Sixteen Credits

Co-written with Mark Hall

Some people say a man is made out of gore
Well a student is just a credit score
A credit score and a mind that’s spry
A future that’s bleak, and a bank that’s dry

You take sixteen creds and what do you get?
Nearer your degree and deeper in debt
St. Peter don’t you call me cuz I must stay
I owe my soul to Sallie Mae

Enrolled one morning, it was drizlin rain
“Get a degree” was the school’s refrain
Should I study English, or should it be Math?
Decades of debt was the only path.

You take sixteen creds….

I enrolled one morning I was at an impasse
Picked up my laptop and I walked into class
I took sixteen creds based on aptitude
And the T.A. said, “Well son, you’re screwed.”

You take sixteen creds…

This job pays just $8.95
It ain’t enough to keep a man alive
I can’t rent a roof to stop the wet
‘Cause $5.50 of that goes to service my debt

You take sixteen creds….

If you see me coming just say hello
I’m working a job that don’t pay what I owe
I earned a liberal arts degree
And all it got me was bankruptcy

You take sixteen creds….



(Yeah, there are scansion problems, I know. Suggestions welcome.)

New Song with Apologies to Warren Zevon


Captain hanging out small

(The original can be found here.)

He found a piece of lint on the end of the broom
Excitable cat they all said
And he chased it and he swatted it all over the room
Excitable cat they all said
Well he’s just an excitable cat.

He ate all his catnip, then asked for more.
Excitable cat they all said
And knocked all my glassware onto the floor
Excitable cat they all said
Well he’s just an excitable cat.

He snuck into the room just when I went to bed
Excitable cat they all said
And he did a paso doble on top of my head
Excitable cat they all said
Well he’s just an excitable cat.

He stared at the door like he was stalking a mouse
Excitable cat they all said
When I opened it he chased the dog out of the house
Excitable cat they all said
Well he’s just an excitable cat.

How to Hurt Yourself on Twitter

It all started with a really irritatingly heartwarming episode of Due South.

We also had some discussion of whether the comic books fall under the definition of literature.

…but quickly returned to the cockles.

Jen joined the discussion with her wrong opinion and things may have gotten a bit silly.

I did my best to keep the discussion serious, to no avail.

Then this happened:
Me: *laughing* Sorry, I have something in my throat.
Jen: What, laughter at my expense?
Me: No, a cockle.

ETA (twitter demanded this addition):

Re-Post: Philosophy and Light Bulbs

There’s been a bit of discussion on philosophy (which pleases me, by the way), so I thought it was time to resurrect this one from the vault of Livejournal about 6 years ago, with a few minor edits.

How many philosophers does it take to change a light-bulb?

A preposterous question. Obviously, it depends on what sort of philosopher we’re discussing. I’m sure this has been done before, but here are my answers:

Pragmatist: Hey, if holding the bulb while four of your friends turn the chair makes you happy, then that is the right way to change a light-bulb for you.

Empiricist: We can’t know how to change a light-bulb, we can only know how it has been reportedly changed in the past.  But we can make lists of how big it is, the wattage, the thickness of the glass, the composition of the filiment…

Thomist: When we examine the concept of “light-bulb” one requirement is that it light up. Hence, if it does not light up, it is not a light-bulb.  If it is not a light-bulb  there is no reason to change it.

Aristotelean: Changing of light-bulbs can be divided into: manipulation of the old bulb, and manipulation of the new bulb. Bulb manipulation, in turn, can be divided into: Turning motion, raising motion, dropping motion. We cannot understand motion.

Kantian: While having light is a categorical imperative, by understanding the light-bulb-in-itself, it becomes, for us, a new light-bulb, and thus there is no need to change it.

Platonist: The closer our light-bulb gets to the Ideal Light-bulb, the less it requires changing.

Dialectical Materialist: None. The light-bulb changes because of it’s own internal contradictions.

Skeptic: We can’t know if we’re changing the light-bulb. We can’t know if changing the light-bulb is an improvement. In fact, we can’t really know if it’s dark. Especially with the lights out.

Hegelian: A light-bulb that will not produce light is irrational. When the light-bulb becomes irrational, it ceases to exist; when the light bulb no longer exists, it is irrational. Insofar as a new light-bulb sheds light on the Absolute Idea, it becomes a rational light-bulb  and comes into being as part of our striving for the categories of logic.  Thus the transition: burned out bulb, to changing the bulb, to a working bulb, recapitulates the process of our thinking within the phenomenon of light, which in turns raises our minds to truth and freedom.

Positivist: If we cannot demonstrate mathematically the process of light-bulb changing, the bulb is not important. If we can, then the mathematical demonstration is sufficient for our purposes.

Post-structuralist: By rejecting neo-Enlightenment notions that privilege “light” (which privilege we find textually included in the subject narrative), we can conceptualize the relationship between optically-oriented envisioning and those signifiers that address interpretations of post-colonial modernism as an established text within the framework of which, intertextually, we are lead to reject any causal relationship between the operands and the motivators, thus redefining darkness on an individual basis that turns the meta-narrative into its own form of de-categorized photonic emission.

Memetics: The speed at which the notion “a burned out light-bulb should be replaced” has spread is inexplicable unless one looks at the idea itself.

Existentialist: Why change the light-bulb?