Daily Dose

May 8, 2012 News Round-up

2012-05-09T12:00:00.000-04:00

'One in six cancers worldwide are caused by infection'

Well, this makes sense since a tumor is the result of a glitch in the cellular mainframe. Another thing that causes such a glitch is UV light--skin cancer, primarily. Chemicals can cause the glitches and so does old age and bad luck (your cells are always making mistakes, but there are special molecules that are supposed to catch them--but nothing is perfect).

But as we've seen with the Whooping Cough epidemic that's still a 2012 concern, some parents are against vaccinating their children--heck, even one of my cousins is against it. I hope to God that she doesn't come to regret that decision, but how many children die because their parents think vaccinations are a bad thing? Granted, I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the Chicken Pox vaccine since I had a relatively great time with the disease, but I've been so happy that I haven't suffered through all the diseases that were covered by vaccines when I was a kid that I'm changing that opinion. Especially since a family friend got Shingles earlier this year and was miserable for six weeks.

'Course, I've decided not to get the HPV vaccine because I'm not sexually active and have no immediate plans to change that status. Maybe in the future I will change that decision. And no, I don't believe that getting the vaccine gives girls a reason to have sex--only an idiot would make that projection. Your daughters are going to have sex if and when they decide to--if they are or may be sexually active, get them vaccinated. If not, then it's a toss up since so far as I know there's no other way to get the virus. But, I'm against a government mandate on it. The only mandate I support is insurance.

How offensive is the word 'lunatic'?

Two senators want to remove the term from federal law. I say that our law code is too complicated as it is, though maybe this will be the start of a new movement.

Look, I know that Constitutionalists like to believe that the Constitution is the end all, be all for American laws, but that isn't the case--it's not practical and I know that the Constitutionalists will stand up and say the same thing. I highly doubt that they'd want to remove all laws about Prostitution and Child Pornography. So, how do we go about un-complicating our laws without jeopardizing the world that we've created with them? Language seems to be the biggest issue and this article does a great job illustrating that. What is a lunatic? How is it different from just being mentally ill?

Lawyers are paid to use the literal language of laws against them and, thus, it's Congresses job to write laws with as few loop holes as possible. We as average Americans complain about a thousand page health care law, but if it wasn't so (though only 500 pages have actual health implications) a kid fresh out of law school could tear it apart. Some would say that that's a good thing--and I agree with them, but for a different reason because I think that the way to make laws is to make them vague and close the loopholes as they present themselves--just like the Constitution. I also think that they should all expire within 30 to 50 years unless they are turned into a Constitutional Amendment. That way the country isn't cluttered with defunct laws and we aren't left wasting time trying to agree on how to modernize said defunct law, nor are our representatives forced to spend months trying to foresee every possible loophole (and then get crucified when some murderer walks free because of a neglected loophole).

And this brings me back to the lunatic question. We'll eventually need to modernize all American laws (you've seen on other websites about the crazy blue laws that prevent you from pogo-sticking down main street on Sunday, I'm sure) and I think that the easiest way is to do it one defunct word at a time. How? I'm reasonably certain that every US law on the book has been digitized. This means that it shouldn't be too difficult to search using the word, pull out every law that uses it and toss out whatever is redundant and outdated and to combine and revise whatever is still usful.

North Carolina approves constitutional ban on gay union

I saw this on the news Monday night and one of the women they interviewed was afraid that it would cause her and her partner's daughter to lose her health insurance. Wow. Good job Republicans--you just put another kid on the welfare you so love! And maybe even the women if they no longer have to claim to support each other.

Gah. As you may have read before, my biggest complaint against those opposed to Gay Marriages is that straight men and women can and do play the system for their own personal gain all the time--one friend's problem with poligamist families is that the women collect welfare even though they believe that they're married to their mutual husband. And there are how many single mothers living with their "baby-daddies" while collecting welfare? You'd think that the state would want to help people care for themselves and their family, but instead they've given insurance companies leverage to say that the child isn't eligible for coverage.

And what especially ticks me off is that for a small fortune in legal bills and six months of your time a gay couple can get almost every right that a straight couple can--except that the straight couple needs 20 bucks and 20 minutes in Vegas. But the gay couple can't give a stable home to an orphaned child in most states, while the drunken straight couple can neglect or beat their child to death and all the neighbors will get on the news and say "how did this happen?!?" They system is broken and yet the WASPs think that their ideals are the best.

Virginia Beach Tax Hike

2012-05-09T08:35:00.002-04:00

While I'm happy that the city has decided to raise one of their taxes to help fix the budget deficit for their schools, I'm not really thrilled with the explanation given by a spokesperson. He says that teachers should be thrilled because it will save the jobs that were held by teachers who were given pink slips. Here's why I'm upset:

They did this last year. They fired all their new teachers, found more money and rehired some of the teachers back--at the first year rate again. So if you work for VA Beach schools, you can be a first year teacher for three or more years in a row. I wish that I could say that this time they'll just revoke all the pink slips and hand them out again so that no body loses what they deserve (because some teachers will stay fired), but I'm not stupid.

Extreme Couponing

2012-05-08T22:29:00.000-04:00

This concept intrigues me. My family is frugal out of necessity and we buy store brands instead of name brands as the primary way to save money. We've looked at coupons, of course, but for our weekly shopping needs they rarely have value. Occasionally there will be one that makes a name brand product equivilent in price to the store brand, but except for ranch dressing (which I'm the only person who eats) store brand products are prefectly good substitutes. So we save money without spending hours of our time trying to save money.

I just flipped through the ads that came in the mail today--I found two coupons that we may use. 50 cents off Purex and $1 off any 5 cans of Del Monte. I'll hand the coupons to my dad since he does most of the shopping. My prediction is that, like normal, when he goes to shop he'll look at the prices in front of him and the coupon in his hand and decide that for what we need the non-couponed option will be best.

The thing that seems to be most prevelant about extreme couponing is how the ones that do it get a TON of stuff in the process. I come from two types of shoppers--my mother who thinks that if one is good, two must be better and my father who says "you aren't saving anything if you're spending more than you had to".

The woman interviewed on the Today Show said that her best trip was getting 162 boxes of cereal for $14. What on earth is a family, even of 9, going to do with that many boxes of cereal? It's going to go bad before it can be eaten and what happens the next week when cereal is again on sale? Must she buy more? I watched the episode of (I think) Bones from a few weeks ago about the extreme couponers and how obsessed they were and I know of many people who have that sort of hording mentality. I really wonder how many extreme couponers take their "free" merchandise and donate it to those who need it. I think Extreme Makeover Home Edition had a woman who did something like that.

Google AdWords

2012-05-08T21:04:00.000-04:00

I got an interesting piece of mail today--it was a $100 credit from Google to use their "adwords" to advertise my business. What makes me happiest is that unlike all the other promotions I've met recently, I don't have to sign my credit card away to use it. I mean, I like to play games on pogo.com. Pogo links to some kind of money game site run by the Gameshow Network, I think. Anyway, you can earn points to use at their store without a credit card...BUT you can only redeem the points with your card. I don't like that. 'Course, I also don't like that pogo lets you earn tokens, but you can only use the tokens to buy stuff to clutter your avitar. It costs real money to buy the gems that let you really upgrade your games. It seems to me that by the time someone has earned, say, 1 million tokens, pogo has earned more than enough money in ad revenue to pay for the benefits of one gem ten times over (if not more).

As you can tell, I'm a big fan of allowing ad revenue to pay for free quality media products--televison, movies, games. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of time watching ads to pay for my entertainment. But I'm annoyed by sites like pogo that offer you a worthless product (clothes for my avitar) when a valuable product could be easily traded. But it's not like I'm a heartless taker--I've been a member of pogo for like 2 years and still need 150,000 tokens to reach 1 million and I think 1 million tokens is a good price for a gem.
Anyway, since I don't have a business, I've made up a small add to maybe entice someone to visit this blog. If you're here because of Google, "Hi!". Welcome. I hope you stay awhile and feel free to comment.

Gosh, if I get very popular, I may have to make an effort to write something every day (that does seem to increase my viewership). I honestly have no idea how anyone comes to read my blog (well, there is that whole "audience" page on my dashboard, but it still doesn't explain what makes a person stop by. Hello Russia!!)

Anywho, if you are here and not sure why, check out my "labels" section--I try to label everything that I've written, so it's more than likely I've written something you'll find interesting.

P.S. Thank-you Google. Earlier I complained about how Amazon no longer easily links to books that I'm recommending (my shameless way to maybe make a buck, though 3 years of blogging has netted me an entire penny in adsense earnings :-)). Well, there's now a way...never mind. I just fiddled with it and they ain't selling books. I'm not going to push shoes or electronics, so guess that's a bust. Yo Google! Some people do read who hang out online! Get with the program!

"and I" vs. "and ME"

2012-05-08T15:09:00.002-04:00

Okay, I'm not a very good "Grammar Nazi"--my spoken English is terrible and my written vocabulary isn't very consistent. But there are a few rules I've learned and two really annoy me when they're used improperly (but I will only correct them in the written word--verbally it's too difficult and you just come across as an ass because 9 times out of 10 the person thinks they've said one thing when they've really said something else--trust me, I'm that person).

The first is e.g. vs i.e.--the Oatmeal web-comic is the best place to learn the difference, though I'll give you my rule of thumb:

e.g. is used in exchange of "for example".
i.e. is use in exchange of "in other words".

The second is "and I" vs. "and me". I don't know who the idiot was who decided to teach children that proper English is "and I" in all cases, but I was surprised when a teacher in high school had to re-teach this. 'Course, I didn't learn 90% of grammar until I took Spanish. Anyway. The REAL rule is that the noun for yourself comes last always--the choice is determined by the nature of the sentence.

If you were to say "Henry and I are going to the store" that would be correct because without Henry, you would say "I am going to the store". The alternative would be you saying "Me am going to the store."

And on the flip side you would say "That toy belongs to Henry and me"--because you would never say "That toy belongs to I".

I personally normally speak improperly because I'd rather use the correct noun than place the words in the correct order. Anyway, I cringe whenever I hear an improper usage. But then I'm the girl who made a new friend in 9th grade when I gently told him that I wasn't sure that he was using words correctly in English class. His method was to use a 5 dollar word when a 1 dollar word would suffice at the expense that the sentence no longer made sense. By the end of high school he'd outgrown it and was actually a pretty smart guy.

The moral of this story? Read a lot and speak from your heart. Use words that you know and say them the way you feel comfortable. But don't use words and concepts that are foreign to you but you think will make you sound smarter. Trust me--no one has ever wondered if I was intelligent even though I can barely remember the name of the object I'm talking about. Real intelligence is more than the words coming out of your mouth--it's your ability to show that you actually know what your talking about. And realize: if you continue to try and fake your intelligence, those around you can tell and may laugh behind your back.

But also remember, saying "I don't know" is a sign of intelligence, not weakness, but only when you make an effort to learn more.

US vs. EU

2012-05-07T23:44:00.000-04:00

It was interesting to see the economy report on the news tonight. When France elected a Socialist leader, it caused 401Ks to drop drastically. This made the news show the difference in what the US government did to help the economy afloat in 2008 vs. what the EU governments did.

While the US had the bailout and increased government spending, England, France, and Germany chose to cut what they could only. Today, the US is as much out of trouble as it really could be while the big three are facing double dip recessions and/or high unemployment.

Looks like 10 points to the Democrats.

Catch-22

2012-05-07T10:17:00.000-04:00

So, as you may have figured, I'm a big fan of the Dark-Hunter series right now (and when I become a fan, I tend to obsess for the time being). Though this thought came to me while reading these books, the idea transends all books really.

There's a catch-22 in the writing world. One of my complaints about the Dark-Hunters is the anti-climatic endings since Kenyon really is just writing romance novels. (Thank God she's learned to write fight scenes!!!!) While reading the site on TV tropes (you REALLY need to go there if you love to read or write or watch movies/television) it's pointed out how the Gods will solve all the unsolvable problems in the end--the ultimate get-out-of-a-complicated-plot-free card. And this is where the catch-22 lies:

If the author uses the Gods to kill the big-baddie, I call it a cop out since the main characters didn't have to do any real work (besides the whole getting beat up 2 or 3 times in previous chapters). But then, if they didn't use the Gods, the complaint would be wondering why the Gods even exist. I guess the argument is that a good author can come up with an solution that satisfies everyone...please excuse me while I go laugh my butt off while rolling around on the floor. There's a reason why half the world loves Twilight while the rest of us cringe. And why some of the most amazing authors have their non-fans. You can't please everyone, so I guess authors have to decide which side of the catch they want to be on and go with it.

Hmm...now if only Congress could do that.

Special Interests

2012-05-02T17:15:00.002-04:00

I think that one of the biggest problems with modern politics is the question of what exactly a "Special Interest Group" is. Both sides complain about the special interests that support their opponents...which begs the obvious question of what exactly a special interest is and why is a group only a special interest when it's in support of the opposition.

Both sides have special interests. The NRA has vowed to do whatever it can to defeat Obama and the Catholic Church disagrees with Paul Ryan's budget plan to cut social programs while continuing to lower the taxes of the super rich. Doesn't it annoy you that on one side these groups are "Special Interests" while on the other they're merely "Concerned Citizens"?

Mad Men and George Romney

2012-05-02T15:05:00.001-04:00

So, I'm days behind in my "Weird News" on Hulu. I just watched the clip where Mitt Romney's son complained about a line in an episode of "Mad Men" where his grandfather was called a clown. It got me thinking.

"Mad Men" is set in the 1960s. Back in the '60s, the Republicans were notorious for being anti-racial rights. So, if Romney was the pro-rights governer that his grandson proclaimed then he would have been considered a clown in the Republican party. And, me being a socially liberal educated woman (i.e. a slut), if I was George Romney's granddaughter, I would have stood up and proudly said "Hell's YES my grandfather was a clown and I'm happy that the 1960s Republican party no longer exists BECAUSE of clowns like my grandfather who didn't believe in the archaic notions that black people should be 'separate but equal'. He helped ring in the new age of the Republican Party...which you should vote for in November."

But "Grandson of George Romney" didn't go there. Instead he sounded whiney and un-informed about the world that his Grandfather existed. Maybe he needs to go watch a few dozen episodes of "All in the Family."

Castle

2012-04-30T23:00:00.003-04:00

Hmm...So, I don't usually think of zombies as sexy, but day-am--Castle looked very yummy tonight :-D

Firelight (Hallmark Hall of Fame)

2012-04-22T23:03:00.000-04:00

One of my penpals told me that one of her favorite websites is a "bloggy" thing about Christian women who are against feminism. And then there is the Pope who want to crack down on Nuns in America who are getting too feminist in their ways. In reading that blog, it's obvious that these women have no idea what real feminism is.

It's not a bunch of wild women burning their bras, sleeping around, and acting like heathens, which is what they seem to think. Yes, those are symbols, but for the most part, they're pointless and most feminist women will say that while it's our RIGHT to do such things, they don't make us CEOs or whatever our hearts desire are.

Real feminism is what's portrayed in this show--strong women able to do for themselves without a man. Real feminism takes the life that those Christian women want and makes it practical. Having a loving husband, taking care of loved children, but only when we choose, not because it's expected of us. And doing what we want because we CAN, not being forced to act in a certain way because that's what's expected of us.

One of the biggest complaints you can read in the comments section is that these women are teaching their daughters to be servants to their husbands. They're automatic defense is that they aren't servants, but partners where the husband has the ultimate say (debate that as you wish). But first and foremost, they say that they would support whatever life choices that their daughters make. If that is true, then those mothers are the biggest feminists in the world--because if their daughter came up to them and said that she's going to be the next President of the US, then that mother is going to do everything in her power to make sure that it happens.

Again, debate amongst yourselves as to whether these mothers are serious about their commitment to supporting their daughters decisions--the last article I read was on how mothers should teach their...children or was it just daughters?...to not follow their dreams, but to follow what Jesus wants them to do. My argument, and one many women agreed with, was that how can a human (who most Christians will agree are sinful and flawed) can sit there and tell their child that their dreams AREN'T sent by God.

More Favorite Quotes

2012-04-22T22:12:00.000-04:00

(Since I can only post 200 characters of labels.)

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."
--Maya Angelou

"Death should be a celebration. Like a birthday. I want to go up like a rocket when my time comes, and fall down in a cloud of stars, and hear everyone go: ahh!"
--Joanne Harris

"I not only use all the brains that I have, but all I can borrow."
--Woodrow Wilson

"I let out a battle cry. Sure, a lot of people might have mistaken it for a sudden yelp of unmanly fear, but trust me. It was a battle cry."
--Jim Butcher, My Big Fat Supernatural Wedding

"I don't want to live in a world where the strong rule and the weak cower. I'd rather make a place where things are a little quieter. Where trolls stay the hell under their bridges and where elves don't come swooping out to snatch children from the cradles. Where vampires respect the limits, and where the faeries mind their p's and q's. My name is Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden. Conjure by it at your own risk. When things get strange, when what goes bump in the night flicks on the lights, when no ne else can help you, give me a call, I'm in the book."
--Jim Butcher, Storm Front

"I think that men aught to treat women like something other than weaker men with breasts."
--Jim Butcher, Storm Front
[yes: we're definitely not weaker, and more importantly, we're smarter :-)]

"It came charging toward me, several hundred pounds of angry-looking monster, and I did the only thing any reasonable wizard could have done. I turned and ran like hell."
--Jim Butcher, Death Masks

"Hope is a force of nature. Don't let anyone tell you different."
--Jim Butcher, Changes

"Christ, Dresden! You almost got me killed!"
"Don't be a baby. You're fine."
Thomas frowned at me. "You at least could have told me!"
"I did tell you," I said. "I told you at Mac's that I'd give you a ride home, but that I had to run an errand first."
Thomas scowled. "An errand is getting a tank of gas or picking up a carton of milk or something. It is not getting chased by flying purple pyromaniac gorillas hurling incendiary poo."
--Jim Butcher, Blood Rites

Favorite Quotes

2012-04-22T21:55:00.001-04:00

"Apocalypse is a frame of mind." [Nicodemus] said then. "A belief. A surrender to inevitability. It is a despair for the future. It is the death of hope."
--Jim Butcher, Death Masks

"In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on."
--Robert Frost

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
--Oscar Wilde

"Insanity is doing the same thing, overandover again, but expecting different results."
--Albert Einstein

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
--Mark Twain

"There's more magic in a baby's first giggle than in any firestorm a wizard can conjure up, and don't let anyone tell you any different."
--Jim Butcher, Fool Moon

"Bow ties are cool."
--Steven Moffat

"Every now and then I like to do as I'm told, just to confuse people."
--Tamora Pierce, Melting Stones

Plato's "The Cave"

2012-04-22T21:41:00.001-04:00

I really liked this story when we discussed it in the "Scientific Revolution" course I took a couple years ago. I'm liking it even more as I watch this "Hallmark Hall of Fame" program called "Firelight"--it's about girls in a correctional facility. I think that the story is a great one to use for this--everyone's a prisoner until they start asking questions and expanding their world.

The fire fighting program that is also a key part of the plot is also a great idea. Normally I think Hallmark is too sappy for me, but I highly recommend this episode. However, they could seriously afford to lose the Hallmark commercials, but then I'm probably not in their target audience, which is actually kinda sad. I mean, who would really benefit from watching a program on troubled girls learning to be independent, self-sufficient, and not a bane on society? Troubled girls, right? Well, I don't think that troubled girls would sit through sappy commerials that kinda make me want to puke. The girls can relate to the bad girls in the episode--I highly doubt that they can relate to the loving families and sentimental BS (no offense) in the commercials.

Still, leave the commercials out and maybe they'd be a good week-end movie at the local young ladies correctional facility.

Lobbyists

2012-04-20T16:02:00.001-04:00

(That word looks funny...just saying.)

I propose that lobbyists stay out of Washington. Oh don't look at me that way, you know that the world would be a much better place if lobbyists had to stay away from our representatives. Now, don't get me wrong. I think lobbyists are great for teaching our representatives about the issues that are important to their constituents, but the whole "wining and dining" and he who has the most money wins situation is ridiculous. This is why I've come up with the following proposition:

Professional lobbyists cannot speak with representatives or their assistants. Instead, they must submit video and written pamphlets for their requests. There can be no phone calls, dinners, or other favors. This puts all issues onto the same playing field.

Professional lobbyists can instead transfer their persuasive powers to the public sphere since I see no problem with individual citizens talking with their representatives about the issues that are important to them.

I think that this simple proposition would greatly increase transparency in government.

Romney

2012-04-18T15:33:00.000-04:00

Romney said something interesting the other day. He was asked if he or Obama was funnier (because of his possible appearance on SNL) and he didn't know him personally to be able to make a judgment. This got me thinking.

I propose that at some point during any campaign, all the candidates (fringe or not) regardless of their party affiliation, eat dinner together. It should be completely private, media free, and in neutral territory.

I think that 90% of the hateful speech is made during the campaign because they're making assumptions about the other. I mean heck, how well do the Republican candidates know each other personally? And they know Obama even less. Maybe if they got to know each other without a camera catching all the soundbites, they might understand eachother's positions a little be a little more progressive, instead of reductive.

Biggest Loser Week 16

2012-04-18T11:43:00.002-04:00

Well, that was an interesting way to start the episode. I'd really like to know who exactly got wind of the "leak", who leaked it, and whether it was even true. Because it really wouldn't surprise me if one of the contestants wanted to make up something to stir up some controversy (Condra) and it got out of hand. What I can't believe is that 2 contestants actually left--I figured that it was obvious that they'd either all stay or all go. I'd seriously be pissed if I left thinking that everyone was going with me and no one did.

I also am pretty surprised by the numbers the contetants are putting up this week--they're huge! Weirdness.

Secret Service in Trouble

2012-04-17T18:50:00.003-04:00

First off, I have no problem with our government workers taking a break every once in awhile. This means that the President can go spend the afternoon on the golf course and if Secret Service guys want to spend the night with a legal prostitute, fine.

I can kind of see the problem of counter-intelligence, but then, ANYONE could break their supposed shell. Are they supposed to live in a bubble? If there was evidence that they'd let vital information leak, I could see freaking out, but really? The reaction they're having right now is BIGGER than when some CIA guy leaves his laptop on the Metro. We need to understand that they're human and if they decide to pick up prostitutes or get drunk after spending 8,10,12 hours DOING THEIR JOB, then so be it. If they're spending their own money and not shirking their duties, let them.

"Stand Your Ground"

2012-04-16T12:45:00.000-04:00

I haven't commented yet on the Trayvon Martin case because I haven't felt that it's my place to do so. But after listening to what the NRA had to say on the Today show this week. They apparently want to expand the "Stand Your Ground" laws. I have a problem with Zimmerman's probable defense--that it was self denfense because he was standing his ground. Well, honey, wasn't Martin standing his ground when he defended himself from a man that was following him? If the NRA had their way, Martin would have been carrying a gun himself and the situation would have been reversed with Zimmerman as the dead man...and then we wouldn't care because it'd be just another case of a "rogue black man killing someone."

All shootings should be investigated fully. I support any and all "Castle" laws because when someone decides to enter another's home unwelcomed and warned, then it's their own fault for getting shot. But I think that we should encourage people to do like the woman did a few months ago: she was on the phone with 911 when she warned the men she shot, repeatedly that she had a gun and was going to use it.

But outside of the home, there's no real way to know what was happening when the shooting happened. The gunman can lie, so there needs to be an investigation in all cases. It seems to me that the police used the law to be lax in their investigation, which is a severe problem.

Big Oil

2012-04-15T21:01:00.000-04:00

This is important. I know that you've all seen the comercials recently about how Obama is against Big Oil because he won't let them drill off shore or up in Alaska or whereever they want to put their tankers, and how this is hurting the economy because gas prices are just increasing, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, here's what you really need to understand.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. This is more a matter of common sense in action.

What Big Oil wants is the rights to own said tracts of land and sea. Currently, all the land they want belongs to the government (and therefore technically everyone) for them to do with as they see fit. Yes, there may or may not be oil, coal, natural gas, the Holy Grail, located under the ground, but that is beside the point. What Big Oil/Natural Gas/Coal/Catholic Church want government to do is to let them be the sole owner of those lands so that they can do what they want to, when they want. This includes, but isn't limited to, keeping their competators from owning the land and removing the resources.

What you need to look out for is what exactly the plans are of the companies that want to use the land. The key phrase is whether they are actively planning to drill or if it's just "exploration". I have no qualms about drilling when the drilling is going to happen within the next 5 years because that's how long it takes to build a platform. But VA's Governor is trying desperately to "open Virginia's coast to off-shore drilling"--which since there's a pretty hefty wait before any oil will come up, I can't help but wonder how this drilling will help TODAY to bring down gas prices. Unless it's bringing down gas prices because some company knows that when they need it, they'll have that much supply waiting for them.

I challenge you to find out something. I want you to know how much land and sea area BP, Shell, and Exxon currently own but are not drilling. Separately, how many acres do they have that have the pumps currently in place, but aren't pumping even though they haven't been exhausted. Do these companies REALLY need access to more acreage or are they out to get something that will hurt their competators and therefore our economy.

Politics and Family

2012-04-15T20:44:00.002-04:00

My dad and his brothers are all variously politically interested. There's the hard core economic conservative (who is too anti-democrat for his own good, in my opinion), there's the, I guess you'd call it, social justice guy, there's the slightly left leaning moderate (my dad), and the slightly right leaning moderate. One of the uncles had a house warming party this afternoon and the boys, being the only ones in attendance, got into the political discussions that their mother and sisters usually stop. I actually enjoy listening to the debates because the two "wingers" are very passionate while the moderates have their bullet points of, well, moderation. You can hear all the sides of the role of government argument without leaving the combination of Mother and Father DNA.

It's no wonder that I ended up, politically, where I did. And since I'm a product of the slightly left moderate primarily, I can't help but disagree with the right winger on a few key points, which I shall share here. I love my uncle, but he's too narrow minded when it comes to taxes and government.

For instance, he blames Obama. Period. End of statement. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. When my left-ish uncle blames Congress for the current economic climate, he blames Obama for supposedly signing off personally on companies like Solendra. (Point 1: I don't like using one example to describe everything--it makes a person look uninformed if they cannot name a fair few examples (of anything) and be comfortable saying that this is a majority of cases). I pointed out that at least the money was getting spent, which, since this is my dad's biggest gripe, is a good thing. The rebuttal was that the money went into the pockets of a few rich, which is debatable since I'm sure there were a few engineers involved who took a paycheck at some point before they went out of business. It is shallow-minded to ignore the role of Congress since Congressmen will throw the President under the bus if they don't like him and that it isn't the President's job to write laws, so you really can't get mad at a man who has no control when a budget with who knows what comes onto his desk at the last possible moment. Granted, we need a president who is going to walk into congress, stand at the podium, show a video of a group of kindergarteners solving problems, and explain why calling Congress a bunch of children because they can't work together is insulting to the children. (Much like calling murderers animals is insulting to animals since animals do not kill for vengence or anything more than defense or food.)

And I'm going to write this now before I forget: Romney, working for Bane Capital bought failing companies and either turned them around or eased them out of business. So it's okay for business to work properly under him, but not in the case of when government is involved? The rule of business is that many businesses will fail. Period, end of statement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But if government uses their self-imposed rules to choose which businesses to support, and said businesses fail, it's suddenly a problem? It's like telling government that they can only fund sure-things, but every gambler (and investor) knows that there's no such thing as a sure-thing. I don't know how my uncle feels about governmental investments, but by the previous logic, he shouldn't support any. That includes investing ANY money in schools, roads, or anything since there's no garantee that it will work out the way that it was intended. My libertarian self can agree with this ideology, but my, dare I say it, smart self, says that that is ridiculous.

And that brings us to point number two. The three not right wingers are in favor of a government which encourages the super-rich to spend their money. My left-leaning father is in favor of an 80% tax bracket with deductibles a mile long, much like we had until Reagan. I can agree with this (though we disagree where the top bracket should start), but of course, my uncle says that it's not government's job to point industry towards the future (hence his opposition to Solendra). The three others say that this is EXACTLY what the point of government is. I mean, the guy who is heading one of the space-adventure companies thanks NASA because without them, there would be no industry. And what if we were to wait until the last possible moment to seek energy independence because THAT is when there will be economic incentive to do so? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Because gas skyrocketed in the 1970s and we made how much advancement until the government stepped in with incentives?

The market (which isn't capitalist and you wouldn't want a capitalist market) can only go so far. Look at how the automobile industry squashed electric cars until the government was like "hey, why aren't you doing this?" Can you imagine where electric cars will be in 100 years? Now imagine where they'd be if we'd spent the past 100 years inovating them instead of sweeping them under the rug.

Week of the Fire

2012-04-13T08:06:00.001-04:00

Sheesh--this week has been fire week in this "city" (there are technically 7+ cities). First we had the jet crash (I know you heard about that), then a medical tower caught fire on Monday or Tuesday. Then yesterday the local news was hijacked by a 4 alarm, 5 houses involved fire. Someone was finally killed (that's the amazing part of all those stories--no fatalities) when 2 senior citizens perished in a condo fire this morning.

Fires, and shootings, are common enough stories on our local news, and there's rarely a day that passes without either or both. But we don't normally have so many big fires (apartment fires and larger). Normally they're single family homes where fatalities are relative to the number of working smoke detectors in the home.

Robert Kennedy

2012-04-13T07:49:00.001-04:00

I cannot believe that that man is trying to make his case look like he's a good dad just doing the right thing. Jerk!

For those who don't know, he's going to court because he assaulted two nurses who tried to stop him when he attempted to take his 3 day old son out of the hospital without proper permission.

He gave a press conference yesterday and didn't even address the serious issue of babies being kidnapped from hospitals because of nurses who assumed that the person carrying the child past them had permission. In a world where the complaint is that there are too few nurses working too many hours and are making too many mistakes, shouldn't a parent be THANKING each and every nurse that asks if the person has permission to remove the child?

My dad told me that fathers aren't even offered a wristband like mothers have. If to many fathers are inconvienced by nurses asking the same questions, then maybe this could be an alternative, though the mother should be the one to decide whether he gets a band or not. But my dad said that he never had a problem because he only took me and my brother through the halls when he was also walking with my mom. And yes--the nurses would periodically match mother to baby via the bracelets.

I hope that Kennedy gets the biggest punishment possible to send a message to stupid, and dare I say arrogant, fathers (and really anyone else) who think they are above these rules. They may seem like stupid rules when you aren't the one breaking them, but if someone tried to abduct your child you'd be thanking the nurses who otherwise were 'annoying' you.

Amazon and Blogger

2012-04-12T19:06:00.000-04:00

So, what happened with the ability to create links to books available on Amazon.com? I mean, I'm having a love/hate relationship with Amazon right now, but it would be nice to make a buck or two from Amazon for linking to a book that someone already cares to buy. Now all I can find is a wonkey widget that is more a pain in the butt to create than I think it's worth (but it exists if you care to look through some of my favorite books).

I love Amazon because they have the simplist system for selling books (the only thing that I am selling at the moment) and I don't have pay a hosting fee (my problem with ebay and etsy).

I dislike Amazon because they're fighting on-line sales tax to the detrement to the community (they're fighting VA's lawmakers by threatening to not move here unless they get like 5 years exemption from sales tax--a tax exemption that other on-line retailers will not get--at least the law they're fighting there will benefit all on-line retailers...while making it cheaper to do business online rather than with a brick and motar).

And on Amazon, I don't understad sellers who sell for $0.01--I mean, are they trying to make it impossible for people like me to make a buck or two? For instance, I have books that I paid $7.99 for. I read them and now want to turn them over. They're in great shape and I think $5 is a fair price, but they'll never sell because I have 100 books to compete with, selling for $0.01. This means that their turn over is so high that they can still make a profit selling books for less than $1.00 (you pay $4.00 and Amazon takes $1.50, the post office takes another $1.50)--it makes you wonder where their supply comes from that the books cost, what, $0.20 wholesale.

I don't buy $0.01 books. I'd rather pay $3 for the book, plus the $3.99 for shipping, plus tax, and know that I'm not funding something that I don't even know what it is. I guess the assumption is that they are brick and mortar stores that also sell their inventory on Amazon, but if so, what store doesn't have it's own website? GoogleSites makes setting up one easy, so there's really no excuse in today's economy. Heck, if I owned a small bookstore, I'd sell on Amazon, too, and probably at a reduced price so that with shipping costs the prices are comparable, and just pull books off the shelf when they sell online. I think that that's what it's supposed to be (besides people like me who have books that they just want to get rid of), but random people with access to very cheap books, who take advantage of Amazon's storage facilities, now open "bookstores" which may or may not be contributing to the demise of the brick and mortar bookstores that we know and love.

And before I hear from the complaint department, I use the library primarily. I've only bought books on Amazon during college for class (and saved a ton rather than the campus bookstore). And when I do buy books I like to buy used.

So, I ask you to take an extra minute or two and see who you're buying from. If it seems fishy that they'd sell for $0.01, even though they have thousands of positive reviews, maybe you should buy from someone else.

Duggar House

2012-04-12T16:38:00.001-04:00

For the most part, I like the Duggar family. There are much worse families in the world and for those who play the "they're brainwashing the kids" card, please remember that you yourself were brainwashed by your parents. You didn't come out of the womb thinking what you think; you were influenced by your parents from day one. They made you the person you are whether you were following in their footsteps or rebelling for all it's worth. So there.

What I don't like about their house is that the guest suite is located where you can only access it through the laundry room. The way they go through clothes, that seems like a terrible oversight. It's no wonder that Grandma Duggar does laundry every time she visits--she can't get to her room without tripping over 3 piles, probably.

Probably the only thing I don't really like about the way the kids are raised is that they are so dependent on people other than the two parents to care for the children. My grandmother (who had 8 kids) and my dad and aunts and uncles on that side say that that's the way kids were raised, with the older ones looking after the younger ones and the chores (my youngest uncle complains that he was left with all the chores when the older ones moved out). But I think that that is completely different from the way the Duggars do things because it doesn't appear to be voluntary. I mean, the kids are obviously willing and it doesn't seem to be much of an opposition (is that the right word?), but it just seems like the girls do more raising than is fair, even split between so many of them. I don't know if any of the women in my family watch the show, but I think that if they did they'd say that they weren't faced with as much without mom stepping in. But there was a reason my grandmother had my grandfather get a vasectomy on the ship when she did (though Uncle Paul being a premie also had a big part of that).