Archive for bullshit and office talk

i hate DHL.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on Monday 23 July 2007 by amanda

i would just like to state for the record that I hate DHL. they are the devil. i sent a couple of boxes to myself in hungary from new york, clearly stating that they were for me, non-commercial, etc. they arrived here last wednesday. it’s monday afternoon. they are still stuck in customs. why? i’m not sure. they have asked for many forms, but only 1 per day or so…so they are processing at an incredibly slow rate. i really needed the stuff in those boxes last friday, which is why i shipped them to arrive Wednesday…you know, to be safe. bull SHIT. i’m pissed.

my job

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on Tuesday 24 April 2007 by amanda

i’d like to take a few minutes to talk about my job.  i would like to do this, because in some quarters i work at a pretty controvertial place, and for a pretty controvertial person.  i work for george soros, at his foundation in midtown new york.  i work in the scholarships department, which means that i administer money to students to go to college.  i bring this up because a lot of people don’t like george soros.  he sees no problems with making billions off the markets and then giving away hundreds of millions each year to people and organizations around the world.  he also does a lot of personal funding on the political side.  OSI’s not involved with any of his Moveon.org donations or political stuff, because we’re a tax-exempt organization and have lobbying restrictions.  trust me, the government (particularly this administration) is watching us pretty closely. 

i’m posting two different ways in which we’ve been publicized lately, one by bill o’reilly *his craziness* and one in Forbes magazine.  personally, i think the work we do is pretty good.  but that’s just me.

 Here’s Bill.  (it’s about a 10 minute clip but totally worth watching, especially for the flow chart).

And here’s the Forbes article: 


Forbes.com
On The Cover/Top Stories

Burma‘s Billionaires
David Serchuk 04.23.07

George Soros spends $2 million a year trying to pave the way for democracy in
Burma. It’s a tricky operation. Naturally, the head of his Burma Project is banned in
Burma, where ruthless military dictatorships have ruled for decades. And Soros

is unwelcome in neighboring Thailand, home to 2 million refugees who have fled
Burma. What’s more,
Thailand won’t recognize these people as refugees, making them that much harder to help.

Continue reading

organic chicken versus chemical chicken

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on Friday 2 March 2007 by amanda

yesterday i was working with a guy in my office on a project, and we got to talking. he’s an environmentalist and an all-around interesting guy – fun to talk to. we start talking about organic food products. i observed that in many parts of the world, organic food is all people eat because small farms are still used and not the large corporate producers that use so many chemicals, steroids and other hormones and antibiotics that we find in our fruit, vegetable and meat products here in the US on a regular basis. dan observed that he thinks that the use of the word organic is kind of ridiculous. it makes him think back to university days chemistry class – organic is carbon-based and non-organic (inorganic) is not carbon-based. it’s a fascinating use for the term. i’ve done some minimal hunting for the origin of the usage in this way but so far have not come up with anything.

anyway, this led us to conclude that it really is kind of ridiculous to “specially label” something that is in a more “natural” (largely unaltered by human genetic, hormonal or chemical intervention) state than something that has been deliberately modified or treated. therefore, we should drop organic as a term and simply call all food that is treated “chemical” i like the sound of it. i think that it would do wonders for the “organic” market.

conservapedia

Posted in Life in general with tags , , , on Thursday 1 March 2007 by amanda

wow.  fascinating and scary site, Conservapedia is the conservative (get it??) response to wikipedia, which is apparently a liberal, anti-christian, anti-american site.  i had no idea it was so controvertial!  anyway, check out this little snippet – their page on unicorns.

Unicorn

From Conservapedia

The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.

In the original texts, unicorns go by the Hebrew name Re-em whereas the Greek Septuagint used the name Monokeros.[2] Unicorn itself is Latin. All three names mean “one horn“.

While popularly characterized as a horned member of the horse baramin, it is likely that the unicorn was actually quite unhorselike. One recognized theory is that the unicorn was actually the rhinoceros,[1] however a growing number of Creation researchers are theorizing that the unicorn was actually a member of the ceratopsian baramin.[2]

Post-Noachian references[1] to unicorns have led some researchers to argue that unicorns are still alive today. At the very least, it is likely that they were taken aboard the Ark prior to the Great Flood.

 Totally insane. (the insane comment is back to me)  i cannot believe how out-there some people are.  if you are a crazy right-wing neo-christian conservative that would like to explain to me why that is not insane, please do.  i yearn to know. 

thursday morning headache

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on Thursday 21 September 2006 by amanda

i am starting to wonder if it is even possible to keep up with the news. do we each have to choose our own little corner of it and keep up with that? or is everything just actually bullshit? i wonder because i have this recurring problem where i will make a statement about something political, and this guy, Jim, is constantly disagreeing with me and making vague references to lots of details that I can’t claim to have knowledge of. Example…we’re talking about Colin Powell and his failures under the Bush administration, and Jim says “well, i don’t think we should have really been that surprised…look at his record. personally i can find a great deal of fault with a lot of things that Powell has done in his past, and i’m sure you can too”. now, i’m not an expert on military history, and i can’t even claim to have a detailed off-the-top-of-my-head knowledge of Powell’s personal career history. However, Jim’s particular comment made it difficult for me to engage further in that conversation unless I claimed to know more about Powell’s history than I do, unless I was looking for a history lesson from Jim, which I wasn’t. So was this Jim just knowing more about the subject than me, or was this a way of implying that he knows much more than he does?

I wouldn’t question it, but he does things like that on a regular basis…and I don’t know whether he manages to know a LOT about lots of different things or if he’s just full of shit.