Ingrates!!!
The last post clearly showed that the daylight savings time is backwards and that the earth and humanity, not to mention the cuddly polar bears, can be saved by springing forward in fall and falling back in spring.
No one cared.
Ingrates!!
I fry my brain conceiving ways to help humanity and what do I get?
Nothing!!
Why?
Because the world is peopled by Ingrates!!!
Oh well. Now I must devise a plan to convince the ingrates to pay me and serve my whims. Saving humanity is a thankless task. I'll find a way to turn this in my favor.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
I Was Thinking; again, part311
Soon we have to spring forward with our clocks. Why? They have found that it may actually result in more energy usage; certainly no meaningful savings.
Another one of those meaningless things that we all* do because THEY say so. Nothing wrong with starting the day an hour earlier. It is nice to be a kid playing ball in Miami at 8PM while it is still daylight in May or June. I remember that. But we could have just started life earlier and accomplished the same thing.
There are other lifestyles that don't really get a big thrill out of it. I've had jobs that began early in the morning, before daylight. So, once I sprang forward, I just worked an extra hour in the dark, or in cases where it was outdoor work, we had to start an hour later--actually the same time, in reality.
People say that Ben Franklin invented this peculiar manipulation of society. I was quite relieved to discover this is not true. I'm not sure who railroaded this hoax or why, but it was not Ben. He did write an essay dealing with the subject, inspired by some country's workers in Europe (He spent years in Europe). He was being his typical self and being satirical, and funny (he thought). He was JOKING!! Ben did not seriously think people would set their clocks differently to fool themselves into getting up earlier. It was a joke about how to get even more work out of a group over there who already had the reputation for hard work, dawn to dusk.
Isn't it typical that it would filter down so that you are told it was Ben Franklin's grand idea? Ben was a prolific inventor, essayist, and accomplished statesman, and sometimes his ideas were out there. Way out there. This wasn't one of them.
What if we reverse everything? Fall back in Spring and spring forward in Fall. That way we can all feel guilty during the warmer months for not having time to take advantage of the nice weather. Get to work on the average job, hours after daylight, and get home after dark. Every day you'll wake up thinking you overslept.
I bet it saves energy. In the fall you get an even earlier start, and make use of more sunshine time while sleeping more of the dark time. Energy savings for sure. In many parts of the country you can get home in daylight--fewer traffic accidents and less heat required until you're under the bearskin quilts asleep.
They got it backwards, if this is to save energy and, hence, the earth. Therefore, it is clear that this present form of clock manipulation is actually harmful to the earth and probably causes global warming and many senseless deaths. Unless there is an advantage to National Security (in which case the collateral damage is the price paid for the greater good), it is inhumane to subject our citizens to this hazardous lifestyle.
Really, in many places, the last thing you need in the summer is more sunshine and daylight. In Miami it can kill you. That is why they invented A/C, and soon after, utility rate hikes.
Please write your honorable elected representative, or union boss, and insist that we fall back in spring and spring forward in fall from now on. Save the earth!
*I think Arizona ignores this ritual. It makes no difference there because the sun never sets in much of Arizona. Ever. Every day, every hour is high noon with a special magnifying layer over the state to amplify the sun's rays. It is rumored that the illuminati put that magnification layer there. I believe it, of course.
Another one of those meaningless things that we all* do because THEY say so. Nothing wrong with starting the day an hour earlier. It is nice to be a kid playing ball in Miami at 8PM while it is still daylight in May or June. I remember that. But we could have just started life earlier and accomplished the same thing.
There are other lifestyles that don't really get a big thrill out of it. I've had jobs that began early in the morning, before daylight. So, once I sprang forward, I just worked an extra hour in the dark, or in cases where it was outdoor work, we had to start an hour later--actually the same time, in reality.
People say that Ben Franklin invented this peculiar manipulation of society. I was quite relieved to discover this is not true. I'm not sure who railroaded this hoax or why, but it was not Ben. He did write an essay dealing with the subject, inspired by some country's workers in Europe (He spent years in Europe). He was being his typical self and being satirical, and funny (he thought). He was JOKING!! Ben did not seriously think people would set their clocks differently to fool themselves into getting up earlier. It was a joke about how to get even more work out of a group over there who already had the reputation for hard work, dawn to dusk.
Isn't it typical that it would filter down so that you are told it was Ben Franklin's grand idea? Ben was a prolific inventor, essayist, and accomplished statesman, and sometimes his ideas were out there. Way out there. This wasn't one of them.
What if we reverse everything? Fall back in Spring and spring forward in Fall. That way we can all feel guilty during the warmer months for not having time to take advantage of the nice weather. Get to work on the average job, hours after daylight, and get home after dark. Every day you'll wake up thinking you overslept.
I bet it saves energy. In the fall you get an even earlier start, and make use of more sunshine time while sleeping more of the dark time. Energy savings for sure. In many parts of the country you can get home in daylight--fewer traffic accidents and less heat required until you're under the bearskin quilts asleep.
They got it backwards, if this is to save energy and, hence, the earth. Therefore, it is clear that this present form of clock manipulation is actually harmful to the earth and probably causes global warming and many senseless deaths. Unless there is an advantage to National Security (in which case the collateral damage is the price paid for the greater good), it is inhumane to subject our citizens to this hazardous lifestyle.
Really, in many places, the last thing you need in the summer is more sunshine and daylight. In Miami it can kill you. That is why they invented A/C, and soon after, utility rate hikes.
Please write your honorable elected representative, or union boss, and insist that we fall back in spring and spring forward in fall from now on. Save the earth!
*I think Arizona ignores this ritual. It makes no difference there because the sun never sets in much of Arizona. Ever. Every day, every hour is high noon with a special magnifying layer over the state to amplify the sun's rays. It is rumored that the illuminati put that magnification layer there. I believe it, of course.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
What is in the Water, WI?
I'm watching a live feed from Wisconsin Capitol. People swarmed in, opened winodws and doors, and for some reason, handcuffed other doors closed.
There is a big crowd in there and I guess the police finally decided to not let more in. So they are outside, and inside, chanting, "It's our house, Let us in."
If they all get in there, it would be a serious fire exit threat, and fertile ground for a stampede situation once it got rolling. This could result in some injuries. I'm unclear about why they think that is a useful plan.
They showed them dismantling windows to gain access. I would not want to be in that mob. It seems many that came down to protest are a little nervous now about lines being crossed, but what the heck, everyone else is doing it...
That's why I don't like big crowds all shouting the same thing and venting hatred at whoever. It rarely has the slightest thing to do with the whole truth. (what in politics does) I find it the height of hypocrisy for some of these people to complain that they feel the matter wasn't civilly debated. Shouting down others and mobbing a lawfully assembled body of lawfully elected representatives may be a bit over the line too. I don't know. Of course our elected national officials do illegal things daily. But how unions can play self righteous in the face of that is a mystery. I guess they only disapprove of corruption when they aren't getting a piece of it.
And Nancy Pelosi was upset because people quietly demonstrated when she was passing bills that no one could read or find copies of, and dismissing opposition with the phrase, "We Won the Election!!" Now she's all in solidarinosc with some state's unions just because they are democrats. I guarantee she hasn't read that bill either.
Oh, but Nancy is of the "pass the bill so we can see what's in it" school of lawmaking.
Other than a few who have that look that only grows on the faces of New Jersey and New York guys in the persuasion trade, the crowd appears fairly Wisconsinish, and pretty young. If it were somewhere else, I suspect people would be in big trouble. But as well mannered as people in that state usually are, it would surprise me if someone doesn't get hurt and go home crying.
There is a big crowd in there and I guess the police finally decided to not let more in. So they are outside, and inside, chanting, "It's our house, Let us in."
If they all get in there, it would be a serious fire exit threat, and fertile ground for a stampede situation once it got rolling. This could result in some injuries. I'm unclear about why they think that is a useful plan.
They showed them dismantling windows to gain access. I would not want to be in that mob. It seems many that came down to protest are a little nervous now about lines being crossed, but what the heck, everyone else is doing it...
That's why I don't like big crowds all shouting the same thing and venting hatred at whoever. It rarely has the slightest thing to do with the whole truth. (what in politics does) I find it the height of hypocrisy for some of these people to complain that they feel the matter wasn't civilly debated. Shouting down others and mobbing a lawfully assembled body of lawfully elected representatives may be a bit over the line too. I don't know. Of course our elected national officials do illegal things daily. But how unions can play self righteous in the face of that is a mystery. I guess they only disapprove of corruption when they aren't getting a piece of it.
And Nancy Pelosi was upset because people quietly demonstrated when she was passing bills that no one could read or find copies of, and dismissing opposition with the phrase, "We Won the Election!!" Now she's all in solidarinosc with some state's unions just because they are democrats. I guarantee she hasn't read that bill either.
Oh, but Nancy is of the "pass the bill so we can see what's in it" school of lawmaking.
Other than a few who have that look that only grows on the faces of New Jersey and New York guys in the persuasion trade, the crowd appears fairly Wisconsinish, and pretty young. If it were somewhere else, I suspect people would be in big trouble. But as well mannered as people in that state usually are, it would surprise me if someone doesn't get hurt and go home crying.
So, That is Democracy. Yay
It has been said, not just by me, that pure democracy is mob rule. Now we hear that democracy indeed does look like a mob. A chanting in unison mob for the most part.
So, the ticket is to round up a bigger mob than the other guy, then you win. Just have to get the people who don't have other things to do to join your mob before they get scarfed up by competitors. In this way, the homeless and unemployed can run the world. OK. I admit, they may not do any worse than the other people who have assumed that the world needs running, and who have given it their best (or worse) shot.
I'm thinking I disagree with all kinds of things that come out of Sacramento, Washington DC, and elsewhere. If I could get some sizable mobs together we could just take over the legislative buildings through mob bullying tactics. Unfortunately I do not like unions at all. I need other muscle for my project. I'm thinking homeless, illegals, kids, dogs and wilderness dwellers. If I play my cards right they will chant meaningless slogans as directed and never thoroughly question or critique my wishes and plans.
After we take the capitol buildings, let's take the courthouses, too.
Why stop there? Let's take over the big houses those terrible rich own. Hell, let's take Wal-Mart and avail ourselves of cost free shopping.
If you pay it right, this kind of democracy enables a minority formed into a good mob to rule the majority. Noise, numbers and the time to meld into the teeming crowd win the day. Since the majority is spread out and unlikely to be hanging around capitol buildings or even Wal-Mart, a well organized minority can win a coup.
After all, that is what democracy looks like. I've heard it said many times lately, so it must be true.
So, the ticket is to round up a bigger mob than the other guy, then you win. Just have to get the people who don't have other things to do to join your mob before they get scarfed up by competitors. In this way, the homeless and unemployed can run the world. OK. I admit, they may not do any worse than the other people who have assumed that the world needs running, and who have given it their best (or worse) shot.
I'm thinking I disagree with all kinds of things that come out of Sacramento, Washington DC, and elsewhere. If I could get some sizable mobs together we could just take over the legislative buildings through mob bullying tactics. Unfortunately I do not like unions at all. I need other muscle for my project. I'm thinking homeless, illegals, kids, dogs and wilderness dwellers. If I play my cards right they will chant meaningless slogans as directed and never thoroughly question or critique my wishes and plans.
After we take the capitol buildings, let's take the courthouses, too.
Why stop there? Let's take over the big houses those terrible rich own. Hell, let's take Wal-Mart and avail ourselves of cost free shopping.
If you pay it right, this kind of democracy enables a minority formed into a good mob to rule the majority. Noise, numbers and the time to meld into the teeming crowd win the day. Since the majority is spread out and unlikely to be hanging around capitol buildings or even Wal-Mart, a well organized minority can win a coup.
After all, that is what democracy looks like. I've heard it said many times lately, so it must be true.
Ever Notice The LOL Form Of Internet Debate?
There is a class of commenter/blogger which uses the old LOL thing to somehow secure their non-point. You see things like, "Oh, so you think slavery was OK? LOL", in response to something completely unrelated to slavery. Notice they don't address the point or reasonably debunk it. They jump to a conclusion, then add LOL as a form of personal attack.
For some reason when it is used in that way, I want to resort to non-reasoned debate by wishing I could punch them in the nose and steal their wallets. May as well get paid for my trouble, no?
"Oh my god, can you believe that idiot stumbled over the word "philanthropy" is his speech? LOL". Slap slap, punch, punch. Your wallet is now mine!
"LOL. You are just ignorant and probably never had to get your lily white hands(lol) dirty, you racist, sexist, impotent (LOL) moron LOL". That would be a zinger coming from a pudgy white person, male/and/or female, who had never left the university or other insulated job. The Mike Moore thing--a rich fat white guy complaining about rich fat white guys. LOL
Sadly, the net brings these things out in people. There are those who sound tough and violent because they can do it without getting clobbered. That JS guy smotlock was like that. Always talked as if he was cruising through jazz town beating the hell out of anyone who got in his way. It was a persona. Lots of people dug it. I thought the old pushing the envelope for shock value had seen its day long ago, so what he was doing was kind of a copy. That was his right so I never made it a point to rain on the parade. Too easy to get into a stupid battle. I have no use for that. Plenty of angry people who have to be badass online because it doesn't work well in life, and they know they would not last too long toting such open hostility around.
I've definitely noticed the LOL trend since the 2008 election. If you distilled all the debate, I'll bet you'd find the words, "idiot" and "moron" and the suffix, LOL top the list of argument content.
LOL often hits me wrong, that's for sure. Only when it is used to preclude real thought and to shut down the opposition through its implied ridicule. For one thing, I know you are not laughing or even smiling. But I know you wish you had the confidence that your intellect was that far above your opponent to feel a smile. Usually it is a case of thinking you are smart because those from whom you get your opinions tell you they are smart. To question them would risk revealing the truth. LOL*
Now I am not referring to the case in which people throw in an lol to lighten the tone or be sure you know they are expressing friendship and good wishes. That is a different thing altogether. Sometimes the do it to indicate they found something funny that was probably meant to be funny. This is not a context of ridicule and cheap shot.
*that was fake. I am not laughing. I'm thinking I may be thirsty, and should I have some of those peanuts to go with the beverage, or do I need to starve some more and get rid of this belly before it is too late? See. Sometimes there is just no time to LOL in real life.
For some reason when it is used in that way, I want to resort to non-reasoned debate by wishing I could punch them in the nose and steal their wallets. May as well get paid for my trouble, no?
"Oh my god, can you believe that idiot stumbled over the word "philanthropy" is his speech? LOL". Slap slap, punch, punch. Your wallet is now mine!
"LOL. You are just ignorant and probably never had to get your lily white hands(lol) dirty, you racist, sexist, impotent (LOL) moron LOL". That would be a zinger coming from a pudgy white person, male/and/or female, who had never left the university or other insulated job. The Mike Moore thing--a rich fat white guy complaining about rich fat white guys. LOL
Sadly, the net brings these things out in people. There are those who sound tough and violent because they can do it without getting clobbered. That JS guy smotlock was like that. Always talked as if he was cruising through jazz town beating the hell out of anyone who got in his way. It was a persona. Lots of people dug it. I thought the old pushing the envelope for shock value had seen its day long ago, so what he was doing was kind of a copy. That was his right so I never made it a point to rain on the parade. Too easy to get into a stupid battle. I have no use for that. Plenty of angry people who have to be badass online because it doesn't work well in life, and they know they would not last too long toting such open hostility around.
I've definitely noticed the LOL trend since the 2008 election. If you distilled all the debate, I'll bet you'd find the words, "idiot" and "moron" and the suffix, LOL top the list of argument content.
LOL often hits me wrong, that's for sure. Only when it is used to preclude real thought and to shut down the opposition through its implied ridicule. For one thing, I know you are not laughing or even smiling. But I know you wish you had the confidence that your intellect was that far above your opponent to feel a smile. Usually it is a case of thinking you are smart because those from whom you get your opinions tell you they are smart. To question them would risk revealing the truth. LOL*
Now I am not referring to the case in which people throw in an lol to lighten the tone or be sure you know they are expressing friendship and good wishes. That is a different thing altogether. Sometimes the do it to indicate they found something funny that was probably meant to be funny. This is not a context of ridicule and cheap shot.
*that was fake. I am not laughing. I'm thinking I may be thirsty, and should I have some of those peanuts to go with the beverage, or do I need to starve some more and get rid of this belly before it is too late? See. Sometimes there is just no time to LOL in real life.
I Guess Kool Aid Comes in More Than One Flavor
Every now then I can't help it; I comment on a political blog or two. And I catch little bits of video here and there.
Lately, it is a disheartening experience. On one side there is the idea that it is perfectly OK to bully with physical numbers and shout downs. My God, what if the opposition is allowed to speak? They may have some facts to back up a point. Or not.
If you are right and you have the numbers on your side in a town meeting or other forum, why do you feel the need to shout down the speakers with whom you disagree? Is it possible that you got your facts from an agitator's prescribed talking points and haven't studied the matter yourself? Or are you just too weak to resist the bully potential a mob provides?
Then there are those who get very upset at me because I suggest, as always that less government is best. It happens with those who claim to be for lower taxes, less government, etc. However it seems they only apply that to things that fit their personal preferences. If they don't like abortion or marijuana, then by Godtt you are a no good hippie who wants to do away with the second amendment and free enterprise!!
I actually had someone reply about like that when I suggested that the state not involve itself one way or the other in abortion. It matters not what I think of it, I'll never be pregnant. Besides there is a point at which the reasoning behind "protecting the rights of the unborn" opens more of a door toward intrusive authoritarianism which is not what I think is right.
I also pointed out that it is interesting that democrats tend to support freedom of choice in that realm, but in few other areas of life. Most nanny state measures are initiated by democrats. Yet republicans claim to be for individual liberty, etc. but the mainstream of them hold to that anti-abortion zeal. Trust me. In more cases than not, it is probably a good thing that they happen. Sounds cold, elitist and just plain wrong, but for now, that is how it is. And repubs are more likely to get wound up over marijuana legalization, although some of the more notable repubs in history came out for legalizing almost all illegal drugs. Wm F Buckley, for one. I agree. It is a waste fo tax money and an excuse to trash the 4th amendment--unreasonable search and seizure*.
The one who got wound up demonstrated to me how conditioned people are to believe that if you are opposed to one party's agenda on a particular issue then you must wholly embrace all facets of the other party's policies. I only wish it were true. The only reason I care is because I see the degree of freedom we have going down the tubes rapidly. I believe for various reasons my situation makes it more obvious to me than it is to most reasonably secure people, both on government checks and pensions, and in private life.
If only I had never read Brave New World, 1984, and Atlas Shrugged. It is as if they studied those books and decided to use them as a blue print for the evolution of our country for the last fifty years, at least. I think government people secretly take a page a day and see if they can implement it.
I do not find it surprising that the ex NPR guy said that the elite, well educated were too small a percentage of the population. The nasty unwashed masses just don't understand. Of course anyone who is not a well spoken idiot like him is obviously an ignorant, hateful racist. There really is a segment of the population which believes just that. I don't know why they complain--so far they have pretty much been getting their way. It just seems to upset them greatly that anyone disagrees or gets claustrophobic when their authority tightens a little too much.
I'm sure my democrat friends think I am a raving right winger. In some ways I am. And my republican friends fear I may be a granola variety liberal. In some ways I am. I agree with both when it comes to fewer laws and such. Neither party has shown much desire to reverse a self destructive foreign policy, and self destructive domestic policies--particularly in the realm of foolish limits on production and energy. Republicans have advantages at times, but never follow their talk. Democrats seem to believe that government control of all resources and choices is best for everyone. Except when it comes to abortion and gay marriage and things like that.
Republicans are all about individual freedom until it comes to 4th amendment matters. Then, hell, let's create homeland security and get busy. Both parties love that. It is as good a tool to terrorize citizens as the irs.
I'll speak up here. It is unlikely I'll demonstrate unless there are hot chicks who dig old men. I know that most people think it is stupid, boring and useless to think as I do, and even worse to admit to it.
I did not reply to the guy's stupid rant in response to my comment. He obviously has no significant level of reading comprehension or he'd have known it was odd to bring in things like the second amendment when I was talking about abortion and how dumb it is for republicans to bother with the topic. It takes a lot of nerve for a man to think he has a right to be involved in what a woman he doesn't even know does. I would agree that I see no reason to pay for these things with public money in most cases. But I wouldn't pay for much with public money.
That is the trap. If tax money is involved then they can dictate all kinds of regulations. That is why it is best to avoid many forms of aid, or be damned careful what you take. But, like the situation in the Arab world, it will come back to bite later. It was obvious for over 40 years that the policy and practices there would haunt us later. Few, if anyone, listened; "Well, John, you just don't understand. It's complex, blablabla".
So now I guess we pretend the mess is a big surprise like the national debt and all the states going belly up. Arming the enemy does not work in the long run. Stealing from the people does not work in the long run either. They go along because you have huge groups who sell out for crumbs and can't see they are selling out their own chances for doing better. Where are Adam Smith and Milton Friedman when you need them? We still have Thomas Sowell.
*after all the odd rules and such, I decided to keep a handy copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution nearby for reference. Personally, I cannot see how it has been interpreted so broadly. I would mostly have amended it to limit government powers even more strictly.
Lately, it is a disheartening experience. On one side there is the idea that it is perfectly OK to bully with physical numbers and shout downs. My God, what if the opposition is allowed to speak? They may have some facts to back up a point. Or not.
If you are right and you have the numbers on your side in a town meeting or other forum, why do you feel the need to shout down the speakers with whom you disagree? Is it possible that you got your facts from an agitator's prescribed talking points and haven't studied the matter yourself? Or are you just too weak to resist the bully potential a mob provides?
Then there are those who get very upset at me because I suggest, as always that less government is best. It happens with those who claim to be for lower taxes, less government, etc. However it seems they only apply that to things that fit their personal preferences. If they don't like abortion or marijuana, then by Godtt you are a no good hippie who wants to do away with the second amendment and free enterprise!!
I actually had someone reply about like that when I suggested that the state not involve itself one way or the other in abortion. It matters not what I think of it, I'll never be pregnant. Besides there is a point at which the reasoning behind "protecting the rights of the unborn" opens more of a door toward intrusive authoritarianism which is not what I think is right.
I also pointed out that it is interesting that democrats tend to support freedom of choice in that realm, but in few other areas of life. Most nanny state measures are initiated by democrats. Yet republicans claim to be for individual liberty, etc. but the mainstream of them hold to that anti-abortion zeal. Trust me. In more cases than not, it is probably a good thing that they happen. Sounds cold, elitist and just plain wrong, but for now, that is how it is. And repubs are more likely to get wound up over marijuana legalization, although some of the more notable repubs in history came out for legalizing almost all illegal drugs. Wm F Buckley, for one. I agree. It is a waste fo tax money and an excuse to trash the 4th amendment--unreasonable search and seizure*.
The one who got wound up demonstrated to me how conditioned people are to believe that if you are opposed to one party's agenda on a particular issue then you must wholly embrace all facets of the other party's policies. I only wish it were true. The only reason I care is because I see the degree of freedom we have going down the tubes rapidly. I believe for various reasons my situation makes it more obvious to me than it is to most reasonably secure people, both on government checks and pensions, and in private life.
If only I had never read Brave New World, 1984, and Atlas Shrugged. It is as if they studied those books and decided to use them as a blue print for the evolution of our country for the last fifty years, at least. I think government people secretly take a page a day and see if they can implement it.
I do not find it surprising that the ex NPR guy said that the elite, well educated were too small a percentage of the population. The nasty unwashed masses just don't understand. Of course anyone who is not a well spoken idiot like him is obviously an ignorant, hateful racist. There really is a segment of the population which believes just that. I don't know why they complain--so far they have pretty much been getting their way. It just seems to upset them greatly that anyone disagrees or gets claustrophobic when their authority tightens a little too much.
I'm sure my democrat friends think I am a raving right winger. In some ways I am. And my republican friends fear I may be a granola variety liberal. In some ways I am. I agree with both when it comes to fewer laws and such. Neither party has shown much desire to reverse a self destructive foreign policy, and self destructive domestic policies--particularly in the realm of foolish limits on production and energy. Republicans have advantages at times, but never follow their talk. Democrats seem to believe that government control of all resources and choices is best for everyone. Except when it comes to abortion and gay marriage and things like that.
Republicans are all about individual freedom until it comes to 4th amendment matters. Then, hell, let's create homeland security and get busy. Both parties love that. It is as good a tool to terrorize citizens as the irs.
I'll speak up here. It is unlikely I'll demonstrate unless there are hot chicks who dig old men. I know that most people think it is stupid, boring and useless to think as I do, and even worse to admit to it.
I did not reply to the guy's stupid rant in response to my comment. He obviously has no significant level of reading comprehension or he'd have known it was odd to bring in things like the second amendment when I was talking about abortion and how dumb it is for republicans to bother with the topic. It takes a lot of nerve for a man to think he has a right to be involved in what a woman he doesn't even know does. I would agree that I see no reason to pay for these things with public money in most cases. But I wouldn't pay for much with public money.
That is the trap. If tax money is involved then they can dictate all kinds of regulations. That is why it is best to avoid many forms of aid, or be damned careful what you take. But, like the situation in the Arab world, it will come back to bite later. It was obvious for over 40 years that the policy and practices there would haunt us later. Few, if anyone, listened; "Well, John, you just don't understand. It's complex, blablabla".
So now I guess we pretend the mess is a big surprise like the national debt and all the states going belly up. Arming the enemy does not work in the long run. Stealing from the people does not work in the long run either. They go along because you have huge groups who sell out for crumbs and can't see they are selling out their own chances for doing better. Where are Adam Smith and Milton Friedman when you need them? We still have Thomas Sowell.
*after all the odd rules and such, I decided to keep a handy copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution nearby for reference. Personally, I cannot see how it has been interpreted so broadly. I would mostly have amended it to limit government powers even more strictly.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Yes, I Love My Bank
Actually my bank is a credit union, based in Georgia. It was once for employees of an airline, then became a community credit union.
I had a problem which involved having no money in the account, but there was another one with them which I was under a misconception about. I thought you could go online and just pull money as you chose. It requires filling out a form; some sort of federal tyranny thing.
So, in the mean time they covered a charge on the accounts and charged me a deadbeat fee. Fair enough. I know I should be on top f this stuff. I'm defective and I sometimes have to pay for that. No hard feelings.
Well, as I am on the phone after signing, scanning in and emailing the form, I call to see if they got it and how quick it can be processed. In the course of the conversation I explain my ignorant misconception and concern about the accounts. "Oh I see you've kept a nice account with us and never had any issues so I'll remove that charge from your account."
Holy smoke. My last bank would have found a way to up the fee to hundreds of dollars and then refused to even consider reducing it, even when the upcoming deposit amount which came in automatically was already showing and would be there in a day. I once had it showing the deposit was coming and I thought it was in and over a ten dollar debit charge, I ended up with about a hundred dollars in deadbeat penalties before it was over.
That's another thing, if the account has no money, why do they let a debit get approved? And if so, why do they not cover it when there is a pending deposit showing?
The credit union does that--covers it when they see money on the way. Or they won't approve the debit card if the system sees no source of funds. That is how I knew I'd screwed up. They covered one thing, charged a fee, then said no soap. Then they take the fee off when I get it all fixed, even though it was all my fault and they could have nailed me and I would not complain.
So that is why I do not bother to get a local bank. They are no good to deal with compared to the credit union. I make deposits at local C/Us which are full service and network with others. It is not that big a hassle. It is worth finding them. I hope the feds don't ruin that form of banking, although I would expect them to since it is not torture to deal with them. Anything that operates other than under the old USSR model appears to be on big brother's hit list.
I find it amazing that "Becky" so cheerfully and voluntarily refunded the deadbeat charge, even though I never denied being a deadbeat. I am thinking about paying attention and seeing if I can find a way to make some money and keep track. At least keep track.
I had a problem which involved having no money in the account, but there was another one with them which I was under a misconception about. I thought you could go online and just pull money as you chose. It requires filling out a form; some sort of federal tyranny thing.
So, in the mean time they covered a charge on the accounts and charged me a deadbeat fee. Fair enough. I know I should be on top f this stuff. I'm defective and I sometimes have to pay for that. No hard feelings.
Well, as I am on the phone after signing, scanning in and emailing the form, I call to see if they got it and how quick it can be processed. In the course of the conversation I explain my ignorant misconception and concern about the accounts. "Oh I see you've kept a nice account with us and never had any issues so I'll remove that charge from your account."
Holy smoke. My last bank would have found a way to up the fee to hundreds of dollars and then refused to even consider reducing it, even when the upcoming deposit amount which came in automatically was already showing and would be there in a day. I once had it showing the deposit was coming and I thought it was in and over a ten dollar debit charge, I ended up with about a hundred dollars in deadbeat penalties before it was over.
That's another thing, if the account has no money, why do they let a debit get approved? And if so, why do they not cover it when there is a pending deposit showing?
The credit union does that--covers it when they see money on the way. Or they won't approve the debit card if the system sees no source of funds. That is how I knew I'd screwed up. They covered one thing, charged a fee, then said no soap. Then they take the fee off when I get it all fixed, even though it was all my fault and they could have nailed me and I would not complain.
So that is why I do not bother to get a local bank. They are no good to deal with compared to the credit union. I make deposits at local C/Us which are full service and network with others. It is not that big a hassle. It is worth finding them. I hope the feds don't ruin that form of banking, although I would expect them to since it is not torture to deal with them. Anything that operates other than under the old USSR model appears to be on big brother's hit list.
I find it amazing that "Becky" so cheerfully and voluntarily refunded the deadbeat charge, even though I never denied being a deadbeat. I am thinking about paying attention and seeing if I can find a way to make some money and keep track. At least keep track.
The Trouble With Rallies and News
As it turned out, I wouldn't have made the powerlink protest anyway. But I was torn over it. Something about sign carrying and marching and all that is just not me. Can't put my finger on it, but even if I agree with a group I don't find myself moved to be a demonstrator. For one thing I usually agree for different reasons.
As I suspected, the message that came out of the downtown powerlink rally was incohesive and muddled. The one thing I saw that made the best point was a video of a commissioner speaking. She was on topic and kept it as simple and focussed as possible.
There were signs that made no sense, and ones that made sense. (I saw all this on someone's facebook) The news reports did the effort no good, as I figured would be the case. They presented it as "protesting the SDGE Powerlink, which will bring clean, renewable energy to over a half million people in San Diego". That makes it sound like you have to be nuts to argue with wonerful clean power. Would you take power away from half a million people? You Luddite!!!
Of course, the powerlink is not supplying San Diego, and it is not bringing in clean, happy face energy. And it will cost the rate payers more money than they are now paying, which is plenty.
I saw the clips from the various news stations and I can only believe it would not sway the undecided or uninformed citizen. If I did not already know the story I would have thought, "Oh great, now the global warming crowd is protesting clean energy. I guess baby boomers will protest anything. This is sad."
There was the obligatory sign that mentioned global warming and pollution in relation to the powerlink. That is sure to make enemies. I imagine it said the powerlink would kill seals and polar bears on the flip side.
That is a point I'm sure I cannot get across to my friends, and won't try. It is too bad they could all have got together on a single message--Higher Rates--fire hazard. Everything else may be even more important, but it is too hard to get the point across, and to get those, whose property and business won't be screwed up, to feel like it makes some difference to them.
That is the only way to get to people; how it will it affect them in some obvious way. Right and wrong do not motivate most people. Money in or out of the wallet is the big motivation. Doesn't matter how that part works as long as it is legal enough that they won't go to jail.
So, the judge hearing this particular lawsuit decided not to have a trial but to rule on written arguments. I guess on the stuff already submitted. I have no idea how that works. It could be a positive thing--who knows.
I still wonder how you combat a thing that is dishonest, involves a lot of unearned money and has other faults, without marching, picketing and all that. It doesn't seem like the best approach to me. Maybe I am wrong. I just can't define why it bothers me, and that bothers me a lot. I'd like to know why I feel this way, and what I think is a better way.
I guess the event kept those who have formed organizations and raised money to fight this boondoggle motivated and together.
This is one of those issues where the lockstep dems would normally be all for anything labelled green, and the lockstep repubs would be for anything that looks like industrial progress, and both are wrong. It is scheme which will serve some at the expense of others. The power will go north and SD will pay, and back country people will suffer higher fire risk, confiscated property, and other unpleasantries.
And there is no shortage of power here. Maybe it is the result of when people were duped into thinking they were short on power due to enron manipulation and such. Can't let a crisis, even a long gone crisis, go to waste.
As I suspected, the message that came out of the downtown powerlink rally was incohesive and muddled. The one thing I saw that made the best point was a video of a commissioner speaking. She was on topic and kept it as simple and focussed as possible.
There were signs that made no sense, and ones that made sense. (I saw all this on someone's facebook) The news reports did the effort no good, as I figured would be the case. They presented it as "protesting the SDGE Powerlink, which will bring clean, renewable energy to over a half million people in San Diego". That makes it sound like you have to be nuts to argue with wonerful clean power. Would you take power away from half a million people? You Luddite!!!
Of course, the powerlink is not supplying San Diego, and it is not bringing in clean, happy face energy. And it will cost the rate payers more money than they are now paying, which is plenty.
I saw the clips from the various news stations and I can only believe it would not sway the undecided or uninformed citizen. If I did not already know the story I would have thought, "Oh great, now the global warming crowd is protesting clean energy. I guess baby boomers will protest anything. This is sad."
There was the obligatory sign that mentioned global warming and pollution in relation to the powerlink. That is sure to make enemies. I imagine it said the powerlink would kill seals and polar bears on the flip side.
That is a point I'm sure I cannot get across to my friends, and won't try. It is too bad they could all have got together on a single message--Higher Rates--fire hazard. Everything else may be even more important, but it is too hard to get the point across, and to get those, whose property and business won't be screwed up, to feel like it makes some difference to them.
That is the only way to get to people; how it will it affect them in some obvious way. Right and wrong do not motivate most people. Money in or out of the wallet is the big motivation. Doesn't matter how that part works as long as it is legal enough that they won't go to jail.
So, the judge hearing this particular lawsuit decided not to have a trial but to rule on written arguments. I guess on the stuff already submitted. I have no idea how that works. It could be a positive thing--who knows.
I still wonder how you combat a thing that is dishonest, involves a lot of unearned money and has other faults, without marching, picketing and all that. It doesn't seem like the best approach to me. Maybe I am wrong. I just can't define why it bothers me, and that bothers me a lot. I'd like to know why I feel this way, and what I think is a better way.
I guess the event kept those who have formed organizations and raised money to fight this boondoggle motivated and together.
This is one of those issues where the lockstep dems would normally be all for anything labelled green, and the lockstep repubs would be for anything that looks like industrial progress, and both are wrong. It is scheme which will serve some at the expense of others. The power will go north and SD will pay, and back country people will suffer higher fire risk, confiscated property, and other unpleasantries.
And there is no shortage of power here. Maybe it is the result of when people were duped into thinking they were short on power due to enron manipulation and such. Can't let a crisis, even a long gone crisis, go to waste.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Why I Heart Channel 10 News
Caught a few minutes of TV. This was great to hear:
"Why a flight attendant put a toddler in an overhead bin!!!, the full story at 11".
This is as good as the first time I noticed the National Enquirer way back when. It had a front page headline that read, "Ghost Eats Baby".
Oh, I see that both of these stories involve unusual baby experiences. What does this mean?
Sometimes the best place for a well deserved time-out is the overhead bin. More often than not, the parents are the ones who need to be put there.
Airline stories are the best.
"Why a flight attendant put a toddler in an overhead bin!!!, the full story at 11".
This is as good as the first time I noticed the National Enquirer way back when. It had a front page headline that read, "Ghost Eats Baby".
Oh, I see that both of these stories involve unusual baby experiences. What does this mean?
Sometimes the best place for a well deserved time-out is the overhead bin. More often than not, the parents are the ones who need to be put there.
Airline stories are the best.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Nonsense
You know, if those cartoon characters-Bugs Bunny, and the Coyote are examples-did not look down when they ran off a cliff, they could have kept on going. I wonder how come none of them thought not to look?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- John0 Juanderlust
- Ballistic Mountain, CA, United States
- Like spring on a summer's day
