Too Long To Be a Myface Status Update

Shirley feels like it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize this once (way back in 2015 for example) wonderful country, because of the Supreme Court permitting the exclusion of immigrants based on religion, the government caging children they stole from non-violent parents, and the government turning away asylum seekers.  Oh, I guess the latter isn't new though, since FDR did the same thing to Jews during the Holocaust.  But it's still rather un-American.  Btw, if we're going to ban all the Muslims because many terrorists are Muslim, then shouldn't we ban all the white Christians because many mass shooters are white Christians?  And as long as we're on this digression regarding inconsistency, why are extremist conservatives so angry about government employees such as Sarah Huckabee Sanders being turned away from businesses, when those same extremist conservatives think it's proper for businesses to turn away a gay couple who want a cake for their wedding?  Since this Myface (Facebook) status update is so long, should it have been a blog post instead?  Yes, yes it should.  And so it is.

#MAGALIWI2015 (Hashtag Make America Great Again Like It Was In 2015)

What Ever Happened to the Best Cereal EVER?

I have written previously of the gloriously delicious and banana-y Banana Nut Cheerios, when I declared it Best Cereal EVER!  I have since enjoyed it periodically, for as I stated in that post, I am not much of a cereal person in general.  However, for some time, these wonderful Cheerios seemed to have vanished.  So you can imagine my delight when they suddenly re-appeared on a supermarket shelf and shortly thereafter in my home.  But my delight ended before my tummy received the cheery o's.  The Banana Nut Cheerios were little o-shaped imposters.

They did not taste strongly of banana; rather, they tasted mildly of it for the first bite, followed by increasing…something else.  'Twas a flavor I could not put my finger on.  Sugary?  Sort of.  Maple-y?  Maybe.  Brown-sugar-y?  Um, I don't know.  Of course, despite my disappointment, I continued to eat them, trying to re-attain the banana-y flavor I so yearned for.

In my previous post regarding these Cheerios, I explained that milk, especially real milk, brings out more of the delicious flavors.  Therefore, I must assure you, I did indeed have real milk with my not-so-Banana Nut Cheerios.  If you must know, it was a fancy organic and even grass-fed milk.  'Twas my first time having such a fancy milk.  I was surprised to find I did not moo as a result of imbibing it.  I did not moo at all.

I was uncertain if the lost banana flavor was General Mill's fault or mine own.  Perhaps I had a taste in my mouth that altered the cereal, or perhaps my taste buds were on the fritz.

So I conducted thorough research into whether the Banana Nut Cheerio recipe had changed.  Of course, by "thorough research," I mean I quickly Googled.  In so researching, I learned that the mysterious absence of Banana Nut Cheerios was due to an evil and cruel discontinuation of said cereal two flippin' years ago!  Didn't they know I love them?  Why would they do such a treacherous thing?  Anyhoo, they made what could have been a triumphant albeit limited-time return recently.  I then compared the old ingredients to the new ingredients, and it most certainly has changed.

Ironically, the changes in ingredients suggest an improvement in quality and healthiness.  There are no longer any chemical-sounding words in the ingredients list, and almonds have been replaced with pecans and cinnamon (I mean, "natural flavors" of these things).  There are 10 more calories per the same sized serving of 3/4 cup, and 1 gram less sugar.  Instead of a combination of whole grain corn and oats, it's now just whole grain oats.  None of this should be bad, except maybe the 10 more calories, though that's only a problem if you have many servings at once (as some people do).

I realized the problem was probably that the pecan and cinnamon flavors are stealing the spotlight from the banana, and those were probably the flavors I couldn't put my finger on.  Almonds (or "natural almond flavor" as it were) are probably more mild, and certainly a lack of cinnamon would keep the spotlight on the banana.  The old recipe got one important thing right: it knew that bananas were the star of the show.

With my new understanding of what the new Banana Nut Cheerios are, I decided to give them another chance.  This time, I had the cereal with Lactaid, another (less) fancy milk whose lactose is removed or something.  I don't think the type of real milk made a difference in this case because the cereal tasted the same as it did before.  However, my expectations and understandings were different, as I no longer expected anything all that banana-y, and I did expect cinnamon and pecan flavors.  And so it was.  Because I was no longer distracted by my disappoint in lack of banana flavor, I was able to experience the cinnamon pecan flavor as the initial banana faded.  While it is no longer the best cereal ever, and it is not a yummy banana-y cereal, it is a yummy cereal with an initial hint of banana.  I can still recommend it, but not as whole-heartedly as I once could.

Dearest M&Ms, You Can Fix This Great Blunder

I must preface this by explaining that I have a life-long love of M&Ms.  Since I was a young-un, I have enjoyed every advertising campaign, and I have enjoyed every variety of M&M.  I have even fallen for strange new packaging; "What?!  M&Ms in a TUBE???  I MUST have them!"  M&M advertising strikes such a lovely chord for me, that in college, I had some plush M&M characters adorning a portion of the wall in my dorm room in a lovely castle (that's right, I was a princess for two years).  Furthermore, my love for M&Ms extends beyond the M&M sub-brand, in that I think I love all the Martian chocolates (chocolate from Mars Bars* would be Martian, correcto?)

Therefore, you can imagine my joyfulness and delight when I saw the adorable and funny commercial regarding the new and very exciting Caramel M&Ms.  I acquired these new M&Ms as soon as I could, and eagerly ate one.  "Ugh, maybe I had a bad taste in my mouth."  I tried another, this time biting half of it so I could gaze upon the lovely layers, as one does.  I ate both halves slowly, being sure to eliminate any pre-existing tastes in my mouth.  My palate was cleared of all but Caramel M&M.  The next one would surely be better.  I tried another, this time eating it like a normal person might, since, as a not-so-normal, I can only guess what a normal might do.  Still no good.  I ate one more, for I became determined to ascertain the cause of this bizarre lack of deliciousness.  I ate this one more slowly and delicately, trying to savor and separate the flavors in the three layers (caramel, chocolate, and candy).  "Ugh, the caramel is gritty, and it's trying to taste like yummy caramel, but isn't quite doing it right."  That was it – the caramel is no good.  How could the wonderful Martians that created the Milky Way with all its delicious parts including delicious caramel, make this caramel blunder?!

Mars Bars, please, if you are reading this, or even if you're not, please fix it.  Make the caramel smooth and delicious, as caramel should be.  I believe you can fix the disgusting gustatory atrocities you dare call Caramel M&Ms.  They are undeserving of such a beautiful name and such a wonderful commercial.  Red was right.

  

*I know Mars Bars is really just Mars, and I've never actually had the thing called a Mars Bar, but Mars Bars rhymes, and I enjoy things that rhyme, so that is how I shall refer to the Martian chocolate company.  I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause.

Sinister Soul

Why dost thou hurt me so, Sinister Soul?

Dost thou seek vengeance?

I know not of what I have done

To thee, or to thy sister, Sinister Soul.

Wilt thou free me of this pain

That thou hast inflicted upon me?

Or shalt the pain remain?

I step upon thee as I move forward,

Or rather, I step with thee;

With thee, and upon thee.

Thou propelest me;

Thou compelest me.

I stand over thee,

And I stand still.

I step with thee,

And I move forward.

Alas, the Sinister Soul of which I speak

Is a part of me.

Sinister Soul, thou art my Sinister Soul.

Thou liest beneath my Sinister Foot.

My Sinister Soul aches so verily.

Dost thou hurt me?

Or do I hurt thee?

'Tis a dichotomy.

Sometimes, my Sinister Soul

Is itchy.

Oh dear, Sinister Soul,

I have misspelled thee!

I did not know, or recall anyway

That you are without a "u"

And silently bear an "e."

Oh, Dear Sinister Sole,

Canst thou forgive me

For mine orthographic atrocity?

In Defense of Trump Supporters and Why They're Wrong

Before I get to the Trump supporters, I must write about the petition that is attempting to stop Trump and why I signed it.  I am politically opposed to Donald Trump, and I have grown to like Hillary Clinton, to the extent that I can like a politician, that is.  But those things have nothing to do with why I signed the Change Dot Org petition.  I signed it because Donald Trump is dangerous; he is a threat to everything that makes America great.  Did you see what I did there?  I turned his motto against him.  I go girl.

The petition is asking the electors to not vote for Trump even if they're "supposed" to since the whole point of the Electoral College is to keep the people from voting for someone who is unfit for the presidency.  Since Hillary won the popular vote anyway, going "against" what the electors are "supposed" to do wouldn't actually oppose the will of the people.  I think the other point of the Electoral College is to help the smaller states be more represented, but I feel like that is less important than the popular vote and the understanding that Trump is dangerous.  I don't know if the petition will actually make a difference, but I signed it anyway, because it's something I can do.  I did hesitate before signing because of things like democracy and the peaceful transition of power, but decided to do it for the reasons I just stated.

I want to be clear regarding my reasons for signing the petition: it isn't because I disagree with Trump politically, even though I do.  This isn't about politics.  It's because he is dangerous.  I would never have signed such a petition against George W. Bush, for example, even though Al Gore won the popular vote and even though I knew (and was proven correct) that W would start wars, run the country into the ground economically, and stifle stem cell research.  Those are political things; he was not a danger to the very fabric of what America stands for. 

As I understand it, the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent a demagogue from becoming president.  I have to admit, I had to look up the definition of demagogue to gain a clearer and better understanding of what the eff that means.  Alarmingly, both Google's and Webster's definitions of demagogue seem to be providing frighteningly precise descriptions of Donald Trump's behavior.  The Google definition is clearer: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."

And now, onto the actual purpose of this post: my defense of Trump supporters.  Before I defend them, I shall offend them.

There are many (two that I know of anyway) people who feel that many Trump supporters are some form of piece of crap, or deplorable, as Hillary more eloquently put it.  I don't think she was wrong to make that statement, since the things she was describing are unquestionably deplorable, and she was obviously not talking about all Trump supporters.  This deplorable sect of supporters seem to be racist, homophobic, white supremacists, opposed to religious freedom, etc, etc, etc.  I am quite sure that there is at least a portion of Trump supporters that fit these categories of pieces of crap, evidenced by the fact that the KKK support Trump, since the KKK is obviously composed of pieces of crap as described here.  For the record, I don't think the pieces of crap are limited to the KKK, based on things I've heard from non-KKK Trump supporters.  However, I am quite sure that these categories do not apply to all Trump supporters; in fact, I personally know at least one who is none of those deplorable things.  But even the non-deplorable among them have chosen to elect a distributor of deplorable; I saw on Myface (Facebook) a post that stated that all Trump supporters might not be racist, but racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them.  That sums it up nicely, I think.  So now that I have offended the Trump supporters, I shall, at long last, defend them.

I will not be defending the deplorable portion of Trump supporters, i.e. the racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.  I will be defending the ones who are not deplorable, for whom deplorable things about Trump were not a deal-breaker.

As crazy as it sounds, I think there are people who wanted to vote for someone who holds their political views.  Some of those people, mostly Republicans probably, only saw one political option, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton.  To be honest, while I understand the political opposition to Hillary by Republicans, it strikes me as odd since she seems moderate to me, and therefore potentially appealing to both parties.  But then again, I also think the same thing of President Obama and John McCain, both of whom are opposed by the other party.  Perhaps this is reflective of people's inability to compromise on anything.  But I digress.

Those Republicans were left with one awful candidate who claims to hold their Republican views, and I think they felt like they couldn't bear to vote for someone on the Democratic side, even though she is moderate.  Oh, I guess the above paragraph wasn't actually a digression after all.  They couldn't bear to compromise their political views, even if it meant electing a dangerous demagogue.

I had trouble empathizing with these voters, until I really imagined myself in their position (I'm normally better at empathy than that, I think).  I imagined a scenario in which an alleged Democratic version of Trump (so Trump from a few years ago then) but with the current state of crazies would run against a Republican whom I find vile as a person (because it seems there are people who hate Hillary as a person as well as a politician) and whose political views are contrary to mine.  So Ted Cruz.  I imagined a Democratic but still just as dangerous version of Trump running against Ted Cruz.  What would I do?  I disagree with Cruz on probably everything, and I don't like anything about him at all.  But he's not a danger to our beloved country the way Trump is.  Cruz wouldn't start a nuclear war because someone hurt his feelings on Twitter.  He wouldn't scapegoat entire races of people the way Hitler did.  He wouldn't attack journalistic freedom.  I would like to believe that I would be able to look past the politics, since this really isn't about politics, and vote for the person who is least evil and least dangerous for our country and its people.  I think I would be able to do that, as hard as it would be to vote for Ted Cruz, because ever since I was little, I understood that politics is always a choice of bad and worse, and we must vote for the lesser of the evils.  In my scenario, Ted Cruz is clearly the lesser of evils when compared to Trump.  While I believe I would ultimately make the right choice and cast the sane vote for Ted Cruz, it would be an incredibly hard decision to make and it would hurt my soul to cast that vote.  So I understand the non-deplorable Trump supporters; it probably would have been too hard for them to vote for Hillary.

And now, I shall get to the part about why the Trump supporters I just defended are wrong.  I do understand how hard their decision was, but they made the wrong one.  They should have been stronger; they should have made the difficult decision to vote against their views that are merely political, and vote for the person who is not a danger to our beloved country and beautiful Earth.  They made the wrong decision.  Now we must all suffer the consequences.  This isn't about politics.

Idol Joy

SPOILER ALERT: American Idol Season 12 Top 4 results are mentioned below.

On March 9, 2013, I added the following to the end of an update at the end of this blog posting about the 2012 season of American Idol:

"If you're interested in my Idol thoughts regarding the 2013 batch, there are currently only four of the Top 10 who I really like, in the following order: Kree Harrison, Lazaro Arbos, Angie Miller, and Devin Velez.  While he is not in the Top 10, I also really like Charlie Askew, who has a wonderfully apt last name that appears to be real.  I hope he finds success and happiness.  Aside from talk of her last name or whether she is pleasantly askew, the same could be said of Aubrey Cleland."

Today, I almost added another update to that blog posting, but then realized this should be a whole new blog posting.  The following is that new blosting (I didn't want to say "blog posing" again...Oops):

Sometime since the 2013 Top Ten were revealed, I grew to also love Candice Glover.  I am now thrilled with the Top 3 such that I would be equally happy with any one of them winning.  Off the top of my head, I cannot recall another Top 3 that I have loved so very much and so very equally.  I want there to be a three way tie.

Regarding my other two (non-Top-3) favorites, my love for them dwindled a bit since both of them took some time off from being great.  Devin never redeemed himself until his Save Me song (or whatever Idol calls it) and I was therefore not sad to see him get voted out.  Lazaro did redeem himself after a few less than wonderful performances, but by the time he was voted out, most of the other contestants were just better than him, so I wasn't heartbroken.  However, I do still love him.

Regarding a non-favorite who I did not mention previously, I do not currently nor have I ever loved Amber Holcomb, and the judges' and Jimmy Iovine's love for her has baffled me throughout this competition, which is interesting since Jimmy once said that he was baffled as to why America doesn't seem to love her like the Idol people do.  I can't speak for all of America, but from my tone-deaf perspective, Amber seems to spend about half her singing time off key.  I think she has had exactly two performances that were good, and I can't remember what they were (which might itself be another indication of why I don't love her).  Anyway, I was thrilled that she was voted out, leaving this magnificent Top 3.

Please note, my comments about all these people refer only to their singings and performances.  I love them all as TV-people, since they all seem to be good people and/or are good at being people.

More Economics from a Dummy

The following has existed as an unpublished draft for more than a year with the second half added a few months ago.  Most of it is probably not relevant anymore.  Enjoy!

As I explained previously, I know just about nothing about economics and my interest in it is nearly non-existent as well, to the extent that I would rather learn about the cell biology of how grass grows or the quantum physics of how paint dries than about economics. However, I have been thinking a little bit about some of the things I put forth in my economic theory, and I think I need to add to it. Like most sequels, this is not as good as the first one.

Fun with Flat Taxes

One of the disjointed parts of my theory involved a flat tax for all. Recently, flat taxes have been the topic of ridicule via the ridicule of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I learned about that plant from a chart someone posted on Facebook, and some googling I did later (though I apparently didn't save the links I learned from). It seems that Herman Cain would charge a 9% income tax for people and corporations, and a 9% national sales tax to either replace or add to state taxes. I’m not clear on the latter because I’m not clear on the difference between the apples and oranges he keeps talking about in the clips of debates I’ve seen on The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report (like this one). Herman Cain would also remove all tax deductions. Based on other clips of things I’ve seen on The Daily Colbert (here's one), it seems that Rick Perry also has a flat tax plan where he would charge 20% taxes for all while keeping tax deductions in place.  (Herman Cain and Rick Perry were Republican candidates who lost the primaries for the 2012 presidential election.  These now-obscure references are partially what render this blog posting no longer relevant.)

Obviously, Herman Cain and Rick Perry got these ideas from my blog, because there is simply no other possible explanation of how one could think of a flat tax or simplifying the overly complicated tax code. I spoke of a flat tax, as part of my three-disjointed-pronged economic plan that could easily make me president, and they took that idea and added some stuff that I do not approve of and never intended for. Please note: I am not crazy (at least in this respect), nor am I serious about having any part in Herman Cain’s or Rick Perry’s plan making.

Lots of people (well, at least one person) feel that Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a terrible idea, and I agree for the reasons those people state. Someone at the Huffington Post explained that it would end up taxing lower income people a bit more than they are currently taxed, and it would drastically reduce taxes for corporations and the very wealthy by a lot. I haven’t googled Rick Perry’s plan, but it seems like it might be an improvement on Cain’s plan.  Clearly, that’s quite an endorsement, since it is coming from my uneconomical brain via my blog-typing fingers, I mean digits (because digits are economically related!).

While Herman Cain’s flat tax plan is clearly not fair and good, I still believe that my flat tax plan could be fair and good. My plan is extremely vague, which leaves it open to suggestions from people who know about the economics. If you don’t feel like going back and reading about my plan, I will re-state it and de-Cain it here: We should pick some percentage, and charge that percentage of tax to all people. I don’t know what that percentage would be, but I would want it to be a fair one for all. Furthermore, this would only apply to taxable people, and says nothing about how to tax corporations. Despite what the Supreme Court says, I cannot include corporations in the semantics of “People”; my brain simply won’t allow it. Thus, how to tax corporations is another thing that is left vague in my tax plan for people smarter and more knowledgeable than I to handle when I become president. I’m kidding of course -- I still won’t run for president. Anyhoo, my tax plan would not have anything to do with sales tax, since I would never have thought of changing the way sales tax is, and after reading the Huff-Po article, it’s clear that it would be wrong to give the power of sales tax to the Federal Government. Regarding Herman Cain’s removal of all tax deductions, I think I would leave that vague also, because I think some deductions are good, so long as they don’t allow people to screw over the government via loopholes and abuses and such. Yes, I think that is sufficiently vague to ensure success.

Speculators are Evil! Eeeeeeviiiiiil!

One of the other disjointed portions of my theory states that commodities trading is wrong and should be eradicated. Later, it occurred to me that there is a precedent for my proposed illegalization of commodities trading: insider trading! Like insider trading, commodities trading hurts the whole economy while benefiting a few traders. I assume that is why insider trading is illegal, and so, commodities trading should be too.

Political Predictions

This does not in any way bring me to another disjointed, unrelated point.  This point is so unrelated, in fact, that it has very little to do with economics.  Jon Stewart delineated the bizarre doomsday-like predictions Republican presidential candidates make and have made in the past regarding the horrors that would befall this great land if Obama was/is (re)-elected.  He highlighted the bizarreness of these predictions by emphasizing that the previous predictions have not come to fruition.  This brought to my mind the predictions I made about what could happen if George W. Bush were elected president.  The difference, however, is that my predictions came true, except that W. was not actually elected (the first time anyway).

At the time of my correct predictions, this blog did not exist.  Instead, I had a verbal blog, i.e. I occasionally told people what my thoughts were.  Thus, I verbally pre-blogged (or “told”) at least one family member or friend (but probably more than one) that if George W. Bush became president, we would undoubtedly go to war, and the economy would suffer.  Obviously both things happened.

The economy thing could have happened anyway.  From what I barely understand, it seems that it is possible that the economy simply goes through cycles, and whoever is president at the time either gets credit for a strong economy, or is blamed for a bad economy.  However, I’m pretty sure President W. Bush caused all these economic problems we have now that I am trying to fix via this blog.  I know this because I heard during Mr. W. Bush’s campaign that he ran every business he had ever owned into the ground, so I naturally deduced that he would therefore run this country into the ground, since its economy is but a giant business (or so I assume).

I knew that Present W. Bush would bring us to war because he stated during his campaign that if anyone, in any way, attacked us or harmed us or whatever, we would go to war.  He said this in such a way that sounded to me as if he were looking to go to war, and would react to any trigger with war.  Clearly, that made me nervous.

So, to conclude, I was right, but I wasn’t making crazy predictions based on nothing; I was making accurate predictions based on things I heard during a presidential campaign.  Furthermore, I am a predicting genius!  But I sill won’t run for president!