Puppy vs. Toaster

2010-11-03T22:08:00.000-07:00

Expressing the desirability in terms of value, whether actual or esoteric, inherent to either toaster or puppy delineates into three fundamental criteria: First, the depreciable return on choosing a toaster over a puppy; Second, the utility of either article in real world-based applications; Third, the social policy of choosing a puppy over a toaster. The actual value of choosing a puppy derives from a puppy’s superiority in all three of these characteristics, and starkly illustrates the advisability of choosing a puppy over a toaster.

Depreciation of material articles is a function of loss of actual value of the initial price. Depreciation is a foreseeable economic cost and inherent loss. Acquisition of depreciable values is deductible in terms of Federal individual income tax, but invoking the credit occurs only once, despite the flexibility of when such deduction is taken. Items of increasing worth, when disbursed properly and intelligently, forego increased tax consequences. Whereas items of depreciating value issue their fiscal utility only once, appreciating items are matters of investment.

Because puppies are more like to increase in value compared with the inevitable depreciation of a toaster, puppies present themselves as superior fiscal investments. Although toasters carry a depreciable value, puppies are investable property. Valuable skills and physical characteristics add net worth to a puppy purchase. Superior specimens, when well invested, may generate future generations capable of producing income. In comparison, one toaster cannot espouse another toaster. Second generation value is thus limited to recycling worth. Therefore, puppies are the superior choice as physical assets on the basis of real world value.

Esoteric value is also a significant factor to consider. Esoteric or psychological attachment to non-human items creates inherent worth facially unascertainable by coarse observation. Esoteric values include diminutive nature, large eyes, a wet tongue, and soft fur. Value applied esoterically adds indefinable weight to a foreseeable base product.

Puppies are superior to toasters because of the psychological and esoteric value attributed in human society. Traditionally known as “man’s best friend”, puppies hold a distinct advantage over toasters in inherent esoteric worth. Characteristics generally considered as “cute”, and therefore having value, are easily attributable to puppies. Toasters do not carry such humanly valued “cute” characteristics. Moreover, because puppies are ‘alive’, society grants puppies more initial worth to puppies over the inanimate toaster. Finally, because building emotional attachment with puppies is conceivably possible and easier than bonding with a toaster, puppies hold higher intangible worth. Therefore, puppies hold higher indefinable value than toasters.

Utility is the second fundamental value of consideration. Utility consists of the extensiveness, length, and quality of work. The increase in variability, length of viable lifespan, and the quality of work product completed over that lifespan correspondingly increases value to society, and therefore, desirability. A decrease or lack of skill in any of the above factors necessarily diminishes desirability. By creating worth, utility is a central quality characteristic of value.

Puppies have great inherent worth because of utility. Because of high intelligence in some breeds, puppies learn and retain training, some of which is commercially or economically viable, such as hunting, detecting volatile compounds, or defending domestic property. In comparison, toasters have far fewer practical uses: making toast, heating small spaces (at the user’s peril) and acting as a paperweight. Further, puppies have lifespans (depending on the breed) up to fifteen years. Toasters, in contrast, have low lifespans, obstentially to increase sales as a result of loss of quality construction due to building materials. Moreover, puppies perform their tasks well over the length of their lifespan in a variety of tasks. Toasters become increasingly unreliable and more dangerous at the end of lifespan. Therefore, puppies have greater utility.

Finally, public policy prefers the preservation and veneration of life to inanimate objects. Federal and State funds are regularly contributed towards providing homes for puppies. Government, by comparison, does not actively pursue providing domestic security for toasters. Non-profit organizations providing for animal welfare, animal rights, and assisting governmental efforts providing homes for unadopted puppies. Toasters have no such non-profit organization network or support structure. Because public policy favors puppies, puppies carry overwhelming societal value over toasters.

One key benefit of toasters is the ability of toaster to provide toast, and that puppies, consequently, cannot make toast. Such a benefit does not occur without several significant repercussions. Puppies are far less susceptible to combustion as a result of operation, whereas toasters are more likely to set the operator on fire. Moreover, although puppies are unable to provide the basic food staple of toast, when property trained, puppies can catch wild game for its owner. As a result, where toasters produce in a variety of darknesses, wild game caught by puppies is generally fresh and nutritious. Therefore, the ability of puppies to produce food is superior to that of a toaster.

Puppies are superior to toasters. Esoteric and real-world value provided by puppies surpasses the value of even a premium toaster. Puppies as a long-term investment provide for a better asset than toasters. Finally, because society values puppies as live over inanimate objects, toasters are inferior to puppies. Therefore, puppies are categorically better than toasters.

Basketball Bundesliga

2010-02-17T17:15:00.000-08:00

If it's one things that irks fans, it's a team taking a dive at the end of the season to get the highest draft pick available. Not only is it against the ethos of sport and competition, but it's a mockery of the people who (for whatever reason) bought season tickets. New Jersey Nets, I'm looking in your direction. Without competition, there's no reason for people to go to games, watch the losers on television, and the whole sport suffers as a result. At worst, the owners are leeching goodwill off of good teams when the stars come to town.

Suggestion? The Bundesliga system.

The German soccer federation, from my limited knowledge of their particular rules, has one standing mantra for the top level teams: WIN, OR YOU'RE OUT. The system basically (and probably wrong) goes like this: In the upper league, the teams with the lowest rating at the end of the grading period get demoted to the B-league. The top team from the B-League gets promoted to the A-level. This system makes teams far less likely to ditch at the end of the season, because there's still something worth playing for (especially with incentive contracts). Teams from Big Cities sometimes don't make the cut, and they can mow down lower-level teams to buoy their chances to be Big Boys again.

Obviously the Bundesliga system wouldn't work with most sports in the United States. The infrastructure necessary to maintain NFL and MLB teams is huge (Thanks a lot, Dallas for raising the bar for everyone), and cities aren't going to fork over millions in taxpayer money to build stadiums for teams that may get demoted for incompetence (*COUGH* Oakland *COUGH*). And frankly, not enough people care about the NHL to begin with.

The NBA is different. Basketball arenas aren't all that big. Hold maybe 20,000. Most non-NBA cities have the facilities available and could support a team if it got to the big leagues. The NBA already has the D-League in place. If the D-League becomes the lower tier league, and the lowest NBA team switched with the highest D-league team, you could really shake up the NBA into playing competitively all year long, and executives wouldn't declare a fire sale (like the Knicks) to get a hold of free agents after contracts expire in the off-season.

One particular drawback: The Clippers would likely never reemerge from the lower league. Oh well. Sacrifices must be made.

Of course there's all sorts of profit-sharing rules and ownership deals in place for the D-league (Auction anyone? Maybe one day be an NBA team owner? Think of THAT money, Mr. Stern) preventing something like this easily falling into place. But consider the BIG money to be made. Happy fans, Cinderella stories from the middle of nowhere, compelling teams playing on the big stage because of team chemistry and not because of big bucks. If they fail at the big level, who cares? Then the next guy gets a shot.

Mr. Stern: A competitive sport year-round makes for a healthy league. Could mean international teams, untapped markets, and makes the pertinent NBA draft last longer than 45 minutes (which is how long, approximately, the Nets were competitive for the postseason this year). More talent. More exposure. More TV contracts.

Pittsburgh? Las Vegas? Another team from Chicago? Why not? I'd rather watch a competitive Cinderella team from Cincinnati rise up to the challenge of the big stage rather than endure a Nets team that would need to improve to be called pathetic. Don't give me this stuff about big city markets. If the Nets wanted to be competent they already have time and money to do so. They're ditching and ruining the rest of the leagues reputation.

Make the players and the team owners play for their money. Give me the Bundesliga for basketball.

Insert clever pickup line here

Puppy vs. Toaster

Basketball Bundesliga