Part 1
1. Semi-nationalization of Citi, BoA. Hold preferred stock. Shares purchased under $4. Replace board. Cut at least 30% of jobs. Enact relative pay scale (hierarchy. person above makes no more than 20%), performance-based bonuses based on profits of your group, not company revenues. Legitimate consumer credit bill of rights. Cap interest at 10%. Ethics reform in lending.
2. Waiver, en masse, of personal credit card debt.
3. Government takes hit on stock price. Probably goes under a dollar.
4. Kill dividend (if not already done). Operate at a loss for at least a quarter, maybe 3. Government infuses cash if necessary to keep company afloat.
5. Dumb Americans start using their credit cards again.
6. Companies then become attractive because of the incredibly low stock price. Stock price goes up quickly.
7. When companies in black, begin systematic sell-off.
Part 2
1. Cancel student loan debt
This is a bi-partisan measure. It satisfies the Republicans because it gives the individual choice to spend her money. It is also a market solution to the problem and would have immediate effects. Instead of the government choosing which industries to subsidize, it allows the individual to spend money in a hugely diverse set of ways. Also, depending on how much the government has to spend to sustain viability, the government will make a large amount of money in the end; profiting on selling shares purchased for almost nothing.
These companies should not get back to the market cap of old. They were completely inflated and unsustainable. A new ethical lending system would immediately help the economy.
The price of education in this country sends a strong message - if you were born poor, you will stay poor. Yes, some poor people are able to attend schools because of grants, but this is only for the elite of the poor. I have no study to cite, but I would be willing to bet grades in high school have a very low correlation with overall financial success in life. Grants do nothing for average students or students not performing well because of centuries-old institutional barriers to education.
Furthermore, the number of people having to work jobs they do not want in order to pay off debt is crippling our society. Imagine what could be done regarding poverty and social justice issues if lawyers and doctors did not have $100k+ loans to pay off. Imagine the immediate economic stimulus an extra $300 a month in the pockets of working professionals would provide. Or the number of small businesses that could emerge which lead to the next Google and Microsoft.
There are also psychological aspects to these ideas; something that should never be overlooked or underdeveloped. (one example - consumer confidence is one of the largest factors behind the value of our money) Never underestimate the impact of people feeling happy about their situation in life. People happy in life need less, which works towards a more environmentally sustainable future. A more educated population leads to a more diverse set of ideas, ultimately leading to the most effective and encompassing solutions to problems. The last 3 economic crises have shown what happens when the top 5% of people go to the top 5% of schools and run everything. We are no longer in the industrial revolution where we can sustain society by having a small elite group of educated individuals control all decisions and let the rest of the hoi polloi work factory jobs. These measures also show we really do value education in our country instead of it just being another political talking point. Education is now absolutely necessary to compete globally. Imagine throwing our collective intelligence at solving our issues instead of just letting the precious few who are lucky enough not to have to work 20 years in a job they do not want to pay off something as necessary as an education.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Work Out Music
Why is it that every time I'm working out in the gym, and believe me, I do some serious working out, the music pumped out over the speakers is so mellow? How's a guy supposed to get his 1,000 sit-ups or 500 hip-thrusts in when all he has to listen to is Enya or Dido. Granted I am a fan of this music, just not when I'm raging on a 5 hour energy shot and my fourth cycle of steroids in the past month.
Prove Me Wrong
Stikman
Prove Me Wrong
Stikman
3.0
Lyrical madmen, words punching with fury
Fuck a snowstorm, we make your mind blurry
Hurry when you hear us comin, cause we runnin
We don’t stop; we shawn kemp, we stay sonnin
Effortless wordplay, we do it without pay
Constantly smoking like after a good lay
Double entendres worthy of high praise
Make this rap malaise go poof like a cloud of some good haze
We carry a purpose, your game cant usurp this
You all out of time, caught up in a web like chris
Travel to my mind, there will neva be another like me
Leave you in an alley, then oop with the wifey
We stern with the words, you foul like birds
Fuck a snowstorm, we make your mind blurry
Hurry when you hear us comin, cause we runnin
We don’t stop; we shawn kemp, we stay sonnin
Effortless wordplay, we do it without pay
Constantly smoking like after a good lay
Double entendres worthy of high praise
Make this rap malaise go poof like a cloud of some good haze
We carry a purpose, your game cant usurp this
You all out of time, caught up in a web like chris
Travel to my mind, there will neva be another like me
Leave you in an alley, then oop with the wifey
We stern with the words, you foul like birds
Monday, February 16, 2009
Racial Profiling
The more we learn about human behavior, the more it seems we are governed in large part by fear. Unfortunately the conservative movement of the 20th Century understood and capitalized on this idea. A person’s most cherished feeling is the safety of themselves and people they love. To me, this is the most basic of human feelings. (Perhaps I am talking about the id?) In many ways, this is the basis for a lot of political ideas, and it illustrates a fatal flaw in the ability to change a person’s mind in that arena.
Suppose we say ideas of fairness and justice are not at the same basic human level as the need for safety. (I guess they are the superego?) If this is the case, people will think highly of the lofty goals of fairness and justice unless they interfere with safety. I believe this is the driving force behind our politics. Conservatives realized this Freudian notion of reducing political talk to appeal to the id, and I believe it is a major reason why today we find it acceptable to even discuss singling out someone because of their race. Now all lawmakers need to do in order to accomplish almost anything they want is say our safety is at threat. This visceral appeal completely blinds any rational or logical follow-up.
Enter racial profiling. People know it is wrong to single out an Arab because of her race in the housing context because it is unfair and unjust. Ideas of racial harmony in housing do not really threaten our safety (of course one can come up with an example but that is not the point), so most people correctly view racial discrimination in housing as a matter of fairness and justice. But crime is different because the ideas appeal to our need for safety. Say a person says to a group of people, “What would you think if Proctor and Gamble only interviewed white people for their jobs?” Most people would find something wrong with that. What if Proctor and Gamble defended themselves by saying, “It is our experience that white people excel in these open positions. We are not saying all white people are good at this position or that all non-white people are unable to perform this position; we just find it more efficient only to target white people. Why would we interview everyone when we know from our history that white people will outperform everyone else?” Most people would see this as completely unfair and unjust. Of course the white people P&G targeted in the past were successful. P&G only targeted white people in the past! Plus, only white people had the access to education and other opportunities to put them in the situation of being able to succeed. Is it any wonder white people have been successful at P&G? A feedback loop of self-justification is no reason to enact this policy and the courts would shut it down in a second. Why is it we think this is any different from crime?
It seems it is because of the aforementioned visceral nature of crime politics. People view it as unfair only to target Arabs, but if it is for reasons to keep us safe, our minds militate toward safety. We look around and see all kinds of historical institutional barriers to opportunity keeping blacks behind in this country. We know for a fact that a lack of education leads to a reduced ability to compete in the job market. An inability to secure stable work leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime. Whites partake in drugs just as much as blacks in this country. Whites drive more cars than blacks in this country. Statistically there are more drugs in “white” cars than “black” cars (number of “white” cars on road > number of “black” cars. White drug use = black drug use. Therefore number of “white” drugs on road > number of “black” drugs on road). So why do we eschew empirical data telling us racial profiling is ineffective in favor of a feeling of safety? Why do we require so much thought and deliberation on issues such as trade policy but totally accept any anti-crime measure that makes us feel better?
I think the reasoning has to do with the otherization of criminals. We can explain away harsh measures taken against criminals because we can always say they were not like us. They were just a bad apple and a bad apple should not spoil the bunch. I believe this thought process is a prominent reason behind the delay of several social justice efforts. I also believe this thought process is the reason civil rights advocates should think about altering their strategies. The demographics of the country are clear; and in order to effect change, a movement must change the minds of at least a certain percent of the dominant white majority. I feel the way to do this is to appeal to their visceral level and not just their social justice level. Saying unfairly targeting blacks is wrong appeals to their superego, but their id is still comfortable in its life. It still feels safe and feels no threat from the unfair treatment of blacks. And all they have to do to appeal to their confirmation bias is seek out one or two examples showing blacks are in fact criminal in nature and the most likely to have drugs. This further harms social change because it reaffirms their views of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Sure we saw the police harass a well-dressed black lawyer, but it is an acceptable cost in order to keep us safe.
For these reasons I think the best strategy against racial profiling is a comprehensive discrediting of both the criminal justice system itself and the war on drugs without looking through a racial lens. It seems the information is out there to show how completely corrupt so much of it is and how much advantage someone at the top of the socioeconomic ladder has. Even the studies about racial profiling are corrupt (or at least flawed to the point of irrelevance). It is insane to think self-reporting by police officers will result in anything other than what they want to report. The fact that profiling was found in that case should indicate just how pervasive it is. I say no racial lens because of the otherization phenomenon. Of course racial minorities feel the brunt of these policies, but a message must appeal to a person’s id to be most effective. The white power structure, through no fault of their own, simply is not able to empathize with certain feelings of minorities. This must be recognized. Instead of saying, “look how unfair this is for minorities!” a more effective message could be, “This happens to people like you. You thought mistreatment only happens to the downtrodden, but it happens everywhere. The entire system is set up to only benefit the privileged few.” I realize the ACLU attempted to do this by showing the mistreatment of what most would consider “normal” people, but the ACLU itself is otherized by society. People will just think the ACLU handpicked people to prove their “far out” points. And any mention of race will automatically bring rejection of your entire point from a large number of people who think blacks have been complaining far too long.
Instead of falling into the trap of arguing why the prohibition of drugs is unjust and responding to the reasons drug warriors give for their illegality (the debate is framed around drugs affecting our safety), argue why it is nonsensical and hypocritical. Show the racist and big money interests leading to their banishment in the first place. Get people to think about why they draw arbitrary lines between marijuana and asprin / tobacco / caffeine / alcohol / antidepressants. Show how regulated, mature use is not antithetical to safety in the same way as the previously mentioned drugs. Show how the government classifies marijuana as a class 1 drug with no medical value whatsoever. Then show the many recent medical breakthroughs. Then show the incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lobby the government to keep drugs illegal. Then show how much money private prisons make by locking drug offenders up.
Show how OJ got off because he was rich (as an added bonus, you subtly get racist whites on your side). Show how we would be in less of an economic disaster if the criminal justice system used its resources on stopping the elites from manipulating the economy in their favor as opposed to focusing on black youth. Show how few times a police officer has been prosecuted for perjury in the same way a normal citizen would when they are shown to lie on the stand. Show how few officers have been prosecuted for a person dying in their custody. Show how few officers have been indicted for assault and battery in the same way a normal citizen would. Show how officers hide behind the “thin blue line”. Show how officers routinely let other officers violate the law. Show how local police are often simply a revenue boosting operation.
If people lose their faith in the system, their feelings of safety derived from that system vanish. This affects their base desires and leads to change.
Suppose we say ideas of fairness and justice are not at the same basic human level as the need for safety. (I guess they are the superego?) If this is the case, people will think highly of the lofty goals of fairness and justice unless they interfere with safety. I believe this is the driving force behind our politics. Conservatives realized this Freudian notion of reducing political talk to appeal to the id, and I believe it is a major reason why today we find it acceptable to even discuss singling out someone because of their race. Now all lawmakers need to do in order to accomplish almost anything they want is say our safety is at threat. This visceral appeal completely blinds any rational or logical follow-up.
Enter racial profiling. People know it is wrong to single out an Arab because of her race in the housing context because it is unfair and unjust. Ideas of racial harmony in housing do not really threaten our safety (of course one can come up with an example but that is not the point), so most people correctly view racial discrimination in housing as a matter of fairness and justice. But crime is different because the ideas appeal to our need for safety. Say a person says to a group of people, “What would you think if Proctor and Gamble only interviewed white people for their jobs?” Most people would find something wrong with that. What if Proctor and Gamble defended themselves by saying, “It is our experience that white people excel in these open positions. We are not saying all white people are good at this position or that all non-white people are unable to perform this position; we just find it more efficient only to target white people. Why would we interview everyone when we know from our history that white people will outperform everyone else?” Most people would see this as completely unfair and unjust. Of course the white people P&G targeted in the past were successful. P&G only targeted white people in the past! Plus, only white people had the access to education and other opportunities to put them in the situation of being able to succeed. Is it any wonder white people have been successful at P&G? A feedback loop of self-justification is no reason to enact this policy and the courts would shut it down in a second. Why is it we think this is any different from crime?
It seems it is because of the aforementioned visceral nature of crime politics. People view it as unfair only to target Arabs, but if it is for reasons to keep us safe, our minds militate toward safety. We look around and see all kinds of historical institutional barriers to opportunity keeping blacks behind in this country. We know for a fact that a lack of education leads to a reduced ability to compete in the job market. An inability to secure stable work leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime. Whites partake in drugs just as much as blacks in this country. Whites drive more cars than blacks in this country. Statistically there are more drugs in “white” cars than “black” cars (number of “white” cars on road > number of “black” cars. White drug use = black drug use. Therefore number of “white” drugs on road > number of “black” drugs on road). So why do we eschew empirical data telling us racial profiling is ineffective in favor of a feeling of safety? Why do we require so much thought and deliberation on issues such as trade policy but totally accept any anti-crime measure that makes us feel better?
I think the reasoning has to do with the otherization of criminals. We can explain away harsh measures taken against criminals because we can always say they were not like us. They were just a bad apple and a bad apple should not spoil the bunch. I believe this thought process is a prominent reason behind the delay of several social justice efforts. I also believe this thought process is the reason civil rights advocates should think about altering their strategies. The demographics of the country are clear; and in order to effect change, a movement must change the minds of at least a certain percent of the dominant white majority. I feel the way to do this is to appeal to their visceral level and not just their social justice level. Saying unfairly targeting blacks is wrong appeals to their superego, but their id is still comfortable in its life. It still feels safe and feels no threat from the unfair treatment of blacks. And all they have to do to appeal to their confirmation bias is seek out one or two examples showing blacks are in fact criminal in nature and the most likely to have drugs. This further harms social change because it reaffirms their views of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Sure we saw the police harass a well-dressed black lawyer, but it is an acceptable cost in order to keep us safe.
For these reasons I think the best strategy against racial profiling is a comprehensive discrediting of both the criminal justice system itself and the war on drugs without looking through a racial lens. It seems the information is out there to show how completely corrupt so much of it is and how much advantage someone at the top of the socioeconomic ladder has. Even the studies about racial profiling are corrupt (or at least flawed to the point of irrelevance). It is insane to think self-reporting by police officers will result in anything other than what they want to report. The fact that profiling was found in that case should indicate just how pervasive it is. I say no racial lens because of the otherization phenomenon. Of course racial minorities feel the brunt of these policies, but a message must appeal to a person’s id to be most effective. The white power structure, through no fault of their own, simply is not able to empathize with certain feelings of minorities. This must be recognized. Instead of saying, “look how unfair this is for minorities!” a more effective message could be, “This happens to people like you. You thought mistreatment only happens to the downtrodden, but it happens everywhere. The entire system is set up to only benefit the privileged few.” I realize the ACLU attempted to do this by showing the mistreatment of what most would consider “normal” people, but the ACLU itself is otherized by society. People will just think the ACLU handpicked people to prove their “far out” points. And any mention of race will automatically bring rejection of your entire point from a large number of people who think blacks have been complaining far too long.
Instead of falling into the trap of arguing why the prohibition of drugs is unjust and responding to the reasons drug warriors give for their illegality (the debate is framed around drugs affecting our safety), argue why it is nonsensical and hypocritical. Show the racist and big money interests leading to their banishment in the first place. Get people to think about why they draw arbitrary lines between marijuana and asprin / tobacco / caffeine / alcohol / antidepressants. Show how regulated, mature use is not antithetical to safety in the same way as the previously mentioned drugs. Show how the government classifies marijuana as a class 1 drug with no medical value whatsoever. Then show the many recent medical breakthroughs. Then show the incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lobby the government to keep drugs illegal. Then show how much money private prisons make by locking drug offenders up.
Show how OJ got off because he was rich (as an added bonus, you subtly get racist whites on your side). Show how we would be in less of an economic disaster if the criminal justice system used its resources on stopping the elites from manipulating the economy in their favor as opposed to focusing on black youth. Show how few times a police officer has been prosecuted for perjury in the same way a normal citizen would when they are shown to lie on the stand. Show how few officers have been prosecuted for a person dying in their custody. Show how few officers have been indicted for assault and battery in the same way a normal citizen would. Show how officers hide behind the “thin blue line”. Show how officers routinely let other officers violate the law. Show how local police are often simply a revenue boosting operation.
If people lose their faith in the system, their feelings of safety derived from that system vanish. This affects their base desires and leads to change.
2.0
With mixed metaphors
I’m never bored
Tongue lashin like Kunta
Come join this junta
This new movement is improvements
Mouths fresher than two mints
Pens on paper don’t leave prints
They imprint your mind with subtle hints
Conjure up the imagery
Close your eyes, it’s plain to see
The gatekeeper, we're meant to be
To a lyrical land of ubiquity
Hear our word play on our worst day
Have you rethink what you want to say
“I’m a wear the crown today”
Change your words - Et Tu Brute?
I’m never bored
Tongue lashin like Kunta
Come join this junta
This new movement is improvements
Mouths fresher than two mints
Pens on paper don’t leave prints
They imprint your mind with subtle hints
Conjure up the imagery
Close your eyes, it’s plain to see
The gatekeeper, we're meant to be
To a lyrical land of ubiquity
Hear our word play on our worst day
Have you rethink what you want to say
“I’m a wear the crown today”
Change your words - Et Tu Brute?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Open Source Rap
See anyone can talk about how they tough, get muff, buff and rough
But enough
This aint another cliché. This aint another song cryin on joints about yay
You see I learned from a young age, getting paid aint about the grade
It’s how much shit can you bull, you aint learn that in school
People buy in your image because you know they a fool
But the smartest niggas drop the hammer, use they mind as a tool
If you front you get paid, ever since the early days
Lock into their insecurities, the equivalent of getting keys
All white, buying into hype
It’s what rap has become. Turn a whole nation to a homogenous one
Find out what sells. Rinse, repeat, but be discrete
You got a song about blow, a song about weed
Something about a girl, how you the king of the world
Every other nigga is fake, you the only one with cake
3 tracks for the ladies, 3 for the whip. The rest on some embarrassing filler type shit
See these industry cats are smart
They put out the same shit and know you gonna play your part
Buy the cd, find the two best tracks to bump in the ‘lac
Realize a couple days later this shit is wack
But that don’t matter cause you moved on, heard a brand new song
Jump on the internet, see what everybody’s posting on
What did this dude say, is he really gay? Does that dude really move yay?
But these fans don’t understand, it’s tragic
Don’t buy into this shit, it disappears like jameer from the magic
Fans are the ones with the real power
Too bad they the ones getting wet like a shower
Eating up rumors like bars of good humors
These niggas aint genuine, they not 100%
Making up stories to stay relevant and pay they rent
Album coming out? Start a beef like Kobe and Shaq
Don’t have any lines, so you gotta attack
Album pushed back, you fell off the track
You gotta train like phelps, write till your fingas get welts
I’m learning you cats like this is a class, man
Don’t get exposed with your hands on the glass, fam
Get behind the mic, you uneasy like a speech from the best man
But enough
This aint another cliché. This aint another song cryin on joints about yay
You see I learned from a young age, getting paid aint about the grade
It’s how much shit can you bull, you aint learn that in school
People buy in your image because you know they a fool
But the smartest niggas drop the hammer, use they mind as a tool
If you front you get paid, ever since the early days
Lock into their insecurities, the equivalent of getting keys
All white, buying into hype
It’s what rap has become. Turn a whole nation to a homogenous one
Find out what sells. Rinse, repeat, but be discrete
You got a song about blow, a song about weed
Something about a girl, how you the king of the world
Every other nigga is fake, you the only one with cake
3 tracks for the ladies, 3 for the whip. The rest on some embarrassing filler type shit
See these industry cats are smart
They put out the same shit and know you gonna play your part
Buy the cd, find the two best tracks to bump in the ‘lac
Realize a couple days later this shit is wack
But that don’t matter cause you moved on, heard a brand new song
Jump on the internet, see what everybody’s posting on
What did this dude say, is he really gay? Does that dude really move yay?
But these fans don’t understand, it’s tragic
Don’t buy into this shit, it disappears like jameer from the magic
Fans are the ones with the real power
Too bad they the ones getting wet like a shower
Eating up rumors like bars of good humors
These niggas aint genuine, they not 100%
Making up stories to stay relevant and pay they rent
Album coming out? Start a beef like Kobe and Shaq
Don’t have any lines, so you gotta attack
Album pushed back, you fell off the track
You gotta train like phelps, write till your fingas get welts
I’m learning you cats like this is a class, man
Don’t get exposed with your hands on the glass, fam
Get behind the mic, you uneasy like a speech from the best man
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Jordan Effect
There is an over-arching theme that exists in the NBA, and it is what I view as the opposite of the Jordan Effect.
Let me explain: I feel like, in the past, (and currently) marquee players, like (younger) Shaq and Michael Jordan and all those guys, they got away with everything. There's still players that do. This is just my opinion, but they don't give LeBron calls that marquee players get. . .
(I will admit that sometimes he gets calls, but those are the exception).
Anyway, they call fouls against him (like the end of the Pacers game). That would have never happen to MJ. Could you imagine the uproar if they called Michael Jordan for a push off before he hit the shot of Craig Ehlo? (Go back and watch it, you'll see what I mean).
It's almost like they are trying to say, "Look! See! We're not playing favorites," and they achieve this by LeBron getting very few favorable calls. Its like they are trying to make an example to show that they don't give preferential treatment. And I woulnd't even care if I didn't feel like marquee players are still getting those favorable calls, but LBJ does not. All I am saying is that it is my observation.
I certainly hope I don't catch a $25,000 fine like Mike Brown did for his comments.
I suppose that none of this will matter if the Cavs win the championship.
Let me explain: I feel like, in the past, (and currently) marquee players, like (younger) Shaq and Michael Jordan and all those guys, they got away with everything. There's still players that do. This is just my opinion, but they don't give LeBron calls that marquee players get. . .
(I will admit that sometimes he gets calls, but those are the exception).
Anyway, they call fouls against him (like the end of the Pacers game). That would have never happen to MJ. Could you imagine the uproar if they called Michael Jordan for a push off before he hit the shot of Craig Ehlo? (Go back and watch it, you'll see what I mean).
It's almost like they are trying to say, "Look! See! We're not playing favorites," and they achieve this by LeBron getting very few favorable calls. Its like they are trying to make an example to show that they don't give preferential treatment. And I woulnd't even care if I didn't feel like marquee players are still getting those favorable calls, but LBJ does not. All I am saying is that it is my observation.
I certainly hope I don't catch a $25,000 fine like Mike Brown did for his comments.
I suppose that none of this will matter if the Cavs win the championship.
Thank Jesus for bass
DJ Show - Roll Up Vol. 6
Featuring drops from the President himself, Mr. Barack ODrama. Again, all new tracks.
1 - Lil E - Bandana On feat. Yung LA
2 - Stix Izza - Money Clap (Remix) feat. All Star Fate
3 - Rich Boy - Hataz
4 - 615 - I'm on it feat. Young Buck
5 - Big Boi - For Your Sorrows (verse)
6 - Nino Black - Dat Chewin
7 - Gorilla Zoe - Boss feat. Yo Gotti
8 - Rich Boy - Counting them 100s feat. Oj Da Juiceman
9 - Yo Gotti - Who Run the Streets
10 - Young Jeezy - Scale On
11 - Mims - Don't Play With my Dough feat. Red Cafe
12 - Alleyboy - Look at my Charm feat. Gucci Mane
13 - Grudge - Ball Like a Dog
14 - Cowboy - Flossin feat. Young Buck & All Star
15 - Smitty - Talk Rap feat. Hunt
16 - Raekwon - Yes Sir feat. Ghostface Killah & Crooked I
17 - Rick Ross - Kiss My Pinky Ring, Curly (50 Cent Diss)
Featuring drops from the President himself, Mr. Barack ODrama. Again, all new tracks.
1 - Lil E - Bandana On feat. Yung LA
2 - Stix Izza - Money Clap (Remix) feat. All Star Fate
3 - Rich Boy - Hataz
4 - 615 - I'm on it feat. Young Buck
5 - Big Boi - For Your Sorrows (verse)
6 - Nino Black - Dat Chewin
7 - Gorilla Zoe - Boss feat. Yo Gotti
8 - Rich Boy - Counting them 100s feat. Oj Da Juiceman
9 - Yo Gotti - Who Run the Streets
10 - Young Jeezy - Scale On
11 - Mims - Don't Play With my Dough feat. Red Cafe
12 - Alleyboy - Look at my Charm feat. Gucci Mane
13 - Grudge - Ball Like a Dog
14 - Cowboy - Flossin feat. Young Buck & All Star
15 - Smitty - Talk Rap feat. Hunt
16 - Raekwon - Yes Sir feat. Ghostface Killah & Crooked I
17 - Rick Ross - Kiss My Pinky Ring, Curly (50 Cent Diss)
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Nothing to do; Too much to do
I've found that the more ish I have to do, the more things I get done and, naturally, the fewer amount of things I have to get done the less I get done. This seems pretty obvious on the surface but I detected there was more to this so I decided to look into it further in a more scientific way. I ran a double blind study to test this hypothesis and the results were astoundingly incredible.
The experiment consisted of 72 compensated participants. The participants were split into four evenly divided groups. The first group, called Group 1, was the control and they were given no ish to do. The second group, called Group 2, was given a little ish to do. The third group, called Group Taco, was given a medium amount of ish to do. The last group, called Group 4, was given a lot of ish to do. Next, I had the participants track the amount of ish they got done relative to the amount of ish they were given.
Group 1 was the most surprising of all groups as they completed 8% of their ish.
Group 2 completed only 5% of their ish.
Group Taco completed 60% of their ish.
Group 4 completed 89% of their ish.
This should put to rest the debate of whether or not one gets more ish done when compared to how much said person has to do.
Prove Me Wrong,
Stikman
The experiment consisted of 72 compensated participants. The participants were split into four evenly divided groups. The first group, called Group 1, was the control and they were given no ish to do. The second group, called Group 2, was given a little ish to do. The third group, called Group Taco, was given a medium amount of ish to do. The last group, called Group 4, was given a lot of ish to do. Next, I had the participants track the amount of ish they got done relative to the amount of ish they were given.
Group 1 was the most surprising of all groups as they completed 8% of their ish.
Group 2 completed only 5% of their ish.
Group Taco completed 60% of their ish.
Group 4 completed 89% of their ish.
This should put to rest the debate of whether or not one gets more ish done when compared to how much said person has to do.
Prove Me Wrong,
Stikman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)