Love this story. It is perhaps one of the most ingenious methods of bringing back good old fashioned police work to the seen.
How many times have you been frustrated by the moron driving in front of you, swerving, going slow, braking suddenly, all because they were talking on their cell? How many times have you been that person? Be honest.
In the US, most states have banned the use of cellphones while driving, and texting while driving, but how to collar the crook who is talking on their cell without a hands free device? Sure, they are easy to spot, but as a policeman/woman will tell you, they are looking for so many things while sitting in their car that they are liable to miss a caller here and there. Or even worse, what of the states where the cell use is not a primary offense? This leads police to pull over a commuter for something as simple as their license plate bieng covered by the plate holder the dealership sends you home with, or perhaps because you have alittle pine forest dangling from your rear-view mirror obstructing your vision ever so slightly.
Now he can nab you for the cell use as well, but this takes more time for him to write and longer in the courts as they tend to throw out the PRIMARY in this case and charge you with the secondary cell phone usage.
So how can the force better use some agents of the law? In Canada, they have resorted to using police dressed like vagrants, homeless to visually get a nab on the digital commuter. These constables stand on the side of the road, appearing as though they are begging for money, but really they are out there watching for the unfortunate cell user. Standing there in all their tattered clothing, they are holding a sign stating their intentions, telling the people their name and that if they are talking on a cell phone they are about to get a ticket. This is the greatest means of police work I have seen in a while.
Just an old Soldier Ranting.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
To be a Politician
Oh where will the voters side this November? I don't think anyone can predict this Presidential election outcome based on the current occurrences in our news.
First notable instance, we are over halfway through the primaries and not even the front runner has even half the necessary votes to become the official Republican Candidate. While it is extremely clear that those like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have NO chance of winning the nod, yet none of them will bow out. And, while it may seem that Mitt Romney is the absolute front runner, understand that if Gingrich and the others bow out and throw their support towards Santorum, then we have a virtual deadlock, especially if Santorum keeps winning key states. However, it is likely that Santorum will ultimately bow out and Romney will win the nod for the candidacy, which is ironic.
The irony behind it is, one of the key things most republicans seem to want is to repeal Obamacare, which is almost completely modeled after Romneycare. So if the biggest fight the Republicans have is to repeal the new law, the likelihood that it will occur seems completely improbable. Funny, considering that Romney does in fact attack the President over the issue.
And, currently the High Court is addressing certain key components of the new Health Care Law to rule on the constitutionality of it. This is a three-way argument, one-it is perfectly legal, two- making someone buy insurance or pay a penalty they are trying to call a tax is unconstitutional, three-it is completely illegal to make someone buy insurance, I mean, health insurance.
This is Ironic too, as the argument is you cannot force someone to buy insurance they may never need...
Folks, I have never been in an automobile accident, yet I am required to have insurance, in fact I am required to have uninsured motorists insurance to make sure that if some jack-ass hits me and DOESN'T have the insurance he is supposed to have, I am still covered.
So then, if the argument is that They cannot force me to have health insurance, then I shouldn't be required to have automobile insurance. Or, for that fact, homeowners insurance, or renters insurance, yet these are also required for other reasons, not federal necessarily.
To say you cannot be "taxed" for disobeying the law, well I can argue that the fines or penalties for running a red light or speeding or Driving While Intoxicated are taxes and cannot be levied in this manner. What hurts the most is the fact that A-this has become a political arena for something that was passed in Congress, it just seems like the Republicans are butt-hurt because they couldn't come up with a plan that would work. The idea of nationwide health care reform is not new, President Obama is just the first to get it passed.
So while it is still any ones victory in the White House, before the Republicans can stand up and say "We Will Win!" they first have to have someone who can win.
My Predictions? The republicans will nominate Mitt Romney after much more in-fighting which will further undermine the efforts of the Republican Party, ultimately ending up with the reelection of the current President, who will then change about 30% of his cabinet citing political differences.
The Health care bill will be deferred back to the congress until such time as the fines are actually levied and people start filing suits, as to the constitutionality of the law, it is fully within Congress's ability to create such laws. The only issue is the definition of the fines for not getting the insurance.
Just the Rantings of an Old Soldier.
First notable instance, we are over halfway through the primaries and not even the front runner has even half the necessary votes to become the official Republican Candidate. While it is extremely clear that those like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have NO chance of winning the nod, yet none of them will bow out. And, while it may seem that Mitt Romney is the absolute front runner, understand that if Gingrich and the others bow out and throw their support towards Santorum, then we have a virtual deadlock, especially if Santorum keeps winning key states. However, it is likely that Santorum will ultimately bow out and Romney will win the nod for the candidacy, which is ironic.
The irony behind it is, one of the key things most republicans seem to want is to repeal Obamacare, which is almost completely modeled after Romneycare. So if the biggest fight the Republicans have is to repeal the new law, the likelihood that it will occur seems completely improbable. Funny, considering that Romney does in fact attack the President over the issue.
And, currently the High Court is addressing certain key components of the new Health Care Law to rule on the constitutionality of it. This is a three-way argument, one-it is perfectly legal, two- making someone buy insurance or pay a penalty they are trying to call a tax is unconstitutional, three-it is completely illegal to make someone buy insurance, I mean, health insurance.
This is Ironic too, as the argument is you cannot force someone to buy insurance they may never need...
Folks, I have never been in an automobile accident, yet I am required to have insurance, in fact I am required to have uninsured motorists insurance to make sure that if some jack-ass hits me and DOESN'T have the insurance he is supposed to have, I am still covered.
So then, if the argument is that They cannot force me to have health insurance, then I shouldn't be required to have automobile insurance. Or, for that fact, homeowners insurance, or renters insurance, yet these are also required for other reasons, not federal necessarily.
To say you cannot be "taxed" for disobeying the law, well I can argue that the fines or penalties for running a red light or speeding or Driving While Intoxicated are taxes and cannot be levied in this manner. What hurts the most is the fact that A-this has become a political arena for something that was passed in Congress, it just seems like the Republicans are butt-hurt because they couldn't come up with a plan that would work. The idea of nationwide health care reform is not new, President Obama is just the first to get it passed.
So while it is still any ones victory in the White House, before the Republicans can stand up and say "We Will Win!" they first have to have someone who can win.
My Predictions? The republicans will nominate Mitt Romney after much more in-fighting which will further undermine the efforts of the Republican Party, ultimately ending up with the reelection of the current President, who will then change about 30% of his cabinet citing political differences.
The Health care bill will be deferred back to the congress until such time as the fines are actually levied and people start filing suits, as to the constitutionality of the law, it is fully within Congress's ability to create such laws. The only issue is the definition of the fines for not getting the insurance.
Just the Rantings of an Old Soldier.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Support for Cancer
Being one of the Cancer Profound, it lightens my heart to hear of creative means people go through to raise money in support of those who need assistance fighting the terrible disease in its hundreds of forms. Just recently I was made aware of this wonderful website that is raising funds to help those woman who need help getting around or need meals brought in.
The wonderful part of it is this, the MAN who is putting himself out there is doing so in his wife's honor. No, she hasn't passed, however she too is one of the profound, having defeated Breast Cancer twice. The husband dons a pink tutu and takes self portraits of himself in whatever location he decides to travel to.
The website, http://www.thetutuproject.com/ , tells their whole story. There will be available soon a book with many of the pictures and the stories of his adventures, as well as other means to donate, or sponsor the event, whose overall goal is to raise 75 thousand dollars.
It has already managed to raise 8000 bucks and has only been up since March 12th.
I cannot applaud this man enough to have the courage to perform this deed for his wife. It is incredible what a family member will do to honor those who are suffering from any of the cancers that we know of. Mine was in a tumultuous position, and still managed to stay by my side for thirty days in the hospital (except the three days I made her go home for a break only to have her go through more stress at home than anyone should ever have to deal with). My beautiful wife maintained a strong and fairly stress free look about her, just to keep me calm, put up with my abuse (verbal) and the abuse of those who were close to her all in the name of keeping me safe. And the terrible summer my daughter had to endure?
So to hear what this man did, is doing, I know he had to have gone through some terrible times and still comes out on top. Amazing, as I have said before, those who survive, those who are with their family members who did suffer, we are all profound, and this unselfish act proves it.
Just the Rantings of an Old Soldier
The wonderful part of it is this, the MAN who is putting himself out there is doing so in his wife's honor. No, she hasn't passed, however she too is one of the profound, having defeated Breast Cancer twice. The husband dons a pink tutu and takes self portraits of himself in whatever location he decides to travel to.
The website, http://www.thetutuproject.com/ , tells their whole story. There will be available soon a book with many of the pictures and the stories of his adventures, as well as other means to donate, or sponsor the event, whose overall goal is to raise 75 thousand dollars.
It has already managed to raise 8000 bucks and has only been up since March 12th.
I cannot applaud this man enough to have the courage to perform this deed for his wife. It is incredible what a family member will do to honor those who are suffering from any of the cancers that we know of. Mine was in a tumultuous position, and still managed to stay by my side for thirty days in the hospital (except the three days I made her go home for a break only to have her go through more stress at home than anyone should ever have to deal with). My beautiful wife maintained a strong and fairly stress free look about her, just to keep me calm, put up with my abuse (verbal) and the abuse of those who were close to her all in the name of keeping me safe. And the terrible summer my daughter had to endure?
So to hear what this man did, is doing, I know he had to have gone through some terrible times and still comes out on top. Amazing, as I have said before, those who survive, those who are with their family members who did suffer, we are all profound, and this unselfish act proves it.
Just the Rantings of an Old Soldier
Friday, March 23, 2012
Feed those in Need
Okay, so here's the thing. If I purchase something from a company whose label tells me they will feed this or donate to this cause, I would expect that they would do just that. But lately I have been inundated with products whos packaging leads me to believe just that, yet in the fine print I must log onto this website and enter a code.
The thought that I must further take my time isn't necessarily irritating so much as it is inconvenient and a rediculous attempt at the company to further embelish their products into my mind with their advertising.
It only takes a moment for me to enter the code, but I don't always have the time and many times I am not thinking about it as I am getting ready to throw something into the bin.
Whatever the cause, be it cleaning up oil spill animals, feeding the American Children, feeding the rest of the world, donating to breast cancer, lung cancer, or any other numerous causes, just donate the damned money. The company knows how many were purchased and have set aside the money, just donate it out.
I cannot fathom why a company would make the consumer enter codes for donations other than as I stated earlier that they can further advertise their products, unless it is so they can CLAIM to have intended to donate said amount of money, even they they predicted that not even half of it would be used. This would allow them to temporarily look good in the public eye, "We have set aside three million dollars for donation to blank charity!" but never advertise that it was not even three hundred thousand they actually gave.
Now, Yoplait! with their marketing scheme actually requested to get their aluminum lids back, and while just as arduous, serves a small purpose (recycling makes money).
It comes down to this, you, as a company, want to give money to charity, either just give it, period, or simply tie it to sales, don't expect the consumer, many of whom already give to charities of their own any ways, to do further leg work.
Just an Old Soldier Ranting.
The thought that I must further take my time isn't necessarily irritating so much as it is inconvenient and a rediculous attempt at the company to further embelish their products into my mind with their advertising.
It only takes a moment for me to enter the code, but I don't always have the time and many times I am not thinking about it as I am getting ready to throw something into the bin.
Whatever the cause, be it cleaning up oil spill animals, feeding the American Children, feeding the rest of the world, donating to breast cancer, lung cancer, or any other numerous causes, just donate the damned money. The company knows how many were purchased and have set aside the money, just donate it out.
I cannot fathom why a company would make the consumer enter codes for donations other than as I stated earlier that they can further advertise their products, unless it is so they can CLAIM to have intended to donate said amount of money, even they they predicted that not even half of it would be used. This would allow them to temporarily look good in the public eye, "We have set aside three million dollars for donation to blank charity!" but never advertise that it was not even three hundred thousand they actually gave.
Now, Yoplait! with their marketing scheme actually requested to get their aluminum lids back, and while just as arduous, serves a small purpose (recycling makes money).
It comes down to this, you, as a company, want to give money to charity, either just give it, period, or simply tie it to sales, don't expect the consumer, many of whom already give to charities of their own any ways, to do further leg work.
Just an Old Soldier Ranting.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Mitt Romney uses "I Didn't Know Defense"
Seriously? The news digs around every single candidate they can to find information that could be publicly damaging simply to see them squirm. Many will come out with this reason or that for the findings buried within their history, but every so often some of them come out and just say "I didn't know!" emphatically through one of their spokepersons until they are cornered and have to say it for themselves.
Mitt Romney was just tied to a Chinese security firm contracted to place cameras pretty much everywhere there could be potential gatherings in protest against the Communist giant. Of course, the official reasoning is to keep things safe and catch criminals, but with China's history of human rights violations the definition of criminal is a little fluid.
The firm in question was purchased by Bain Capital, a firm which Romney started. Further, some of his capital is actually tied up in the moneys used to purchase the firm. Albeit, Romney might not have technically known how the funds were used, it is his responsibility to know what his mass riches are tied up in. Thereby, the infamous "I didn't know" line is invalid.
I mean, think about it, is this a value you want in your next president? Shouldn't the man know exactly what his money is tied up in? It would have been better to come out and say, "yes, I own stake in this company, however, I do not function in its day to day business and thereby was not aware of the potential for HR violations" or some facsimlie thereof. He could easily spin it to one of awareness and revulsion and then publicly seperate himself from the company. Instead he just throws up his hands in a childish manner, looking up at his mommy and says "I didn't know that was bad"
These potential nominees need to get a grip. Realize that we need strong leadership, not 50 year old children. But instead, they are ALL so damned defensive that even if the Republicans had a strong candidate, their would still be question as to their value and worth because they have all done the shoulder shrugging technique.
Ironic, this candidate has accused the President of placing the dollar over chinese human rights, yet that is EXACTLY what he does when he just turns a blind eye and says "I Didn't Know!"
Just an Old Soldier Ranting.
Forgot to mention, the article was a NYtimes article as posted through MSNBC
Mitt Romney was just tied to a Chinese security firm contracted to place cameras pretty much everywhere there could be potential gatherings in protest against the Communist giant. Of course, the official reasoning is to keep things safe and catch criminals, but with China's history of human rights violations the definition of criminal is a little fluid.
The firm in question was purchased by Bain Capital, a firm which Romney started. Further, some of his capital is actually tied up in the moneys used to purchase the firm. Albeit, Romney might not have technically known how the funds were used, it is his responsibility to know what his mass riches are tied up in. Thereby, the infamous "I didn't know" line is invalid.
I mean, think about it, is this a value you want in your next president? Shouldn't the man know exactly what his money is tied up in? It would have been better to come out and say, "yes, I own stake in this company, however, I do not function in its day to day business and thereby was not aware of the potential for HR violations" or some facsimlie thereof. He could easily spin it to one of awareness and revulsion and then publicly seperate himself from the company. Instead he just throws up his hands in a childish manner, looking up at his mommy and says "I didn't know that was bad"
These potential nominees need to get a grip. Realize that we need strong leadership, not 50 year old children. But instead, they are ALL so damned defensive that even if the Republicans had a strong candidate, their would still be question as to their value and worth because they have all done the shoulder shrugging technique.
Ironic, this candidate has accused the President of placing the dollar over chinese human rights, yet that is EXACTLY what he does when he just turns a blind eye and says "I Didn't Know!"
Just an Old Soldier Ranting.
Forgot to mention, the article was a NYtimes article as posted through MSNBC
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Republican Party seems to be in trouble
Here it is, the middle of March in an election year and there seems to be no clear cut winner in the Republican Party for nomination to President. In fact, it seems to be even less clear after the last weeks worth of primaries, where Romney was expected to continue his sweeping victories, he failed to attain so many of the delegate votes, earning only a pittance of the potential numbers and not even reaching half of the required amount.
You have Newt Gingrich saying he will not bow out for Romney and you even have Ron Paul, clearly a man with no chance of winning, still hanging around. So with it being March and no available time for the potential nominees to actually start focusing on the national salesmanship that could result in a presidency, do the Republicans even stand a chance? Oh, I know, they are already touting that President Obama is the cause for this or failed to do that, but the American People as a whole are not stupid. In fact, we are more in tune now than we have ever been. We have so much access to information that we basically have to weed out the bad information. Unfortunately, this leads to some being misled, but for the most part people will vote based upon history before they will vote for promises. And we already know it doesn't matter what you did as a congressperson, rather what you will do as President. Bush showed us this, as his actions as governor didn't really translate to President.
So, President Obama has a few things going for him that will continue to hamper the Republicans efforts. Number one, no matter how you look at it, we are still in war. Sure, Iraq is mostly over, we are trying to talk with the Taliban, but then a Soldier goes all independent and starts massacring innocents allegedly. As I stated earlier in the post, the Republicans cannot focus on national campaigns yet because they are doing in-fighting still. The people realize that the Tea Party and the republican involvement has hampered much of the political actions over the last year. Like it or lump it, we all know that forcing us to carry insurance is actually a good thing, perhaps in a different fashion, but insurance regulation will work. His overall popularity by the masses. This president has remained popular amongst the voters throughout his term. Remember, he was voted into office by the largest voting percentage in decades. He did what Clinton and Bush tried to do, incite the young voters.
So in the end, it is up to the voters who will win, but if this Republican drama carries on much further, it is a forgone conclusion that the only way there will be a Republican in office in 2013 is if Obama just bows out.
Just an old Soldier Ranting.
You have Newt Gingrich saying he will not bow out for Romney and you even have Ron Paul, clearly a man with no chance of winning, still hanging around. So with it being March and no available time for the potential nominees to actually start focusing on the national salesmanship that could result in a presidency, do the Republicans even stand a chance? Oh, I know, they are already touting that President Obama is the cause for this or failed to do that, but the American People as a whole are not stupid. In fact, we are more in tune now than we have ever been. We have so much access to information that we basically have to weed out the bad information. Unfortunately, this leads to some being misled, but for the most part people will vote based upon history before they will vote for promises. And we already know it doesn't matter what you did as a congressperson, rather what you will do as President. Bush showed us this, as his actions as governor didn't really translate to President.
So, President Obama has a few things going for him that will continue to hamper the Republicans efforts. Number one, no matter how you look at it, we are still in war. Sure, Iraq is mostly over, we are trying to talk with the Taliban, but then a Soldier goes all independent and starts massacring innocents allegedly. As I stated earlier in the post, the Republicans cannot focus on national campaigns yet because they are doing in-fighting still. The people realize that the Tea Party and the republican involvement has hampered much of the political actions over the last year. Like it or lump it, we all know that forcing us to carry insurance is actually a good thing, perhaps in a different fashion, but insurance regulation will work. His overall popularity by the masses. This president has remained popular amongst the voters throughout his term. Remember, he was voted into office by the largest voting percentage in decades. He did what Clinton and Bush tried to do, incite the young voters.
So in the end, it is up to the voters who will win, but if this Republican drama carries on much further, it is a forgone conclusion that the only way there will be a Republican in office in 2013 is if Obama just bows out.
Just an old Soldier Ranting.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
To Kill the National Symbol
Okay, I am one who has always touted religious freedom and the freedom for anyone to follow their spiritual practices. I have always deadened my personal feelings towards what I think is misgivings and hypocrisy, wait, that isn't necessarily true, but I always remain respectful.
I think that if religions call for peyote or other specific drugs for ritualistic purposes, then so be it, go enjoy the higher plain, get your message. I have always thought that as long as someone believed in something, even if it meant they didn't believe in anything (i.e. pure atheist) then they should have their freedoms and be left alone. Let those who are lost or confused come and seek help, don't give it to them obnoxiously.
But I draw the line at being respectful when religions draw the line at common sense.
In a move that should violate every sense of national pride, The US Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a permit for a tribe in Wyoming to slaughter for their religious purposes two beautiful Bald Eagles. Birds that are so majestic in their appearance, so powerful in flight, so unlike most other eagles, that they are rightly held up high on pedestals, crowing the tops of totems, rightly a part of Native American tradition.
I object not to the religious aspect, rather to the needless slaughter when in the US repositories there are plenty of feathers and carcasses for the tribes to apply for.
I don't care if the symbol is no longer endangered. Allowing even the occasional permit is wrong. This is a bird who we have thought for decades was a solitary hunter, basically hatch the eggs, raise them, and let them fend for themselves.
But for many who have seen the numbers increase, like myself and my family, we have come to realize that they are a familial bird, they hunt together, the talk amongst each other, they teach their young where the best places are. I have two families that perch in an around my yard, depending on the time of year, and their numbers are increasing. I am learning more and more from watching them and to think that someone could just blatantly kill them because it is their religious rite, this sounds more like ritualistic killing or using excuses for the murder of our National Symbol.
Have I said it is needless slaughter?
I am a Native American by blood, I am an American through and through, and I am a Soldier who has fought under this symbol for twenty years. This disgusts me.
This is an Old Soldier Ranting
I think that if religions call for peyote or other specific drugs for ritualistic purposes, then so be it, go enjoy the higher plain, get your message. I have always thought that as long as someone believed in something, even if it meant they didn't believe in anything (i.e. pure atheist) then they should have their freedoms and be left alone. Let those who are lost or confused come and seek help, don't give it to them obnoxiously.
But I draw the line at being respectful when religions draw the line at common sense.
In a move that should violate every sense of national pride, The US Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a permit for a tribe in Wyoming to slaughter for their religious purposes two beautiful Bald Eagles. Birds that are so majestic in their appearance, so powerful in flight, so unlike most other eagles, that they are rightly held up high on pedestals, crowing the tops of totems, rightly a part of Native American tradition.
I object not to the religious aspect, rather to the needless slaughter when in the US repositories there are plenty of feathers and carcasses for the tribes to apply for.
I don't care if the symbol is no longer endangered. Allowing even the occasional permit is wrong. This is a bird who we have thought for decades was a solitary hunter, basically hatch the eggs, raise them, and let them fend for themselves.
But for many who have seen the numbers increase, like myself and my family, we have come to realize that they are a familial bird, they hunt together, the talk amongst each other, they teach their young where the best places are. I have two families that perch in an around my yard, depending on the time of year, and their numbers are increasing. I am learning more and more from watching them and to think that someone could just blatantly kill them because it is their religious rite, this sounds more like ritualistic killing or using excuses for the murder of our National Symbol.
Have I said it is needless slaughter?
I am a Native American by blood, I am an American through and through, and I am a Soldier who has fought under this symbol for twenty years. This disgusts me.
This is an Old Soldier Ranting
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Minimum Wage is Enough, lower the cost of living.
Recently,on MSN Real Estate, there was an article about rentals and minimum wage earners. The article highlights that in 86% of communities, it is impossible to make rent on minimum wage. It further goes on to explain that those who are renting on minimum wage are spending more than half on rental bills for homes.
So of course the quick answer that many would scream for is to raise the minimum wage so that those wage earners can survive. Of course, this would only lead to inflation as money hungry jackasses would be out to continue their ungodly profiteering.
No, instead, these individuals should be able to charge no more than what the going rate for a mortgage payment plus about five percent. This would be reasonable and affordable as folks would be seeking the housing that would fit their budget, and it would go along way towards making the economy a much friendlier place for all.
The amazing thing is, if the prices are too high, then these rentals will go unoccupied, which means that they are actually losing money.
Bah, as someone in the military for 20 years, I understand the pain of too much rent and not enough money. Minimum wage is not enough to live on, by no means, but raising it is not the answer. No, punishing those who would seek gain by unduly raising their prices is the correct answer.
Be that as it may, businesses like those wonderful cell companies, will continue to overcharge for their services. I mean, seriously, does it really cost 200 bucks to pipe a bit of cable to the home with Internet? Or to transmit data over open airwaves?
I am all for capitalism, but this is beginning to feel like imperialism and we are all the serfs.
Just an old Soldier ranting.
So of course the quick answer that many would scream for is to raise the minimum wage so that those wage earners can survive. Of course, this would only lead to inflation as money hungry jackasses would be out to continue their ungodly profiteering.
No, instead, these individuals should be able to charge no more than what the going rate for a mortgage payment plus about five percent. This would be reasonable and affordable as folks would be seeking the housing that would fit their budget, and it would go along way towards making the economy a much friendlier place for all.
The amazing thing is, if the prices are too high, then these rentals will go unoccupied, which means that they are actually losing money.
Bah, as someone in the military for 20 years, I understand the pain of too much rent and not enough money. Minimum wage is not enough to live on, by no means, but raising it is not the answer. No, punishing those who would seek gain by unduly raising their prices is the correct answer.
Be that as it may, businesses like those wonderful cell companies, will continue to overcharge for their services. I mean, seriously, does it really cost 200 bucks to pipe a bit of cable to the home with Internet? Or to transmit data over open airwaves?
I am all for capitalism, but this is beginning to feel like imperialism and we are all the serfs.
Just an old Soldier ranting.
Embarrasing punishments
I saw on the news about a man who made his son wear a sign on a busy street corner that told the world he was the class clown and failing in three subjects with the reporter questioning whether it was right or if it was cruel.
Here's the thing, at that point, I would assume the father, who by the way stayed out there with the boy, had tried a multitude of other treatments to no apparent avail. So he turned to one treatment that is tried and true, the one thing nobody likes is to be forceably embarrassed, hell we don't like it when it is on accident. I am sure there are cores of people everywhere that are screaming up and down saying this is wrong, that it is abuse. Horse-crap! He isn't beating the child, isn't even giving him a spanking. He isn't yelling at the child, (teenager by the way) not that some of that probably didn't happen, and he isn't torturing him, he is only embarrassing him.
Ironically, the child seems to have learned the lesson as he states in the video "I know it was my fault and I will try harder from now on." Yet I guarantee there are still people screaming about it.
I say, good job dad. You didn't leave him out there, you basically bore the embarrassment with him, you didn't beat some sense into him, you simply embarrassed him by showing the world his accomplishments. Now, is it something I would do? Probably not, but then my child studies hard AND is the class clown.
If the tables were turned, in lieu of beating her, I probably would try alternative punishments. This one I guarantee worked for this young man, and it showed him that his dad would stand by him no matter what.
Just an Old Soldier Ranting.
Here's the thing, at that point, I would assume the father, who by the way stayed out there with the boy, had tried a multitude of other treatments to no apparent avail. So he turned to one treatment that is tried and true, the one thing nobody likes is to be forceably embarrassed, hell we don't like it when it is on accident. I am sure there are cores of people everywhere that are screaming up and down saying this is wrong, that it is abuse. Horse-crap! He isn't beating the child, isn't even giving him a spanking. He isn't yelling at the child, (teenager by the way) not that some of that probably didn't happen, and he isn't torturing him, he is only embarrassing him.
Ironically, the child seems to have learned the lesson as he states in the video "I know it was my fault and I will try harder from now on." Yet I guarantee there are still people screaming about it.
I say, good job dad. You didn't leave him out there, you basically bore the embarrassment with him, you didn't beat some sense into him, you simply embarrassed him by showing the world his accomplishments. Now, is it something I would do? Probably not, but then my child studies hard AND is the class clown.
If the tables were turned, in lieu of beating her, I probably would try alternative punishments. This one I guarantee worked for this young man, and it showed him that his dad would stand by him no matter what.
Just an Old Soldier Ranting.
Monday, March 12, 2012
I hate being called Cancer Survivor
Profound. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines
the word as difficult to fathom or understand, as having intellectual depth and
insight, and all encompassing. There is
no other word in the English language which describes us better. We are a legion of sorts, that who would
spell the doom of another. We had
started as a few, shelling out against all odds, defeating the norms, until
now, the time when we are becoming the norm.
We are the survivors of a category of diseases that have been embroiled in
a huge battle of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and lobbyists and the general
society. We are the champions of hope,
the bearers of colors from pink to purple and beyond. We are as different in our diseases as we are
from our neighbor and yet we will always be family, distant, ever touched by
the fear and mental anguish that is our being.
Our families have endured with us, standing beside wondering what else
they could do, getting mad when folks look at us in an awry fashion, they are
disease free more often than not, yet our affliction is bore by them as
well. In fact it is generally through
them we are able to realize that we are not defined by a word, we are not to be
categorized, we are not to be treated as a number. It is through them, our families, our closest
friends, that we discover we can actually be a survivor. But I can no longer allow myself to be called
simply a cancer survivor. In fact, the
Merriam-Webster definition of survivor even evokes mediocrity. To remain alive or in existence, to live on…
One of the most passive statements I think could be applied to those of us in
our category. Lance Armstrong didn’t
just survive, he was all encompassing after his battle had been won. No, I am not just a Cancer Survivor, I am Cancer
Profound.
This is the opening statement to a story I am working on, but I couldn't sit on that anymore, it is beautiful in my eyes. Please pass it around.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
no clear cut candidate
Just a thought, how can the Republicans hope to defeat the incumbent when they cannot decide themselves? With no clear cut winner in the race by now, they are doing nothing but infighting. They are throwing out statements geared towards the incumbent trying to rise above their other competitors, yet the statements apply as much or more to themselves than to the President.
I'm no specific party, but I gotta tell you, it doesn't look good for the Republicans.
In fact, I find it silly for them to tout the whole fuel prices thing with all these solutions that they themselves have already voted down.
So doesn't that point to voting for spite??
Not sure who I will vote for yet, but unless they get a candidate worth a muck, it won't be republican.
Just an Old Soldier ranting.
I'm no specific party, but I gotta tell you, it doesn't look good for the Republicans.
In fact, I find it silly for them to tout the whole fuel prices thing with all these solutions that they themselves have already voted down.
So doesn't that point to voting for spite??
Not sure who I will vote for yet, but unless they get a candidate worth a muck, it won't be republican.
Just an Old Soldier ranting.
Doomsday? Really?
So, I have listened to several folks about their feelings on the doomsday prophecies, Mayan calendar, Sumerian legens, whatever. These folks are no different than those who thought the world was going to end at the turn of the century, or those who last year figured out the quack who said the world was going to end in May, then October, was a crook just taking their money.
Yet people keep falling for these prophecies and waste time and money so they can figure out how to survive or how to make sure they get to heaven, yet none of them have truthfully thought out what happens after they pack up and leave out so they can survive. Where will they live, how will they survive. Sure, they all say that they will find a hole, cave, plot of land in the middle of nowhere and simply set up, then hunt/gather their food, live off the land. But realistically, this is not sound, there will undoubtedly be hundreds nationwide thrown in the jail for squatting/trespassing, perhaps some will die from their lack of knowledge on how to truly survive. I mean, how many of them can actually build a fire when the ground is wet? How many could break down and just eat that bug because it was protein?
I say they are all fools who are undoubtedbly going to become a burden on our society or at the very least remain non-productive. But the ultimate question, what happens when they realize that the world didn't end? What happens when they realize that Arkansas ISN'T ocean front property and that their former friends and family are still sitting where they were just a few months before, living the same life they had been, enjoying the normal foods, etc.? Do they suppose they are going to stay with their family for just a little bit until they get back on their feet? Or will they assume that their boss will just welcome them back with open arms?
You know, when I was a kid, the doomsday theorists weren't as prevalent, only a few here and there. But now, there have been so many out there over the last couple decades that if I were weaker, I might actually fall for the bs.
Does it matter that Google is seeming blocking out the one area where this supposed alien world should be seen? I think it is more plausible that the conspiracy folks got with the doomsday theorists and said "hey, this MUST be where your planet is because the government is obviously blocking it out."
Of course, these are the same people that assume Google is owned and controlled by the government and that Facebook is ran by the CIA so they can keep tabs on you.
Guess what, the government doesn't own or operate these companies and they DO WATCH YOU! It is what they do, how they find people doing stupid things, they watch the internet, listen to the phones. Oh My God, this means that everything I do is being scrutinized! Right??
Not! There aren't enough people in the nation to watch what everyone is doing online. There are keywords (more than those they gladly post) that programs watch/listen for.
Relax, carry on, and enjoy your life, because if the government is going to hunt you down, its because you said or did something stupid, if the world is going to end, face it head on and enjoy the view, because if it does happen, it will be spectacular and I got front row seats. I don't suspect I will need them.
Just an Old Soldier Ranting
Yet people keep falling for these prophecies and waste time and money so they can figure out how to survive or how to make sure they get to heaven, yet none of them have truthfully thought out what happens after they pack up and leave out so they can survive. Where will they live, how will they survive. Sure, they all say that they will find a hole, cave, plot of land in the middle of nowhere and simply set up, then hunt/gather their food, live off the land. But realistically, this is not sound, there will undoubtedly be hundreds nationwide thrown in the jail for squatting/trespassing, perhaps some will die from their lack of knowledge on how to truly survive. I mean, how many of them can actually build a fire when the ground is wet? How many could break down and just eat that bug because it was protein?
I say they are all fools who are undoubtedbly going to become a burden on our society or at the very least remain non-productive. But the ultimate question, what happens when they realize that the world didn't end? What happens when they realize that Arkansas ISN'T ocean front property and that their former friends and family are still sitting where they were just a few months before, living the same life they had been, enjoying the normal foods, etc.? Do they suppose they are going to stay with their family for just a little bit until they get back on their feet? Or will they assume that their boss will just welcome them back with open arms?
You know, when I was a kid, the doomsday theorists weren't as prevalent, only a few here and there. But now, there have been so many out there over the last couple decades that if I were weaker, I might actually fall for the bs.
Does it matter that Google is seeming blocking out the one area where this supposed alien world should be seen? I think it is more plausible that the conspiracy folks got with the doomsday theorists and said "hey, this MUST be where your planet is because the government is obviously blocking it out."
Of course, these are the same people that assume Google is owned and controlled by the government and that Facebook is ran by the CIA so they can keep tabs on you.
Guess what, the government doesn't own or operate these companies and they DO WATCH YOU! It is what they do, how they find people doing stupid things, they watch the internet, listen to the phones. Oh My God, this means that everything I do is being scrutinized! Right??
Not! There aren't enough people in the nation to watch what everyone is doing online. There are keywords (more than those they gladly post) that programs watch/listen for.
Relax, carry on, and enjoy your life, because if the government is going to hunt you down, its because you said or did something stupid, if the world is going to end, face it head on and enjoy the view, because if it does happen, it will be spectacular and I got front row seats. I don't suspect I will need them.
Just an Old Soldier Ranting
Friday, March 9, 2012
Welfare is too easy
My wife and I have talked over and again about the welfare system. I mean, we have slaughtered the topic again and again, sort of the way we should put to death those violent killers, again and again, not humanely. Anyways, off topic.
You see, way back when, the first few years we were married, we more than qualified for assistance, and probably should have applied, but we were both too proud. We figured that going onto welfare meant, in some fashion, that we were losing the battle. Of course, if we had children we would have simply to ensure they had what they needed.
We truly didn't want the assistance, so much so, that we actually lived without electricity for about two months, fortunately the stove was gas and ramen was cheap.
So we look out today and see so many people taking the assistance, shopping for food, putting the food into expensive cars and bowing their heads from the weight of the bling. I got it, some people buy things one at a time, or fall on hard times. I believe that the aid is there for a reason, and should not only by conditional and timed under most circumstances, but should also be contingent up on passing drug tests. If you are being employed by whatever food stamp program your state uses, because that is what it amounts too is you are being paid as an "employee" of the state, you should be subjected to frequent and random drug testing.
Call me fickle, but it should not be urine either, because being in the military for so many years, I know how easy it is for someone to pee into a cup without it actually coming from their own orifice. Contingent upon your receipt of aid, your signature allows the state to randomly test your blood for toxins deemed as illegal substances, up to and including prescription drugs not prescribed to you, as well as allowing the doctors periodic checks on your chemical makeup allowing medicare/medicaid to actually spot life threatening diseases early enough to mitigate the cost of treatment for something that should have been easier to treat in the early stages.
The money for this aid comes from programs funded by taxes, those taxes that are paid by men and women that work hard to survive, many of whom barely live better than someone on aid. If those tax payers knew (they already know it happens) that their dollars were putting food on someone else's table so that a drug addict (who traded food stamps for money-even with the card it is easy to do) can get their high, or feeding the drug addict so that what money they do bring in gives them their high, only to wind up in the hospital burning through more tax dollars, while the person who cannot afford insurance-even though they work-gets poor care or no care, then they would most assuredly be adamant about the drug testing as well. Violation of human rights? Not really, not if Walmart can do drug testing. Call it a condition of employment in the state financial aid department.
Just an Old Soldier's Rant
You see, way back when, the first few years we were married, we more than qualified for assistance, and probably should have applied, but we were both too proud. We figured that going onto welfare meant, in some fashion, that we were losing the battle. Of course, if we had children we would have simply to ensure they had what they needed.
We truly didn't want the assistance, so much so, that we actually lived without electricity for about two months, fortunately the stove was gas and ramen was cheap.
So we look out today and see so many people taking the assistance, shopping for food, putting the food into expensive cars and bowing their heads from the weight of the bling. I got it, some people buy things one at a time, or fall on hard times. I believe that the aid is there for a reason, and should not only by conditional and timed under most circumstances, but should also be contingent up on passing drug tests. If you are being employed by whatever food stamp program your state uses, because that is what it amounts too is you are being paid as an "employee" of the state, you should be subjected to frequent and random drug testing.
Call me fickle, but it should not be urine either, because being in the military for so many years, I know how easy it is for someone to pee into a cup without it actually coming from their own orifice. Contingent upon your receipt of aid, your signature allows the state to randomly test your blood for toxins deemed as illegal substances, up to and including prescription drugs not prescribed to you, as well as allowing the doctors periodic checks on your chemical makeup allowing medicare/medicaid to actually spot life threatening diseases early enough to mitigate the cost of treatment for something that should have been easier to treat in the early stages.
The money for this aid comes from programs funded by taxes, those taxes that are paid by men and women that work hard to survive, many of whom barely live better than someone on aid. If those tax payers knew (they already know it happens) that their dollars were putting food on someone else's table so that a drug addict (who traded food stamps for money-even with the card it is easy to do) can get their high, or feeding the drug addict so that what money they do bring in gives them their high, only to wind up in the hospital burning through more tax dollars, while the person who cannot afford insurance-even though they work-gets poor care or no care, then they would most assuredly be adamant about the drug testing as well. Violation of human rights? Not really, not if Walmart can do drug testing. Call it a condition of employment in the state financial aid department.
Just an Old Soldier's Rant
Inflation
One of the people who I mutually follow on twitter mentioned something interesting yesterday. Let the rich serve in the military and the military do the rich's jobs. Of course, as I told him, I would be happy to do it for one day just to get the pay associated with it, this would only give my about Half a mil that I wouldn't normally get. Then it got me thinking.
What is inflation? The raise in the cost of living, right? How does inflation occur? By goods becoming more expensive. How do goods become more expensive? Because people demand more wages, right??
But wait, most people demand higher wages for things like being at a company for any length of time, or because goods are becoming more expensive. So, if things didn't become more expensive, raises would only occur for seniority and promotions, meaning that if anything, the rate of inflation shouldn't exceed maybe .1% or remain flat.
When that employee makes more, you would expect he would be able to buy more, yet with inflation he winds up buying less with more money...
So why then does inflation occur?
Here is a thought. Inflation occurs becaause the rich want to have more money so they can stand on a pedestal and act as though they are doing something. Inflation doesn't affect them because their income is so far beyond the scope of honest measure that if they want it, they buy it.
So they use the guise of employees getting paid more to raise the prices, which raises inflation but still keeps them earning way too much comparitively. We should limit what a CEO can make to five percent over what the vice makes, then repeat that down the line, until the last man standing is making five percent less than the man above him. Yes, perhaps this is nearly extreme, but so is our inflation based on corporate greed.
Is there any reason a CEO should be making 300 Million a year? I could see the chief making perhaps a couple mil a year (after bonuses) and perhaps making money off stocks, but not off the hard working men and women of the United States.
What is inflation? The raise in the cost of living, right? How does inflation occur? By goods becoming more expensive. How do goods become more expensive? Because people demand more wages, right??
But wait, most people demand higher wages for things like being at a company for any length of time, or because goods are becoming more expensive. So, if things didn't become more expensive, raises would only occur for seniority and promotions, meaning that if anything, the rate of inflation shouldn't exceed maybe .1% or remain flat.
When that employee makes more, you would expect he would be able to buy more, yet with inflation he winds up buying less with more money...
So why then does inflation occur?
Here is a thought. Inflation occurs becaause the rich want to have more money so they can stand on a pedestal and act as though they are doing something. Inflation doesn't affect them because their income is so far beyond the scope of honest measure that if they want it, they buy it.
So they use the guise of employees getting paid more to raise the prices, which raises inflation but still keeps them earning way too much comparitively. We should limit what a CEO can make to five percent over what the vice makes, then repeat that down the line, until the last man standing is making five percent less than the man above him. Yes, perhaps this is nearly extreme, but so is our inflation based on corporate greed.
Is there any reason a CEO should be making 300 Million a year? I could see the chief making perhaps a couple mil a year (after bonuses) and perhaps making money off stocks, but not off the hard working men and women of the United States.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Lottery Winner Still Uses Food Stamps
Okay, albeit, this is an oversight by the state, but this is an ethical oversight by the woman in questoin. If she used her winnings to purchase two homes, then shame on her for not thinking of the future, sell one or rent it out. If you win a million smackers then you should have enough common sense to mitigate the spending of it. She had enough to live off of very comfortably for nearly ten years if she simply put it into interest bearing accounts, instead she became a property owner, who by the way, will not be able to afford the property taxes unless she starts brining in an income...
This story shouldn't even have become a big story, just a waste of some journalists time. The state needs to charge her with misuse/fraud and recoup their losses (with interest) to give back to another who needs the help.
This story shouldn't even have become a big story, just a waste of some journalists time. The state needs to charge her with misuse/fraud and recoup their losses (with interest) to give back to another who needs the help.
The Sovereign Society
The concept that persons are Sovereign from the governing body and as such, above the law lends itself to anarchy in a society. Reportedly, there are now over 1200 known militias within the US, up over 700 percent since President Obama was ELECTED into office.
I find it hilarious that these persons would just as soon lay blame to the economy, their joblessness, their own woes to a man who was placed into office by the popular vote, a man who entered into office after the wheels had already been put into motion.
But the even more comic portion of this story is the fact that these people will forgo job hunting to take up arms in preparation for what they believe is their just right to overthrow the powers that be. Yet, when the person who was in charge that started all of this rolling, the militia numbers went down.
Is it fear? Perhaps it is ignorance or ignorant people rating someone not on their actions (which are not really any better or worse than any other President) but on the tone of the flesh surrounding his brain.
They seek to prove he is not a citizen, the seek to prove he lied, they seek to prove that he is causing everything, yet they won't look at the record of congress to realize that the other elected officials, of all skin tones and gender, have voted in opposition to the proposed policies. The absolute hysterical part is that these policies they are voting against, in many cases, are policies they have voted for previously, so then are they voting against him just to make him look bad because they know that the highly intelligent people of the US will see that he dun it?
The US doesn't need more violence from within, the last time that happened we lost so many sons and daughters for needless haste. The chants that seem to be rising from around the nation are desperation at its worse.
The ironic thing is, there are so many jobs that are left unfilled, people just don't go to apply for them. Factory jobs paying $20 hourly are commonly screaming for persons, yet no one calls. Many companies are trying to bring back the concept of Made in the USA means quality and affordability, yet we choose foreign products because we believe they are cheaper.
Cheaper, if the cost is cheap yet causes us to lower our GDP by increasing our annual imports and decrease the amount of jobs, then is the cost really lower?
If you want change, vote. If you voted and it didn't go your way, then the general consensus of the population is in OPPOSITION to you and perhaps you should find a new line of reasoning, or simply let it be until the next vote.
But here is the thing, if you don't like the way my country is run, there are two borders that can be crossed, or a plane that will take you about anywhere. Leave. But don't cause bloodshed because your feelings and/or pride is hurt.
Just the rantings of an Old Soldier
I find it hilarious that these persons would just as soon lay blame to the economy, their joblessness, their own woes to a man who was placed into office by the popular vote, a man who entered into office after the wheels had already been put into motion.
But the even more comic portion of this story is the fact that these people will forgo job hunting to take up arms in preparation for what they believe is their just right to overthrow the powers that be. Yet, when the person who was in charge that started all of this rolling, the militia numbers went down.
Is it fear? Perhaps it is ignorance or ignorant people rating someone not on their actions (which are not really any better or worse than any other President) but on the tone of the flesh surrounding his brain.
They seek to prove he is not a citizen, the seek to prove he lied, they seek to prove that he is causing everything, yet they won't look at the record of congress to realize that the other elected officials, of all skin tones and gender, have voted in opposition to the proposed policies. The absolute hysterical part is that these policies they are voting against, in many cases, are policies they have voted for previously, so then are they voting against him just to make him look bad because they know that the highly intelligent people of the US will see that he dun it?
The US doesn't need more violence from within, the last time that happened we lost so many sons and daughters for needless haste. The chants that seem to be rising from around the nation are desperation at its worse.
The ironic thing is, there are so many jobs that are left unfilled, people just don't go to apply for them. Factory jobs paying $20 hourly are commonly screaming for persons, yet no one calls. Many companies are trying to bring back the concept of Made in the USA means quality and affordability, yet we choose foreign products because we believe they are cheaper.
Cheaper, if the cost is cheap yet causes us to lower our GDP by increasing our annual imports and decrease the amount of jobs, then is the cost really lower?
If you want change, vote. If you voted and it didn't go your way, then the general consensus of the population is in OPPOSITION to you and perhaps you should find a new line of reasoning, or simply let it be until the next vote.
But here is the thing, if you don't like the way my country is run, there are two borders that can be crossed, or a plane that will take you about anywhere. Leave. But don't cause bloodshed because your feelings and/or pride is hurt.
Just the rantings of an Old Soldier
The Hansel and Gretl syndrome
You know, sitting here thinking, you begin to realize that perhaps our nation's policy makers and our nations largest foods makers have it in cahoots to just fatten us all up and stuff us in the oven. Maybe they see it as being easier to deal with us when we are all fat and lazy. Which would make sense that they would then enlist the help of the television broadcasters to create more television so we could sit longer on our ever increasing asses.
If you think about it, you will see as well. The government makes it so that the farmers can make a dime on corn and wheat and the likes, create an environment where it becomes more expensive for us to purchase farm goods, -you know the ones that are good for you, fruits and veggies, lean meats- yet the products that are absolutely bad for us, the ones that seem to have like zero nutritional value, the ones that exponentially increase our cholesterol, our sugar intake, our empty calories, these are cheap. Well, call it what you will, fat tax seems to be the popular term, adding even one penny to every product like this sold and then earmark that penny to make the good-for-you foods cheaper would go a long way to making people healthier. Yet lawmakers don't want to do this, in fact they make it so unappealing to the public, as though they are being punished, that the public gets in an uproar.
But why? Even if it was five cents more per, is that really going to slaughter your pocketbook? I suppose that if you only purchased these products it would add up, but most will actually go get some good foods because they are cheaper. Is it no coincidence that many of the poor, those that receive assistance for food, are obese while the richer you are lately the healthier most of them seem to be? On only two products, Twinkies and the Hamburger Helper line, placing a tax of only one cent would raise well over 2 million annually in taxes that could be used to make other foods more appealing and easier to purchase. If I can afford fruit, I am going to by fruit.
But reality is, most of the people who are receiving assistance MUST choose the bad foods just to make the dollar stretch.
Think about how much you spend on groceries. I spend almost $500 monthly now, but yet three years ago it was just barely $300. Most families on assistance get around $300 for groceries. I can buy some things that are good for us, but not as much as I would like, and that is spending well over a hundred bucks more than another family of three.
Make the good foods cheaper by increasing the price of the bad foods ever so slightly and our country will begin to get healthier. The benefits definitely outweigh the costs (no real costs involved when you weigh the balance of things).
Just an Old Soldier ranting.
If you think about it, you will see as well. The government makes it so that the farmers can make a dime on corn and wheat and the likes, create an environment where it becomes more expensive for us to purchase farm goods, -you know the ones that are good for you, fruits and veggies, lean meats- yet the products that are absolutely bad for us, the ones that seem to have like zero nutritional value, the ones that exponentially increase our cholesterol, our sugar intake, our empty calories, these are cheap. Well, call it what you will, fat tax seems to be the popular term, adding even one penny to every product like this sold and then earmark that penny to make the good-for-you foods cheaper would go a long way to making people healthier. Yet lawmakers don't want to do this, in fact they make it so unappealing to the public, as though they are being punished, that the public gets in an uproar.
But why? Even if it was five cents more per, is that really going to slaughter your pocketbook? I suppose that if you only purchased these products it would add up, but most will actually go get some good foods because they are cheaper. Is it no coincidence that many of the poor, those that receive assistance for food, are obese while the richer you are lately the healthier most of them seem to be? On only two products, Twinkies and the Hamburger Helper line, placing a tax of only one cent would raise well over 2 million annually in taxes that could be used to make other foods more appealing and easier to purchase. If I can afford fruit, I am going to by fruit.
But reality is, most of the people who are receiving assistance MUST choose the bad foods just to make the dollar stretch.
Think about how much you spend on groceries. I spend almost $500 monthly now, but yet three years ago it was just barely $300. Most families on assistance get around $300 for groceries. I can buy some things that are good for us, but not as much as I would like, and that is spending well over a hundred bucks more than another family of three.
Make the good foods cheaper by increasing the price of the bad foods ever so slightly and our country will begin to get healthier. The benefits definitely outweigh the costs (no real costs involved when you weigh the balance of things).
Just an Old Soldier ranting.
Customized Tires?
Is Bridgestone serious? They spent time and money to develop an ink process that would adhere to tires so that drivers would/could customize their wheels even further? This is probably to most ingenious waste of money ever. The fact that Iknow people will do it is upsetting, the fact that it will most likely cause a multitude of accidents is disenheartening, the fact that in a time when people are just beginning to recover, a manufacturer develops a way for people to waste their moeny even further is absolutely believable. I wish I could say different, but today's companies are ONLY concerned about the bottom dollar. Despite what they advertise about environmental awareness etc., they all just want the dollar and Bridgestone proved it. Can you fathom the amount of money placed into this research? Money that should have been used to help develop tires that are next to zero impact to the environment. Or perhaps large scale tires made from other than rubber would be nice, or perhaps taking some of those profits and reducing the ungodly price of tires altogether so it becomes yet another thing people can actually afford when they need them. This would save lives too...
Just an old Soldier ranting.
Just an old Soldier ranting.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Apple Announces
Yeahhh, Apple has just released details of its new product, aptly named "The New iPad". Funny, I still can't afford the first one, what with my three computers, one laptop and three smartphones, god I must be falling behind.
I think it is surreal the amount of money we have spent trying to keep up with technology, only to have it leave us behind again. And the Irony in it is amazing as well. For years we struggled to have the smallest phone out there and then it all turns around on us. First the phone would barely fit in the car, then it would fit in a bag, then a large pocket, finally to the point I could have stuffed it into my wallet and lost it, now it barely fits into my pocket again, and I have to strain to get it out. What is the biggest difference between the iPhone we just got and the new iPad? For all intents and purposes, a bigger screen. Not to mention, at least my wife's phone has SIRI, which the New iPad doesn't. Get serious Apple, quit giving me recycled technology and give me something new and outlandish. Blow my socks off! But bieng as my computers and the like will last at least another three years, perhaps you should take your time and really create something you could convince me to waste more money on.
I think it is surreal the amount of money we have spent trying to keep up with technology, only to have it leave us behind again. And the Irony in it is amazing as well. For years we struggled to have the smallest phone out there and then it all turns around on us. First the phone would barely fit in the car, then it would fit in a bag, then a large pocket, finally to the point I could have stuffed it into my wallet and lost it, now it barely fits into my pocket again, and I have to strain to get it out. What is the biggest difference between the iPhone we just got and the new iPad? For all intents and purposes, a bigger screen. Not to mention, at least my wife's phone has SIRI, which the New iPad doesn't. Get serious Apple, quit giving me recycled technology and give me something new and outlandish. Blow my socks off! But bieng as my computers and the like will last at least another three years, perhaps you should take your time and really create something you could convince me to waste more money on.
Will the real Republican Please Stand Up!
Watching the race for Republican Presidential Candidate has left me exhausted. I cannot fathom what has made any one of these people think that they stand a chance, its as if the Republican body in itself has decided to hand the Democrats the election on a shiny platter, as though they are satisfied thinking they will continue to hold the majority in the Congress after this next election.
I'm not Democrat, nor am I Republican, but I have had a history of voting Republican, to be clear, I have only voted Democrat Twice since I was 18, only one of those was for President.
Now, just like many out there, I disagree with some of the things our current President has done, and just like many, I applaud other things he has done. That is not to say I support or not the current administration, rather I will vote as I see fit for the future of our country. Now, this may upset many, but of all the candidates the Republicans have, NOT ONE can hope to win. One is a previous ethics violator in the Congress, one has views so outlandish that he has distanced himself from so many, another has a very questionable record in his personal dealings while in Congress. The current front runner (barely) seems to present himself to the consituents a downplay on his immense wealth. Which is the actual issue with our current political system, only the rich and/or famous can get in.
I propose an extreme change to the entire election policy, as drastic as it may sound. First, if you can get your name on the tickets of say six states you will become a nationally recognized candidate. This has to be done of your own power and raising money's from supporters who would have your back. It cannot be done with your own money.
Second, once you have been awarded National recognition, you now get a specific amount for your campaign, nothing exorbitant, say your share of the amounts given out of the presidential candidate fund from the IRS. Furthermore, you may only raise as much money as the Presidential fund gives you, essentially doubling it at most. You cannot use your own money.
Third, your nomination affords you no more than two commercials a day per broadcast channel, i.e. FOX, CBS, etc, but not to exceed ten commercials in a week, so you must choose wisely.
Finally, if your annual worth is greater than the annual pay of the seat you are seeking, you will perform the job without pay, although the standards compensations due the seat would still apply.
Funny thing is, right now, most of the Congress would stop bieng paid, can you imagine that?over 300 persons in Congress (yes I know the number is more than that) forfieting their annual pay of over $174K, that is over 52 Million dollars saved annually. Of course this pay would be donated in that member's name to Social Security or perhaps Medicare/Medicaid.
Furthermore, I believe all these things congress has been fighting about over the years should have been mitigated through the public. Here is the thing. If they fight over it for more than a week, then they should have thirty days to argue their case to the American Public and then the people vote. Whatever their people decide by majority, not by electoral, that is the way the Congresspersons vote, period.
Just the rantings of an old Soldier.
I'm not Democrat, nor am I Republican, but I have had a history of voting Republican, to be clear, I have only voted Democrat Twice since I was 18, only one of those was for President.
Now, just like many out there, I disagree with some of the things our current President has done, and just like many, I applaud other things he has done. That is not to say I support or not the current administration, rather I will vote as I see fit for the future of our country. Now, this may upset many, but of all the candidates the Republicans have, NOT ONE can hope to win. One is a previous ethics violator in the Congress, one has views so outlandish that he has distanced himself from so many, another has a very questionable record in his personal dealings while in Congress. The current front runner (barely) seems to present himself to the consituents a downplay on his immense wealth. Which is the actual issue with our current political system, only the rich and/or famous can get in.
I propose an extreme change to the entire election policy, as drastic as it may sound. First, if you can get your name on the tickets of say six states you will become a nationally recognized candidate. This has to be done of your own power and raising money's from supporters who would have your back. It cannot be done with your own money.
Second, once you have been awarded National recognition, you now get a specific amount for your campaign, nothing exorbitant, say your share of the amounts given out of the presidential candidate fund from the IRS. Furthermore, you may only raise as much money as the Presidential fund gives you, essentially doubling it at most. You cannot use your own money.
Third, your nomination affords you no more than two commercials a day per broadcast channel, i.e. FOX, CBS, etc, but not to exceed ten commercials in a week, so you must choose wisely.
Finally, if your annual worth is greater than the annual pay of the seat you are seeking, you will perform the job without pay, although the standards compensations due the seat would still apply.
Funny thing is, right now, most of the Congress would stop bieng paid, can you imagine that?over 300 persons in Congress (yes I know the number is more than that) forfieting their annual pay of over $174K, that is over 52 Million dollars saved annually. Of course this pay would be donated in that member's name to Social Security or perhaps Medicare/Medicaid.
Furthermore, I believe all these things congress has been fighting about over the years should have been mitigated through the public. Here is the thing. If they fight over it for more than a week, then they should have thirty days to argue their case to the American Public and then the people vote. Whatever their people decide by majority, not by electoral, that is the way the Congresspersons vote, period.
Just the rantings of an old Soldier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)