2.13.2007

I am sorry. Because I did not do my duty to warn you as early as I could have to NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. Under no circumstances should it happen. Except, possibly, if you are extremely drunk, and it's on DVD, and someone else paid for the rental. Or, if you find yourself watching MTV all the time and thinking "wow, this original programming is really the best thing that cable has to offer; in fact, if my cable company would let me, I would subscribe to MTV and no other station." Really, I think it should have been released as a made-for-MTV movie (like Toge+her, but worse).

Here are a few helpful tips for "2 of the 6 writers of Scary Movie" (or x of the y, I am not sure of the exact numbers; whatev. er.)
1) Don't drag out jokes or make them more obvious than necessary. Example. At the beginning of the movie, during the DaVinci Code parody, there was the following text on a painting: "So lame the hair of Tom." Okay, that's pretty funny, haha, yes, yes. But then there is no need to pan over to another painting which shows Tom's "lame hair" from the movie. Just accept the fact that some of the audience won't get the text and move on. Making it more obvious just alienates the viewers that did get it.

2) There are some things that are funny once and only once. Or, at the very least, only once per movie. Take for example referring to a character by the name of some other character the actor is perhaps better-known for. This happened both with "Stifler's Mom" and "Kumar" (of White Castle). In fact, I would say you shouldn't have even done it once. It was funny in Mallrats. But after that, it had been done. (Maybe it was done before Mallrats, but if so, in a movie I haven't seen.)

In addition, for their parody of Pirates of the Carribean, the pirate's name is "Jack Swallows." That was kind of funny when it was a skit on Saturday Night Live! Ostensibly, this is not plagiarism because JS was apparently played by Darrell Hammond (at least in EM).

3) Enough with the poor man's replacements for actors (primarily somebody for Anna Farris, but also every other actor parodied). Can't you come up with original characters? This movie imitated "3 out of the 4 original characters in Scary Movie."

4) At least try for continuity. All I'm asking for is a little effort. The only continuity this movie had were the awful running jokes of the main characters.

I should have known when we walked into the theater and there were about 10 other people there. I thought to myself, "how can it be so empty when just last week it was the top of the Box Office?" I was about to find out. Why didn't you warn me!? I blame you!

What is your favorite part about doing laundry?

Mine is the part where you clean out the lint screen. It's amazing sometimes how much your clothes shed. I'll bet there is enough sometimes to knit an entire sock. But even more fascinating to me is what this phenomenon implies, if you take it to its logical limit. One day, you will go to get your clothes out of the dryer, BUT THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT! The last of your clothes will have disintegrated and gone to their final resting place in your lint trap. Better buy some new clothes.

My Two Favorite People of the Day

These guys


Quotes from the story:

"[They] said they were taking questions only about 1970s hairstyles."

"When a reporter accused them of not taking the situation seriously, Stevens responded, 'We're taking it very seriously.' Asked another question about the case, Stevens reiterated they were answering questions only about hair and accused the reporter of not taking him and Berdovsky seriously."

And the best, "Reporters did not relent and as they continued, Berdovsky disregarded their queries, saying, 'That's not a hair question. I'm sorry.' "

I would have had one more suggestion: "We are taking this situation seriously; we're just not taking this news conference seriously."

Without going on at length, here is a summary of my opinion of the whole thing (because you care):
1) The city was right to take the objects seriously and take action as they did.
2) The city was wrong to then overreact, especially with the benefit of more time, by pressing charges against the two. Those two did not cause a panic, the city caused a panic (and how much "panic" was there, really?)
3) The judge seems to be the only one in the system that is thinking rationally: "Judge Paul K. Leary told Grossman that, according to law, the suspects must intend to create a panic to be charged with placing hoax devices.... It appears the suspects had no such intent, the judge said." This bodes well for the near future for our mischievous friends.
4) I have never seen this show. Is it worth watching?