Politics and Family

My dad and his brothers are all variously politically interested. There's the hard core economic conservative (who is too anti-democrat for his own good, in my opinion), there's the, I guess you'd call it, social justice guy, there's the slightly left leaning moderate (my dad), and the slightly right leaning moderate. One of the uncles had a house warming party this afternoon and the boys, being the only ones in attendance, got into the political discussions that their mother and sisters usually stop. I actually enjoy listening to the debates because the two "wingers" are very passionate while the moderates have their bullet points of, well, moderation. You can hear all the sides of the role of government argument without leaving the combination of Mother and Father DNA.

It's no wonder that I ended up, politically, where I did. And since I'm a product of the slightly left moderate primarily, I can't help but disagree with the right winger on a few key points, which I shall share here. I love my uncle, but he's too narrow minded when it comes to taxes and government.

For instance, he blames Obama. Period. End of statement. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. When my left-ish uncle blames Congress for the current economic climate, he blames Obama for supposedly signing off personally on companies like Solendra. (Point 1: I don't like using one example to describe everything--it makes a person look uninformed if they cannot name a fair few examples (of anything) and be comfortable saying that this is a majority of cases). I pointed out that at least the money was getting spent, which, since this is my dad's biggest gripe, is a good thing. The rebuttal was that the money went into the pockets of a few rich, which is debatable since I'm sure there were a few engineers involved who took a paycheck at some point before they went out of business. It is shallow-minded to ignore the role of Congress since Congressmen will throw the President under the bus if they don't like him and that it isn't the President's job to write laws, so you really can't get mad at a man who has no control when a budget with who knows what comes onto his desk at the last possible moment. Granted, we need a president who is going to walk into congress, stand at the podium, show a video of a group of kindergarteners solving problems, and explain why calling Congress a bunch of children because they can't work together is insulting to the children. (Much like calling murderers animals is insulting to animals since animals do not kill for vengence or anything more than defense or food.)

And I'm going to write this now before I forget: Romney, working for Bane Capital bought failing companies and either turned them around or eased them out of business. So it's okay for business to work properly under him, but not in the case of when government is involved? The rule of business is that many businesses will fail. Period, end of statement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But if government uses their self-imposed rules to choose which businesses to support, and said businesses fail, it's suddenly a problem? It's like telling government that they can only fund sure-things, but every gambler (and investor) knows that there's no such thing as a sure-thing. I don't know how my uncle feels about governmental investments, but by the previous logic, he shouldn't support any. That includes investing ANY money in schools, roads, or anything since there's no garantee that it will work out the way that it was intended. My libertarian self can agree with this ideology, but my, dare I say it, smart self, says that that is ridiculous.

And that brings us to point number two. The three not right wingers are in favor of a government which encourages the super-rich to spend their money. My left-leaning father is in favor of an 80% tax bracket with deductibles a mile long, much like we had until Reagan. I can agree with this (though we disagree where the top bracket should start), but of course, my uncle says that it's not government's job to point industry towards the future (hence his opposition to Solendra). The three others say that this is EXACTLY what the point of government is. I mean, the guy who is heading one of the space-adventure companies thanks NASA because without them, there would be no industry. And what if we were to wait until the last possible moment to seek energy independence because THAT is when there will be economic incentive to do so? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Because gas skyrocketed in the 1970s and we made how much advancement until the government stepped in with incentives?

The market (which isn't capitalist and you wouldn't want a capitalist market) can only go so far. Look at how the automobile industry squashed electric cars until the government was like "hey, why aren't you doing this?" Can you imagine where electric cars will be in 100 years? Now imagine where they'd be if we'd spent the past 100 years inovating them instead of sweeping them under the rug.

Left Turn by Tim Groseclose

I haven't read this book, but I heard about it on The 700 Club. The topic intregued me, so when my computer finally started working again, I looked up the quiz that is supposed to tell you whether or not you're conservative or liberal.

I found the 10 question quiz published in the book here . I'll warn you now that the questions are essentially whether or not you would support or not bills passed in this session of Congress. Apparently, if you would support a bill also supported by Democrats, you're liberal; if it was opposed by Republicans, you're conservative--who knew?!? I'm also upset by the fact that each question includes the voting record for the bill. Does the author realize that any person predisposed to think that they're conservative will probably make at least some of their decision based on that voting record? I mean, a reasonable person wouldn't make a decision for or against ANY of these issues purely based on what the blurb in the question says--unless you're a complete right or left winger who economically thinks one side or the other should be punished. That's why there are extensive debates in Congress--everyone reasonable person wants to know EXACTLY how far the terms go, what loopholes could possibly exist, etc.

So, I'm going to say that of all the "rank your political feelings" quizes, this is one of the worst. The one I took in high school was very good. It wasn't based on the complexity of congressional laws, but on the actual issues. "Would you support a law that increases pro-choice rights?" "Would you support a reduction in the powers of the EPA?" Questions like that, but I'm doubtful that they're so straight forward in the asking--Any good questionaire writer/researcher knows that you need to ask the same question 3 ways because you're going to get a different answer depending on the wording. It's also a good idea to have a ranking system, because you probably do feel more for or against one way of wording than another. In this quiz, they're way of asking the same question more than once is showing the House's version and the Senate's version. There is also no way of quantifying the circumstances that these bills were made under. In other words, an Independent is screwed if the past 2 years they've been thinking Democrat. That would be the definition of an Independent--someone who votes Democrat or Republican depending on the current situation and what they believe is necessary.

I'm also disappointed that the quiz doesn't address the issue that the book is supposed to cover--whether the media has influenced your belief. If I remember correctly, the author was talking about how our natural inclinations are skewed after viewing so called liberal media, so maybe the quiz is supposed to show you what your natural inclinations are? But as shown above--I don't think it does that at all.

One last point I want to make. Notice that the major claims are:

- All mainstream news outlets in the United States have a liberal bias.

- The Drudge Report is the most fair, balanced and centrist news outlet in the United States.

- Fox News' "Special Report," which is usually characterized as conservative, is not biased as far right as typical mainstream outlets are biased to the left.

Apparently Fox News isn't mainstream, which is a rediculous claim to make. I mean, according to Bill O'Reilly (he mentions it at least once a week), they have the highest viewership across the boards. They're on cable, they're part of News Corp (and we now know exactly what kind of power THAT company has), and you are hard pressed to find a person who hasn't heard about Fox News. I'm sorry, but apparently I have the wrong definition of mainstream. Perhaps Fox should stop demanding extreme payment to view their...views...and should join the world of basic cable or online. I can't watch MSNBC either....does that make THEM non-mainstream? Because they are to me.

2nd point. USNews gives the lowdown on the scores that a few of the "mainstream" news sources got, here. Apparently ABC News (Good Morning America) got a score of 56. The Drudge Report got a 60. If 50 is "fair and balanced", then wouldn't that make GMA more fair? Or are they quantifying that the Drudge is more balanced overall? Because then, wouldn't it be nice to show how the rest of ABC does? I mean--there's a lot of shows that are conviently missing from this list. See for yourself:

New York Times-73.7.

CBS Evening News-73.7.

NPR Morning Edition-66.3.

U.S. News & World Report-65.8.

Drudge Report-60.4.

ABC Good Morning America-56.1.

Washington Times-35.4

It's interesting that when I wrote this, none of the comments on top even address the fact that this is a pretty skimpy list. I mean, Mr. Redhawk of KY, who holds the first comment spot is quick to make a judgment on MSNBC, CNN, and DC (?!?! I actually have no idea what he's trying to say--go and read it--I don't believe the "slime of NY" is an accepted alterego of a known news source--or at least one I know...would that be the NY Times?)--which aren't even on the list. I mean, if Fox News is not as far right biased as people say, then how did they rank? Isn't that a basic question that they should have answered in this article?

Or are they making it so that you have to buy the book and make this guy a buck? If for no other reason, support your local library, because this is the type of book that you should read, but I do not want to give this guy my money without knowing for sure that I support his ideas.

By the way, The Wall Steet Journal came out more liberal than most people would originally think. This was mentioned by Pat Robinson who read this book and is an avid reader of the WSJ. Apparently their opinions are often more liberal than their news. Robinson admitted that he often reads only these opinions and finds a lot to agree with within them. Please, keep this in mind when you start trying to say "I'm Conservative" or "I'm Liberal". Quit labeling yourself and start paying attention to what it is that you actually agree and disagree with and why you do so. You might be surprised at what things you actually support when it's no longer labeled.

FUCK!

http://nation.foxnews.com/obesity/2010/12/13/first-lady-childhood-obesity-national-security-threatI don't normally curse; in fact I never do. But I'm pissed. At FOX News of course. And their loyal readers. I finally have the credible argument I needed to maybe get FOX News to remove their "Fair and Balanced" lie. And what pisses me off is that the "intelligent real Americans" who believe that crap actually DO BELIEVE THAT CRAP! Look, here's the "article". FOX News changed the picture to support their political bias. Why do I know this? Logic:

If they didn't consciously decide to change the picture then there would be no point to changing it. If they did consciously decide, then of course they're going to choose the picture that best supports their message.

And the "loyal Americans" ate it all up--read the comments. Why exactly do schools even bother to teach about Yellow Journalism when half the population won't believe it true from their precious FOX News?

I really shouldn't read FOX News at bed time.

Yay communism

This article made me chuckle. I would love to hear some "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoints on it.

Interesting...

So. The great debate between conservatives and liberals over education continues. Actually, I myself find this article to be quite revealing. I never realized that conservatives don't particularly like TJ, but I guess that's only a certain subset. Also, I'm thinking of trying to win that $1000 for charity (maybe for planned parenthood?) because if I remember correctly, the 1st amendment says that there will be no establishment of a religion, which also means that there can be no one religion over any other. SO, if this is a "country under god" that also includes Allah and Zeus. And Christianity isn't a religion, so we can't just say that we're a christian country--sorry peeps, but you can't choose an arbitrary subset as a religion--religions have doctrines and as Westboro Baptist Church illustrates, not even the Baptists can agree on what their religion is supposed to be.

But I'm tired...I'm not even sure how much sense this blurb of mine makes. In any case, it sure doesn't make sense to me that when one party/group makes a decision on content that the story becomes "more balanced"--I don't like being told what I believe--they always screw it up.

Tea Party People

Yeah, they confuse me. I mean, seriously, where have these people been?!? I read an article in the NYTimes about said tea party-ers here and it got me seriously thinking about these people...who are they and where did they come from, primarily. So, I started doing some math.

1960--the beginning of the wild times when just about everything changed in the US. Welcome in the generation that ends with love, sex, and drugs, JFK and LBJ and eventually protesters of the Vietnam war. So, pretty much our baby boomers People who in 1970 were about 20 years old. 40 years later, these people are about 60. For some of us, these are our parents, for others, our grandparents (by us I mean the 20 year olds of today).

But for some reason, I don't see a bunch of Vietnam draft burners being the primary "out of the woodwork" movers and shakers of the Tea Party Movement. And I'm going to put all my money down that at least 50% of the Tea Party Movement (with me being conservative, because my gut says closer to 70%) are right around 45 years old.

And I think I'm right. Glenn Beck comes in right at 46 years old. The "Alex P. Keaton" generation, I'm going to start calling it. Think about it. In 1984 these kids were turning 20 years old, entering college and everything was about "The Reagan". Republicanism was the "it thing" to combat the hippies that are their parents. What are the most beloved movies of the 1980s? The "Brat Pack"--a bunch of upper middle class suburban yuppies whose biggest fear is to belong to the wrong clique in high school. If I was a 45 year old member of the Tea Party Movement I would HAVE to agree with this analysis because otherwise, they are just a bunch of uninformed ignorant soccer moms and accountants who have NO idea what they are actually doing.

THIS is the problem with the Tea Party People--where the hell were you 10 years ago?!? Where were you 6 years ago?! IF they are for a more fiscal conservative government, why was it okay for Bush to be reelected in 2004?--they claim today that they disagree with his increasing the national debt for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but I guess that didn't matter 6 years ago. I guess the fact that the government was allowing businesses to pull the crap that they did to set the stage for the financial meltdown 10 years ago wasn't so important. I think I'm more worried about the fact that these people are suddenly getting into the whole politics scene than about what they actually stand for. It's like, where were you when your 16 year old kids asked you why you could vote for a person like that back in 2004?

I do support the Tea Party Movement (as you will hear true from most 20 year old democratic-libertarians) HOWEVER! Those who think like me, and I tend to think of myself as a very moderate central leaning person of the majority, will tell you that we do NOT agree with destroying the US government as it was established 230 years ago. The system is as perfect as it can be, given the fact that people are greedy and sometimes stupid beings. There MUST be checks and balances and all the rest that our system incorporates. The problem? It's the same problem as 1910--PLEASE watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". It's a bunch of Fat, Greedy Cats who are doing what they can to make a quick buck while pretending to represent their constituents. If you want to reform Washington, you have to send honorable people there. It's not impeaching one man who HASN'T DONE ANYTHING! I don't understand this whole call to reform the presidency when REALLY Congress has ALL the power. Will I say that Obama has failed to pass anything of any importance? Yes. Why couldn't he pass anything? Congress. Why is the Health Care Bill full of tons of (literal) shit? Obama didn't write it (and he sure as hell better not sign it as is)--Congress did.

You show me a congress willing to accept term limits and who will take a pay cut and I'll show you a better Federal Government. Quit focusing on who will be president in 2012 (*cough, I'm not voting for Palin even if I have to vote Satan instead)--focus on the fact that guys have been serving 35 terms and DYING in office--really--have they made your life ANY better?

A new way to think about marriage.

Being gay in China tells the stories of 3 men in China about their experiences as being gay there.

Funny. So many people who are so deathly afraid of allowing gay marriage would ALSO be terrified that the government would put such a restriction on people's lives as China does.


Here's an American blogger's view on internet in China. As I have a friend currently stuck behind the great firewall in China, it isn't a myth that sites are blocked. I'm just glad that she isn't in this specific area--where she is is much more open.

***
With the recent start to get rid of "Don't ask, Don't tell", I was quite happy to see this letter from a gay pilot who is in the process of being unfairly discharged. I hope that this will finally bring to light the fact that not every gay is a "flamer" and that most are just like straights in their life goals, etc--it's just who they want to be romantically with that is different.

Paying for Health Care

I came up with this plan when Health Care was first brought to my attention when I was about 16 years old (I guess this was the 2004 election). And you know, I think it's a pretty reasonable plan: Let's make every state, city, county, whatever the same as a corporation.

Hear me out. Okay, so when businesses decide to offer insurance to their employees they start looking for the company that is willing to give the most "bang for their buck". Generally the agreement between business and employee is that both will pay half, maybe more depending. But, pretty much the business will let the insurance companies fight over who will get the deal. The bigger the business, the more higher the proportion of healthy people to not--the healthy people will end up paying for the care the non-healthy need. This is the problem with the private insurance situation--not enough healthy people buy it because they're healthy--why need it. So. The business gets the best deal, the employees pay the least price, and the insurance companies make money--trifecta of win for all.

So, here's my grand scheme. Use the same system, but with the government as the deciding factor (like the CEO ultimately decides on the insurance company of choice, so does the top Government official). The area used can really be anything--city, state, county, whatever. Just not country because that would be a monopoly and make the whole system redundant. And then we let all the current insurance companies fight over the areas. Everyone will "buy" places with really healthy people, and grudgingly take the places with all the unhealthy people. So to be fair, all areas will be ranked with proportion of obesity for the given population. The more lower ranked an area is, the higher they can take from the healthy areas (so the company that takes the "sickest" area also has access to the "healthiest")--the only rule is that by the end of the day, ALL areas must have a sponsoring insurance company. Pricing for the policies will be based on income with those who make more paying a more "traditional" price (no one is allowed to be charged more than they would pay for a traditional private policy), BUT the minimum policy is one where you get 1 free check-up a year and coverage for any bill over $2000 and a co-pay of whatever is normal for doctor/ER/whatever visits and tests. I think my parents pay $100 a month to cover 4 people with this kind of service--but I might be COMPLETELY wrong--I haven't had to buy insurance yet and haven't paid too much attention to it. The insurance company can decide on pricing. And the government (the one in charge of insurance decisions) will pay our of our taxes those costs over the amount expected by everyone to pay. For example: the insurance company sets the price of that basic policy at $100 a month, but the government decides that someone making less than $15,000 a year can only afford $50 in insurance a month--the government will pay the difference. However, the government will ONLY pay the difference between what they expect someone to be able to pay and the amount of the cheapest policy. Should a person decide to sign up for a more expensive policy, they are responsible for everything over the amount allotted (so, if they are deemed able to pay $50, and the cheapest policy is $100, but the person wants the $200 policy, they have to pay the $150 not covered by the government's $50 grant out of their pocket). The amount the person pays in sales tax should more than pay for the difference in their insurance policy.

Now, someone who makes $100,000 a year can choose to purchase the basic policy and it will only cost them $100 a month, even though the government has decided that they should be able to pay $500 a month for better service (or whatever). The insurance company decides on the prices, so it's not like they're going to lose money on this policy. And no currently held policies will be ended. The only law that affects the public is that EVERYONE must purchase an insurance policy there are no exceptions. (Okay, the Amish just claimed to be exempt, and I'm willing to give it to them since pretty much the world can "end" tomorrow and they will survive. They don't need internet or fancy hospitals. But I just looked up the Amish on Wikipedia and I think that having a church "insurance" policy is quite sufficient.)

And the government in charge of insurance will be allowed to seek a better policy yearly as part of the law. However, in all cases, no ones' policy rate can be risen by such a move. If the insurance company decides to raise it's rate, there must be 3 months notice in advance so that all parties can decide to change companies privately or choose to keep the same policy at the higher rate--those who can no longer afford the cheapest policy will get a government grant of the difference. But if the government decides to change companies, they cannot do so if it means that current policies will be more expensive (that they are choosing to go to a company which the cheapest policy is $115 when the current cheapest policy is $100 is illegal) unless the new policy offers more services, though this can be debatable as there is a minimum policy standard for a reason. However, in this case, the government will be paying the difference, so it will not cost the individuals for the payment increase.

Initially, the distribution of insurance companies nationwide will be even--in a sort of NFL draft pick like system the companies will choose with each government making the final decision. Then, after 1 year the governments can decide whether another company could do a better job. I'm less concerned about how companies are placed with an area than the way in which the policies are distributed.

However.The prices set as area prices are not available to those outside of the area. If you work for AIG, you cannot get the discount price for employees of Hot Topic, so the same standard is true for the area policies. But, of course, the individual insurance companies can decide to offer the discount price to all if they wish--or they can decide to charge a higher price to  those who are "out of area". All discounts are at their discretion.

Should any insurance company go out of business, it's areas will immediately go back onto the national market to be picked up by the other companies in the same way as decided initially as the way of dividing the areas--unless the government has already found a new company, which should actually be the first option (government THEN back onto the national market). BUT, when this emergency change is made, for 3 months the new company must accept the previous pricing, and must give notification at the time of acquisition of all the coming changes in pricing, just as if it were a "normal" change in insurance company.

Any bills acquired during the emergency transfer of insurance company will NOT be eligible for late fees, etc. caused because of the inconvenience. The medical places must wait for reimbursement and/or the patient will be reimbursed once all paperwork is settled.

Did I miss anything? Maybe I should send this to Washington since they can't seem to not steal when it comes to health care.

Yemen

I'm watching some of the older videos on my hulu account that are about to expire--namely Colbert and Jon Stewart. Of course, the top news for January 4th or so was still the underwear bomber. Here's what I don't understand:

WHY THE HECK IS YEMEN A NEW COUNTRY OF TERROR?!?!? DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER 2000 WHEN THAT WAS THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF THE BOMBERS OF THE USS COLE?!?!? Or is that only relevant to one small 12 year old who remembers seeing the faces of the 17 dead on the front page of the paper and reading the stories of their lives. How about walking into a classroom and having a teacher mention that she had taught one of the 5 dead who grew up in and around Norfolk? I'm actually disappointed by Stewart and Colbert to not have picked up on this--it makes me sadder that the 17's deaths were in vain. RIP.

Excellent article

Seriously. Read this article about why people vote against reforms. To be fair--that health care bill is a piece of work and a half, but don't those congressmen add in all their special interest BS BECAUSE their constituencies would be FURIOUS that an honest congressman would say he would support a bill that gives health care to Nebraska without giving his state of Oklahoma some kind of benefit. Yay for being a "Christian Nation" who doesn't give a S#!T (excuse my French) about any state other than the one that we live in. Just because I live in Southern Virginia (which should be a completely different state than Northern Virginia because they are crazy), doesn't mean that I won't allow our Governor to pass laws that affect the whole state--like seat belt laws. I won't even say that in order to allow it, the governor has to give money to Norfolk to pay for a light-rail system (which is a FAILURE of EPIC proportion!).

Fox News as Bad as Liberal Media

Some people say it better than I could. See below.



Please ignore the conservative crack about the candidate Fox News attacked in favor or Dole. I'm NOT that conservative--I believe in a wide world effort, not isolationism--while I can appreciate Ron Paul, I believe that there is a purpose for government in global interactions--since it's obvious that big economic bosses screw up royally more often than not. The purpose of this video is that it is a better description of how I feel about Fox News.

Here's my 2 cents. News is News--not opinion. News is by my definition facts. There is no place to put "spin" or opinion. "8 year old boy is killed by stray bullet at 2am" can't get spun much, except from conjecture that it might be a gang killing (which, since I watch a LOT of "liberal" news, isn't conjecture). Giving a number of dead in Iraq also doesn't involve much spin, except that maybe the "liberal" news will actually give pictures to go along with names and numbers. To not do that is disrespectful to the dead in my opinion.

But I don't get much Fox News. You see, I'm poor. We spend $10 on cable a month and don't get those special channels. The way I look at it, the fact that Fox News loses most of it's potential fanbase because they can't afford to pay for the channel and/or choose not to. People already either love or hate Fox News--they aren't going to make any converts from those who already have access. By being on the expensive cable, they are choosing to limit their "fan base" and therefore, when Bill O'Reilly tells about how Fox News has the highest viewership out of all the news channels, I have to wonder how skewed the numbers are.

Another thing about Fox News is that they aren't much actual news--it's mostly opinion. Like I said, news is news. And Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh AREN'T news. They are commentators, not news casters. Fox News Sunday (which IS shown on the local fox station) isn't news either. It's a roundtable discussion much like "Ask the Press". They even bring in a guy from NPR and other "liberal" sources. They comment on this weeks news. Pointless in my opinion.

Besides. Pro-Life isn't conservative in my opinion because it's having big government dictate the rights of individual women...but that's just me.

Argentine judge stops gay marriage

Article here.

This is so sad. I think I've already given my view on marriage and politics (or maybe I haven't-- I can't find the post if there is one).

If you're going to get government (political) benefits (to be able to make decisions about your decided spouse) then the government cannot descriminate! When gay couples have to spend $10,000 on lawyers and filing paperwork to get the same rights that a man and women get for just signing a piece of paper (marriage license) there is something fundamental that isn't right. I don't care if the church doesn't agree with gay marriage--the church isn't the one that gives these rights.

But the article comes from Argentina, not the US.

Wacky News

The Lambert Kiss:

I'm not surprised, and yet I'm confused. So. Would they have complained if he'd kissed a woman on stage? We should get petition together for the next time he performs he should be using a female back-up dancer (completely on the down-low) so that no one can stifle their need to complain by being informed ahead of time.

Wow...so much done, so many thoughts

A lot has crossed my mind in the past 12 hours--it happens when you have 2 papers to write both due at 10am today. So, I'm just going to make a list of topics that I often think about but never have time to write about--today just happen to remind me of it. I'll give full blogs of them later when I'm a bit more awake.

1)Why do "common folks" give definitions to the terms liberal and conservative that are the complete oppsosite to what EVERY academic book, paper, and professor I've ever 'met' use. For example. Why do the books speak of liberalizing China when they are describing China's transformation into a more capitalistic society? Common folks would say that to be more liberal economically would mean a transformation into socialism. I guess both are techincally true if the real definition of liberal is a change in the traditional way. So I guess a better question would be not so much why they use this term to describe two very different situations, but whether there someone would dare disagree that a liberal China is capitalist (that they would call it conservative).

2)On this same note, but in England in 1650 (right after the execution of Charles I), the liberal minded parliament ruling England (they would have to be liberal minded seeing as a conservative minded parliament would have been royalist ) swung more towards the right, not nearly enough to be considered conservative. In the US, I guess it would be strange to think of conservative being royalist, but definitionally it would be correct. It sure makes me question certain people who say that conservatism is the only way to be--I don't want to be a royalist or wear skirts all the time.....But many I take things too literally, haha.

My brain is fuzzy. Maybe I'll add more topics later....or maybe this is a full blog post. I'm not sure. Leave comments and I'll add more if necessary.