I just uploaded some stuff to google docs from Microsoft Word and I'm pretty confused by the number of "misspelled" words google now recognizes. For one, I didn't know that "alot" is a word and "a lot" is misspelled. Considering how blogger is now underlining this post, I'm even more confused (google owns blogger).
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Bite Club by Rachel Caine
I'm reading Bite Club by Rachel Caine today. Once again it seems like Caine's suffering from Alzheimer's because she's once again forgotten what I think is pertinent information--the car Eve's supposed to be driving, her relationship with Miranda, namely. It doesn't really bug me, but it's obvious and therefore annoying.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Why I voted for Romney
Yeah, yeah, yeah...about 3 weeks late, but it's still something I want posted for posterity.
I voted for Romney because it didn't matter whether he was elected or not, Conservatives were screwed. Three (prominent) men ran for election on November 6--Obama, Conservative Romney, and Liberal Romney.
We all know who Obama is, so I won't bother to describe him or why Conservatives would be screwed if he won. I'll let them do that.
Conservative Romney is the one he tried so hard to portray himself as--the one who hates immigrants, Obamacare, taxes, yadda, yadda, yadda. He'd hurt the GOP because he would be unable to work with a Democratic Congress since it would be against all his principles--like a good GOP follower. He'd show the country once and for all that the Conservatives are just as ineffectual as the Democrats.
Liberal Romney is the guy he kept shoving into the trunk of his Cadillac, the man who was Governor of Massachusetts. This would be the same man who promoted and passed the origins of Obamacare and a variety of other liberal agenda issues in the state. He'd be able to work with the Democratic Congress. This would show that Romney not the guy the front men of the party want you to think he is.
So you see, either we'd get Obama, who may or may not be able to work with Congress to get anything done, Conservative Romney and more grid-lock, or Liberal Romney and turn this country around with true bi-partisanship.
I voted for Romney because it didn't matter whether he was elected or not, Conservatives were screwed. Three (prominent) men ran for election on November 6--Obama, Conservative Romney, and Liberal Romney.
We all know who Obama is, so I won't bother to describe him or why Conservatives would be screwed if he won. I'll let them do that.
Conservative Romney is the one he tried so hard to portray himself as--the one who hates immigrants, Obamacare, taxes, yadda, yadda, yadda. He'd hurt the GOP because he would be unable to work with a Democratic Congress since it would be against all his principles--like a good GOP follower. He'd show the country once and for all that the Conservatives are just as ineffectual as the Democrats.
Liberal Romney is the guy he kept shoving into the trunk of his Cadillac, the man who was Governor of Massachusetts. This would be the same man who promoted and passed the origins of Obamacare and a variety of other liberal agenda issues in the state. He'd be able to work with the Democratic Congress. This would show that Romney not the guy the front men of the party want you to think he is.
So you see, either we'd get Obama, who may or may not be able to work with Congress to get anything done, Conservative Romney and more grid-lock, or Liberal Romney and turn this country around with true bi-partisanship.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Plan for America--Forward to Obama and Romney if you "Like"
Real "job creators" should not fear an income tax increase to 50% or above (for those making over $500,000) with a similar increase in eligible deductions (for...you know...actually creating jobs--wages, building and machine investments, heck, even for building a new vacation home or buying AMERICAN MADE goods and services). These people should be able to decuct everything up to 20% of their tax burden (in other words, just as Romney just paid an effective tax rate of 14%, under my plan they can pay an effective tax rate of 20%) or we could make it even less if this proves to be too high of a tax. The point is to get the wealthy to spend their money on real job creation, rather than just bowing to their earning potential, though all taxpayers should be allowed to deduct some portion of their tax burden, though the ultimate percentages depend on how much revenue the government needs to function.
Deductions also include those made to reputable non-profits because the ultimate goal is to get government out of individual lives. The food banks can deal with food stamp issues just as easily as a government office, as can private social welfare groups and churches.
The stock market would also be transferred from a capital gains rate to the standard income tax rate because any 1st year business student can tell you that the stock market does not create jobs. In fact, it can lose jobs if used improperly. I could use the Great Depression as an example, or how about Dollar Tree whose quarterly earnings will be DOWN this year purely because Halloween, one of their biggest sales occasions, fell in the fourth quarter instead of the third. Their stock prices will fall because they appear less profitable right now, but they will go up in a few months when it looks like the fourth quarter was exceptionally profitable over last year. Well, except that we know this will happen and why, thus negating much of the effect that it could have. It would negate ALL effects, except that there are many who dabble in the stock market who don't actually know what they're doing and don't listen to all the available information, and there are those who know everything including that they can "play" the ignorant and make a lot of money.
But simply put, the stock market doesn't put in money into actual companies hands and therefore isn't job creation. McDonald's isn't going to build a new restaurant because you bought their stock (from someone else not connected to the restaurant chain who welcomes your money into his pocket), but will if you and your friends buy a few hamburgers.
The only real thing we need to do to cut spending is to cut Congress', the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court's salary to the average income earned by their constituents, but with an "as needed" clause that brings their current income to that amount (so if the constituents of VA-3 make on average $35,000 and the congressmen makes $50,000, he gets no government stipend, but if he makes $25,000, he'll get $10,000). There will be no housing stipend, but we'll open "The Congressional Hotel", 535 rooms that the Congressmen can use while in session for free and when they aren't in session works as a traditional hotel (it has been mentioned that Congress should never be in session during the Cherry Blossom Festival, but I see no problem with that). Travel expenses would only be covered to come to and leave the sessions.
If all government funded programs have a budget using the same "as needed" clause, if the public fund these groups fully, then government doesn't have to pay the guaranteed difference and government spending has been cut.
If we could get people to donate to more non-profits in lieu of donating to campaigns, along with these aforementioned ideas, we might actually get this country on the right track.
Deductions also include those made to reputable non-profits because the ultimate goal is to get government out of individual lives. The food banks can deal with food stamp issues just as easily as a government office, as can private social welfare groups and churches.
The stock market would also be transferred from a capital gains rate to the standard income tax rate because any 1st year business student can tell you that the stock market does not create jobs. In fact, it can lose jobs if used improperly. I could use the Great Depression as an example, or how about Dollar Tree whose quarterly earnings will be DOWN this year purely because Halloween, one of their biggest sales occasions, fell in the fourth quarter instead of the third. Their stock prices will fall because they appear less profitable right now, but they will go up in a few months when it looks like the fourth quarter was exceptionally profitable over last year. Well, except that we know this will happen and why, thus negating much of the effect that it could have. It would negate ALL effects, except that there are many who dabble in the stock market who don't actually know what they're doing and don't listen to all the available information, and there are those who know everything including that they can "play" the ignorant and make a lot of money.
But simply put, the stock market doesn't put in money into actual companies hands and therefore isn't job creation. McDonald's isn't going to build a new restaurant because you bought their stock (from someone else not connected to the restaurant chain who welcomes your money into his pocket), but will if you and your friends buy a few hamburgers.
The only real thing we need to do to cut spending is to cut Congress', the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court's salary to the average income earned by their constituents, but with an "as needed" clause that brings their current income to that amount (so if the constituents of VA-3 make on average $35,000 and the congressmen makes $50,000, he gets no government stipend, but if he makes $25,000, he'll get $10,000). There will be no housing stipend, but we'll open "The Congressional Hotel", 535 rooms that the Congressmen can use while in session for free and when they aren't in session works as a traditional hotel (it has been mentioned that Congress should never be in session during the Cherry Blossom Festival, but I see no problem with that). Travel expenses would only be covered to come to and leave the sessions.
If all government funded programs have a budget using the same "as needed" clause, if the public fund these groups fully, then government doesn't have to pay the guaranteed difference and government spending has been cut.
If we could get people to donate to more non-profits in lieu of donating to campaigns, along with these aforementioned ideas, we might actually get this country on the right track.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Fifty Shades of Grey (and Twilight)
Well, curiousity got the best of me and I've read the book. Gotta say, it's not what I expected (so now I've read 2 and am on 3). Guess I need to address the important issues:
A: Is it porn? Not really. I mean, there is a LOT of sex, but it's pretty repetative and not very inventive (except for the occasional BDSM scenes). I've certainly read other things that are worse. [Edit (1/27/13)--I've changed my opinion. It is porn, but it's really bad porn--like dull, boring, going to change the channel if it were an actual movie, porn]
B: The control freak.
First off, I've dipped my toe into the world of writing and I'd be mortified if anyone came up to me and said "you were influenced by...[so and so]." So, when James states right in her biography that she was influenced by Twilight, I knew at once we were in trouble. And really, it's like she took the bass lines (hmm...I'm not sure if that's the correct phrasing, but I think it works--think the bass lines of a piece of music) of Twilight and wrote a new story around it. I mean, it's certainly okay to take a piece or maybe two from something you love and use it for inspiration, but she's gone way over the top--locations (SW to SE to NW...in the exact same order), her faimily situation, the personalities of said family situation (okay, Bob is older), she's the girl that every man wants though she's oblivious to it--it's seriously like James took every single TV Trope from Twilight and used it. Lots of eye-rolling from me there.
[Insert/clarification] James could have kept the " oblivious girl that every man loves" AND the "dark-souled recluse" and have written a fine pop culture book (these are tropes that are regularly enjoyed in moderation). But adding in the location similarities, the best friend whose father loves to fish with my father, who happens to be Hispanic rather than Native American, the ditzy mother who had her daughter young with generally bad taste in men/marriages who the daughter feels she needs to look after (though thank god this seems to be a lot less of a problem for Ana), the wacky/excited sister and comic relief brother of the "God". Keeping them all?! TOO MUCH!! [end insert/clarification]
But, you know what? I actually like Christian Grey as a character--even his control freak tendencies--and can understand why Ana stays with him (the whole "I've known you for two weeks and I'll die if I'm not with you" notwithstanding). You probably know about my love of the Dark-Hunter series by Sherrilyn Kenyon. One of the reasons is because of her love of shattered men. My favorite books/characters in the series are those which have been shattered the worst. So yeah, Christian Grey is a man after my heart. The fact that he beat her actually doesn't bother me because A: they are both consenting adults and she didn't use the safeword when she should have and B: he does realize later that he'd rather have her than the violence. This isn't an abusive relationship because he knows his faults, why he has them, how to improve them and, most importantly, when to let things drop. Like he says, she has all the power in the physical relationship because all she has to do is say no (or the safeword) and he instantly flips. An abuser hears no and doesn't care.
As for the controlling, it's a known issue from the first time they meet and Ana, unlike Bella, actually opens her mouth and tells him to his face that she doesn't like it. It's an OPEN part of their relationship, unlike with Bella and Edward where she just accepts it.
While neither series deserves a Pulitzer, I have to say that I like Fifty Shades a hell of a lot more than Twilight simply because if we think of them as being essentially the same story, at least Christian Grey has a damn good reason for being the way he is. Edward is kind of a whiny bitch who had a loving family before he became a vampire and has a loving family after the change and deserves a woman who won't open her mouth when something bothers her and who'll internalize his leaving her as her own fault rather than for her own saftey. Though both men need a firm slap in the head for hiding information from their loved ones.
By the way, did anyone not know that James is British before reading the trilogy? Because I'm wondering just how obvious it is. I mean, I assume she's done her research because the locations seemed probable (though I know NOTHING about the Pacific NW--sidebar: that's really what it's called because I'm not sure that it's possible to have an Atlantic NW in the US). But the language she uses, sheesh! The obvious is the use of "arse" which American's might say but would NEVER write. The second is a few phrases which seem wrong to my American way of thinking: "banking a check" and "all American teeth" (reference to how Americans make fun of British teeth because they don't get them straightened or whitened--like somehow their being crooked/ivory says that they're in poor condidtion even though the very process of whitening weakens teeth and straightening is purely a cosmetic fix--end rant), plus a few other "wait, what?" moments.
By the way, I'm thrilled that Google Affiliate Ads finally is working for what I want it to do (advertise products that I'm actually discussing)--I just wish there were more. For instance, I give to you a very good choice of the Dark-Hunter series, but I'd rather give you the first book of the series. However, potential spoilers aside, it does deal with all aspects of the world...I'm just anal about reading books in order no matter that they all essentially stand alone.
A: Is it porn? Not really. I mean, there is a LOT of sex, but it's pretty repetative and not very inventive (except for the occasional BDSM scenes). I've certainly read other things that are worse. [Edit (1/27/13)--I've changed my opinion. It is porn, but it's really bad porn--like dull, boring, going to change the channel if it were an actual movie, porn]
B: The control freak.
First off, I've dipped my toe into the world of writing and I'd be mortified if anyone came up to me and said "you were influenced by...[so and so]." So, when James states right in her biography that she was influenced by Twilight, I knew at once we were in trouble. And really, it's like she took the bass lines (hmm...I'm not sure if that's the correct phrasing, but I think it works--think the bass lines of a piece of music) of Twilight and wrote a new story around it. I mean, it's certainly okay to take a piece or maybe two from something you love and use it for inspiration, but she's gone way over the top--locations (SW to SE to NW...in the exact same order), her faimily situation, the personalities of said family situation (okay, Bob is older), she's the girl that every man wants though she's oblivious to it--it's seriously like James took every single TV Trope from Twilight and used it. Lots of eye-rolling from me there.
[Insert/clarification] James could have kept the " oblivious girl that every man loves" AND the "dark-souled recluse" and have written a fine pop culture book (these are tropes that are regularly enjoyed in moderation). But adding in the location similarities, the best friend whose father loves to fish with my father, who happens to be Hispanic rather than Native American, the ditzy mother who had her daughter young with generally bad taste in men/marriages who the daughter feels she needs to look after (though thank god this seems to be a lot less of a problem for Ana), the wacky/excited sister and comic relief brother of the "God". Keeping them all?! TOO MUCH!! [end insert/clarification]
But, you know what? I actually like Christian Grey as a character--even his control freak tendencies--and can understand why Ana stays with him (the whole "I've known you for two weeks and I'll die if I'm not with you" notwithstanding). You probably know about my love of the Dark-Hunter series by Sherrilyn Kenyon. One of the reasons is because of her love of shattered men. My favorite books/characters in the series are those which have been shattered the worst. So yeah, Christian Grey is a man after my heart. The fact that he beat her actually doesn't bother me because A: they are both consenting adults and she didn't use the safeword when she should have and B: he does realize later that he'd rather have her than the violence. This isn't an abusive relationship because he knows his faults, why he has them, how to improve them and, most importantly, when to let things drop. Like he says, she has all the power in the physical relationship because all she has to do is say no (or the safeword) and he instantly flips. An abuser hears no and doesn't care.
As for the controlling, it's a known issue from the first time they meet and Ana, unlike Bella, actually opens her mouth and tells him to his face that she doesn't like it. It's an OPEN part of their relationship, unlike with Bella and Edward where she just accepts it.
While neither series deserves a Pulitzer, I have to say that I like Fifty Shades a hell of a lot more than Twilight simply because if we think of them as being essentially the same story, at least Christian Grey has a damn good reason for being the way he is. Edward is kind of a whiny bitch who had a loving family before he became a vampire and has a loving family after the change and deserves a woman who won't open her mouth when something bothers her and who'll internalize his leaving her as her own fault rather than for her own saftey. Though both men need a firm slap in the head for hiding information from their loved ones.
By the way, did anyone not know that James is British before reading the trilogy? Because I'm wondering just how obvious it is. I mean, I assume she's done her research because the locations seemed probable (though I know NOTHING about the Pacific NW--sidebar: that's really what it's called because I'm not sure that it's possible to have an Atlantic NW in the US). But the language she uses, sheesh! The obvious is the use of "arse" which American's might say but would NEVER write. The second is a few phrases which seem wrong to my American way of thinking: "banking a check" and "all American teeth" (reference to how Americans make fun of British teeth because they don't get them straightened or whitened--like somehow their being crooked/ivory says that they're in poor condidtion even though the very process of whitening weakens teeth and straightening is purely a cosmetic fix--end rant), plus a few other "wait, what?" moments.
By the way, I'm thrilled that Google Affiliate Ads finally is working for what I want it to do (advertise products that I'm actually discussing)--I just wish there were more. For instance, I give to you a very good choice of the Dark-Hunter series, but I'd rather give you the first book of the series. However, potential spoilers aside, it does deal with all aspects of the world...I'm just anal about reading books in order no matter that they all essentially stand alone.
Friday, July 20, 2012
My Grandmother Makes Me Feel Like the Worst Granddaughter Ever.
Actually, I think I'm a very good granddaughter. The problem is that my grandmother is very independent and I'd feel like a bigger ass if I did more things for her. For instance, I stopped by her house on Tuesday to pick up some tomatoes she'd picked. I visited for awhile and she said she had to take the garbage can to the street. I asked if she wanted help and she politely declined, so I let her do it. She pays me to mow her grass and in the fall, she'll pay me to rake the leaves. This won't stop her from helping by picking up sticks or helping with the leaves. At least she lets me do things like put the shower curtain back up (though I'm 90% sure that she's the one that took it down in the first place to wash it).
She's 80 years old (well, next year she will be) and she drives faster than I do and walks 5 miles a day. I can only hope that I'm as awesome when I get to be her age.
Quick shout-out to her not-quite-so-old neighbor. They walk together, keep tabs on eachother, and take turns bringing back the trash bins.
She's 80 years old (well, next year she will be) and she drives faster than I do and walks 5 miles a day. I can only hope that I'm as awesome when I get to be her age.
Quick shout-out to her not-quite-so-old neighbor. They walk together, keep tabs on eachother, and take turns bringing back the trash bins.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Eureka is Wrong!!!
So, if you're a fan of the show Eureka, you'll know that they recently had a story arc where they went to Titan. Some of the episodes included elaborate experiments of what it would be like to work on Titan. Well, I'm watching and episode of The Universe and it says that the methane on Titan isn't highly flamable because of the the lack of oxygen.
Now, I do not know if this was an oversight or done on purpose. You see, in the episode that I'm thinking of (sorry, I can't tell you which one off the top of my head), they accidently started an explosion on fake Titan and they used the information they gained in the senario to win against the gas as it invaded the city. Even though the liquid shouldn't have been flamable in fake Titan, the gas that would have existed in "real" Eureka would have been highly flamable.
Now, I do not know if this was an oversight or done on purpose. You see, in the episode that I'm thinking of (sorry, I can't tell you which one off the top of my head), they accidently started an explosion on fake Titan and they used the information they gained in the senario to win against the gas as it invaded the city. Even though the liquid shouldn't have been flamable in fake Titan, the gas that would have existed in "real" Eureka would have been highly flamable.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Battlestar Galactica
So...a few years a go I met a friend of a friend who was watching BSG. It was a girl whose boyfriend or other male friend suggested the show and told her that it was like a potato chip--once you start watching, you will not sleep until it's over.
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING!!!!!!!!!!!
Deserved the really big add, hahaha.
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING!!!!!!!!!!!
Deserved the really big add, hahaha.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Tipping
One of my favorite time waster sites is notalwaysright.com where all service workers can go to vent.
This brings me to tipping. I really like to pay for my meal with my card, but leave the tip in cash (usually well more than 15%). I wonder if any of my waiters think I'm a bitch only to be pleasantly surprised when the clear the table. It makes me feel good that generally overworked, underappreciated people can do what they want with their tips instead of having to rely on whatever computer system or boss to make sure they get their tips.
In many states, it's still law that waitresses can be paid below minimum wage so long as their tips bring them up to at least the minimum. Their bosses are supposed to suppliment their wages to make sure they get minimum wage, but often times managers don't do this and/or won't--especially for new staff members with little experience.
This brings me to tipping. I really like to pay for my meal with my card, but leave the tip in cash (usually well more than 15%). I wonder if any of my waiters think I'm a bitch only to be pleasantly surprised when the clear the table. It makes me feel good that generally overworked, underappreciated people can do what they want with their tips instead of having to rely on whatever computer system or boss to make sure they get their tips.
In many states, it's still law that waitresses can be paid below minimum wage so long as their tips bring them up to at least the minimum. Their bosses are supposed to suppliment their wages to make sure they get minimum wage, but often times managers don't do this and/or won't--especially for new staff members with little experience.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Dakota Born by Debbie Macomber
Sigh. I'm reading this because the books I really want to read won't be available at the library until at least Tuesday. Let's just say that the first 35 pages make me want to hurl the book across the room, but maybe there's something that will redeem it. It's not a bad book per se, just not my cup of tea.
Sarah Stern is the epitome of why I cringe when someone says they come from a "sheltered" life. Sheltered, in my opinion, is what makes you make stupid decisions early in life. 'Course, the opposite extreme leaves you in the same boat. I dunno--maybe I'm a freak of nature. My parent's lifestyle and my own shyness left me very sheltered physically, but I've always been allowed to read whatever I wanted. At 12 I graduated myself to the teen shelf and a half dozen books later I decided that teenagers are stupid and hit the adult shelves. 'Course then I learned that adults are gross and/or have this weird idea of what makes for a great adventure (Tolkien influence--the more made up words the better) and wasn't happy until I found the Holy Grail when we switched to the VA Beach library and their teen section is all the books I loved as a child plus soo much more (i.e. anything not a picture book, but without the sex). I have no idea why Norfolk has such a stupid system for separating their teen books.
Anyone who says you can't learn anything from "pulp fiction" is a pompous hipster. Everything those stupid teen books were "supposed" to teach me about life, but really just made me want to hurl, I could usually find either explicitly or implicitly within whatever book I actually enjoyed. Need a rant about why you shouldn't commit suicide because some jealous "frienemy" (is that really how that's spelled?) posts photoshopped raunchy photos of you on the school website? Go read Sherrilyn Kenyon's Infamous. V.C. Andrews' stuff really isn't worth the paper it's written on. And don't get me started on Twilight. Trust me, if you read any of Kenyon's Dark-Hunters books, you'll know what it really means to leave the person you love to save their life (or even offer yourself to Death) with lovely ladies who look at their men and say "Sweetie, I know you mean well, but let the real brains be in charge. 'kay?" and then she proceeds to kick ass, take names, and really show her commitment to him. Not lie on a couch for four months wondering where her life went. GAG!
So yeah...here I am reading something only 40+ year old women would actually enjoy. Maybe I'm just a feminist, but seriously?! Man says day one that he doesn't want to marry and you stick around for 2 years? Ever read Dear Abby?!? It's not a hard equation. I don't mean to make my mother's generation feel bad, but it's obvious that crap like this sells because women want to fantasize about a world where their bad decisions are...okay(?)--that there's some hero who's going to save her from the life she's made for herself.
Yeah, I'm the first to defend the fact that women marrying in the '80s got the damn short end of the stick--do you do as your mother? Or as your independent older sister? You have no clue as to whether to go with the status quo or to strike out on your own is the best choice. Thirty years later, most likely you're realizing that you made a poor decision when you married and threw your own dreams down the toilet, just like your mother did. But I don't know how much good we're doing for them when we give them books like this that say "it's okay to be unhappy in life so long as there's a man to stand by you". But maybe it's a different genre where you find the ladies who go back to school and pick up their lives as though they didn't spend 30 years in a crappy marriage and oh, find the man of their dreams (Hey! I like romances! If the Princess and the Goat-Herder don't get together at the end, I'm highly upset. And I'm still not sure that the Dark-Hunters aren't 'erotica for beginners'.)
There's something else I feel I need to address. When I first picked this book off my mother's shelf, I read thorugh the comments on Good Reads. Someone mentioned being insulted by the fact that N. Dakota isn't like it's protrayed here. They don't all have one room school houses. Well, that's an interesting way to look at it, but still completely wrong. I have a lot of home schooled pen pals, most of whom live in rural areas. I haven't asked them all, but there's only 2 reasons to home school an otherwise average kid (medical and psychological reasons notwithstanding)--the local schools suck or for religious reasons. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that you could find at least one location within each state in the US where a one room school house for high school could exist comfortably (less than 20 kids from more than one family). So yes, while it would be stupid to say that all of N. Dakota go to school in one room school houses, it is equally ignorant to say that a one room school house is a backwards way to learn. A couple years ago a school with, I guess, 10 kids in it was shown on the news--the kids had better scores because the older ones were teaching the younger ones and it was essentially constant review without the tediousness of review. It's one of the many benefits of homeschooling (actually, my only problem/worry with homeschooling is whether a kid can learn the advanced classes without a qualified teacher--though many families are turning towards "distance learning" rather than true homeschooling (based on my own understanding/use of definitions) to combat this.)
Sarah Stern is the epitome of why I cringe when someone says they come from a "sheltered" life. Sheltered, in my opinion, is what makes you make stupid decisions early in life. 'Course, the opposite extreme leaves you in the same boat. I dunno--maybe I'm a freak of nature. My parent's lifestyle and my own shyness left me very sheltered physically, but I've always been allowed to read whatever I wanted. At 12 I graduated myself to the teen shelf and a half dozen books later I decided that teenagers are stupid and hit the adult shelves. 'Course then I learned that adults are gross and/or have this weird idea of what makes for a great adventure (Tolkien influence--the more made up words the better) and wasn't happy until I found the Holy Grail when we switched to the VA Beach library and their teen section is all the books I loved as a child plus soo much more (i.e. anything not a picture book, but without the sex). I have no idea why Norfolk has such a stupid system for separating their teen books.
Anyone who says you can't learn anything from "pulp fiction" is a pompous hipster. Everything those stupid teen books were "supposed" to teach me about life, but really just made me want to hurl, I could usually find either explicitly or implicitly within whatever book I actually enjoyed. Need a rant about why you shouldn't commit suicide because some jealous "frienemy" (is that really how that's spelled?) posts photoshopped raunchy photos of you on the school website? Go read Sherrilyn Kenyon's Infamous. V.C. Andrews' stuff really isn't worth the paper it's written on. And don't get me started on Twilight. Trust me, if you read any of Kenyon's Dark-Hunters books, you'll know what it really means to leave the person you love to save their life (or even offer yourself to Death) with lovely ladies who look at their men and say "Sweetie, I know you mean well, but let the real brains be in charge. 'kay?" and then she proceeds to kick ass, take names, and really show her commitment to him. Not lie on a couch for four months wondering where her life went. GAG!
So yeah...here I am reading something only 40+ year old women would actually enjoy. Maybe I'm just a feminist, but seriously?! Man says day one that he doesn't want to marry and you stick around for 2 years? Ever read Dear Abby?!? It's not a hard equation. I don't mean to make my mother's generation feel bad, but it's obvious that crap like this sells because women want to fantasize about a world where their bad decisions are...okay(?)--that there's some hero who's going to save her from the life she's made for herself.
Yeah, I'm the first to defend the fact that women marrying in the '80s got the damn short end of the stick--do you do as your mother? Or as your independent older sister? You have no clue as to whether to go with the status quo or to strike out on your own is the best choice. Thirty years later, most likely you're realizing that you made a poor decision when you married and threw your own dreams down the toilet, just like your mother did. But I don't know how much good we're doing for them when we give them books like this that say "it's okay to be unhappy in life so long as there's a man to stand by you". But maybe it's a different genre where you find the ladies who go back to school and pick up their lives as though they didn't spend 30 years in a crappy marriage and oh, find the man of their dreams (Hey! I like romances! If the Princess and the Goat-Herder don't get together at the end, I'm highly upset. And I'm still not sure that the Dark-Hunters aren't 'erotica for beginners'.)
There's something else I feel I need to address. When I first picked this book off my mother's shelf, I read thorugh the comments on Good Reads. Someone mentioned being insulted by the fact that N. Dakota isn't like it's protrayed here. They don't all have one room school houses. Well, that's an interesting way to look at it, but still completely wrong. I have a lot of home schooled pen pals, most of whom live in rural areas. I haven't asked them all, but there's only 2 reasons to home school an otherwise average kid (medical and psychological reasons notwithstanding)--the local schools suck or for religious reasons. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that you could find at least one location within each state in the US where a one room school house for high school could exist comfortably (less than 20 kids from more than one family). So yes, while it would be stupid to say that all of N. Dakota go to school in one room school houses, it is equally ignorant to say that a one room school house is a backwards way to learn. A couple years ago a school with, I guess, 10 kids in it was shown on the news--the kids had better scores because the older ones were teaching the younger ones and it was essentially constant review without the tediousness of review. It's one of the many benefits of homeschooling (actually, my only problem/worry with homeschooling is whether a kid can learn the advanced classes without a qualified teacher--though many families are turning towards "distance learning" rather than true homeschooling (based on my own understanding/use of definitions) to combat this.)
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Self-Reflection Time
Sigh...do you know how freaky it is to look at your hands and suddenly KNOW that they're tiny?!? I mean, 90% of the time I'm like, "oh look, hands. They can carry stuff." Occasionally I'll have to take three trips because I just physically can't carry 4 large green peppers, so it will register that my hands are small. What freaking freaks me out is when I'm sitting here reading a book and it mentions the "humongously large" hands of the 6'8" guy and I get the whole out of body experience of viewing my hand next to someone that large and wondering why my whole hand fits in their palm.
Yes, I had a friend in high school that tall (though he was skinny as a rail) and for the record, I'm 4' 10.5" in height. My hands ARE freakishly small, but, like the rest of me, proportionate to my frame. It's just every once in a while I just have these moments of "AHHHH! Whose hands are these?!?"
I've never met anyone over the age of 12 whose hands are smaller than mine, though, alas, I'd kill to be fairy thin. For some reason, those who know me also forget about my freakishly small size--I guess I carry myself as though I was someone 6'2", 250 lbs. 'Course, they never forget when they need an armrest....le' sigh.
Yes, I had a friend in high school that tall (though he was skinny as a rail) and for the record, I'm 4' 10.5" in height. My hands ARE freakishly small, but, like the rest of me, proportionate to my frame. It's just every once in a while I just have these moments of "AHHHH! Whose hands are these?!?"
I've never met anyone over the age of 12 whose hands are smaller than mine, though, alas, I'd kill to be fairy thin. For some reason, those who know me also forget about my freakishly small size--I guess I carry myself as though I was someone 6'2", 250 lbs. 'Course, they never forget when they need an armrest....le' sigh.
Silkspeech
Mystical, demonic power, taught by Death himself...and you can learn it too!
"Silkspeech is the power of influence and control....The ability to sway other people to believe what you want them to believe or to do what you want them to." [Death]
"Like mind control?" [Nick]
"Yes and no. Mind control won't work on thse who are really hardheaded. You know....Creatures like you."
Well, if it only worked some of the time--"Then what good is it?"
"Fine." Grim (Grim Reaper AKA Death) headed for the door. "If you don't want to learn it."
"Wait, wait, wait. I didn't say that. I want to influence others." Especially if it could change his mom's attitude about dating, driving, chores...(Nick is 15 years old).
Yeah, it had a lot of possibilities. With luck, he might not ever have to take out trash again!
Grim turned around slowly. "Word to the wise, short stack, when you do use this power, you have to be careful. LIke all the others, it can sometimes come with a desvastating side effect."
"Like waht?"
"It could cause someone to kill themself. Alter their fate. Impact you in ways you won't know about until it's too late."
Oh goodie. Another power he couldn't count on. Just what he wanted.
At this rate, he wasn't sure why he was being trained. It was like giving nuts to a squirrel who had no teeth.
Nick let out a heavy sigh. "All these powers and the only one that actually works is the ability to call for help--and that one only so long as Caleb isn't in the shower or with a woman. Why can't one...just one power work the way it's supposed to?"
Grim's expression was wicked and cold. "Technically, they do. The problem is every human is different and they react to stimuli in ways unique t them. That's what you can't count on and it's what makes you powers appear to misfire. Before you use them, you have to take time to know your target."
Nick frowned. "I don't understand."
"Yes, you do. It's instinctive in you, and it's why you gravitate toward some people and run from others." Grim picked up one of the porcelain dolls Nick's mom collected and studied it as he talked. "Let's take the term 'redneck.' Some people think of it as a badge of honor. Others as the ultimate insult." He returned the doll to its shelf. "Originally, the word had an entirely different association and meaning. Back in the day, rednecks were union coal men from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky-a far cry from the Deep South where most people mistakenly believe all rednecks live. They were from all races and creeds, and proudly wore a red bandana around their neck as a way of identifying themselves to others, and as a mark of solidarity of the working man standing up against the big corporations who exploited them. In sort, they were folk heroes and admired."
Nick widened his eyes. When Grim and Kyrian talked about history, it was interesting. When his teacher did it, it put him to sleep. "Really?"
Grim nodded. "It took decades before it was twisted into a derogatory term. Happens a lot with language. The word 'war' once meant to be cautious, as in 'warning'. 'Precocious' originally meant 'stupid.' But I digress. The point is, Slim, people have triggers. Words or images that cause a surge of negative emotion to run rampant through them. If I were to call your friend Bubba a redneck, he'd laugh and agree. If I were to call your friend Mark that, he'd be extrememly offended and probably, to his detriment, try to punch me. Whenever you attempt silkspeech, you have to understand how it might adversely affect your target. If you accidently hit that person's trigger, then you could end up with a violent response instead of a positive one. Or vice versa."
Nick nodded as he followed Grim's teaching. It was something he'd been doing for years, especially with jerks and bullies like Stone at school. "So what you're saying is I have to learn what buttons to push."
"Exactly."
"That's basic psychlogy, Grim. How's that supposed to be a power?"
.....pause for two pages discussing Nick's specific powers, Nick's inability to stay on subject ("like trying to train an ADD cat in a mouse factory") and how everyone treats Nick like a kid (If you want respect from others, you have to give it--Nick's mom)
[Nick] "All right. You have my undivided attention."
"That'll last three seconds," Grim said under his breath. "Honestly, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you're not the Malachai. It mystifies me that someone as worthless as you could have any power whatsoever. You were born white trash and that's all you'll ever be." He raked Nick with a scathing sneer. "You're nothing."
Rage darkened Nick's gaze. Blood rushed through his veins so fast that his entire body heated up to the level of molten lava. "I ain't nothing, boy. You about to find out just what I can do."
Grim laughed. "That's it. I finally do have yur attention, and you've just learned the first lesson of influence. You use your divination and clairvoyance to strike the nerves of the person you're trying to manipulate. Even someone with a will as strong as yours can be influenced. Not with your mind, rather with your mouth or actions. I can't control you, but I can set you off and manipulate you to have the emotional or physically response I want you to. That is one power no one is immune to."
--Passage from Infamous by Sherrilyn Kenyon
"Silkspeech is the power of influence and control....The ability to sway other people to believe what you want them to believe or to do what you want them to." [Death]
"Like mind control?" [Nick]
"Yes and no. Mind control won't work on thse who are really hardheaded. You know....Creatures like you."
Well, if it only worked some of the time--"Then what good is it?"
"Fine." Grim (Grim Reaper AKA Death) headed for the door. "If you don't want to learn it."
"Wait, wait, wait. I didn't say that. I want to influence others." Especially if it could change his mom's attitude about dating, driving, chores...(Nick is 15 years old).
Yeah, it had a lot of possibilities. With luck, he might not ever have to take out trash again!
Grim turned around slowly. "Word to the wise, short stack, when you do use this power, you have to be careful. LIke all the others, it can sometimes come with a desvastating side effect."
"Like waht?"
"It could cause someone to kill themself. Alter their fate. Impact you in ways you won't know about until it's too late."
Oh goodie. Another power he couldn't count on. Just what he wanted.
At this rate, he wasn't sure why he was being trained. It was like giving nuts to a squirrel who had no teeth.
Nick let out a heavy sigh. "All these powers and the only one that actually works is the ability to call for help--and that one only so long as Caleb isn't in the shower or with a woman. Why can't one...just one power work the way it's supposed to?"
Grim's expression was wicked and cold. "Technically, they do. The problem is every human is different and they react to stimuli in ways unique t them. That's what you can't count on and it's what makes you powers appear to misfire. Before you use them, you have to take time to know your target."
Nick frowned. "I don't understand."
"Yes, you do. It's instinctive in you, and it's why you gravitate toward some people and run from others." Grim picked up one of the porcelain dolls Nick's mom collected and studied it as he talked. "Let's take the term 'redneck.' Some people think of it as a badge of honor. Others as the ultimate insult." He returned the doll to its shelf. "Originally, the word had an entirely different association and meaning. Back in the day, rednecks were union coal men from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky-a far cry from the Deep South where most people mistakenly believe all rednecks live. They were from all races and creeds, and proudly wore a red bandana around their neck as a way of identifying themselves to others, and as a mark of solidarity of the working man standing up against the big corporations who exploited them. In sort, they were folk heroes and admired."
Nick widened his eyes. When Grim and Kyrian talked about history, it was interesting. When his teacher did it, it put him to sleep. "Really?"
Grim nodded. "It took decades before it was twisted into a derogatory term. Happens a lot with language. The word 'war' once meant to be cautious, as in 'warning'. 'Precocious' originally meant 'stupid.' But I digress. The point is, Slim, people have triggers. Words or images that cause a surge of negative emotion to run rampant through them. If I were to call your friend Bubba a redneck, he'd laugh and agree. If I were to call your friend Mark that, he'd be extrememly offended and probably, to his detriment, try to punch me. Whenever you attempt silkspeech, you have to understand how it might adversely affect your target. If you accidently hit that person's trigger, then you could end up with a violent response instead of a positive one. Or vice versa."
Nick nodded as he followed Grim's teaching. It was something he'd been doing for years, especially with jerks and bullies like Stone at school. "So what you're saying is I have to learn what buttons to push."
"Exactly."
"That's basic psychlogy, Grim. How's that supposed to be a power?"
.....pause for two pages discussing Nick's specific powers, Nick's inability to stay on subject ("like trying to train an ADD cat in a mouse factory") and how everyone treats Nick like a kid (If you want respect from others, you have to give it--Nick's mom)
[Nick] "All right. You have my undivided attention."
"That'll last three seconds," Grim said under his breath. "Honestly, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you're not the Malachai. It mystifies me that someone as worthless as you could have any power whatsoever. You were born white trash and that's all you'll ever be." He raked Nick with a scathing sneer. "You're nothing."
Rage darkened Nick's gaze. Blood rushed through his veins so fast that his entire body heated up to the level of molten lava. "I ain't nothing, boy. You about to find out just what I can do."
Grim laughed. "That's it. I finally do have yur attention, and you've just learned the first lesson of influence. You use your divination and clairvoyance to strike the nerves of the person you're trying to manipulate. Even someone with a will as strong as yours can be influenced. Not with your mind, rather with your mouth or actions. I can't control you, but I can set you off and manipulate you to have the emotional or physically response I want you to. That is one power no one is immune to."
--Passage from Infamous by Sherrilyn Kenyon
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Prone
When used to describe the way a person is lying, it means that they're face down. I'm kinda annoyed that I've read 3 or 4 books lately where this word was used, but the rest of the actions don't necessarily make anatomical sense.
For instance, I'm reading Seize the Night by Sherrilyn Kenyon (Dark-Hunter Series). Ash is lying prone on the bed and while I'll allow for Katra to look at him the way she does while his back is supposedly towards her, maybe able to see half of his face, how on Earth could she hold the 3 leaves she needs to revive him above his mouth while she wrings them to allow the precious liquid to drop into his mouth? Greek Goddess or not, that must have been some feat with his body positioned the way it is.
Another book I was reading turned the couple into contortionists because he was lying prone underneith her as they wrestled.
I really don't know what's going on. I'm not sure if the author did intend for the guys to be face down, and then forgot to roll them over before the next action happened or if for some reason the definition of this word has been lost--or maybe it's the subtlty that was lost with it becoming a generic word for lying down, instead of a specific position.
For future reference, supine means to lie face up. And on Merriam-Webster.com (which requires a subscription for some of the less common words for some reason!) it has a "40%" popularity while prone is at about "70%" (I'm giving the popularity meter numbers), makes me wonder just how much people know about the words.
For instance, I'm reading Seize the Night by Sherrilyn Kenyon (Dark-Hunter Series). Ash is lying prone on the bed and while I'll allow for Katra to look at him the way she does while his back is supposedly towards her, maybe able to see half of his face, how on Earth could she hold the 3 leaves she needs to revive him above his mouth while she wrings them to allow the precious liquid to drop into his mouth? Greek Goddess or not, that must have been some feat with his body positioned the way it is.
Another book I was reading turned the couple into contortionists because he was lying prone underneith her as they wrestled.
I really don't know what's going on. I'm not sure if the author did intend for the guys to be face down, and then forgot to roll them over before the next action happened or if for some reason the definition of this word has been lost--or maybe it's the subtlty that was lost with it becoming a generic word for lying down, instead of a specific position.
For future reference, supine means to lie face up. And on Merriam-Webster.com (which requires a subscription for some of the less common words for some reason!) it has a "40%" popularity while prone is at about "70%" (I'm giving the popularity meter numbers), makes me wonder just how much people know about the words.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Hell's Kitchen
is one of my favorite shows. I LOVE how delusional these contenstants are the first few weeks. They're going to nominate a player who they know wasn't the worst because they stupidly think that Chef will take their choices seriously and will choose the one that they hate. This isn't a popularity contest and after 9 seasons, you'd think they'd know that. If I was the second nominee I'd stand up with honor and when confronted by Chef, I wouldn't...thank-you Roshni! She told him that she was picked not because she was worst, but because they knew she wouldn't go home.
Chef Ramsey already knows, generally, who he wants to send home...the nomination process just helps him weed out tensions going on behind the scenes and to see who is going to throw their teammates under the bus. This is why I don't watch the popularity contest shows (well, except for America's Got Talent, but then, I don't really care who wins or loses--the talents are just cool to watch).
Chef Ramsey already knows, generally, who he wants to send home...the nomination process just helps him weed out tensions going on behind the scenes and to see who is going to throw their teammates under the bus. This is why I don't watch the popularity contest shows (well, except for America's Got Talent, but then, I don't really care who wins or loses--the talents are just cool to watch).
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Priviledged Information
I'm watching the Real Housewives of New Jersey and this chaos between Theresa and her brother brings me to Lesson in B.S. #3043--if anyone ever says "this needs to stay between you and me" you need to turn around immediately and walk away. Just walk away. And you need to teach your children especially this lesson because we all know that Pedofiles always start out by saying "don't tell your parents...they won't understand", etc.
I hold the "definition of pornography" very close to my heart. You know, the one that says "I know it when I see it". Secrets are the same way. Don't share anything you don't want blabbed across the country and don't surround yourself with people you know can't keep a secret. When you quit trying, you will meet people who you can trust. People who instintively know what is a secret that should be kept and which are better told.
If you care to know about me, my rule is that if I think you should be telling the other responsible party rather than me, I'm going to tell you that. And if I know the other person and suspect that they'll talk to me about the issue, I'm going to tell you the truth that I will discuss my interpretation of the problem from your perspective. I instintively play devil's advocate so I never take the side of whomever I'm speaking no matter what. I hope that doesn't make me come across as fake, so it's a good thing I don't have a reality tv show. But on the flip-side, I don't spread rumors. I know that there are some secrets that should be kept (like who likes who--I spent my teens getting burned whenever I revealed a crush--I think that's why I'm so repressed now. So yeah, I hope there's a special place in Hell for those people who tease their "friends" and family about who their crush is. But I digress.) and I would NEVER spread something secret worthy to anyone but the directly involved parties.
The problem with the Housewives is that the majority of them seem to magically think that the girls who hurt them once won't hurt them again. They try to hard to be friends or something.
But this leads directly into the primary problem between Theresa and her brother--should a husband and wife be allowed to share everything in cofidence? The answer is a resounding yes. And in the specific case of them? Make that a HELLZ YES. If you tell your brother that you think his wife is cheating on him, you should EXPECT him to go tell her that. Otherwise you sound like a whiny little bitch who doesn't like her sister-in-law and doesn't want to discuss the reasons why she doesn't like her. What did Theresa expect? That he'd take his sister's word blindly and divorce her? Really? But then there is not one instance I can think of where I agreed with Theresa on an issue. She is self-centered and never wrong according to herself. Of all the housewives, she has not one redeeming quality. And to think that I didn't like Caroline at first.
And this is why I like the Real Housewives--it's like free therapy of what NOT to do.
I hold the "definition of pornography" very close to my heart. You know, the one that says "I know it when I see it". Secrets are the same way. Don't share anything you don't want blabbed across the country and don't surround yourself with people you know can't keep a secret. When you quit trying, you will meet people who you can trust. People who instintively know what is a secret that should be kept and which are better told.
If you care to know about me, my rule is that if I think you should be telling the other responsible party rather than me, I'm going to tell you that. And if I know the other person and suspect that they'll talk to me about the issue, I'm going to tell you the truth that I will discuss my interpretation of the problem from your perspective. I instintively play devil's advocate so I never take the side of whomever I'm speaking no matter what. I hope that doesn't make me come across as fake, so it's a good thing I don't have a reality tv show. But on the flip-side, I don't spread rumors. I know that there are some secrets that should be kept (like who likes who--I spent my teens getting burned whenever I revealed a crush--I think that's why I'm so repressed now. So yeah, I hope there's a special place in Hell for those people who tease their "friends" and family about who their crush is. But I digress.) and I would NEVER spread something secret worthy to anyone but the directly involved parties.
The problem with the Housewives is that the majority of them seem to magically think that the girls who hurt them once won't hurt them again. They try to hard to be friends or something.
But this leads directly into the primary problem between Theresa and her brother--should a husband and wife be allowed to share everything in cofidence? The answer is a resounding yes. And in the specific case of them? Make that a HELLZ YES. If you tell your brother that you think his wife is cheating on him, you should EXPECT him to go tell her that. Otherwise you sound like a whiny little bitch who doesn't like her sister-in-law and doesn't want to discuss the reasons why she doesn't like her. What did Theresa expect? That he'd take his sister's word blindly and divorce her? Really? But then there is not one instance I can think of where I agreed with Theresa on an issue. She is self-centered and never wrong according to herself. Of all the housewives, she has not one redeeming quality. And to think that I didn't like Caroline at first.
And this is why I like the Real Housewives--it's like free therapy of what NOT to do.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
I am THAT person
and damn proud of it.
I go the speed limit and I stop at yellow lights. I stop at stop signs and there's no telling how long I'll wait to turn right on red...if I even decide to turn. Oh...I stop before I turn right on red, too!
If you honk at me, I'll be even more careful about following traffic laws. If you don't like it, get off your butt and petition local government to change the laws.
I don't belong to a society of instant gratification...I'm THAT person. My license plate says "PATIENCE".
I go the speed limit and I stop at yellow lights. I stop at stop signs and there's no telling how long I'll wait to turn right on red...if I even decide to turn. Oh...I stop before I turn right on red, too!
If you honk at me, I'll be even more careful about following traffic laws. If you don't like it, get off your butt and petition local government to change the laws.
I don't belong to a society of instant gratification...I'm THAT person. My license plate says "PATIENCE".
Saturday, June 2, 2012
NYC Large Soda Ban
I'd actually like to have a defaulted smaller soda size--when I order a fast food combo, I picture what a small is...more often than not they hand me what I call a medium, or even large, size. I don't need more than 12 or 14 ounces of soda and I certainly never need 20, 24, or 40 ounces.
Soda is cheap--fast food restaurants practically give it away. Most offer free refills. So why can't they just give me a smaller cup? What is the difference between giving me a 24 ounce cup and expecting me to fill it twice (for the road) and giving me a twelve ounce cup and I fill it twice while eating then once more for the road? Actually, it saves the restaurant money because I take a net 12 ounces less.
Do I agree with the government mandating it? No. EXCEPT that I felt physically ill when some representative of the CATO Institute going so far as to say that "obesity isn't a public health issue; it's a private health issue". You know me. Anyone who doesn't have private health insurance IS on public health whether it's medicare, medicaid or just walking into a hospital with no ability to pay the bill in full.
Look, the reality is that so long as taxpayer money is footing the bill, I should get to say that you can't drink yourself to death. So, either agree to using smaller soda cups or say goodbye to health care as we have it--no private insurance, you'll die.
If I was going to fix health care, all I'd do is remove the law that says that a hospital has to admit you independently of your insurance status. Congress would suddenly be inundated with calls from sick people and those with sick relatives wondering how they're supposed to live when they can't get insurance and can't get government coverage either. I wonder how many Republicans will suddenly think a health insurance mandate and laws which make it easier to get and keep health insurance is a good idea.
Remember, Conservatives believe that you should plan for your own future, right? Don't rely on the government to care for you when you're old and sick.
Soda is cheap--fast food restaurants practically give it away. Most offer free refills. So why can't they just give me a smaller cup? What is the difference between giving me a 24 ounce cup and expecting me to fill it twice (for the road) and giving me a twelve ounce cup and I fill it twice while eating then once more for the road? Actually, it saves the restaurant money because I take a net 12 ounces less.
Do I agree with the government mandating it? No. EXCEPT that I felt physically ill when some representative of the CATO Institute going so far as to say that "obesity isn't a public health issue; it's a private health issue". You know me. Anyone who doesn't have private health insurance IS on public health whether it's medicare, medicaid or just walking into a hospital with no ability to pay the bill in full.
Look, the reality is that so long as taxpayer money is footing the bill, I should get to say that you can't drink yourself to death. So, either agree to using smaller soda cups or say goodbye to health care as we have it--no private insurance, you'll die.
If I was going to fix health care, all I'd do is remove the law that says that a hospital has to admit you independently of your insurance status. Congress would suddenly be inundated with calls from sick people and those with sick relatives wondering how they're supposed to live when they can't get insurance and can't get government coverage either. I wonder how many Republicans will suddenly think a health insurance mandate and laws which make it easier to get and keep health insurance is a good idea.
Remember, Conservatives believe that you should plan for your own future, right? Don't rely on the government to care for you when you're old and sick.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Oh Good Grief
Apparently the latest scientific evidence that is making people pro-life is that science has proven that "Human DNA exists at conception"--excuse me while I go bury my head in a barrel of DUH!
Anyone whose been in a biology class knows that daddy donates 1 chromosome and mommy donates 1 chormosome and when the two cells combine into one, a new cell with baby's DNA is formed. It's never been an issue that that cell has human DNA--what were they expecting? Dog? Cat? Chinchilla?!?
The real issue is when the fertilized egg is considered "alive". Plan B works by not allowing the fertilized egg attach itself to the uterus. But I'm not here to discuss when life starts.
But if you've read my stuff on the issue, you know that I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. I'm pro- contraception including Plan B. I wouldn't have an abortion, but I cannot in any way convince myself that I can make that decision for another person. Since I can't make that decision for a person, how can I support laws that do it?
I also don't believe that making it illegal will stop abortions from happening, so it seems a waste of time to fight over what's legal or not instead of actually addressing the problem's that cause unwanted pregnancies.
Anyone whose been in a biology class knows that daddy donates 1 chromosome and mommy donates 1 chormosome and when the two cells combine into one, a new cell with baby's DNA is formed. It's never been an issue that that cell has human DNA--what were they expecting? Dog? Cat? Chinchilla?!?
The real issue is when the fertilized egg is considered "alive". Plan B works by not allowing the fertilized egg attach itself to the uterus. But I'm not here to discuss when life starts.
But if you've read my stuff on the issue, you know that I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. I'm pro- contraception including Plan B. I wouldn't have an abortion, but I cannot in any way convince myself that I can make that decision for another person. Since I can't make that decision for a person, how can I support laws that do it?
I also don't believe that making it illegal will stop abortions from happening, so it seems a waste of time to fight over what's legal or not instead of actually addressing the problem's that cause unwanted pregnancies.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
What will Zuckerberg Do?
I hope he does absolutely nothing! Those burned small investors have no right to anything--their money went into the pockets of the rich guys who bought first. And it's not like Zuckerberg pointed a gun at their head and told them to buy.
When the financial guru on ABC says don't buy the big guy's sloppy seconds...dont buy.
As for whether someone was doing some insider trading, all I want to know is whether Zuckerberg knew about it (it sounded like it was a bank thing). All I have seen is that he's kept his billions in the company and lost billions in the past week. If he was an insider trader who really would do anything to make a buck, he would have sold seconds after he made them and invested in something more sound. Either he really doesn't care about money or he's confident that at the end of the day he's made money. I mean, if I had 51+% of free shares in a company, I don't care if it loses 95% of it's "starting value"--I've made money.
Romney wants a Capitalist society--here it is. Small investors got scammed and the rich made money. Sure, we like good regulation, but honey, that's not Capitalism.
When the financial guru on ABC says don't buy the big guy's sloppy seconds...dont buy.
As for whether someone was doing some insider trading, all I want to know is whether Zuckerberg knew about it (it sounded like it was a bank thing). All I have seen is that he's kept his billions in the company and lost billions in the past week. If he was an insider trader who really would do anything to make a buck, he would have sold seconds after he made them and invested in something more sound. Either he really doesn't care about money or he's confident that at the end of the day he's made money. I mean, if I had 51+% of free shares in a company, I don't care if it loses 95% of it's "starting value"--I've made money.
Romney wants a Capitalist society--here it is. Small investors got scammed and the rich made money. Sure, we like good regulation, but honey, that's not Capitalism.
Catholic Lawsuit Against Birth Control
I don't buy the argument that religions shouldn't have to cover birth control for everyone in their employment. There is NO debate on the fact that 99% of woman use birth control of some sort. So if the women working are using it, why shouldn't they (and the men in their congregation) pay for it? I can understand that they're fighting against the fact that the government is "mandating" it, but the women should be standing up and saying that while they don't like how it's happened, they want their insurance to cover it. Period.
I can't understand why a nun who uses birth control to help with her period would stand up and say "No, I don't want my insurance to pay for it." In fact, I don't think that any nun or any other female working for a religious organization who uses birth control has stood up and said that. Actually, I'm pretty sure that nuns have been silenced by their male counterparts for trying to speak out on this. I DO know that a certain law student who uses school insurance since it's all she can afford was chastised for daring to speak out on the subject.
It isn't fair that Viagra is covered while The Pill isn't. Period. And if you have a problem with me feeling that way, feel free to share.
I can't understand why a nun who uses birth control to help with her period would stand up and say "No, I don't want my insurance to pay for it." In fact, I don't think that any nun or any other female working for a religious organization who uses birth control has stood up and said that. Actually, I'm pretty sure that nuns have been silenced by their male counterparts for trying to speak out on this. I DO know that a certain law student who uses school insurance since it's all she can afford was chastised for daring to speak out on the subject.
It isn't fair that Viagra is covered while The Pill isn't. Period. And if you have a problem with me feeling that way, feel free to share.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Use of the word "Hero"
While I think Chris Hayes was dead wrong saying that all fallen soldiers aren't heroes, I do agree that the word is overused. I can't come up with a real-life example off the top of my head, and I'm not going to look for one, but I know I've heard someone get called a hero for something I think isn't appropriate. Oh, I think it was when a girl ran home instead of being kidnapped. I'm sorry folks, but that isn't a "hero"--that's being smart, doing the right thing, and all that jazz, but a hero is someone who goes out of their way to save someone else. A hero would be if she kicked the guy in the shins to keep him from taking another child (please don't put yourself into that kind of danger, kids!!) or running home with the information to have the guy arrested in an hour so that he can't harm anyone else. Heroes lift burning cars off of wrecked motorcyclists--they aren't motorcyclists who pick themselves up off the pavement after laying down their bikes, no matter how self-sufficient they are.
Oh Good Grief! I guess I'm idealistic because Merriam-Webster gives this as the definition:
Oh Good Grief! I guess I'm idealistic because Merriam-Webster gives this as the definition:
a person who is the object of extreme or uncritical devotion (fans of the sports hero didn't care what the facts were—in their minds, he was innocent of all criminal charges). Sports stars are not heroes unless they're spending their extra cash building playgrounds and teaching kids to get up and excercise (and even then it's dependant on how much of that is their choice and how much is their publicist talking).
Monday, May 28, 2012
If you like to write ANYTHING
Or read anything, please hop over to http://tvtropes.org/ and browse whatever you like. It's fascinating to see how writers aren't really that original (or better yet, seeing how your favorite authors rebel against the status quo). And seriously, writers are going to write something that's already been done, so go there and read how to do it properly and what to avoid. It'll keep you from making rookie mistakes.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Uh Oh.
Apparently when Reagan became president he took away the tax breaks for renewable energy and drove the largest solar energy farm out of business. Wow. And sorry. I'm going to try to post another hulu video even though I know I haven't fixed the previous ones. The name of the program is "The Nature of Things: Earth Energy" but I think it's going to expire in 3 days. I highly recommend that if nothing else, you head over there and watch the episodes on "Biomimicry" (there's 2 parts) and learn how scientists are using the techniques prefected by nature to make human life more efficicient and just plain work better. Plus finding things that we'd never have been able to do otherwise.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Fox News Sunday--Bravo
Well, in what was an excellent bit of journalism Fox News Sunday earned the award for best choice in guest for May 20th, 2012.
The question was "Isn't it the job of every CEO to making money for the investors in the business?" And their token Obama supporter succeeded in fumbling all over the question in a very stupid fashion, thus showing why Democrats know nothing about business theory.
Le Sigh. Look, this was an EASY one! The correct answer is, "Yes. That is the job of every CEO--HOWEVER, it is also the responsibility of the CEO to not treat their employees as though they don't have an investment in the company. Isn't it a responsibility of the employee to care about how the company does to ensure that they will have a job in the next ten or twenty years? And isn't it a failure by the CEO when they have to lay off a number of employees because the CEO wasn't able to look after all of the interested partners? The problem with the question you're asking, is that most employees are not monitary investors in the company. So while the CEO is catering to Wall Street, isn't it also possible that he's neglecting the employees who should hold an equal or greater amount of interest that the company continues to make a profit?
"Yes, Bain's job was to save companies that would otherwise go out of business, but at what expense to the employees? Those steel workers were working their asses off in that company and their employers paid them back with a pink slip from Bain. Why weren't the employees treated as investors? Just because they have no money involved? What does that say about our system when one person is allowed to make $10 million after putting in $5 million and the man who spent 20 years of his life actually creating the product is fired? Why couldn't Bain have taken a smaller profit (they're already multi-millionaires, right?) and invested the profits they would have taken to the bank back into the company to save more jobs?"
EDIT 11-22-12
After reading about what went down for Hostess this week, this seems to be an excellent example. And while it might have started an unwanted discussion at the dinner table earlier today, I stand behind what I said. While my family members seemed to think that Hostess is without fault for this bankruptcy, I've now read 3 articles saying that it could have been prevented with different managerial decisions (my stance on it without having paid very much attention this past week). Besides, while I don't care to dwell on the issue, it seems that Hostess wasn't a privately traded company, removing a healthy dose of "oversight committee" whose opinions some family members seemed to think pertinent. Maybe they should have brought in Bain?
The question was "Isn't it the job of every CEO to making money for the investors in the business?" And their token Obama supporter succeeded in fumbling all over the question in a very stupid fashion, thus showing why Democrats know nothing about business theory.
Le Sigh. Look, this was an EASY one! The correct answer is, "Yes. That is the job of every CEO--HOWEVER, it is also the responsibility of the CEO to not treat their employees as though they don't have an investment in the company. Isn't it a responsibility of the employee to care about how the company does to ensure that they will have a job in the next ten or twenty years? And isn't it a failure by the CEO when they have to lay off a number of employees because the CEO wasn't able to look after all of the interested partners? The problem with the question you're asking, is that most employees are not monitary investors in the company. So while the CEO is catering to Wall Street, isn't it also possible that he's neglecting the employees who should hold an equal or greater amount of interest that the company continues to make a profit?
"Yes, Bain's job was to save companies that would otherwise go out of business, but at what expense to the employees? Those steel workers were working their asses off in that company and their employers paid them back with a pink slip from Bain. Why weren't the employees treated as investors? Just because they have no money involved? What does that say about our system when one person is allowed to make $10 million after putting in $5 million and the man who spent 20 years of his life actually creating the product is fired? Why couldn't Bain have taken a smaller profit (they're already multi-millionaires, right?) and invested the profits they would have taken to the bank back into the company to save more jobs?"
EDIT 11-22-12
After reading about what went down for Hostess this week, this seems to be an excellent example. And while it might have started an unwanted discussion at the dinner table earlier today, I stand behind what I said. While my family members seemed to think that Hostess is without fault for this bankruptcy, I've now read 3 articles saying that it could have been prevented with different managerial decisions (my stance on it without having paid very much attention this past week). Besides, while I don't care to dwell on the issue, it seems that Hostess wasn't a privately traded company, removing a healthy dose of "oversight committee" whose opinions some family members seemed to think pertinent. Maybe they should have brought in Bain?
Joe Scarbourogh liked Jon Huntsman
He said it on The View yesterday. Write in campaign?! Let's do it!
To What Extent...
is covering the news covered by other news stations news? 'Cuz I get annoyed whenever Fox News tells me what stories weren't covered by "liberal media" or emphasizes the fact that the liberal news spent an excessive amount of time on one story while neglecting other stories instead of just telling me the story and being done with it.
I'm intelligent. I watch all the major news channels (well, not CNN or MSNBC, but then, I'm not a glutton for punishment--I like clips so that I can pick and choose what I watch) so that I can get a good sense of what's going on in the world. I KNOW when I see a story being covered days after I saw it on some other outlet. So does my dad when he reads something in the paper that doesn't make the television news for 3 or 4 days (he doesn't read as many papers or watch as much television news as me--just the local paper, the local news and the evenening news (the later two are usually ABC affiliate, but sometimes we watch NBC). We don't need someone to tell us when something is or isn't covered and it makes it look like they have an agenda against the other outlet.
Much like when one of the local news stations found out that a couple Pilot employees were mugged a month before but were never published as news so they implied that there was a cover-up. As the Pilot said, "people get mugged everyday, why should this mugging be treated any differently? It's not like there was any sensitive documents taken."
I haven't gone back to Fox News to see if there's been a follow up on the flesh-eating bacteria. A couple weeks ago I was annoyed by the article because there didn't seem to be any reason for it--not even an analysis of how often someone contracts the bacteria or a warning on how to avoid it. A few days after I saw the story on Fox, it was aired on the "liberal media" (I'm not sure which one). I didn't watch it to see if they gave any analysis, but I did take notice that since then, there have been 2 more articles on flesh-eating bacteria. Even if the "liberal media" half-assed it like Fox did, at least they're showing more than one example to emphasize that this isn't a once in a lifetime event. Feel free to share examples of Fox going more in depth with the story, I'd be interested to see them.
I'm intelligent. I watch all the major news channels (well, not CNN or MSNBC, but then, I'm not a glutton for punishment--I like clips so that I can pick and choose what I watch) so that I can get a good sense of what's going on in the world. I KNOW when I see a story being covered days after I saw it on some other outlet. So does my dad when he reads something in the paper that doesn't make the television news for 3 or 4 days (he doesn't read as many papers or watch as much television news as me--just the local paper, the local news and the evenening news (the later two are usually ABC affiliate, but sometimes we watch NBC). We don't need someone to tell us when something is or isn't covered and it makes it look like they have an agenda against the other outlet.
Much like when one of the local news stations found out that a couple Pilot employees were mugged a month before but were never published as news so they implied that there was a cover-up. As the Pilot said, "people get mugged everyday, why should this mugging be treated any differently? It's not like there was any sensitive documents taken."
I haven't gone back to Fox News to see if there's been a follow up on the flesh-eating bacteria. A couple weeks ago I was annoyed by the article because there didn't seem to be any reason for it--not even an analysis of how often someone contracts the bacteria or a warning on how to avoid it. A few days after I saw the story on Fox, it was aired on the "liberal media" (I'm not sure which one). I didn't watch it to see if they gave any analysis, but I did take notice that since then, there have been 2 more articles on flesh-eating bacteria. Even if the "liberal media" half-assed it like Fox did, at least they're showing more than one example to emphasize that this isn't a once in a lifetime event. Feel free to share examples of Fox going more in depth with the story, I'd be interested to see them.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Okay...
Not sure why Hulu videos aren't showing up on my posts--PBS's are working fine. It's late, so I'm not going to bother with it now--hopefully if you are interested in watching a video I've left enough information for you to be able to find it for yourself. Sorry for the inconvience.
Pure History: Cold War Spies Behind Enemy Lines
Apparently, even Soviet Russia wanted to be like James Bond. (51:00)
OH NO!
I'm a huge fan of America's Next Top Model. Of all the reality programs, the thing I like most is that the expert judges hold all the power--it's one of the few shows that isn't a popularity contest. Even The Biggest Loser is dependant on personalities. So now you know how upset I am that viewers will get a say in who stays and who goes home.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Fox News Special: One Nation Under God: Religion and History in Washington, D.C.
Okay, I'm currently paused at 2:32. Gingrich has just said that arguably the Declaration of Independence is the most important document for the United States. Since this is a program focusing on what the founders believed about religion in governance, I have a feeling that I know what Mr. McClay is going to say. Which is why I want to voice my own opinion before he can say it.
There are a lot of pro-religion people who dislike Thomas Jefferson (writer of the Declaration) because he wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom which is the place you will find the words "separation of church and state". Jefferson also built his University under that principle. In every other university of it's time and before, a chapel was placed at the center of it. At UVA, the Rotunda which served as both a space for classrooms and the library is at the center. Then are dorms where students and professors live together. The chapel was built outside of the lawn. Isn't this a visual description of how Jefferson believed the country should be governed?
First commercial break--
Well...you've convinced me that the founding fathers were religious...which you do realize wasn't the same religion you have now, right? Washington wasn't Pat Robertson.
And, please...don't use memorials to tell us what the founders believed. They were created LATER and with the ideals and interpretations of the people who designed and built it. Go to the Smithsonian and look at the HUGE statue of Washington. He's supposed to draw comparisons to Ancient Greece appearing like the Zeus to our Democratic pantheon. All was good for about 20 years as he sat in the middle of D.C. for everyone to gaze upon. Then one day someone looked at it in a new light. GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS NAKED!!!!!!!!! And he's been hidden away ever since.
If you are trying to tell me the story of the founding fathers and their beliefs, do NOT use ANYTHING that wasn't contemporary to their time. You should be discussing the evolution of the Enlightenment, not telling me what men were thinking during the Depression when the Jefferson Memorial was commissioned. If you don't talk about the University while discussing Jefferson, Gingrich, you get a failing grade and my emense simpathy for all of the students whose education was hurt inside of your classroom.
HAHAHAHAAH. Oh My God. Want to talk about irony?!? They start out with wondering if a monument about Jefferson could get built today since the first thing you notice is his own words about swearing to God to fight against all tyranny over the mind of man. Wow. That's really deep. Of course, I'm not sure that Gingrich got it right as he uses this line as evidence of Jefferson's belief that we should all have God in the center of our lives. The started out the segment on Jefferson by saying that Jefferson is often seen as the "patron saint" for separation of church and state because he wasn't a traditional Christian and believed in the Englightenment and the necessity to question everything. One of the things that he had to question was what exactly was the role of God...and as you can see when you tour UVA--secular learning comes at the center; religion is a necessary moral guide, but not at the expense of books and discovery. The Catholic Church played a major role in the Enlightenment which came as a result of the Scientific Revolution, when the Church said that it didn't matter how much evidence you had to say that the Sun was at the center of the Solar System; the Bible says that Humans (and therefore Earth) are the center of the Universe. Jefferson, would therefore be a hypocrit because if his God suddenly said that he was not allowed to innovate or learn, he'd become an Atheist for sure. The mind of man is what's most important...the fact that he's swearing to God to fight tyranny over it is a mere technicality.
And now we're talking about Slavery...Umm...thank-you Fox News. Apparently their theory on education is that using examples of the use of the word God is evidence of the founders' feelings--that the examples alone are explaination of what they felt. Are they actually going to go into what those words would have meant in 1776 to 1789?!? Or are we supposed to just be dumb cows and assume that the connotations and meanings haven't changed? I feel like my professors writing on papers: "expand" and "more detail". Quotes are necessary, but without delving into the significance you're looking at a C paper. What does it mean when Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal under their creator"? If you can't tell me, why bother?
Ahh...and apparently the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom doesn't exist as a founding document. Well, played Fox News, well played. Since it was never officially voted upon by the founders to make it a federal document, it must be left to the shelves of "things the founders wrote to influence the way people thought without actually meaning for it to become meaningful law". Well, I take your Statue for Religious Freedom and raise you one (or rather 85) Federalist Papers. Your move. Oh wait...I'm throwing in a Common Sense article on the side.
Sigh...okay...once again. Thank-you for the interesting quiz questions. I didn't know that Franklin asked that a prayer be held before each meeting and I didn't know that there's a painting of Pochahontas being baptised in the Capital. But, for the latter, do you mind telling me when it was painted? Who commissioned it (or bought it for placement)? And when it was placed where it now sits? Because if it wasn't done while the founders were in office, then all you are telling me is that at some point some government official, who has been removed from the founders by how many years decided to put in some religious artwork--just like Congress decided to add "under God" to the Pledge of Alliegence in 1947. So far Gingrich, you're ACING the "how many ways can we fool the public into believing whatever we're trying to tell them by giving lots of examples and no in depth analysis" section while failing dismally the "we're actually trying to teach you something" part. You won't find many *educated* people who believe in Separation of Church and State who don't know that the founders attended church regularly, but can still give you plenty of evidence of why they wouldn't support the lack of separation many on the right wish to have.
I highly doubt that Jefferson would say that it isn't tyranny to tell a child that they have to memorize a passage from the Bible before class every morning, especially if said child was Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. Though he would probably say that reading the Bible (and the Torah and the Quran and I'm afraid I'm insinsitive because I do not know the holy book for Hindus) and deciding what you believe for yourself is very important to a well rounded education. In fact Gingrich, how about you hop over to the Smithsonian and pick up a copy of Jefferson's Bible? Or is it against your faith to see your holy book cut into little pieces and re-spliced together to form a cohesive account of exactly what Jefferson believed--I think he even wrote in some footnotes to help you figure it out.
Ugh...This latest question is giving me a glimpse into the real reason behind this program: "which came first the Christmas Tree in the White House or the Easter Egg Roll?" They want to stop the people who want to get rid of such traditions for being religious. Okay...I can see that. I wish they'd said that from the beginning. That's the problem that this program has had--they're trying to push one agenda while hiding it behind something seemingly educational. It's okay to want to show the traditions of the past--in fact, if they'd done a good job showing how the traditions started and where they fit into the historical context, it would be well done. But instead we have all these rather random references thrown out without any real analysis into the history.
Look we can agree that the founding fathers believed that personal religion plays a huge roll in everyday life--in their own decision making too. They wrote the 1st amendment to say that everyone gets to believe what they believe when they believe it and to be able to live based on the way that they believe that they should. But they didn't give government the right to say "this is a Christian Nation only." Heck Egg Rolling was a Pagan idea that the early Christians adopted--Protestants should be protesting the annual event even louder than the Atheists. The same is true of the Christmas tree which came from Germany (Washington decorated Mount Vernon with boughs (I think they're called) over the doorways and that was it). The Atheists aren't asking for representatives to throw away their faith--many times they'll agree on moral issues anyway, no Bible required. All they're asking for is that non-Christian faiths not be tossed aside as worthless. If you look at the history, the first "White House Christmas tree" was decorated in 1929--before that it was a family tree that no one can even agree about who had the first (as they adopted the custom from Germany, remember). If the first family has a Christmas tree, fine, but we don't need to have one standing there saying "look world, everyone in this country celebrates Christmas"--in fact, there are many conservative Christian groups who don't believe in having a tree or exchanging gifts--shouldn't they be standing up for their beliefs? And I don't think that the Atheists mind if our representatives talk about their own faith so long as there is a clear understanding that they aren't trying to speak for everyone. By the way, Roosevelt abandoned the egg rolling while he was president and Congress banned the use of the White House lawn to be used as a children's playground in 1877. And I don't think they ever answered the question about which came first.
Wait...big government supplants the church--the state becomes the church?!? What? I do not undertand this guy's reasoning. Especially given the topic we're supposed to be talking about. Are we supposed to believe that people left the church when government got bigger under Roosevelt? Well, I guess one could argue that with better education, fewer people bought into some of the things the churches have to say (see that video on the Amish I posted yesterday--one of the girls felt she had to leave the community when her mother told her it would be better if she didn't think all because she couldn't understand the reasoning behind being allowed to pay for a taxi to take her to the store, but not beling allowed to own a bicycle that would let her be self-sufficient and go by herself). And as for people turning to government rather than the church for aid, well one can't expect people who have left the church for their own reasons (I highly doubt that Roosevelt's government was paying people not to go to church) to ask for aid from an organization that they don't fundamentally agree with. And aren't churches finding it more difficult to pay for all the needy people they have? Where are all the Christian millionaires to pay for their care? Oh right. I forgot. Romney paid exactly his 10% to charity last year.
Well...I guess I see the Vietnam Memorial differently. Some see it as being something cold and barren that doesn't serve to honor what the men sacrificed themselves for. That because there isn't a religious part to it, it's somehow empty. I think that the American people, when the cover it with flowers and poems and other things are helping to create a memorial that isn't trying to please everyone. Yes, I can see the need to remember the nurses, and maybe the need to have the statues of the fighters, but everyone knows the saying "you can please some of the people some of the time, but none of the people all of the time. The Vietnam Memorial is my favorite memorial because of it's simplicity--it's not trying to talk you into believing something. It's simply a place for you to come and reflect on what that war meant to you. If religion matters, then feel free to add your own, just like the religious symbols on the government headstones. But no one wants to impose their religious views on the others. And I just can't see Washington, Franklin, Jefferson or any of the other founders putting the 10 Commandments on a building.
Glee: Props
Not sure what I'm thinking about this episode. As a rule, I only watch the show for the music--it doesn't bother me at all to skip the rest of an episode. So here I am...the music is okay (but getting better), the plot is weird (oh, good, it only lasted for a little while (Tina as Rachel)), but I'm being highly entertained by the characters interpretations of each other (though I cried at Blane's hair :-[ ).
Guilty Pleasures on POV
Oh My God, I've never laughed so much in my life. This is hilarious! I'll admit, I've started to like romance novels...but these aren't them! These are my mother's romances with the awkwardly named hero's (Dash?!?!) who are too perfectly muscled (okay...can't really hate that part) and who love the girl who doesn't have half a brain to stand on (yeah...I'm going to go with that mis-mash of sayings), and the naked couple on the cover. GAHH!!! Seriously, that English old man narrating at the beginning as he writes down the story (probably under some woman's name) is hilarious.
It's no wonder I'm reading the Dark Hunters series--when Ash is asked what he does while Artemis leaves him for hours on end in her bedroom he quips that he writes romance novels. Hmm...21 year old looking, 11,000 year old sex god (well...I'll leave you to think what you like about that one to not spoil the series for you) GOTH writing romance novels...yeah...not happening. Our real hero plays video games and referees for 8 year old basketball players while wrangling a bunch of whiny immortals all while not being able to get close to anyone. Where the girls stake vampires (and their husbands) and/or throw hammers at them.
Actually...it's the girls that mostly turns me off--the ones who HAVE to have the guy rescue them from their own depressing lives...really?!? If the premise of the story revolves around the girls inability to save herself it's really not worth the paper it's written on (situations where the girl is tied up by the badguy and therefore isn't physically able to rescue herself not included...unless it was her own ineptitude that got her into the situation in the first place).
Watch Guilty Pleasures - Trailer on PBS. See more from POV.
The Amish
I found this video on the pbs.org website. I've always been curious about the Amish church and community, so I'm happy that someone took the time to create this. I could never go to the "Amish Country" and tour it, though. It just seems...weird to do so. I mean, it's like the guy at the beginning says--it'd be like going to Disney World. But these are people not artifacts. If I want to see old homesyles I'll go to the Homestead Museum (I think that's what it's called). I just can't bring myself to go to a place to "view societies in their natural habitat" almost like animals--it seems unnatural to me to label people as being fundamentally different just because they behave in a way different from me. I have a similar aversion to the touristy luaus in Hawaii. I'm not opposed to watching displays of traditions like dancing, though, because they're usually part of an all encompassing festival where you interact normally with the participants before and after the display.
The average tourist isn't going to walk up to the Amish or to the dancers at a luau and strike up a normal everyday conversation. And that's where I feel uncomfortable being an observer. I wouldn't want outsiders comeing to watch me do something I care about when I'm not choosing to put myself onto display. (I'm always doubtful that people who dance at luaus every evening give the same performance as they would if it were a special one, done once a year, to honor some tradition.)
Watch The Amish on PBS. See more from American Experience.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Speaker Boehner
"Why
do we always have to allow elections to get in the way of doing the right thing?"
Good question Mr. Speaker. Why did Republican Senator Tom Coburn not come out and say that the mega-rich should pay more in taxes until after he decided to retire? Why did Dick Cheney not come out in support of gay marriag until he was retired? Why do so many members of Congress continue to suppress a bill to reel in Congressional pensions?
Mr. Speaker, you talk a good talk, but you don't walk the walk. The debt ceiling crisis will once again NOT be dealt with until the last minute. But good job trying to get the Democrats on board to counter-act that "suicide pact", as Jon Stewart called it, where Reps. agreed to sacrifice the military and Dems. sacrificed the social programs if they couldn't agree to other necessary spending cuts--apparently we're just going to cut the social programs.
Good question Mr. Speaker. Why did Republican Senator Tom Coburn not come out and say that the mega-rich should pay more in taxes until after he decided to retire? Why did Dick Cheney not come out in support of gay marriag until he was retired? Why do so many members of Congress continue to suppress a bill to reel in Congressional pensions?
Mr. Speaker, you talk a good talk, but you don't walk the walk. The debt ceiling crisis will once again NOT be dealt with until the last minute. But good job trying to get the Democrats on board to counter-act that "suicide pact", as Jon Stewart called it, where Reps. agreed to sacrifice the military and Dems. sacrificed the social programs if they couldn't agree to other necessary spending cuts--apparently we're just going to cut the social programs.
Baboons Can Identify Words
This is really cool, but I'm somewhat concerned.
The study is putting a computer in front of baboons and asking them to identify correctly spelled words verses a random jumble of letters. The baboons have shown themselves to choose correctly 75% of the time.
My concern is that the examples shown in the clip I'm watching are all of English words. Since this is just a 3 minute clip, I cannot begin to judge whether the study includes foreign words, though I guess I could argue that since the baboons are learning to read from scratch, the process of learning isn't dependant on the language used. They're identifying correct words given the rules they've picked up during the initial phases--not creating new rules to be able to identify that tener is a real word. Which is amazing in itself.
'Course the real question is how would a human child do on the test? Could a 1 year old do equally well?
The study is putting a computer in front of baboons and asking them to identify correctly spelled words verses a random jumble of letters. The baboons have shown themselves to choose correctly 75% of the time.
My concern is that the examples shown in the clip I'm watching are all of English words. Since this is just a 3 minute clip, I cannot begin to judge whether the study includes foreign words, though I guess I could argue that since the baboons are learning to read from scratch, the process of learning isn't dependant on the language used. They're identifying correct words given the rules they've picked up during the initial phases--not creating new rules to be able to identify that tener is a real word. Which is amazing in itself.
'Course the real question is how would a human child do on the test? Could a 1 year old do equally well?
Wheel of Fortune
Oh...My...God...hahahaha. So I'm going through my weird news clips of the week (2 weeks?) and there's this clip about Wheel of Fortune about the college kid who couldn't solve a puzzle missing only 2 letters. I thought it was ridiculous and obvious, so I told my dad about it. Here's the puzzle:
MAG_C _AND
We couldn't agree as to whether it was MAGIC SAND or MAGIC BAND....yeah...we were as bad as the kid. MAGIC WAND didn't even enter our stream of consciousness.
MAG_C _AND
We couldn't agree as to whether it was MAGIC SAND or MAGIC BAND....yeah...we were as bad as the kid. MAGIC WAND didn't even enter our stream of consciousness.
Jupiter
Not sure why I didn't write this before...blogger was probably malfunctioning when I first learned about it.
So, the Romans naming Jupiter after their head God has an interesting meaning today. Apparently Jupiter's gravity has saved Earth from an uncountable number of incoming projectiles. Thanks Big Guy!
So, the Romans naming Jupiter after their head God has an interesting meaning today. Apparently Jupiter's gravity has saved Earth from an uncountable number of incoming projectiles. Thanks Big Guy!
Monday, May 21, 2012
Zuckerburg Gets Married
I really think that he and his wife will stay together forever. The fact that she made him sign an agreement to have a date night every week and that he'll make room for 100 hours of alone time (per week? day?) for the two of them has a lot to do with my prediction.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Legalizing Prostitution as Legalizing Abuse Against Women
I don't buy that argument. How is it abusive against women if it's the woman's choice to sell her body?
If women are being protected from being beaten, being allowed to decide when and where and with whom they will work, and all that jazz, how is that hurting women? Legalizing it would stop it from being run by criminals who just want to use and abuse a woman to make a profit.
I'm not saying that I'd be particularly happy if my daughter told me that she wanted to be a prostitute, but if it were legal, I wouldn't worry as much. Since I don't have a daughter, but I do have a heart, I project my feelings onto all women who are forced into the occupation because they feel that they cannot do anything else or who actually want such an occupation.
We're putting a "band-aid" onto the problem when we make it illegal. Just like anti-abortion laws are a band-aid. We aren't stopping the practice by making it illegal, so shouldn't we legalize it and regulate it and let society take charge as to how it is done? Proponents of capitalism would say that if there isn't a market, there isn't a business. If there wasn't a market for prostitution...or abortions...they would no longer exist. Only society can change society--government and laws cannot.
And I argue that these laws make it easier for the "immoralities" to remain because those who want the "problem" to go away think that the band-aid will do the trick. They spend all their energy fighting in Congress to pass laws that they really know nothing at all about (trans-vaginal ultrasounds) when they could spend the time out in the public, addressing the problems up front: Helping women get out from under their pimp, handing out contraception, talking to teen girls about the realities of teen pregnancy, or counselling drug addicts to help them recover.
If women are being protected from being beaten, being allowed to decide when and where and with whom they will work, and all that jazz, how is that hurting women? Legalizing it would stop it from being run by criminals who just want to use and abuse a woman to make a profit.
I'm not saying that I'd be particularly happy if my daughter told me that she wanted to be a prostitute, but if it were legal, I wouldn't worry as much. Since I don't have a daughter, but I do have a heart, I project my feelings onto all women who are forced into the occupation because they feel that they cannot do anything else or who actually want such an occupation.
We're putting a "band-aid" onto the problem when we make it illegal. Just like anti-abortion laws are a band-aid. We aren't stopping the practice by making it illegal, so shouldn't we legalize it and regulate it and let society take charge as to how it is done? Proponents of capitalism would say that if there isn't a market, there isn't a business. If there wasn't a market for prostitution...or abortions...they would no longer exist. Only society can change society--government and laws cannot.
And I argue that these laws make it easier for the "immoralities" to remain because those who want the "problem" to go away think that the band-aid will do the trick. They spend all their energy fighting in Congress to pass laws that they really know nothing at all about (trans-vaginal ultrasounds) when they could spend the time out in the public, addressing the problems up front: Helping women get out from under their pimp, handing out contraception, talking to teen girls about the realities of teen pregnancy, or counselling drug addicts to help them recover.
3 Second Rule
No, I'm not talking about how long you can leave food on the floor before you can no longer eat it. I'm talking about what I think is the best way to determine trademark infringement.
Companies spend a lot of money designing their products to stand out and counterfitters make a lot of money stealing designs to trick consumers into buying their product thinking that they're identical. And I'm not just talking about the fake Louis Veton's sold on the sidewalk in Times Square. The item that comes quickest to my mind is dish soap--have you ever noticed that the bottles look similar even though the products differ greatly in their price and effectiveness? If you aren't paying close attention, you can grab the wrong products all over the supermarket. And lawsuits are filed everyday where one company claims that another is using their trademarked shape, coloring, whatever to steal customers.
The Food Network is great for looking for the non-product placement. I'm not exactly sure why many of the stars don't take the money from the companies whose foods they use most, but Rachel Ray was in the spotlight a couple years ago when some fan asked what brands of food she uses and she had to admt that the Food Network makes up (rather elaborate) labels for the products. Some of the stars don't go so far, they just keep all the products turned just right so you can't see the label, or print out something very generic with no pretenses of hiding the fact that they aren't product placements. This was where I came up with the 3 second rule. Can you, after viewing an item for just 3 seconds or less, identify the brand?
It would save a lot of money and headaches in court, honestly, because it's a yes or no question that anyone could answer. If the answer is yes, and the question is ambiguous, then it's just a matter of locating the paperwork for who trademarked first. The problem with courts is that they stare at the products for so long that they will look different which complicates the matter. The counterfitters aren't stupid and they're not going to make it an identical unless they are trying to pass off a fake LV. But shaping and coloring the storebrand peanut butter to look like Jiff when you glance at it? That's what the game is. So if the goal of advertisers is to reel you in at the first glance, why would you try to solve the problem (if it is a problem) by staring at it for two weeks straight (or more).
I actually don't care whether companies spend their money in court debating whether it was anothers intent to color their soap the exact same shade as the national brand. But as a consumer, I look at this as a way to tell companies that I'm not fooled. I watch the Food Network, sometimes, just to find the products. Maybe I could get a job with one of those food companies that owns our stomachs where all I do is use the 3 second rule to tell them that they should ask for payment to use their products.
But seriously, what is it about the Food Network stars that keeps them from endorsing all the products that they use?! I mean, they're trying to convince me that they're making and eating the best thing ever, but they won't tell me what items they think are the best? Is it any wonder that I like America's Test Kitchen and Cook's Country (and yes, they're the same show essentially--I'm not sure what the difference is, exactly, except for a couple different hosts)--they tell me EXACTLY what the best choices are...or the second best if the first is insanely expensive. The Food Network stars like to sell me their products...but the only item I've ever seen ATK and CC like that were celebrity produced is Mario Batali's pizza cutter (oddly enough, it was on the episode I saw today).
Companies spend a lot of money designing their products to stand out and counterfitters make a lot of money stealing designs to trick consumers into buying their product thinking that they're identical. And I'm not just talking about the fake Louis Veton's sold on the sidewalk in Times Square. The item that comes quickest to my mind is dish soap--have you ever noticed that the bottles look similar even though the products differ greatly in their price and effectiveness? If you aren't paying close attention, you can grab the wrong products all over the supermarket. And lawsuits are filed everyday where one company claims that another is using their trademarked shape, coloring, whatever to steal customers.
The Food Network is great for looking for the non-product placement. I'm not exactly sure why many of the stars don't take the money from the companies whose foods they use most, but Rachel Ray was in the spotlight a couple years ago when some fan asked what brands of food she uses and she had to admt that the Food Network makes up (rather elaborate) labels for the products. Some of the stars don't go so far, they just keep all the products turned just right so you can't see the label, or print out something very generic with no pretenses of hiding the fact that they aren't product placements. This was where I came up with the 3 second rule. Can you, after viewing an item for just 3 seconds or less, identify the brand?
It would save a lot of money and headaches in court, honestly, because it's a yes or no question that anyone could answer. If the answer is yes, and the question is ambiguous, then it's just a matter of locating the paperwork for who trademarked first. The problem with courts is that they stare at the products for so long that they will look different which complicates the matter. The counterfitters aren't stupid and they're not going to make it an identical unless they are trying to pass off a fake LV. But shaping and coloring the storebrand peanut butter to look like Jiff when you glance at it? That's what the game is. So if the goal of advertisers is to reel you in at the first glance, why would you try to solve the problem (if it is a problem) by staring at it for two weeks straight (or more).
I actually don't care whether companies spend their money in court debating whether it was anothers intent to color their soap the exact same shade as the national brand. But as a consumer, I look at this as a way to tell companies that I'm not fooled. I watch the Food Network, sometimes, just to find the products. Maybe I could get a job with one of those food companies that owns our stomachs where all I do is use the 3 second rule to tell them that they should ask for payment to use their products.
But seriously, what is it about the Food Network stars that keeps them from endorsing all the products that they use?! I mean, they're trying to convince me that they're making and eating the best thing ever, but they won't tell me what items they think are the best? Is it any wonder that I like America's Test Kitchen and Cook's Country (and yes, they're the same show essentially--I'm not sure what the difference is, exactly, except for a couple different hosts)--they tell me EXACTLY what the best choices are...or the second best if the first is insanely expensive. The Food Network stars like to sell me their products...but the only item I've ever seen ATK and CC like that were celebrity produced is Mario Batali's pizza cutter (oddly enough, it was on the episode I saw today).
Frontline on PBS: Wall Street
This is a four part documentary on how Wall Street evolved into the entity that crashed the economy in 2008. Amongs other things you will hear one of the 4 or 5 twenty-somethings who came up with credit default swaps lament how their idea meant to make loans less risky turned into the death spiral that destroyed millions of jobs when it was put into the hands of individuals who didn't care what they did so long as they made a buck.
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part One
As Wall Street innovated, its revenues skyrocketed, and financial institutions of all stripes tied their fortunes to one another. FRONTLINE probes deeply into the story of the big banks -- how they developed, how they profited, and how the model that produced unfathomable wealth planted the seeds of financial destruction.
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Two
Beginning with the government bailout of the collapsing investment bank Bear Stearns in the spring of 2008, FRONTLINE examines how the country's leaders -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner -- struggled to respond to a financial crisis that caught them by surprise.
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Three
FRONTLINE goes inside the Obama White House, telling the story of how a newly elected president with a mandate for change inherited a financial crisis that would challenge his administration and define his first term. From almost the very beginning, there was a division inside the economic team over how tough the White House should be on the banks that were at the heart of the crisis.
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Four
FRONTLINE probes a Wall Street culture that remains focused on risky trades. Bankers left an ugly trail of deals extending from small U.S. cities to big European capitals. For more than three years, regulators have tried to fix an industry steeped in conflicts of interest, excessive risk taking, and incentives to cheat. New regulations are being written, but can they fend off the next crisis?
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part One
As Wall Street innovated, its revenues skyrocketed, and financial institutions of all stripes tied their fortunes to one another. FRONTLINE probes deeply into the story of the big banks -- how they developed, how they profited, and how the model that produced unfathomable wealth planted the seeds of financial destruction.
Watch Money, Power and Wall Street: Part One on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Two
Beginning with the government bailout of the collapsing investment bank Bear Stearns in the spring of 2008, FRONTLINE examines how the country's leaders -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner -- struggled to respond to a financial crisis that caught them by surprise.
Watch Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Two on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Three
FRONTLINE goes inside the Obama White House, telling the story of how a newly elected president with a mandate for change inherited a financial crisis that would challenge his administration and define his first term. From almost the very beginning, there was a division inside the economic team over how tough the White House should be on the banks that were at the heart of the crisis.
Watch Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Three on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Episode: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Four
FRONTLINE probes a Wall Street culture that remains focused on risky trades. Bankers left an ugly trail of deals extending from small U.S. cities to big European capitals. For more than three years, regulators have tried to fix an industry steeped in conflicts of interest, excessive risk taking, and incentives to cheat. New regulations are being written, but can they fend off the next crisis?
Watch Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Four on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Why I will Probably Vote for Romney
The fact that in November I will probably vote for Romney will probably surprise anyone who's read any of my political posts.
My reason for voting the way that I do differs from most Americans. I don't believe that the actual choice in President matters--at the end of the day it's Congress that gets things passed or not passed, independently of what the President says or wants. I look at the office of the President as being a way to motivate the non-political to get off their butts and care. Granted, this idea of mine is dependent on the polarization currently destroying our country, but I believe that the office of the President can also be used to close the gaps between ideologies.
I voted for Obama not because I was particularly impressed by his ideology, but because I didn't like the way McCain was so pro-war and because if we didn't reform Wall Street and Big Business we'd end up in the same economic situation again--the bailout was a necessary evil because the failure of regulation made money stop flowing. But more importantly, Obama seemed like he was playing a pivotal roll in American politics. He was getting the younger generation interested in politics and motivating the growing complacent older generation to stand up and say that they didn't want their children and grandchildren's liberalness to govern them. I voted for Obama because I knew in my gut that if he won, something big was going to happen in America. And I was right. The Tea Party was born just a couple months after his election.
American's (and really all humans) are largely governed by what they think not necessarily what is truth. I haven't done the research, but it seems obvious to me that many of those fears about a Democratic President that we heard about during the election and since haven't come to pass. Talking with my grandmother yesterday was interesting. She's opposed to mandating healthcare because it will put more people on Medicaid, even though the only difference between the current system and a system with more people on Medicaid is that people not currently with any sort of insurance only go to the hospital when they're dying (or think that they're dying) and if they had some form of insurance, they'd see a doctor for their once a year check-up and find things before their a major problem. Okay--and some government official might change the tax code to move the money you're paying the insurance company to subsidize the hospital's ability to take non-insured individuals to the Treasury to fund Medicaid, but really this would be just a technicality. THAT would be the worst case senario where nothing changes. The best case senario (and what is most likely) would be that health care costs would go down since instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on recovery from a massive heart attack, we could spend $10 a month on Lipitor pills. And yes--I mean we. Most of the money you pay in insurance goes to hospitals so that they can treat individuals who don't have insurance. But I digress.
I will vote for Romney because if he wins, the middle class might finally be convinced that tax breaks for the rich aren't in their best interests. UhhhhhhG. Shoot. Dammit. I'm sorry. My logic is faulty. The middle class won't learn anything because as soon as Romney wins the election, businesses will know that all taxes will be reduced and you will see a sudden upsweep in spending in their sector...spending that was cut when a Democrat took office not because he was actually going to tax their businesses, but because he was going to implement fair taxes to help cut the deficit--taking money not spent hiring people (money spent on Lamborginis (not an American made car) that were destroyed 3 months later). And laws trying to keep the mega-rich from putting their money into Swiss bank accounts. And reforms that would keep Wall Street from selling bad loans. When Romney takes office, business will once again rule our country.
I predict that the major battles in Congress will be about passing necessary reforms. They will be blocked by well paid lobbyists and nothing will change. Oh, you don't know about the power of Lobbyists to stop common sense reforms? Watch the video below.
My reason for voting the way that I do differs from most Americans. I don't believe that the actual choice in President matters--at the end of the day it's Congress that gets things passed or not passed, independently of what the President says or wants. I look at the office of the President as being a way to motivate the non-political to get off their butts and care. Granted, this idea of mine is dependent on the polarization currently destroying our country, but I believe that the office of the President can also be used to close the gaps between ideologies.
I voted for Obama not because I was particularly impressed by his ideology, but because I didn't like the way McCain was so pro-war and because if we didn't reform Wall Street and Big Business we'd end up in the same economic situation again--the bailout was a necessary evil because the failure of regulation made money stop flowing. But more importantly, Obama seemed like he was playing a pivotal roll in American politics. He was getting the younger generation interested in politics and motivating the growing complacent older generation to stand up and say that they didn't want their children and grandchildren's liberalness to govern them. I voted for Obama because I knew in my gut that if he won, something big was going to happen in America. And I was right. The Tea Party was born just a couple months after his election.
American's (and really all humans) are largely governed by what they think not necessarily what is truth. I haven't done the research, but it seems obvious to me that many of those fears about a Democratic President that we heard about during the election and since haven't come to pass. Talking with my grandmother yesterday was interesting. She's opposed to mandating healthcare because it will put more people on Medicaid, even though the only difference between the current system and a system with more people on Medicaid is that people not currently with any sort of insurance only go to the hospital when they're dying (or think that they're dying) and if they had some form of insurance, they'd see a doctor for their once a year check-up and find things before their a major problem. Okay--and some government official might change the tax code to move the money you're paying the insurance company to subsidize the hospital's ability to take non-insured individuals to the Treasury to fund Medicaid, but really this would be just a technicality. THAT would be the worst case senario where nothing changes. The best case senario (and what is most likely) would be that health care costs would go down since instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on recovery from a massive heart attack, we could spend $10 a month on Lipitor pills. And yes--I mean we. Most of the money you pay in insurance goes to hospitals so that they can treat individuals who don't have insurance. But I digress.
I will vote for Romney because if he wins, the middle class might finally be convinced that tax breaks for the rich aren't in their best interests. UhhhhhhG. Shoot. Dammit. I'm sorry. My logic is faulty. The middle class won't learn anything because as soon as Romney wins the election, businesses will know that all taxes will be reduced and you will see a sudden upsweep in spending in their sector...spending that was cut when a Democrat took office not because he was actually going to tax their businesses, but because he was going to implement fair taxes to help cut the deficit--taking money not spent hiring people (money spent on Lamborginis (not an American made car) that were destroyed 3 months later). And laws trying to keep the mega-rich from putting their money into Swiss bank accounts. And reforms that would keep Wall Street from selling bad loans. When Romney takes office, business will once again rule our country.
I predict that the major battles in Congress will be about passing necessary reforms. They will be blocked by well paid lobbyists and nothing will change. Oh, you don't know about the power of Lobbyists to stop common sense reforms? Watch the video below.
Watch The Meth Epidemic on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Facebook Stock
Oh my god. I already knew that stock was a tool used by the wealthy to get wealthier, "investing" while not actually putting money into businesses.
I didn't know that the wealthy have a monopoly on newly issued stock. Did you know that you could only buy some of Facebooks initial stock if you have over $500,000 in your account? What does that mean? It means that some person who's already a millionaire is going to buy that stock and turn around and sell ten minutes later to it some Average Joe's mutual fund at a tidy profit (probably--everyone could say that Facebook isn't worth the price and refuse to buy so they might take a loss). In other words, if I was a millionaire, I could own Facebook for ten minutes and make a profit. But if all I have is a small 401K, the only way I can make money on Facebook is to pay the millionaire for the privilege of his "sloppy seconds" (that's the term used by a business advisor on ABC news last night). Even if all I could buy is 10 shares, shouldn't I be allowed the option to buy it as soon as it is for sale? Shouldn't I have the option to sell it at a small profit ten minutes later?
Or what if I'm some devout Facebook user who actually cares that the company does well (like the owners of McDonald's stock who only eat at McDonald's, thus increasing the profitability of the company and thus helping to increase the demand, and therefore the price, of McDonald's stock)? Why should I be denied access to the stock unless I bow to the monetary demands of the already wealthy? I want to keep the stock for fifty years and retire on it, after spending a lifetime helping the company to be profitable in my own small way--but I must pay the millionaire who is only buying the stock because he knows some sad sap like me will pay anything to own a part of the company I hold dear? He doesn't care whether the company fails or succeeds--he's just in it for a few hours to make a profit that the average american would like to see as a year's wage and pay half the amount of taxes on it as said Average Joe.
Of course, we live in a country where such unfairness is standard doctrine from the Republicans who say that fixing this type of activity is a "job killer". That raising taxes on this type of "investment" keeps "job creators" from hiring one more person. It doesn't matter that the millionaire who sold me my Facebook stock doesn't employ anyone. That he sits in his $10 million Costa Rican mansion and buys and sells from his ocean view balcony. Sure, he "technically" just poured a million dollars into Facebook's coffers, but he just made that back plus 20% when he sold it ten minutes later. 40% if he waits an hour.
I wonder how much Romney's mutual fund is making on this deal...
I didn't know that the wealthy have a monopoly on newly issued stock. Did you know that you could only buy some of Facebooks initial stock if you have over $500,000 in your account? What does that mean? It means that some person who's already a millionaire is going to buy that stock and turn around and sell ten minutes later to it some Average Joe's mutual fund at a tidy profit (probably--everyone could say that Facebook isn't worth the price and refuse to buy so they might take a loss). In other words, if I was a millionaire, I could own Facebook for ten minutes and make a profit. But if all I have is a small 401K, the only way I can make money on Facebook is to pay the millionaire for the privilege of his "sloppy seconds" (that's the term used by a business advisor on ABC news last night). Even if all I could buy is 10 shares, shouldn't I be allowed the option to buy it as soon as it is for sale? Shouldn't I have the option to sell it at a small profit ten minutes later?
Or what if I'm some devout Facebook user who actually cares that the company does well (like the owners of McDonald's stock who only eat at McDonald's, thus increasing the profitability of the company and thus helping to increase the demand, and therefore the price, of McDonald's stock)? Why should I be denied access to the stock unless I bow to the monetary demands of the already wealthy? I want to keep the stock for fifty years and retire on it, after spending a lifetime helping the company to be profitable in my own small way--but I must pay the millionaire who is only buying the stock because he knows some sad sap like me will pay anything to own a part of the company I hold dear? He doesn't care whether the company fails or succeeds--he's just in it for a few hours to make a profit that the average american would like to see as a year's wage and pay half the amount of taxes on it as said Average Joe.
Of course, we live in a country where such unfairness is standard doctrine from the Republicans who say that fixing this type of activity is a "job killer". That raising taxes on this type of "investment" keeps "job creators" from hiring one more person. It doesn't matter that the millionaire who sold me my Facebook stock doesn't employ anyone. That he sits in his $10 million Costa Rican mansion and buys and sells from his ocean view balcony. Sure, he "technically" just poured a million dollars into Facebook's coffers, but he just made that back plus 20% when he sold it ten minutes later. 40% if he waits an hour.
I wonder how much Romney's mutual fund is making on this deal...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)