Wednesday, January 31, 2007

More on Sexy Chefs


Apparently, and unbeknownst to me when I made my Giada de Laurentiis post a few weeks ago, Rachel Ray actually fired a broadside at Giada in 2005, posing for a few pictures for FHM.

Uhm, rawr? She's dreamy. She's not got the freaky saxophone music, or the moans and closed eyes, but I'll take chocolate sauce and black bras as a close second.

Anyway, the reason this is coming up is that on today's episode of Rachel Ray, as I listened to it while Kirsten watched, was perhaps the greatest chef quote ever:
"If you're having a little trouble [in the bedroom], just get yourself a big tub of hummas and rub it all over!" This, by the way, was from a segment about food myths. Apparently hummus and outmeal both promote good heart health, which is good for the libido.

I find myself both nauseated and aroused. I'll never look at middle eastern cooking (or gigantic Quakers) the same again.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Useless Information Bureau


Please note that the song "In Cars" was not by the band Cars, unlike the eponymous track "Bad Company."

This fulfills my obligation to use the word "eponymous."

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Consequences of Good Martinis


Kirsten and I just had an (admittedly brief) conversation about the looks of current and former New York Yankees players.

Let me interject here and say that, while I might be drunk, I am still comfortable enough in my sexuality that I can admit that certain men are, indeed, far better-looking men than I. Like, say, Ashton Kutcher, Michael Vartan, or Lyle Lovett.

On with the story...

Anyway, this conversation was brought on by flipping to a TV story about Alex Rodriguez and his work with folks less fortunate than him, which would be pretty much all of us. Kirsten told me that she didn't think Alex Rodriguez was all that handsome - I agreed with her, and we both decided that Derek Jeter was more handsome in that polished, metrosexual, not-at-all gay way. Then the subject of Roger Clemens came up, and we decided that he's handsome in a rugged, older-man-chopping-wood-for-the-barbecue kind of way.

We're still working on classifying David Wells. The best we can come up with is Santa Claus after a three-week bender.

Monday, January 22, 2007

I've Got the Blues


Random Super Bowl Fact: Both teams in the Super Bowl have chromatically-similar uniforms. The Bears and Colts, playing at home, wear blue jerseys and white pants. As far as I can tell, The only other similar possible combination (in Super Bowl play) would be the Bears and Texans (Blue shirts, white pants). In fact, that would actually be more of a match, because both teams also wear white shirts and blue pants for the away games.

As far as the conference championship games go?

Holy.

Fucking.

Shit.

The Bears beat the tar out of the Saints, seizing on a momentum shift the same way George Lucas grabs onto bad dialogue and moderately-predictable character names. I have no idea why the Colts are favored in the Super Bowl - I believe the Bears will destroy them.

And, finally, I discovered that former Super Bowl-winning quarterback Mark Rypien is still on an NFL roster. Despite the fact that he's 44 years old, the Seahawks continue to give him a salary.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

NFL Picks, Championship Week


I just bought a fedora. A gray fedora, with a feather from a quail.

It's awesome.

In other, non-hat-related (and therefore unimportant) news, from four will rise two: the NFC and AFC Championship games are today.

Saints at Bears: No dome team has ever won a championship game on the road in an outdoor stadium. Is this year the year? Only Rex Grossman knows, but I say yes. NO
Patriots at Colts: Because I don't know which team is better, but because I am sick of the Patriots winning everything (12-1 in their last 13 postseason games, including three Super Bowls, all in February), I'm going with Home Team Wins. IND

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

On the Subject of Minimum Wage


Minimum wage increases over the last 50 years have, except in two cases, resulted in decreasing unemployment within 18 months.

Here's why:
Joe Blow makes, say, 5 dollars an hour. All of a sudden he makes six dollars an hour.

That means he earns an extra 160-200 dollars a month.

Joe, because he is poor, is more likely to spend this new money than someone who is not - because Joe has needs or basic capitalist desires that might not already be taken care of (such as buying a microwave, which he regards as a need, instead of buying a replacement microwave, which is generally regarded as a want). So Joe spends his money on manufactured home goods.

There is an small (traditionally, according to BLS figures, it's about .2 percent in the first three months) increase in unemployment at the low-wage end of things at this point, because some minimum-wage places will cut staff to avoid raising prices.

At any rate, Joe Blow and people like him will buy more stuff. This creates an increased demand for manufactured goods. At first, there is no corollary increase in manufacturing jobs, because companies tend not to hire at a surge in demand - they hire when there's a long-term demand increase. After several months, manufacturing companies will get a clue and hire more people. These new hires are all of a sudden earning decent wages, well above minimum - and other employees are working more hours. In both cases, there is another increase in money into the economy from corporations, via increased/new wages and salaries.

Again, according to the BLS, manufacturing-sector employment numbers traditionally jump about six-nine months after a minimum wage increase. So do wages for manufacturing jobs, as companies compete for workers.

These people will spend more time eating out at restaurants, which are the major purveyors of minimum-wage jobs. These restaurants, because of increased demand, will hire minimum-wage staff again, cutting the unemployment rate.

The manufacturing employees and the minimum-wage employees will continue to spend money on durable goods, automobiles, et cetera. Those sectors will grow.

People in all sectors will spend more money on entertainment, travel, and vacations. THESE sectors will grow.

The usual drop in unemployment within 18 months of a minimum-wage increase is around 1 percent (that's 1 percent of total wage-earners or job-seekers, not one percent relative to unemployed folks only).

Now, eventually, inflation will counteract this increase in the minimum wage. Prices for durable or home goods, travel, and entertainment will again increase out of the range of low-wage earners, the manufacturing sector will suffer, and we'll return to about where we are today. Then the minimum wage will be increased again, and the cycle starts anew.

It's true that prices on goods will increase, but think about this: The average wal-mart has about 200 hourly employees. Let's pretend, for a moment, that every hourly employee makes minimum wage (not true - almost all already make more than 6 bucks an hour). The average wal-mart sells $44,000,000 in goods annually (source:BizStats.com). The average wal-mart gross profit margin is 21%, or $9.24 million.

So here's some math: assuming every wal-mart employee works forty hours a week, that comes to $2,142,400 in salaries, plus another 10 percent, give or take, in payroll taxes accrued by wal-mart (total: $2,356,640). Let's increase minimum wage to 7.25 an hour, which gives us (including payroll taxes) $3,317,600. Without raising prices one cent, wal-mart will continue to make $8.28 million in profits per store every year. If wal-mart wants to continue making the same amount of profits, they would have to increase prices, across the board, by 960 thousand dollars, which compared to current prices is an increase of two cents on the dollar.

If you saw an increase of two cents on the dollar, when you buy a flat-screen TV for $1000 at wal-mart, you're paying a grand total of another 20 bucks. Pardon me while I don't cry for you.

Most prices will probably increase, over the course of a year, by a total of five cents on the dollar.

To reiterate:
-Minimum wage increases DO cause unemployment increases in low-wage sectors. However, this is temporary, and eventually employment in this sector returns to pre-increase levels, and sometimes above.
-Minimum wage increases DO cause hiring binges, although with a lag time, in durable goods and manufacturing sectors, and with a longer lag time, in entertainment and vacation businesses.
-Minimum wage increases cause increases in taxes received by the government, allowing us to a) cut taxes, or b) balance the budget, or c) both, while maintaining the current level of services provided.
-Minimum wage increases DO cause price increases, but these price increases are, indeed, worth sneezing at.

And, by the way, if you are complaining that your current job does not allow you to afford new goods, GET A NEW ONE. That is, after all, what people always say to those who work for the minimum and complain about their wages, right? If the poor can work two jobs to make ends meet, then so can the rest of us.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Cooking With Ron Jeremy


This post has only one reference to kielbasa - the one I just made.

Kirsten and I have taken up watching cooking shows; more accurately, Kirsten has started watching cooking shows and I listen in the background whilst playing on The Google. Anyway, there are the standard Iron Chefs and Rachel Rays running around on our TiVo, but there's also a show called Everyday Italian, hosted by Giada de Laurentiis (daughter of the movie producers). The recipes are easy and, of course, the Italian ingredients are over-pronounced, but Kirsten thinks I only watch the show with her because Giada has a nice figure.

While it's true that Ms. de Laurentiis is quite pretty, she's hardly the only reason to watch the show (some others are elucidated above, do ye ken?). The real reason is that there's no audience, it's just her and her food. And the music - honestly, the music is awful. It's muzak, really, or porn music. And when she eats, she makes all these little moaning, "mmm" sounds that I associate with women having sex in bad porno movies.

And so I patiently watch the show, every day, waiting for the closed eyes and the chin back, and Giada going "mmm" to the sultry sounds of a saxophone wailing in the background. It really is like the Playboy channel with prosciutto.

That's a bacon reference, by the way.

Anyway, here are this week's NFL picks, for the divisional round of the playoffs. Four games this weekend.

Colts at Ravens: Peyton Manning is bad in January, the Colts can't expect the Chiefs to not game plan, and the Ravens don't have to depend on Jamal Lewis the way that the Chiefs thought they had to depend on Larry Johnson. All of these spell doom for the white and blue. BAL
Eagles at Saints: I cannot in good conscience root against the Saints this week. NOR
Seahawks at Bears: Here's the thing: I really want the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl this year, because they deserved it last year. And while Rex Grossman turned in a stinker in the last game of the season for the Bears, I just don't believe that the Bears defense will let them down when it counts. CHI
Patriots at Chargers: LT + jet lag = loss for the coach in the hoodie. SDG

Saturday, January 06, 2007

NFL Playoff Picks, Wild Card (Week 1)


The second season is now upon us. And while I don't have a horse in this race (the Bengals being knocked out by the Steelers last week), I still enjoy watching championship-caliber play. More to the point, I really enjoy watching playoffs of any sport, basketball and hockey included. And I usually hate those sports.

Prognostications:
Chiefs at Colts: The Chiefs can, should, and will win this game. The Colts opened up the season strong, but fell off really precipitously when teams realized that they could run the ball down the Colts' throats with impunity. Last week, the blue and white defense from Indianapolis gave Texans RB Ron Dayne a 100-yard game for the first time since 2001. The Chiefs have Larry Johnson, who's far better than Dayne, although he doesn't have the same goatee. KC in the upset.
Cowboys at Seahawks: ESPN is trumpeting Romo-to-Owens as the solution to all of the Cowboys' ills. I think they're forgetting that the Seahawks are a pretty good team, with a great stadium home advantage. SEA
Jets at Patriots: These teams split the season series, each winning in the other's house. But there's a difference between the regular season and the playoffs. Eric Mangini, the Jest rookie head coach, may think he knows that difference, but Bill Belichick is the master of the postseason domain. NE
Giants at Eagles: Tom Coughlin will get fired after this game. PHI