My World

AVATAR, the movie

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:45:25 GMT

Ok, I just got back a few hours ago from watching the morning matinee of AVATAR at the local "luxury" movie theater. In 3-D. Aside from the fact that I am now deaf (the sound system shook my diaphragm in spots -- to be expected when there are high explosives going off "on camera"), it is a ROYALLY good movie.

If you can afford it (the bargain matinee tickets here were $12 each) by all means, take it in in a good theater.

(The usual suspects where involved: Skywalker Sound, Industrial Light & Magic, and New Zealand...)

(There is, lord help us, an AVATAR computer game coming out RSN...)

The Fair Tax (part II: Cost of Goods in the Market)

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:27:28 GMT

Ok, there’s another assumption being made by many of the less experienced or knowledgeable proponents of the so called “Fair Tax”. That is that, freed of the onerous burden of the Federal corporate income tax, the corporations who are in competitive markets would all then reduce the prices of their products by an amount sufficient to balance the new cost added by the national sales tax. Let’s take a look at a hypothetical, to see just how incorrect this assumption is.

We’re going to start with a privately held corporation, run by yours truly (this is a hypothetical, remember, and if I have to imagine it, at least I can imagine a company with me as the big boss[1]). Let’s suppose that my company, which I will with typical modesty, call “Shapero Systems Incorporated” – hey, remember, I said this was a hypothetical). We sell Widget X, and that’s our only real product right now. Each unit of Widget X costs us $100 to produce and ship to our retail stores (yes, we’re a vertically integrated corporation). That $100 covers the cost of materials, manufacture, maintenance and depreciation of plant facilities, office space, advertising and salaries of employees – the works. We produce 1 million units a year, and we sell every unit we make. We have four hundred employees, and we’re incorporated in Delaware[2]. The market for Widget X is, however, extremely competitive, and while we are able to sell every unit we make, every penny counts so if I can cut the price without hurting profits, I will.

Over the last few years, We’ve been selling Widget X for $110 per unit in our retail stores. This is a hefty 10% profit after expenses. But, of course, there’s the Federal government taking its cut of our profits – and let’s say that for one reason or another, SSI has to pay a 30% corporate tax on all profits. Note: This is a tax on profits not on gross income. SSI’s gross income from sales is $110 million, but our profit after expenses is only $10 million (making us, to be honest, a solid mid-size business – we’re not a Mom & Pop, but we are not another Microsoft or a Boeing by a long shot). The Fed charges us 30% of that $10 million, or $3 million in taxes – which, of course, we pay without any serious complaint.
Now, suppose the Fed changes the rules and says, “you no longer need to pay corporate income tax”. I jump for joy, and immediately call up our head of sales and tell him, “We are cutting the price on our Widget X’s by $3 per unit immediately! Make it so!” Ok, the consumer in one of our stores sees the announcement that afternoon, and all the units are now selling at $107 per unit instead of $110.

Now does the consumer get to buy a unit for $107, saving himself not 30% on the price but rather only ~2.73%? No. Because along with the same announcement that the Fed is no longer collecting income tax from the corporation, is the announcement that they will now be collecting a 30% sales tax on all retail sales and services. So our stores now have to charge 30% sales tax and add it to that $107 base price. Widget X now sells for $139.10, including tax. So while I, the sole owner of the privately held SSI company have lowered my price as much as I can without lowering the net profit, the price that the retail buyer pays at the register has gone from $110 (assuming we’re selling in a state with no sales tax) to $139.10, an increase in cost to him of $29.10, or roughly a 26.45% increase in cost.

Now, you say, it won’t mean that because everyone will get a cut in their personal income taxes, so they’ll have more money to spend. Well, let us assume for the moment that I am a really nice guy, and all the employees of SSI are going to get the same rate of pay after the changeover as they did before the Fed dropped income taxes. Say that each of those employees is making the same kind of money that I make now as a consultant (so that I can use the same basic numbers). They no longer have to pay Federal income tax, so they end up not paying the 13.8% total rate on their Federal income tax any more. Their income, instead of being 86.2% of salary is now 100% of salary (modulo other taxes). But they just live on Widget X’s – that’s nearly their sole expenditure (I said this was a hypothetical, remember). Before, if they wanted to buy lots of Widget X’s – say spending 50% of their salary on Widget X’s, they could buy what 43.1% of their salary would buy in Widget X’s at the retail level (we’re assuming a state with no local sales tax for the moment, as well). Now, without that Federal income tax, they are able to buy what 50% of their salary will buy in Widget X’s. But wait a moment – each Widget X now costs 26.45% more at the retail level than it did before. What’s the result? If Y is the number of Widget X’s that an employee could buy before the “great change”, then Y*(50/43.1)*(1/1.2645) = 0.9174 * Y is the number of Widget X’s that an employee can buy after the “great change”.

So even assuming that their salaries are not reduced by this, the 30% “Fair Tax” would represent an immediate loss of roughly 8.26% in the purchasing power of their time. What does this mean? It means that it costs them 9% longer to earn the dollars (1/1.0826) to earn a Widget X than they did before the change. There’s been an automatic 8.26% inflation in a single day.

And if you think I’m being conservative by producing a hypothetical with a 10% gross profit before taxes – if you think that major corporations have larger profit margins – then I’m afraid that you are wrong. Retail furniture stores typically have net profit before income taxes in the 3-4% of sales range. The median of Fortune 500 companies is 3.1% profit (based on income). Granted, there are companies with higher than these numbers – drug companies fall closer to the 17% net profit based on sales, but a 10% gross profit before taxes would be a quite healthy company. And since the Fed taxes based on profit, not on just gross sales, this represents a company for which the cut in Federal taxes would produce the greatest incentive to cut prices (hence the least effect on the consumer of the national sales tax).

And these calculations, simple though they are, are the very calculations that the proponents of the “Fair Tax” either cannot perform, or do not want their readers and listeners to perform, lest the Potemkin village nature of their claims become obvious.

Footnotes

[1] “A man’s reach must exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” – Milton.
[2] A state with very favorable business and corporation related law, to my understanding.

Fair tax?

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:34:28 GMT

Let’s take a look at what it would really mean for the US (and for me) if the “Fair Tax” as Huckabee proposes it, was imposed.

First of all, it’s not a “23% tax”, it’s a 30% tax. And, according to economic advisors to President Bush, the correct amount to be revenue neutral would be 34%, not 30% and that the income group that would lose the most would be those people with incomes in the $30,000 to $200,000 per year range – you know, the middle class.

But let’s just assume for the moment that Huckabee and company were actually prescient, and the 30% tax rate is the “correct” rate for revenue neutrality. This gets rid of the federal income tax, but that’s it. It would take a great deal more political effort to remove all the other taxes (like FICA – social security – and Medicare). The claim is that we could then fund all federal programs (FICA, medicare, everything) with the money from the national sales tax. The other claim is that only final sale would be taxed (so no multi-stage VAT is involved). Finally, the claim (to justify the “23% tax”) is that all vendors would immediately be able to drop their prices by 23%, so that with the 30% tax imposed, the final price would remain the same (and hence, “it’s just a 23% tax”).

Of course all services would now be taxed – and since there is a limit to how much people will pay for services that are not critical (like, say, consultants), people like me would immediately face a 23% mandatory pay cut. And initially, at least, vendors would not drop their prices (gasoline, for example, would not drop in price – we have ample evidence of this from history – “up like a rocket, down like a feather[1]”). So with a true 30% increase in price of all services and new goods, the purchasing power of my dollar will drop at the very time that my income drops (and yes, I would have more of my pay, but the decrease in income tax would be more than offset by the decrease in pay rate, since while the marginal tax rate on my income is more than 23%, the total tax rate on my income is substantially less than 23%).

Why must my pay drop? The amount that my employer (a service supplier – read “job shop”) gets paid by the client is fixed. There is a cap on this amount, set by the client’s corporate management. Since the service would now have a 30% surcharge added by government edict, my direct employer would have to cut my salary to 76.9% of its current level for that 30% surcharge to result in a “same cost” value. So I lose 23.1% of my income – not a marginal rate, but a total rate.

I just looked over my last paycheck, and the Federal withholding was 17.8% of my income. That’s the total rate. Now, doing away with the income tax means doing away with all my deductions and, as an independent contractor, I get a lot of legitimate deductions – which this year should amount to enough to reduce my total tax rate by some four percentile points, for a total tax rate of 13.8%. So while my tax rate would drop, the drop in pay would be far greater than the boost in pay from no longer paying Federal income tax. (23% pay cut, 13.8% reduction in tax rate, overall loss of income). Now increase the cost of everything I buy by 30% (including such services as the family dentist, the gardener, and such things as High speed Internet and cable service) and my standard of living cannot help but take a distinct turn for the worse.

The claim that this sales tax would bring in money from the “underground economy” is based on a fallacy. Money can go anywhere, and drug cartels would not need to buy in the US (and frankly, given the ease of tracing normal financial transactions, they would not want to buy in the US after a “fair tax” any more than they would now). What the “fair tax” would do is create yet another venue for criminals – smuggling and tax evasion. You think different? Consider this – there are already significant smuggling operations going on trading in cigarettes across state lines (from states with low taxes on smokes to those with higher taxes). If you create a niche, something will crawl into it; increasing taxes dramatically (as this would for a vast array of products) simply creates an opportunity for the smuggler – and a market for the smuggled product.

Footnotes:

[1] When the price of oil goes up, the Oil companies claim that they have to increase their price at the pump immediately in response to the increase in raw materials cost. When the price of oil goes down, they say that they have to keep the price up because the price of the “oil in the pipeline” was higher, so the price at the pump has to stay high until the lower price raw materials get through the shipping-processing-delivery-to-pump process.

Writer's Block: The one that got away

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:36:58 GMT

Do you believe in the concept of a soulmate? Do you think you've met him or her? Do you ever worry that "the one" got away?

View 1849 Answers

I don't worry about "the ones that got away". I got the one I want, now.

Writer's Block: The truth is out there ...

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:28:51 GMT

If someone discusses UFOs at a party, do you assume they're a visionary or bonkers? Do you consider yourself a believer or a skeptic?

View 1080 Answers

I consider myself to be a skeptic, and while I don't think that someone discussing UFOs is necessarily a fruitcake, if he thinks he has identified them as ETs, then he is a raving loony.

Another silly test...

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:12:20 GMT

To no one's great surprise, this humble (?) individual is:

Your result for Are you an Imperial Roman or a Republican Roman?...

REPUBLICAN

Congratulations! You are a true believer in the Republic! You trust your life and fate to a bunch of nobles who are more interested in lining their own pockets then your well-being. Well, there were good Senators who did respect the values and traditions of the Roman Constitution. These are the ones you trust and believe do what is best for Rome and, by extension, what is best for you. You fear that if too much power is invested in one office, then the power of Rome will become spoil for those self-serving back-stabbers you don't trust. Had you been around in 44 BC, you would may have had respect for Caesar, but you would not have stopped Brutus and company as they saved the Republic from a man would would be King!

Take Are you an Imperial Roman or a Republican Roman? at HelloQuizzy

Writer's Block: Thanks for the Input

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:24:40 GMT

What is the worst piece of advice you've ever received?

View 513 Answers

Don't buy a house - it will just tie you down. Rent.

Health statistics

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:08:02 GMT

United Kingdom: Infant mortality: 4.85 deaths/1000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: male 76.52, female 81.63 (2009 est.)

Sweden: Infant mortality rate: 2.75 deaths/1000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: male 78.59, female 83.26 (2009 est.)

Canada: Infant mortality rate: 5.04 deaths/1000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: male 78.69, female 83.91 (2009 est.)

Israel: Infant mortality rate: 4.22 deaths/1000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: male 78.62, female 82.95 (2009 est.)

United States: Infant mortality rate: 6.26 deaths/1000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: male 75.65, female 80.69 (2009 est.)

Source: CIA World Factbook

We pay more per capita than these other countries (all with "socialized medicine" of some form or other, and have worse results. Why IS that?

Writer's Block: Memo to Myself

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:40:56 GMT

If you could travel back in time, what advice would you give to your younger self?

View 561 Answers

Buy CISCO stock (every share you can manage) in 1991 and unload EVERYTHING in 1999.

True to form...

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:59:03 GMT

I ended up as a lieutenant commander. Now, there's an interesting characteristic of lieutenant commanders (O-4s) in the Navy. They're not senior officers, they're not junior officers. They're "in between" and treated somewhat differently than both types. Neither fish, nor fowl.

The reality of the situation? I'm a natural born non-com (non-commissioned officer). Three up, three down and two stars in between. I know how to do my job better than any wet-behind-the-ears ring knocker, and I REALLY run the show. But I've been in the "hot seat" (department head) and know that while it can be "fun", it is also a royal pain in the posterior (I HATE office politics).

Of course, the given rank was for a StarFleet (Star Trek) officer rating, so I don't take it as an accurate reflection of "reality" (whatever that is really supposed to mean). In the Star Trek universe, I'd likely end up being court martialed (to tell the truth) for doing the "right" thing, as opposed to the "politically correct" thing.

Another silly test ... :-)

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:52:17 GMT

Your result for The What Starfleet Rank Would You Be? Test...

Lieutenant Commander

You are a Lieutenant Commander! This means you have a good balance between giving and taking orders. Of all the possible results, this one shows that you are the smartest. Your intelligence and brains are greater than even the Captain and Commander, whose abilities lie in barking orders. You, however, have specialized in a particular field, and are known for being expert in that. You ar extremely good at paying attention to what others want, and are willing to change your decisions based on their needs. You are very content with yourself and self-confident, and proud to be where you are.

Take The What Starfleet Rank Would You Be? Test at HelloQuizzy

More sick numbers...

Tue, 12 May 2009 01:35:36 GMT

Russian flu: 1889 - 1890 1 million deaths worldwide
Spanish flu: 1918 - 1920 20 to 100 million deaths worldwide
Asian flu: 1957 - 1958 1 to 1.5 million deaths worldwide
Hong Kong flu: 1968 - 1969 .75 to 1 million deaths worldwide

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

Worldwide HIV/AIDS 2007 2 million deaths worldwide

Source: http://www.worldhealthsciences.com/aids-and-hiv.html

This puts the HIV/AIDS epidemic at or above the level of the more serious flu pandemics of the last century or so (exceeded only by the 1918-1920 influenza epidemic). And AIDs is not going to just "go away".

HIV/AIDS worldwide

Tue, 12 May 2009 00:56:20 GMT

From http://www.worldhealthsciences.com/aids-and-hiv.html

Millions worldwide die each year from this deadly disease. Sub-Saharan Africa has been worse hit than any other area of the country by this deadly illness because they can not afford the expensive drug therapies needed to battle this disease. In this region 12 Million children have been orphaned by Aids, and by the year 2010 it is anticipated that this number will have risen to 43 Million children.

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary of State, has long been campaigning for a global fund to fight this disease that has so far claimed 22 Million lives. Money however, is not the only problem because even with the case, the question remains as whether to invest it in money to prolong the lives of those individuals with the disease or to invest it in prevention like measures such as sexual health and condom use. A vaccine for this disease is still years away.

Region	Adults and Children Living with HIV/AIDS	Adults and Children Newly infected	Adult prevelence	Deaths of Adults and children
Sub-Saharan Africa	22.0 million	1.9 million	5.0%	1.5 million
North Africa & Middle East	380,000	40,000	0.3%	27,000
Asia	5 million	380,000	0.3%	380,000
Oceania	74,000	13,000	0.4%	1,000
Latin America	1.7 million	140,000	0.5%	63,000
Caribbean	230,000	20,000	1.1%	14,000
Eastern Europe & Central Asia	1.5 million	110,000	0.8%	58,000
North America, Western & Central Europe	2.0 million	81,000	0.4%	31,000
Global Total	33.0 million	2.7 million	0.8%	2.0 million

In 2007 it is estimated that approximately 33 million people are living with Aids. Of that amount, 30.8 million are adults and 2 million are children. In the same year, 2.7 million more people were infected with Aids, and approximately 2 million people died from the disease of which .27 million were children.

More than 25 million people have died from Aids since 1981.

Africa, hardest hit by the disease, has 11.6 million children who have been orphaned by this disease.

People under the age of 25 account for half of all new HIV infections in the world.

In developing and transitional countries, 9.7 million people are in immediate need of life saving Aids drugs and only about 31% of these people are actually receiving the drugs they need.

These are the figures as of 2007. It is May 11th, 2009 as I write this. The toll mounts.

I suppose...

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:19:46 GMT

that it is only reasonable that I be found to be a "centrist". Although with the attempts on one party's part to polarize politics in this country (and to shred the Constitution while they were at it), I suppose that I'd be declared to be that horrible creature, a "LIBERAL" (N.B. to be kept out of key occupations).

Which Supreme Court Justice am I?

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:17:22 GMT

True to form, after a prolonged absence, I return to post another silly test...

Your result for Which Supreme Court Justice Are You Test...

You are Justice John Paul Stevens

John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) is the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He joined the Supreme Court in 1975 and is the oldest member of the Court. He was appointed to the Court by Republican President Gerald Ford. Although Stevens is widely considered to be on the liberal side of the court, Ford praised Stevens in 2005: "He is serving his nation well, with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns." He is also the only current Justice to have served under three Chief Justices (Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and John G. Roberts).

Early in his tenure on the Supreme Court Stevens had a moderate voting record. He voted to reinstate capital punishment in the United States and opposed the racial quota system program at issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. But on the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens tended to side with the more liberal-leaning Justices on issues such as abortion rights, gay rights and federalism. His Segal-Cover score, a measure of the perceived liberalism/conservatism of Court members when they joined the Court, places him squarely in the ideological center of the Court. A 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns, however, found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court.

Stevens' jurisprudence has usually been characterized as idiosyncratic. Stevens, unlike most justices, usually writes the first drafts of his opinions himself and reviews petitions for certiorari within his chambers instead of having his law clerks participate as part of the cert pool. He is not an originalist (such as fellow Justice Antonin Scalia) nor a pragmatist (such as Judge Richard Posner), nor does he pronounce himself a cautious liberal (such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). He has been considered part of the liberal bloc of the court since the mid-1980s, though he publicly called himself a judicial conservative in 2007.Stevens was once an impassioned critic of affirmative action, voting in 1978 to invalidate the racial quota system program at issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. He also dissented in 1980's Fullilove v. Klutznick, which upheld a minority set-aside program. He shifted his position over the years and voted to uphold the affirmative action program at the University of Michigan Law School challenged in 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger.

Take Which Supreme Court Justice Are You Test at HelloQuizzy

Writer's Block: So Long, Farewell

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:22:43 GMT

It's the last day in office for George Bush. There's been a lot of talk in the media lately about Bush's legacy. What do you think he will be most remembered for?

View 500 Answers

Call it "the end of an error" (and no, that is NOT a typo).

SPORE update...

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:50:38 GMT

Ok, I managed to actually FINISH the space phase of SPORE. Just a bit of an anti-climax, after all the things that went on during the play of the phase. I just wish that there was a way I could turn OFF the wars and the ecological disasters, so that I could just go ... explore ... the entire galaxy. Ah well, perhaps some other time (and some other patch for the game) will get us there.

Feeling good

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:51:57 GMT

Ok, it's a small thing, but I managed to get past one of the "missions" in SPORE that had been driving me nuts for several hours -- get to the center of the Galaxy, contact the GROX and then survive to get home. Not as easy at it first sounds (given the star drives in the game). Turns out (no small surprise) that one REALLY wants to get the "wormhole key" and the Stardrive 4 before one sets OUT on this expedition (not to mention getting a LOT of "sporebucks" to permit refueling from "rip-off-stations" at various races' worlds along the way).

And yes, the man is a bit silly spending this time on a computer game, but ... the guys at Maxis REALLY hit this one out of the park (now if I can just avoid a war with one of my aggressive neighbors in the game, and get that trade route between five systems REALLY rolling ... :-))

Another "addiction"

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:15:14 GMT

Ok, the man has found something new to fill (read: eat up) every free moment. It's called "SPORE".

The creation posted here is what I called an "Oblamak" -- an omnivore. Seems that it's real easy to get an herbivore through the "cell" and "creature" stages, though tough to get it through the tribal stage. At the same time, it's tough to get a carnivore through the "cell" and "creature" stages, but fairly easy to get it through the "tribal" and "civilization" stages, only to end up with a "warrior" in the space stage. Sounds cool? Turns out to be a royal pain -- spending ALL of one's time fighting battles (rather than the space exploration and trading that I WANTED to do in that phase of the game. So ... with the "space" stage unlocked, I just created a highly social omnivore creature -- the Oblamak -- and have been having a ball.

Of course, I SHOULD be doing something more constructive ... but there are times when "fun" is important and useful, too...:-)

Dare I say it?

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:08:12 GMT

I'm really addicted to these silly tests ... :-)

And which Superhero am I?

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:07:16 GMT

Batman

Cool, calm and powerful. Whilst your actual super abilities may not be anything too dazzling, you have earnt the respect of both friends and enemies in response to your amazing fighting skills, strategic combat and experience.

Luckily you have access to the greens which can fund all your majorly cool gadgets, vehicles and weapons! Also, you're reluctant but still accepting to the idea of having a teammate/side-kick, which just makes everything a whole lotta fun, doesn't it now!

On the down side, you've probably suffered some sort of trauma at a young age (that's why we don't talk to the old man near the swings, kids).
Similar to the Wolverine, your past is a base for your current motivation, undertaking some kind of personal vow in search of justice.

All in all though, you're one tough nut. There's not a lot of people who have the minerals to go up against you, and you're experienced enough not to get cocky and let the little things like never finding happiness get you down!

Take The Which SUPER HERO are you Test at HelloQuizzy

Yup! I'm a WACKJOB! It figures ... :-(

And "who would I be in 1400 AD"?

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:59:15 GMT

The Knight

You scored 37% Cardinal, 36% Monk, 44% Lady, and 59% Knight!

You are the hero. Brave and bold. You are strong and utterly selfless. You are also a pawn to your superiors and will be lucky if you live very long. If you survive the Holy wars you are thrust into you will be praised for your valor and opportunities both romantic and financial will become available to you.

Take The Who Would You Be in 1400 AD Test at HelloQuizzy

More than mildly silly, but I SUPPOSE it fits ...

What action hero am I?

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:44:36 GMT

I am John McLain!

80% Sarcastic

You Have A Very High Sense Of Humor, And Love Leaving The Bad Guy To Feel About An Inch Tall. Not Only Can You Deliver A Knock Out Punch, But You Also Deliver A Knock Out Laugh. Though, The People Would Appreciate It If You Wouldn't Destroy So Much Of The City.

Take Which Action Hero Are You? at HelloQuizzy

And here I was thinking I was Dirty Harry ... :-)

Another crazy quiz...

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:22:18 GMT

Another of my crazy quiz things:

Your result for The Perception Personality Image Test...

NFPS - The Guru

Nature, Foreground, Big Picture, and Shape

You perceive the world with particular attention to nature. You focus on what's in front of you (the foreground) and how that fits into the larger picture. You are also particularly drawn towards the shapes around you. Because of the value you place on nature, you tend to find comfort in more subdued settings and find energy in solitude. You like to deal directly with whatever comes your way without dealing with speculating possibilities or outcomes you can't control. You are in tune with all that is around you and understand your life as part of a larger whole. You prefer a structured environment within which to live and you like things to be predictable.

The Perception Personality Types:

Take The Perception Personality Image Test at HelloQuizzy

Silly test man strikes again!

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:30:36 GMT

And so, when I found a "Which CSI (first series) are you?", I couldn't resist. I thought I'd end up as Grissom, but no, here is the result for yours truly...

Your Score: Dr. Al Robbins

You scored 49% Some CSI-ness, 10% Some You-ness!

Played by: Robert David Hall, Speciality: Coroner. Born to a single mother in an era when everyone came from a two-parent household, Albert Robbins spent his life as an underdog. Spurned by his peers, he took solace in books from an early age, discovering an aptitude for academia. His mother worked as a nurse, so Robbins spent most nights in the local hospital. Many years of fighting the good fight eventually left him drained, and after shifting into what felt like a natural career change for him (medicine is all about life and death), he and his wife and their three children packed up and moved to Las Vegas.

Trivia: In fourth grade he dropped karate class because a kid half his size made him cry. - He's afraid of rats. - He's a cat lover, not a dog lover, and owns Siamese kittens that he tends to during his breaks at home.

Link: The Be a CSI For One Day! Which one are you? Test written by draebs2 on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test
View My Profile(draebs2)