the Charlie Profit Report

Moved my Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:40:00 -0500

Visit www.charlieprofit.com

Andy Andrews shares the philosophy I have. Read about it here:

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:02:00 -0500

I read this today and was glad to see my own belief system being promoted by such a great guy. The following is just a snippet from his blog, but Andy Andrews does a great job of making the point that we make our choices and decide how we feel and act everyday... and people are watching us. The following is © 2009-2013, Andy Andrews. Used by Permission. Originally posted on AndyAndrews.com.

Quotes:

Andy Andrews - Bestselling Author
In a world that has become overly obsessed with feelings, I am here today to tell you this—nobody cares how you feel. They only care how you act. From a young age, it is important to instill in children the idea that they need to be focused on the type of life they want to be living 10 to 20 years down the road. Where do they want to live? Do they want a house? Do they want to own a car that’s totally paid for? Do they want to enjoy their job? Once they have those results in mind, it’s very important for them to understand that, in order to achieve those results, there is a specific way they need to act…regardless of the way they feel. Commit yourself to teaching your children this simple principle in some way every day. Show them you have their best interests at heart, that you love them more than they can comprehend. It’s not always going to be pretty. They’re not always going to want to listen to you. But stay the course…you have the opportunity to give them the gift of an incredible future. It’s your job to make sure they’re willing to accept it.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

My thoughts about the tragedy this afternoon in Newtown Connecticut

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:51:00 -0500

This morning many innocent children and adults were shot and killed by a deranged man at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. It is not fair! It is not right! And it feels like there will be no justice because he killed himself.

Today's events are tragic! Like you, I'm very deeply saddened for the families and people involved. No words can describe what we are all feeling; the pit in our stomach for the loss of so many innocent lives; the anger at the deranged killer; the love we want to share with those close to us.

However, before you suggest all or even some guns be taken away, consider the following: If guns were taken away from law abiding citizens, the only people with guns would be the military, the police, the mafia, the terrorists, criminals and those with intent to kill will find a way to get a gun. Will you really feel safer then? The deranged man would still have found a way to carry out his act and most likely with illegal weapons. Tragic events like what happened today in Connecticut happen even without guns. As you can read in this Hartford Courant article, a knife wielding man in China stabbed and injured 22 children: http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

Please do not turn this into a "guns kill people" talking point. It is people that kill people, always has been and sadly always will be. People will kill people with or without guns. Cain killed Able with a rock. Taking guns away from good people does not make us safer, it actually makes us more vulnerable.

Instead of focusing on all that is wrong with our world, why don't we have regular conversations about love, peace, kindness? Why don't we embrace our Churches (or any community group) anymore where these virtues are supposed to be instilled in us? Instead we flock to entertainment that glorifies the evil behavior that happened in the tragedy today. Our youth enjoy songs that promote violence. We become numb to reality, and we miss the signs that could prevent these tragedies. Why are we more interested in crime focused CSI type shows instead of wholesome shows that teach and instill good morals and virtues, like The Walton's or the Andy Griffith Show of days gone by?

We become what we think about and consume. The more violence we consume through entertainment, the more violence there will be.

The rich get richer and so do the poor.

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:05:00 -0500

Great video!

Income Inequality Insanity: The 99% Are Growing Richer & Consuming More Than Ever

Helping you to make an informed vote in November:

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:41:00 -0500

This is a summary of a great article in the Washington Times by Tom Mullen. If you don't really understand Libertarian philosophy on the issue of corporatism, take about 5 minutes and click through to the original article. Otherwise, I have the main points outlines below. If this doesn't get you thinking about Washington Politics as usual regarding an Obama or Romney administration, I doubt much will. Consider voting for Gary Johnson!

Quotes:

Libertarians are not corporate apologists | Washington Times Communities
Libertarians are not corporate apologists

Already, the usual fallacies have resurfaced. If you don’t want the government to run education, you must be against education. If you don’t want the government to run healthcare, you must not want people to get healthcare.

This misunderstanding is often summed up with comments like, “I’m not sure I’m comfortable with an ‘every man for himself’ society.” This springs from the absurd assumption that human beings never confer benefits upon one another except when forced to do so at gunpoint.

One corollary of the “every man for himself” theory is that a libertarian society would “let corporations run wild,” resulting in a small, wealthy elite controlling all of the resources and exercising oligarchical rule over the rest of society. (So do we live in a libertarian society now?)

Having created the problem in the first place, the government then proposes to mitigate the effects of the distortion it has caused with heavy regulation. This further distorts the market’s natural balancing mechanisms. Regulations drive up the operating cost of doing business and provide barriers to new firms entering the market. The larger, established players can absorb the costs due to economies of scale. Smaller firms cannot and are kept out of the market by high entry costs, if not more directly by other regulations like permitting or licensing. The effect of regulation is exactly the opposite of its intention. The largest and most powerful corporations are insulated from competition, allowing them to grow even larger, while putting less pressure on them to improve quality or lower price. That’s why most regulations are written by corporate insiders themselves.

Libertarian conclusions are inescapable without completely abandoning cause and effect reasoning. With risk providing a natural limit to growth and free entry into the market providing significantly more competition, the largest firms must be smaller and competition and choice must increase.

A century of progressive governance has produced exactly the results that the progressives purport to oppose: an enormous concentration of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of society and a few large firms dominating every economic sector. We have nothing to lose giving libertarianism a try.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

Blackberry is shutting down 2 Social productivity tools: www.Gist.com (@gist) and www.Tungle.me (@tunglerocks)

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:01:00 -0500

This news is a month old but I've been wanting to write about it. So, here it is!

Gist was a great contact information aggregation service. Once you connected your contacts with it, it could pull in all your contact's social networking posts and status updates so you could easily stay abreast and in touch with them. I hope T.A McCann will continue to be visible and post his productivity tips. He is a very smart guy and easily likable. I had an issue once and he responded in a timely manner. Blackberry is luck to have him.

Tungle.me was a great online calendar and scheduling agent where your customers could suggest meeting times based on your own availability which you. They are based here in Montreal and I have been meaning to stop by and meet them. They are also a smart team and from what I understand they will be bringing the Tungle.me functionality to the new Blackberry.

While I was not an AVID user, I did use the services from time to time. I definitely saw the benefits of both services and when tied to a Blackberry could make a busy executive much more productive and able to give a personal touch when reaching out to speak with clients.

You can read their respective blog posts about the services being sunset here http://blog.gist.com/2012/08/15/gist-the-next-chapter/ and http://www.tungle.me/Home/life-is-about-the-journey/.

If you are looking for alternatives for Gist, LinkedIn.com owns a great alternative at www.ConnectedHq.com. Gist also posted some more great alternatives on this blog post: http://support.gist.com/entries/21863187-gist-com-will-be-closing-on-september-15-2012. There is also www.Ming.ly which is very similar.

On the Tungle.me blog they suggest www.Doodle.com as a replacement service. In the comments another service was recommended called www.fasterplan.com.

If you have other suggestions as replacements, please suggest them!

America is a One Party System (and it's not "cocktail party")

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:42:00 -0500

As we get closer to the election and people argue that we need to ouster Obama with Romney, I am convinced people do not read the same things I do, or they ignore some of the most important similarities between the two. A vote for Romney is essentially saying you don't mind an assault on civil liberties and that you don't mind more wars. If that is what you believe, then we are on different pages completely. Stand up for what is good and right! Voting Democrat or Republican will not make things better. Voting Libertarian will send a message to Washington that we value our Constitution, our personal rights, and civil liberties and that we do not want more war.

Quotes:

Ron Paul Will Not Endorse Romney Because He Rightly Thinks America is a One Party System
Ron Paul is the most consistent politician in D.C.

First, Paul called out both President Obama and Romney as, essentially, puppets of the Fed. "There are people who are very, very powerful that are able to make sure their interests are protected – whether it's the people who run the Federal Reserve and bail out banks and bail out European banks and international situations," he explained. "Right now, they have their two guys there."

He then slammed the two candidates, saying they're part of the same mold. "Why does Obama not attack Romney for being the Goldman Sachs candidate? It's because they both are within the establishment where they need the Federal Reserve and the lender of last resort to make sure that you can take all the risks in the world, but don't sweat it because government will be there and the fed will be there and they're going to get bailed out," he argued.

In the end, Paul sealed the deal with finality: "[Obama and Romney] represent a one party system.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

Is Romney opposite Obama just because he is a Republican?

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:43:00 -0500

If you think Romney is the opposite of Obama just because he is a Republican, here is ample evidence that he shares the exact same ideology as Obama! Click the title to read through more of the issues they share.

Quotes:

» 40 Points That Prove That Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate….

1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.

2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s “economic stimulus” packages.

3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea .

4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget .

5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.

6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.

7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the “independence” of the Federal Reserve.

8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.

9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.

14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions

19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.

20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.

21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.

26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.

28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944 .

31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as longas the entire globe goes along with it .

33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney’s “conversion” to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital’s investment in a company called “Stericycle” that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.

36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges .

37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add “signing statements ” to bills when he signs them into law.

38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation .

39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress .

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

There will not be a debate tonight, and here is why:

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:01:00 -0500

Mormons unite for Romney!

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:03:00 -0500

Does anyone worry that Mormons will vote for Mitt Romney JUST BECAUSE he is a Mormon? I do, because it is exactly like how people voted for Obama just because he is black. They wanted to show they were not racist without regard to his history or his record or his policies. Now we are in the same predicament with Mormons and Romney. They want to vote for him because he is a Mormon. They think he represents them. They want him to represent them. They are not considering his history, his record or his policies! They will vote for him just because he is a Mormon!

Harry Reid,the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate is also a Mormon. As a Mormon, would you blindly vote for Reid? As a Conservative Mormon, not likely! So, why blindly vote for Romney, just because he is a Republican? Romney will not change much that Obama has done! He has the same financial backers as Obama! He will answer to them the same way Obama has, with political favors and giving them a return on their investment in him.

Romney believes the same things that Obama does as is explained by watching this video:

Romney has been inconsistent in his policies as explained in this video:

Romney is as much a puppet as Obama is, if not worse because it seems he has flip flopped more than Obama has. He tells the group who he is talking to what they want to hear.

If you are a Mormon, please educate yourself on just WHO Mitt Romney is. Yes, he is a businessman with executive leadership (something dearly needed in the White House today), Yes he is a charitable man, having given over 4 million dollars in charity in 2011. Yes he is running against Obama, the worst President we have ever had. BUT, Romney is NOT the only candidate nor is he the BEST candidate to run this Country!

Gary Johnson, a former Republican and now the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, is also a successful business man:

A successful businessman before running for office in 1994, Gov. Johnson started a door-to-door handyman business to help pay his way through college. Twenty years later, he had grown the firm into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico with over 1,000 employees. Not surprisingly, Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.

He also has an outstanding governing record; better than Romney's:

Johnson is best known for his veto record, which includes over 750 vetoes during his time in office, more than all other governors combined and his use of the veto pen has since earned him the nickname “Governor Veto.” He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them. When he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget.

Which candidate should you vote for? The one who will fix our economy, and not pander to his big business donors! The one who led his state with a balanced budget for 8 years. The one that kept his state government small. The one who believes national security means secure borders, not nation building, occupation and interventions! The one who values Liberty and Freedom and the Constitution above all else, not just when it is convenient! That man is Gary Johnson.

Want to know whose policies you side with most? Try this quiz: http://isidewith.com.

Who do you think will make the better President for the next 4 years?

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:08:00 -0500

I am just highlighting certain points in this article by Conor Friedersdorf, a writer for The Atlantic. My favorite line he wrote, which I did NOT highlight, is "There is a candidate on the ballot in at least 47 states, and probably in all 50, who regularly speaks out against that post-9/11 trend, and all the individual policies that compose it. His name is Gary Johnson, and he won't win. I am supporting him because he ought to." Gary Johnson for President!

Quotes:

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him.

I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.

I am not a purist. There is no such thing as a perfect political party, or a president who governs in accordance with one's every ethical judgment. But some actions are so ruinous to human rights, so destructive of the Constitution, and so contrary to basic morals that they are disqualifying. Most of you will go that far with me.

If two candidates favored a return to slavery, or wanted to stone adulterers, you wouldn't cast your ballot for the one with the better position on health care.

Everyone must define their own deal-breakers. Doing so is no easy task in this broken world.

Obama has done more than any modern executive to wage war on whistleblowers. In fact, under Obama, Bush-era lawbreakers, including literal torturers, have been subject to fewer and less draconian attempts at punishment them than some of the people who conscientiously came forward to report on their misdeeds.

Obama ran in the proud American tradition of reformers taking office when wartime excesses threatened to permanently change the nature of the country. But instead of ending those excesses, protecting civil liberties, rolling back executive power, and reasserting core American values, Obama acted contrary to his mandate. The particulars of his actions are disqualifying in themselves. But taken together, they put us on a course where policies Democrats once viewed as radical post-9/11 excesses are made permanent parts of American life.

Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

The RNC Disrespects the Process

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:13:00 -0500

This is Mitt Romney's party. This is why I have reservations about the Republican party and will not vote for Mitt. It is repulsive that they would not even acknowledge the votes for Ron Paul. Voting for Mitt is the same as a voting for Obama. They have the same beliefs about government.

Mitt will not win because he has lost the Independent vote. Even if he did win, we would see 4 more years of mostly the same. If they would put up Ron Paul as the Presidential Candidate, then they would win because they would have the Independent votes.

I know my vote essentially won't count because the victor, Obama, has been directly decided by the GOP and RNC. But I will vote for the person/party that espouses my beliefs and my conscience will be clear. (Still deciding if I will write in Ron Paul, or vote for Gary Johnson)

Get ready to buckle down for a worse economy, more loss of civil liberties and an over reaching government who's only desire is to get bigger. Thank you RNC for showing that the GOP is a true extension of the Democratic party.

Is it time for a political sabbatical?

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:36:00 -0500

I'm not the guy that can show you why and how Barack Obama is destroying America from within. I'm not the guy that can explain why Mitt Romney is just like Barack Obama, but with an R by his name. I'm not the guy that can explain Ron Paul's plan for America is the best and really the ONLY one to consider at the ballot box in November. I'm not the guy that can convince you to vote for an America, governed as a Republic, bound by the Constitution.

I was pretty vocal in 2008, trying to expose what Obama would do to the Country if elected (and the fact that he is not eligible to be President). People voted for him anyway. Most weren't paying attention and just wanted to say they helped get the first African American elected, to show that they weren't racists. Looking back at the last 4 years, Obama has done what I said he would and more!

Maybe it's time for me to take a political sabbatical. After all, most people seem to already know who they will be voting for. Most people do not seem to realize there is a REAL choice (Ron Paul), and not just the lesser of two evils (Mitt Romney). Most people won't take the time to educate themselves about who the candidates really are, and they get their (mis)information from a very biased MSM. The MSM has already decided who they want to "win" (Barack Obama) and "lose" (Mitt Romney), and who they can make you think is "irrelevant" (Ron Paul). They have the upper hand when it comes to brainwashing the misinformed. Sadly, neither of the two primary choices will bring America back. Only a Ron Paul WIN will bring actual change and restore America to the great Country our forefathers created when they drafted the United States Constitution.

I don't want the government in my life, or in yours. The federal government has no business directing people's moral behavior. That is the individual's choice and family's, the church's and the community's responsibility to guide, instruct and educate. Parents should teach morality by example. The church should support families. And the community should support the churches and the secular organizations that take care of the less fortunate within the community. We can get along finely without the government.

Let me tell you where we have arrived, as a nation asleep at the wheel: There is federal money being spent on programs that go against what the Constitution guarantees. Some of these programs strip us of our civil liberties. All I want from the federal government, and it's primary Constitutional role, is protection from foreign and domestic enemies. We do not need the federal government to enforce it's power against our ability to make choices for ourselves. God gave us free will. Why give the government the power to take that free will away? The federal government has no business in business. It has no business in education. It has no business in religion and it has no business in morality. The federal government is too big and it's powers are far too reaching. We do not need a President that evokes executive orders that supersede the Law as it is written in the United States Constitution. Furthermore, we should not be "protecting our interests" abroad, when we can not even take care of our interests at home. That is just a glimpse of where things stand right now in our downward spiral.

Maybe you don't care about these things. Maybe you like the status quo. Maybe you only want to vote for the most popular, maybe you just want to vote for the person that looks the best or most presidential, maybe you only want to vote for who your party tells you to vote for or maybe you only want to vote for the person that shares your religion. But I am here to tell you, if you want a free America, then vote for the candidate that will uphold the Constitution!

I am saddened to see that I have family and friends that are voting for Romney. After everything I alerted people to in 2008 about Obama, I am actually SHOCKED that people are saying they will vote for Romney this election. He is Obama with an R! If you don't believe me, click through some of the links I have provided in this post. You will learn he is NOT the man that we need in the White House. Educate yourself about Romney! His campaign has cheated and stolen the Republican nomination. If he will stoop that low to circumvent the process for the party nomination, how will he act in the Oval Office? These actions speak louder than words. If you truly want a better America, do not throw your vote away on Romney.

Vote for Ron Paul in 2012. Just because Ron Paul's name may not be on the ballot, does not mean you cannot write his name in! So write him in if you have to... and vote for him because he is the ONLY candidate willing and able to fix America. If people in my life that I care about, family and close friends, are serious that they will vote for Romney, then I will have to take a political sabbatical because to hear it is disappointing and this is too exhausting to continue.

We are NOT all equal

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:53:00 -0500

But we should be. I've been thinking about equality, and what rights we have that are really equal. I think this is one conversation the United States is really struggling with right now. Some Countries, like Canada have embraced some ideologies in order to try to provide that equality as best as it can be provided.

What if every one of us actually started out, born equal to one another. We know we are supposed to be, as that is a God given right. But are we all only to be equal at birth, and the rest of our lives struggle through inequality whether it be physical, mental, economic or social? Or are we equal, no matter what? Let's be honest. We are not all equal, nor were we truly born equal. Theoretically and according to God we were and are but equality has not been equally measured. We do not even have true equal opportunity. I think my Conservative friends want to believe we do, but if we really look at our American society, true equality is not there. As a white, blue eyed, blond haired (when I had hair) male I know in some instances I have been shown preferential treatment and in others have been penalized.

So what does having equal rights mean?

Let's start at the beginning. Life. The right to live. Once conceived (not born...but conceived) we have the right to live. What does this "right to live" offer? Is it simply existence? Would that mean we get the right to exist, but the rest is up to us? I've come to realize that there is a problem with that theory. For starters, not all babies start out equal. Some pregnancies are complicated. Some mothers choose epidurals during labor, which I firmly believe can put children at a disadvantage; maybe even as much a disadvantage as a mother who smokes, drinks or does drugs during pregnancy. Some children are born with physical, mental, economic or even social disadvantages. Yet, we are theoretically born with equal rights. What about those babies that start out with challenges at the start? Are they equal? Their rights may be, but those rights may be a moot point if they can't exercise them. But even if considering the basics, how can a baby that cannot even feed itself, that must learn to communicate, express and defend itself be equal? Babies do not get true equal treatment, care or guidance to learn these things. We do our best, but we just cannot provide them with true equal attention. If you have more than one child, maybe you can appreciate that fact. We do not time every second we spend with each child to ensure each one gets equal attention.

I am beginning to think this theory of equality is under a basic presumption that, at a minimum all are born healthy and within a similar economic status. But even this is flawed because humans can contract diseases, or fall to injury at any time. It is impossible for everyone born to be absolutely equal to one another. But if we believe we are to be equal, and treat one another equally, what can we do at a very minimum to make sure every one of us (especially our children) has an equal vantage point in starting life?

What are all the tenets that offer a true equal starting point? As far as I can tell: nutrition; health care; a livable, safe dwelling; clothing; education and in some cases transportation. Is it wrong to believe these to be the basics of equality? If there was a way to guarantee these basics to everyone especially in their formative years, is it possible we could foster a more productive society with less crime and other burdens?

Equal access to free medical care has been a hot issue the past few years. I think equal access to medical care was not even part of the "equality" equation in the early years of the Country because it was virtually non-existent. If you got sick, or fell prey to an disabling injury there was not much to be done for you. For a lot of what we now consider basic injuries, experimentation was the order of the day to heal the sick or wounded. And when people got really sick, there was not much medical intervention. People were left to heal themselves or to live with their misfortune, as the knowledge was not available to do treatment or provide medication. There were no life saving treatments or appliances that made life more comfortable and gave ease of access to the sick or disabled. But these solutions exist now. Should they really only be accessible to those who can pay for them? Should we find a solution that equals the playing field in regards to the basic tenets of life, to give each life a true equal start (as equal as we can make it)?

Don't misunderstand me. I do believe in rewarding productive behavior with privileges. Rights and privileges are not equal. But if the basics are not met for all people, how can we expect all people to be productive? If we find a way for all to be granted equal access to those basic tenets of life in order to foster a productive, disciplined society then the productivity would lead to some, if not most to getting privileges.

There are many factors to consider going down this road. Will there be abusers? What about people that produce less than average? What about people who's productivity is not so easily measured such as a stay-at-home parent? These are part of the conversation. But when you sit down to feed your family, do you feed them according to their daily contribution to the family? Do you ration your meals based on productivity? Or do you let them eat whatever they need to satisfy their hunger? This is a generalization, of course.

However, it is possible to provide the basic tenets to all. "How?" is the question. I will conclude by saying that it is not a socialist's or communist's solution because it simply is not government's place to solve or manage these issues. It is mankind's. And I believe we can solve these issues without penalizing the producers or giving up our individual rights or our privileges. I believe the solutions can fit within the guidelines of the Constitution. But I also believe the Government will need a serious overhaul; a change of guard.

Please subscribe, because I hope to provide ideas in up coming posts.

Please comment whether you agree or disagree and explain why.

Energy saving light bulbs 'contain cancer causing chemicals' - Telegraph

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:00:00 -0500

Hydro-Quebec suggests using these bulbs as a means of cost savings on energy use, as you can see here: http://bit.ly/MZefy0. So, if one gets cancer by following Hydro-Quebec's recommendations, can one sue them? I was just about to look into purchasing some, as I am looking to reduce my energy bill. However, now I definitely won't! Read the article for the list of potential cancers these bulbs can cause. And if one breaks, you almost need a Hazmat team to clean up the mess because of the amount of mercury in them!

Quotes:

Energy saving light bulbs 'contain cancer causing chemicals' - Telegraph
Energy saving light bulbs 'contain cancer causing chemicals' Fears have been reignited about the safety of energy saving light bulbs after a group of scientists warned that they contain cancer causing chemicals.

Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the Berlin's Alab Laboratory, said: "For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment."

The Department for the Environment insists the bulbs are safe, despite the fact that they contain small amounts of mercury which would leak out if the glass was broken.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

Oh great...."First Lawsuit Over James Holmes Massacre"... Really?

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:54:00 -0500

Reactionary people like the ones in the quoted article are the ones that cause our civil liberties to erode. While I send my deepest sympathies to the families of those affected, I think this knee jerk reaction smacks of opportunism. It is just a way to make a quick buck off of a tragedy. This type of madness needs to stop. Before long, there will be police escorting everyone to the toilet! I do not know if the people bringing the lawsuit are Christians or not, but we are advised to not take legal actions against one another. Here is a good article on this subject: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/august6/27.66.html And here are a couple verses on what the Bible has to say:

Romans 12: 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

1 Corinthians 6: 1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud - even your own brothers!

How do you feel about the situation?

Quotes:

First Lawsuit Over James Holmes Massacre | TMZ.com
One of the victims in the James Holmes mass murder spree has lawyered up and plans to file a lawsuit ... because he feels the theater dropped the ball in a very fatal way.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

Happy 4th of July! Light a sparkler for me! Share my rant:

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:15:00 -0500

Wishing I were back in the USA to celebrate this special US Holiday.

Never take your freedom for granted and be wary of those "friends" that are taking away your freedoms one by one in the name of "national security"! Don't forget those past and present that have sacrificed having a normal life in order that you and I may. Stop finding reasons to dislike your neighbors and find reasons to get along. God does not discriminate! We should not either. If you trust in God, stop fearing people that are "different" than you because they too are God's children.

Enjoy this video that should make you proud to be an American! Red, White and Blue.

Where the stars & stripes & the eagle fly - YouTube

#Fireworks Video! From the International Des Feux Loto-Quebec in #Montreal Saturday June 30, 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:15:00 -0500

Every year Montreal hosts an amazing international fireworks competition. Countries from all around the world come to participate. Throughout the summer, every Saturday night the Montreal skyline lights up with beautiful colors and big booming sounds echo throughout the Monteregie. It's always a fun time to be had. More info about the competition here: http://www.internationaldesfeuxloto-quebec.com/en/

There is irony in this annual festive event. It is frequented by the same crowds that hype up Earth Hour and Earth Day. I gaze in amazement watching all the cars idling as people wait to exit the parking lots and traffic is backed up on the streets for thirty minutes or more with exhaust filling the air. As we pass by these slow moving or idle cars, it's not only exhaust that we smell though, if you catch my drift. Back in the parking lots, I am disgusted by all the trash that people leave on the ground. It makes me wonder how much people really are committed to conservation. I guess on the positive side, it does provide jobs for people, albeit paid for through exorbitant taxes.

For those of you not familiar, we are an independent, conservative minded family. We are the kind of family that liberals think are irresponsible when it comes to conservation and sustainability because we do not participate in those Earth Hour or Earth Day celebrations. However we do practice conservation regularly and simply don't want to promote socialist organizations that use emotional causes as a front to push their "rationed energy" agendas.

For the last couple years as part of our efforts to be environmentally conscience, unlike the majority of these festivity goers, we have biked down to the river to watch the fireworks. We have found it is much more fun for the family, and less stressful for me as the driver. Doing so also helps us to cut back on unnecessary emissions and we don't have to worry about finding or paying for parking. I can confidently say that as a family we participate more in conservation than most of the liberals that only participate in those annual events.

Are these people hypocrites or are they just misguided?

#Fireworks Video! From the International Des Feux Loto-Quebec in #Montreal Saturday June 30, 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:12:00 -0500

2012-06-30 22.23.04.mp4 Watch on Posterous

Are these people hypocrites or are they just misguided?

Use the English language properly for credibility!

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Thu, 24 May 2012 06:28:00 -0500

Proper punctuation is critical to create a good user experience, as well as maintain your credibility and your message.

via blog.ezinearticles.com

<rant> Improper grammar and punctuation is a pet peeve of mine. It seems, so often now, that people just don't care about either of those. I have to admit that when I was in school I hated my English classes. I didn't understand why it was so important. But I did try to pay attention and learn. Now, many years later, I find myself cringing when I read comments on articles and blog posts around the net from people who don't take the time to write properly (or at least make an attempt!). I am not perfect in my writing, but I cannot believe how many people do not even care.

There is a certain amount of credibility that you earn when you take time to write with proper grammar and punctuation. It helps people understand what you are trying to say. When you don't use the rules when you write, it makes it very difficult to understand. I am one that believes it is up to the sender of the message to make sure the receiver understands the message. We cannot, as writers, in any format (article, blog, comments, texting, etc), leave it upon the receiver to interpret because THAT is when the message gets lost or misunderstood. Using proper grammar and punctuation removes some of the "interpretation obstacles".

With spell check so easily available in most browsers now, it is disturbing to read misspelled words. However spell checker cannot also check context, so for example you can misuse the word "to", "two" or "too" and spell check wouldn't know. So if you are unsure which word to use (there or their, hear or here are other examples but there are many) look it up! It takes two seconds with the Internet at our very fingertips.

The one thing that is the most difficult in grasping is tone. Is the writer being humorous, serious, sarcastic, etc. Many of us who are sarcastic will include what we call the "sarcasm tag" which looks like this <sarcasm> or <sarc> at the beginning of our sarcastic comment and </sarcasm> or </sarc> at the end of our sarcastic comment so that readers will know we are being sarcastic. But sometimes that doesn't even work because people are in such a hurry they don't take the time to understand what they just read means. When you read something you don't understand, use the Internet to learn! Copy and paste what you don't understand into your favorite search engine. The hamsters running on the wheels that power the Internet will continue to run. And the monkeys will work diligently and fast to provide results to you! It's really amazing simple to do, yet too many people don't even make an effort.

Just because you are writing via social media like Facebook does not excuse you from writing properly. That is one of the most self-centered, ignorant arguments I have ever read from people who are too lazy to write properly: "It's Facebook, I don't have to use proper grammar, spelling and punctuation." Huh? Do you want me to read what you are writing? Do you want me to have an understanding of what you are saying? Do you want to be taken seriously, ever, as in when you actually NEED to be understood?

If you want to goof off every now and then on your social media, fine. But if writing without regard to the rules at all is your only way of writing, I think it's disrespectful to readers that are trying to understand you. It really shows the degradation of society as whole because too many people just don't care about any rules for anything anymore. But if you click the ezineartcles link at the top of this post, you can learn more rules for writing in English! That is, if you want to earn credibility and be understood. </rant> <--look it up if you don't get it.

"Windows Service Centre" phone call scam

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Mon, 7 May 2012 20:57:00 -0500

via youtube.com

I received one of these calls today. Apparently they have been diligently calling and trying to reach me. My family has taken messages several times, as I wasn't home when the scammers were calling. Until today. So I took the call. They said they were from Windows Service Center in Ontario. I asked for a phone number too. Then asked to speak to a supervisor after the scammer gave me a computer id number for my computer. I am wondering how they got access to that, my name and home phone. None are on any documentation together. I asked for the corporate address, and was told they couldn't give it to me. I said I would be calling the police if they didn't give me the corporate address. The scammer supervisor then said "they'll tell you we are a scam, fool." Then hung up on me. HA! These guys are getting more and more devious. Make sure your anti virus, malware and firewall are up to date.

Seesmic sets sunset for Ping.FM

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Sun, 6 May 2012 14:48:00 -0500

I guess all good things really do come to an end. Looks like Seesmic is moving forward and leaving Ping.Fm as we know it behind. I discovered the plans for sunset when my Ping.Fm wouldn't reconnect to my Facebook Pages. Sadly, Seesmic is no longer offering support. It will be interesting to see what good actually comes of it. I initially thought Seesmic buying Ping.FM was a good thing. Seeing the latest incarnation of Seesmic Ping makes me wonder because it is no where near what Ping.FM is. And the note on the Ping.FM website that says "try Seesmic Ping for free" leads me to believe a future release will be pay for use and all free versions will also be sunset. While Seesmic says they are being more focused, it really seems like they have lost the consumer focus. Business is business, and most succeed better/faster when they listen to their core users. The Ping.FM founders listened to their users and grew into a leading social media tool. If core users are asking for something different, so be it. I consider myself a (former) core user, and have not been asking for more. I will continue watch what Seesmic does with Ping.FM, but my hopes are not very high. There really was not a whole lot more to improve with Ping.FM. The only thing I saw a need for was scheduling, but that came from other services that incorporated Ping.FM into their core. I think one reason for the changes is that major competitors to Seesmic such as HootSuite and SocialOomph, integrate Ping.FM. When Seemic sunsets Ping.FM, these services will eventually have to remove Ping.FM as it deteriorates in capability. Seesmic will try to capitalize on this and have users move to Seesmic to get the former Ping.FM functionality. Maybe Hootsuite, SocialOomph and others that offer Ping.FM will partner with or develop an alternative. Maybe Seesmic will surprise me!

Quotes:

Seesmic Help Desk
In the meantime, we are coordinating the sunset of Seesmic Web, Seesmic Desktop 2, Seesmic iPhone, Ping.fm along with a couple of our Seesmic Ping applications (Seesmic Ping on WP7 and Desktop Mac OS X). Consequently, we won't support these products anymore - this is why you cannot see them in Zendesk.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

Who Pays More in Taxes? A Simple Analogy for the Intellectually Broke

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:21:00 -0500

This post is courtesy of a debate I was having here. Apparently semantics seem to get in the way of many people communicating properly. The guy I was arguing with adamantly was saying that 14% is less than 25%. He couldn't seem to understand (until later in the argument and much back-peddling) that a percentage is a number of a number and you cannot just say 14% is smaller than 25% unless of course the base is the same, or the base for 14% is lower than the base for 25%. For example 14% of 100 (14) is less than 25% of 100 (25). But when calculating taxes, people have different salaries, deductions, etc. and you can't say someone paying a 14% tax rate is paying less than someone paying a 25% tax rate unless, as I said, the base is the same or smaller. In the case of a millionaire and an average wage earner, it is not comparable. But the guy I was arguing with was rather adamant that the millionaire paid less in taxes because his tax rate was lower (until he back-peddled realizing his foolishness/ignorance). Go read for yourself. He clearly has a comprehension problem, but I shall not get into that here. And I should not have insulted him as I did... I feel bad about that. In any case, at some point he said that millionaires should agree to the Buffet Rule and pay a 35% tax rate. My argument is that we should not be so hung up on the tax rate, because the actual dollar amount paid is the real contribution. Someone paying $10,000 in taxes is paying 10 times more than someone that pays $1,000 regardless of their tax rate and regardless of their income. Their contribution is more, and that is undeniable. How is it "fair" that a millionaire should pay $350,000 and someone earning $33,000 pay $8,250? It is more than 42 times what the wage earner is paying! And it is quite disproportionate when people talk about what's "fair". I am not suggesting the wage earner pay more! I am suggesting the proportion not be so disproportionate, and even if the millionaire paid $175,000 it is still almost 22 times more than $8,250!

In any case, to make my point I embarked on giving examples of how a percentage is a number of a number... Here is one that I have decided to elaborate on:

Let's say that there is 1000 lbs of bricks that need to be moved 100 yards and each brick is 1 pound (so there are 1000 bricks to move).

I will now introduce Mr. A. He has been fortunate enough to grow up with a set of weights and a weight bench and he lifts every day to build strong muscles. We will say he is advantaged. Mr. A has the ability to lift 100 lbs at a time. Now let's introduce Mr. B. He was not as fortunate and grew up rather weak and no weight set. Let's say his is disadvantaged. Mr. B can only lift 10 lbs at a time.

Neither thinks it would be fair for the other to do all the work. They decide to team up. But what would be most fair? To divide the bricks in half and each move 500 bricks. Now it works even better for Mr. A. He can make 5 trips and Mr. B would make 50 trips. They agree that still is not "fair". They decide what really would be fair is an equal number of trips. Okay, maybe "fair" is the wrong word because you will clearly see Mr. A has to do more work, but I digress.

How do we figure out how much each should carry so they make the same number of trips? The weight itself will not be distributed equally. We have already concluded that Mr. A has the ability to carry more weight and has agreed to do so. If Mr. A carries 10% of his ability, he will carry 10 pounds (or 10 bricks) each trip. If Mr. B carries 10% of his ability, he will carry 1 pound (or 1 brick) each trip. That would take 91 trips. It sounds fair as each is moving the bricks at the same percentage rate. Until you look at it this way: Mr. A would move 905 bricks, while Mr. B moved 95 (the last trip each would carry half the bricks). Well, Mr. A wasn't too fond of this plan because it would take almost 10 times more number of trips than if he just did it himself. So to compromise and to move the bricks faster, Mr A. agreed to carry 20% of his ability or 20 pounds (20 bricks) each trip and Mr B. agreed to carry 50% of his ability or 5 pounds (5 bricks) each trip. It will take 40 trips each to move all 1000 bricks. Mr. A's percentage of ability per trip is lower than Mr. B's. But who would be responsible for moving more? Of course Mr. A ends up moving more bricks (800 compared to Mr. B's 200) meaning he moved more weight than Mr. B! Maybe Mr B sweat more because it is more difficult for him, but Mr. A still did most of the work.

Now compare that to how we calculate and pay our taxes. Who actually contributes more to the tax revenue? Is it still fair that we demand they carry more of the tax burden?

Study: Obama's health care law would raise deficit - Yahoo! News

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:23:00 -0500

This is what happens when you listen to someone like Nancy Pelosi that says "You'll find out what's in it after it passes". We could have had ALL the details before the bill passed if Congress and the senate would have done their jobs.

Quotes:

Study: Obama's health care law would raise deficit - Yahoo! News
(floating sticky note)

"Taken as a whole, the enactment of the (health care law) has substantially worsened a dire federal fiscal outlook," Blahous wrote in his 52-page analysis, released by George Mason University's Mercatus Center. "The (law) both increases a federal commitment to health care spending that was already unsustainable under prior law and would exacerbate projected federal deficits relative to prior law."

The decision to use Medicare cuts to finance the expansion of coverage for the uninsured will only make matters worse, Blahous said. The money from the Medicare savings will have been spent, and lawmakers will have to find additional cuts or revenues to forestall that program's insolvency.Under federal accounting rules, the Medicare cuts are also credited as savings to that program's trust fund. But the CBO and Medicare's own economic estimators already said the government can't spend the same money twice.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo

Government freezes GM CEO's pay at 2011 levels

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Profit) — Sat, 7 Apr 2012 14:19:00 -0500

While I do think it`s great that the senior executives at corporations that received bail-out funds are having their salaries frozen, I can`t help but wonder how much Patricia Geoghegan the over-seer, is making to over-see their salaries. Seems like a redundant use of tax payer money.

Quotes:

Government freezes GM CEO's pay at 2011 levels - Apr. 6, 2012
It is the second straight year the government's special master for TARP compensation, Patricia Geoghegan, has taken this step.

This message was sent to you by Charlie Profit via Diigo