Today I came across an interesting article on Yahoo!News (Full story). It outlines how the White House is standing up against erroneous allegations and disregard for "facts" by news networks, particularly Fox News.
I give kudos to the president for doing this. It is his right to defend his honor, as it were. It also was a wise political decision, seeing as how Fox News claims to be the only non-left/non-liberal news network out there, with an audience whom Obama is currently trying to win over.
Can you feel the sarcasm oozing out of that last sentence?
Another interesting move: single out individual journalists within the network. Poor Glenn Beck. The president has called him out. I think it is an unwise move, in the world of journalism, is to get the president angry at you personally. Heck, I think it is an unwise move in any world to have the president identify you as a propagator or falsehoods. Even though the president technically does not have power to destroy you, you can still probably kiss your career, in most circles, goodbye.
Not only has Fox News, with such famous/infamous figures as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, been labeled as an anti-Obama network, but it is the only network with whom the president will not appear on air with. Pres. Obama has appeared on every other news network except Fox News. Not even Bill O'Reilly's show, The O'Reilly Factor.
I think that despite the polarized mentalities of the public, in regards to Mr. O'Reilly, one must admit that Bill O'Reilly is still a credible journalist. He has his preferences, granted, but so does every other journalist. The difference is that he is open about them. While he can get fairly impassioned (remember the Barney Frank appearance after Fannie and Freddie?), he still has logical reasoning, sound arguments, guest from both parties, and refrains from comparing Pres. Obama to Hitler, among other things. I personally admire Mr. O'Reilly's courage and "bold, freshness" in speaking out against issues he feels are harming America. Okay, that's it for my O'Reilly endorsement.
That said, I have seen on Fox News, at times, reporters with excessive skepticism in the president's ability to lead the country effectively. Not on the O'Reilly Factor, though he does lambaste some of the more controversial policy decisions, but he never personally attacks Pres. Obama. When you resort to smear tactics, you lose a lot of credibility as a fair-minded journalist, as well as integrity.
I support the president in his efforts to ensure that the truth of what he says is reported to the public, but I do not think it is fair to single out Fox News alone. Other networks are guilty of misrepresenting him just as much, though they do it through servile obeisance and sycophancy, instead of criticism. I find it rather amusing how the president does not appear to be worried about how people revere him like a demigod or how they worship the ground he walks on.
It is my personal belief that allowing such behavior to continue is inappropriate for an elected public servant of the United States of America. He is the president. He is but a man. He is elected by the people, and he is to serve their interests. Many politicians seem to have forgotten that and the president is the last person who should ever be victim of such a shortcoming. I encourage Pres. Obama to speak out against those worshipping him as someone greater than they. He is mortal, he is one of us, and if he is to lead this country, he must develop humility.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Goldman Sachs: Building China's Economy with US Funds
So, folks, I was surprised to read yesterday on BBC News (full article) that Goldman Sachs has invested $334m in the Chinese automobile company Geely. While I am all for increasing competition in various markets, I am a free-market proponent, I must admit that a company that we, or I should say, "the government," gave $12b in bailout money (a) paid out big bonuses and (b) is now moving funds into the Chinese economy. Not only do the Chinese own a huge percentage of our debt, various industrial locations, including the Geneva steel mill in Utah, but now they have our bailout funds as well.
I understand that this is probably a wise move by GS, investing in a company that has a bright future, especially because it is tied to the quickly-growing Chinese economy. Also, according to the article, what they have invested can later be turned into shares in the company, so if Geely goes big, and it certainly has plans to do so, GS can make some serious money from their investment, which in turn will hopefully put them back in the black. This will then allow them to pay us all back for the milk money we gave them to make sure they are getting their calcium, so to speak.
I guess my only real problem with this story is that Goldman Sachs, not only famous, but infamous!- decided to move our money outside of the States. I would have loved to hear that GS has invested $433m in a US corporation or company, something which would help build America's sagging economy and contribute to our climb out of the recession. I guess that's all I'm trying to say.
See you next time!
I understand that this is probably a wise move by GS, investing in a company that has a bright future, especially because it is tied to the quickly-growing Chinese economy. Also, according to the article, what they have invested can later be turned into shares in the company, so if Geely goes big, and it certainly has plans to do so, GS can make some serious money from their investment, which in turn will hopefully put them back in the black. This will then allow them to pay us all back for the milk money we gave them to make sure they are getting their calcium, so to speak.
I guess my only real problem with this story is that Goldman Sachs, not only famous, but infamous!- decided to move our money outside of the States. I would have loved to hear that GS has invested $433m in a US corporation or company, something which would help build America's sagging economy and contribute to our climb out of the recession. I guess that's all I'm trying to say.
See you next time!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Congressman Mike Rogers: "Boldly Saying What No Man Has Said Before"
Recently, in a congressional hearing, Congressman Mike Rogers (Michigan), spoke up boldly against Pres. Obama's infamous Healthcare Reform Bill. He essentially said that the bill is destroying what makes America great. More specifically, by giving the government "unprecedented power" to "rip you off your own individual [insurance/healthcare] plan." (click to view the video)
He cited statistics from the National Cancer Intelligence Center of the UK and the Canadian Cancer Registry, which conclude that those who were diagnosed with cancer, under government-run healthcare, have a lower chance of survival than if they were on private healthcare plans.
While I personally think that some of this feels a bit dramatic and fatalistic, I am still not a major proponent of a government-run healthcare system. In America, we are constantly bellyaching about how inefficient it is to do taxes and other bureacratic processes, yet many of us are actively promoting the idea of that same government running our healthcare, or in another sense, our physical well-being. I am not saying we will be owned by the government- no, I am more moderate than that- but I am saying that we will be subjected to the irksome processes that the government excels at creating. Am I right in thinking that this suggests that we may, as a public body, have some masochistic tendencies?
One point that Congressman Rogers brought up that sounds very logical to me was the percentages of the population affected. According to Rogers, and this is paraphrased, 15% will benefit from this plan, while 85% of Americans will be the ones taking the hit. I agree with his logic, and that of Abraham Lincoln, whom Rogers quoted in saying, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak."
Do we know that the 15% that do not have healthcare even want it? I recall a news story I saw a while back where they interviewed a number of young adults who did not have healthcare. They expressed that they did not because they were young and were not planning on having significant healthcare concerns, ergo they chose not to pay premiums for a plan they felt they would not need. How many of the 46 million Americans, a number declared by Rogers, are of a similar sentiment?
Another point that Rogers brought up that I am beginning to agree with regards the underlying message that this bill suggests; that we, the American public and its government, no longer have faith in the private sector. We have given up on private companies and decided that it would just be easier to have the government deal with everything. How have we come to this point?
I feel that this has become the situation because we are losing the desire to take the initiative. Why are people dissatisfied with private healthcare plans? Probably because of the financial demands they make, the fine print, and the fickle nature of their customer service. But how can this be changed, one might ask. In a true free market, the public's boycott, or at least significantly decreased patronage, would force companies to be more competitive and offer better plans. But it seems that we have grown too tired to fight for what we want. We are willing to relinquish our freedoms, albeit gradually, and push the problem to someone else.
Imagine for a moment, what life would be like if our Founding Fathers had this same attitude. Something I admire about Pres. Obama is his ability to stir within us a sense of patriotism, of pride. While I may disagree with policies that he makes, he is still the president, and as a US citizen, it is my duty to support what I agree with. I support his efforts to make us proud to be Americans, to be the kind of people that we ought to be- better, to build our communities, and to strive to make America great. Those are ideals that our Founding Fathers desired us to carry on. Had we kept this in mind, perhaps many of our current problems would have been mitigated.
Congressman Mike Rogers was not afraid to speak his feelings about the healthcare bill, but he did so in a respectful, rational (though admittedly impassioned), non-aggressive manner. I think we can learn from his example how we ought to try to improve legislation. Let us all do so through proper channels, and refrain from attacking individuals. That only creates civil strife, and as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hope that we all find within ourselves the will to improve the country around us and take responsibility for our actions.
He cited statistics from the National Cancer Intelligence Center of the UK and the Canadian Cancer Registry, which conclude that those who were diagnosed with cancer, under government-run healthcare, have a lower chance of survival than if they were on private healthcare plans.
While I personally think that some of this feels a bit dramatic and fatalistic, I am still not a major proponent of a government-run healthcare system. In America, we are constantly bellyaching about how inefficient it is to do taxes and other bureacratic processes, yet many of us are actively promoting the idea of that same government running our healthcare, or in another sense, our physical well-being. I am not saying we will be owned by the government- no, I am more moderate than that- but I am saying that we will be subjected to the irksome processes that the government excels at creating. Am I right in thinking that this suggests that we may, as a public body, have some masochistic tendencies?
One point that Congressman Rogers brought up that sounds very logical to me was the percentages of the population affected. According to Rogers, and this is paraphrased, 15% will benefit from this plan, while 85% of Americans will be the ones taking the hit. I agree with his logic, and that of Abraham Lincoln, whom Rogers quoted in saying, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak."
Do we know that the 15% that do not have healthcare even want it? I recall a news story I saw a while back where they interviewed a number of young adults who did not have healthcare. They expressed that they did not because they were young and were not planning on having significant healthcare concerns, ergo they chose not to pay premiums for a plan they felt they would not need. How many of the 46 million Americans, a number declared by Rogers, are of a similar sentiment?
Another point that Rogers brought up that I am beginning to agree with regards the underlying message that this bill suggests; that we, the American public and its government, no longer have faith in the private sector. We have given up on private companies and decided that it would just be easier to have the government deal with everything. How have we come to this point?
I feel that this has become the situation because we are losing the desire to take the initiative. Why are people dissatisfied with private healthcare plans? Probably because of the financial demands they make, the fine print, and the fickle nature of their customer service. But how can this be changed, one might ask. In a true free market, the public's boycott, or at least significantly decreased patronage, would force companies to be more competitive and offer better plans. But it seems that we have grown too tired to fight for what we want. We are willing to relinquish our freedoms, albeit gradually, and push the problem to someone else.
Imagine for a moment, what life would be like if our Founding Fathers had this same attitude. Something I admire about Pres. Obama is his ability to stir within us a sense of patriotism, of pride. While I may disagree with policies that he makes, he is still the president, and as a US citizen, it is my duty to support what I agree with. I support his efforts to make us proud to be Americans, to be the kind of people that we ought to be- better, to build our communities, and to strive to make America great. Those are ideals that our Founding Fathers desired us to carry on. Had we kept this in mind, perhaps many of our current problems would have been mitigated.
Congressman Mike Rogers was not afraid to speak his feelings about the healthcare bill, but he did so in a respectful, rational (though admittedly impassioned), non-aggressive manner. I think we can learn from his example how we ought to try to improve legislation. Let us all do so through proper channels, and refrain from attacking individuals. That only creates civil strife, and as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hope that we all find within ourselves the will to improve the country around us and take responsibility for our actions.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I am positively Twitter-fied
As of the other day, I have started Twitter. It's kind of a neat concept. It really levels the playing field in terms of communication with people. You get to keep astride the events in the lives of people you know or are interested in, i.e. celebrities and others. As far as I can tell you can personally reply to things they say.
Now, unfortunately for me, I don't have an iPhone or other mobile device that can access the internet, so my use is limited to when I am at a computer. My updates are much less frequent, in fact, I think I use my facebook message option more, but I am determined to master this new facet of global communication. That is, when I am not in China and it is censored by the government. I am writing this blog on the computers at school, whose servers are in Hong Kong, thereby circumventing the Binary Curtain of China (I think that's a nifty term; help me spread its usage).
I guess the bottomline of this is that I recommend setting up an account (free), and getting connected to other people. I am currently following the activities of my favorite writers, directors, actors, newspapers, and sports organizations. The NYTimes and NBA update several times each hour with links to breaking stories. It's a wonderful way to have instant access to current events, with the sifting and sorting almost completely done for you.
Go for it!
Monday, June 8, 2009
Warning: Security Checkpoint Ahead
Seeing as how I consider myself a frequent flier, mostly because when someone talks about "home cooking" I picture reheated tinfoil entrees with Styrofoam "bread" rolls, I have had ample experience in the fun-and-friendly world of airport security.
I realize that this is the time of year when people will, like birds in the winter, take flight and go south. Or at least go somewhere. And with that glorious spreading of our wings, we must also undergo the laugh-a-minute security checkpoints. I hope you can tell that my sarcasm is dripping like a first grader's nose in Antarctica.
Like most people, I relegate myself to the poking, prodding, and general invasion of bodily privacy in return for the knowledge that I will probably have a safe flight. That is, unless some whack-job comes up with a better way of killing people, like ingesting a chemical that allows him, or her (I am not sexist), to breathe fire or cry tears of searing acid.
I find it strange that you are not allowed to bring on basic liquids, while you are allowed to bring on a belt, or a pen, or a cell phone. All of these items are equally as deadly. The only thing is that they don't explode.
How many of us have seen movies where the hero uses makeshift weapons? It only takes a touch of creativity to turn anything into a lethal death-toy. Heck, what did man have before tools? His fists. Are they going to start asking you not to bring hands on board an aircraft? Will you be able to check them in your bags? If it nudges you over the miserly weight allowance will you really have to pay the fine? If you forget that you can't bring them on an airplane can you mail them to your destination or back home? I think you get the idea.
Another bit of juicy irony is that, at least in America, parading around in your birthday suit is a criminal offense, yet in airport security checkpoints ask you to remove your belt, shoes, coats, watches, toupees, etc. If you somehow manage to set off the metal detector, then they get their magic wand out and run it over your body. I'm sorry, but that is too much like the criminal offense of molesting people or physical assault. There has got to be a more decent way to search crowds for death-bringers.
Another interesting thought: they, meaning the Powers That Control The "Friendly Skies," don't want you taking weapons out of the country either. I understand accountability and how international safety is a team sport. But when it comes down to it, don't you want the bad guys and their weapons, etc, to leave? Why try to find them and keep them within your borders?
Please don't take this last statement too seriously. It's all in jest. If you actually consider what I'm saying, it's obvious that my statements are flawed. Again, it's just a joke. But back to the issue at hand...
We must not forget the advantages of this system. Firstly, it keeps the airways safe. Until the next maniac tries something. Secondly, it gives people peace of mind. Once they make it past the Judgement Day security checkpoints. Finally, it saves money on cleaning. The floor around the checkpoints have got to be some of the cleanest places in the whole airport; no one is allowed to wear shoes!
I guess, after all of this ranting about security, I truly am thankful for the wonderful surly TSA workers who stand around all day telling people what they have to take off. And trust me, there are people who go through the checkout line that you never want to see with anything less than a full-length parka on. These unsung heroes keep the planes filled with safe people; old people who snore loudly; babies who scream the entire flight; kids that kick your seat-back as you are nodding off to sleep.
Come to think of it, it truly is a miracle that there are hardly any casualties from commercial flights.
I encourage you all, despite your jet lag, blood-shot eyes, and swollen feet, to smile and thank your TSA agent the next time you go through the security checkpoint. After all, they could let bad people through if they really wanted to...
Rain, Rain, Go Away!
So, folks, it's been a long time. I mean a really long time, like, a "two-month" long time. I apologize. I fell off the world during that time.
Today in Beijing it rained. "Big deal," you say, brushing the news aside. Yeah, it is a big deal! It normally takes my dad and I about 25 minutes to get me to where I work. It took us 45 minutes to get one block. All of this because of rain. Well, it's nice to blame the weather because you can't be called insensitive if you criticize it. You can if you blame the actual problem: the drivers' etiquette, or lack thereof.
When people talk about repression and the denial of freedoms being an inherently insidious thing, they were clearly living in some fantasy world. Some people are just not interested in living democratically and taking the initiative to fix things. It's not their "thing."
The traffic jam that I was trapped in was not due to a car accident, or a fallen tree. It was because the drivers were not willing to work together. They were all focused on getting themselves through the intersection, regardless of how it was accomplished. No one would yield to another. No one was willing to give an inch of ground. In fact, many were taking inches that weren't there to take in the first place! It was like watching a bunch of kindergartners scramble after a handful of Skittles thrown on the ground; complete and utter chaos!
From this isolated example, it does not seem like democracy would work for those several dozen drivers, as they just didn't care about the welfare of others or the advancement of a group, and coincidentally it applies in the literal sense as well. They only wanted to focus on them and theirs. There was no "working for the common good." In fact, less freedom, harsher rules, and more punishment for the violation of them would have been the best solution to the issue at hand.
Wait, with the whole "focusing on them and theirs" thing has jogged my memory; that's just what it's like in most democratic societies anyway!
Never mind, everyone.
"Muddah, Faddah, kindly disregard this letter."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
How to be Successful
Recent political developments have offered me the chance to reflect on success and prosperity. While I agree that all people deserve opportunities to grow and find success, I do not agree that people are entitled to success. Success comes as a result of hard work; plain, old-fashioned work.
Too often we see the Ponzi schemes of society, offering something for nothing. We all took elementary school math, right? Zero cannot equal 100, so why would it be any different in the business world? Even the fundamentals of physics affirms the impossibility of something for nothing in the Conservation of Matter theorem; that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only reallocated.
In ages past, alchemy was a sought-after skill. Later it was gold digging and treasure hunting. The get-rich-quick schemes that are so prevalent today are merely the alchemy and gold digging of our day.
One would be seen as unwise to pursue a career in alchemy or gold digging, yet today people regularly get involved in schemes that promise rewards for very little or no work or investment. All too soon becomes clear that the meager amount invested, in some cases an entire savings account, is lost and there is nothing to show for it.
Unfortunately, for many this is an experience that has to be lived before they learn that lasting success, cannot come from taking shortcuts. As my mom always taught me, “Cheaters never prosper.” It was this pursuit of shortcuts that contributed to the current economic situation. How can we hope to rebuild an economy if we don’t use the proper materials and processes to lay the foundations?
Egypt was built on the backs of slaves; slaves who were not allowed to skip details; slaves who completed the process in full, however agonizing is must have been. The pyramids and tombs that they built are a lasting monument to the merits of hard work.
P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Most of them soon lose everything the have if they don’t learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before them. For true success, you must put forth true effort.
Too often we see the Ponzi schemes of society, offering something for nothing. We all took elementary school math, right? Zero cannot equal 100, so why would it be any different in the business world? Even the fundamentals of physics affirms the impossibility of something for nothing in the Conservation of Matter theorem; that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only reallocated.
In ages past, alchemy was a sought-after skill. Later it was gold digging and treasure hunting. The get-rich-quick schemes that are so prevalent today are merely the alchemy and gold digging of our day.
One would be seen as unwise to pursue a career in alchemy or gold digging, yet today people regularly get involved in schemes that promise rewards for very little or no work or investment. All too soon becomes clear that the meager amount invested, in some cases an entire savings account, is lost and there is nothing to show for it.
Unfortunately, for many this is an experience that has to be lived before they learn that lasting success, cannot come from taking shortcuts. As my mom always taught me, “Cheaters never prosper.” It was this pursuit of shortcuts that contributed to the current economic situation. How can we hope to rebuild an economy if we don’t use the proper materials and processes to lay the foundations?
Egypt was built on the backs of slaves; slaves who were not allowed to skip details; slaves who completed the process in full, however agonizing is must have been. The pyramids and tombs that they built are a lasting monument to the merits of hard work.
P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Most of them soon lose everything the have if they don’t learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before them. For true success, you must put forth true effort.
Friday, March 6, 2009
No Cheese for you: The Cheese Nazis
Today I offer a hot tip for all of you international travelers. Word on the street is that Chinese customs is no longer allowing travelers to bring in foreign cheeses. Why? One can only speculate.
The background on the issue is this: in the not-to-distant past, there was the damaging discovery that there were many Chinese-made dairy products that contained melamine, resulting in a decline in the consumption of Asian dairy products. The correlation between those events and today’s issue can be interpreted in several ways.
One viewpoint could be that this is wrought from the blatant cruelty of the government; the government is proactively seeking to make life miserable for the ex-pat community, forcing them to buy Chinese products that, by the way, are not renowned for their excellence throughout the international market. Quite frankly, that opinion is ignorant and biased, not to mentioned more than a bit far-fetched. Only a moron would consider it valid.
Another angle is that this is another move by the government to remind everyone that they are in control and the can do as they darn well please, not unlike a six-year-old on a power trip. Again, this is another incorrect assumption spawned from the ranting of flippant liberals.
On the other hand, perhaps this was actually a planned, tactical action to stimulate the flagging industry. With the confiscation of the cheeses, it would close the foreign cheese “grey” market among the ex-pat community and divert the consumers’ resources into the Chinese dairy industry, hopefully helping in the resuscitation the flagging sector. While this final view is overly complicated and may be reading too far into the situation, it can be seen as logical. Granted, though, it is not necessarily the most effective means to the desired end.
In the end, who can say why this travesty is taking place? No one from the Chinese side is saying anything and there is no clear explanation as to why this move would benefit anyone in the long- or short-term. Also, I thought is was the Chinese stuff that was dangerous…
Coming up next: Tips to help you succeed
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Kim Jong "The Mentally" Il
It's been a little while, eons for the blogosphere, but I am back, writer's block gone, and I am commentating on, as promised, everyone's favorite Korean sociopath: Kim Jong Il.
I will begin with a brief biography, taken straight from his autobiography, "How To Lose Friends and Alienate Yourself, but Gain Control of a Withering Northeast Asian Country in the Process," available anywhere non-existent books are sold. It reads as follows:
In the beginning, there was Kim Jong Il, no further information is required.
The book goes on and on about how he is to rule over the world one day and other ramblings of a depraved mind, so to speak. What he doesn't mention is that the rest of the world exists solely for the purpose of making sure he doesn't nuke himself, or more importantly us, by erecting more embargoes than Elizabeth Taylor had marriages.
It seems that every few minutes he decides that his country, the ironically names "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (emphasis added) might have a nuclear missile and threatens to launch it. However, as we have found out through experience, the missiles are generally no more effective than a bottle rocket, often with the same effect. One may be led to think that he does not bother to ask his scientists what they have actually developed before he makes brash statements about WMDs.
Mr. Il... he just never learns does he? How many more sanctions can the U.N. place on North Korea? I am really quite curious. It seems as that as long as I could remember we have been alienating the DPRK. What is left to embargo? Do we start blockading migratory birds?
I recall a few weeks back that I was reading an article about Supreme Ruler of the Universe Kim Jong Il and how he and his cronies were in the final development stages of their Taepodong II missile and that they didn't know what to expect from the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration. Well, in my frank and uneducated opinion, that is probably the wrong information to leak.
Let's just review the necessary facts: 1. The DPRK is determined to spite the U.N. with their missile development. 2. They do this with history suggesting that only negative outcomes will result. 3. They do this without having the foggiest idea of how Obama's administration will result. Is it me, or does that sound like KJI slept through "Dictatorship 101?"
Now it's a well-known fact that I can't end without the obligatory slam on his hair: it's utter silliness. He, Donald Trump, and Rod Blagojevich should start a club: Those Who Have Hair But Don't Know How To Wear It.
Honestly, how do you expect people to follow you or take your threats seriously when you look like the offspring of the Bride of Frankenstein and Elmer Fudd? You simply cannot demand credibility and respect, even if you have a country and your own army!
Well, our time is up, but I already have a treat prepared for next week:
Why are Chinese customs officers confiscating foreign cheese in suitcases?
Until tomorrow...
I will begin with a brief biography, taken straight from his autobiography, "How To Lose Friends and Alienate Yourself, but Gain Control of a Withering Northeast Asian Country in the Process," available anywhere non-existent books are sold. It reads as follows:
In the beginning, there was Kim Jong Il, no further information is required.
The book goes on and on about how he is to rule over the world one day and other ramblings of a depraved mind, so to speak. What he doesn't mention is that the rest of the world exists solely for the purpose of making sure he doesn't nuke himself, or more importantly us, by erecting more embargoes than Elizabeth Taylor had marriages.
It seems that every few minutes he decides that his country, the ironically names "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (emphasis added) might have a nuclear missile and threatens to launch it. However, as we have found out through experience, the missiles are generally no more effective than a bottle rocket, often with the same effect. One may be led to think that he does not bother to ask his scientists what they have actually developed before he makes brash statements about WMDs.
Mr. Il... he just never learns does he? How many more sanctions can the U.N. place on North Korea? I am really quite curious. It seems as that as long as I could remember we have been alienating the DPRK. What is left to embargo? Do we start blockading migratory birds?
I recall a few weeks back that I was reading an article about Supreme Ruler of the Universe Kim Jong Il and how he and his cronies were in the final development stages of their Taepodong II missile and that they didn't know what to expect from the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration. Well, in my frank and uneducated opinion, that is probably the wrong information to leak.
Let's just review the necessary facts: 1. The DPRK is determined to spite the U.N. with their missile development. 2. They do this with history suggesting that only negative outcomes will result. 3. They do this without having the foggiest idea of how Obama's administration will result. Is it me, or does that sound like KJI slept through "Dictatorship 101?"
Now it's a well-known fact that I can't end without the obligatory slam on his hair: it's utter silliness. He, Donald Trump, and Rod Blagojevich should start a club: Those Who Have Hair But Don't Know How To Wear It.
Honestly, how do you expect people to follow you or take your threats seriously when you look like the offspring of the Bride of Frankenstein and Elmer Fudd? You simply cannot demand credibility and respect, even if you have a country and your own army!
Well, our time is up, but I already have a treat prepared for next week:
Why are Chinese customs officers confiscating foreign cheese in suitcases?
Until tomorrow...
Monday, February 16, 2009
Chavez, that scwewy wabbit!
As has been reported in the news, our friend in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has passed a referendum eliminating a term-limit for the presidency. He also declares that "those who voted "yes" today voted for socialism, for revolution" (Yahoo!news).
Call me paranoid, but isn't this sort of what Hitler did? The Wiemar republic, the economic crash, the enactment of the emergency dictator position, any of that ring a bell? Once he became temporary dictator, he quickly moved into dictator-for-life. What happened next is history. Cold, brutal history.
I am reminded of Calvin and Hobbes, one of my favorite comic strips growing up. There was the G.R.O.S.S. club, where Calvin was dictator for life. He and Hobbes went about terrorizing Susie. While it was all innocent childhood fun, let us pause for a moment and use this as an analogy for Hugo "The Man" Chavez.
Will his success, which he blatantly cites as a victory for socialism in the above quote, lead to fascism? It did for an economically distraught Germany. Venezuela has had its fair share of struggles, but the economy is growing under Chavez. Will they cave into nationalism and become aggressive? South America already has a reputation for social chaos. If they do become aggressive, will they turn on capitalist states like America and the European Union? This all sounds a bit extreme, in terms of drawing conclusions, but it is definitely food for thought.
In my opinion, worst case scenario: World War Four (who are we kidding, we're pretty much in World War III already) with the South American dictatorships against the North American capitalists, like a bad game of Risk.
Best case scenario: Venezuela successfully integrates socialism and the economy grows, bringing with it a better quality of life for Venezuelans.
However, despite my analysis, whether it is valid is your call, we can only wait and see what happens.
Until next time, when I bring up another one of our favorite friends, Kim Jong Il, and his stylin' hairdo...
Call me paranoid, but isn't this sort of what Hitler did? The Wiemar republic, the economic crash, the enactment of the emergency dictator position, any of that ring a bell? Once he became temporary dictator, he quickly moved into dictator-for-life. What happened next is history. Cold, brutal history.
I am reminded of Calvin and Hobbes, one of my favorite comic strips growing up. There was the G.R.O.S.S. club, where Calvin was dictator for life. He and Hobbes went about terrorizing Susie. While it was all innocent childhood fun, let us pause for a moment and use this as an analogy for Hugo "The Man" Chavez.
Will his success, which he blatantly cites as a victory for socialism in the above quote, lead to fascism? It did for an economically distraught Germany. Venezuela has had its fair share of struggles, but the economy is growing under Chavez. Will they cave into nationalism and become aggressive? South America already has a reputation for social chaos. If they do become aggressive, will they turn on capitalist states like America and the European Union? This all sounds a bit extreme, in terms of drawing conclusions, but it is definitely food for thought.
In my opinion, worst case scenario: World War Four (who are we kidding, we're pretty much in World War III already) with the South American dictatorships against the North American capitalists, like a bad game of Risk.
Best case scenario: Venezuela successfully integrates socialism and the economy grows, bringing with it a better quality of life for Venezuelans.
However, despite my analysis, whether it is valid is your call, we can only wait and see what happens.
Until next time, when I bring up another one of our favorite friends, Kim Jong Il, and his stylin' hairdo...
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Here's a quick appetizer...
I realized that the erstwhile link to the Mormons and Homosexuality article may have some unintended conclusions drawn to it. I put it up there strictly for the purpose of clarifying what the Church's position is, in light of the recent Prop 8 hubbub. I have since removed it, as to avoid misleading people.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Economic Stimulus Involves Religious Restrictions?
You will never believe this! Remember in all the campaign debates how we were told that earmarking would stop? Well, apparently that did not include provisos on funds in the upcoming stimulus bill.
The democrats in the House have decided that it would be prudent to bar educational institutions money for "modernization, renovation, or repair" that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity" (www.foxnews.com). This includes colleges and private schools. However, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is fighting it. Hopefully with President Obama's help, this questionable clause can be removed.
Now, really, does this seem patriotic? Does anyone recall who it was that first came to America seeking safety? It was the Puritans. It was their founding Christian beliefs that laid the foundation for the society we enjoy today, whether or not people want to admit it. That's why on all currency is printed "In God We Trust."
Sure, there are myriad people who are not be Christian. You don't have to be to follow this statement. God can technically be anything you consider to be the greatest power in existence. For some, money is God. Others, family. Maybe nature, or Buddha.
Conservatives always seem to be under fire for not being open-minded or accepting, yet it seems to be those who profess to be "liberal" that do most of the public stereotyping, to be guilty of the same in this sentence.
Now this may appear to be a bit of a tangent, but it all goes to illustrate how important religion is for this country, whether it is Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, or even Atheism. To deny a school financial assistance due to its endorsement of the First Amendment is to judge the nature of validity religion, namely to say, religion has no business being affiliated with the government. It sounds to me that if a school allowed religious instruction, etc, regardless of the integrity of the institution, that it would be deemed unfit for government aid.
Does the government distribute WICs, food stamps, and other financial aid to those in need by first screening their religious involvement, social activities, or recreational preferences? I believe not. Yet, the government gives lots of money to these people, some of which are taking advantage of the whole situation.
Schools generally tend to be positive contributors to its community and its city. Colleges are excellent resources for improving the development of a state. In my opinion, this alone warrants unrestricted availability to apply for government aid. I am not saying it should get the money, just that it should have a fair shake in the application process.
America is moving to be a place for equal opportunity employment. Why not equal opportunity government funding for institutions that can only help this country? I see this as an opportunity for the government to make amends for the previous bailout, which set a lot of people on edge, by boosting the country's educational systems.
Education creates a qualified and competent workforce. A competent workforce can lead to innovative and efficient companies. Healthy companies create more jobs. More jobs boosts the economy. How can aiding a school in improving itself ever be a negative thing, and why shouldn't schools who encourage religious practices be entitled to help? Why religion and not some other criteria?
From my viewpoint, this clause has a lot going against it, logically, politically, and socially. I hope the government agrees, or else there is going to be frustration across all demographics.
Well, this is just another Python Public Service Announcement (PPSA).
Until next time...
The democrats in the House have decided that it would be prudent to bar educational institutions money for "modernization, renovation, or repair" that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity" (www.foxnews.com). This includes colleges and private schools. However, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is fighting it. Hopefully with President Obama's help, this questionable clause can be removed.
Now, really, does this seem patriotic? Does anyone recall who it was that first came to America seeking safety? It was the Puritans. It was their founding Christian beliefs that laid the foundation for the society we enjoy today, whether or not people want to admit it. That's why on all currency is printed "In God We Trust."
Sure, there are myriad people who are not be Christian. You don't have to be to follow this statement. God can technically be anything you consider to be the greatest power in existence. For some, money is God. Others, family. Maybe nature, or Buddha.
Conservatives always seem to be under fire for not being open-minded or accepting, yet it seems to be those who profess to be "liberal" that do most of the public stereotyping, to be guilty of the same in this sentence.
Now this may appear to be a bit of a tangent, but it all goes to illustrate how important religion is for this country, whether it is Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, or even Atheism. To deny a school financial assistance due to its endorsement of the First Amendment is to judge the nature of validity religion, namely to say, religion has no business being affiliated with the government. It sounds to me that if a school allowed religious instruction, etc, regardless of the integrity of the institution, that it would be deemed unfit for government aid.
Does the government distribute WICs, food stamps, and other financial aid to those in need by first screening their religious involvement, social activities, or recreational preferences? I believe not. Yet, the government gives lots of money to these people, some of which are taking advantage of the whole situation.
Schools generally tend to be positive contributors to its community and its city. Colleges are excellent resources for improving the development of a state. In my opinion, this alone warrants unrestricted availability to apply for government aid. I am not saying it should get the money, just that it should have a fair shake in the application process.
America is moving to be a place for equal opportunity employment. Why not equal opportunity government funding for institutions that can only help this country? I see this as an opportunity for the government to make amends for the previous bailout, which set a lot of people on edge, by boosting the country's educational systems.
Education creates a qualified and competent workforce. A competent workforce can lead to innovative and efficient companies. Healthy companies create more jobs. More jobs boosts the economy. How can aiding a school in improving itself ever be a negative thing, and why shouldn't schools who encourage religious practices be entitled to help? Why religion and not some other criteria?
From my viewpoint, this clause has a lot going against it, logically, politically, and socially. I hope the government agrees, or else there is going to be frustration across all demographics.
Well, this is just another Python Public Service Announcement (PPSA).
Until next time...
Friday, February 6, 2009
In Memoriam: Chris Owens
Today I received some very sad news.
Chris Owens, a good friend of mine for 10 years, was found to have taken his life this morning. I wish this evening to commemorate his life.
Chris was everything you could want in a friend. He was very bright and knew how to make you smile. I rarely saw Chris without a smile on his own face and he was always quick to share in mirth with others.
We spent hours discussing politics, society, but also ridiculous topics (which animal in the animal kingdom would win in an open arena showdown. His answer: the hippo).
His face was one of the few I knew I could count on while I was in Salt Lake City dealing with medical problems. I always felt we were kindred spirits. If nothing else, Chris was a loyal friend.
On top of his wonderful personality, he was also talented jazz pianist, guitarist, and music major. It seems like only a few days ago, and it really almost was, when I was driving him to the University 15th Student Ward at the University of Utah. He wore his stylish aviators, goatee, and leather jacket. One week, he and my cousin Mike played a beautiful piano duet arrangement of "All Creatures of Our God and King." This is what made him so memorable; humor balanced with sincerity. Passion with self-control. Strength with gentleness.
In "The Sandlot," Babe Ruth appears to one of the main characters in a dream and imparts this wisdom: Heroes may be remembered, but legends never die.
Christopher Owens was a legend in my eyes. The things we did were memorable, and though he is gone, I have a vast archive of fond memories to look back on.
I do not know the details of his tragic decision, but I pray that he finds relief to his burdens in the Lord's arms. I wish to close with the beautiful language of William Wordsworth.
Chris Owens, a good friend of mine for 10 years, was found to have taken his life this morning. I wish this evening to commemorate his life.
Chris was everything you could want in a friend. He was very bright and knew how to make you smile. I rarely saw Chris without a smile on his own face and he was always quick to share in mirth with others.
We spent hours discussing politics, society, but also ridiculous topics (which animal in the animal kingdom would win in an open arena showdown. His answer: the hippo).
His face was one of the few I knew I could count on while I was in Salt Lake City dealing with medical problems. I always felt we were kindred spirits. If nothing else, Chris was a loyal friend.
On top of his wonderful personality, he was also talented jazz pianist, guitarist, and music major. It seems like only a few days ago, and it really almost was, when I was driving him to the University 15th Student Ward at the University of Utah. He wore his stylish aviators, goatee, and leather jacket. One week, he and my cousin Mike played a beautiful piano duet arrangement of "All Creatures of Our God and King." This is what made him so memorable; humor balanced with sincerity. Passion with self-control. Strength with gentleness.
In "The Sandlot," Babe Ruth appears to one of the main characters in a dream and imparts this wisdom: Heroes may be remembered, but legends never die.
Christopher Owens was a legend in my eyes. The things we did were memorable, and though he is gone, I have a vast archive of fond memories to look back on.
I do not know the details of his tragic decision, but I pray that he finds relief to his burdens in the Lord's arms. I wish to close with the beautiful language of William Wordsworth.
"Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home[.]"
I will miss you, Chris.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
I Am Lost for Words
Hi all!
Today I have no idea what to write. I guess I could harp about how disgusting obese hairy men in speedos are, but that's not very original. Or I could drone on and on about my monotonous excuse for a life. Or I could try to formulate a conspiracy theory and circulate it to reach the status of cult icon. Or I could tell you that I am going to go make tomato pancakes right now and how delicious they are and how you can't have them. But that would be lying. I think they would be gross, and as a result, I would want you to have ALL of them. I would be that selfless.
See, this is what happens when it is a slow news day. No major military offensives, no new impeachments, no high-profile celebrities in fan-dom crises. Nothing. Yahoo! has one of its top stories for today about a big snake. Wow. Scintillating. I can't wait to hear what comes next.
Oops! Let me give you a towel to wipe that dripping sarcasm off the screen.
So, I guess I am that sad; I have to have some interesting news to be interesting. I guess I am a human moon-impersonator, reflecting the light from another source. This is not to be confused with me mooning you. No, that would be completely, utterly, and in all other ways, inappropriate.
Well, I am going to euthanize you all by shutting up, so enjoy the afterlife!
Until next time...
Today I have no idea what to write. I guess I could harp about how disgusting obese hairy men in speedos are, but that's not very original. Or I could drone on and on about my monotonous excuse for a life. Or I could try to formulate a conspiracy theory and circulate it to reach the status of cult icon. Or I could tell you that I am going to go make tomato pancakes right now and how delicious they are and how you can't have them. But that would be lying. I think they would be gross, and as a result, I would want you to have ALL of them. I would be that selfless.
See, this is what happens when it is a slow news day. No major military offensives, no new impeachments, no high-profile celebrities in fan-dom crises. Nothing. Yahoo! has one of its top stories for today about a big snake. Wow. Scintillating. I can't wait to hear what comes next.
Oops! Let me give you a towel to wipe that dripping sarcasm off the screen.
So, I guess I am that sad; I have to have some interesting news to be interesting. I guess I am a human moon-impersonator, reflecting the light from another source. This is not to be confused with me mooning you. No, that would be completely, utterly, and in all other ways, inappropriate.
Well, I am going to euthanize you all by shutting up, so enjoy the afterlife!
Until next time...
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A Serial Criminal or Just a Politician?
Well, we all heard the news: Tom Daschle, the man who owed the IRS more than what 99.6% of the world's people make in a year (source: globalrichlist.com), has elected to step down from his political position. What a load of crap! Holy cow! He got to CHOOSE?
Pardon my incredulity, but I think that is ridiculous! When a guy who knocks over a 7-Eleven gets a prison sentence, but a politician who, in case you forgot, MAKES LAWS cheats his own government is not immediately strung up on a line and had rotten veggies thrown at him (the good ones need to go to the poorer countries) until his kidneys turned to jelly is allowed to choose what happens to his career, we know our country is in a tough spot.
Kudos to President Obama. He has really risen to his office; he may have made the nomination, but he did not condone Daschle's actions. That takes stones to admit responsibility for poor judgement, something not seen often enough among politicians.
While it is true that everyone makes mistakes, it also appears, and this is just my observation, that only some people have to be accountable. Too often do we allow crooked politicians get away with, as we all know, murder and other things. I think the reason we could never fully prosecute all the dishonest people in elected offices is because the government would more than partially dissolve.
Here comes my revolutionary segment: we need to stop electing anyone who has shown criminal behavior. Do we want criminals, convicted or not, running the country we cherish so much? Well, do we? I submit that we do not.
Now, just because it appears that government is flooded with corrupt people, it is not the case; there are many noble and honorable people in the government, but we need to enforce accountability among everyone. The same way that we do not tolerate drugs in schools or child molesters.
However, we need to start with ourselves; if we are not willing to be responsible for our own actions, how can we expect others to be the same?
Well, I am out of breath. Not really, but it is a good line to begin a conclusion.
I don't know how coherent this dissertation has been, but it has at least helped me feel better. It was not really funny, nor was it too entertaining, unless you like hearing me rant and rave like a doomsday prophet.
Well, thankfully, our time has come to an end, like a spool of thread on an ugly sweater that, since unfinished, will never have to be worn in public and can be summarily incinerated.
Until next time...
Pardon my incredulity, but I think that is ridiculous! When a guy who knocks over a 7-Eleven gets a prison sentence, but a politician who, in case you forgot, MAKES LAWS cheats his own government is not immediately strung up on a line and had rotten veggies thrown at him (the good ones need to go to the poorer countries) until his kidneys turned to jelly is allowed to choose what happens to his career, we know our country is in a tough spot.
Kudos to President Obama. He has really risen to his office; he may have made the nomination, but he did not condone Daschle's actions. That takes stones to admit responsibility for poor judgement, something not seen often enough among politicians.
While it is true that everyone makes mistakes, it also appears, and this is just my observation, that only some people have to be accountable. Too often do we allow crooked politicians get away with, as we all know, murder and other things. I think the reason we could never fully prosecute all the dishonest people in elected offices is because the government would more than partially dissolve.
Here comes my revolutionary segment: we need to stop electing anyone who has shown criminal behavior. Do we want criminals, convicted or not, running the country we cherish so much? Well, do we? I submit that we do not.
Now, just because it appears that government is flooded with corrupt people, it is not the case; there are many noble and honorable people in the government, but we need to enforce accountability among everyone. The same way that we do not tolerate drugs in schools or child molesters.
However, we need to start with ourselves; if we are not willing to be responsible for our own actions, how can we expect others to be the same?
Well, I am out of breath. Not really, but it is a good line to begin a conclusion.
I don't know how coherent this dissertation has been, but it has at least helped me feel better. It was not really funny, nor was it too entertaining, unless you like hearing me rant and rave like a doomsday prophet.
Well, thankfully, our time has come to an end, like a spool of thread on an ugly sweater that, since unfinished, will never have to be worn in public and can be summarily incinerated.
Until next time...
I feel like a dirtbag...
Okay, so to mention the patheticity of my life (I think I just invented a word, though it is lexicographically (another word I made?) sound), I must mention that I feel like a jerk for not having fed the masses yesterday with pearls of my voluminous wisdom.
I'll ammend that with this next blog!
It's time to say, readers, "never again!"
I'll ammend that with this next blog!
It's time to say, readers, "never again!"
Monday, February 2, 2009
Moo! Moo! Woof! Don't follow the herd!
Today I wish to discuss, or I guess more correctly: monologue, about a raging phenomenon that has reached pandemic levels: internet uploads.
This alarming trend of posting anything and everything on the web for the whole world to see threatens to leave individuals open for predators and conmen, public humiliation, and also presents a rather amusing contradiction in American ideology.
Firstly, I will bring up social network tools, like facebook, myspace, etc. They are brilliant innovations that have probably strengthened millions of friendships and started thousands more. However, it also strips you of your privacy. Sometimes, it is you through your own actions, sometimes it is "friends" of yours posting stuff you wish had been forgotten.
I read an article not too long ago about how often companies and HR employees use facebook and the like to find out more about job applicants, and how damaging some material can be to prospective employees. I personally did a thoughtful double check on the kinds of things I had online, whether it was photos I put up, political affiliations, interests listed, and other options. I deduced that I had nothing that I wouldn't want a potential manager or boss seeing, if not my parents.
The second thing that I had to look up was what other people had posted about me. I am not a wild person, unless you count a musical obsession with Billy Joel, so I didn't have too much to worry about. However, I know there are people out there, some that I think I know, who have pictures of them when they are absolutely plowed, high, or doing something astoundingly stupid. I can't see how I wouldn't be embarrassed if I had pictures like that on my site. I would not want the world to have access to any poor lifestyle choices I had made, nor would I want vulgar postings from my friends, nor probably, would I even want to be reminded of stupid things I had done.
Now, I'll move on to a more entertaining aspect of the internet posting craze, and I'll give it the auspicious title of the Patriot Act Paradox. Remember how incensed people got when the Patriot Act passed all those years ago? Remember how everyone got paranoid about Big Brother after reading 1984? Remember how quick we are to defend our personal liberties?
If we were so adamant about privacy, why do we not hesitate to post stuff? Big Brother doesn't have to tap ANYTHING anymore! They can just google us, check our facebook profile, or youtube videos in the public domain to find out our entire life story, political connections, car make and model, and our toothbrush color!
Also, half the time on facebook, people post shoddy-looking photos of themselves, usually shot at a downward angle, tilted sideways, color-washed, and cropped to closely. I think we all know the look.
So PLEASE! For the love of everything good and holy in this world, don't be a posting addict, don't embarrass your friends (if you do, you'll see how soon you stay on their list when they see what you put up), don't put up a fuss about privacy until you keep your own, and especially, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't take "myspace shots." No one will take you seriously.
It just looks kinda dumb. Sorry, but it does.
Until next time, when I can come up with something a bit more sophisticated to satire...
This alarming trend of posting anything and everything on the web for the whole world to see threatens to leave individuals open for predators and conmen, public humiliation, and also presents a rather amusing contradiction in American ideology.
Firstly, I will bring up social network tools, like facebook, myspace, etc. They are brilliant innovations that have probably strengthened millions of friendships and started thousands more. However, it also strips you of your privacy. Sometimes, it is you through your own actions, sometimes it is "friends" of yours posting stuff you wish had been forgotten.
I read an article not too long ago about how often companies and HR employees use facebook and the like to find out more about job applicants, and how damaging some material can be to prospective employees. I personally did a thoughtful double check on the kinds of things I had online, whether it was photos I put up, political affiliations, interests listed, and other options. I deduced that I had nothing that I wouldn't want a potential manager or boss seeing, if not my parents.
The second thing that I had to look up was what other people had posted about me. I am not a wild person, unless you count a musical obsession with Billy Joel, so I didn't have too much to worry about. However, I know there are people out there, some that I think I know, who have pictures of them when they are absolutely plowed, high, or doing something astoundingly stupid. I can't see how I wouldn't be embarrassed if I had pictures like that on my site. I would not want the world to have access to any poor lifestyle choices I had made, nor would I want vulgar postings from my friends, nor probably, would I even want to be reminded of stupid things I had done.
Now, I'll move on to a more entertaining aspect of the internet posting craze, and I'll give it the auspicious title of the Patriot Act Paradox. Remember how incensed people got when the Patriot Act passed all those years ago? Remember how everyone got paranoid about Big Brother after reading 1984? Remember how quick we are to defend our personal liberties?
If we were so adamant about privacy, why do we not hesitate to post stuff? Big Brother doesn't have to tap ANYTHING anymore! They can just google us, check our facebook profile, or youtube videos in the public domain to find out our entire life story, political connections, car make and model, and our toothbrush color!
Also, half the time on facebook, people post shoddy-looking photos of themselves, usually shot at a downward angle, tilted sideways, color-washed, and cropped to closely. I think we all know the look.
So PLEASE! For the love of everything good and holy in this world, don't be a posting addict, don't embarrass your friends (if you do, you'll see how soon you stay on their list when they see what you put up), don't put up a fuss about privacy until you keep your own, and especially, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't take "myspace shots." No one will take you seriously.
It just looks kinda dumb. Sorry, but it does.
Until next time, when I can come up with something a bit more sophisticated to satire...
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The 20! The 10! TOUCHDOWN!
It's everyone's favorite time again! Super Bowl Sunday! Woohoo! Personally, this is a time of deep emotion and reflection; primarily in relation to why my team, the Philly Eagles, aren't in the play-offs. This happens almost every year.
Super Bowl Sunday also gives me another reason to feel like a dirtbag and un-American; I don't have access to a live broadcast. Additionally, I rarely have access to a computer to watch a live update! Living in China does have its drawbacks.
It takes place on a Monday for us over here, and that usually means I am in class. Unless you have been there, you don't know the anguish of knowing that somewhere far away there are 300 lb human freight trains knocking the crap out of each other. It is unimaginable agony. It is akin to hearing that your grandmother is lying in the middle of the Saharan desert with her fingers in Chinese handcuffs.
Beyond missing the football action, the other big hit that I take (pun not intended), is missing out on the commercials. I don't get to see the multi-million dollar 15-second blips of capitalist wonder at its finest. Instead, I have to remember to look them up online and wait for eight hours for them to buffer before I can enjoy the shorts. That's what really frosts my shorts.
Well, again our time has come to bid farewell, not unlike a sock bids farewell to its mate as it enters the washing machine. May we all return next time, cleaner, and hopefully with no new holes.
Until next time...
Super Bowl Sunday also gives me another reason to feel like a dirtbag and un-American; I don't have access to a live broadcast. Additionally, I rarely have access to a computer to watch a live update! Living in China does have its drawbacks.
It takes place on a Monday for us over here, and that usually means I am in class. Unless you have been there, you don't know the anguish of knowing that somewhere far away there are 300 lb human freight trains knocking the crap out of each other. It is unimaginable agony. It is akin to hearing that your grandmother is lying in the middle of the Saharan desert with her fingers in Chinese handcuffs.
Beyond missing the football action, the other big hit that I take (pun not intended), is missing out on the commercials. I don't get to see the multi-million dollar 15-second blips of capitalist wonder at its finest. Instead, I have to remember to look them up online and wait for eight hours for them to buffer before I can enjoy the shorts. That's what really frosts my shorts.
Well, again our time has come to bid farewell, not unlike a sock bids farewell to its mate as it enters the washing machine. May we all return next time, cleaner, and hopefully with no new holes.
Until next time...
Friday, January 30, 2009
Planet of the Apes
Today's post will be a quickie, and hopefully very light and enjoyable, as the previous two posts have been somewhat solemn.
All the evolutionists say that we are descended from monkeys, right? Well, here's something funny you can do that will completely destroy the way you look at society: imagine everyone around as actual monkeys. Picture them not as the people you know, but pretend you are Jane Goodall and are studying monkey behavior and as such, mentally take notes on people's behavior. Sometimes if you look at someone's facial profile, you can even see a monkey in there.
I personally do not support straight-up evolution as defined by scientists, I'm more of a creationist. I solemnly believe that we are of divine heritage. But, I do not dispute that we have some general similarities. The biggest difference, or at least one of them, is that we are so conceited. We feel driven to make our mark on the world and be remembered.
Argh! I am going off on a tangent; one that I did not intend to go off on this time. Maybe next time...
All the evolutionists say that we are descended from monkeys, right? Well, here's something funny you can do that will completely destroy the way you look at society: imagine everyone around as actual monkeys. Picture them not as the people you know, but pretend you are Jane Goodall and are studying monkey behavior and as such, mentally take notes on people's behavior. Sometimes if you look at someone's facial profile, you can even see a monkey in there.
I personally do not support straight-up evolution as defined by scientists, I'm more of a creationist. I solemnly believe that we are of divine heritage. But, I do not dispute that we have some general similarities. The biggest difference, or at least one of them, is that we are so conceited. We feel driven to make our mark on the world and be remembered.
Argh! I am going off on a tangent; one that I did not intend to go off on this time. Maybe next time...
Celebrities vs. Journalists
For the last couple of days, I have been stewing over an issue, one that I partially addressed earlier; celebrities' political/social commentary clashing with journalists.
I guess there is only one thing to say about this; if you are not a journalist, or at least very well informed, don't try and beat them at their game. The clearest example is this: let's say that the celebrity is a baseball pitch and the journalist is a football player, specifically a linebacker. It would be downright stupid for the pitcher to attempt to take on the linebacker in a football game. Suicide in its most pure form.
To most, this example is pretty cut-and-dry. Why then, do people, celebrities in particular, feel the need to assert their views by using star power to manipulate fans to accomplish their own personal agendas?
I remember one of the scariest things I ever saw on the news was a young woman who, when asked which, if any, celebrity influenced their vote in then 2008 elections, responded that Paris Hilton helped her decide who to vote for.
If this is the state of the union, where celebrities, whose occupation is to entertain, become influential political figures, we could be in for some serious trouble. No one would have gone to Picasso for help with science homework, not when there was Einstein. America has a plethora of journalists, analysts, economists, news syndicates, and information routes. To ignore all that and listen to a celebrity, not to mention one noted for airheaded-ness, is just dumb. There is no other word for it. Dumb.
I guess there is only one thing to say about this; if you are not a journalist, or at least very well informed, don't try and beat them at their game. The clearest example is this: let's say that the celebrity is a baseball pitch and the journalist is a football player, specifically a linebacker. It would be downright stupid for the pitcher to attempt to take on the linebacker in a football game. Suicide in its most pure form.
To most, this example is pretty cut-and-dry. Why then, do people, celebrities in particular, feel the need to assert their views by using star power to manipulate fans to accomplish their own personal agendas?
I remember one of the scariest things I ever saw on the news was a young woman who, when asked which, if any, celebrity influenced their vote in then 2008 elections, responded that Paris Hilton helped her decide who to vote for.
If this is the state of the union, where celebrities, whose occupation is to entertain, become influential political figures, we could be in for some serious trouble. No one would have gone to Picasso for help with science homework, not when there was Einstein. America has a plethora of journalists, analysts, economists, news syndicates, and information routes. To ignore all that and listen to a celebrity, not to mention one noted for airheaded-ness, is just dumb. There is no other word for it. Dumb.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
25 to Life, just 3 payments of $19.99!
A little while ago, I was reading the paper in Salt Lake City and there was an article about the government trying to make cuts in correctional facilities spending. It was reported they were going to accomplish this by reducing the number of convicts who had to report to parole officers, and change the sentence severity of what could be considered to be "minor" crimes. Doing this would give something like 17,000 criminals more leniency.
I was floored, to say the least, and immediately began brainstorming alternative methods to cut back costs. One way, inspired by a sketch from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie," would be to privatize the system. We already do it with military tech development and diplomatic security, why not have companies bid for contracts to enforce the U.S. penal codes? Adam Smith would suggest that doing so would show everyone how to most effectively punish criminals.
It would completely erase the smaller overhead costs of running a prison, plus it would make life much more miserable for the people who are being punished for making the rest of us miserable. Criminals foreited their liberties when they infringed upon ours. It may seem harsh, but they deserve no better treatment than the men and women voluntarily serving our nation overseas in the Armed Forces. We could feed the convicts K-rations, have them do laborous tasks in hot environments, and in doing so, they would learn marketable skills to help them actually contribute to society.
Oh, and the legal fees and other administrative costs would also have to be paid for by the criminal.
Of course, all this would come at a cost, though not for the regular tax payer. The criminals would have to pay for the time they spent in prison, through their work, that other companies could contract out to the prison companies. The different jobs would also pay at different rates, so if a convict spends more time doing a more skilled job, he/she would be able to put money in the bank for when they are out, to start a new life. If a criminal was not able to pay his/her confinement fees, they would be indentured servants to the prison corporation until they could square their fees.
All of this would allow America to reflect upon the justice system, its efficacy, and how we really regard those who infringe upon rights of law-abiding citizens, which in my opinion is out-of-whack. Maybe then crime rates would drop and people would learn that crime really doesn't pay.
Sorry this one wasn't as funny, but I do hope it was insightful. Hopefully someone somewhere will take this idea and run for it.
Until next time...
I was floored, to say the least, and immediately began brainstorming alternative methods to cut back costs. One way, inspired by a sketch from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie," would be to privatize the system. We already do it with military tech development and diplomatic security, why not have companies bid for contracts to enforce the U.S. penal codes? Adam Smith would suggest that doing so would show everyone how to most effectively punish criminals.
It would completely erase the smaller overhead costs of running a prison, plus it would make life much more miserable for the people who are being punished for making the rest of us miserable. Criminals foreited their liberties when they infringed upon ours. It may seem harsh, but they deserve no better treatment than the men and women voluntarily serving our nation overseas in the Armed Forces. We could feed the convicts K-rations, have them do laborous tasks in hot environments, and in doing so, they would learn marketable skills to help them actually contribute to society.
Oh, and the legal fees and other administrative costs would also have to be paid for by the criminal.
Of course, all this would come at a cost, though not for the regular tax payer. The criminals would have to pay for the time they spent in prison, through their work, that other companies could contract out to the prison companies. The different jobs would also pay at different rates, so if a convict spends more time doing a more skilled job, he/she would be able to put money in the bank for when they are out, to start a new life. If a criminal was not able to pay his/her confinement fees, they would be indentured servants to the prison corporation until they could square their fees.
All of this would allow America to reflect upon the justice system, its efficacy, and how we really regard those who infringe upon rights of law-abiding citizens, which in my opinion is out-of-whack. Maybe then crime rates would drop and people would learn that crime really doesn't pay.
Sorry this one wasn't as funny, but I do hope it was insightful. Hopefully someone somewhere will take this idea and run for it.
Until next time...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A Completely Legitimate Get-Rich-Quick Scheme...
Last night was Chinese New Year's "Chu-San" (third day) and my family and I, plus some friends went out for Chinese Hot Pot for dinner. It was there that I had an astonishing revelation: Hot Pot restaurants are a complete racket!
Think about it, this is a strip-down description of a restaurant: you have people come pay to sit in your restaurant and cook their own food. And the kicker? They do this willingly, and in some places, pay outrageous prices for huge banquents that they get to cook themself!
Call me crazy, but that's just crazy!
Well, that's all for this little post.
Until next time...
Think about it, this is a strip-down description of a restaurant: you have people come pay to sit in your restaurant and cook their own food. And the kicker? They do this willingly, and in some places, pay outrageous prices for huge banquents that they get to cook themself!
Call me crazy, but that's just crazy!
Well, that's all for this little post.
Until next time...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
On Celebrities
I was just reading an article on Yahoo! news about Jessica Alba and the apparently "neutral" country in WWII, the one where all the fleeing Europeans went to... Sweden.
I find it vaguely, if not completely and engrossingly entertaining to watch celebrities attempt to justify their importance with political statements, factual arguments with journalists, and activism. I think they realize that in truth, celebrities are unnecessary. Superfluous, if I may. They are a by-product of a luxury economy. We can't eat them, can't drink them, can't breathe them, they provide no real use to us except to occupy our minds while we waste time.
I think it very funny that they try to go toe-to-toe with experienced journalists; people who know what they're doing and bother to do the research; people who serve a purpose and have an oath to provide the People with accurate facts, if a little slanted in the process.
I am not a journalist, but from what I can tell, the bottom line is: don't mess with the pros.
I find it vaguely, if not completely and engrossingly entertaining to watch celebrities attempt to justify their importance with political statements, factual arguments with journalists, and activism. I think they realize that in truth, celebrities are unnecessary. Superfluous, if I may. They are a by-product of a luxury economy. We can't eat them, can't drink them, can't breathe them, they provide no real use to us except to occupy our minds while we waste time.
I think it very funny that they try to go toe-to-toe with experienced journalists; people who know what they're doing and bother to do the research; people who serve a purpose and have an oath to provide the People with accurate facts, if a little slanted in the process.
I am not a journalist, but from what I can tell, the bottom line is: don't mess with the pros.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Python's Philosophies Manifesto
Greetings to all you readers out there,
Following suit with "Citizen" Charles Foster Kane, I thought it prudent to put forth a manifesto to delineate exactly what it is I plan on doing with this blog.
My objectives are two-an-a-half-fold:
1)To entertain
If you do not laugh at least once during the course of any given blog, I am not doing my job right.
2)To be insightful
2.5) In all likelihood, the insight will be of a political, philosophical, or social nature.
Well, this wraps up the first of hopefully many long, but not too long, and happy posts.
Without further ado, I give you...
The Python's Philosophies!
Enjoy!
Following suit with "Citizen" Charles Foster Kane, I thought it prudent to put forth a manifesto to delineate exactly what it is I plan on doing with this blog.
My objectives are two-an-a-half-fold:
1)To entertain
If you do not laugh at least once during the course of any given blog, I am not doing my job right.
2)To be insightful
2.5) In all likelihood, the insight will be of a political, philosophical, or social nature.
Well, this wraps up the first of hopefully many long, but not too long, and happy posts.
Without further ado, I give you...
The Python's Philosophies!
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)