During the break, I've turned 18. Eighteen. I prepare for college. I'm allowed to vote (though I choose not to). I'm allowed to smoke (something like that, it might be 19). I'm allowed to join the military. But wait, I can't drink?
For the lack of better terms, what the fuck is with this shit? (I'm not angry)
America has had a strange relationship with Alcohol. For one, we had the prohibition. And for another, I'm still allowed to bar tend. But what I realize the most is that America has yet to step out of the prohibition state. As we know, America has the drinking age at 21. Yet at the same time, teenagers are still allowed to drink willy nilly. For example, Randolph High School's great senior Vermont trip was busted for alcohol. However, this bust wasn't exactly what you would consider a,"bust." If under age drinking was truly illegal, every police jail cell from Vermont to Randolph should have been filled. Instead, it was merely a price tag and a class.
Note: No one pays attention during health class.
While the price tag was truely heafty, this is merely a slap on the wrist. I guarantee you that more than those busted at Vermont has consumed alcohol at one point of his/her life. This loosely enforced laws does nothing but......increases underage alcohol consumption?
When someone tells you to do something over and over and over again, there comes a point where you do something to spite something else. On the note of Alcohol, we've been told not to drink alcohol for such a long time that at one point or another, we wonder, what exactly is wrong with it?
Do not confuse this with crack, cocaine, or heroin. Consumption = Death.
But Alcohol? The problem with Alcohol, is that parents consume it and tells their kids not to. This makes little sense considering consumption still occurs. Rather than telling kids not to drink alcohol, the most important thing is to do is to preach responsible drinking habits. For example, when drinking, drink in moderation. When drinking, always have a designated driver. These are easily enforced, considering most parents do the same. These make sense.
Ironically enough, those who consume alcohol with their parents have a much lower rate of binge drinking than those who don't. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Showing posts with label Domestic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
These Peripheral Devices Are So Stupid
The reason people play video games is to simulate real life. Now, this means that they want some degree of attachment away from reality. Obviously if you had to actually, you know, learn how to operate a controller that simulated a real gun perfectly just to play Doom, we wouldn't have one of the best selling games ever. That's why for console games, whose goal is to entertain you while you're lying on a couch in front of a TV, ease of use of controllers is important.
Well, apparently some new developers aren't getting that message. While bad game input devices have littered history (Power Glove, anyone?), some newer developers (and some older ones who've been in this business for a long time) still haven't learned their lesson yet: too many of the peripheral devices released have too limited purposes.
An example of a relatively useful peripheral would be the DDR pad. Yes, it only works for one type of game, but it works for the entire genre. A bad example that's coming out soon, however, are the different instruments for Rock Band. Guitar Hero's use of a guitar peripheral makes sense because the guitar could simulate a bass as well, but having drums, guitars, and microphones all bundled with one game is going to be extremely expensive, not to mention as burdensome as the Steel Battalion add-on.
Worse still are Nintendo with their Wii add-ons. Do we really need a case so that the wiimote looks like a gun? Link's sword? These aren't items that help game play in any way, and all they do is make your product look like a cheap gimmick.
So lay off all of these peripheral devices. They're only hurting your product, and they're damaging the essence of video games.
Well, apparently some new developers aren't getting that message. While bad game input devices have littered history (Power Glove, anyone?), some newer developers (and some older ones who've been in this business for a long time) still haven't learned their lesson yet: too many of the peripheral devices released have too limited purposes.
An example of a relatively useful peripheral would be the DDR pad. Yes, it only works for one type of game, but it works for the entire genre. A bad example that's coming out soon, however, are the different instruments for Rock Band. Guitar Hero's use of a guitar peripheral makes sense because the guitar could simulate a bass as well, but having drums, guitars, and microphones all bundled with one game is going to be extremely expensive, not to mention as burdensome as the Steel Battalion add-on.
Worse still are Nintendo with their Wii add-ons. Do we really need a case so that the wiimote looks like a gun? Link's sword? These aren't items that help game play in any way, and all they do is make your product look like a cheap gimmick.
So lay off all of these peripheral devices. They're only hurting your product, and they're damaging the essence of video games.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Drug Laws Increase Possession Among Minors
The goal of government is to do as the people wish it to. However, like everyone else, the government creates consequences whenever it decides to enact laws. Some of these consequences are very much intentional: laws against murder, for example, are intended to stop people from killing others. Other consequences, however, are completely unintended, and can cause havoc with people’s lives as well as various societal and economic institutions. One law in
The most obvious case of laws intended to protect people going wrong is that of anti-drug legislation. While intended to prevent people from using drugs, which have adverse health effects, the current “War on Drugs” and anti-drug legislation has ended up creating a bigger drug problem, with stronger cartels, more sales to minors, and a host of unintended consequences. While intended to decrease the amount of illegal drugs sold and to stop its trade, the War on Drugs has failed. By making the drugs illegal, it has limited the sale of such substances to only those involved in already illegal activities, giving gangs a new source of funding.
One unintended consequence of anti-drug legislation has been the increased sale of drugs to minors. Because drug sales are illegal to both adults and minors alike, dealers have no incentive to avoid selling to children. In fact, they have a greater incentive to sell it to minors, because minors are less likely to rat them out, since minors have very few avenues of recourse against the dealers. Because youths are unable to legally purchase weapons, or pursue other judicial means, it becomes much harder for them to retaliate against drug dealers. As such, it becomes safer for drug dealers to sell to minors rather than adults, because it is safer for them personally. If anti-drug legislation were replaced merely with laws allowing only the sale of drugs to adults, dealers have an incentive to not sell to young people. However, because anti-drug legislation considers all sales equally, dealers sell more drugs to minors.
With the increase in drug trade, people are made worse off by the law. Increased drug sales means increased revenue for criminal organizations and gangs. Like in the era of Prohibition, criminal cartels make vast amounts of money selling drugs and circumventing the law. More funding for criminals means more crimes, more murders, deaths, and violence. The problem is especially bad in areas such as the cities, and has even crept into places normally considered far removed from drug problems. Even suburban areas and rural towns now face a drug problem.
There are, of course, better alternatives. Legalizing the sale of drugs will cut off drug dealing as a source of revenue for criminals. Drug users can get treatment, since using drugs will no longer be a crime that they are punished for. People who sell drugs will not sell to minors, because it would be disadvantageous and unprofitable. Legislation that doesn’t restrict drugs entirely, but rather sets a minimum age, would increase individual freedom to use drugs. It would also reduce the current drug problem in the
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Anger Over Accepting Pesos is Ridiculous
The debate over immigration has shown up in the business world, this time in the form of death threats and angry letters to the owner of a pizza chain in the South and Southwest. The Pizza Patron chain of stores began accepting Mexican pesos as official payment along with
The difference here is that many of the pizza joints are far from the border, in places like Dallas, more than 400 miles away, and Denver, more than 700 miles. There’s therefore controversy over whether this kind of action would be catering to illegal immigrants from
The money they’re trying to pull in isn’t in huge quantities, so it would have been inconvenient to convert it back to dollars on the way back. Chances are the pesos would have gone around simply sitting in somebody’s sock drawer and have been unused. If the company wants to make more money this way, then let them do it. Don’t drag them into a debate over illegal immigration just because they’re accepting some foreign currency.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Freedom of Speech? Hardly.
They’re small, confined areas surrounded by cage wire, usually designed to look like detention centers. They’re used on dissidents against the current presidential administration as well as the protestors of the government at large. People are often crowded inside of them, shackled or handcuffed to each other, and left there for hours and sometimes even days without a real reason for arrest. They have been used as political tools to suppress popular protest against the leaders of the economic and political world internationally. Democrats can usually be found within them. This description isn’t of the jail cells at Guantanamo Bay, but rather so called “free speech zones” put up across the country for protestors across the nation at major international summits and meetings of world leaders.
These zones, more accurately described as cages, are an affront to the American way of life. Their purpose isn’t crowd control, as so often cited by police departments around the world. While many supporters of the meetings and summits are allowed to stay next to or very close to the location of the meeting or convention of world leaders, freedom of speech cages are oftentimes kept up to half of a mile away from the intended locations of the conventions, parades, and summits. Their most prominent use these days is political: freedom of speech zones are often placed at locations in which President Bush intends to appear, in order to allow local authorities and the Secret Service to take out individuals with anti-Bush apparel or posters to locations far away from the press and the President. In other words, these cages are used as nothing more than places to put away people who disagree with the President so that the media manages to avoid showing actual opposition to Bush and instead ends up portraying the President as if he actually had popular support from the people.
On what grounds are these protest zones even legal? The justifications are very shaky at best. Many times police will simply arrest people who refuse to go such zones with charges of trespassing, despite the fact that in these cases those arrested will oftentimes be surrounded by supporters of the President. At one incident in Pittsburgh, at which the Presidential motorcade made a stop in 2002, a 65 year old- retiree was singled out from a crowd of hundreds and ordered to go to a baseball field one third of a mile out of the way, simply because his sign criticized the Bush Administration’s policy towards the poor. It was, of course, much easier to send that retired worker away than to actually face the criticism.
The only federal law used to justify these cases is one that is so rarely used that it is hardly known to anyone. This law allows the Secret Service to arrest people who willfully enter areas cordoned off for the President. Regardless of what statutes or laws used to justify the zones, several trials at many levels of federal courts on the subject have ruled that restricting people at major appearances of the President simply by the content of their protest is illegal, and yet it’s still done anyway. Freedom of speech zones are in direct violation of judicial authority in this nation. Allowing them to continue will only help to undermine the US court system’s authority.
But even more so, these zones fundamentally undermine the United States Constitution. Not only does the First Amendment to the Constitution not come with a qualifier that says that “this law only applies to cages set up far away from public notice,” but it specifically prohibits Congress and by extension the federal government from violating the freedom of speech. No federal law can therefore be used to justify sending people out of the way to exercise their rights inside of cages and far away from the media. But even worse is the implication that this has for freedom of speech in general. If freedom of speech is only limited, as implied by the name, to those specific areas at all times, does it mean that we live in a country where we can’t exercise our inalienable constitutional rights unless we’re confined to prison-like conditions? What good are these rights if the only place we can exercise them is in cages? What kind of message does it send to the world when America proclaims that the only place in which you can truly be free is inside of a chain linked cell?
The only conceivable reason that these zones could possibly be used under any circumstance is extreme crowd control. But this is clearly not the case, as every event in which the Presidential motorcade or a summit of world leaders in the United States occurs requires these zones. They are nothing more than political tools for those in power to both ignore and silence their critics from the American people. At the very best they highlight the incompetence of police departments in being able to control protestors. At the worst they exist as physical affronts to the United States Constitution and to Americans as a whole. The freedom of speech zone is a concept that must be eliminated immediately, because every time one is used, it sends out a message to the rest of the world: America is no longer the land of the free, no longer the land of opportunity or self-expression. Instead, America becomes a land of irony where the only true way to be free is to be imprisoned in cages.
These zones, more accurately described as cages, are an affront to the American way of life. Their purpose isn’t crowd control, as so often cited by police departments around the world. While many supporters of the meetings and summits are allowed to stay next to or very close to the location of the meeting or convention of world leaders, freedom of speech cages are oftentimes kept up to half of a mile away from the intended locations of the conventions, parades, and summits. Their most prominent use these days is political: freedom of speech zones are often placed at locations in which President Bush intends to appear, in order to allow local authorities and the Secret Service to take out individuals with anti-Bush apparel or posters to locations far away from the press and the President. In other words, these cages are used as nothing more than places to put away people who disagree with the President so that the media manages to avoid showing actual opposition to Bush and instead ends up portraying the President as if he actually had popular support from the people.
On what grounds are these protest zones even legal? The justifications are very shaky at best. Many times police will simply arrest people who refuse to go such zones with charges of trespassing, despite the fact that in these cases those arrested will oftentimes be surrounded by supporters of the President. At one incident in Pittsburgh, at which the Presidential motorcade made a stop in 2002, a 65 year old- retiree was singled out from a crowd of hundreds and ordered to go to a baseball field one third of a mile out of the way, simply because his sign criticized the Bush Administration’s policy towards the poor. It was, of course, much easier to send that retired worker away than to actually face the criticism.
The only federal law used to justify these cases is one that is so rarely used that it is hardly known to anyone. This law allows the Secret Service to arrest people who willfully enter areas cordoned off for the President. Regardless of what statutes or laws used to justify the zones, several trials at many levels of federal courts on the subject have ruled that restricting people at major appearances of the President simply by the content of their protest is illegal, and yet it’s still done anyway. Freedom of speech zones are in direct violation of judicial authority in this nation. Allowing them to continue will only help to undermine the US court system’s authority.
But even more so, these zones fundamentally undermine the United States Constitution. Not only does the First Amendment to the Constitution not come with a qualifier that says that “this law only applies to cages set up far away from public notice,” but it specifically prohibits Congress and by extension the federal government from violating the freedom of speech. No federal law can therefore be used to justify sending people out of the way to exercise their rights inside of cages and far away from the media. But even worse is the implication that this has for freedom of speech in general. If freedom of speech is only limited, as implied by the name, to those specific areas at all times, does it mean that we live in a country where we can’t exercise our inalienable constitutional rights unless we’re confined to prison-like conditions? What good are these rights if the only place we can exercise them is in cages? What kind of message does it send to the world when America proclaims that the only place in which you can truly be free is inside of a chain linked cell?
The only conceivable reason that these zones could possibly be used under any circumstance is extreme crowd control. But this is clearly not the case, as every event in which the Presidential motorcade or a summit of world leaders in the United States occurs requires these zones. They are nothing more than political tools for those in power to both ignore and silence their critics from the American people. At the very best they highlight the incompetence of police departments in being able to control protestors. At the worst they exist as physical affronts to the United States Constitution and to Americans as a whole. The freedom of speech zone is a concept that must be eliminated immediately, because every time one is used, it sends out a message to the rest of the world: America is no longer the land of the free, no longer the land of opportunity or self-expression. Instead, America becomes a land of irony where the only true way to be free is to be imprisoned in cages.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
NJ Ruling Does Nothing for Republicans
It would appear that the Republican Party is grasping at straws. They are seeking any possible reason to try and rally their conservative base. The recent ruling in the New Jersey Supreme Court that gay couples have the same legal and financial rights as heterosexual ones is their latest attempt to try and garner some votes from their demoralized supporters. It’s not going to work this time, unlike in 2004, because the issue has already been played out, and because it’s seen clearly as a ploy by the Republicans to simply gather more votes, not to do anything on the issue.
The biggest reason that this issue isn’t going to work is because the court actually stopped short of getting into the “gay marriage” issue by not mandating the state give that title to unions for gay couples. This means that the ruling doesn’t necessarily offend anyone in particular. In fact, very few social conservatives will be that concerned, since bigger issues like the war in Iraq and health care play on their minds. Gay marriage seems like a small issue compared to those, especially when it’s not actually involving the word marriage.
Another reason why the New Jersey ruling won’t seriously affect change in the polls is because of the damage and fallout from the Mark Foley scandal. This scandal has been a big, big problem for the Republicans. It managed to obscure the news of the launching of nuclear weapons by North Korea. It’s hurting the Republicans on this issue now. The party is seen as the one who harbored a homosexual pedophile. Regardless of their views on gay marriage, conservatives are now much less likely to vote with their party, or at all.
What this all means is that the Republican Party’s attempts to try and make this whole ruling a big issue will fail. They’re not likely to excite their base anymore after Mark Foley. The chances of them winning the House and Senate elections are now slimmer than ever, and committing themselves to this issue is not going to help them one bit.
The biggest reason that this issue isn’t going to work is because the court actually stopped short of getting into the “gay marriage” issue by not mandating the state give that title to unions for gay couples. This means that the ruling doesn’t necessarily offend anyone in particular. In fact, very few social conservatives will be that concerned, since bigger issues like the war in Iraq and health care play on their minds. Gay marriage seems like a small issue compared to those, especially when it’s not actually involving the word marriage.
Another reason why the New Jersey ruling won’t seriously affect change in the polls is because of the damage and fallout from the Mark Foley scandal. This scandal has been a big, big problem for the Republicans. It managed to obscure the news of the launching of nuclear weapons by North Korea. It’s hurting the Republicans on this issue now. The party is seen as the one who harbored a homosexual pedophile. Regardless of their views on gay marriage, conservatives are now much less likely to vote with their party, or at all.
What this all means is that the Republican Party’s attempts to try and make this whole ruling a big issue will fail. They’re not likely to excite their base anymore after Mark Foley. The chances of them winning the House and Senate elections are now slimmer than ever, and committing themselves to this issue is not going to help them one bit.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
THAT'S FALSE ADVERTISING!
False Advertising
False advertising is a crime in the
If you paid attention to Bush’s run for primaries back in 01, you know that John McCain was one of the fore runners in the republican primaries. John McCain. Nice guy. He was a captured pilot. He knows how to run the military. He knows what’s going on. Since he’s in air force, he’s intelligent enough to do whatever he really wants.
For the start of the run, McCain schooled Bush in both
John McCain also came out with something like….
"I hate the gooks, and I will hate them for as long as I live . . . and you can quote me."
Now, gook looks no where close to chink, but you could just as easily twist that and say that McCain is a pretty racist son of a bitch. Personally, I think he’s pretty moderate because he doesn’t exactly hate all Asians. If I was a downed fighter pilot and was tortured for 4 years, I’d be one pissed off person.
What is sad that Bush’s campaign worked. Not only did he win the Republican primaries, but he also took a large percentage of Americans as fools. Everybody knows that nobody reads the news. Fox Chase Five and Pamphlets probably accounts for 3% of the population who reads the news. By playing the card of ignorance, he stole the republican primaries, and ran away with Presidency.
(1)Atheist: Apparently, they would vote for a gay Muslim before they would vote for an Atheist.
(2)bastard: You know, pregnancy before marriage?
Monday, September 11, 2006
Halliburton
Halliburton
One may wonder why we went into the
For one, Halliburton seems to have just as much dirt on them as Wal-Mart. That in itself is a little scary.
During a time of war, it is not unusual for an arms contractor to have a sudden stock jump. But further research indicated that one of the companies that profited the most happens to be Halliburton. When you link company with politician, it turns up with the name Dick Cheney, who had retired during the year of 2000. In 2001, he ran with George Bush for presidency. While some may state that Halliburton had a very small profit margin, the fact of the matter is that Halliburton’s stock jumped from 9 measly dollars, to a stunning 69. Coincidence? So one would hope. Connect the dots and something strange appears. That or I should take off my tin foil hat.
The thing that surprises me the most is the benefits Cheney gets from Halliburton. This includes somewhere between 50,000 to 150,000 dollars worth of pension, and 18 million dollars worth of stock. The fact that he’s donating all 18 million dollars worth of stock to a charity seems to be the shadiest thing out of all. For one thing, it mirrors the RIAA, “Sympathy,” case. In this case, the sympathy donation is just there to clean up the image. The entire fact that the Republicans killed an investigation of Halliburton’s military profits just seems a little…..strange. The more you dig, the stranger it gets. The fact that Halliburton won with a low bid seems strange. But Cheney’s bribery actions as the CEO of Halliburton as well as the evidence stated linking Saddam and WMDs just makes the hole deeper.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
RIAA and other industries
It's been a while since I've written something about a company. Well, anything about corporations for that matter. And republican readers (who pass by this thread), can also agree with me on my strikes against the RIAA.
Recording
Industry
Association of
America
Seems to be one of the most demonic, manipulative corporations out there. I'm not kidding about the demonic part either. If I had to guess who the spawn of Satan was, I'd either say Cheney, Karl Rove, or the CEO of the RIAA. Now, pushing away all the law stuff, I would like to say that the RIAA are a bunch of unethical pricks. Recently, the sympathetic RIAA pushed back a file-sharing trial for 60 days because the defendant DIED (I would not be surprised if it was because of stress).
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060815/015216.shtml
Of course, after the HATE mail started flowing in, they dropped the case. Alright, so it was the step son who did it. But the fact remains, they didn't drop it until their public relations was in jeopardy. "Abundance of Sensitivity," if I may quote. For the lack of better terms, what a bunch of pricks.
This isn't the first time the RIAA has suggested these things. An MIT student, who was forced to pay 3750 in settlement fees. In the process of, "negotiations," one of them actually had the GUTS to say, “In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.”
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html
First thing, puthing ethics aside, you DON'T screw your intelligent. It's not something you do(I'm against malpractice costs). And it's MIT, one of the best colleges out there to date. If I had a say in ranking, they would Rank third, TokyoU coming first and Cal Tech coming second. Especially as something as small as filesharing.
Now, one of the arguments from the RIAA is that, "it deprives them from sales." Now, already they seem to portray music as some sort of heroin that everybody must have (it's not). With that reasoning, me not buying music CDs at all deprives them of sale. Hell, playing the piano for music deprives them of sale. In both cases, they are not making any money off of me. I believe that they also don't realize that people who download music, are just as likely to buy CDs from the next person. When putting something onto the internet, it undergoes a bunch of encoding. Stuff that affects sound quality. .mp3 format is not the best format to have music in. It's just easy and small. But the CD quality is much better. This argument can also be said about pirating movies. I still go to the movies, bust 10 dollars, and watch it because the quality is better.
The people who wouldn't, are people who think everybody else does this because they're the people who won't (For the record, if I see a CD of one of my favorite bands on the shelf, I'll buy it).
Like the what the MIT student said, the RIAA takes those who file share, and go salem-style on it. They noose your neck and hang you up to the public for everybody to see.
Not only that, but the RIAA uses their virtually limitless amount of funds to prey on those who can't afford it. Of course the RIAA is going to win. They have more money, they can hire better lawyers, and they can drag out the case. It's pretty much, either you pay, or your clothes on your back goes to the lawyer defending you. Why don't you think they go after .mp3 making companies under the reasoning, "They influence people to download music?" Because companies like Sony can fight back with just as large a cash pool. But no, they go after the working class, who work their ass off for their life.
I would also like to say that the price of making music is sickiningly cheap. It costs less than a dime to press 1 CD. Movies I can sort of understand, so I won't attack them as vhemently (they cost a ton of money), but making a song is cheap. Music videos are endorsed by MTV, which are then funded by commercials. So what do you have to really pay for? Electricity? The RIAA makes a sicking percentage for every CD you buy.
RIAA, You're now ON NOTICE (wonder's if he can get Steven Colbert to do that).
Finally, it's not illegal to download music. Or file share. Or anything of that nature. Why do I say this? I have NEVER seen a sting operation conducted by the police to take down a torrent server.
hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepiratebay.org
Recording
Industry
Association of
America
Seems to be one of the most demonic, manipulative corporations out there. I'm not kidding about the demonic part either. If I had to guess who the spawn of Satan was, I'd either say Cheney, Karl Rove, or the CEO of the RIAA. Now, pushing away all the law stuff, I would like to say that the RIAA are a bunch of unethical pricks. Recently, the sympathetic RIAA pushed back a file-sharing trial for 60 days because the defendant DIED (I would not be surprised if it was because of stress).
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060815/015216.shtml
Of course, after the HATE mail started flowing in, they dropped the case. Alright, so it was the step son who did it. But the fact remains, they didn't drop it until their public relations was in jeopardy. "Abundance of Sensitivity," if I may quote. For the lack of better terms, what a bunch of pricks.
This isn't the first time the RIAA has suggested these things. An MIT student, who was forced to pay 3750 in settlement fees. In the process of, "negotiations," one of them actually had the GUTS to say, “In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.”
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html
First thing, puthing ethics aside, you DON'T screw your intelligent. It's not something you do(I'm against malpractice costs). And it's MIT, one of the best colleges out there to date. If I had a say in ranking, they would Rank third, TokyoU coming first and Cal Tech coming second. Especially as something as small as filesharing.
Now, one of the arguments from the RIAA is that, "it deprives them from sales." Now, already they seem to portray music as some sort of heroin that everybody must have (it's not). With that reasoning, me not buying music CDs at all deprives them of sale. Hell, playing the piano for music deprives them of sale. In both cases, they are not making any money off of me. I believe that they also don't realize that people who download music, are just as likely to buy CDs from the next person. When putting something onto the internet, it undergoes a bunch of encoding. Stuff that affects sound quality. .mp3 format is not the best format to have music in. It's just easy and small. But the CD quality is much better. This argument can also be said about pirating movies. I still go to the movies, bust 10 dollars, and watch it because the quality is better.
The people who wouldn't, are people who think everybody else does this because they're the people who won't (For the record, if I see a CD of one of my favorite bands on the shelf, I'll buy it).
Like the what the MIT student said, the RIAA takes those who file share, and go salem-style on it. They noose your neck and hang you up to the public for everybody to see.
Not only that, but the RIAA uses their virtually limitless amount of funds to prey on those who can't afford it. Of course the RIAA is going to win. They have more money, they can hire better lawyers, and they can drag out the case. It's pretty much, either you pay, or your clothes on your back goes to the lawyer defending you. Why don't you think they go after .mp3 making companies under the reasoning, "They influence people to download music?" Because companies like Sony can fight back with just as large a cash pool. But no, they go after the working class, who work their ass off for their life.
I would also like to say that the price of making music is sickiningly cheap. It costs less than a dime to press 1 CD. Movies I can sort of understand, so I won't attack them as vhemently (they cost a ton of money), but making a song is cheap. Music videos are endorsed by MTV, which are then funded by commercials. So what do you have to really pay for? Electricity? The RIAA makes a sicking percentage for every CD you buy.
RIAA, You're now ON NOTICE (wonder's if he can get Steven Colbert to do that).
Finally, it's not illegal to download music. Or file share. Or anything of that nature. Why do I say this? I have NEVER seen a sting operation conducted by the police to take down a torrent server.
hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepiratebay.org
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The era of moral Americans
Abortion. Many democrats believe this to be perfectly fine. We believe that it's not life until it actually comes out (with some variations). Republicans believe it is immoral. They believe that life starts straight when the two cells meet. Something about the World Health Organization says the same thing.
Gay Marriage. Many people believe this to be a mental disease. Many people believe that marriage should be between a man and a women. Many people believe that the union of homosexuals is completely immoral. Many people believe that such a thing cannot be legalized.
Iraq War. Many republicans believe this is fully just. They believe that such a thing should be done, because Saddam was a dictator and a sadistic bastard (I think his sons are worse). And many people believe that we should finish off the war, and install a great democracy in Iraq. Furthermore, they are willing to give up certain rights for this protection against terrorism.
"Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither" __Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free" __Benjamin Franklin
Anyways,
You my countrymen, have been manipulated by the wealthy class of citizens. Those who tell you that gay marriage is immoral. That abortion should be illegal. Those who tell you that we should finish the Iraq war. People who told you to vote for George W. Bush. People who even funded his campaign.
When I ask a person about why they voted for Bush, they usually say:
"Because I believe in his views."
"I believe he is doing what is right for the moral community."
Since when does abortion, Iraq war, gay marriage, take greater precedance than that of fiscal responsibility? As a republican said after being shown the results of Regen and the steel industry,
"Oh, we know about that. We lived through that time. We just voted for Bush because he gives tax cuts."
A little pinch of reality for you people. The rich are trying to make money. They do not care about abortion. They do not care about gay marriage. They don't even care about the troops dying on the other side. All they care about is their money. Their tax cuts. Their investment taxes (Bush cut that too). They don't care about what you people are staging protests about.
I see signs of:
"NO ABORTION! BABY KILLERS!"
"MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE!"
"GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE! NOT ADAM AND STEVE!"
(a funny quote)
I also hear things like:
"We should really get in there, kick some ass, and fix that basketcase."
Now, one of the reasons why I don't support the Iraq war is the fact that we can't pay for it. I'm only sixteen. It means sooner or later, the burden of the debt falls on me. If the rich screw it up and the economy collapses, I'm going to be the one who gets hit with the full force. If the economy screws up so much that I cannot attain a living pay, I might not even have kids.
One of the reasons why I'm against the tax cut is because the national debt becomes larger. It becomes heavier. And like I stated above, the burden of that debt will fall on me.
One of the reasons why I'm against free trade is because without tariffs, we're at a huge trade defecit. Again, the burden falls onto my generation. That burden will affect every single generation after that.
So you may ask, what about the rich? They don't care. They have a huge insurance fund stocked away in their bank, under the name of 401k. They're set. Their kids are set. They can live an easy life, and still have more than enough left over for their kids and then their generation.
But you see, most Americans who support Bush are oblivious to the fiscal basketcase America is in right now. I saw the presidental debates, and Abortion was one of the issues. Why the hell is this an issue? Why is it that nobody asks about our financial future? Why is it that nobody asks about investment taxes? It's because you people are too preoccupied with your so called morals. You are distracted from the real problem of America. You're distracted from the future.
I believe that Republicans are either retarded (BURN THE FAGS), or super smart (Tax cuts FTW). So who leads the republicans? Politicians. Rich people. The very people who say, "we voted him for tax cuts."
Listen people. Your morals are not as important as your children. And if the world comes tumbling down on them, and your era's debts becomes theirs, you have failed as a parent.
So I leave you with this, which every good christian should be quite familiar with:
The anti-christ is someone with great financial power
Wouldn't it be ironic if Roger ended up fighting for God?
Gay Marriage. Many people believe this to be a mental disease. Many people believe that marriage should be between a man and a women. Many people believe that the union of homosexuals is completely immoral. Many people believe that such a thing cannot be legalized.
Iraq War. Many republicans believe this is fully just. They believe that such a thing should be done, because Saddam was a dictator and a sadistic bastard (I think his sons are worse). And many people believe that we should finish off the war, and install a great democracy in Iraq. Furthermore, they are willing to give up certain rights for this protection against terrorism.
"Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither" __Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free" __Benjamin Franklin
Anyways,
You my countrymen, have been manipulated by the wealthy class of citizens. Those who tell you that gay marriage is immoral. That abortion should be illegal. Those who tell you that we should finish the Iraq war. People who told you to vote for George W. Bush. People who even funded his campaign.
When I ask a person about why they voted for Bush, they usually say:
"Because I believe in his views."
"I believe he is doing what is right for the moral community."
Since when does abortion, Iraq war, gay marriage, take greater precedance than that of fiscal responsibility? As a republican said after being shown the results of Regen and the steel industry,
"Oh, we know about that. We lived through that time. We just voted for Bush because he gives tax cuts."
A little pinch of reality for you people. The rich are trying to make money. They do not care about abortion. They do not care about gay marriage. They don't even care about the troops dying on the other side. All they care about is their money. Their tax cuts. Their investment taxes (Bush cut that too). They don't care about what you people are staging protests about.
I see signs of:
"NO ABORTION! BABY KILLERS!"
"MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE!"
"GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE! NOT ADAM AND STEVE!"
(a funny quote)
I also hear things like:
"We should really get in there, kick some ass, and fix that basketcase."
Now, one of the reasons why I don't support the Iraq war is the fact that we can't pay for it. I'm only sixteen. It means sooner or later, the burden of the debt falls on me. If the rich screw it up and the economy collapses, I'm going to be the one who gets hit with the full force. If the economy screws up so much that I cannot attain a living pay, I might not even have kids.
One of the reasons why I'm against the tax cut is because the national debt becomes larger. It becomes heavier. And like I stated above, the burden of that debt will fall on me.
One of the reasons why I'm against free trade is because without tariffs, we're at a huge trade defecit. Again, the burden falls onto my generation. That burden will affect every single generation after that.
So you may ask, what about the rich? They don't care. They have a huge insurance fund stocked away in their bank, under the name of 401k. They're set. Their kids are set. They can live an easy life, and still have more than enough left over for their kids and then their generation.
But you see, most Americans who support Bush are oblivious to the fiscal basketcase America is in right now. I saw the presidental debates, and Abortion was one of the issues. Why the hell is this an issue? Why is it that nobody asks about our financial future? Why is it that nobody asks about investment taxes? It's because you people are too preoccupied with your so called morals. You are distracted from the real problem of America. You're distracted from the future.
I believe that Republicans are either retarded (BURN THE FAGS), or super smart (Tax cuts FTW). So who leads the republicans? Politicians. Rich people. The very people who say, "we voted him for tax cuts."
Listen people. Your morals are not as important as your children. And if the world comes tumbling down on them, and your era's debts becomes theirs, you have failed as a parent.
So I leave you with this, which every good christian should be quite familiar with:
The anti-christ is someone with great financial power
Wouldn't it be ironic if Roger ended up fighting for God?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Flag Burning
I think I'm pretty patriotic when it comes to America. If they call for me to go fight, I'll go without hesitation. If there's a major war going on, depending on where I am, I'll either be designing laser guided bombs (Mencia: It's the ASIANs fault. Who the hell do you think designs those bombs?) or I'll go join the military. Likewise, because I'm patriotic, it means I'm believe in the constitution. Likewise, I believe Flag Burning ammendment is wrong.
First thing is first, most of the people who are burning flags are over there. Not over here.
Second thing:
Since when is it wrong to protest against the government? Sure it's just burning flags, but burning flags is a sign of protest. A sign of discontent. A way to get the government to go, "I wonder what they're protesting about." More specifically, the burning of the flag is like the burning of the government. When someone burns it, it means theres something wrong. By saying we're not allowed to burn flags, means we're not allowed to protest against the government. Why is it that I cannot protest against the government? Does this make my website against the law?
Yes, I know that it's not really protesting against the government, but what you have to realize is that to restrict flag burning, is infringing upon the freedom of speech, the one thing that seperates us from Red China.
I also realize that burning a flag probably means you don't like the government. But because we're in America, we're forced to deal with the bad side of Democracy. The ability to critisize everything and anything. Likewise, we cannot be punished for such actions.
First thing is first, most of the people who are burning flags are over there. Not over here.
Second thing:
Since when is it wrong to protest against the government? Sure it's just burning flags, but burning flags is a sign of protest. A sign of discontent. A way to get the government to go, "I wonder what they're protesting about." More specifically, the burning of the flag is like the burning of the government. When someone burns it, it means theres something wrong. By saying we're not allowed to burn flags, means we're not allowed to protest against the government. Why is it that I cannot protest against the government? Does this make my website against the law?
Yes, I know that it's not really protesting against the government, but what you have to realize is that to restrict flag burning, is infringing upon the freedom of speech, the one thing that seperates us from Red China.
I also realize that burning a flag probably means you don't like the government. But because we're in America, we're forced to deal with the bad side of Democracy. The ability to critisize everything and anything. Likewise, we cannot be punished for such actions.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Bush is really starting to scare me
Aside from the incompetence
His thing about, "God told me so."
Abortion
Gays
He's taken a new step towards the breaking of the constitution which really scares me (click link for full story).
"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America, makes it harder to win this war on terror."
"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do, You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
-Both said by George Bush himself.
Republican Peter King actually suggested Mr. Bush to prosecute the New York Times.
And for all you idiots who can't figure it out yet:
The fact that Bush critisizes a newspaper, saying they shouldn't do it, and then actually having someone urge the administration to cancel it, is a sign of unconstitutional actions. Namely, the Freedom of the Press. Granted, some of the things we release is a little boneheaded (Black Hawk Down: You need night vision goggles to see painted targets), but we can't do anything because of what we call the first ammendment. Quite possibly, the most important ammendmant. Thinking that we should start restricting it, makes us no better than those Red Chinese people I despise. This attacks our very views of liberal democracy, and strikes at the heart of the constitution.
And the last time I checked, the terrorists don't want to attack our constitutional liberties. If anything, the terrorists want to kill us. How can we be opresssed if the terrorists aren't in our government? The only one who can opress us is the government (Such irony, especially with prosecuting NYTimes).
His thing about, "God told me so."
Abortion
Gays
He's taken a new step towards the breaking of the constitution which really scares me (click link for full story).
"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America, makes it harder to win this war on terror."
"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do, You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
-Both said by George Bush himself.
Republican Peter King actually suggested Mr. Bush to prosecute the New York Times.
And for all you idiots who can't figure it out yet:
The fact that Bush critisizes a newspaper, saying they shouldn't do it, and then actually having someone urge the administration to cancel it, is a sign of unconstitutional actions. Namely, the Freedom of the Press. Granted, some of the things we release is a little boneheaded (Black Hawk Down: You need night vision goggles to see painted targets), but we can't do anything because of what we call the first ammendment. Quite possibly, the most important ammendmant. Thinking that we should start restricting it, makes us no better than those Red Chinese people I despise. This attacks our very views of liberal democracy, and strikes at the heart of the constitution.
And the last time I checked, the terrorists don't want to attack our constitutional liberties. If anything, the terrorists want to kill us. How can we be opresssed if the terrorists aren't in our government? The only one who can opress us is the government (Such irony, especially with prosecuting NYTimes).
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Games and the slippery slope
As you know, many people support not only the censorship of video games, but the banning of video games. For instance, Jack Thompson blames shooters such as Halo as training toolers for next generation Columbine. He also believes that many of today's world is warped by the world of gaming. Crimes are caused by Grand Theft Auto, etc.
My opinion? It's unjust, and it doesn't affect kids. But that's for another article.
What you may also know is that some states ban the sales of certain rated computer games. By taking these off the shelves, it reflects one things. Censorship. Yes, Censorship. This occurs on TV, since we're not allowed to put in high quality porn during peak hours. The internet is also the same thing with the new .xxx domain. But isn't the freedom of speech, expression, and information what seperates us from the Chinese? I should hope so.
By restricting these things, they rail out against what makes America so great. When is it so bad that I cannot play the games that I want? Call me a warped son of a bitch. Call me the next generation colmbine. Hell, call me a pedophile (RE: The Sims. Apparently Jack Thompson doesn't know anything about computers either). But one thing sets me different than the people who say this: I believe censorship is bad. And by this, I hope that America will understand how this is censorship.
So I leave you with this.
"Censorship started with little things, when the government controlled cartoons and the Radio. Then it went to the regular TV, school system, and finally the print."
-A badly remembered quote from Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451.
My opinion? It's unjust, and it doesn't affect kids. But that's for another article.
What you may also know is that some states ban the sales of certain rated computer games. By taking these off the shelves, it reflects one things. Censorship. Yes, Censorship. This occurs on TV, since we're not allowed to put in high quality porn during peak hours. The internet is also the same thing with the new .xxx domain. But isn't the freedom of speech, expression, and information what seperates us from the Chinese? I should hope so.
By restricting these things, they rail out against what makes America so great. When is it so bad that I cannot play the games that I want? Call me a warped son of a bitch. Call me the next generation colmbine. Hell, call me a pedophile (RE: The Sims. Apparently Jack Thompson doesn't know anything about computers either). But one thing sets me different than the people who say this: I believe censorship is bad. And by this, I hope that America will understand how this is censorship.
So I leave you with this.
"Censorship started with little things, when the government controlled cartoons and the Radio. Then it went to the regular TV, school system, and finally the print."
-A badly remembered quote from Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Boys falling behind in education
I was reading about this in Newsweek a few weeks ago, and quite frankley, I don't see what the big surprise is. Call me sexist, but this is largely due to the product of femminization. Yes. I said it. It's called the Femminization of America. Too bad Masulization of America doesn't sound quite right. The reason why males are dropping behind in education, is because Americans now look more towards a girl than a guy. Naturally, you will prefer one gender over another. For example, a teacher may call on 10 boys, but only seven girls. It's a small stretch, but Natural selection dictates that even a small advantage will cause a great stretch.
Now, I'm not saying that this is bad. Heavens no. I don't care. It was bound to happen some day. In this society, men are not allowed to beat their wives. Rape is considered male only, and there are more career women around (no offence ladies, just trying to draw a point). Women of today are also finding more control in society. They are allowed to vote, they can pursue their own careers without anyone dictatating them, etc. These all contribute to the Femminization of America.
So how does this tie into edumecation? Simple. Before the Femminization of America took place, the Males dominated the school system. More males graduated, more males went to college, and males made money. As an old sexist term may outline, "A women's place is in the kitchen." However. Now that America no longer has this male dominated society, the Women have more freedom to do as they wish.
However, the main contributing factor to the Femminization of America comes from Education. As you may realize...even today, the majority of the Elementry school teachers are Women. Many of those women were young during the Women Rights movement. Because of that, they naturally choose the female over the male. Hard to see, but as I said before, even a small advantage is meaningful.
What does this mean in the long run? Women start to gain the advantage over men. They do better in school. More women go to college. This my friend, is a product of the Femminization of America.
Now, it's not like I'm trashing out against that such as how Tyler Durden would do. I don't see the morals beating wives, or locking them in the households. I don't see why they shouldn't pursue their careers, nor do I see why they shouldn't go to college, or why they shouldn't vote. This would eventually happen when the women started asking for rights. Not saying they shouldn't have any, but this isn't anything to be surprised about.
The Femminization of America, is the reason why boys are falling behind in education. No more, no less.
Now, I'm not saying that this is bad. Heavens no. I don't care. It was bound to happen some day. In this society, men are not allowed to beat their wives. Rape is considered male only, and there are more career women around (no offence ladies, just trying to draw a point). Women of today are also finding more control in society. They are allowed to vote, they can pursue their own careers without anyone dictatating them, etc. These all contribute to the Femminization of America.
So how does this tie into edumecation? Simple. Before the Femminization of America took place, the Males dominated the school system. More males graduated, more males went to college, and males made money. As an old sexist term may outline, "A women's place is in the kitchen." However. Now that America no longer has this male dominated society, the Women have more freedom to do as they wish.
However, the main contributing factor to the Femminization of America comes from Education. As you may realize...even today, the majority of the Elementry school teachers are Women. Many of those women were young during the Women Rights movement. Because of that, they naturally choose the female over the male. Hard to see, but as I said before, even a small advantage is meaningful.
What does this mean in the long run? Women start to gain the advantage over men. They do better in school. More women go to college. This my friend, is a product of the Femminization of America.
Now, it's not like I'm trashing out against that such as how Tyler Durden would do. I don't see the morals beating wives, or locking them in the households. I don't see why they shouldn't pursue their careers, nor do I see why they shouldn't go to college, or why they shouldn't vote. This would eventually happen when the women started asking for rights. Not saying they shouldn't have any, but this isn't anything to be surprised about.
The Femminization of America, is the reason why boys are falling behind in education. No more, no less.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Stop trying to justify yourself unless you're actually in it.
Recently, many politicians justify the War in
I agree with that. What I don't agree is the politicians saying that it is fully justified to say such things. And that we're fighting for American Freedom. Look Mr. President; unless your daughters are blown apart, or decapitated on the front lines, you have NO right to say, "We did this to protect our freedom." You have nothing to justify with your loss. Why? Because you havn't lost it.
Now, I'm not going all out Michael Moore on this, because quite frankly, I hate him as much as the next republican (Yes, it IS possible you jackass). Especially after he started asking mourning senators if they would send their sons to
Michael Moore, do some research before you make it more painful for those who DID lose family members.
But really. Unless you HAVE, you have no right to say, "For freedom." Because quite frankly, people who lost close people want to justify their act. And yes, I did say Justify, because the War in
1. It's not for American Freedom. American Freedom is staying here fighting off the Ruskies when they invade.
2. It's also not freeing the people of
3. Saddam oppressed his people. Blah blah blah. African war-lords oppress their people. They make Saddam look like a benevolent dictator.
4. I'd rather let the terrorist train in their camps with paper targets than give them actual combat experience.
5. It's not for oil. And I remember the days when we were pissed that we were spending more than 2 bucks a gallon.
So really. I hope you've learned from this, that justifying the war in patriotic words is just disgraceful. You have no right to do so. Those who DID lose family members do.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Republicans cheer and I lose a few more brain cells.
Anti-porn laws.
First thing: It's depressing that people actually fight for this.
Anyways.
1. Several of the highly conservative people are considering the restriction of the internet. Namely, porn. This is under the, "Child Protection Act," which will be hitting the courts soon. And all I have to say is, I think American politicians are being especially retarded when they came up with the idea of this.
As a disgruntled disheveled person would say,
"Don't you have anything better to do?"
Making laws against porn is a new low for America.
2.
Parents, your kid is FINE if he sees a set of breasts. Okay? He's not going to socially impaired, he's not going to be mentally scarred, there JUST BREASTS. I mean, there are things out there that you should be wary of. Such as internet stalkers, hackers, that guy who comes and goes dumpster diving through your trash. THERE IS STUFF THAT CAN HARM YOUR CHILD. Porn is among the ones that wont.
Furthermore, if you're going to complain about this, you only have yourselves to blame. If you're so worried about your child seeing porn, don't give them internet access. Or better yet, hang over their shoulders while they're on the net (Would probably solve net-stalker issues). You get my point?
3.
The government budget is better spent on other things than this. If you're so bent on solving the internet problem, give it a security overhaul. The internet is crawling with these viruses and stuff because the creators of it never thought the internet would go public. More or less, it was just a research tool that everybody would use (similar to JSTOR). You can fix that with the government budget. But passing bills like this is just a waste.
First thing: It's depressing that people actually fight for this.
Anyways.
1. Several of the highly conservative people are considering the restriction of the internet. Namely, porn. This is under the, "Child Protection Act," which will be hitting the courts soon. And all I have to say is, I think American politicians are being especially retarded when they came up with the idea of this.
As a disgruntled disheveled person would say,
"Don't you have anything better to do?"
Making laws against porn is a new low for America.
2.
Parents, your kid is FINE if he sees a set of breasts. Okay? He's not going to socially impaired, he's not going to be mentally scarred, there JUST BREASTS. I mean, there are things out there that you should be wary of. Such as internet stalkers, hackers, that guy who comes and goes dumpster diving through your trash. THERE IS STUFF THAT CAN HARM YOUR CHILD. Porn is among the ones that wont.
Furthermore, if you're going to complain about this, you only have yourselves to blame. If you're so worried about your child seeing porn, don't give them internet access. Or better yet, hang over their shoulders while they're on the net (Would probably solve net-stalker issues). You get my point?
3.
The government budget is better spent on other things than this. If you're so bent on solving the internet problem, give it a security overhaul. The internet is crawling with these viruses and stuff because the creators of it never thought the internet would go public. More or less, it was just a research tool that everybody would use (similar to JSTOR). You can fix that with the government budget. But passing bills like this is just a waste.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Beggar Republicans and Deficit Spending
Before the Republicans managed to gain control back in the late 70's , they were known for quite a few things. First, they were known as war hawks. Second, they were anti-affirmative action (and some, against other races in general). Finally, they were anti-social service spending. But most importantly of all, Republicans were known to be fiscally responsible, wanting to cut so called "wasteful" spending by the government.
Those days are over. Today, after a takeover of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 2002, we see that the Republicans, when it comes to fiscal policy, have no fucking clue what they're talking about. For years, Republicans have been decrying "tax and spend" liberals. Now they've shown that they don't "tax" and "spend", they just spend other people's money. For years now, the Republicans have been driving up a deficit, a deficit that we will have to pay later. By we, I mean my generation and following generations.
And they have the balls to say that it doesn't matter! That's the worst part. It's as if they failed basic economics entirely, or lack the competency to even hold office. According to them, the deficit doesn't matter because:
1.) Everyone loves America's economy
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
3.) It's needed for lower taxes
Each one of those is total bullshit, and here's why:
1.) Everyone loves America's economy
They do, but only right now. Other countries' economies are on the rise, and at the rate some of them are going, America has the distinct chance of not being the only superpowerful market in the world. It's only because our economy is extremely powerful that foreign companies invest heavily in it. Without these investments, we wouldn't be able to finance our debt at all and our economy would crash. Here's where two problems come it. First, current foreign investment, at best, can only finance a deficit at half of our current rate. Secondly, if another country arises that comes even close to rivally the US's economic strength, we're screwed. No other nation is racking up nearly as huge a debt as the US currently is, and therefore would carry much less risk. Foreign investments would suddenly go towards that other country, and we sink. We have to prepare for this possiblity.
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
So would not reducing it. As the debt gets larger, interest rates have to go higher in order for the US Treasury to better finance this massive debt. These interest rates will rise higher and higher, making loans harder on the average American.
3.) It's needed for lower taxes
The current share of the national debt for each person is over $27,000. For every single member of the US, that is the amount, from young babies to the oldest senior citizens. An average family of 4 owes over $100,000 in debt to foreign nations, thanks to the spending of the Republicans. That's a lot of money that will have to be paid in taxes.
Haven't the beggar Republicans done enough? Can't they find a way to finance their fiscal policy? It's time to find people who truly are fiscal responsible and don't just claim to be.
Those days are over. Today, after a takeover of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 2002, we see that the Republicans, when it comes to fiscal policy, have no fucking clue what they're talking about. For years, Republicans have been decrying "tax and spend" liberals. Now they've shown that they don't "tax" and "spend", they just spend other people's money. For years now, the Republicans have been driving up a deficit, a deficit that we will have to pay later. By we, I mean my generation and following generations.
And they have the balls to say that it doesn't matter! That's the worst part. It's as if they failed basic economics entirely, or lack the competency to even hold office. According to them, the deficit doesn't matter because:
1.) Everyone loves America's economy
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
3.) It's needed for lower taxes
Each one of those is total bullshit, and here's why:
1.) Everyone loves America's economy
They do, but only right now. Other countries' economies are on the rise, and at the rate some of them are going, America has the distinct chance of not being the only superpowerful market in the world. It's only because our economy is extremely powerful that foreign companies invest heavily in it. Without these investments, we wouldn't be able to finance our debt at all and our economy would crash. Here's where two problems come it. First, current foreign investment, at best, can only finance a deficit at half of our current rate. Secondly, if another country arises that comes even close to rivally the US's economic strength, we're screwed. No other nation is racking up nearly as huge a debt as the US currently is, and therefore would carry much less risk. Foreign investments would suddenly go towards that other country, and we sink. We have to prepare for this possiblity.
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
So would not reducing it. As the debt gets larger, interest rates have to go higher in order for the US Treasury to better finance this massive debt. These interest rates will rise higher and higher, making loans harder on the average American.
3.) It's needed for lower taxes
The current share of the national debt for each person is over $27,000. For every single member of the US, that is the amount, from young babies to the oldest senior citizens. An average family of 4 owes over $100,000 in debt to foreign nations, thanks to the spending of the Republicans. That's a lot of money that will have to be paid in taxes.
Haven't the beggar Republicans done enough? Can't they find a way to finance their fiscal policy? It's time to find people who truly are fiscal responsible and don't just claim to be.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Farm Subsidies Suck
$143 billion. That's the amount the American public has paid to failing agriculture industries in the United States. How much growth has resulted from this investment? $0.
That's right, none. Agricultural economic growth has been seen out of this at all in the last 10 years. American tax dollars have given $143 billion in help to US farmers, and yet it takes Ben and Jerry to save small farms. This is just sad.
Why are farm subsidies so bad? It's because no matter how the agricultural season turns out, the government loses. Shortages on the crops? The federal government loses as farms across the nation default on loans. Surpluses in crops? The federal government loses as well. How? It's because the farmers are afraid of inflation, and have all crops set at an "ideal" 1929 adjusted price. Guess what the US government has to do? It has to buy up all of the surplus so the price stays the same. Either way, we lose.
That's $143 billion wasted for nothing. There must be something done. I propose an immediate end to all farm subsidies now and the removal of "ideal" price. We can't afford to waste $143 billion again.
That's right, none. Agricultural economic growth has been seen out of this at all in the last 10 years. American tax dollars have given $143 billion in help to US farmers, and yet it takes Ben and Jerry to save small farms. This is just sad.
Why are farm subsidies so bad? It's because no matter how the agricultural season turns out, the government loses. Shortages on the crops? The federal government loses as farms across the nation default on loans. Surpluses in crops? The federal government loses as well. How? It's because the farmers are afraid of inflation, and have all crops set at an "ideal" 1929 adjusted price. Guess what the US government has to do? It has to buy up all of the surplus so the price stays the same. Either way, we lose.
That's $143 billion wasted for nothing. There must be something done. I propose an immediate end to all farm subsidies now and the removal of "ideal" price. We can't afford to waste $143 billion again.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Wow. An update.
I know I havn't updated in awhile, but this is partially to blame on school, and partially to blame on my own lazy ass for cramming every test.
Anyways, we go back to an age old debate about...abortion. Quite frankly, I think this argument is pointless in terms of science, and all of that nice stuff. Conservatives state that it is life because it's growing, brain waves are detected in X amount of weeks. Liberals state that it's not alive, because it can't sustain life on it's own. This is pretty much all meaningless. For one to truely evaluate whether or not Abortion should be legal, one must look for the different arguments dealing with this sort of stuff. For the lack of better terms, in order to avoid a definition war on, "life," we respond to the contradictions in the opponent's idea. Due to the fact that I'm fairly liberal, I shall fight against the conservative side.
Putting all moralities aside, conservatives support the banning of abortion. However, in doing so (with their current argument), one must realize that you must also ban fertility clinics for those who are unable to have kids. Many republicans state that as soon as a sprm unites with an egg, it is now, life in their definition. However, for a fertility clinic to work, multiple eggs are injected into a women's uterus due to the fact that many of them have a high chance of death. It's technically killing embryo's isn't it?
This same argument can go with stem cell research. While it may be, "killing," embryos, you still cannot ignore the fact that fertility clinics still do the same thing. If you lose one, you lose the other.
Anyways, we go back to an age old debate about...abortion. Quite frankly, I think this argument is pointless in terms of science, and all of that nice stuff. Conservatives state that it is life because it's growing, brain waves are detected in X amount of weeks. Liberals state that it's not alive, because it can't sustain life on it's own. This is pretty much all meaningless. For one to truely evaluate whether or not Abortion should be legal, one must look for the different arguments dealing with this sort of stuff. For the lack of better terms, in order to avoid a definition war on, "life," we respond to the contradictions in the opponent's idea. Due to the fact that I'm fairly liberal, I shall fight against the conservative side.
Putting all moralities aside, conservatives support the banning of abortion. However, in doing so (with their current argument), one must realize that you must also ban fertility clinics for those who are unable to have kids. Many republicans state that as soon as a sprm unites with an egg, it is now, life in their definition. However, for a fertility clinic to work, multiple eggs are injected into a women's uterus due to the fact that many of them have a high chance of death. It's technically killing embryo's isn't it?
This same argument can go with stem cell research. While it may be, "killing," embryos, you still cannot ignore the fact that fertility clinics still do the same thing. If you lose one, you lose the other.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Discrimination!
In today's society, we have what we term, "jocks." These people play sports, they're physically fit. They waste hours upon hours playing sports such as basketball, soccer, and football. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will get a school scholarship to an Ivy League school. After that, they will join the school football team, and they will lead their team to victory.
Also in today's society, we have the term, "Cyber jocks." These people play computer games, but they are not physically fit. They waste just as many hours playing games such as Counter Strike, Starcraft, and Quake. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will beat Fatality(World famous CS player).
But wait. Something is wrong. What ever happened to the college part? Oh yeah, that's right. The person, who has managed to beat fatality, has just been kicked out of college due to his suffering grades. Whereas the football player still has his scholarship, and is still in school despite his suffering grades.
Kids, who waste hours upon hours playing Counter Strike, do not get their scholarship, even though they placed fourth during the world cyber games. Kids who waste hours upon hours playing Quake, do not get their scholarships, even though they placed twelfth in
This is discrimination. Both Football, and Counter Strike, waste the same amount of time. With football, it requires peak physical condition. In counter strike, it requires peak motor skills. So why is it that football player receive full scholarships, and Counter Strike players receive a blacklist?
I'll tell you why. It's discrimination. Today's society frowns upon 1337 computer gamers. Both activities are games, and both require immense amount of time. However, we prefer football players over, "lazy counter strike players who just waste all their time in front of their computers." Well, why can't we say the same thing to football players. "Lazy football players who just waste all their time on the field."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
