Hi everyone, Merry Christmas! I hope you all have a safe and happy holiday and receive much of what you wish for; I'd say all, but where's the fun in that?
Things here are pretty good. K and I bought ourselves a new 50" Plasma TV for Christmas with a profit sharing check he received recently. We weren't supposed to exchange gifts, but I sort of bought him a lot of stuff. Oops. :)
I should probably go to bed since I have to get up early for stockings.
...and to all a good night!
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Belated "Yay Obama!" Post
I am so thrilled that Obama was elected. I am happier still that it was a landslide, because I was afraid we might see another 2000-esque controversy. As "fundamentally sound" as our economy might be, the stock market is still an emotional beast and she did not like the indecision in 2000.
I have so much hope for what he can do; I am impressed by his positive messages and his overall positive campaign. Looking back, several others concentrated on slinging mud and scare tactics rather than offering solutions. I prefer the positive.
I sincerely hope that he is allowed to follow through with his vision for us; he might make some colossally huge mistakes, but he can't do too much worse than the last 8 years.
And I hope he *does* fill his cabinet with his opponents - they are smart people who have different points of view, and I think that's important for any president. Yes-men in the Cabinet do not a strong presidency make. I want to hear about intelligent, spirited debate regarding the issues that we face as a nation. The problems are complex and no one person can be expected to know all the answers immediately and flawlessly. I bounce ideas around and ask for criticism; I expect no less of our President.
Here's to hope...Yes we can!
I have so much hope for what he can do; I am impressed by his positive messages and his overall positive campaign. Looking back, several others concentrated on slinging mud and scare tactics rather than offering solutions. I prefer the positive.
I sincerely hope that he is allowed to follow through with his vision for us; he might make some colossally huge mistakes, but he can't do too much worse than the last 8 years.
And I hope he *does* fill his cabinet with his opponents - they are smart people who have different points of view, and I think that's important for any president. Yes-men in the Cabinet do not a strong presidency make. I want to hear about intelligent, spirited debate regarding the issues that we face as a nation. The problems are complex and no one person can be expected to know all the answers immediately and flawlessly. I bounce ideas around and ask for criticism; I expect no less of our President.
Here's to hope...Yes we can!
"Obama has more threats than other Presidents-Elect"
Read this article, or do what I did and just look at the headline.
OK, so real fast here - I didn't read the article but I don't think I need to - I know what it's going to say. And you know my response? YOU DON'T FUCKING SAY. Did I really need to know this? It's not new information.
This has been one of the most controversial elections in our recent (last 100 years or so) history. The people were polarized and incredibly passionate about "their" candidate(s); the issues have led to explosive debates among the general public; voter turnout was supposed to be the highest in many years; and the black man won, instantly disappointing the 46.2% (roughly) of people who voted for McCain (even if not at the same time inspiring hatred).
And, considering this article, it should be no surprise that our first black President(-elect) is receiving more threats than any other. As late as two thousand (mother-fucking) six the KKK is *still* beating people for being the wrong "color" (or nationality in this instance).
So I say again...ya don't fucking say!
OK, so real fast here - I didn't read the article but I don't think I need to - I know what it's going to say. And you know my response? YOU DON'T FUCKING SAY. Did I really need to know this? It's not new information.
This has been one of the most controversial elections in our recent (last 100 years or so) history. The people were polarized and incredibly passionate about "their" candidate(s); the issues have led to explosive debates among the general public; voter turnout was supposed to be the highest in many years; and the black man won, instantly disappointing the 46.2% (roughly) of people who voted for McCain (even if not at the same time inspiring hatred).
And, considering this article, it should be no surprise that our first black President(-elect) is receiving more threats than any other. As late as two thousand (mother-fucking) six the KKK is *still* beating people for being the wrong "color" (or nationality in this instance).
So I say again...ya don't fucking say!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Here's that post about people abusing the system
OK, so writing the post about health care which shifted into social programs reminded me of my Wal-mart days. When I worked at Wal-mart, I saw all types, but I think the ones who burned me the most were the people using government assistance because they can't afford 5+ kids.
I don't know if they did it because they love kids or if they wanted more of them to leech off "the system" and get more assistance or if birth control pills are just a religious no-no. I think in one instance it was the birth control thing...which got me to thinking.
I firmly believe that government should not in any way, shape, or form, endorse, support, or otherwise favor, any religion (boy, that sure was a lot of commas).
I also believe in social programs and that, while sometimes abused, they are more often helpful than not and are integral to an advanced and wealthy society such as ours.
However - I think that we should potentially start encouraging smaller families so we don't end up with the China problem.
This is, in my unresearched opinion, quite easy to do. The number of private farms is falling (historically farmers had lots of children to help on the farm), people are living longer, and on the whole we don't need the birth rate to be as high. Most people do this on their own and only have as many children as they can afford, or only as many as replaces them (1 per person). So, where there is more education and better job opportunity, there are fewer children - mostly the middle and upper class.
In the lower class, those with less education and lower income (as illogical as that seems) tend to have more children. I don't know why exactly, but it has to do with birth control - affording it and knowing how to use it - religion, and sometimes welfare.
I will skip the education portion. I will also skip religion for now and address the welfare issue. I have not personally looked up how much more a person receives per child in food stamps but I know it does increase. That's only logical - it costs more to add extra food to the table. However, I think it is morally wrong to have another child simply to increase the amount of help one receives. It's just a bad reason to make a baby!
As for religion, there are still some stricter ones that frown on birth control. If this is indeed true, then I think it is the duty of the church to provide for the parishioners. Why should the government support a large family that has not chosen to use birth control because they are not allowed by their religious views? This is where I begin to draw the line for government assistance.
Unless you're Fertile Myrtle who gets pregnant every time she has sex despite using birth control, you have a duty to uphold. Every time you have sex, there is a possibility of creating a life. It is your duty as a future parent to make sure that you have made a conscious choice to have a child and can then also provide for that child. Yes, accidents happen, and those are not the people to who I am speaking. I am instead speaking to those who choose to create a life knowing that there is absolutely no way they can afford to support.
That's where I start thinking about my life and how we have chosen to wait for a baby so we are better able to afford one.
That's also when I began to resent those who came through my line with a food stamp card and 8 kids.
That's when I began to think that maybe federal assistance should have a cap, and if it already has one, perhaps it should be lower.
Studies would have to be done to make sure this is more fair than not, but let's put a cap of 4 people on that food stamp card. OK, you can have as many kids as you want and we won't restrict it, but we will only support 4 of you. That can be 1 parent and 3 kids, or it can be 2 parents and 2 kids, but 4 is the limit. This would encourage those who would otherwise abuse the system to stop popping out paychecks and churches to support (monetarily as well as morally) their own doctrine.
I am willing to share what I make in taxes so that people who are less fortunate can enjoy such benefits as food...but there is a limit to my kindness, dammit!
Discussion for next time: Is our society rife with the "You-owe-me" attitude, and if so, why and how can we fix it?
I don't know if they did it because they love kids or if they wanted more of them to leech off "the system" and get more assistance or if birth control pills are just a religious no-no. I think in one instance it was the birth control thing...which got me to thinking.
I firmly believe that government should not in any way, shape, or form, endorse, support, or otherwise favor, any religion (boy, that sure was a lot of commas).
I also believe in social programs and that, while sometimes abused, they are more often helpful than not and are integral to an advanced and wealthy society such as ours.
However - I think that we should potentially start encouraging smaller families so we don't end up with the China problem.
This is, in my unresearched opinion, quite easy to do. The number of private farms is falling (historically farmers had lots of children to help on the farm), people are living longer, and on the whole we don't need the birth rate to be as high. Most people do this on their own and only have as many children as they can afford, or only as many as replaces them (1 per person). So, where there is more education and better job opportunity, there are fewer children - mostly the middle and upper class.
In the lower class, those with less education and lower income (as illogical as that seems) tend to have more children. I don't know why exactly, but it has to do with birth control - affording it and knowing how to use it - religion, and sometimes welfare.
I will skip the education portion. I will also skip religion for now and address the welfare issue. I have not personally looked up how much more a person receives per child in food stamps but I know it does increase. That's only logical - it costs more to add extra food to the table. However, I think it is morally wrong to have another child simply to increase the amount of help one receives. It's just a bad reason to make a baby!
As for religion, there are still some stricter ones that frown on birth control. If this is indeed true, then I think it is the duty of the church to provide for the parishioners. Why should the government support a large family that has not chosen to use birth control because they are not allowed by their religious views? This is where I begin to draw the line for government assistance.
Unless you're Fertile Myrtle who gets pregnant every time she has sex despite using birth control, you have a duty to uphold. Every time you have sex, there is a possibility of creating a life. It is your duty as a future parent to make sure that you have made a conscious choice to have a child and can then also provide for that child. Yes, accidents happen, and those are not the people to who I am speaking. I am instead speaking to those who choose to create a life knowing that there is absolutely no way they can afford to support.
That's where I start thinking about my life and how we have chosen to wait for a baby so we are better able to afford one.
That's also when I began to resent those who came through my line with a food stamp card and 8 kids.
That's when I began to think that maybe federal assistance should have a cap, and if it already has one, perhaps it should be lower.
Studies would have to be done to make sure this is more fair than not, but let's put a cap of 4 people on that food stamp card. OK, you can have as many kids as you want and we won't restrict it, but we will only support 4 of you. That can be 1 parent and 3 kids, or it can be 2 parents and 2 kids, but 4 is the limit. This would encourage those who would otherwise abuse the system to stop popping out paychecks and churches to support (monetarily as well as morally) their own doctrine.
I am willing to share what I make in taxes so that people who are less fortunate can enjoy such benefits as food...but there is a limit to my kindness, dammit!
Discussion for next time: Is our society rife with the "You-owe-me" attitude, and if so, why and how can we fix it?
Health care, as a right
OK, so my SIL sent me a link to this blog , and I am writing about the post 10/10/08 which also references this article.
According to both, Obama stated that health care is a right (I didn't see that part so I am trusting they are telling the truth).
As Mistress Matisse and Bill Whittle pointed out, it's difficult to qualify health care as a right without including other basics in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which include food, water, shelter, and clothing. While it's not included anywhere on the pyramid, I would probably place it on the bottom tier with food, etc. If you're not in good health, it's pretty difficult to focus on the higher tiers.
So, is health care a right when the other things are not? Well, I suppose not. However, health care as I perceive it - I will qualify my argument in that because I am not going to go do a master's thesis load of research - is something that has been allowed to spiral out of control where cost is concerned, unlike some of our other vital tier 1 needs like food and shelter. I am not going to point fingers because I don't think it's just greedy doctors - they have to cover cost like any other business owner, which includes schooling, malpractice insurance, and overhead for all the expensive machines they use. I won't even try to evaluate if the cost of the machine is fair.
However, with insurance companies around to take some of the burden off the individual it makes it such that fees rise higher than they might have normally. If the doctor visit is $100 and the patient pays a 20% fee of $20, most people can afford that which allows them to go to the doctor regularly. If the visit increases a year later to $150, the insured patient only sees an increase of $10 which, while annoying, is still quite affordable. We are not yet at the point where people begin to vote with their pocketbook, which in a normal situation helps to keep a lid on the prices we pay.
On the other hand, we have the uninsured patient. I can't name all the reasons a person would be uninsured, but I know in a lot of cases it is simply too expensive. So, from that perspective, we look at the uninsured patient who has to pay $100 for a doctor visit (which is probably quite a sum). For me, I know I have to be pretty damned sick to go to the doctor for that kind of money - and I have insurance (laughable, that, but I digress) and flexible spending! In the same scenario we see a cost increase of $50 per visit the next year. Instead of a minor $10 increase like the insured patient, the uninsured patient has seen an increase of $50 on top of an already expensive fee for what can be as short a visit as 15 minutes.
Uninsured patient is almost guaranteed to visit a doctor less often, which potentially means they do not treat illnesses such as contagious bacterial infections with prescribed, effective antibiotics***. While there are some who would say "Survival of the fittest, bitches," I would like to point out that a) people have an instinct to survive, however necessary b) those sick people make other people sick and c) medical bills are either the top reason or one of the top reasons for bankruptcy.
So, back to what I was saying before - health care cost, through many factors, has been allowed to rise exponentially compared to other needs. As I stated, I blame that partly on insurance because we as consumers don't really care what it costs period, we care what it costs us - period. If we had a subsidized housing market or food program, I am sure we would see something similar.
If none of this really stands out for you, consider then company expense vs. personal expense. At work, I would probably be willing to spend $250 for a cell phone. Compared to the budget we have and the cost of that phone, $250 is very small. Personally, however, I don't like to pay more than about $100. That cell phone manufacturer knows this and knows they can charge more and still sell phones - it will not greatly impact their revenue to raise the cost from $100 to $250, provided that businesses will buy the phone. Health care is not much different.
So, is health care a right? Well.......no, probably not. But it's something that will improve the quality of life and potentially save money nationwide because we won't just be doing damage control on illnesses, catching them after they are a problem. If people are able to go to the doctor more often, they will have a broader history to offer to the doctor. The doctor will be better able to recognize problems and maybe something like cancer can be treated early instead of late, which will save a lot of money. If the treatment costs less, the patient is less likely to file bankruptcy...and wow, that might solve some of our banking problems too...
*** Uninsured people, in my very limited experience, do still tend to self-diagnose and take antibiotics. While this might help, if they are not taken responsibly i.e. as a doctor has deemed necessary to eradicate infection, the bacteria can mutate and eventually become an immune "super bug" which, in turn, fucks everyone.
Moving back to the blog entry, Mistress Matisse says the following:
I think in that instance it (the section in bold) is a right because the right to "life", in my opinion, somewhat also implies that bottom tier of Maslow's Hierarchy. As I said before, I don't think the bottom tier items are necessarily rights, per se, but they do in part pertain to some of our basic human rights (like life). People need food, in some capacity, to live as they do shelter (again, in some capacity).
"Right" or no - without these programs, we may not have ever risen from the Depression. I know there are those who probably abuse the programs and that's incredibly unfortunate. I have, in fact, met people who appear to be doing that now (see here). On the whole, though, I do believe in our social programs and believe that they are necessary to account for the shortcomings of our modern, corporate, capitalist society. My mother, for example, is single and works 30-40 hours a week - more than that if she can get the hours. She makes $9.50 an hour and she can barely afford to live alone. She doesn't qualify for any assistance but even if she did - she is a productive member of society. Would it truly be fair to deny her assistance when she is trying in vain to survive on her salary? Through no fault of her own she is paid less than she needs to live because the corporation has to make or increase their profit margin... and it's not as though she could actually use resources from the land to become a self-made millionaire. While those days are not over, it is harder and harder to do that as a "Joe Sixpack" who has little liquid assets (if any assets at all).
Anyway...if social programs are not rights and should therefore not be provided, let's do something drastic. How about we eradicate corporate tax, guarantee a living wage, and install a fair tax? Oh, I guess that sounds too much like non-capitalism.
I think I've written long enough and lost my point more than once...eventually I might do a part 2 that's a little more focused. :)
According to both, Obama stated that health care is a right (I didn't see that part so I am trusting they are telling the truth).
As Mistress Matisse and Bill Whittle pointed out, it's difficult to qualify health care as a right without including other basics in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which include food, water, shelter, and clothing. While it's not included anywhere on the pyramid, I would probably place it on the bottom tier with food, etc. If you're not in good health, it's pretty difficult to focus on the higher tiers.
So, is health care a right when the other things are not? Well, I suppose not. However, health care as I perceive it - I will qualify my argument in that because I am not going to go do a master's thesis load of research - is something that has been allowed to spiral out of control where cost is concerned, unlike some of our other vital tier 1 needs like food and shelter. I am not going to point fingers because I don't think it's just greedy doctors - they have to cover cost like any other business owner, which includes schooling, malpractice insurance, and overhead for all the expensive machines they use. I won't even try to evaluate if the cost of the machine is fair.
However, with insurance companies around to take some of the burden off the individual it makes it such that fees rise higher than they might have normally. If the doctor visit is $100 and the patient pays a 20% fee of $20, most people can afford that which allows them to go to the doctor regularly. If the visit increases a year later to $150, the insured patient only sees an increase of $10 which, while annoying, is still quite affordable. We are not yet at the point where people begin to vote with their pocketbook, which in a normal situation helps to keep a lid on the prices we pay.
On the other hand, we have the uninsured patient. I can't name all the reasons a person would be uninsured, but I know in a lot of cases it is simply too expensive. So, from that perspective, we look at the uninsured patient who has to pay $100 for a doctor visit (which is probably quite a sum). For me, I know I have to be pretty damned sick to go to the doctor for that kind of money - and I have insurance (laughable, that, but I digress) and flexible spending! In the same scenario we see a cost increase of $50 per visit the next year. Instead of a minor $10 increase like the insured patient, the uninsured patient has seen an increase of $50 on top of an already expensive fee for what can be as short a visit as 15 minutes.
Uninsured patient is almost guaranteed to visit a doctor less often, which potentially means they do not treat illnesses such as contagious bacterial infections with prescribed, effective antibiotics***. While there are some who would say "Survival of the fittest, bitches," I would like to point out that a) people have an instinct to survive, however necessary b) those sick people make other people sick and c) medical bills are either the top reason or one of the top reasons for bankruptcy.
So, back to what I was saying before - health care cost, through many factors, has been allowed to rise exponentially compared to other needs. As I stated, I blame that partly on insurance because we as consumers don't really care what it costs period, we care what it costs us - period. If we had a subsidized housing market or food program, I am sure we would see something similar.
If none of this really stands out for you, consider then company expense vs. personal expense. At work, I would probably be willing to spend $250 for a cell phone. Compared to the budget we have and the cost of that phone, $250 is very small. Personally, however, I don't like to pay more than about $100. That cell phone manufacturer knows this and knows they can charge more and still sell phones - it will not greatly impact their revenue to raise the cost from $100 to $250, provided that businesses will buy the phone. Health care is not much different.
So, is health care a right? Well.......no, probably not. But it's something that will improve the quality of life and potentially save money nationwide because we won't just be doing damage control on illnesses, catching them after they are a problem. If people are able to go to the doctor more often, they will have a broader history to offer to the doctor. The doctor will be better able to recognize problems and maybe something like cancer can be treated early instead of late, which will save a lot of money. If the treatment costs less, the patient is less likely to file bankruptcy...and wow, that might solve some of our banking problems too...
*** Uninsured people, in my very limited experience, do still tend to self-diagnose and take antibiotics. While this might help, if they are not taken responsibly i.e. as a doctor has deemed necessary to eradicate infection, the bacteria can mutate and eventually become an immune "super bug" which, in turn, fucks everyone.
Moving back to the blog entry, Mistress Matisse says the following:
"I can see that there’s some disconnect between my ideas that “It’s okay that taxes fund some food/shelter/medical care for people who need it” and “But it’s not a right”. If it’s not a right, then why is it acceptable for the government to pay for it? I don’t know." - Mistress Matisse's blog entry 10/10/08
I think in that instance it (the section in bold) is a right because the right to "life", in my opinion, somewhat also implies that bottom tier of Maslow's Hierarchy. As I said before, I don't think the bottom tier items are necessarily rights, per se, but they do in part pertain to some of our basic human rights (like life). People need food, in some capacity, to live as they do shelter (again, in some capacity).
"Right" or no - without these programs, we may not have ever risen from the Depression. I know there are those who probably abuse the programs and that's incredibly unfortunate. I have, in fact, met people who appear to be doing that now (see here). On the whole, though, I do believe in our social programs and believe that they are necessary to account for the shortcomings of our modern, corporate, capitalist society. My mother, for example, is single and works 30-40 hours a week - more than that if she can get the hours. She makes $9.50 an hour and she can barely afford to live alone. She doesn't qualify for any assistance but even if she did - she is a productive member of society. Would it truly be fair to deny her assistance when she is trying in vain to survive on her salary? Through no fault of her own she is paid less than she needs to live because the corporation has to make or increase their profit margin... and it's not as though she could actually use resources from the land to become a self-made millionaire. While those days are not over, it is harder and harder to do that as a "Joe Sixpack" who has little liquid assets (if any assets at all).
Anyway...if social programs are not rights and should therefore not be provided, let's do something drastic. How about we eradicate corporate tax, guarantee a living wage, and install a fair tax? Oh, I guess that sounds too much like non-capitalism.
I think I've written long enough and lost my point more than once...eventually I might do a part 2 that's a little more focused. :)
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Deception
This ad is lying because I am fairly certain the two women are indeed two women, not different versions of the same one.
The brow line, eyes, cheek bones, BOOBS, are all different. OK, maybe she lost 35 pounds but I don't think she lost 20 of it in the boobs...I know they would get smaller but that was like a D or DD to a small B or large A...
Anyway, just something I noticed and had to share.
Monday, September 29, 2008
....but he's a WAR HERO!
I'm sorry, but if this is the main argument [the collective] you have in favor of McCain, I'm just going to be forced to disregard it. I honor his service and I thank him, but I will not vote for him solely for that. John Kerry was a war hero too and it didn't get him much but ridicule. Do you know who else was a war hero? Ulysses S. Grant. And he was a shitty president. We also considered Joseph Stalin a war hero - for us, anyway.
FDR was NOT a war hero and is one of the top three Presidents in our short history; we still feel the positive effects of his presidency to this day.
So, if this is/was your main argument, I hope you can understand why on its own I give it no merit.
FDR was NOT a war hero and is one of the top three Presidents in our short history; we still feel the positive effects of his presidency to this day.
So, if this is/was your main argument, I hope you can understand why on its own I give it no merit.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Donate to Planned Parenthood in Palin's name
This is the link to the web page but I will paste information below
Make a donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin’s name. And here’s the good part: when you make a donation to PP in her name, they’ll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor.
Here’s the link to the Planned Parenthood website:
So just click the In Honor donation link. You’ll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the “in Sarah Palin’s honor” card.
I suggest you use the address for the McCain campaign headquarters, which is:
McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Feel free to send this along to all your friends and urge them to do the same.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
My letters to the people who represent me
I am a citizen of the greatest country on Earth. *cough, choke*
I am an American citizen - and I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Here is what I wrote to my senators:
I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!
I will not tolerate the bailout in its current form. I do not think it will fix things and I resent that I and future generations will be responsible for a social burden for which I am most definitely not at fault. I pay my taxes, I go to work, and I pay my debts. I do not own a home or have a mortgage, and I most certainly did not default on a mortgage. I am losing my ass on Vonage stock - do I get a bailout for a gamble I took on a risky stock? No!
And section 8 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Judicial and administrative review MUST be part of this bailout if it goes through. I will not accept that a debt I will assume as a legal US Citizen cannot be verified as having been spent on what we are told it is spent. Desperate people do dishonorable acts and no person in this country could honestly say without a doubt that given full control over $700 billion dollars they would be completely ethical and responsible - especially while knowing there will be no review or consequences!!
Please fight for me! Thank you.
-Me
Here is what I wrote to Mr. President:
I, [From the desk of Angie], am a law-abiding tax-paying citizen. I do not own a home or have a mortgage, and those debts I do have are paid monthly and on time.
I do not agree with or support the bailout which will cost me and untold future generations of my family sums of money that I cannot even begin to imagine.
I ESPECIALLY will not tolerate section 8 in its current form - this is unacceptable. I work for [a public entity] and we have so many controls on our spending it is unreal. However, since it is [not our] money, it is necessary so we can reassure [the people who contributed the money] that we are doing everything possible to spend it wisely. Unfortunately, I do not see this in our federal government; why should a [public entity] be expected to uphold something the federal government does not honor? Review by the judicial branch and administrative agencies MUST be part of this. How can we be certain that the money is being spent on what we're told it's spent otherwise? The sum of money is ridiculously large and could lead the most honest man on Earth to dishonest practices; how can I expect anything different of someone who is not an elected official and who is answerable to no one?
The web of deceit and faulty business practice that has led us to this point is NOT my social burden. If I were in the same predicament, could I look to my government to bail me out? No, I couldn't. If things were bad enough I might be able to receive help from social programs, but that is assuming that they have the financial means to support the number of citizens who need them. I will not get into the Iraq war spending but I also do not agree with that.
For our current calamity, I fully place the blame on the lenders and do not appreciate your Administration placing the blame on poor Americans. The lender ultimately has control of the money they lend and they should have done their due diligence to ensure that the loan could be paid in full. The poor who had mortgages that are now in default may have been partially to blame, but the far more heinous crimes have been carried out by the lenders and brokerages.
I have much more to say but I need to go to bed so I can work my 8 hours tomorrow and pay for this bailout, while at the same time fully expecting another Great Depression no matter what is decided.
Sincerely and in disgruntled spirits,
Me
Here is what I got from the general e-mail:
Yes, I am sure he appreciates me, considering how well he takes criticism :D
I am an American citizen - and I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Here is what I wrote to my senators:
I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!
I will not tolerate the bailout in its current form. I do not think it will fix things and I resent that I and future generations will be responsible for a social burden for which I am most definitely not at fault. I pay my taxes, I go to work, and I pay my debts. I do not own a home or have a mortgage, and I most certainly did not default on a mortgage. I am losing my ass on Vonage stock - do I get a bailout for a gamble I took on a risky stock? No!
And section 8 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Judicial and administrative review MUST be part of this bailout if it goes through. I will not accept that a debt I will assume as a legal US Citizen cannot be verified as having been spent on what we are told it is spent. Desperate people do dishonorable acts and no person in this country could honestly say without a doubt that given full control over $700 billion dollars they would be completely ethical and responsible - especially while knowing there will be no review or consequences!!
Please fight for me! Thank you.
-Me
Here is what I wrote to Mr. President:
I, [From the desk of Angie], am a law-abiding tax-paying citizen. I do not own a home or have a mortgage, and those debts I do have are paid monthly and on time.
I do not agree with or support the bailout which will cost me and untold future generations of my family sums of money that I cannot even begin to imagine.
I ESPECIALLY will not tolerate section 8 in its current form - this is unacceptable. I work for [a public entity] and we have so many controls on our spending it is unreal. However, since it is [not our] money, it is necessary so we can reassure [the people who contributed the money] that we are doing everything possible to spend it wisely. Unfortunately, I do not see this in our federal government; why should a [public entity] be expected to uphold something the federal government does not honor? Review by the judicial branch and administrative agencies MUST be part of this. How can we be certain that the money is being spent on what we're told it's spent otherwise? The sum of money is ridiculously large and could lead the most honest man on Earth to dishonest practices; how can I expect anything different of someone who is not an elected official and who is answerable to no one?
The web of deceit and faulty business practice that has led us to this point is NOT my social burden. If I were in the same predicament, could I look to my government to bail me out? No, I couldn't. If things were bad enough I might be able to receive help from social programs, but that is assuming that they have the financial means to support the number of citizens who need them. I will not get into the Iraq war spending but I also do not agree with that.
For our current calamity, I fully place the blame on the lenders and do not appreciate your Administration placing the blame on poor Americans. The lender ultimately has control of the money they lend and they should have done their due diligence to ensure that the loan could be paid in full. The poor who had mortgages that are now in default may have been partially to blame, but the far more heinous crimes have been carried out by the lenders and brokerages.
I have much more to say but I need to go to bed so I can work my 8 hours tomorrow and pay for this bailout, while at the same time fully expecting another Great Depression no matter what is decided.
Sincerely and in disgruntled spirits,
Me
Here is what I got from the general e-mail:
On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Yes, I am sure he appreciates me, considering how well he takes criticism :D
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Disturbing thoughts
My husband's co-worker is a far right conservative/libertarian/free market economy supporter. They were talking/arguing the other day and he said that he'd like to get rid of minimum wage.
I know the man can't make more than $11.00/hr just based on his position and the pay at which it caps out. I am completely and utterly baffled at how he comes up with arguments supporting the 1% ers time and time again. It is so alien that I can only imagine that he is a reincarnated Rockefeller or Morgan or even maybe a Kennedy (although far too right wing and selfish in his beliefs for a Kennedy).
My husband and I were discussing the aftershocks and ripples of abolishing a minimum wage and I am shocked and disturbed at what something like that would mean.
First, a lot of people making minimum wage - which is typically not LIVING wage, mind you - would find themselves making far less. Our guess was around $4.00/hr but that could be off in either direction. I tend to think that once the corporations really got going they would drop it that low - people who are desperate will do anything, and consider what illegal aliens make. Not that I've done the research, but I tend to think it's lower than minimum wage or they would hire legal citizens. That puts it at lower than $5.50some and that's not far from the estimate. Anyway....
While many other positions are not directly related to minimum wage, I think they are arrived upon by way of minimum wage. For instance, the data entry position at my husband's employer starts at $8.00/hr. That says the company believes it requires more skill than minimum wage but only x% more. So, if the minimum wage is lowered and the company isn't doing well, they can lower salaries. No matter what happens, there will be another starving body willing to work for $6.00/hr.
When salaries go down, though, that doesn't mean costs will necessarily follow. Mortgages are still set at the 30 year interest rate and re-payment schedule and the bank doesn't really care that the house is now worth significantly less. That leaves millions homeless. Not long ago, just 150 years ago in the States, we used to build houses from the available materials, such as clay, sand, water, and straw. Sometimes this is carved in a hill hobbit hole-style, and sometimes it is formed into cobs to build a cob home (similar to adobe but not the same). Except for a few select groups, this is a lost art. Unfortunately this means something like Flint, Michigan - people will be kicked out of their homes and forced to live on the street or beg for shelter that isn't available due to the high demand. Or, they may turn squatter.
Without cash flow electricity is also out. Most people don't know how to cope without electricity because so much of what we do is based on it. Some people couldn't even cook because their range is electric - provided of course they can keep the houses.
Most people can't make soap, clothing, tools, or even food because we haven't had to do it in such a long time. Households used to make their own soap, bread, and candles - not so much in modern America. Sure, I can probably use a melter I bought at Hobby Lobby and melt some wax from a 5 pound package and pour it in a form I bought from Hobby Lobby and then insert a wick from Hobby Lobby...but that's not really making candles, is it? That's not harvesting the wax or fat to make tallow. In a pinch, I wouldn't know the first thing about any of that!
The same goes for farming or raising animals to slaughter. I don't know how to sow seeds or plow or planting seasons for various fruits and/or vegetables. I don't know the best soil, or how much water to use, or how to develop a healthy root system for the best yields. I don't have livestock and I don't know how to raise them. If they or I got sick, I don't know enough about herbs to make a medicine or poultice or whatever needs to be done.
The list goes on and on...and it's scary how much we DON'T know how to do. If nuclear winter set in right now and everything as I know it was destroyed I wouldn't know how to survive. I'm sure I'd learn, but what a hard lesson to learn without any training.
I know the man can't make more than $11.00/hr just based on his position and the pay at which it caps out. I am completely and utterly baffled at how he comes up with arguments supporting the 1% ers time and time again. It is so alien that I can only imagine that he is a reincarnated Rockefeller or Morgan or even maybe a Kennedy (although far too right wing and selfish in his beliefs for a Kennedy).
My husband and I were discussing the aftershocks and ripples of abolishing a minimum wage and I am shocked and disturbed at what something like that would mean.
First, a lot of people making minimum wage - which is typically not LIVING wage, mind you - would find themselves making far less. Our guess was around $4.00/hr but that could be off in either direction. I tend to think that once the corporations really got going they would drop it that low - people who are desperate will do anything, and consider what illegal aliens make. Not that I've done the research, but I tend to think it's lower than minimum wage or they would hire legal citizens. That puts it at lower than $5.50some and that's not far from the estimate. Anyway....
While many other positions are not directly related to minimum wage, I think they are arrived upon by way of minimum wage. For instance, the data entry position at my husband's employer starts at $8.00/hr. That says the company believes it requires more skill than minimum wage but only x% more. So, if the minimum wage is lowered and the company isn't doing well, they can lower salaries. No matter what happens, there will be another starving body willing to work for $6.00/hr.
When salaries go down, though, that doesn't mean costs will necessarily follow. Mortgages are still set at the 30 year interest rate and re-payment schedule and the bank doesn't really care that the house is now worth significantly less. That leaves millions homeless. Not long ago, just 150 years ago in the States, we used to build houses from the available materials, such as clay, sand, water, and straw. Sometimes this is carved in a hill hobbit hole-style, and sometimes it is formed into cobs to build a cob home (similar to adobe but not the same). Except for a few select groups, this is a lost art. Unfortunately this means something like Flint, Michigan - people will be kicked out of their homes and forced to live on the street or beg for shelter that isn't available due to the high demand. Or, they may turn squatter.
Without cash flow electricity is also out. Most people don't know how to cope without electricity because so much of what we do is based on it. Some people couldn't even cook because their range is electric - provided of course they can keep the houses.
Most people can't make soap, clothing, tools, or even food because we haven't had to do it in such a long time. Households used to make their own soap, bread, and candles - not so much in modern America. Sure, I can probably use a melter I bought at Hobby Lobby and melt some wax from a 5 pound package and pour it in a form I bought from Hobby Lobby and then insert a wick from Hobby Lobby...but that's not really making candles, is it? That's not harvesting the wax or fat to make tallow. In a pinch, I wouldn't know the first thing about any of that!
The same goes for farming or raising animals to slaughter. I don't know how to sow seeds or plow or planting seasons for various fruits and/or vegetables. I don't know the best soil, or how much water to use, or how to develop a healthy root system for the best yields. I don't have livestock and I don't know how to raise them. If they or I got sick, I don't know enough about herbs to make a medicine or poultice or whatever needs to be done.
The list goes on and on...and it's scary how much we DON'T know how to do. If nuclear winter set in right now and everything as I know it was destroyed I wouldn't know how to survive. I'm sure I'd learn, but what a hard lesson to learn without any training.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Wishes
I wish...
I knew what to do with my life
I had never charged on a credit card what I couldn't afford
My degree actually helped me make more money
I could stomach public speaking
I was more outgoing
I didn't care what people think of me
I could turn off worrying
I lived closer to my family
I could afford to live in California
Money wasn't such a deciding factor in my life
I could be happy more often, and for no reason!
My mom were happy and carefree
For more children in my life, mine and my friends and family
I felt more confident in my decisions
I could take more risks and be more spontaneous...just once, step off the cliff into nothingness without a plan
I knew what to do with my life....
I knew what to do with my life
I had never charged on a credit card what I couldn't afford
My degree actually helped me make more money
I could stomach public speaking
I was more outgoing
I didn't care what people think of me
I could turn off worrying
I lived closer to my family
I could afford to live in California
Money wasn't such a deciding factor in my life
I could be happy more often, and for no reason!
My mom were happy and carefree
For more children in my life, mine and my friends and family
I felt more confident in my decisions
I could take more risks and be more spontaneous...just once, step off the cliff into nothingness without a plan
I knew what to do with my life....
What if I was 10 years old? and other ramblings
It's 12:32 on a Friday night/Saturday morning and I'm just putzing around on teh intarweb and thought it might be nice to write something. It's been a while, and it seemed like a good idea at the time...except I need a topic (yes I realize I keep changing verb tense - sue me!). The first thing I found was a 1st grade list - so here goes. I'll be Rory Gilmore and make a pro/con list :D
--------
What if I was 10 years old? (for the sake of a nice list I'll pretend I had a normal childhood)
Pros
Memories from 10 years old
--------
What if I was 10 years old? (for the sake of a nice list I'll pretend I had a normal childhood)
Pros
- No bills to worry about
- A trip to the store is fun
- Bike riding is the #1 source of entertainment and transportation
- No dieting!
- No cooking!
- Major decisions include ice cream flavors and how long to play
- Going to bed late is awesome
- birthday is the favorite day of the year
- Recess!
- Homework. ooo. bummer
- Rules seem oppressive / little freedom
- School for 180 days is torture
- Everyone tells you what to do
- Being grounded
- transportation is limited to mom or dad's patience or a bike
- Not a kid, not a teenager
Memories from 10 years old
- New baby sister / losing baby sister
- Moving from mom's to dad's and losing my favorite teacher
- Gaining a new teacher who had awesome activities, like:
- King Eaton and Going West
- Failing on State of the Week because I hated (still hate) word finds and lacked the skill to do projects which for which other kids had parental help
- Missing too many days and serving D-hall to make up the absences and subsequently working on the zeroes I had so I could pass
- Being grounded.......a lot
- Writing sentences for punishment....at home
- Reading to pass the time when grounded
- Tearing up my math homework because I was so frustrated with my stepmother for making me do homework as soon as I got home...and then having to tape it together so I could actually do it.
- Pouring out my watered down Kool-Aid because it was not much more than colored water (my stepmother added water to stretch it)
- Bringing home my sandwiches and hiding them in my room - I'm not sure why I didn't just throw them away, unless I was afraid my friend would tell on me. I don't really know what I *did* eat for lunch if I didn't eat my sandwiches. Hmm.
- Learning cross-stitch during Going West, something I still enjoy
- Eating fried rabbit and squirrel stew, also Going West
- Learning how to overthrow an oppressive and unpopular sovereign through King Eaton
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Chocolate Mug Cake
I got this recipe as a forward, thought it might be worth sharing:
MINUTE CHOCOLATE MUG CAKE
1 Coffee Mug
4 tablespoons flour(that's plain flour, not self-rising)
4 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons baking cocoa
1 egg
3 tablespoons milk
3 tablespoons oil
3 tablespoons chocolate chips (optional)
Small splash of vanilla
Add dry ingredients to mug, and mix well . Add the egg and mix thoroughly.
Pour in the milk and oil and mix well.
Add the chocolate chips (if using) and vanilla, and mix again.
Put your mug in the microwave and cook for 3 minutes at 1000 watts. The cake will rise over the top of the mug, but don't be alarmed!
Allow to cool a little, and tip out onto a plate if desired.
EAT! (this can serve 2 if you want to share!)
And why is this the most dangerous cake recipe in the world? Because now we are all only 5 minutes away from chocolate cake at any time of the day or night!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Sarcasm - it takes a smart person to get it
Thanks for the title, GC. :)
Story here
See link above for full story...I think this quote is so damn funny:
"The best part is that liberals often mindlessly mistake his genuine outrage for sarcasm and believe he's on their side while he's quite effectively evicerating them. Stephen Colbert... a true patriot in every sense."
He is so bitingly sarcastic that you have to be completely obtuse to miss it. I know Mr. W caught on to it at the 2006 White House Correspondent's Dinner just from watching his face in the video - and that's saying quite a lot for Mr. W. Typically I would put him in the "completely obtuse" category...
Well, Country Above Self, bravo for being dumber even than one of the stupidest presidents in the history of our great nation. Bravo!
Story here
See link above for full story...I think this quote is so damn funny:
"The best part is that liberals often mindlessly mistake his genuine outrage for sarcasm and believe he's on their side while he's quite effectively evicerating them. Stephen Colbert... a true patriot in every sense."
He is so bitingly sarcastic that you have to be completely obtuse to miss it. I know Mr. W caught on to it at the 2006 White House Correspondent's Dinner just from watching his face in the video - and that's saying quite a lot for Mr. W. Typically I would put him in the "completely obtuse" category...
Well, Country Above Self, bravo for being dumber even than one of the stupidest presidents in the history of our great nation. Bravo!
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Good day!
143 years ago today the slaves were freed (Happy Juneteenth!)
Today my SIL got the job she really wanted, congrats!
And Nephew was born! His name is Justin Andrew and he was born at 7:35 p.m., 7 pounds, 7 ounces and 19" long. Woo!
I'll post pics when I get them.
Happy day!
Today my SIL got the job she really wanted, congrats!
And Nephew was born! His name is Justin Andrew and he was born at 7:35 p.m., 7 pounds, 7 ounces and 19" long. Woo!
I'll post pics when I get them.
Happy day!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Gas guzzling protests
While discussing gas prices and "supply and demand" which is supposedly affecting the price (don't get me started on that-if it were true then how are the big 3 recording record profit?!) I started thinking about gas guzzlers. Just for the sake of argument, though, I'll suspend disbelief.
It's the attitude of "It's my RIGHT as an American to drive a truck and besides, I have to pay for the gas so STFU!" that is driving me nuts. Individually, no, 1 SUV or truck with 10-16 mpg will not drive up the price. However, the number of them on the road does nothing positive for the "supply and demand" argument. If A and B, then C, If C then D; If (A) you have a 10-16 mpg vehicle and (B) you commute in traffic then (C) you use a shit-ton of gas. If (C), then (D) the supply of gas goes DOWN and the demand for gas goes UP. Which drives the price up...
Anyway, for those of us who either have a good mpg vehicle or carpool, we should be rather pissed about the ones who are driving down supply and driving up price.
What would happen if we were to picket and yell at people who have gas guzzling vehicles that are NOT used for something like, perhaps, farm work as they were intended (great big trucks like F-250 which can haul a ton, literally, of whatever you want).
There are some people who are morally against abortion who will picket a clinic and tell the mothers that they are horrible people and going to hell and that they're killing babies...what would happen if we did the same to people who are wasting gas? How about I take out a billboard that shows a picture of a gas guzzler and a child starving to death because his/her parent can't afford the gas to work?
First, it wouldn't be well received because "It's my RIGHT as an American...." and that's infringing on my rights! "You can't tell me what to do with MY OWN LIFE!" Sorry, that kinda falls on deaf ears here since that's not a mother's right. And of course there's no profit motive to promote abortion...
Anyway, I don't really have anywhere else to go with this right now. Just wanted to put it out there!
It's the attitude of "It's my RIGHT as an American to drive a truck and besides, I have to pay for the gas so STFU!" that is driving me nuts. Individually, no, 1 SUV or truck with 10-16 mpg will not drive up the price. However, the number of them on the road does nothing positive for the "supply and demand" argument. If A and B, then C, If C then D; If (A) you have a 10-16 mpg vehicle and (B) you commute in traffic then (C) you use a shit-ton of gas. If (C), then (D) the supply of gas goes DOWN and the demand for gas goes UP. Which drives the price up...
Anyway, for those of us who either have a good mpg vehicle or carpool, we should be rather pissed about the ones who are driving down supply and driving up price.
What would happen if we were to picket and yell at people who have gas guzzling vehicles that are NOT used for something like, perhaps, farm work as they were intended (great big trucks like F-250 which can haul a ton, literally, of whatever you want).
There are some people who are morally against abortion who will picket a clinic and tell the mothers that they are horrible people and going to hell and that they're killing babies...what would happen if we did the same to people who are wasting gas? How about I take out a billboard that shows a picture of a gas guzzler and a child starving to death because his/her parent can't afford the gas to work?
First, it wouldn't be well received because "It's my RIGHT as an American...." and that's infringing on my rights! "You can't tell me what to do with MY OWN LIFE!" Sorry, that kinda falls on deaf ears here since that's not a mother's right. And of course there's no profit motive to promote abortion...
Anyway, I don't really have anywhere else to go with this right now. Just wanted to put it out there!
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Plimpie, this one's for you
So I've been reading an old friend's blog, which covers (so far, I started at the beginning) a lot about the war in Iraq. How we've been lied to, etc., since the beginning.
I can't help but think about 9/11 and what has happened since then. We as Americans have glibly-or fearfully, even-stood by and let our freedoms be taken away. Some of us, like me, are enraged but don't know what to do about it. Others, which seems like 90% of Americans (but I'm probably really wrong-that's my hope) to be honest here, seem to happily hand off freedom to be "safe." "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin, or perhaps Richard Jackson as is theorized in this entry: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
THAT IS ABSURD!! How many years did we operate as a country, relatively free of terrorist successes, before we were told that we needed to be treated as enemies in our own country so that we can be "safe?" Heightened "security" in airports, wiretapping, search/seizure/arrest without a warrant-these are just the beginning. I don't read enough to know what all has been taken away. I do know that as a result of this posting I am likely to end up on a watch list. If I do something "terrorist"-like (such as talking to others about my discontent, perhaps?) my home can be searched, evidence removed without my consent or even my knowledge, and I could disappear from the face of the Earth. No trial by jury of my peers or any of those "minor" rights I enjoy as a citizen of The Greatest Nation On Earth. I would be erased, and that's about it. And, if my neighbors so happened to notice some odd occurrence (like my house is being searched), they are not allowed to say a single word.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but this is sounding eerily like 1984. Our 2 minutes Hate is watching the news, which seems to forever contain things like "The War on Terror" and "Another recall in China." True, we're not (yet) required to direct our hate at set intervals while being watched continuously through the television and observed for ANY sign of disagreement. We're not quite required to wear clothing chosen for us by the government, and we still have the lottery throughout most of society. Unfortunately, though, I think at some point our government just may have read 1984 and various blurbs from successful dictators and/or their advisors.
"Communism and fascism or nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority." James A. C. Brown (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/nazi)
Sounds a bit like the push for a Christian America, doesn't it? For a country that was founded-for the most part-based on religious freedom, I have trouble agreeing with this push. Besides that, we see what wonders a religion-based government has done for other countries. It's no good and I want no part of it.
"Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose." Joseph Paul Goebbels, same site
Look up Blacklisted News. http://www.blacklistednews.com/
"The war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times." Joseph Paul Goebbels, same site
Sounds familiar. How did we come to be in Iraq? A convenient 9/11 attack, as a knee-jerk reaction, although the current administration will deny to their graves that they used it as an excuse.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering, same site
Wow, this was followed pretty much word for word. They improvised a bit too though because those of us who oppose the war also do not support our troops. On the contrary, it is my support of the troops which causes me to oppose the war. We're fighting a war without a clear focus (to the American public, anyway, terror is such a broad concept and who doesn't want us to rot at this point?!) and with no feasible end. There is no benefit to us and only hurt to others, so why should we send our most valuable commodity-true patriots willing to give Life for Country-to die as pawns in a twisted game of power? We've spread our troops to the winds such that we can't recruit enough people to protect the country (how many fronts are we fighting on at this point?), and who would want to join at this point anyhow! Let's stop spending so much damn money on a war we won't win and BRING OUR BOYS (and girls) HOME!
Anyway, I guess that's about all the ranting I have in me right now. My acid reflux/heartburn BS has gone away and I'm getting tired. I'll be back though, as I am still a disgruntled American with (so far) the freedom to air my grievances. Even if I haven't done all my research. :)
I can't help but think about 9/11 and what has happened since then. We as Americans have glibly-or fearfully, even-stood by and let our freedoms be taken away. Some of us, like me, are enraged but don't know what to do about it. Others, which seems like 90% of Americans (but I'm probably really wrong-that's my hope) to be honest here, seem to happily hand off freedom to be "safe." "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin, or perhaps Richard Jackson as is theorized in this entry: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
THAT IS ABSURD!! How many years did we operate as a country, relatively free of terrorist successes, before we were told that we needed to be treated as enemies in our own country so that we can be "safe?" Heightened "security" in airports, wiretapping, search/seizure/arrest without a warrant-these are just the beginning. I don't read enough to know what all has been taken away. I do know that as a result of this posting I am likely to end up on a watch list. If I do something "terrorist"-like (such as talking to others about my discontent, perhaps?) my home can be searched, evidence removed without my consent or even my knowledge, and I could disappear from the face of the Earth. No trial by jury of my peers or any of those "minor" rights I enjoy as a citizen of The Greatest Nation On Earth. I would be erased, and that's about it. And, if my neighbors so happened to notice some odd occurrence (like my house is being searched), they are not allowed to say a single word.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but this is sounding eerily like 1984. Our 2 minutes Hate is watching the news, which seems to forever contain things like "The War on Terror" and "Another recall in China." True, we're not (yet) required to direct our hate at set intervals while being watched continuously through the television and observed for ANY sign of disagreement. We're not quite required to wear clothing chosen for us by the government, and we still have the lottery throughout most of society. Unfortunately, though, I think at some point our government just may have read 1984 and various blurbs from successful dictators and/or their advisors.
"Communism and fascism or nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority." James A. C. Brown (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/nazi)
Sounds a bit like the push for a Christian America, doesn't it? For a country that was founded-for the most part-based on religious freedom, I have trouble agreeing with this push. Besides that, we see what wonders a religion-based government has done for other countries. It's no good and I want no part of it.
"Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose." Joseph Paul Goebbels, same site
Look up Blacklisted News. http://www.blacklistednews.com/
"The war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times." Joseph Paul Goebbels, same site
Sounds familiar. How did we come to be in Iraq? A convenient 9/11 attack, as a knee-jerk reaction, although the current administration will deny to their graves that they used it as an excuse.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering, same site
Wow, this was followed pretty much word for word. They improvised a bit too though because those of us who oppose the war also do not support our troops. On the contrary, it is my support of the troops which causes me to oppose the war. We're fighting a war without a clear focus (to the American public, anyway, terror is such a broad concept and who doesn't want us to rot at this point?!) and with no feasible end. There is no benefit to us and only hurt to others, so why should we send our most valuable commodity-true patriots willing to give Life for Country-to die as pawns in a twisted game of power? We've spread our troops to the winds such that we can't recruit enough people to protect the country (how many fronts are we fighting on at this point?), and who would want to join at this point anyhow! Let's stop spending so much damn money on a war we won't win and BRING OUR BOYS (and girls) HOME!
Anyway, I guess that's about all the ranting I have in me right now. My acid reflux/heartburn BS has gone away and I'm getting tired. I'll be back though, as I am still a disgruntled American with (so far) the freedom to air my grievances. Even if I haven't done all my research. :)
I hate Antibiotic
So, I got bitten by a dog last week. I have been on 2 different antibiotics since Monday, and one of them is horrible. I have to take it 4 times a day and it's so strong, or whatever, that you're not allowed to lie down or bend over or, apparently, lean forward the slightest bit, for 30 mins after taking it. If you do, it's the worst case of acid reflux/heartburn you've ever had. But rest assured, you can drink a little water which does absolutely nothing or heartburn meds which do absolutely nothing. Instead, you can sit around for about 20 mins praying for your life to end and eventually it will fade.
This is the second time now, and I've been pretty conscious about not bending over. It's 5:30 in the morning and I got up, on a holiday, to be tortured. I'm tired and I want to go to bed, my esophagus/chest burn (it's rather like the whole area from the neck to the top of my breasts is on fire), and I probably won't be able to sleep after I've been awake the obligatory 30 mins to avoid exactly what I am feeling now.
I'm just about ready to throw in the towel and do what I lecture others about - skip the rest of the pills. The bite is healing and WHY THE HELL do I have to torture myself by staying up late and getting up early to take a pill? This isn't fair.
I'll talk to Kyle before I make any decisions since this is a bad idea, but it really hurts. And chances are that since I went 2 days without it that I never had an infection anyway.
This is the second time now, and I've been pretty conscious about not bending over. It's 5:30 in the morning and I got up, on a holiday, to be tortured. I'm tired and I want to go to bed, my esophagus/chest burn (it's rather like the whole area from the neck to the top of my breasts is on fire), and I probably won't be able to sleep after I've been awake the obligatory 30 mins to avoid exactly what I am feeling now.
I'm just about ready to throw in the towel and do what I lecture others about - skip the rest of the pills. The bite is healing and WHY THE HELL do I have to torture myself by staying up late and getting up early to take a pill? This isn't fair.
I'll talk to Kyle before I make any decisions since this is a bad idea, but it really hurts. And chances are that since I went 2 days without it that I never had an infection anyway.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Trivia 4-23-08
OK, so I am bad about updates. Oh well.
There are more cars in Southern California than there are cows in India.
Eric Clapton did not play the very famous first riff on the song "Layla". That was Duane Allman. Clapton comes in later.
The two-foot long bird called a Kea that lives in New Zealand likes to eat the strips of rubber around car windows.
The province of Alberta, Canada is completely free of rats.
As you age, your eye color gets lighter.
The blue whale can produce sounds up to 188 decibels. This is the loudest sound produced by a living animal and has been detected as far away as 530 miles.
It takes approximately 12 hours for food to entirely digest.
There are more cars in Southern California than there are cows in India.
Eric Clapton did not play the very famous first riff on the song "Layla". That was Duane Allman. Clapton comes in later.
The two-foot long bird called a Kea that lives in New Zealand likes to eat the strips of rubber around car windows.
The province of Alberta, Canada is completely free of rats.
As you age, your eye color gets lighter.
The blue whale can produce sounds up to 188 decibels. This is the loudest sound produced by a living animal and has been detected as far away as 530 miles.
It takes approximately 12 hours for food to entirely digest.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Trivia 4-15-08
And we know this guy probably needed Biggest Loser...except that fat at that time probably was linked to wealth/prosperity and was therefore desirable:
Louis XIV (1638-1715), was recorded to eat "four soups, a pheasant, a partridge, a plate of salad, sliced mutton with garlic, two lumps of ham, a plate of pastries, fruits and preserves" at one sitting.
Louis XIV (1638-1715), was recorded to eat "four soups, a pheasant, a partridge, a plate of salad, sliced mutton with garlic, two lumps of ham, a plate of pastries, fruits and preserves" at one sitting.
Biggest Loser: Couples, Season 5
OK, I am typically not one to watch "new" shows (I did have a brief stint where I did, and most of them have since been canceled*). So, it's not terribly surprising that it's taken 5 seasons for me to succumb to the wonders of Biggest Loser (or as my brother-in-law has named it, World's Fattest Asshole). I saw one challenge early in with the see-saw challenge, but I didn't really start watching it religiously until after Mark and Ali came back. I guess that means I watched it for 4 episodes or so?
Anyway, it's been really good. And the best part?
ALI WAS THE FIRST GIRL BIGGEST LOSER!! I was kinda rooting for Kelli, but I didn't think she'd beat Roger, and she didn't. But AWESOME ALI!!
I can relate to a lot of what Ali has said about her fat being a security blanket. And, losing weight IS difficult so it's a lot easier to stay fat and "safe." But, as she said, if it wasn't hard it wouldn't feel that good.
I've been there, I've lost weight, and I've looked really great. Right now I can't remember how much weight I lost...well, I can if I do the math. But it's not really important because that was the past and I've got a bigger goal now than I did then. I am currently the heaviest I've ever been. It's unhealthy and I think it's the same problem I've had with my debt. It's not like I put on 10 pounds a week or add $1000 a month to my debt bill. It comes in (relatively) small amounts and the attitude I've had is, "well it's only 2 pounds, I'll get rid of it later with the rest of it." Yes, now it's only 2 pounds...but then I look at a quick meal (Ramen, frozen pizza, etc.) and think, "Well, with this much (I'd like to lose about 100 at this point in time) to lose, what the hell difference will 2 pounds make?" But the problem is I do this day after day, week after week.
And eventually it's another 10 pounds and I'm more depressed and I'm even harder on myself...which makes me think "screw it, it's only another pound what the hell difference will it make..."
Well, it can make a lot of difference.
It's time to make a change, though. I have a new Gazelle and (sort of) space to use it. I know that when I exercise, I pay much closer attention to my diet - "Why am I eating an 8 point item now when I just worked my ass off for 45 mins to burn that shit off?"
I have no more good excuses. It takes a lot of time, yes. But it's healthier and more cost effective if I would eat the way I know I should.
In the past I have felt like Ali - if someone doesn't like me, it was because I was fat. If I'm not fat, then it's me they don't like...but if they like me skinny and reject me fat - THAT'S NOT COOL!! I don't want those people in my life anyway.
So, it's time to cast off my security blanket and get healthy. No more excuses.
*There are a few exceptions - so far Chuck is on the air and I have watched My Name is Earl since the beginning. I think I was a Season 1 watcher of Scrubs when they put it on the air as a hopeful replacement for Friends, but I believe that is all.
Anyway, it's been really good. And the best part?
ALI WAS THE FIRST GIRL BIGGEST LOSER!! I was kinda rooting for Kelli, but I didn't think she'd beat Roger, and she didn't. But AWESOME ALI!!
I can relate to a lot of what Ali has said about her fat being a security blanket. And, losing weight IS difficult so it's a lot easier to stay fat and "safe." But, as she said, if it wasn't hard it wouldn't feel that good.
I've been there, I've lost weight, and I've looked really great. Right now I can't remember how much weight I lost...well, I can if I do the math. But it's not really important because that was the past and I've got a bigger goal now than I did then. I am currently the heaviest I've ever been. It's unhealthy and I think it's the same problem I've had with my debt. It's not like I put on 10 pounds a week or add $1000 a month to my debt bill. It comes in (relatively) small amounts and the attitude I've had is, "well it's only 2 pounds, I'll get rid of it later with the rest of it." Yes, now it's only 2 pounds...but then I look at a quick meal (Ramen, frozen pizza, etc.) and think, "Well, with this much (I'd like to lose about 100 at this point in time) to lose, what the hell difference will 2 pounds make?" But the problem is I do this day after day, week after week.
And eventually it's another 10 pounds and I'm more depressed and I'm even harder on myself...which makes me think "screw it, it's only another pound what the hell difference will it make..."
Well, it can make a lot of difference.
It's time to make a change, though. I have a new Gazelle and (sort of) space to use it. I know that when I exercise, I pay much closer attention to my diet - "Why am I eating an 8 point item now when I just worked my ass off for 45 mins to burn that shit off?"
I have no more good excuses. It takes a lot of time, yes. But it's healthier and more cost effective if I would eat the way I know I should.
In the past I have felt like Ali - if someone doesn't like me, it was because I was fat. If I'm not fat, then it's me they don't like...but if they like me skinny and reject me fat - THAT'S NOT COOL!! I don't want those people in my life anyway.
So, it's time to cast off my security blanket and get healthy. No more excuses.
*There are a few exceptions - so far Chuck is on the air and I have watched My Name is Earl since the beginning. I think I was a Season 1 watcher of Scrubs when they put it on the air as a hopeful replacement for Friends, but I believe that is all.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Trivia 4-13-08
Here are several tidbits since I missed a few days.
A baby is born without kneecaps. They appear between age 2 and 6.
The microwave oven was invented by mistake when an engineer testing a magnetron tube noticed that the radiation from it melted the chocolate bar he had in his pocket.
The Olympic flag's colors are always red, black, blue, green and yellow rings on a field of white. This is because at least one of those colors appears on the flag of every nation on the planet.
The arteries and veins surrounding the brain stem called the "circle of Willis" looks like a stick person with a large head.
23% of employees say they have had sex in the office.
A baby is born without kneecaps. They appear between age 2 and 6.
The microwave oven was invented by mistake when an engineer testing a magnetron tube noticed that the radiation from it melted the chocolate bar he had in his pocket.
The Olympic flag's colors are always red, black, blue, green and yellow rings on a field of white. This is because at least one of those colors appears on the flag of every nation on the planet.
The arteries and veins surrounding the brain stem called the "circle of Willis" looks like a stick person with a large head.
23% of employees say they have had sex in the office.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Trivia 4-9-08
Homing pigeons use roads where possible to help find their way home. In fact, some pigeons followed roads so closely that they actually flew around traffic circles before choosing the exit that led them home.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Trivia tidbit
I found a great source of trivia. If I remember, I'm going to post something new every day that I'm on the computer.
Here's today:
Richard Versalle, a tenor performing at New York's Metropolitan Opera House, suffered a heart attack and fell 10 feet from a ladder to the stage just after singing the line "You can only live so long."
Here's today:
Richard Versalle, a tenor performing at New York's Metropolitan Opera House, suffered a heart attack and fell 10 feet from a ladder to the stage just after singing the line "You can only live so long."
Monday, March 31, 2008
I speak dog!
So it's been raining, and it's a little wet outside...puddles and mud and such. We took our dog Gavin to the door and asked if he wanted to go out. We clipped on his tether, he walked out a step, turned around and came back. I am pretty sure that's dog for "fuck that."
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Catch-22s and the people who are screwed by them
Hi. My name is Angie, and I'm a debtor.
(Hi Angie!)
So, we're in debt, like the other 85% of Americans our age. There's the "easy" temporarily-kill-your-credit solution of debt consolidation, or the not-so-easy snowball solution. For those who have equity in their homes, there's the HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit). We don't own a house, so that's out. We would like to own one soon, though, so debt consolidation is kind of out (unless we settle on buying land/a house in 4-6 years). Snowballing is not quick or easy.
I've thought a lot about debt consolidation. It potentially lowers the monthly payment by locking interest rates and cutting other magical deals with the lenders. The unfortunate part is that for us, it's probably a 4-5 year fix. In that time we are allowed to have 1 open credit card for emergencies and we are not allowed to take out loans. I know this means small loans, and I wager it means big ones too like houses and/or land.
The rental house we are in is an utter piece of shit and moving into another rental feels like throwing money in a hole. I mean, sure, I don't have to worry about holes in the roof or water in the basement (4" of it, it sucked), but at the same time I could be building equity. The market is soft and it's a good time to buy, right? The problem is we're not technically able to commit to more than we're paying now in rent and that wouldn't cover a proper house with taxes and insurance.
So, in review: we're in debt, which makes it more difficult to get a loan. If we had a house, eventually we could get a HELOC to pay off high-interest debts, but it's difficult to get a house. Because of how much we're paying to credit cards, we can't afford a mortgage payment. And, to lower that quickly we could do debt consolidation...but then we couldn't get a house...
*sigh*
Do we commit to something that makes me supremely uncomfortable for as much as 5 years (no safety net of going to the bank and getting a small loan)? Do we put it off and try for a house anyway? Do we move into a different rental that can be more long term, but where we still can't do any mods and have to worry about what our pets might ruin? Do we try to get some land so we can build our dream house in cob?
I really don't know what to do. I wish I knew the answer.
If I sit too long, I risk lengthening the time we're in debt with "bad" debt (credit cards, not student loans). If I move too hastily, I could put us out of building equity for several years, and might miss the opportunity to buy in a soft market.
Then, if we did go for a house, there's the question of where. I want to move to Mount Vernon because that's where we want to move to build the cob. If we own a home, we can always rent it or sell it when we're done with the cob. It keeps us in a home, where we build equity and potentially stand to make money. If we're in Mount Vernon, it's easier to commit to building on the weekends to the exclusion of anything else (during optimal building season).
However, my friend tells me this evening that there are houses that her in-laws are renting out, brand new, that will be rent-to-buy. That would be nice - something that we could move into fairly quick, and that would essentially be ours. Plus, the rent is close to what we pay now, I'm just not sure how the insurance thing would work since we wouldn't actually own it. They're in Springfield, which is nice, but divorces us from the cob. We'd be committing to building 30 miles away and driving an awful lot.
Ideally I think I would like to buy something in Mount Vernon (or nearby) with an acre or two of land. That would give us space to experiment and ultimately it would be near our build site.
My husband is worried that buying a home would delay or cancel the cob, though, since we would have comfortable quarters. He may be right, but if we were building equity it would make the cob easier to manifest in the future. Once we had $40k in the house we could take it out, no questions asked, and buy our land and fund the project.
I like the last idea best, but I don't really know how to make it work out. I guess I could meditate. I have a hard time with it though, so perhaps I need to just get off my butt and read Chop Wood, Carry Water. It might help!
I suppose that's about it for now. More to come soon, I'm sure.
(Hi Angie!)
So, we're in debt, like the other 85% of Americans our age. There's the "easy" temporarily-kill-your-credit solution of debt consolidation, or the not-so-easy snowball solution. For those who have equity in their homes, there's the HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit). We don't own a house, so that's out. We would like to own one soon, though, so debt consolidation is kind of out (unless we settle on buying land/a house in 4-6 years). Snowballing is not quick or easy.
I've thought a lot about debt consolidation. It potentially lowers the monthly payment by locking interest rates and cutting other magical deals with the lenders. The unfortunate part is that for us, it's probably a 4-5 year fix. In that time we are allowed to have 1 open credit card for emergencies and we are not allowed to take out loans. I know this means small loans, and I wager it means big ones too like houses and/or land.
The rental house we are in is an utter piece of shit and moving into another rental feels like throwing money in a hole. I mean, sure, I don't have to worry about holes in the roof or water in the basement (4" of it, it sucked), but at the same time I could be building equity. The market is soft and it's a good time to buy, right? The problem is we're not technically able to commit to more than we're paying now in rent and that wouldn't cover a proper house with taxes and insurance.
So, in review: we're in debt, which makes it more difficult to get a loan. If we had a house, eventually we could get a HELOC to pay off high-interest debts, but it's difficult to get a house. Because of how much we're paying to credit cards, we can't afford a mortgage payment. And, to lower that quickly we could do debt consolidation...but then we couldn't get a house...
*sigh*
Do we commit to something that makes me supremely uncomfortable for as much as 5 years (no safety net of going to the bank and getting a small loan)? Do we put it off and try for a house anyway? Do we move into a different rental that can be more long term, but where we still can't do any mods and have to worry about what our pets might ruin? Do we try to get some land so we can build our dream house in cob?
I really don't know what to do. I wish I knew the answer.
If I sit too long, I risk lengthening the time we're in debt with "bad" debt (credit cards, not student loans). If I move too hastily, I could put us out of building equity for several years, and might miss the opportunity to buy in a soft market.
Then, if we did go for a house, there's the question of where. I want to move to Mount Vernon because that's where we want to move to build the cob. If we own a home, we can always rent it or sell it when we're done with the cob. It keeps us in a home, where we build equity and potentially stand to make money. If we're in Mount Vernon, it's easier to commit to building on the weekends to the exclusion of anything else (during optimal building season).
However, my friend tells me this evening that there are houses that her in-laws are renting out, brand new, that will be rent-to-buy. That would be nice - something that we could move into fairly quick, and that would essentially be ours. Plus, the rent is close to what we pay now, I'm just not sure how the insurance thing would work since we wouldn't actually own it. They're in Springfield, which is nice, but divorces us from the cob. We'd be committing to building 30 miles away and driving an awful lot.
Ideally I think I would like to buy something in Mount Vernon (or nearby) with an acre or two of land. That would give us space to experiment and ultimately it would be near our build site.
My husband is worried that buying a home would delay or cancel the cob, though, since we would have comfortable quarters. He may be right, but if we were building equity it would make the cob easier to manifest in the future. Once we had $40k in the house we could take it out, no questions asked, and buy our land and fund the project.
I like the last idea best, but I don't really know how to make it work out. I guess I could meditate. I have a hard time with it though, so perhaps I need to just get off my butt and read Chop Wood, Carry Water. It might help!
I suppose that's about it for now. More to come soon, I'm sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)