The phrase "seeing red" has a whole new meaning to me. I literally saw and felt red - my entire neck up to the tips of my ears were on fire from the anger I felt towards the jackasses in charge of Congress.
Since the jackasses came in control two years ago, my investment funds dropped. Slowly, but then by the end of last year, one fund dropped just short of half. Since the jack-in-chief took office? It dropped even further to a full half of what it was at the end of 2007. In two months. My other fund, the 401(k) from work, also took a heavy dive.
Thanks for the "help," assholes.
I just wonder how much others have lost too. Maybe we should band together and tally up our losses and send the result to the Dear Leader. Show him just how much damage opening his mouth causes. Every time he speaks, I can feel the loss of even more. The market tanks. And tanks. So far, I see nothing we can do, seeing as we have NO representation in Congress anymore. There are no checks and balances. They are running us into the ground and I can't help but think that it is intentional.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Webcomics
I like comics. In print, an occasional graphic novel will suffice. If I like the series, I'll pick up the continuations. I grew up in the boom of the internet, so it is natural that I also like webcomics. Except...
I'm getting really sick and tired of reading a good webcomic just to have the political mores of the artist/author shoved down my throat. Ok, yeah, I get it. All conservatives are bad, evil people. Liberals are wonderful, sweet adorable creatures. Talk about projection.
Here's a suggestion: get over yourself and tell the story without stomping all over part of your audience. Conservatives read comics too. They aren't horrible puppy-killers like you seem to think. Wow, maybe they're even regular people who believe differently than you do. How shocking! We're not the jackbooted thugs.
I really don't like being attacked every single time I read certain comics (like a certain new one about a devil child who's adorable). I say, "yeah, ok, maybe it'll get better." But it doesn't. I might hang on because the art is good and the story's interesting, but after a while, I'm going to give up. And that's sad. I really want to continue reading these stories, but my choices are being severely limited. It's just like TV all over again. Oh joy. It would be nice to post my opinion to the comic and show that more than one person has the balls to point this out, but of course they want my email address. I really don't want to create that kind of opening. So I'll get this off my chest here.
I'm having this same problem with artists as well. Makes me never want to post a piece of art again. Never try to make a piece of art again. Why bother? Art is for liberals, right? Maybe comics are too.
I'm not saying that I want to read conservative comics only. In fact, what I'm saying is that I want to read comics that don't bring politics into play. Subtly, fine. Shoving your viewpoints down my throat?
Hell, no.
I'm getting really sick and tired of reading a good webcomic just to have the political mores of the artist/author shoved down my throat. Ok, yeah, I get it. All conservatives are bad, evil people. Liberals are wonderful, sweet adorable creatures. Talk about projection.
Here's a suggestion: get over yourself and tell the story without stomping all over part of your audience. Conservatives read comics too. They aren't horrible puppy-killers like you seem to think. Wow, maybe they're even regular people who believe differently than you do. How shocking! We're not the jackbooted thugs.
I really don't like being attacked every single time I read certain comics (like a certain new one about a devil child who's adorable). I say, "yeah, ok, maybe it'll get better." But it doesn't. I might hang on because the art is good and the story's interesting, but after a while, I'm going to give up. And that's sad. I really want to continue reading these stories, but my choices are being severely limited. It's just like TV all over again. Oh joy. It would be nice to post my opinion to the comic and show that more than one person has the balls to point this out, but of course they want my email address. I really don't want to create that kind of opening. So I'll get this off my chest here.
I'm having this same problem with artists as well. Makes me never want to post a piece of art again. Never try to make a piece of art again. Why bother? Art is for liberals, right? Maybe comics are too.
I'm not saying that I want to read conservative comics only. In fact, what I'm saying is that I want to read comics that don't bring politics into play. Subtly, fine. Shoving your viewpoints down my throat?
Hell, no.
Monday, March 02, 2009
PC woes
Ubuntu is an interesting operating system. Takes some getting used to, that's for sure. I wouldn't want to use it as my main OS, but it's ok for a netbook.
Current frustration is that the Dell Mini came with a setting that opens Ubuntu Help Center on every. single. login. Can I say this is completely annoying?!
I've tried looking for help on this issue, but no solutions yet.
Also, I can't browse newsbusters.org with firefox, as it makes the browser use over 60% of the processor power. Other sites are fine, but with NB.org, the computer becomes unusable.
Current frustration is that the Dell Mini came with a setting that opens Ubuntu Help Center on every. single. login. Can I say this is completely annoying?!
I've tried looking for help on this issue, but no solutions yet.
Also, I can't browse newsbusters.org with firefox, as it makes the browser use over 60% of the processor power. Other sites are fine, but with NB.org, the computer becomes unusable.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Leverage pt 2
Someone's been listening to my thoughts. Leverage's season finale answered questions and made right their badly put evil-insurance company scheme.
So it really was the CEO who was an evil little prick. He came in and made the illegal mandate that all claims be denied at all times. ILLEGAL. Then, when Nate's son was seriously ill and Nate+wife had exhausted all monies and put their house in hock, the CEO personally refused to help out the family. Thus, Nate had gone through all options before coming to beg the company for help. In which case, the company would not be remiss in helping out.
Ok, so I can still watch Leverage without getting mad about the subplot. This is good.
So it really was the CEO who was an evil little prick. He came in and made the illegal mandate that all claims be denied at all times. ILLEGAL. Then, when Nate's son was seriously ill and Nate+wife had exhausted all monies and put their house in hock, the CEO personally refused to help out the family. Thus, Nate had gone through all options before coming to beg the company for help. In which case, the company would not be remiss in helping out.
Ok, so I can still watch Leverage without getting mad about the subplot. This is good.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
What's wrong with a little BS?
I like Timothy Hutton. He's a good actor. His work on the Nero Wolfe mysteries series was pretty good and somehow managed to save the books from being tossed into the heap like the works of Erle Stanley Gardner.
So now he has Leverage. A show that's pretty ok. Sure, it's "take from the big bad rich and give to the saintly poor," a cliche if ever there was one, but it's not bad. A couple of the episodes have been awful, but on the whole, the first season's had a good run. The characters are interesting and quirky, and the plots have some good twists (though I'm never surprised, unfortunately).
The one thing that bothers me? The one thing that's ruining my enjoyment of the show?
Nate and his sorry background plot. Here's the gas: Nate (played by Hutton) was an insurance investigator working for some big fancy-schmancy insurance company. He was the good guy who ran around and caught thieves and swindlers. Pretty good at it too, he was. Then, his son fell ill with cancer. The evil insurance company denied an experimental treatment, causing the son to die a presumably horrible death.
Now, here's the rub. The show makes it seem like the insurance company can deny treatment. This is not true. Insurance companies can deny PAYMENT for a treatment that is not covered under their policy. Leverage pins Nate's son's death on the CEO of the big bad insurance company. In reality, Nate is responsible for the death, since he COULD have taken out a loan to pay for this treatment himself. There was no one preventing the ACTUAL TREATMENT from occuring, as long as it was paid for by someone. The insurance company denied PAYMENT, so Nate should have come up with the money on his own. Hospitals will not deny necessary treatment and will actually find ways for families to pay for such treatment.
Also, CEOs of insruance companies do not make decisions of approval or denial. Leverage makes it seem like the CEO went out of his way just to screw Nate over.
Yeah, right.
So now he has Leverage. A show that's pretty ok. Sure, it's "take from the big bad rich and give to the saintly poor," a cliche if ever there was one, but it's not bad. A couple of the episodes have been awful, but on the whole, the first season's had a good run. The characters are interesting and quirky, and the plots have some good twists (though I'm never surprised, unfortunately).
The one thing that bothers me? The one thing that's ruining my enjoyment of the show?
Nate and his sorry background plot. Here's the gas: Nate (played by Hutton) was an insurance investigator working for some big fancy-schmancy insurance company. He was the good guy who ran around and caught thieves and swindlers. Pretty good at it too, he was. Then, his son fell ill with cancer. The evil insurance company denied an experimental treatment, causing the son to die a presumably horrible death.
Now, here's the rub. The show makes it seem like the insurance company can deny treatment. This is not true. Insurance companies can deny PAYMENT for a treatment that is not covered under their policy. Leverage pins Nate's son's death on the CEO of the big bad insurance company. In reality, Nate is responsible for the death, since he COULD have taken out a loan to pay for this treatment himself. There was no one preventing the ACTUAL TREATMENT from occuring, as long as it was paid for by someone. The insurance company denied PAYMENT, so Nate should have come up with the money on his own. Hospitals will not deny necessary treatment and will actually find ways for families to pay for such treatment.
Also, CEOs of insruance companies do not make decisions of approval or denial. Leverage makes it seem like the CEO went out of his way just to screw Nate over.
Yeah, right.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Depressing fact
The last year upped my use of profanity by a lot.
Repeat: A LOT.
I can't find words to describe certain things without appropriate non-profane descriptors.
Side note: esurance and "earth hour" can kiss my... wait, please don't.
Repeat: A LOT.
I can't find words to describe certain things without appropriate non-profane descriptors.
Side note: esurance and "earth hour" can kiss my... wait, please don't.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Voting
The idea of keeping track of a master list of registered voters in either party borders on my "not ok" side, as I have a strong opinion on privacy - whether or not I vote is of no concern to anyone but myself. I'd be pretty pissed if McCain's campaign called me up and asked if I'd voted yet.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Hide in your bunker!
Received my copy of Fallout 3 yesterday. It's like Oblivion, but set in a futuristic nuclear devastated America.
Good times.
Not sure how I feel about the Enclave, since it's obvious they're the "bad" guys, but they're the remnants of American government? I'll have to find out more before I decide. But still, the one "conversation" I've had with an NPC about the Enclave seemed to be a basically cultish look at Americans. There was no middle option. Only extremes of "total, unthinking loyalty to a government" and "civil disobedience is the best!" I don't like being forced to hold a specific opinion that the game company decided for me. Even if it is about a fake America. I still feel patriotic, even if it's in a game.
The president (dead? don't know, but the Enclave is broadcasting what sounds like old broadcasts from the president at the time) sounds pretty cracked. Funny... he and the overseer of Vault 101 remind me of certain politicians. Not that I'll mention any names.
Personally, the Children of Atom look pretty evil to me. Anyone worshiping an atom bomb seems a bit cracked.
I really prefer playing this game to watching the news right now. There's no way anyone can change my mind and I've already voted. So I'll just pass the time until the 4th. G-d help us all.
Last note: Damn those F***ing Fire Ants!
Good times.
Not sure how I feel about the Enclave, since it's obvious they're the "bad" guys, but they're the remnants of American government? I'll have to find out more before I decide. But still, the one "conversation" I've had with an NPC about the Enclave seemed to be a basically cultish look at Americans. There was no middle option. Only extremes of "total, unthinking loyalty to a government" and "civil disobedience is the best!" I don't like being forced to hold a specific opinion that the game company decided for me. Even if it is about a fake America. I still feel patriotic, even if it's in a game.
The president (dead? don't know, but the Enclave is broadcasting what sounds like old broadcasts from the president at the time) sounds pretty cracked. Funny... he and the overseer of Vault 101 remind me of certain politicians. Not that I'll mention any names.
Personally, the Children of Atom look pretty evil to me. Anyone worshiping an atom bomb seems a bit cracked.
I really prefer playing this game to watching the news right now. There's no way anyone can change my mind and I've already voted. So I'll just pass the time until the 4th. G-d help us all.
Last note: Damn those F***ing Fire Ants!
SFCA JROTC
Oh.
Watching the news. Previously, I'd heard about the plans in SF to get rid of the JROTC program. Now they want to replace it with an ethnic studies course?!!
Background: Apparently, a lot of kids take JROTC to fulfill a phys ed requirement, which has been taken away by the school board. Thus, enrollment in the program has dropped, leaving the kids who take it for other reasons in the ditch.
Why replace a phys ed course with some ethnic studies course? I don't get it, either! Just another chance to push agendas.
Video Here
Watching the news. Previously, I'd heard about the plans in SF to get rid of the JROTC program. Now they want to replace it with an ethnic studies course?!!
Background: Apparently, a lot of kids take JROTC to fulfill a phys ed requirement, which has been taken away by the school board. Thus, enrollment in the program has dropped, leaving the kids who take it for other reasons in the ditch.
Why replace a phys ed course with some ethnic studies course? I don't get it, either! Just another chance to push agendas.
Video Here
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, May 23, 2005
Duplicitous Behavior.
Not much of a surprise here.
Is it just me or does the media elite continually act like schoolyard children more and more everyday?
Is it just me or does the media elite continually act like schoolyard children more and more everyday?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The Cultural Shift
RE: Crushing Kids
I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong in 8-year old kids holding hands and exchanging gifts. Let innocence be. I think that the article's whole approach is wrong. What a way to wreck a child's life early on. This basically tells the children that girls and boys cannot be friends. It sounds to me like there's an overreaction and some dirty minds on the adults' parts. They seem to immediately leap to the conclusion that the children are about to jump into sex.
Maybe the adults, including the author of the article, should reevaluate themselves before they start talking to their kids.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong in 8-year old kids holding hands and exchanging gifts. Let innocence be. I think that the article's whole approach is wrong. What a way to wreck a child's life early on. This basically tells the children that girls and boys cannot be friends. It sounds to me like there's an overreaction and some dirty minds on the adults' parts. They seem to immediately leap to the conclusion that the children are about to jump into sex.
Maybe the adults, including the author of the article, should reevaluate themselves before they start talking to their kids.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Friday, April 01, 2005
On Archiving a Comment
Over at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, I wrote the following response to this:
"...like now the armies of the culture of death are going to come in and kill all the disabled people of the world. It's not like that."and decided it would be good to archive it here:
It isn't? I guess I see things differently. I look at this and see that unless something is done, the future is a very ill place. Now that the courts can be used to rid people of their adult "burdens" (after all, it's now legal to get rid of "child burdens" and has been for years) what's to stop them from classifying other groups of people as "inhuman" or undeserving of life? I don't want my "level of humanity," my Right to life (it's a right, not a privilege), decided by anyone, especially not these pro-death advocates popping up everywhere (including here). If someone today decided that I was less than human and took away my right to life, it would be murder. If someone locked me away into a closet and let me starve and die of dehydration, it would be murder. Yet, doing the same thing to a woman who's considered an invalid is "mercy." Mercy. I wonder what torture is then, to those who believe this treatment is a mercy.Will they start leading people into buildings and "allowing them to die" just because they cause "undue stress" on society? The beginning has started to happen and this mentality has spread like a plague into all reaches of society. We haven't even begun the battle. In fact, we've been sitting idly by, letting the corruption corrode at the very principles and morals upon which this country was built. I only hope that it isn't too late to stop the damage and repair the torn fabric of this society. This is a true struggle, crossing all borders. The only question that needs to be answered is this: Are you on the side of life or death?
Draw the line and let it stand. We'll see who comes out at the end.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
On the failure of humanity
I'm tired and saddened and that's all.
Where do we go from here? The sanctity of life is gone and all we are left with is nothing. At any moment we could be classified as non-human and therefore subject to termination. I can only hope that something is done to rectify the current state of affairs.
Where do we go from here? The sanctity of life is gone and all we are left with is nothing. At any moment we could be classified as non-human and therefore subject to termination. I can only hope that something is done to rectify the current state of affairs.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
....
I have seen Soylent Green and have no wish to live in that world.
(read the whole thing and make note of the section on social security)
(read the whole thing and make note of the section on social security)
Monday, March 21, 2005
On Advancement of Technology
Is this not just so awesome and frightening at the same time?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/20/2003247076
On the one hand, I'm all for new uses of technology involving the body. This could lead to (I'm hoping) personal computers that are more along the lines of what I've been dreaming about for ten years. On the other hand, using the body for technology seems a little frightening. I mean, what next, Doctors Frankenstein?
Personally, the excitement outweighs the fear right now.
Though, it is not expressed in the article how one controls the flow of information. What if you want to shake hands, but not share information? Do both people have to have similar devices on their persons to share information? Could this be used for some sort of personal touch based telepathy?
The possibilites boggle and inspire!
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/20/2003247076
On the one hand, I'm all for new uses of technology involving the body. This could lead to (I'm hoping) personal computers that are more along the lines of what I've been dreaming about for ten years. On the other hand, using the body for technology seems a little frightening. I mean, what next, Doctors Frankenstein?
Personally, the excitement outweighs the fear right now.
Though, it is not expressed in the article how one controls the flow of information. What if you want to shake hands, but not share information? Do both people have to have similar devices on their persons to share information? Could this be used for some sort of personal touch based telepathy?
The possibilites boggle and inspire!
On .... the downfall of morality
The Schiavo case is coming to a point now and thus is sparking much more attention from the media. Personally, I have been following this story for about five years now. It seems to me that the people who wish to help the husband legally commit murder are missing the whole point. From what I have gathered, there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests at the very least, a need for the case to reviewed by a different judge (how about one who is not so greatly slanted towards the will of the husband?). This, in my mind, is not about religion, and should not be about political beliefs. However, it seems that the media and Democrats are pushing the issue into a political divide.
So here's my thought: If they want to divide the country, they couldn't pick a better issue to show their beliefs. Since no one seems to take notice of the children murdered by these people (yes, I said "murdered" - don't get me started on abortion. I'm all for choice - let the children choose their own fates.), I thought that maybe, just maybe, they would take notice of a grown woman's plight. However, these people instead unveil their true purpose: murder. There is no sanctity (oh, no! A religious term!) of life for these people. Ever since I heard of this case I have wanted to write a living will. My parents visited a lawyer the other day and discussed living wills - the lawyer basically told my mother that she would feel nothing if they removed the feeding tube. What would he know? It seems like he was just spouting the nonsense that the media is feeding the general population.
From personal experience, I know what it's like to starve and go without fluids for several days (most I could stand was three days surviving on just a little bread and sips of water). It is not pleasant and I cannot imagine anyone going through that for two weeks. Sure, you might slip into a coma eventually, after your body has suffered through more pain than it can bear. The again, don't just believe me. There's a woman who managed to live through the horrifying experience of having her feeding tube removed. This woman was in a worse state than Schiavo, dependent on a ventilator, not just the feeding tube. (http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/013318.html)
One thing that I find so hard to believe is the common statement that she (Schiavo) must be suffering in her current state, so it would be a mercy to kill her. What a callous statement. Does that mean that all who suffer should be killed? Apparently so. Look at the parents who use pre-birth screening tests to determine if a child will be born with defects. If a child has defects, some potentially life-threatening, these parents, usually on advice of their physician, will strike first, killing without giving the child a chance to survive.
I find it hard to reconcile my own thoughts with those who would support the legalization of murder.
Here's a good site (liberals, no less..):
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/
So here's my thought: If they want to divide the country, they couldn't pick a better issue to show their beliefs. Since no one seems to take notice of the children murdered by these people (yes, I said "murdered" - don't get me started on abortion. I'm all for choice - let the children choose their own fates.), I thought that maybe, just maybe, they would take notice of a grown woman's plight. However, these people instead unveil their true purpose: murder. There is no sanctity (oh, no! A religious term!) of life for these people. Ever since I heard of this case I have wanted to write a living will. My parents visited a lawyer the other day and discussed living wills - the lawyer basically told my mother that she would feel nothing if they removed the feeding tube. What would he know? It seems like he was just spouting the nonsense that the media is feeding the general population.
From personal experience, I know what it's like to starve and go without fluids for several days (most I could stand was three days surviving on just a little bread and sips of water). It is not pleasant and I cannot imagine anyone going through that for two weeks. Sure, you might slip into a coma eventually, after your body has suffered through more pain than it can bear. The again, don't just believe me. There's a woman who managed to live through the horrifying experience of having her feeding tube removed. This woman was in a worse state than Schiavo, dependent on a ventilator, not just the feeding tube. (http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/013318.html)
One thing that I find so hard to believe is the common statement that she (Schiavo) must be suffering in her current state, so it would be a mercy to kill her. What a callous statement. Does that mean that all who suffer should be killed? Apparently so. Look at the parents who use pre-birth screening tests to determine if a child will be born with defects. If a child has defects, some potentially life-threatening, these parents, usually on advice of their physician, will strike first, killing without giving the child a chance to survive.
I find it hard to reconcile my own thoughts with those who would support the legalization of murder.
Here's a good site (liberals, no less..):
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/