Merry Christmas to Everyone,
And a Happy New Year!
And a Happy New Year!
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Politics?
So it seems that the more and more I think about what's happened in the last week, the more upset I become. I'm a pretty mellow person, so for the time being I need to consider whether or not it's worth getting all fired about things that I don't necessarily understand. Looking back, the rants that I've authored are little more than that - rants. The type of rants that continue on about a specific topic without offering examples or solutions. I don't like ranting with no solution - I call people who do that Whiners.
It may be best that I begin to play a role in my community as an observer, and decide as I go along about the individual issues that matter to me and which way to side with them as I become more and more involved. It just amazes me with how much time is spent dealing with semantics.
I think that the decisions made right here at home locally have a much greater and immediate effect on my life than the issues we're having on a more national level. I'm also coming to realize that if I want to make any sort of a difference, I need to start right here on a local level.
It may be best that I begin to play a role in my community as an observer, and decide as I go along about the individual issues that matter to me and which way to side with them as I become more and more involved. It just amazes me with how much time is spent dealing with semantics.
I think that the decisions made right here at home locally have a much greater and immediate effect on my life than the issues we're having on a more national level. I'm also coming to realize that if I want to make any sort of a difference, I need to start right here on a local level.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Eddie Burke Post
So I listen to Eddie Burke because he's funny, but mostly he's really smart. I saw a post on his blog today about giving $425,000 per adult to the people. Actually, the math was off and it was supposed to be $425. Anyway, here's a link to the original post. It has to be approved by a moderator, and I'm sure it will be, but anyway, below is my response:
______________________________________________________________________________________
Alright, so the math may be off on his post. I just can't honestly believe that companies that make bad decisions get helped by the government like this. If you make $85 billion in horrible decisions then you shouldn't be in business anymore. De-regulation really shows us which companies in our Country have the self-control to make it and which ones don't.
We're talking about an industry with many major players who rely on the government to give them rules to protect themselves, and just as soon as those rules are slackened and begin to let free market reign - as it should - the same players blame the government for their own bad decisions. De-regulation is the way to demonstrate which are the smart businesses and which are the dumb ones. If you can't ride an investor's bike once the training wheels are off, then go do something else.
I am completely opposed to this bailout. We can see (especially after today, Friday the 24th) how the idea of this bailout effects faith in the market - people just don't trust a market that can't sustain itself. Folks will trust the market a lot more knowing that the Free Market system will protect us from situations like this on it's own - companies like AIG that make poor financial practices will have to close their doors and will NOT be around to lose investers' money again. It's PRETTY SIMPLE.
Granted, $425 per person, or even $1,000 per person won't get the economy out of this slump (like we saw in June). But at least something like this would put this money back where it belongs - in the hands of The People.
Thinking about this just gets me all fired up, and I think this should be on a ballot on November 4th under the title "How to spend $700 Billion." Choice A, proceed with proposed bailout. Choice 2, give $3,500 to every NON-ALIEN, tax-paying adult in our country (that's $700 billion divided by 200 million adults, if my math is right). Choice 3??? Choice 4??? There are a lot of different things we can do with that money, but in the end, it belongs back in our hands. This amount of money could pay $7,000 to working couples on the brink of foreclosure from losing their homes. It could help a single parent pay 3-6 months of amortgage or rent. If they really want to revive the economy and the housing market, that would be the closest to a sure thing I've hear about.
Obama's right, we need change. But he's completely wrong about how - we need to give money back to the people and not the other way around. If he actually gets voted in, I'll be investing in Gold and in chains for my chainsaw because I know I won't be able to pay for heating oil. And if he wins, God help us all.
~Joe Holod
______________________________________________________________________________________
Alright, so the math may be off on his post. I just can't honestly believe that companies that make bad decisions get helped by the government like this. If you make $85 billion in horrible decisions then you shouldn't be in business anymore. De-regulation really shows us which companies in our Country have the self-control to make it and which ones don't.
We're talking about an industry with many major players who rely on the government to give them rules to protect themselves, and just as soon as those rules are slackened and begin to let free market reign - as it should - the same players blame the government for their own bad decisions. De-regulation is the way to demonstrate which are the smart businesses and which are the dumb ones. If you can't ride an investor's bike once the training wheels are off, then go do something else.
I am completely opposed to this bailout. We can see (especially after today, Friday the 24th) how the idea of this bailout effects faith in the market - people just don't trust a market that can't sustain itself. Folks will trust the market a lot more knowing that the Free Market system will protect us from situations like this on it's own - companies like AIG that make poor financial practices will have to close their doors and will NOT be around to lose investers' money again. It's PRETTY SIMPLE.
Granted, $425 per person, or even $1,000 per person won't get the economy out of this slump (like we saw in June). But at least something like this would put this money back where it belongs - in the hands of The People.
Thinking about this just gets me all fired up, and I think this should be on a ballot on November 4th under the title "How to spend $700 Billion." Choice A, proceed with proposed bailout. Choice 2, give $3,500 to every NON-ALIEN, tax-paying adult in our country (that's $700 billion divided by 200 million adults, if my math is right). Choice 3??? Choice 4??? There are a lot of different things we can do with that money, but in the end, it belongs back in our hands. This amount of money could pay $7,000 to working couples on the brink of foreclosure from losing their homes. It could help a single parent pay 3-6 months of amortgage or rent. If they really want to revive the economy and the housing market, that would be the closest to a sure thing I've hear about.
Obama's right, we need change. But he's completely wrong about how - we need to give money back to the people and not the other way around. If he actually gets voted in, I'll be investing in Gold and in chains for my chainsaw because I know I won't be able to pay for heating oil. And if he wins, God help us all.
~Joe Holod
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
What's writing all about?
I suppose I can't speak for everyone, but for me, I'm still trying to figure out what writing is all about. In fact, I'm sure that the reasons I write have change and will change over the years, so all I can write about is Me, right now. And in now way do I consider myself a writer, I'm just a guy who likes to write sometimes.
The first thing about writing that does it for me is that one perfect sentence, or perfect paragraph, that perfectly describes the message or scene that I'm trying to convey. It's that grouping of words that describes exactly what I'm feeling or thinking.
There a lot of other things I like about writing. I don't feel that many people realize this, but there really are no rules in writing. Perhaps a writer has his or her own rules that they choose to follow, but when it comes down to it there really is no right or wrong way to write. You can write about whatever topic you choose. And if you want to follow conventional sentence rules, you never start a sentence with 'and.' But if you want to choose your own style, then you can start a sentence with 'But' and there's nobody who can tell you that it's right or wrong. Writers can even create their own words, like Shakespeare did, and that can be alright as well. So many writers use so many styles and, generally, it's up to the readers, the target audience, to decide if they like it or not, or if they care to read it, and if they read it then I suppose you're doing alright, even if you don't care to use short sentences.
Writing is freedom.
The first thing about writing that does it for me is that one perfect sentence, or perfect paragraph, that perfectly describes the message or scene that I'm trying to convey. It's that grouping of words that describes exactly what I'm feeling or thinking.
There a lot of other things I like about writing. I don't feel that many people realize this, but there really are no rules in writing. Perhaps a writer has his or her own rules that they choose to follow, but when it comes down to it there really is no right or wrong way to write. You can write about whatever topic you choose. And if you want to follow conventional sentence rules, you never start a sentence with 'and.' But if you want to choose your own style, then you can start a sentence with 'But' and there's nobody who can tell you that it's right or wrong. Writers can even create their own words, like Shakespeare did, and that can be alright as well. So many writers use so many styles and, generally, it's up to the readers, the target audience, to decide if they like it or not, or if they care to read it, and if they read it then I suppose you're doing alright, even if you don't care to use short sentences.
Writing is freedom.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
I am Ironman
So I just saw Ironman tonight and I thought it was pretty sweet. Here's a guy who doesn't like the direction of the world, mainly the United States (as well as some of it's corporate buddies who get government slack) and takes matters into his own hands. I think we can all take something important from this film. I'm referring to the valuable lesson that says that if you don't like the direction you see the world going in, then you need to change it. Don't stand around and wait for someone else to try to so that you can just jump on the bandwagon, what I'm trying to say is BE THAT GUY (or GIRL). Be a leader. Step up and say what you feel. Don't lie about your beliefs to fit in, be yourself. Don't conform to conform. Don't take others' words as truth about things, be smart and find things out for yourself.
"Those consistently relying on others for information open themselves to the biased truths and half facts of the members of society whom insist upon forcing their will unto others through fear, lies, and manipulation, thus becoming pawns of the very game they criticize but are too weak to correct."Alright, so that probably will make whichever book I write first. So I made it a quote. I love it's simplicity, and I think it really sums things up for most of those who live in the world today. Title that 'I Am Ironman.' I guess that's all for today. I would highly recommend Ironman, rent it today.
~Joe Holod on Blogger.com, October 1st, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Late Night Ramblings: 2007 Budget
I was thinking about some things earlier today and I came up with an interesting question: at what point (in income) do you stop giving the government and start being just dependent? I mean, we all pay taxes that go towards roads, schools, and things like that. But which taxpayers at the lower end of the brackets are getting more than they actually pay for? I just couldn't come up with any sort of an idea. And so, would these people be considered freeloaders? Certainly some of us contribute more to the government than others, I just wanted to know how much of it I actually paid for, I suppose. Or perhaps discover whether or not the tangible government property is more mine than someone else's, or less mine than some others. Or would the 'one vote per person' system mean that we all own the same amount?
Here's another thought, while I'm on taxes and things like this. The next time I file income taxes, I want a detailed receipt detailing what my money is spent on, per the hundredth of a penny. We'll put the biggest items at the top of the list, such as military, transportation.
Ok, I just found a few different pie charts about government spending, since everyone has their own take and everyone's accountant apparently has a different opinion. This one is on Wikipedia for the year 2007. So here we go: Last year the federal government spent just over $2.8 trillion. That's $2,800,000,000,000. And let's say, for basic example, that my income taxes, soc, medicare, and medicaid last year I paid $4,000. I contributed to just over a billionth of the national budget, so that's not bad. Now let's see how much of that went to things that don't help me whatsoever.
About 43.59% went to health care. This does not help me. Social security, medicare, medicaid and State's programs for children's insurance. That's a lot of money (only $1.2 trillion, but whose counting?), especially considering that I paid about $1700 out of my pocket for nothing. I could have spent that $1700 to pay off the credit cards that have been bought by the collections companies who are owned by the banks that were almost about to close, until this week when the federal sabotage-out kicked in and now they're done altogether. Now they're just closing. So who do I owe that money to now? Good Job, Federal Government. The federal government shouldn't meddle with things they don't understand.
About 9.1% went to unemployment, welfare, and 'other mandatory spending.' What the hell does that mean, exactly? Anyway, I did participate in our state's unemployment program last year, though here in Alaska we have unemployment insurance, so I believe that I was not contributed to by this 9.1%. So over half the money I paid last year in taxes was not spent on me.
The DoD had about 16% of the budget spent on itself last year. That's for our soldiers and lot of important stuff. And a lot of unimportant stuff. This number is far too small - we need to be able to supply our soldiers with bullet proof vests and our borders need to be protected. We could be reallocating a lot of money wasted by the DoD playing real-life Space Invaders and NASA forgetting simple English-Metric conversions when bombing Mars, and putting these dollars towards useful projects. Or better yet, not taking the money from us to begin with.
I won't get into the rest of the budget, I think I've made a pretty large point. When I file my taxes, I should be able to decide how much I pay and what my money gets spent on. There should be a line for every thing on there. I'd throw some money towards finding some cheap alternative fuels. But when NASA makes a $125 million mistake and then asks for more money, guess what guys: my dollars are elsewhere because you proved to me you're incompetent. If a particular road that I drive on every day is in really horrible shape, then I should be able to say that 'I want this $500 to go towards repaving the Parks Hwy between mile 52 and mile 70' for example.
These are the things we need to be telling our legislators, but they don't listen. They're too caught up on getting a vote than to actually spend our money for us in ways that help us out. We need to rely on individuals for the budget, not a bunch of suits.
Also, the word 'couldn't' is not in the blogger spellchecker for some reason, fyi. Neither is Wikipedia, or everyone's.
Here's another thought, while I'm on taxes and things like this. The next time I file income taxes, I want a detailed receipt detailing what my money is spent on, per the hundredth of a penny. We'll put the biggest items at the top of the list, such as military, transportation.
Ok, I just found a few different pie charts about government spending, since everyone has their own take and everyone's accountant apparently has a different opinion. This one is on Wikipedia for the year 2007. So here we go: Last year the federal government spent just over $2.8 trillion. That's $2,800,000,000,000. And let's say, for basic example, that my income taxes, soc, medicare, and medicaid last year I paid $4,000. I contributed to just over a billionth of the national budget, so that's not bad. Now let's see how much of that went to things that don't help me whatsoever.
About 43.59% went to health care. This does not help me. Social security, medicare, medicaid and State's programs for children's insurance. That's a lot of money (only $1.2 trillion, but whose counting?), especially considering that I paid about $1700 out of my pocket for nothing. I could have spent that $1700 to pay off the credit cards that have been bought by the collections companies who are owned by the banks that were almost about to close, until this week when the federal sabotage-out kicked in and now they're done altogether. Now they're just closing. So who do I owe that money to now? Good Job, Federal Government. The federal government shouldn't meddle with things they don't understand.
About 9.1% went to unemployment, welfare, and 'other mandatory spending.' What the hell does that mean, exactly? Anyway, I did participate in our state's unemployment program last year, though here in Alaska we have unemployment insurance, so I believe that I was not contributed to by this 9.1%. So over half the money I paid last year in taxes was not spent on me.
The DoD had about 16% of the budget spent on itself last year. That's for our soldiers and lot of important stuff. And a lot of unimportant stuff. This number is far too small - we need to be able to supply our soldiers with bullet proof vests and our borders need to be protected. We could be reallocating a lot of money wasted by the DoD playing real-life Space Invaders and NASA forgetting simple English-Metric conversions when bombing Mars, and putting these dollars towards useful projects. Or better yet, not taking the money from us to begin with.
I won't get into the rest of the budget, I think I've made a pretty large point. When I file my taxes, I should be able to decide how much I pay and what my money gets spent on. There should be a line for every thing on there. I'd throw some money towards finding some cheap alternative fuels. But when NASA makes a $125 million mistake and then asks for more money, guess what guys: my dollars are elsewhere because you proved to me you're incompetent. If a particular road that I drive on every day is in really horrible shape, then I should be able to say that 'I want this $500 to go towards repaving the Parks Hwy between mile 52 and mile 70' for example.
These are the things we need to be telling our legislators, but they don't listen. They're too caught up on getting a vote than to actually spend our money for us in ways that help us out. We need to rely on individuals for the budget, not a bunch of suits.
Also, the word 'couldn't' is not in the blogger spellchecker for some reason, fyi. Neither is Wikipedia, or everyone's.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Conservative Rant
What if Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States? Will we give all of our hard earned money to poor people and people in other countries, so that us working class citizens can go day to day wondering now we're going to buy fuel for a cars to get to work tomorrow or to heat our homes next week? The answer is Yes.
You see, I've been paying extra attention lately to the way people behave and act, and the stories they tell. From these experiences, often with complete strangers, I predict their political bias as being either liberal or conservative. And without asking or baiting a conversation, I usually find out before the meeting is over, because right now everyone wants to tell you what they thing about Sarah Palin (this is Alaska, after all). I challenge you all to try this on your own, but hear this: I've been right 100% of the time so far. That tells me something. That tells me that people are not as 'on the fence' as they claim to be. But it also tells me that others can accurately guess that I'm conservative. That can be a scary thought. Earlier this week I was in an area of town that is known to be a very liberal area, and I wasn't able to strike up a conversation with anyone for the life of me. I was just being myself, and it was as if people just spoke to me through their actions, "Oh, you're one of those." And did I waver? Nay. But I did stop to think that I'm not this way toward others, at least as far as I can tell.
So here's the breakdown: people who are whiney, lazy thinkers, people who cry for help in the simplest situations, expect things for free, and people who say everyone should care about less fortunate people as much as they do, are liberals. These are the people who say "Oh, this and that should be illegal." These are the folks that complain about a problem and offer no solution. I'm talking about the folks who try to fix the small little issues of huge problems, then behave as if they had solved the entire issue. The people I'm taking about are the ones who like to have more laws and rules because they're not smart enough to take care of themselves. Don't forget how Liberals are limiting our personal freedoms, including those freedoms guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution. They want government intervention in everything. They want to further enable the government to watch over us and eavesdrop on us, raping us of any sense, or protection, of privacy.
The conservatives, on the other hand, are usually more independent. We want to keep the money we earn and spend it on what we decide to. We want less government control because we know how bad they screw everything up. We know that the world operates as a better place when the decisions of individuals are not controlled and ruled by groups of politicians, elected by 'electoral' votes, who take complete advantage of situations and eventually lose any and all sense of reality. We're the people who own guns for protection because we know we can't rely on the government to protect us from much, and we realize that one day we may need to protect ourselves from the government itself (remember 1776?). And we don't want to give away money to other parts of the world when most of us are struggling to make ends meet, and we lose huge portions of our paychecks to things that don't help us. It's not the government's job to help us, it's our responsibility to help ourselves. We're the ones who believe in National Sovereignty and in only letting qualified individuals into our Country. We don't like the idea of letting people from other places of the world coming here for free and living off of our tax dollars as they contribute nothing (taking illegal employment in picking fruit and vegetables does NOT contribute to our country in a positive way).
There are so many things in this world that we need to just say "NO" to, and Conservatives are the ones standing up and doing it. Liberals are the ones feeling sorry for people who can't help themselves. Now, usually when someone can't help him or her self, it's because they're too lazy and too accustomed to getting things handed to them by people like these very Liberals I'm speaking about. If they're starving because they're too stupid to move to where there's water, then Darwinism comes into play the way nature intended. Liberals are the ones who pity the homeless drunks on the sides of the streets and give them money, and that's just fine by me. But don't try to pass legislation to 'help these people' by giving them my money. If they could be helped, they would've helped themselves a long time ago. Wake up already! If people are warned to leave an area because of an impending doom approaching, then LEAVE THE AREA! Don't sit around and wait, and just about lose your life, and then cry for help or complain when it doesn't come 'soon'. "Danger is coming. You must leave if you value your life" - I think that is help enough. Again, if people can't help themselves, then it's time for the rest of us to move on.
Disclaimer: this is pretty rough but I'm posting it anyway. Keep in mind, what I am conveying are general thoughts of mine. If you consider yourself a conservative but disagree with 99% of what I said, then (a) I'm sorry, no offense and (b) you may want to reevaluate what you call yourself.
You see, I've been paying extra attention lately to the way people behave and act, and the stories they tell. From these experiences, often with complete strangers, I predict their political bias as being either liberal or conservative. And without asking or baiting a conversation, I usually find out before the meeting is over, because right now everyone wants to tell you what they thing about Sarah Palin (this is Alaska, after all). I challenge you all to try this on your own, but hear this: I've been right 100% of the time so far. That tells me something. That tells me that people are not as 'on the fence' as they claim to be. But it also tells me that others can accurately guess that I'm conservative. That can be a scary thought. Earlier this week I was in an area of town that is known to be a very liberal area, and I wasn't able to strike up a conversation with anyone for the life of me. I was just being myself, and it was as if people just spoke to me through their actions, "Oh, you're one of those." And did I waver? Nay. But I did stop to think that I'm not this way toward others, at least as far as I can tell.
So here's the breakdown: people who are whiney, lazy thinkers, people who cry for help in the simplest situations, expect things for free, and people who say everyone should care about less fortunate people as much as they do, are liberals. These are the people who say "Oh, this and that should be illegal." These are the folks that complain about a problem and offer no solution. I'm talking about the folks who try to fix the small little issues of huge problems, then behave as if they had solved the entire issue. The people I'm taking about are the ones who like to have more laws and rules because they're not smart enough to take care of themselves. Don't forget how Liberals are limiting our personal freedoms, including those freedoms guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution. They want government intervention in everything. They want to further enable the government to watch over us and eavesdrop on us, raping us of any sense, or protection, of privacy.
The conservatives, on the other hand, are usually more independent. We want to keep the money we earn and spend it on what we decide to. We want less government control because we know how bad they screw everything up. We know that the world operates as a better place when the decisions of individuals are not controlled and ruled by groups of politicians, elected by 'electoral' votes, who take complete advantage of situations and eventually lose any and all sense of reality. We're the people who own guns for protection because we know we can't rely on the government to protect us from much, and we realize that one day we may need to protect ourselves from the government itself (remember 1776?). And we don't want to give away money to other parts of the world when most of us are struggling to make ends meet, and we lose huge portions of our paychecks to things that don't help us. It's not the government's job to help us, it's our responsibility to help ourselves. We're the ones who believe in National Sovereignty and in only letting qualified individuals into our Country. We don't like the idea of letting people from other places of the world coming here for free and living off of our tax dollars as they contribute nothing (taking illegal employment in picking fruit and vegetables does NOT contribute to our country in a positive way).
There are so many things in this world that we need to just say "NO" to, and Conservatives are the ones standing up and doing it. Liberals are the ones feeling sorry for people who can't help themselves. Now, usually when someone can't help him or her self, it's because they're too lazy and too accustomed to getting things handed to them by people like these very Liberals I'm speaking about. If they're starving because they're too stupid to move to where there's water, then Darwinism comes into play the way nature intended. Liberals are the ones who pity the homeless drunks on the sides of the streets and give them money, and that's just fine by me. But don't try to pass legislation to 'help these people' by giving them my money. If they could be helped, they would've helped themselves a long time ago. Wake up already! If people are warned to leave an area because of an impending doom approaching, then LEAVE THE AREA! Don't sit around and wait, and just about lose your life, and then cry for help or complain when it doesn't come 'soon'. "Danger is coming. You must leave if you value your life" - I think that is help enough. Again, if people can't help themselves, then it's time for the rest of us to move on.
Disclaimer: this is pretty rough but I'm posting it anyway. Keep in mind, what I am conveying are general thoughts of mine. If you consider yourself a conservative but disagree with 99% of what I said, then (a) I'm sorry, no offense and (b) you may want to reevaluate what you call yourself.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Elton John
So I made a comment earlier to a friend that I thought Elton John was way under-rated. I was corrected once she enlightened me that in his time, in fact, Elton was a HUGE hit. I think he's genius (as a musician, let's be clear on that point.) Tiny Dancer? Love it. I don't what what there is about it, but i think it's that 'reminiscent' feeling. You know, that feeling you get when you watch The Sandlot, or anything else that makes you remember back to 'The Good Ol' Days.' Musically, I was born about thirty years too late. I guess I just have an old soul.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Who is Mac for?
Alright, so there's a lot of people switching over to Mac. But why? Is it because nobody wants Vista? I think that for a lot of people, this is true. And for these people (especially those who never fully adjust to osX), as soon as the next version of Windows is released they'll be switching back over.
Also, has anybody seen the 'I'm f***ing Matt Damon' movie? Or the Ben Affleck answer to it? I just found on youtube the Obama version. Now, I won't be voting for this clown, let's be clear on that. But I do love youtube videos, lol. You can watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skIlZflDs9Y&feature=related.
Alright
Also, has anybody seen the 'I'm f***ing Matt Damon' movie? Or the Ben Affleck answer to it? I just found on youtube the Obama version. Now, I won't be voting for this clown, let's be clear on that. But I do love youtube videos, lol. You can watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skIlZflDs9Y&feature=related.
Alright
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sarah Palin
So they decided to make our Governor the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee for this year's election. I'm pretty happy about it, but that means we may lose Sarah Palin for 4 years (or 8? or 16?) but she'll be back.
I found a really kool little site tonight hosting fun facts about Sarah Palin, it's called PalinFacts.com and it's a fun read, even if you don't know anything.
Here's a few of my fav's from the site:
I found a really kool little site tonight hosting fun facts about Sarah Palin, it's called PalinFacts.com and it's a fun read, even if you don't know anything.
Here's a few of my fav's from the site:
- When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.
- Sarah Palin’s image already appears on the newer nickels.
- Queen Elizabeth II curtsied when she was introduced to Sarah Palin
- Jesus has a bracelet that says, “WWSPD?”
- Death once had a near-Sarah Palin experience.
- In the original version, He-Man had the power of Sarah Palin, but the writers felt this would make him way too powerful.
- -Sarah Palin doesn’t need a gun to hunt, because she can throw a bullet through an adult bull elk.
- Sarah Palin wants you to LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!
Firefox 3.0.1 on Linux AMD64
So I installed the new Firefox 3.0.1 yesterday on my 64bit box, Driva 08 64. Runs good, however, the nspluginwrapper plugins for it don't seem to want to work for anything - so I have no Flash. And I've been overconfident in some things lately so when I installed the new Firefox i overwrote the existing installations. So I'll try and deal with it for a while, and see how patient I really am.
Decision to Blog More
So I've made the important decision to blog more, and to read some blogs.
So I played with KDE4 today and so far I like what I see. I really enjoy being able to use OpenGL without using compiz or beryl. I'm using the metapackage with Mandriva '08, so I'm sure that there's more stable versions out by now. But I definitly like what I see.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Monday, September 15, 2008
Vista vs. Linux Rebuttal
I've just finished reading a Vista vs. Linux post from ITVoir.com. Click Here to read it.
The author of this article had a few facts to get straight. The web site requires administrative approval for any comments, so mine may not make it to the site. But here is my response, in it's entirety:
____________________________________________________________________________________
I respect your post, but your research couldn't have taken you any further from the truth.
Firstly, Linux has more software than Windows. Hands down. And it's mostly free software. Just because you can't name any software that runs on Linux doesn't mean there's less. And now, with virtualization i.e. VMWare and VirtualBox, not to mention Cedega and Wine, you can run most Windows software on top of Linux one way or another. You can even run Windows on top of Linux, and in fact, it runs faster this way than it runs natively.
Secondly, you stated that because Linux has the widest software support of any operating system that it is more 'vulnerable.' When Windows breaks, Microsoft waits until someone complains about it first. Then, they put a 'team' together to put together a patch. Next, the patch is distributed via Windows Updates. Linux, in contrast, is built on top of a more secure foundation, so there are fewer security flaws to begin with, and much less serious when they occur. And due to it's larger group of support programmers, it is usually fixed faster - MUCH faster - than Microsoft products. Let me put this idea into context for you - MasterLock makes conbination locks for lockers and toolboxes and etc. But without the combination for said lock, you can't open it - even if you know how every little part inside moves and interacts with the other moving parts.
Thirdly, Linux has support for WiFi. In fact, Linux has had support for the newer WPA security standards like TTLS before most Windows users had it - they had to wait for XP SP2.
In addition, the hardware you speak about with support for Vista is usually on the Expensive side of things, and Vista needs 2gigs of RAM to do anything worthwhile in a descent amount of time, whereas Linux runs everything from Graphing Calculators to Cell Phones to the Hardon Collider. It's a much more versatile computing solution.
Windows Automatic Updates are some of the biggest money makers for people in the Computer Service Industry. Microsoft consistently puts patches through that are under tested and unreliable, and they often render user's machines unusable. Microsoft can't even seem to make up their minds about what they think people should have, might want to have, and must have. Remember Internet Explorer 7? First it was an optional update, then it was Recommended (i.e. automatically installed), and then for a while it wasn't even obtainable from the Windows Update site. And lets not forget that Microsoft is known to place Spyware on your computer, and if you've run Windows Update in the last 18 months, then YOU HAVE IT.
Again, on this next one, your facts are clouded. You CAN INDEED set Linux up for automatic back up. That is a Fact. You have much more control over it as well.
Overall, it would seem that from reading your article, you've probably never used an Operating System besides Windows Vista. Windows Vista is so horrible, in fact, that the Mac market is booming with sales increases of over 50% a year. Fortune 500 companies have all but halted any and all upgrade plans for the time being - they've decided that it would be more practical to keep their machines with Windows 2000 than to change over to Windows Vista - mainly, because of Networking and Usability issues. And, the major PC dealers had to stop selling machines with Vista Home Basic because they said it was 'Almost Unusable.' Microsoft has since decided to bump-up their next Operating System release by almost 2 years in a desperate effort to reclaim the market.
Microsoft has done wonderful things for the PC industry, and without them, fewer people throughout the world would have PCs or know how to use them. As a PC Service Technician with plentiful experience in Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, and Vista, and as a die-hard Linux user and Mac admirer, I can honestly say that Windows Vista is the absolute Worst Operating System ever compiled.
Thanks for the post,
~Joe
The author of this article had a few facts to get straight. The web site requires administrative approval for any comments, so mine may not make it to the site. But here is my response, in it's entirety:
____________________________________________________________________________________
I respect your post, but your research couldn't have taken you any further from the truth.
Firstly, Linux has more software than Windows. Hands down. And it's mostly free software. Just because you can't name any software that runs on Linux doesn't mean there's less. And now, with virtualization i.e. VMWare and VirtualBox, not to mention Cedega and Wine, you can run most Windows software on top of Linux one way or another. You can even run Windows on top of Linux, and in fact, it runs faster this way than it runs natively.
Secondly, you stated that because Linux has the widest software support of any operating system that it is more 'vulnerable.' When Windows breaks, Microsoft waits until someone complains about it first. Then, they put a 'team' together to put together a patch. Next, the patch is distributed via Windows Updates. Linux, in contrast, is built on top of a more secure foundation, so there are fewer security flaws to begin with, and much less serious when they occur. And due to it's larger group of support programmers, it is usually fixed faster - MUCH faster - than Microsoft products. Let me put this idea into context for you - MasterLock makes conbination locks for lockers and toolboxes and etc. But without the combination for said lock, you can't open it - even if you know how every little part inside moves and interacts with the other moving parts.
Thirdly, Linux has support for WiFi. In fact, Linux has had support for the newer WPA security standards like TTLS before most Windows users had it - they had to wait for XP SP2.
In addition, the hardware you speak about with support for Vista is usually on the Expensive side of things, and Vista needs 2gigs of RAM to do anything worthwhile in a descent amount of time, whereas Linux runs everything from Graphing Calculators to Cell Phones to the Hardon Collider. It's a much more versatile computing solution.
Windows Automatic Updates are some of the biggest money makers for people in the Computer Service Industry. Microsoft consistently puts patches through that are under tested and unreliable, and they often render user's machines unusable. Microsoft can't even seem to make up their minds about what they think people should have, might want to have, and must have. Remember Internet Explorer 7? First it was an optional update, then it was Recommended (i.e. automatically installed), and then for a while it wasn't even obtainable from the Windows Update site. And lets not forget that Microsoft is known to place Spyware on your computer, and if you've run Windows Update in the last 18 months, then YOU HAVE IT.
Again, on this next one, your facts are clouded. You CAN INDEED set Linux up for automatic back up. That is a Fact. You have much more control over it as well.
Overall, it would seem that from reading your article, you've probably never used an Operating System besides Windows Vista. Windows Vista is so horrible, in fact, that the Mac market is booming with sales increases of over 50% a year. Fortune 500 companies have all but halted any and all upgrade plans for the time being - they've decided that it would be more practical to keep their machines with Windows 2000 than to change over to Windows Vista - mainly, because of Networking and Usability issues. And, the major PC dealers had to stop selling machines with Vista Home Basic because they said it was 'Almost Unusable.' Microsoft has since decided to bump-up their next Operating System release by almost 2 years in a desperate effort to reclaim the market.
Microsoft has done wonderful things for the PC industry, and without them, fewer people throughout the world would have PCs or know how to use them. As a PC Service Technician with plentiful experience in Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, and Vista, and as a die-hard Linux user and Mac admirer, I can honestly say that Windows Vista is the absolute Worst Operating System ever compiled.
Thanks for the post,
~Joe
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The Answer to Rising Fuel Costs
Here in America we are very dependent on fuel. Everything we do in our lives is linked to burning fuel - driving to work, watching TV, heating our homes - the list is endless. While we can attempt to reduce our reliance on fuel - as many are - it's impossible to eliminate our need for fuel from our daily lives.
Most fuels are made manufactured from oil. There are only a few countries
The United States doesn't produce enough oil for itself. We import well over half of the oil we consume. This gives the countries that we import from far too much power, both politically and economically.
There are many things that contribute to the price of imported oil, one of them being the expense in getting the oil here to begin with. In addition, the foreign oil companies often form cartels. Agreeing on common prices and charges, these cartels eliminate competition and keep prices high.
The answer to lowering the cost of fuel is minimizing the role of foreign companies in the equation. These outside oil companies have no current reason to offer the U.S. competitive prices because we can't go anywhere else for the oil; they know we're stuck. American oil companies have no incentive to charge less than the foreign companies because they know all the oil they produce will be bought anyway.
America needs to drill more oil. There are many untouched reserves throughout our country, including many here in Alaska. At the urge of environmentalists, among other groups, the U.S. government has so heavily regulated the industry that it is almost impossible for domestic oil production to grow, and in fact, oil production is shrinking. In 2006 the U.S. produced 5,103,000 barrels of crude oil per day, representing the lowest domestic production number since 1949. In 2005 we consumed 20,802,000 barrels per day, the highest in recorded history.
It is now too expensive in our country to open a new refinery - America's newest oil refinery was built in 1976. The number of U.S. refineries in operation as of 2007 was 149
Most fuels are made manufactured from oil. There are only a few countries
The United States doesn't produce enough oil for itself. We import well over half of the oil we consume. This gives the countries that we import from far too much power, both politically and economically.
There are many things that contribute to the price of imported oil, one of them being the expense in getting the oil here to begin with. In addition, the foreign oil companies often form cartels. Agreeing on common prices and charges, these cartels eliminate competition and keep prices high.
The answer to lowering the cost of fuel is minimizing the role of foreign companies in the equation. These outside oil companies have no current reason to offer the U.S. competitive prices because we can't go anywhere else for the oil; they know we're stuck. American oil companies have no incentive to charge less than the foreign companies because they know all the oil they produce will be bought anyway.
America needs to drill more oil. There are many untouched reserves throughout our country, including many here in Alaska. At the urge of environmentalists, among other groups, the U.S. government has so heavily regulated the industry that it is almost impossible for domestic oil production to grow, and in fact, oil production is shrinking. In 2006 the U.S. produced 5,103,000 barrels of crude oil per day, representing the lowest domestic production number since 1949. In 2005 we consumed 20,802,000 barrels per day, the highest in recorded history.
It is now too expensive in our country to open a new refinery - America's newest oil refinery was built in 1976. The number of U.S. refineries in operation as of 2007 was 149
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Draft - Effects of Personal Responsibility on the Economy: A Layman's Point of View
Roman Pickle
I've recently found myself in a bit of a Roman pickle. If you disagree with my views that's not a good reason to stop reading. I'm not bashing others' ideas here, I'm trying to explain and justify my own. So, being a little to the right of most moderates, I have a difficult time finding people who share my opinions. I'll carry on now...
My Beliefs
I strongly believe that Capitalism is great. I don't believe the government should have a significant role in regulating our economy. Creative thinkers should have the freedom to pioneer their way into building innovative business models, and those daring enough to attempt such ventures should reap the benefits.
In a Socialist Society, these creative thinkers manage companies their country owns, if they're so lucky. They receive the same benefits as the guy running the same company across town. They both produce their goods and services to the exact specifications their government tells them to, never deviating, never experiment, never attempting development of a unique product. No chance to get ahead. If you work hard all day and the guy next to you naps the whole time, your paychecks are the same as one another. This model of society prevents personal ambition, creativity and invention. Countries like this do not advance technologically into the future. People don't have any individual voice. Socialist countries control what their people say and do, leaving them no freedom. What little money they pay you, they also tell you what you're allowed to buy with. But, if they get hurt or sick it's paid for. And if the government says you can go to college, they pay for it (but if they say you can't go, then you just can't go). I'm against Socialism for a lot of reasons I can't even think of, but perhaps primarily because it takes away personal responsibility and freedom.
Successful Business Models
When it comes to business, there are a few classic business models and ideas that are pure genius. First, vertical integration - what a wonderful thing. A great way to make a product cheaper is to minimize the number of hands (or companies, in this case) it passes through. Don't just make steel - first, mine the metals, then transport them, then refine them and produce steel products, then transport it to your customers - all yourself. The government today has legislation in place to prevent companies like this from forming.
Second, monopolies. Our government tries to prevent companies from being the sole supplier of a product. If there are two ladder companies in the country, and ladder company A wanted to buy ladder company B, thus becoming the only ladder company in the country, the government would try to stop this. The government believes this protects people from overly priced goods and lack of product choices. Well, Uncle Sam, if my ladder is a bit old and it's $5000 for a new one, guess what: I'll be keepin' that old one around for a little longer, or I'll form my own ladder company, because that's what free market competition is all about. And ladder company AB would realize that, so they wouldn't ever charge $5000 for a ladder to begin with. By allowing 2 companies to compete, keeping prices low and product quality down, the government is actually preventing smaller companies from forming because the market is overly competitive.
The US Government vs Monopolies: The 'Teach but don't Preach' model. UPS and FedEx both started as small delivery companies. Eventually they grew and grew, and they became as large as they could be by the late 70's. The USPS was the government's delivery company, and they were reliable and reasonable priced, but not always very fast. Airline Regulations in place prevented FedEx and UPS from growing further, thus maintaining the Postal Service's monopoly on most interstate deliveries. It wasn't until after airline deregulation in 1978 did FedEx truly enter the playing field as a competitor to the USPS, who now offers flat-rate deliveries 2nd and 3rd day across the US as a reasonably priced answer to UPS and FedEx.
The United States Government has a monopoly on retirement funds. While other companies exist, the US Government is the only entity in the country which requires you to pay into a specific retirement fund, thwarting any competition. They make Social Security mandatory - you must pay into it, regardless of if you already have a suitable fund set up elsewhere. It's not just a matter of requiring us to have a retirement fund set up, they even pick it for you and control it themselves. If they adopt a new policy you don't like you can't change companies, you're stuck. If I could instead take the equivalent amount of money from every paycheck and invest it in gold, mutual funds, and high-yield savings accounts I would have a much more fruitful retirement than what Social Security will be able to provide me. And on top of all that, I could retire when I chose to, not when the government tells me I can.
Third, Cartels. Cartels are created when an agreement is reached among companies to sell their similar or identical product for the same price as one another, thus giving the companies the appearance of market control. The pricing strategy could be cutthroat in order to remove other competitors from the market, and later raised very high once a higher level of market control is attained. Our government has outlawed cartels because they believe cartels will reduce market competition. Interestingly enough, the foreign countries who sell us oil are essentially a cartel, and we have little choice but to buy oil at the prices they set. Disturbingly, because of how our nation's laws are enforced, we cannot have any cartels to sell those countries goods. In effect, our government's infringements on our personal freedoms are preventing us from fairly competing on a global scale.
So this is supposed to be all about my Roman pickle, so here it is. As much as I am anti-socialist and anti-government control, I do believe I contradict myself. In terms of ideas, the government shouldn't protect them so tightly, because this prevents competition. It is the individual companies' responsibility to closely guard their secrets. Recently a man was charged with distributing a copy of a commercial video game that was not yet completed. The game company should have done more to protect itself, and after they were violated, it's their own responsibility to take legal action against the individual. He is now under house arrest.
Community Products
And so for the real pickle: if I support so strongly the right for companies to do as they please, in an economic sense, they why do I support the use of open-source software over commercial software? This is what I keep trying to explain to myself - not that I feel at all guilty about using open source, because I don't. As a Capitalism cheerleader is it odd to convey the idea that a group of individuals can create, maintain and manufacture a product that exceeds that of an entity motivated by profit? I'm not sure. Do I really contradict myself?
Perhaps nay. As possibly the most monopolistic company in our country at this time, Microsoft controls over 95% of the desktop OS market. While I applaud those capitalists that make it to the top, as Bill Gates has, I also applaud those who try to stand up to fight a giant. But Microsoft isn't competing against another giant, it's the little guys - over 1,000 people from more than 100 companies (and let's not forget the individuals) contribute the development of the just the linux kernel alone, not to mention the thousands of other great software that's out there, written by the community.
Personal Responsibility
I'm still trying to explain to myself how this isn't contradictory. Am I more for businesses or what? I think what it comes down to is that I'm for the freedom of everyone. While I don't think that government should regulate business as heavily as it does, it is the responsibility of the individual to see a monopolistic threat and do something about it, and not expect the government to protect them from it. With Freedom comes Personal Responsibility.
Part of that same Personal Responsibility says that if a company is doing something unethical, or at least something you don't like, then don't buy their product. Don't invest in a company that takes part in in questionable activities. On the flip side to that, if you see a company who is buying up it's suppliers and competitors and you think they're being unfair, then don't invest in them; if that same company stands to make investors tons of money, then it's your right to invest.
Familiar Example
So many Americans are naive to the capital control we carry as consumers. I can recall a pop culture example that many may be familiar with: near the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003 the Dixie Chicks spoke out against President Bush, claiming they were ashamed he was from Texas. After a public boycott of the Dixie Chicks' music, along with many radio stations pulling their tunes from the air, they would never again reach their previous level of success. Concert ticket sales were low, and in some cases, because local radio stations refused to advertise for the Dixie Chicks, some concerts were canceled altogether. The Dixie Chicks maintain that they were within their right to free speech. The lesson learned here is that if you upset consumers, whether by immoral and illegal activities, or just controversial comments, it affects the market. After the comment, President Bush hit the nail on the head when he summed it all up in an interview with Tom Brokaw, saying "...Freedom is a two-way street..."
Being Responsible for Yourself
These are interesting thoughts. Personal Responsibility; Freedom. They go hand-in-hand, but most people don't realize it. Perhaps people who don't want to be responsible for themselves think it's ok to give up personal freedoms? I have a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. If you can't be responsible for yourself and the things you do, then that's your problem. Don't lean on the government for support because you made poor decisions. Survival of the fittest - if you can't work, don't expect the government to feed you from other peoples' pockets.
Universal Health Care
Today I read a Reuters article about a recent poll, claiming this:
Take personal responsibility for yourself. If you want health care, then pay for health care. If you don't want to pay to take care of yourself, then just take care of yourself. Eat healthy foods. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Don't play tackle football without pads with your grandson's high school buddies.
I take pretty good care of myself. I don't drink often and I've never smoked, but with universal health care, I have to pay to care for people who do. In America we have the freedom to choose to have health care or not to. The proposal of having universal health care in this country takes away from our personal freedom. Since I'm healthy, I don't pay into a health insurance plan. That is a choice that I am free to make. If I was 10 years older and I had a 20 year smoking habit and a drinking problem, I may be more interested in paying into a health insurance plan.
The fact is, I don't want to pay to take care of an overweight 45 year old alcoholic with a two-pack-a-day habit who already has high blood pressure and his first heart attack under his belt, especially when we both pay the same amount for health insurance. If I'm going to pay to take care of someone's health, it's going to be my own. How many Americans, perhaps subconsciously, will let their health slide knowing that they have their health care paid for? And let's not overlook what universal health care has done for other countries - how overburden, for example, the health care industry is in Canada. And besides all that, do we really trust the government to run this?
Stay Free, America!
I've recently found myself in a bit of a Roman pickle. If you disagree with my views that's not a good reason to stop reading. I'm not bashing others' ideas here, I'm trying to explain and justify my own. So, being a little to the right of most moderates, I have a difficult time finding people who share my opinions. I'll carry on now...
My Beliefs
I strongly believe that Capitalism is great. I don't believe the government should have a significant role in regulating our economy. Creative thinkers should have the freedom to pioneer their way into building innovative business models, and those daring enough to attempt such ventures should reap the benefits.
In a Socialist Society, these creative thinkers manage companies their country owns, if they're so lucky. They receive the same benefits as the guy running the same company across town. They both produce their goods and services to the exact specifications their government tells them to, never deviating, never experiment, never attempting development of a unique product. No chance to get ahead. If you work hard all day and the guy next to you naps the whole time, your paychecks are the same as one another. This model of society prevents personal ambition, creativity and invention. Countries like this do not advance technologically into the future. People don't have any individual voice. Socialist countries control what their people say and do, leaving them no freedom. What little money they pay you, they also tell you what you're allowed to buy with. But, if they get hurt or sick it's paid for. And if the government says you can go to college, they pay for it (but if they say you can't go, then you just can't go). I'm against Socialism for a lot of reasons I can't even think of, but perhaps primarily because it takes away personal responsibility and freedom.
Successful Business Models
When it comes to business, there are a few classic business models and ideas that are pure genius. First, vertical integration - what a wonderful thing. A great way to make a product cheaper is to minimize the number of hands (or companies, in this case) it passes through. Don't just make steel - first, mine the metals, then transport them, then refine them and produce steel products, then transport it to your customers - all yourself. The government today has legislation in place to prevent companies like this from forming.
Second, monopolies. Our government tries to prevent companies from being the sole supplier of a product. If there are two ladder companies in the country, and ladder company A wanted to buy ladder company B, thus becoming the only ladder company in the country, the government would try to stop this. The government believes this protects people from overly priced goods and lack of product choices. Well, Uncle Sam, if my ladder is a bit old and it's $5000 for a new one, guess what: I'll be keepin' that old one around for a little longer, or I'll form my own ladder company, because that's what free market competition is all about. And ladder company AB would realize that, so they wouldn't ever charge $5000 for a ladder to begin with. By allowing 2 companies to compete, keeping prices low and product quality down, the government is actually preventing smaller companies from forming because the market is overly competitive.
The US Government vs Monopolies: The 'Teach but don't Preach' model. UPS and FedEx both started as small delivery companies. Eventually they grew and grew, and they became as large as they could be by the late 70's. The USPS was the government's delivery company, and they were reliable and reasonable priced, but not always very fast. Airline Regulations in place prevented FedEx and UPS from growing further, thus maintaining the Postal Service's monopoly on most interstate deliveries. It wasn't until after airline deregulation in 1978 did FedEx truly enter the playing field as a competitor to the USPS, who now offers flat-rate deliveries 2nd and 3rd day across the US as a reasonably priced answer to UPS and FedEx.
The United States Government has a monopoly on retirement funds. While other companies exist, the US Government is the only entity in the country which requires you to pay into a specific retirement fund, thwarting any competition. They make Social Security mandatory - you must pay into it, regardless of if you already have a suitable fund set up elsewhere. It's not just a matter of requiring us to have a retirement fund set up, they even pick it for you and control it themselves. If they adopt a new policy you don't like you can't change companies, you're stuck. If I could instead take the equivalent amount of money from every paycheck and invest it in gold, mutual funds, and high-yield savings accounts I would have a much more fruitful retirement than what Social Security will be able to provide me. And on top of all that, I could retire when I chose to, not when the government tells me I can.
Third, Cartels. Cartels are created when an agreement is reached among companies to sell their similar or identical product for the same price as one another, thus giving the companies the appearance of market control. The pricing strategy could be cutthroat in order to remove other competitors from the market, and later raised very high once a higher level of market control is attained. Our government has outlawed cartels because they believe cartels will reduce market competition. Interestingly enough, the foreign countries who sell us oil are essentially a cartel, and we have little choice but to buy oil at the prices they set. Disturbingly, because of how our nation's laws are enforced, we cannot have any cartels to sell those countries goods. In effect, our government's infringements on our personal freedoms are preventing us from fairly competing on a global scale.
So this is supposed to be all about my Roman pickle, so here it is. As much as I am anti-socialist and anti-government control, I do believe I contradict myself. In terms of ideas, the government shouldn't protect them so tightly, because this prevents competition. It is the individual companies' responsibility to closely guard their secrets. Recently a man was charged with distributing a copy of a commercial video game that was not yet completed. The game company should have done more to protect itself, and after they were violated, it's their own responsibility to take legal action against the individual. He is now under house arrest.
Community Products
And so for the real pickle: if I support so strongly the right for companies to do as they please, in an economic sense, they why do I support the use of open-source software over commercial software? This is what I keep trying to explain to myself - not that I feel at all guilty about using open source, because I don't. As a Capitalism cheerleader is it odd to convey the idea that a group of individuals can create, maintain and manufacture a product that exceeds that of an entity motivated by profit? I'm not sure. Do I really contradict myself?
Perhaps nay. As possibly the most monopolistic company in our country at this time, Microsoft controls over 95% of the desktop OS market. While I applaud those capitalists that make it to the top, as Bill Gates has, I also applaud those who try to stand up to fight a giant. But Microsoft isn't competing against another giant, it's the little guys - over 1,000 people from more than 100 companies (and let's not forget the individuals) contribute the development of the just the linux kernel alone, not to mention the thousands of other great software that's out there, written by the community.
Personal Responsibility
I'm still trying to explain to myself how this isn't contradictory. Am I more for businesses or what? I think what it comes down to is that I'm for the freedom of everyone. While I don't think that government should regulate business as heavily as it does, it is the responsibility of the individual to see a monopolistic threat and do something about it, and not expect the government to protect them from it. With Freedom comes Personal Responsibility.
Part of that same Personal Responsibility says that if a company is doing something unethical, or at least something you don't like, then don't buy their product. Don't invest in a company that takes part in in questionable activities. On the flip side to that, if you see a company who is buying up it's suppliers and competitors and you think they're being unfair, then don't invest in them; if that same company stands to make investors tons of money, then it's your right to invest.
Familiar Example
So many Americans are naive to the capital control we carry as consumers. I can recall a pop culture example that many may be familiar with: near the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003 the Dixie Chicks spoke out against President Bush, claiming they were ashamed he was from Texas. After a public boycott of the Dixie Chicks' music, along with many radio stations pulling their tunes from the air, they would never again reach their previous level of success. Concert ticket sales were low, and in some cases, because local radio stations refused to advertise for the Dixie Chicks, some concerts were canceled altogether. The Dixie Chicks maintain that they were within their right to free speech. The lesson learned here is that if you upset consumers, whether by immoral and illegal activities, or just controversial comments, it affects the market. After the comment, President Bush hit the nail on the head when he summed it all up in an interview with Tom Brokaw, saying "...Freedom is a two-way street..."
Being Responsible for Yourself
These are interesting thoughts. Personal Responsibility; Freedom. They go hand-in-hand, but most people don't realize it. Perhaps people who don't want to be responsible for themselves think it's ok to give up personal freedoms? I have a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. If you can't be responsible for yourself and the things you do, then that's your problem. Don't lean on the government for support because you made poor decisions. Survival of the fittest - if you can't work, don't expect the government to feed you from other peoples' pockets.
Universal Health Care
Today I read a Reuters article about a recent poll, claiming this:
"More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan."When I hear the term 'more than half' it implies that over half of the doctors in America have said, "Yes, I favor a universal health care system." And yet, I read on, only to find what half really means to these biased journalists.
It makes one wonder. Are there only 4,000 doctors in America? How could 2,000 doctors be half? Of over 700,000 doctors in this country, how many groups were surveyed? Was this possibly the 8th or 9th group surveyed, but the first group giving the researchers results they wanted to hear or publish? What types of doctors were surveyed? Did the researchers specifically poll doctors who deal with uninsured, underinsured, and non-paying clientele? Again, it makes one wonder.
"...Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed..."
Take personal responsibility for yourself. If you want health care, then pay for health care. If you don't want to pay to take care of yourself, then just take care of yourself. Eat healthy foods. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Don't play tackle football without pads with your grandson's high school buddies.
I take pretty good care of myself. I don't drink often and I've never smoked, but with universal health care, I have to pay to care for people who do. In America we have the freedom to choose to have health care or not to. The proposal of having universal health care in this country takes away from our personal freedom. Since I'm healthy, I don't pay into a health insurance plan. That is a choice that I am free to make. If I was 10 years older and I had a 20 year smoking habit and a drinking problem, I may be more interested in paying into a health insurance plan.
The fact is, I don't want to pay to take care of an overweight 45 year old alcoholic with a two-pack-a-day habit who already has high blood pressure and his first heart attack under his belt, especially when we both pay the same amount for health insurance. If I'm going to pay to take care of someone's health, it's going to be my own. How many Americans, perhaps subconsciously, will let their health slide knowing that they have their health care paid for? And let's not overlook what universal health care has done for other countries - how overburden, for example, the health care industry is in Canada. And besides all that, do we really trust the government to run this?
Stay Free, America!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
New Site!
Hello Everyone, I just wanted to make a post telling people about my new web site, ScreamingHuskies.com is now up and available for everyone to see. We'll be adding a lot of content over the next couple of weeks, so make sure you check it out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
