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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 highlyentertained by the characters interpretations of each other (though I cried at Blane's hair :-[ ).
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).
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.)
"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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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'tstopping 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.
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).
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?
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.
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...
Okay...theoretically no tax payer money was lost by the company, but the last time I checked, investors in the company paid US taxes. And the reason why we can't just look at the loss as a product of a capitalist system is because there are a number of people investing in the company who don't necessarily know what their investment bank is doing on a day to day basis. Who is supposed to stand for the people who put money into a 401K every two weeks, trying to be responsible and save for retirement, when all they see is it get sucked dry because Wall Street made too risky investments?
But my main complaint is that while apparently Romney is in favor of "non-wet blanket" regulations, JP Morgan wouldn't have lost this money if Wall Street hadn't fought Congress to make a certain regulation not start until too late.
I...have beaten the system. You know that junk mail you get? Those wonderful credit card applications that are just waiting to get your identity stolen? Well, if you've ever wondered how to get rid of them, here's what you do: write them back.
Last summer I recieved a few applications from Citi Bank and Bank of America and since they sent me a postage paid envelope, I decided to put it to good use. I stretched my sarcastic muscles and poked fun at the "personal" messages they were sending me, thanking the VPs for taking time out of their busy schedules to write to each and every person they want to get their card. I also told them that they should pay more attention to their printing because the perferations and folds didn't work with the envelope they'd sent me--such things encourage individuals to fold their applications in unique ways that keeps them from lying flat and thus increasing the amount of time that the peons in reception must spend with each application (I then thanked the peons for their hard work and encouraged them to ask for a raise). It should be no surprise that for that application I folded a paper airplane.
I also told BOA that it was idiotic that their customers would agree to a plan where they get 1%, 2%, or 3% back on their purchases after paying $5 a month service fee--if I was a customer and such a fee were absolutely necessary, I would tell them to keep their cash back and don't charge me. I'm going to use my card to pay for something independently of what I receive for it--It would be a waste of effort for me to change banks purely becuase one or another is offering me some "carrot". But I would change if they're charging me unfairly.
But anyway, my campaign to spend a few minutes replying to any junkmail that comes with a postage paid envelope paid off. I haven't recieved a credit card application in 8 months--I'm the only person who lives in this house who is application free, though I have offered to write letters for them.
Oh, I also used the outside of the envelopes to thank our postal workers.
When are you allowed to share private information about a company that could be potentially damning to them? I'm not talking whistle blowing, nor anything that would need a confidentiality agreement, but little things that paint a big picture of the company.
My dad works at a print shop that also acts as a warehouse for a big local bank. The bank doesn't house just the stuff printed and sold by the shop, but also numerous items that the bank buys from outside companies and has shipped to the shop. As such, we get to see what types of items they buy. Mostly, it's just annoying that my dad has to act as middleman for their toilet paper (the bank has recently built their own warehouse, but has not transferred the items they were already storing at the shop).
The questionable information we have is that they had the choice to buy American made pencils or Chinese pencils. For two cents less per pencil, they went with the Chinese ones even though they are of known lesser quality. What would be the ethical thing to do? I mean, I could tell people what this bank chooses to do, but at the risk that they'd see it as a breech of implied confidentiality. And really, while I think that this bank in particular are annoying, the odds are that my own bank does something completely similar to some other print shop and also buy their pencils in China.
So I guess the answer to this ethical question is for me to do exactly this. Tell the public that there's at least one bank doing exactly what some people claim that companies would never do and let the un-involved do the "dirty work". In other words, if you have a problem with your bank buying their goods from China and other countries, ask them. Who knows, your bank might be the one I know about, and when they need more pencils they will see the error of their ways.
Umm...wow. I like the way France does things. Their campaign is a mandated six weeks long ONLY and it's been what, 2 weeks since the election? And their new President is now in charge and is already meeting with Angela Merkle (sorry about the spelling) in Germany. Short, sweet, and to the point.
Yeah...I'm probably not going to make many friends with this statement, but I think that this is one of the stupidest cases I can remember in my lifetime. Look, if the problem is that he used campaign funds to pay his mistress off, and the treasurer says that the money was never put into the campaign bank account, then it's obvious that he didn't do what the prosecution claims. Did he go around saying that the money given as gifts (and yes, everyone involved said that it was a gift) were donations to the campaign? Yes. He lied to keep the money secret. But he didn't try to legally pass it off as donations only to illegally use it. I guess if the donaters gave them money to the campaign only for it to be used as a bribe payoff, then there might be a case, but again, it seems like the two main gift givers knew exactly what it was used for.
All he did was lie to anyone not in the loop who knew about money coming in who didn't know that it wasn't meant to be campaign donations--he did NOT take campaign donations and give it to his mistress.
A second stupid case is the super-tanned mom who NJ thinks let her daughter tan. Look, the kid went with her parents to the salon and waited outside with dad while mom tanned. On Monday she tells her friend that she went to the tanning salon with her mom. A: the kid is like 5--she told the truth as she saw it. The fact that she had a slight sunburn (because B: the kid is fair haired and fair skinned and on a sunny day would start to burn in 5 minutes) made some adult jump to a crazy conclusion. Look--you would KNOW if the sunburn was caused by tanning. I mean, in the worst case senario, that the mom DID take her daughter to tan, wouldn't she have worn a swim suit? Then the burn would have been on parts of her body not covered by a t-shirt and shorts. Tan Mom doesn't look like the type to let her daughter get a farmer's tan if she took her to the salon.
I'm watching the American Experience documentary on Clinton. Some former Republican from Mississippi just said that he could never figure out how Clinton could perjer himself and do "that with that woman" and end up just where he was before it started (Republicans lost seats while Democrats gained in Congress). Well, that's simple. Sure, he lied, but why was he on trial to begin with? He had an affair--is that against the law? Apparently the guy who found it out was sent to look into Clinton was looking at WhiteWater (some kind of real estate scam). I'm sorry, but it seems a bit like entrapment--Congress was going to kick him out of office for lying about something not related to the job he was elected for. Sure had he told the truth in the very beginning he wouldn't have had any problem, but he was lying about a personal issue. If they'd overlooked the affair, they wouldn't have had the trial where he lied. Which begs the question of should government be looking into affairs--no. It's not government's job to police the bedroom--that's the job of divorce attorneys. If he'd raped Lewenski or otherwise broken the law in a sexual way, then fine. But until adultery is a crime that you can go to jail for, there shouldn't have been the inquiry that perjured Clinton in the first place.
I think that I've written on this subject before, if I haven't then I really should have.
First, you need to realize that there are two types of debt...good debt and bad debt. Good debt lets you buy today what need but could only afford if you saved for a number of years. Bad debt is debt accumulated because you can without any real intention of paying it down.
Good debt is getting a mortgage so that you can buy a home. It's also buying a new, reliable car rather than buying an unreliable cheap hunk of junk that you put $500 a month of repairs into. It's buying a new washer and dryer now instead of spending $1.50 a load at the laundrymat. In all these cases, you have something you need in order to live comfortably where you could save for a year (or forty) to pay for it without debt, but in order to do so, you would incur as much, if not more, expenses to survive before you are able to purchase your debt-free item.
Bad debt is used to buy a new couch because your old one doesn't match the living room paint. A new television because your old one isn't flat screen. A new car because your old one is a year old (and for no other reason).
[Notice, I'm not saying that buying dinner with your credit card is "bad debt"--actually, using a credit card for small purchases can be a good thing if you pay the card off in full every month, even if it has a high interest rate. It helps your credit score to do that sort of thing and you could earn some nice perks if the card offers them. Even having a card with some debt on it (with a low interest rate, of course) helps your credit score.]
Striving to be debt free is admirable, but not very practical. And bashing the national debt just because it's debt is superficial. Where would we have been in WWII (or the 1980s with Reagan vs. the USSR) if we hadn't borrowed money to build our military? If some Republicans had their way, we'd either have to delay war until our amount of collected taxes could pay for the supplies that we'd suddenly need (above and beyond the amount used in non-wartime) or worse, we'd be stockpiling money (or bombs and planes that may be obsolete when they're finally needed) to pay for unexpected situations.
And yes, I have a slight problem with "rainy day" funds. In theory they're wonderful and NECESSARY. But a couple years ago VA voted to increase our rainy day fund--that's right, in the middle of a recession. Obama was sending out money by the bushel for shovel ready projects in the states to keep workers working (if not hiring more people) and VA was putting that money to good use: right into the rainy day fund, which has only been raided to balance the budget a couple times. Yes, rainy day funds are essential to helping when tax revenues fall short for some reason, like the housing market goes bust, decreasing the amount of property taxes collected, but the fund shouldn't be a huge portion of the taxes collected--government should really be striving to not have a situation where unexpected budget shortfalls happen: they should be aware that prices won't always go up, though Americans have let this fallacy lead them head-first into just about every "panic", "recession", and "depression" we've had.
In short, governments shouldn't fill their rainy day fund when they need money to move to keep people employed--that'd be like voluntarily increasing your retirement savings while sleeping on the street because you've lost your house. And refusing the borrow money because it's borrowing money is stupid if it means going without something you desperately need.
Yes, the national debt is too high. Yes, it needs to be paid down. But striving to get rid of all debt is futile unless we want our government to sit on piles of money doing nothing. Money that wouldn't be paying teachers, fighting terrorism, saving the Chesapeake Bay, etc. The national debt exists to let us invest today, without hurting our ability to pay for other necessities, and pay for it over time. The problem is that Congress saw it as being a blank check...much like many Americans see a credit card as a blank check to max out and pay the bare minimum on every month.
Wow...I'm glad that there are sound minds outside of the walls of Fox News. I'm still watching specials by Fox from 2006. This one is on "Iran and the Bomb". Apparently Iran was going to have a bomb in a year and would have bombed Isreal by now. Let this be a lesson to us--take all predictions with a grain of salt.
For instance, one of the ways we could have stopped Iran would be to block that straight (you know which one) and stopped them from making oil profits. Now we know that we'd end up crying over the price of gas shooting up when they chose to not sell to England and France and otherwise threatened to close that staight themselves.
Umm...I'm not sure what to think about this documentary(?). What's really throwing me off is the voiced over translations. The vocal tones are just...wonkie--it sounds like a really bad kung-fu movie where the voices don't match the lip movements. There'll be someone speaking passionatley in the background and the translator is a bit mono-tone. I'm also not sure what to think about the accent, either. It just doesn't sound natural.
And...well, they just lost whatever credibility they had with me. Yes, the radicals are nuts and we need to do a lot to educate the masses of people who ignorantly(?) think that American's are imperialistic infidels who want to make the world in their image. But please don't try to tell me that when you condemn them for protesting the cartoon about Muhammed. Or protesting the burning of Korans. There are fundamentalist Christians who get pissed off when you bash the Bible...please read the comments section on just about any religious article on foxnews.com.
Ooh, an interview with he NYC Imam--I generally like him. It is important to look at the role of politics in religion. And remember something. Most women in Islamic countries are forbidden from getting an education. They can't read the Qu'ran for themselves to learn what it really says. And how many men do you think have read the book from cover to cover? Heck, how many American church goers have read the Bible cover to cover? One of my dad's biggest complaints about the Catholic Church is that they tend to use the same passages all the time.
Oh good God. Newt Gingrich is hosting the episode on the Bird Flu...
Hahahaha, wow. So apparently it's "ungrateful" for an American to give up his citizenship, but perfectly okay for a Swiss? Because I don't see the "lame-stream media" hounding Bachmann for taking the time to first find out if she has Swiss citizenship (through her husband) before publically "defriending" them. Aren't we just a lovely bunch of hypocrits.
**Edit (I wanted to edit this a half hour ago, but blogger wanted to be stupid.)
Okay--so the problem isn't that he's denouncing his citizenship, but that he's doing it to avoid paying US taxes. Apparently one person is happy that he's drawing attention to overtaxation in the US. As you can imagine, I think that that's the stupidest statement I've ever heard.
I actually am appreciating the opposite. I think that he's doing a great job to show how easy it is for money to be made in the US and still avoid taxes. My dad likes to talk about how oil companies have a P.O. Box in another country that they use as the main address even though they drill in the US, letting them pay less in taxes. And it's not just countries that act as tax havens--ever wonder why Delaware has the most "businesses" per capita? It's because by using a small office there as the home office, they can cut their tax responsibility. Amazon won't build a processing plant in VA until our state government says that they can be tax exempt for like 5 years.
So anyone who is complaining about this "exec." (apparently he wasn't that important for the company) for doing exactly what many corporations do. Because remember, Corporations are people, too.
Well, here's an interesting look at the 1890s. I'm watching the seventh episode of the 2008-2011 BBC adaption of the book (I haven't read the book, though it's on my list--it's aparently a biographical account written 40 years after the fact).
This episode centers around a woman who is hit by her husband while he's drunk and she has him arrested. It's a small country town in England, so you know how word travels and opinions spread. Well it seemed pretty cut and dry until a pamphlet gets spread around about the Temperence Movement with the woman telling the wife to forgive her husband if he pledges to not drink because if he wasn't drinking he wouldn't hit her. It's supposed to be the anti-feminist response to spousal abuse....but we all know the value of such a position. Only one man in 50 is worth it....and I hope to God I never have to make the decision about it. Today, I'd leave him in a heartbeat, but as Ms. Beast on Glee illustrates--it's a completely different thing to be in the position.
Ooh...let's see how the Temperence woman reacts to the fact that the husband stole her money and drank it. Guess there's nothing a person can say about that. Whoops...never mind. Ms. Temperence is confronting the husband. She isn't as bad as I thought she would be--she's actually defending the wife's choice since the husband isn't promising 100% abstinence. I was really afraid that she was the "save the marriage no matter what" type.
I really like this show--it shows real women in real situations. I was reading some of the favorite books of some Christian young adult female pen pals and there was a little too much devotion to a Regency and Victorian era idealism. I honestly wouldn't want to live back then because it's doubtful that I'd be rich and the alternative wouldn't be very enjoyable--the odds of finding a kind husband (like Ms. Temperance's...haha, he's a liberal) were slim, though increasing as we move toward the present. Life was more like this than Anne of Green Gables and a Jane Austen novel. But before I can really make a comment, I should read the book, and see how much liberty the BBC took.
By the way...poor Mr. Patterson, the constable. He sure is stuck between a rock and a hard place of being a "regular joe" one minute, then a representative of the crown the next (I guess that's what an English constable is supposed to be).
As much as I like democracy, I'm envious of Great Britain's system. We really do need a monarch (well, the stipulation is that they need to be a lot like Queen Elizabeth, hahaha) for a reason that I think both Democrats and Republicans can agree. Both sides complain about how there's no one to guide the overarching goals of the country. The Queen's job is just that--to be the reminder of where we've been and where we want to go--to tell the government when they're acting foolish. Someone who's been there, done that, and wants only the best for the country without being swayed by one side or another.
I realize that essentially, that's what the Constitution is supposed to do (stand as the rules that we as a body of people can agree to), but paper doesn't talk. And paper doesn't stand up to someone willing to do anything for a buck, to be used to say whatever the flavor of the week wants it to say. The founders wanted it that way, of course, but it is inconvienent. Paper just doesn't adapt and we're left guessing. A good monarch stands to give voice to the constitution.
But since both Great Britain and the US value the voices of the masses, it's important to remember that the monarch only has one voice and it's the masses job to either take the advice of the monarch or blow it off as worthless. But wouldn't it be nice to have someone important enough to listen to, who isn't being bought by one side or another?
I mean, isn't it terrible that we don't hear the real feelings of our representatives until they're about to retire? Dick Cheney apparently said two years ago that he supports gay marriage and about two weeks ago Semator Tom Coburn (very conservative, by the way) that he thinks that we do need to raise taxes on the super-wealthy (responsibly, of course). I probably would never vote for Biden on his own merit (he was definitely the hanger-on for Obama), but no matter how bad his gaffes are, at least I know where he really stands--he's not just pandering for votes.
I'm watching the ABC news tonight--interviewing a former Romney co-worker whose written a book about the benefit of the rich in America. The problem is that he's discussing apples while the rest of us are talking oranges. Those of us who really have a problem with the gap widening between the rich and poor don't care that Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are getting a hefty paycheck for their product--on the contrary, we're encouraging that! We're encouraging a society where anyone can create their own fortune.
What we have a problem with is WALL STREET where the rich are making millions buying barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia and selling them to the US companies so that they can process them. In other words, the middle men who aren't adding value. The word "investment" is used poorly in this case--we really need another word so that we can differentiate between those who directly put their money into businesses and those who put their money in intangeble ideas.
Look, I know you feel like a good citizen when you buy stock, but Sharpie doesn't see a dime of your money no matter how many shares you have. But some stock-broker sure did enjoy the 10% they made buying your shares for you.
The argument is that any business wouldn't exist if there was no added value. But are we better off because in tax-language, an investment is an investment is an investment no matter whether you opened a restaurant, bought a share of stock, or bought a house, put in $10,000 worth of work and sold it for a $50,000 profit.
This week, Congress was forced to choose whether to raise the interest rate on student loans or reduce women's health care or charge "technically unemployed" individuals the social security tax.
Before you blow a gaskit on that last one, let me explain. Mitt Romney is technically unemployed, even though he put, what, 20 million dollars into his bank account last year. Since he's "technically unemployed," whatever money he recieves isn't considered "income"--it's "investments"--it's taxed at 17% (you know that the highest "income" tax is 35%, I'm sure). So, even though he's not going into work, he's making more than most people will make in a life-time, and paying half the taxes. **Emphasis** He's making money the same way your 401K is. I'll let you make the decision as to whether you think your money is actually making jobs on main street while it's in your 401K...but please re-read the third paragraph if you're unsure. Anyway, since he's "technically unemployed", he doesn't have to pay social security taxes (which even the poorest employee doesn't get back on tax day (well, if there wasn't an earned income credit, but I'll discuss that later). That means, he's still entitled to social security when he's old, but doesn't have to pay in...and we wonder why that program is in danger.
It's not like this compromise would hurt "middle America"--people would be taxed the same social security as though they were earning that income as "income" not "investments". So even if you're making the average wage, you wouldn't pay more than your compatriot who has to go into the office everyday. And of course, all investments which go into retirement funds are tax exempt. And they still wouldn't be paying as much in taxes as they would if they made their money the old fashioned way. And again--I think the way it was discussed, it would ONLY affect those who make 100% of their income by "investments"--if you work at McDonald's part-time making minimum wage, even if you make $1 million in "investments" each year, you wouldn't have to pay the social security tax on that--just your meager McDonald's paycheck.
No, I don't think so. I went through the same change of mindset recently. One of my regrets is that I didn't vote with my gut back in 2006 when I got my first chance to vote. The question of marriage was on our ballot and we were given four definitions to choose from. I flip-flopped between whether I believe in civil unions or full-blown marriage (semantics, I know). I decided to go the civil union route because of those semantics--I left the word marriage to the church so long as gay people got the same rights. Which, is what Obama believed before yesterday.
But since the "one man, one woman" definition passed, it's obvious that if we really want to change the laws, we're going to have to throw semantics out the window. I still believe that the Churches can keep their marriages as they want, but those of us who split the "marriage" (whatever word you want to use) need to unite under one or the other. The end-goal is equal rights for whatever couple stands in front of a certified person for the 20 minute ceremony, so does it really matter what we call it?
Obama came to his current position the same way I did. We wanted to play politics and religion and call it a civil union to keep the right wing happy (wow, I sound so jaded when I say it that way), but that hasn't worked. Supporting Gay Marriage is just a name to unite more people. Civil Union people, please don't think that we're crazy. I'm sure that there's a small number of people who will take nothing except the term marriage, but there's what, 46 states where even Civil Unions don't exist? And the vast majority of supporters, whatever word they use, just want a single piece of paper to be able to sign that gives them all the rights and privileges they could get with a small fortune and six months of legal chaos.
Sigh...I'm weird. I use the site goodreads.com to track what books I'm reading and want to read. It also has a very extensive trivia section where anyone can add questions about the books in their life. Well, I've added about 15 questions and I can't tell you how thrilled I am that out of the ones that anyone has bothered to rate, I have 100% approval. It makes me feel awesome that people like my questions (even if more than a couple of them have only been rated once).
You can't imagine my irritation that Coburn went on Jon Stewart to chat and happened to mention his preference that congress raise taxes on the super-rich. Apparently the senator is as conservative as they come and yet, he has no problem seeing the tax rate go back to what it was 50 years ago.
Yes, I know, I should be thrilled. Why aren't I? Because the stupid worm isn't running for office in 2012. Why is it that politicians only say things that will help the country when they're no longer pandering for votes?! It almost makes me like Biden for being so honestly inept. Biden has to be the epitome of how the right candidate can out-shine even the worst running mate.
So...I'm confused. I mentioned before about trolling through (yeah...I think I'm a troll, but I don't try to pick fights--people just say stuff that I don't agree with so I reply...but they out-number me, so I have to reply a lot) an anti-feminism Christian blog-thing.
Apparently there are some Christians who believe that women have one less pair of ribs than men? I admit, I'd never thought about this, so I had to take a quick trip to Wikipedia to find out for sure. I mean, I get that Christians will never believe scientists that the world is 4.5 Billion years old, but there are Christian doctors--wouldn't they know the truth? That's why I'm not embarrassed that for the 2 minutes it took me to do that search I assumed that the Christians were right. I guess I'm inviting any Christians who may pass through to comment on why they think this idea still exists.
Or is it like "Columbus thought the world was flat"? It's just one of those urban myths that scholars just can't squash.
Well, this makes sense since a tumor is the result of a glitch in the cellular mainframe. Another thing that causes such a glitch is UV light--skin cancer, primarily. Chemicals can cause the glitches and so does old age and bad luck (your cells are always making mistakes, but there are special molecules that are supposed to catch them--but nothing is perfect).
But as we've seen with the Whooping Cough epidemic that's still a 2012 concern, some parents are against vaccinating their children--heck, even one of my cousins is against it. I hope to God that she doesn't come to regret that decision, but how many children die because their parents think vaccinations are a bad thing? Granted, I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the Chicken Pox vaccine since I had a relatively great time with the disease, but I've been so happy that I haven't suffered through all the diseases that were covered by vaccines when I was a kid that I'm changing that opinion. Especially since a family friend got Shingles earlier this year and was miserable for six weeks.
'Course, I've decided not to get the HPV vaccine because I'm not sexually active and have no immediate plans to change that status. Maybe in the future I will change that decision. And no, I don't believe that getting the vaccine gives girls a reason to have sex--only an idiot would make that projection. Your daughters are going to have sex if and when they decide to--if they are or may be sexually active, get them vaccinated. If not, then it's a toss up since so far as I know there's no other way to get the virus. But, I'm against a government mandate on it. The only mandate I support is insurance.
Two senators want to remove the term from federal law. I say that our law code is too complicated as it is, though maybe this will be the start of a new movement.
Look, I know that Constitutionalists like to believe that the Constitution is the end all, be all for American laws, but that isn't the case--it's not practical and I know that the Constitutionalists will stand up and say the same thing. I highly doubt that they'd want to remove all laws about Prostitution and Child Pornography. So, how do we go about un-complicating our laws without jeopardizing the world that we've created with them? Language seems to be the biggest issue and this article does a great job illustrating that. What is a lunatic? How is it different from just being mentally ill?
Lawyers are paid to use the literal language of laws against them and, thus, it's Congresses job to write laws with as few loop holes as possible. We as average Americans complain about a thousand page health care law, but if it wasn't so (though only 500 pages have actual health implications) a kid fresh out of law school could tear it apart. Some would say that that's a good thing--and I agree with them, but for a different reason because I think that the way to make laws is to make them vague and close the loopholes as they present themselves--just like the Constitution. I also think that they should all expire within 30 to 50 years unless they are turned into a Constitutional Amendment. That way the country isn't cluttered with defunct laws and we aren't left wasting time trying to agree on how to modernize said defunct law, nor are our representatives forced to spend months trying to foresee every possible loophole (and then get crucified when some murderer walks free because of a neglected loophole).
And this brings me back to the lunatic question. We'll eventually need to modernize all American laws (you've seen on other websites about the crazy blue laws that prevent you from pogo-sticking down main street on Sunday, I'm sure) and I think that the easiest way is to do it one defunct word at a time. How? I'm reasonably certain that every US law on the book has been digitized. This means that it shouldn't be too difficult to search using the word, pull out every law that uses it and toss out whatever is redundant and outdated and to combine and revise whatever is still usful.
I saw this on the news Monday night and one of the women they interviewed was afraid that it would cause her and her partner's daughter to lose her health insurance. Wow. Good job Republicans--you just put another kid on the welfare you so love! And maybe even the women if they no longer have to claim to support each other.
Gah. As you may have read before, my biggest complaint against those opposed to Gay Marriages is that straight men and women can and do play the system for their own personal gain all the time--one friend's problem with poligamist families is that the women collect welfare even though they believe that they're married to their mutual husband. And there are how many single mothers living with their "baby-daddies" while collecting welfare? You'd think that the state would want to help people care for themselves and their family, but instead they've given insurance companies leverage to say that the child isn't eligible for coverage.
And what especially ticks me off is that for a small fortune in legal bills and six months of your time a gay couple can get almost every right that a straight couple can--except that the straight couple needs 20 bucks and 20 minutes in Vegas. But the gay couple can't give a stable home to an orphaned child in most states, while the drunken straight couple can neglect or beat their child to death and all the neighbors will get on the news and say "how did this happen?!?" They system is broken and yet the WASPs think that their ideals are the best.
While I'm happy that the city has decided to raise one of their taxes to help fix the budget deficit for their schools, I'm not really thrilled with the explanation given by a spokesperson. He says that teachers should be thrilled because it will save the jobs that were held by teachers who were given pink slips. Here's why I'm upset:
They did this last year. They fired all their new teachers, found more money and rehired some of the teachers back--at the first year rate again. So if you work for VA Beach schools, you can be a first year teacher for three or more years in a row. I wish that I could say that this time they'll just revoke all the pink slips and hand them out again so that no body loses what they deserve (because some teachers will stay fired), but I'm not stupid.
This concept intrigues
me. My family is frugal out of necessity and we buy store brands instead of name brands as the primary way to save money. We've looked at coupons, of course, but for our weekly shopping needs they rarely have value. Occasionally there will be one that makes a name brand product equivilent in price to the store brand, but except for ranch dressing (which I'm the only person who eats) store brand products are prefectly good substitutes. So we save money without spending hours of our time trying to save money.
I just flipped through the ads that came in the mail today--I found two coupons that we may use. 50 cents off Purex and $1 off any 5 cans of Del Monte. I'll hand the coupons to my dad since he does most of the shopping. My prediction is that, like normal, when he goes to shop he'll look at the prices in front of him and the coupon in his hand and decide that for what we need the non-couponed option will be best.
The thing that seems to be most prevelant about extreme couponing is how the ones that do it get a TON of stuff in the process. I come from two types of shoppers--my mother who thinks that if one is good, two must be better and my father who says "you aren't saving anything if you're spending more than you had to".
The woman interviewed on the Today Show said that her best trip was getting 162 boxes of cereal for $14. What on earth is a family, even of 9, going to do with that many boxes of cereal? It's going to go bad before it can be eaten and what happens the next week when cereal is again on sale? Must she buy more? I watched the episode of (I think) Bones from a few weeks ago about the extreme couponers and how obsessed they were and I know of many people who have that sort of hording mentality. I really wonder how many extreme couponers take their "free" merchandise and donate it to those who need it. I think Extreme Makeover Home Edition had a woman who did something like that.
