So after you are done with high school, if you want to continue school you gotta pay.
My Take:
This can be looked at in a simple, fast way, or more in depth. Lets do both.
Simple way:
If public school wasn't free and even if it was very cheap probably more than half of the kids in school now wouldn't be in school. At all. God forbid your kids get an education at the cost of some money. While a lot of parents would just refuse to pay, some also wouldn't actually be able to pay for it.
In depth:
So its a standard thing in our nation. Everyone knows it and how it works. You start kindergarten and are in school from then until you graduate high school. This is a given for everyone. Why? Well one because you are required to go. If the government is going to pay for you to go to school, well you better go to school. And why not anyways? Its free, you learn shit, you get to meet people and make friends all for the price of $0.00.
So what if it wasn't free? What if the government charged a yearly fee for your kid to go to school? Would you pay it? What if it was $100 per year? What if it was $500 per year? This I think all depends on income of the family. Is $500 a year actually alot of money for an ENTIRE year of schooling? Not at all. What if you have 4 kids? Little more expensive now. So lets look at three different examples assuming that the yearly cost for school is $500.
Example One:
Middle class family that makes $65000 a year and has one kid. $500 a year? No problem. That's hardly anything for your child to go to school for an entire year.
Example Two:
Same family with the same income but with 4 kids. Now were talking about $2000 a year for your kids to get an education. Yes, definitely more expensive but $2000 over a years time really isn't much money. Just give up your daily Starbucks coffee for a year and that's around $1400 right there. Education > Coffee.
Example Three:
Lower class family that is struggling to get by and has two kids. $1000 a year? Hell ya that's alot of money when you are barely making it already. HOWEVER, knowing our lame ass country we will make a "welfare" version of education that will lower the price. So say our government lowers it for the less "fortunate" and make it only $200 a year per kid. So now you are looking at only $400 per year for both of your kids to get an education. Definitely doable.
I think that there is a different underlying problem though, and that problem is parents unwillingness to sacrifice for their kids. While alot of parents have no issue sacrificing to better their kids future, alot of parents also wont. A lot of parents don't care how their kids do in school. Don't care to help with homework, or go to after school activities. Some don't even care if their kids go to school at all. I personally think that these types of parents are PROBABLY in the lower class also because of their lack of give a shit.
So what happens when you then require parents to pay for their kids to go to public school? I can guarantee you that you are going to see alot less kids in school because god forbid you have to come up with a few hundred dollars to provide an education for your kid. Lord knows you cant do without that coffee, cigarettes, or pick a random crutch that you HAVE to have in order to live life.
I personally think that the parents should pay their children's teachers, on top of what they already make. If your kid goes through the 2nd grade and makes it to the 3rd grade, and he/she learned over that year, you should pay that teacher an extra $500 out of your pocket. I think that is totally worth it. Not to mention teachers are heavily underpaid anyways. Think if a teacher had a class of 20 kids for a school year. That means that teacher will get an extra $10000 at the end of the year for doing a good job. Did your kid fail and have to repeat the 2nd grade? (assuming that your kid didn't fail because of missing school or something he/she did) the teacher doesn't get that $500 from you. That's a pretty good incentive and would probably also promote better teaching.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Protest at marine's funeral.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-06/church-s-funeral-protest-tests-free-speech-limits-at-u-s-supreme-court.html
I want you to read that article and feel the anger build up inside of you as you read more.
My Take:
This is un-fucking-believable. Seriously what in the hell.
I am all for defending the constitution and upholding what our fathers wanted us to do. I completely understand that it gives us freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you want to exercise both of those to the fullest because you have a big mouth or just really love your religion, I'm also cool with that. But this is just too far.
They aren't just protesting at this funeral, they are INSULTING everyone there with unbelievable signs stating that god is killing the troops. I don't know how the father of the deceased marine didn't go on a rampage and kill all of those people.
Lets try and take a look at it from the protesters perspective and try to make some sense of this.
(from here is me pretending and not how I actually feel)
So I am a devout catholic who was raised catholic and raised my family catholic.
I follow my religion fully and believe in it 100%. (Trying my best here)
I know, and the bible says, that homosexuality is not cool with God. In fact it is actually condemned and back in the day was punishable with death. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Earl right?
So nowadays I follow Gods word and still believe that homosexuality should still be punishable by death and really wish it was enforced.
However, its not that way so us as catholics and our church have to take this into our own hands. We need to remind America of how its supposed to be so lets go spread the word.
Hmmm, whats the best way that we can do this?
I KNOW! Lets make some picket signs stating that God is killing off the troops because our military is allowing homosexuals to be serving.
Ya! And lets protest with these signs outside of a deceased marines funeral! That will really get the point across!
(end me pretending and start reality)
NO, YOU ASSHOLES. THIS IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD BE GETTING YOUR "MESSAGE" OUT. Chances are that marine wasn't even gay anyways you fucks. You wonder why people say that religion is extremist? You wonder why religion gets so much flak. Its because of you idiots that this happens. I know a decent amount of good church going people who simply choose a religion as their way of life. They don't press it on anyone and just go about their lives. You are giving these good people a bad name. When you pull bullshit like this, people who aren't informed are going to label all catholics crazy. Is that what you really want? You want the general consensus to be that catholics are INSANE?
Its one thing to have freedom of speech and religion and be proud of that, its another to DESECRATE someones funeral because you think god killed him for being gay when he probably wasn't anyways.
How about this? You know that constitution that gives you freedom of speech and religion? Guess who FIGHTS, misses their families, almost dies or does DIE, and loses friends so that we have a free country and you are allowed those luxuries? THAT'S RIGHT, THE FUCKING MARINE THAT IS DEAD AND YOU ARE PROTESTING AT HIS FUNERAL. That marine in there DIED so that you can say what you want and follow any religion you want. The way you thank him for making your life easy is by ruining the last moments his family has with him before he goes into the ground?
Let me tell you, if that was my daughter getting buried and you did that shit at her funeral I would be in prison right now for mass murder and COMPLETELY proud of it.
So I say this to you:
I am not a religious person, but I hope you all ROT IN HELL. I hope when its your time up at the pearly gates god says, "Are you fucking kidding me? After what you did at that marines funeral? Get your ass down to hell for eternity."
I apologize for the amount of capslock and cuss words in this one, but this severely pissed me off.
I want you to read that article and feel the anger build up inside of you as you read more.
My Take:
This is un-fucking-believable. Seriously what in the hell.
I am all for defending the constitution and upholding what our fathers wanted us to do. I completely understand that it gives us freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you want to exercise both of those to the fullest because you have a big mouth or just really love your religion, I'm also cool with that. But this is just too far.
They aren't just protesting at this funeral, they are INSULTING everyone there with unbelievable signs stating that god is killing the troops. I don't know how the father of the deceased marine didn't go on a rampage and kill all of those people.
Lets try and take a look at it from the protesters perspective and try to make some sense of this.
(from here is me pretending and not how I actually feel)
So I am a devout catholic who was raised catholic and raised my family catholic.
I follow my religion fully and believe in it 100%. (Trying my best here)
I know, and the bible says, that homosexuality is not cool with God. In fact it is actually condemned and back in the day was punishable with death. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Earl right?
So nowadays I follow Gods word and still believe that homosexuality should still be punishable by death and really wish it was enforced.
However, its not that way so us as catholics and our church have to take this into our own hands. We need to remind America of how its supposed to be so lets go spread the word.
Hmmm, whats the best way that we can do this?
I KNOW! Lets make some picket signs stating that God is killing off the troops because our military is allowing homosexuals to be serving.
Ya! And lets protest with these signs outside of a deceased marines funeral! That will really get the point across!
(end me pretending and start reality)
NO, YOU ASSHOLES. THIS IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD BE GETTING YOUR "MESSAGE" OUT. Chances are that marine wasn't even gay anyways you fucks. You wonder why people say that religion is extremist? You wonder why religion gets so much flak. Its because of you idiots that this happens. I know a decent amount of good church going people who simply choose a religion as their way of life. They don't press it on anyone and just go about their lives. You are giving these good people a bad name. When you pull bullshit like this, people who aren't informed are going to label all catholics crazy. Is that what you really want? You want the general consensus to be that catholics are INSANE?
Its one thing to have freedom of speech and religion and be proud of that, its another to DESECRATE someones funeral because you think god killed him for being gay when he probably wasn't anyways.
How about this? You know that constitution that gives you freedom of speech and religion? Guess who FIGHTS, misses their families, almost dies or does DIE, and loses friends so that we have a free country and you are allowed those luxuries? THAT'S RIGHT, THE FUCKING MARINE THAT IS DEAD AND YOU ARE PROTESTING AT HIS FUNERAL. That marine in there DIED so that you can say what you want and follow any religion you want. The way you thank him for making your life easy is by ruining the last moments his family has with him before he goes into the ground?
Let me tell you, if that was my daughter getting buried and you did that shit at her funeral I would be in prison right now for mass murder and COMPLETELY proud of it.
So I say this to you:
I am not a religious person, but I hope you all ROT IN HELL. I hope when its your time up at the pearly gates god says, "Are you fucking kidding me? After what you did at that marines funeral? Get your ass down to hell for eternity."
I apologize for the amount of capslock and cuss words in this one, but this severely pissed me off.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Death Penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty
So a few more states have the death penalty than don't.
Why don't some states have the death penalty?
My Take:
Recently a woman was sentenced to the death penalty because she used craigslist to lure another woman to her house, and then killed her and her unborn baby.
Was this justified? Hell yeah it was. In other countries if you steal they take off one of your fingers. If you rape a woman they cut off your dick. So if you kill someone you should also be killed right? Maybe.
I say maybe because I think in some cases getting the death penalty is actually the easy way out. I believe that in certain cases you should serve a life sentence in prison for what you did. Like men who rape and murder little girls. You should not be given the death penalty. You should be raped, beaten, serve 75 years in prison and then killed.
Obviously we cant do all that because we as a nation are pussy's, but to me at least 75 years in prison would be much worse than just dieing.
Theres one problem with this mentality also. If we send him to prison for that long that means that the taxpayers will be supporting that man for the rest of his life. Not to mention that prison nowadays is better than being on a submarine. (Trust me I would know) They have cable TV, full gyms, talk to their families. Doesn't sound so bad for what some people have done does it?
So why do some states have the death penalty and some don't? Well if you take a quick glance at that list again you will notice that most of the New England area states have abolished the death penalty. My personnel opinion is because there is a bunch of liberal democrat vagina's that live up there. I HATE the northeast. Anyways. Whats the real reason? I'm not sure, Google let me down this time.
So I am going to propose a bill as follows:
To My Congressman,
I am proposing a new bill involving the death penalty. I propose a nationwide law that will apply to ALL states without the ability of the state to change this law.
I propose a standard set of guidelines that if a court deems the death penalty as a possibility, then this sequence of events will be followed in every case, for every state;
1. Submit a formal "death penalty" package for review to a select group of people. A "death penalty jury" if you will.
2. The DPJ (death penalty jury) will review the case and have one day to decide and vote on whether or not that person will receive the death penalty, a long prison term followed by the death sentence, or just a normal punishment.
3. Win.
Regards,
Kris Jensen
What would this do? Not only would it streamline the entire process while also saving alot of money, but it would make it so that people cant abuse certain states laws because this would be nationwide.
Along side of that, it would be publicly known that no matter where you are, you could get the death sentence. It may deter some people from doing dumb shit in the first place. Yes, I know that some people simply cannot be changed, but maybe if they knew that they would have to do a long prison term and then be killed they may reconsider.
So I ask, and I will make a poll for this week in the top right of my blog;
Would you sign this bill and make it a law?
So a few more states have the death penalty than don't.
Why don't some states have the death penalty?
My Take:
Recently a woman was sentenced to the death penalty because she used craigslist to lure another woman to her house, and then killed her and her unborn baby.
Was this justified? Hell yeah it was. In other countries if you steal they take off one of your fingers. If you rape a woman they cut off your dick. So if you kill someone you should also be killed right? Maybe.
I say maybe because I think in some cases getting the death penalty is actually the easy way out. I believe that in certain cases you should serve a life sentence in prison for what you did. Like men who rape and murder little girls. You should not be given the death penalty. You should be raped, beaten, serve 75 years in prison and then killed.
Obviously we cant do all that because we as a nation are pussy's, but to me at least 75 years in prison would be much worse than just dieing.
Theres one problem with this mentality also. If we send him to prison for that long that means that the taxpayers will be supporting that man for the rest of his life. Not to mention that prison nowadays is better than being on a submarine. (Trust me I would know) They have cable TV, full gyms, talk to their families. Doesn't sound so bad for what some people have done does it?
So why do some states have the death penalty and some don't? Well if you take a quick glance at that list again you will notice that most of the New England area states have abolished the death penalty. My personnel opinion is because there is a bunch of liberal democrat vagina's that live up there. I HATE the northeast. Anyways. Whats the real reason? I'm not sure, Google let me down this time.
So I am going to propose a bill as follows:
To My Congressman,
I am proposing a new bill involving the death penalty. I propose a nationwide law that will apply to ALL states without the ability of the state to change this law.
I propose a standard set of guidelines that if a court deems the death penalty as a possibility, then this sequence of events will be followed in every case, for every state;
1. Submit a formal "death penalty" package for review to a select group of people. A "death penalty jury" if you will.
2. The DPJ (death penalty jury) will review the case and have one day to decide and vote on whether or not that person will receive the death penalty, a long prison term followed by the death sentence, or just a normal punishment.
3. Win.
Regards,
Kris Jensen
What would this do? Not only would it streamline the entire process while also saving alot of money, but it would make it so that people cant abuse certain states laws because this would be nationwide.
Along side of that, it would be publicly known that no matter where you are, you could get the death sentence. It may deter some people from doing dumb shit in the first place. Yes, I know that some people simply cannot be changed, but maybe if they knew that they would have to do a long prison term and then be killed they may reconsider.
So I ask, and I will make a poll for this week in the top right of my blog;
Would you sign this bill and make it a law?
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Equality between men and women
This weeks subject was prompted from a Facebook post that had a comment that struck a nerve to me. I will sum it up:
Woman's wall post:
"Daughter was in store and kept asking for stuff. I told her she better marry a rich man so he can buy her all this stuff. Apparently the women standing next to us heard what I said and told me, "Or she could get an education and a good job and buy the stuff for herself!" So I told her apparently they don't teach people to mind their own business in college,"
I responded to her post like this:
"Well, she is right. Just because she has a vagina doesn't mean she should get a free ride on life. No pun intended."
So while I got my point across I also joked a bit because it wasn't that serious.
Now what happened next is what kind of pissed me off.
Different woman's response on her wall post copied EXACTLY from Facebook:
"sounds like that lady wasn't smart enough to go to college because then she would know that is so much easier to marry a rich man than try to get ahead in this society of men."
My exact response:
"WHOA. Wait a second. I thought that women were equal and just as good as men."
Her exact response:
"Not in the eyes of corporate America...women still get paid less for doing more."
So this is what spurred this weeks topic. Also, I asked my friend to write on this subject. I will post what he thought at the end of this.
So, My Take:
For a long time there has been the argument that women are under appreciated, over worked, and under paid. Throughout history this has been true. It has been true until the last few years.
A quick search with my good friend Google shows that over the past five years that ON AVERAGE women make more money than men. There are more male millionaires and billionaires by a wide margin but ON AVERAGE women make more money. And its not a small amount either. In 2009 women made an average of 6.5% more yearly than men. That's a pretty good amount.
So now that I put that myth to rest lets tackle the "marry a rich man" topic.
Its been done for tons of years and still happens today. Men like vagina. Alot. So much in fact that it significantly sways our judgement when it is offered to us. This is not our fault. We are programmed to reproduce. Its our job. So when a woman offers us a chance to do what we are programmed to do, our minds take over and tell us GO GO GO. Even if we know damn well that we shouldn't our bodies still press on.
The issue is that women have figured this out and exploit it. To the FULLEST. Women know that we like vagina and they have figured out that if they offer it up then men will do alot of things (like pay for everything) against our better judgement. This type of woman is called a "Gold Digger".
Now, there are alot of women who solely rely on this tactic to make it through life. There are alot of women who don't use this tactic at all and are completely self reliant. I give respect to those women who have done it on their own and can buy everything for themselves. However, MOST women use this tactic in someway to gain an "edge". Cmon, women you know you do it. Don't pretend like you don't. I'm not saying you go up to your boss and offer to have sex for a promotion, but I am saying that if dressing a little sexier or doing some slight flirting will give you an edge up you will. How about if you get pulled over by a cop for speeding?
This is also programmed into women. Its their job to find a solid mate that can provide for their offspring. So women "put themselves out there". They then choose who they think will be the best provider and that's who they choose to reproduce with. Animals still do it today, just in much simpler ways.
So the one woman said that the only way to be successful in today's "society of men" is to marry someone rich. Well, I say you are uneducated and most likely had some bad experience in which you THOUGHT that because you are a woman that's the only reason it happened. Why? Because all the other unsuccessful women blame it on that statement so why shouldn't you?
Did he actually do it because you are a woman? Sure there is a SLIGHT chance, but more than likely it was because of your performance.
So that's my take on this subject, here is what my boy Nigel had to say:
My homeboy put me on to a little conversation that was had between a few people that got into an argument. Apparently little girl was in the store and was pointing out everything saying she wanted this, that, this, and that. So the mother told her daughter that she needs to marry a rich man so he can buy her everything. So this other lady interjected and said "why don't she go to college and get a good job and buy those things yourself." Apparently she replied with " Do they teach you to mind your business in college?" However (comma) that is not the question that is at hand but it is the argument I am about to present. My homeboy Kris told me about this (Shout Out goes to my homie Kris Jensen for this. Check out his blog page at www.kriscostake.blogspot.com). Anyway, one of his friends said "Sounds like that lady wasn't smart enough to go to college because then she would know that it is so much easier to marry a rich man to get ahead in this society of men." Really?!?
Now here is where I come in... I agree with Kris when he said to her that he thought that women were equal and just as good as men. So then she brought up the point of women still being paid less in corporate america for doing more. Hmmm........ But it is not true. Now most women in the work force make more than the man.
Seriously, do some of yall women really think that way and tell your daughters to not get an education and not learn to be independant and just marry a rich man so he can buy you everything? Women like that make me sick. Guys referr to those women as "Gold Digging Hoes"... Society has made it out to be that just because you are a woman you get away with a lot of stuff. Now I am not talking about the women who can hold it down on their own. I respect those women to the fullest. But I don't like those ones who all they want to do is go out all day and shop, look online and buy a new hand bag and matching shoes not even have the ambition to contribute to the cause. A relationship is about taking care of each other not about him taking care of her, or vice versa. What were to happen if he were to lose money and now he is stuck, can a woman like that help the family out? No because Mommy told her to marry a rich man so she wouldn't have to work and have him buy everything.
Now me being in the military, I see all the time women saying that they can do the job as good as any man. Which is true, I have seen women who can get down and dirty with the guys. Although, I have seen women who the only thing they do is just flirt with the supervisor just to get out of doing work. Wearing the uniform just a bit too small so it can show off what the working with, bending over and stuff trying to entice the supervisor so they will get out of doing jobs. I have seen it happen, and it still happens. Women intentionally get pregnant to get out of going on a ship's deployment. It happens all the time. Don't believe me, ask somebody on a ship that has females on it. A couple of months right before deployment, it becomes a sexfest with some these females, and will sleep with random guys to get prego. Why do you think the divorce rate is so high for some of the navy families? Why do you think that a lot of the guys in the military are on their 2nd and sometimes 3rd marriage? Some of yall want to be treated equal, and when you are treated equally as "one of the guys" you complain. You might think I am wrong, but I am just sayin...
Woman's wall post:
"Daughter was in store and kept asking for stuff. I told her she better marry a rich man so he can buy her all this stuff. Apparently the women standing next to us heard what I said and told me, "Or she could get an education and a good job and buy the stuff for herself!" So I told her apparently they don't teach people to mind their own business in college,"
I responded to her post like this:
"Well, she is right. Just because she has a vagina doesn't mean she should get a free ride on life. No pun intended."
So while I got my point across I also joked a bit because it wasn't that serious.
Now what happened next is what kind of pissed me off.
Different woman's response on her wall post copied EXACTLY from Facebook:
"sounds like that lady wasn't smart enough to go to college because then she would know that is so much easier to marry a rich man than try to get ahead in this society of men."
My exact response:
"WHOA. Wait a second. I thought that women were equal and just as good as men."
Her exact response:
"Not in the eyes of corporate America...women still get paid less for doing more."
So this is what spurred this weeks topic. Also, I asked my friend to write on this subject. I will post what he thought at the end of this.
So, My Take:
For a long time there has been the argument that women are under appreciated, over worked, and under paid. Throughout history this has been true. It has been true until the last few years.
A quick search with my good friend Google shows that over the past five years that ON AVERAGE women make more money than men. There are more male millionaires and billionaires by a wide margin but ON AVERAGE women make more money. And its not a small amount either. In 2009 women made an average of 6.5% more yearly than men. That's a pretty good amount.
So now that I put that myth to rest lets tackle the "marry a rich man" topic.
Its been done for tons of years and still happens today. Men like vagina. Alot. So much in fact that it significantly sways our judgement when it is offered to us. This is not our fault. We are programmed to reproduce. Its our job. So when a woman offers us a chance to do what we are programmed to do, our minds take over and tell us GO GO GO. Even if we know damn well that we shouldn't our bodies still press on.
The issue is that women have figured this out and exploit it. To the FULLEST. Women know that we like vagina and they have figured out that if they offer it up then men will do alot of things (like pay for everything) against our better judgement. This type of woman is called a "Gold Digger".
Now, there are alot of women who solely rely on this tactic to make it through life. There are alot of women who don't use this tactic at all and are completely self reliant. I give respect to those women who have done it on their own and can buy everything for themselves. However, MOST women use this tactic in someway to gain an "edge". Cmon, women you know you do it. Don't pretend like you don't. I'm not saying you go up to your boss and offer to have sex for a promotion, but I am saying that if dressing a little sexier or doing some slight flirting will give you an edge up you will. How about if you get pulled over by a cop for speeding?
This is also programmed into women. Its their job to find a solid mate that can provide for their offspring. So women "put themselves out there". They then choose who they think will be the best provider and that's who they choose to reproduce with. Animals still do it today, just in much simpler ways.
So the one woman said that the only way to be successful in today's "society of men" is to marry someone rich. Well, I say you are uneducated and most likely had some bad experience in which you THOUGHT that because you are a woman that's the only reason it happened. Why? Because all the other unsuccessful women blame it on that statement so why shouldn't you?
Did he actually do it because you are a woman? Sure there is a SLIGHT chance, but more than likely it was because of your performance.
So that's my take on this subject, here is what my boy Nigel had to say:
My homeboy put me on to a little conversation that was had between a few people that got into an argument. Apparently little girl was in the store and was pointing out everything saying she wanted this, that, this, and that. So the mother told her daughter that she needs to marry a rich man so he can buy her everything. So this other lady interjected and said "why don't she go to college and get a good job and buy those things yourself." Apparently she replied with " Do they teach you to mind your business in college?" However (comma) that is not the question that is at hand but it is the argument I am about to present. My homeboy Kris told me about this (Shout Out goes to my homie Kris Jensen for this. Check out his blog page at www.kriscostake.blogspot.com). Anyway, one of his friends said "Sounds like that lady wasn't smart enough to go to college because then she would know that it is so much easier to marry a rich man to get ahead in this society of men." Really?!?
Now here is where I come in... I agree with Kris when he said to her that he thought that women were equal and just as good as men. So then she brought up the point of women still being paid less in corporate america for doing more. Hmmm........ But it is not true. Now most women in the work force make more than the man.
Seriously, do some of yall women really think that way and tell your daughters to not get an education and not learn to be independant and just marry a rich man so he can buy you everything? Women like that make me sick. Guys referr to those women as "Gold Digging Hoes"... Society has made it out to be that just because you are a woman you get away with a lot of stuff. Now I am not talking about the women who can hold it down on their own. I respect those women to the fullest. But I don't like those ones who all they want to do is go out all day and shop, look online and buy a new hand bag and matching shoes not even have the ambition to contribute to the cause. A relationship is about taking care of each other not about him taking care of her, or vice versa. What were to happen if he were to lose money and now he is stuck, can a woman like that help the family out? No because Mommy told her to marry a rich man so she wouldn't have to work and have him buy everything.
Now me being in the military, I see all the time women saying that they can do the job as good as any man. Which is true, I have seen women who can get down and dirty with the guys. Although, I have seen women who the only thing they do is just flirt with the supervisor just to get out of doing work. Wearing the uniform just a bit too small so it can show off what the working with, bending over and stuff trying to entice the supervisor so they will get out of doing jobs. I have seen it happen, and it still happens. Women intentionally get pregnant to get out of going on a ship's deployment. It happens all the time. Don't believe me, ask somebody on a ship that has females on it. A couple of months right before deployment, it becomes a sexfest with some these females, and will sleep with random guys to get prego. Why do you think the divorce rate is so high for some of the navy families? Why do you think that a lot of the guys in the military are on their 2nd and sometimes 3rd marriage? Some of yall want to be treated equal, and when you are treated equally as "one of the guys" you complain. You might think I am wrong, but I am just sayin...
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Weekly Video
I decided not to do the video this week because my external microphone and lighting hasn't shown up yet plus I feel that I pretty much covered what I needed to in my write up.
Stay tuned for my weekly write up :)
Stay tuned for my weekly write up :)
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Smoking
So the time has come to talk about this subject. It is one of those subjects that hits home with me and affects alot of peoples lives. Also this week I am having one of my good friends write on this subject as well to give a different perspective. So without further ado.
My Take:
So lets start out with some facts about me. I never smoked a cigarette in my life until I joined the Navy. Am I saying that the Navy drove me to smoking? Maybe. Regardless, I smoked for four years before I quit. Not as long as alot of people have smoked but I still have had to deal with attempting to quit and failing along with having a wife who was strongly opposed to me smoking. When I say strongly opposed that is probably an understatement.
So why did I start smoking? Mainly as an excuse to take a break at work. If I told my chief (boss for you civilian people) that I am going to go outside and just hang out for out for fifteen minutes I would get told, "Ya right, get back to work." However if I tell my chief that I am going to go take a smoke break it isn't even questioned. So that was a big motivator for me to start smoking. Past that and after I considered myself a "smoker", I then continued smoking for two reasons. The social aspect of it which I will elaborate on and because I actually enjoyed it.
The social aspect of smoking. Some of my greatest memories came from being underway and sitting in the smoke pit with my friends. If I hadn't started smoking I wouldn't have these memories. Why do I bring this up? Because it applies to the social aspect that I am talking about. For those who smoke or have smoked you understand what I am talking about but for those who didn't I will try to explain.
Lets take drinking for example. Smoking and drinking is one of those things that goes hand in hand. I have seen so many people that I never thought would smoke light up after they have a few drinks in them. Why? I think it once again leads back to the social aspect of it. Everyone else is smoking, its available from everyone else there, plus you have some drinks in you so judgement isn't what its supposed to be. So you try it out and find that while drinking if you smoke you feel more relaxed and interact better with people. Now you are hooked.
But Kris, that's while drinking. You cant compare that to every day life.
Ok. So now that you are hooked you attempt the same thing during the day completely sober. You head outside with your friends for a smoke break and while the social interaction is there, the same draw and allure that you had when you were drinking is gone. So why keep smoking? Well depending on how long you have been smoking you might be able to say the nicotine keeps you addicted. (I will also elaborate on this because I think that being addicted to nicotine is bullshit)
Let me tell you why it was hard for me to quit and also how I finally did quit. I got into a routine. Everyday I would show up to work and go right to the smoke pit. When we had morning quarters we would do it in the smoke pit. Every day after I ate lunch I would smoke and hang out socialize. Etc. So for years I had a routine that I followed. This was one of the hardest things to break. Trying to find something else to do during the time I would usually be smoking. Plus when I was drinking with friends it was much harder to not smoke with my friends for obvious reasons.
Now let me elaborate on the nicotine thing. I thought that maybe I was special but I have verified this with a few other people. I AGREE that the nicotine brings you back to smoking daily, but I DO NOT agree that you can be ADDICTED to nicotine. I might be wrong but I think someone who says they are addicted to nicotine are using it as an excuse to keep smoking. I never felt that I NEEDED to smoke because I NEEDED nicotine. I had some other people say they feel the same way so this apparently isn't just me.
So how did I finally quit? I broke it down to myself and looked at it this way:
'"So Kris, WHY did you quit then if you enjoyed doing it?"
The best way for me to explain this is that I grew up. Seriously. I realized the reasons that I was smoking and looked at the list that I made up there and realized that I was just being ridiculous. I was being immature. Plus I am a big fan of money so the extra cash was helpful.
Take a look at it though. If you are smoking ask yourself why. If you say that you smoke because you need to then you are probably compensating for a different underlying problem "Man my kids are driving me crazy, I need a cigarette." "I don't know if we can cover our bills this month, I need a cigarette." "My boss is such an asshole, I need a cigarette."
Look at those statements. Pretty common things that are said. The way I see those statements is:
"Man my kids are driving me crazy, I need a cigarette to compensate for my lack of disciplining my kids."
"I don't know if we can cover our bills this month, I need a cigarette to take my mind off the fact that I cant manage my money." (QUIT SMOKING AND YOU WILL HAVE MORE MONEY)
"My boss is such an asshole, I need a cigarette to ignore the fact that I should get a different job or possibly figure out why this guy is being an asshole."
So in conclusion this is how I sum up smoking:
"A reason to ignore or cover up for the real problems in our lives, to compensate for a lack of motivation to succeed in life, or a way to socialize with people because you otherwise cant."
A little blunt? Sure. Am I right? You tell me.
My Take:
So lets start out with some facts about me. I never smoked a cigarette in my life until I joined the Navy. Am I saying that the Navy drove me to smoking? Maybe. Regardless, I smoked for four years before I quit. Not as long as alot of people have smoked but I still have had to deal with attempting to quit and failing along with having a wife who was strongly opposed to me smoking. When I say strongly opposed that is probably an understatement.
So why did I start smoking? Mainly as an excuse to take a break at work. If I told my chief (boss for you civilian people) that I am going to go outside and just hang out for out for fifteen minutes I would get told, "Ya right, get back to work." However if I tell my chief that I am going to go take a smoke break it isn't even questioned. So that was a big motivator for me to start smoking. Past that and after I considered myself a "smoker", I then continued smoking for two reasons. The social aspect of it which I will elaborate on and because I actually enjoyed it.
The social aspect of smoking. Some of my greatest memories came from being underway and sitting in the smoke pit with my friends. If I hadn't started smoking I wouldn't have these memories. Why do I bring this up? Because it applies to the social aspect that I am talking about. For those who smoke or have smoked you understand what I am talking about but for those who didn't I will try to explain.
Lets take drinking for example. Smoking and drinking is one of those things that goes hand in hand. I have seen so many people that I never thought would smoke light up after they have a few drinks in them. Why? I think it once again leads back to the social aspect of it. Everyone else is smoking, its available from everyone else there, plus you have some drinks in you so judgement isn't what its supposed to be. So you try it out and find that while drinking if you smoke you feel more relaxed and interact better with people. Now you are hooked.
But Kris, that's while drinking. You cant compare that to every day life.
Ok. So now that you are hooked you attempt the same thing during the day completely sober. You head outside with your friends for a smoke break and while the social interaction is there, the same draw and allure that you had when you were drinking is gone. So why keep smoking? Well depending on how long you have been smoking you might be able to say the nicotine keeps you addicted. (I will also elaborate on this because I think that being addicted to nicotine is bullshit)
Let me tell you why it was hard for me to quit and also how I finally did quit. I got into a routine. Everyday I would show up to work and go right to the smoke pit. When we had morning quarters we would do it in the smoke pit. Every day after I ate lunch I would smoke and hang out socialize. Etc. So for years I had a routine that I followed. This was one of the hardest things to break. Trying to find something else to do during the time I would usually be smoking. Plus when I was drinking with friends it was much harder to not smoke with my friends for obvious reasons.
Now let me elaborate on the nicotine thing. I thought that maybe I was special but I have verified this with a few other people. I AGREE that the nicotine brings you back to smoking daily, but I DO NOT agree that you can be ADDICTED to nicotine. I might be wrong but I think someone who says they are addicted to nicotine are using it as an excuse to keep smoking. I never felt that I NEEDED to smoke because I NEEDED nicotine. I had some other people say they feel the same way so this apparently isn't just me.
So how did I finally quit? I broke it down to myself and looked at it this way:
- Its fucking expensive. Between a pack a day to myself, bumming out to friends, and the extra smoking I do when drinking, I realized that I was on average spending around $225 a month on cigarettes. That's ALOT.
- My daughter was getting older and had a better grasp on things going on. While I never smoked around my daughter I got the feeling that she was getting curious.
- My wife HATED me smoking. It was taking a toll on our relationship.
- Its REALLY BAD FOR YOU. We all know this and I knew this but it really hit me when I was 25 and couldn't run for more than 30 minutes without my lungs hurting.
'"So Kris, WHY did you quit then if you enjoyed doing it?"
The best way for me to explain this is that I grew up. Seriously. I realized the reasons that I was smoking and looked at the list that I made up there and realized that I was just being ridiculous. I was being immature. Plus I am a big fan of money so the extra cash was helpful.
Take a look at it though. If you are smoking ask yourself why. If you say that you smoke because you need to then you are probably compensating for a different underlying problem "Man my kids are driving me crazy, I need a cigarette." "I don't know if we can cover our bills this month, I need a cigarette." "My boss is such an asshole, I need a cigarette."
Look at those statements. Pretty common things that are said. The way I see those statements is:
"Man my kids are driving me crazy, I need a cigarette to compensate for my lack of disciplining my kids."
"I don't know if we can cover our bills this month, I need a cigarette to take my mind off the fact that I cant manage my money." (QUIT SMOKING AND YOU WILL HAVE MORE MONEY)
"My boss is such an asshole, I need a cigarette to ignore the fact that I should get a different job or possibly figure out why this guy is being an asshole."
So in conclusion this is how I sum up smoking:
"A reason to ignore or cover up for the real problems in our lives, to compensate for a lack of motivation to succeed in life, or a way to socialize with people because you otherwise cant."
A little blunt? Sure. Am I right? You tell me.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Smoking
This week I am going to talk about something that effects everyones lives in one way or another. Since I personally smoked for 4 years until I quit, I can talk a good amount about this one.
Additionally I will be taking a different approach to this one. While I will be posting this on Friday, I am also having one of my friends write on the same exact subject and I will be posting his along with mine.
Me:
White dude
In the Navy
Living in Japan
Raised Air Force
Him:
Black dude
In school
Living in Wyoming
Raised himself and siblings
So two pretty different demographics.
I will be posting both of these on Friday, and then my usual weekly video on Saturday.
Additionally I will be taking a different approach to this one. While I will be posting this on Friday, I am also having one of my friends write on the same exact subject and I will be posting his along with mine.
Me:
White dude
In the Navy
Living in Japan
Raised Air Force
Him:
Black dude
In school
Living in Wyoming
Raised himself and siblings
So two pretty different demographics.
I will be posting both of these on Friday, and then my usual weekly video on Saturday.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Weekly Video #3
Weekly video is up. This week I talked about obesity and some solutions. It ended up being 2 parts.
Video # 1 Click Here
Video #2 Click Here
Also dont forget to watch it in HD :)
Video # 1 Click Here
Video #2 Click Here
Also dont forget to watch it in HD :)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Obesity.
Aww man I'm curious the responses I'm going to get on this one. I actually just got a new HD video camera so I am going to only briefly talk about this and then do a full video on Friday.
Obesity.
My Take:
Quick google search reveals:
"Currently, about 31%, or about 59 million people, are obese, which is defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. Almost 65% are either obese or overweight, 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight, which increases their chances of developing diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer and a host of other health problems."
HOLY SHIT. Seriously 31%? That is unbelievable. How did this happen? I can tell you how. We are freaking lazy. In everything we do. Not just lack of working out but we are slow and lazy about every day life. Need to get to the 4th floor? Take the stairs? No way, elevator. Need to go to the corner store 2 blocks away? Walk? Nope, jump in the car. These are just a couple examples of every day life. This doesn't even touch on the lack of dedicated exercise.
So I will be making a full video on Friday about this subject. Cya then :)
Obesity.
My Take:
Quick google search reveals:
"Currently, about 31%, or about 59 million people, are obese, which is defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. Almost 65% are either obese or overweight, 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight, which increases their chances of developing diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer and a host of other health problems."
HOLY SHIT. Seriously 31%? That is unbelievable. How did this happen? I can tell you how. We are freaking lazy. In everything we do. Not just lack of working out but we are slow and lazy about every day life. Need to get to the 4th floor? Take the stairs? No way, elevator. Need to go to the corner store 2 blocks away? Walk? Nope, jump in the car. These are just a couple examples of every day life. This doesn't even touch on the lack of dedicated exercise.
So I will be making a full video on Friday about this subject. Cya then :)
Friday, September 3, 2010
Weekly Blogcast #2
Alright guys here is #2. I apologize for it being late but I explain in the video.
This one is in HD too so click on the bottom right to view higher quality :)
This one is in HD too so click on the bottom right to view higher quality :)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Difference in cultures.
I have lived in Japan for 3 months now and the difference between here and the United States is unbelievable.
So is the culture in Japan better or worse than the U.S.?
My Take:
So I am going to start this one with a single paragraph that perfectly explains the difference, then I will elaborate:
Two identical trash cans. One on the US Naval Base, one in downtown Yokosuka.
Look at the one on the Naval Base. Its almost completely covered in cigarette burns from people putting out their cigarettes. There is also a lot of cigarette butts all over the ground next to the trash can, not inside.
Now look at the one in downtown Yokosuka. ONE cigarette burn on it and there is NOTHING on the ground next to it. Chances are that cigarette burn was probably from an American anyways.
I personally noticed this and it struck a nerve. You can sum up this entire blog post in that one paragraph. However I feel that I need to bring up some other points.
If you walk around in Japan you will have to try VERY hard to find any trash on the ground. This is because you will consistently see people cleaning/picking up trash. It is also very embarrassing for business/homeowners to have trash on their property so its almost always immediately removed. You will actually be scolded by every day people if they see you drop anything on the ground and not pick it up. Ive seen some Japanese people walk by a trashcan that was full and some stuff had fallen on the ground. They picked up the stuff on the ground and took it with them or to another trash can.
Another thing. I saw a landscaping crew doing yard work and there were 2 dedicated people that held up screens next to the guys who were weed-eating so that if the weed-eaters threw rocks or anything it wouldn't hit peoples cars. How awesome is that? Ever see that in the states? Hell no. Why? Because we don't care. If its not affecting anything we personally own or care about then it doesn't matter to us.
Next. It is extremely rare to see an obese Japanese person. I mean you really have to be looking to find one. I'm not saying that all Japanese are in incredible shape, but most are in good, healthy shape. Why? Because they aren't lazy. If you watch them, everything they do whether its working, walking, etc they do it with intensity. Constantly moving fast. The U.S.? Ya right. We are some lazy sobs. Even if we have to go pick something up off the printer, we sigh, get up slowly making some lame ass remark, then slowly walk over to the printer. What would take a Japanese person 5 seconds to do we take like 2 minutes, and we complain while doing it.
Lastly. It doesn't matter if its McDonalds, a janitor, or a CEO of a large company, the Japanese take their jobs VERY seriously. Awesome service everywhere you go no matter the business and if something is wrong usually 3-4 of them will jump through hoops to make sure its fixed. This is because they actually still have honor and morals in this country. I really wish we could incorporate some Japanese living into out society. It would really help us out.
I have learned alot in my time so far in Japan but I have learned one thing in particular. Americans are a bunch of lazy, fat, rude, un-motivated, whiny people. Seriously we are. Anyone who disagrees with me is probably someone who falls into one of those categories I just named.
We could learn ALOT from the Japanese. Unfortunately we are on a downward spiral of crap and because we are allowed to abuse our Constitution nowadays there really isn't any way to fix it.
So is the culture in Japan better or worse than the U.S.?
My Take:
So I am going to start this one with a single paragraph that perfectly explains the difference, then I will elaborate:
Two identical trash cans. One on the US Naval Base, one in downtown Yokosuka.
Look at the one on the Naval Base. Its almost completely covered in cigarette burns from people putting out their cigarettes. There is also a lot of cigarette butts all over the ground next to the trash can, not inside.
Now look at the one in downtown Yokosuka. ONE cigarette burn on it and there is NOTHING on the ground next to it. Chances are that cigarette burn was probably from an American anyways.
I personally noticed this and it struck a nerve. You can sum up this entire blog post in that one paragraph. However I feel that I need to bring up some other points.
If you walk around in Japan you will have to try VERY hard to find any trash on the ground. This is because you will consistently see people cleaning/picking up trash. It is also very embarrassing for business/homeowners to have trash on their property so its almost always immediately removed. You will actually be scolded by every day people if they see you drop anything on the ground and not pick it up. Ive seen some Japanese people walk by a trashcan that was full and some stuff had fallen on the ground. They picked up the stuff on the ground and took it with them or to another trash can.
Another thing. I saw a landscaping crew doing yard work and there were 2 dedicated people that held up screens next to the guys who were weed-eating so that if the weed-eaters threw rocks or anything it wouldn't hit peoples cars. How awesome is that? Ever see that in the states? Hell no. Why? Because we don't care. If its not affecting anything we personally own or care about then it doesn't matter to us.
Next. It is extremely rare to see an obese Japanese person. I mean you really have to be looking to find one. I'm not saying that all Japanese are in incredible shape, but most are in good, healthy shape. Why? Because they aren't lazy. If you watch them, everything they do whether its working, walking, etc they do it with intensity. Constantly moving fast. The U.S.? Ya right. We are some lazy sobs. Even if we have to go pick something up off the printer, we sigh, get up slowly making some lame ass remark, then slowly walk over to the printer. What would take a Japanese person 5 seconds to do we take like 2 minutes, and we complain while doing it.
Lastly. It doesn't matter if its McDonalds, a janitor, or a CEO of a large company, the Japanese take their jobs VERY seriously. Awesome service everywhere you go no matter the business and if something is wrong usually 3-4 of them will jump through hoops to make sure its fixed. This is because they actually still have honor and morals in this country. I really wish we could incorporate some Japanese living into out society. It would really help us out.
I have learned alot in my time so far in Japan but I have learned one thing in particular. Americans are a bunch of lazy, fat, rude, un-motivated, whiny people. Seriously we are. Anyone who disagrees with me is probably someone who falls into one of those categories I just named.
We could learn ALOT from the Japanese. Unfortunately we are on a downward spiral of crap and because we are allowed to abuse our Constitution nowadays there really isn't any way to fix it.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Welfare
I had another request from Facebook. This time to write about welfare.
I am going to write on a more specific point about welfare though:
Should a drug test be required before you can receive welfare?
My Take:
So when I go and apply for a job, I am usually required to take AND PASS a drug test. Why? Because they don't want any issues with their business and it also shows a sense of responsibility.
So how about welfare? I did some research and while some states require a drug test to receive welfare it is not a federal law. I then found that almost 70% of people on welfare have not been required to take a drug test.
This doesn't seem fair to me. If I am required to pass a drug test to WORK for money, then why aren't people required to take a drug test to NOT WORK and get money?
There is no way to determine how many people on welfare are actually spending that money on drugs, but you can probably make an educated guess and assume that alot of the people are. Yes there are people who are just down on their luck, or layed off, or medical reasons etc. Yes there are alot of people who legitimately need the money, but its also only meant to supplement you until you can get back on your feet, not as your primary source of income.
Another google search brings up the fact that over 45% of people currently on welfare have been on welfare for over 6 months. Seriously?
I personally don't have solid statistics and most people don't, but the general consensus is that the majority of people on welfare aren't of the highest caliber. This has nothing to do with race, just quality of person.
Lets face it, most of the people on welfare aren't deserving of it. They are more than likely lazy and have found a way to do nothing and constantly receive money. I already stated that some people do actually need it but the majority don't. They are just lazy and would rather soak up taxpayer money.
So if we required people to take and pass a drug test before receiving welfare I bet alot less people would actually be on it. Or what if every month they had to retake and re pass it? I be we would have even less people on welfare then. Maybe we could weed out the junk and only the people who genuinely need it would be on welfare.
If that happened think about our national debt again.
I'm just sayin'.
I am going to write on a more specific point about welfare though:
Should a drug test be required before you can receive welfare?
My Take:
So when I go and apply for a job, I am usually required to take AND PASS a drug test. Why? Because they don't want any issues with their business and it also shows a sense of responsibility.
So how about welfare? I did some research and while some states require a drug test to receive welfare it is not a federal law. I then found that almost 70% of people on welfare have not been required to take a drug test.
This doesn't seem fair to me. If I am required to pass a drug test to WORK for money, then why aren't people required to take a drug test to NOT WORK and get money?
There is no way to determine how many people on welfare are actually spending that money on drugs, but you can probably make an educated guess and assume that alot of the people are. Yes there are people who are just down on their luck, or layed off, or medical reasons etc. Yes there are alot of people who legitimately need the money, but its also only meant to supplement you until you can get back on your feet, not as your primary source of income.
Another google search brings up the fact that over 45% of people currently on welfare have been on welfare for over 6 months. Seriously?
I personally don't have solid statistics and most people don't, but the general consensus is that the majority of people on welfare aren't of the highest caliber. This has nothing to do with race, just quality of person.
Lets face it, most of the people on welfare aren't deserving of it. They are more than likely lazy and have found a way to do nothing and constantly receive money. I already stated that some people do actually need it but the majority don't. They are just lazy and would rather soak up taxpayer money.
So if we required people to take and pass a drug test before receiving welfare I bet alot less people would actually be on it. Or what if every month they had to retake and re pass it? I be we would have even less people on welfare then. Maybe we could weed out the junk and only the people who genuinely need it would be on welfare.
If that happened think about our national debt again.
I'm just sayin'.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Youtube Video
Alright everyone. I got alot of good feedback about me making the Youtube video so when I get home from work I will be making the video. Stay tuned!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Stimulus packages.
The government sees our economy is trash and the way they propose to fix it is to make a bunch of stimulus and bailout packages in the billions of dollars. What is the effect?
My Take:
First off lets look at the normal American.
A check shows up in the mail for $500 from the government. They say this is to stimulate the economy and they want you to go and spend it. You then take a look at the current economic crisis and say, "I'm going to save this because the economy is in shambles."
The statistics I believe were that over 80% of people saved the stimulus check instead of spending it because of fear that the economy is only going to get worse. What effect does this have?
Lets first take a look at where this money came from.
Did president Obama go to the bank and withdraw billions of dollars from a bank account? No.
Did the big banks and rich people of the world donate the money to be given to us? No.
So where the hell did the money come from? The Federal Reserve.
If you don't know who or what the federal reserve is; one why don't you know about your country; and two get with the program and do some research!
However, I will give a brief description. The Federal Reserve Bank is a group of CIVILIAN bankers who are in charge of and control our money. Look at the top of a dollar bill, it says, "Federal Reserve Note." I bolded and underlined the civilian part because that is important.
So wait, our entire monetary system, our whole money supply is controlled by civilians? Not government employees? Correct. Why is this important? It means that they aren't under government control and therefore do not have to follow the same rules and cannot be manipulated by our government.
Back to where the money comes from. So when this stimulus bill got approved, our government went to the federal reserve and APPLIED FOR A LOAN. That's right, our nation which is a world super power is asking civilian bankers for a loan. This is an entirely different discussion that I may write about at a later date.
So we take out this $814 billion loan. We then divide it up and send it out to the American people. Well like any loan there is interest to be paid. We just gave out all that money to the people, how do we pay the interest on the loan that was just taken out when we are already trillions of dollars in debt? We take out ANOTHER LOAN. Yes. We just pile on the debt. We do the same thing when we need to fight a war. We need billions of dollars to fund weapons, vehicles etc so we ask the federal reserve for money. We spend that money on the war and then take out another loan to pay the interest on the original loan.
Does it make more sense now as to why we are so far into debt?
Next issue. Where does the Federal Reserve get all this money to loan out? Do they just have an account with trillions of dollars siting in it? Ya right. The Federal Reserve UNDER LAW that WE signed and approved is allowed to create or print money. Yes. They can just start up the machines and print away.
So when we go to the Federal Reserve asking for a loan they say, "Sure! Let us create some money first, we will then loan it to you, then you can pay us interest for money we never even had!" Pretty good deal for them huh?
Lastly, and the most important thing to understand. Creating money like this creates inflation. Well Kris, wtf is inflation?
Let me explain. Say you and 3 other friends each have $10. Then say this $40 is the only $40 in existence. You are a farmer. Your other 3 friends are a doctor, landlord, and supermarket owner. The supermarket needs food to sell so he pays you $2 for your food. You have 12$. You have to pay your rent, so you pay the landlord $2. He now has 12$. The landlord needs medical attention and pays the doctor $2. He now has $12 and so on. This is the cycle of a stable economy. Notice however that there is never any more or any less than $40 in existence so you can say that $1 is always worth or VALUED at $1.
Now lets say we pass a law allowing the doctor to create money. He needs to pay his rent but is currently broke so he creates $2. There is now $42 in existence. You can now say that your $1 is no longer worth the same amount because it isn't as valuable since there is more money in existence. The supermarket owner knows there is more money available now which makes his food worth more money. So he raises his prices. This is INFLATION.
So think about this situation now. Federal Reserve creates $814 billion. The $500 sitting in your savings account no longer has the same buying power because it isn't as valuable. Companies know this and therefore raise their prices to meet the amount of money in circulation because they also have to pay more money to buy the products to sell to you! This is INFLATION.
So, how good are these stimulus packages?
My Take:
First off lets look at the normal American.
A check shows up in the mail for $500 from the government. They say this is to stimulate the economy and they want you to go and spend it. You then take a look at the current economic crisis and say, "I'm going to save this because the economy is in shambles."
The statistics I believe were that over 80% of people saved the stimulus check instead of spending it because of fear that the economy is only going to get worse. What effect does this have?
Lets first take a look at where this money came from.
Did president Obama go to the bank and withdraw billions of dollars from a bank account? No.
Did the big banks and rich people of the world donate the money to be given to us? No.
So where the hell did the money come from? The Federal Reserve.
If you don't know who or what the federal reserve is; one why don't you know about your country; and two get with the program and do some research!
However, I will give a brief description. The Federal Reserve Bank is a group of CIVILIAN bankers who are in charge of and control our money. Look at the top of a dollar bill, it says, "Federal Reserve Note." I bolded and underlined the civilian part because that is important.
So wait, our entire monetary system, our whole money supply is controlled by civilians? Not government employees? Correct. Why is this important? It means that they aren't under government control and therefore do not have to follow the same rules and cannot be manipulated by our government.
Back to where the money comes from. So when this stimulus bill got approved, our government went to the federal reserve and APPLIED FOR A LOAN. That's right, our nation which is a world super power is asking civilian bankers for a loan. This is an entirely different discussion that I may write about at a later date.
So we take out this $814 billion loan. We then divide it up and send it out to the American people. Well like any loan there is interest to be paid. We just gave out all that money to the people, how do we pay the interest on the loan that was just taken out when we are already trillions of dollars in debt? We take out ANOTHER LOAN. Yes. We just pile on the debt. We do the same thing when we need to fight a war. We need billions of dollars to fund weapons, vehicles etc so we ask the federal reserve for money. We spend that money on the war and then take out another loan to pay the interest on the original loan.
Does it make more sense now as to why we are so far into debt?
Next issue. Where does the Federal Reserve get all this money to loan out? Do they just have an account with trillions of dollars siting in it? Ya right. The Federal Reserve UNDER LAW that WE signed and approved is allowed to create or print money. Yes. They can just start up the machines and print away.
So when we go to the Federal Reserve asking for a loan they say, "Sure! Let us create some money first, we will then loan it to you, then you can pay us interest for money we never even had!" Pretty good deal for them huh?
Lastly, and the most important thing to understand. Creating money like this creates inflation. Well Kris, wtf is inflation?
Let me explain. Say you and 3 other friends each have $10. Then say this $40 is the only $40 in existence. You are a farmer. Your other 3 friends are a doctor, landlord, and supermarket owner. The supermarket needs food to sell so he pays you $2 for your food. You have 12$. You have to pay your rent, so you pay the landlord $2. He now has 12$. The landlord needs medical attention and pays the doctor $2. He now has $12 and so on. This is the cycle of a stable economy. Notice however that there is never any more or any less than $40 in existence so you can say that $1 is always worth or VALUED at $1.
Now lets say we pass a law allowing the doctor to create money. He needs to pay his rent but is currently broke so he creates $2. There is now $42 in existence. You can now say that your $1 is no longer worth the same amount because it isn't as valuable since there is more money in existence. The supermarket owner knows there is more money available now which makes his food worth more money. So he raises his prices. This is INFLATION.
So think about this situation now. Federal Reserve creates $814 billion. The $500 sitting in your savings account no longer has the same buying power because it isn't as valuable. Companies know this and therefore raise their prices to meet the amount of money in circulation because they also have to pay more money to buy the products to sell to you! This is INFLATION.
So, how good are these stimulus packages?
Monday, August 23, 2010
A request from Faceook.
I had a request from Facebook to write about the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools.
My Take:
"I pledge allegiance,
to the flag,
of the United States of America.
And to the republic,
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."
It has been that way since 1954.
Everyone knows it or at least at some point did.
This was usually said in school at the beginning of the school day as the whole class stood up, covered their heart, and recited it aloud.
There is controversy today however about taking the "under God" part out of the pledge, or completely removing the pledge from schools. The reasoning behind this is unlike in 1954 when 88% of Americans were christian, there is a much more diverse religious demographic today.
My Take? If you don't believe in God, don't follow a God, you are anti-God, or whatever; Don't say that part of it. If it bugs you enough then just don't recite that part.
There is no reason to completely remove it from our schools because aside form the God part it still teaches good morals and reminds us of our past. Take a look at the rest of the pledge. It says we are pledging allegiance to the United States of America. It says we are indivisible, and that we want liberty and justice for everyone.
Show me a part of that that's bad.
So I say again, if the "God" part bugs you, just don't say it and respect the rest of the pledge.
My Take:
"I pledge allegiance,
to the flag,
of the United States of America.
And to the republic,
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."
It has been that way since 1954.
Everyone knows it or at least at some point did.
This was usually said in school at the beginning of the school day as the whole class stood up, covered their heart, and recited it aloud.
There is controversy today however about taking the "under God" part out of the pledge, or completely removing the pledge from schools. The reasoning behind this is unlike in 1954 when 88% of Americans were christian, there is a much more diverse religious demographic today.
My Take? If you don't believe in God, don't follow a God, you are anti-God, or whatever; Don't say that part of it. If it bugs you enough then just don't recite that part.
There is no reason to completely remove it from our schools because aside form the God part it still teaches good morals and reminds us of our past. Take a look at the rest of the pledge. It says we are pledging allegiance to the United States of America. It says we are indivisible, and that we want liberty and justice for everyone.
Show me a part of that that's bad.
So I say again, if the "God" part bugs you, just don't say it and respect the rest of the pledge.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
An idea.
I had a thought. What if at the end of the week I gather all my posts and your comments/emails and made a video going over everything on youtube. What do you think? krisco65@gmail.com
Friday, August 20, 2010
The "N-Word"
Oh boy, here we go. Lets see how this one goes.
My Take:
According to Wikipedia:
Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black".[1][2][3][4]
Nigga (Also referred online as Nikka) is a term used in African American Vernacular English that began as an eye dialect form of the word nigger (a word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of theSpanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the colour "black").[1][2][3][4][5]
In practice, its use and meaning are heavily dependent on context.[5] Presently, the word nigga is used more liberally among younger members[6] of all races and ethnicities in the United States, although its use by persons not of African descent is still widely viewed as unacceptable and hostile, even when used without intentional prejudice. In addition to African Americans, other ethnic groups[7][8] have adopted the term as part of their vernacular.
So an obvious difference between the two words. As there should be because they have two totally different meanings. In actuality there are three different words you see here:
My Take:
According to Wikipedia:
Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black".[1][2][3][4]
Nigga (Also referred online as Nikka) is a term used in African American Vernacular English that began as an eye dialect form of the word nigger (a word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of theSpanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the colour "black").[1][2][3][4][5]
In practice, its use and meaning are heavily dependent on context.[5] Presently, the word nigga is used more liberally among younger members[6] of all races and ethnicities in the United States, although its use by persons not of African descent is still widely viewed as unacceptable and hostile, even when used without intentional prejudice. In addition to African Americans, other ethnic groups[7][8] have adopted the term as part of their vernacular.
So an obvious difference between the two words. As there should be because they have two totally different meanings. In actuality there are three different words you see here:
- Nigger - derogatory towards people of African decent
- Nigga - derogatory towards people of African decent if you aren't black
- Nigga - from one black person to the other means "dude" or "friend"
So anytime anyone of any race calls a black person a nigger, it is derogatory. If I say to someone black, "whats up my nigga?" that is derogatory. If two black people say to each other, "whats up nigga?" that is completely acceptable.
So i asked a few African Americans why this is acceptable and the majority told me "you don't/wouldn't understand."
I did however get one educated answer, "because the word doesn't have any power over me and by using it with my fellow Africans shows that it no longer expresses ownership."
I appreciated the response because it actually gave me something to think about, and was a much better answer than "you don't/wouldn't understand."
However, after thinking about it I have to ask the question. He said to me that it no longer shows ownership. But when I look at the phrase "whats up my nigga?" I see "whats up MY nigga?" Isn't that expressing ownership or am I missing something? Lets check wikipedia again.
MY or my commonly refers to the first-person, possessive adjective in the English language, see I (pronoun).
Possessive adjective. Now I am confused again. I am back to square one of not knowing why its not ok for me to say it.
I also asked some people who aren't of African decent what they thought and one response intrigued me. He told me that he thinks they use it amongst each other and don't allow us to use it as a way of saying "haha look what we can do and you cant."
So is that true? Do black people feel that because we are past slavery and they have overcome that part of history its now OK to throw it in our faces? I think this one depends on the type of person also. I'm sure some black people think this way, and I'm sure some don't.
I found a quote from a black college professor online:
"I believe that if an African American decides to freely and openly used the N word in conversation he is proving that he is uneducated and has not moved on from the terrible past of our race."
Ill finish this one off on that quote.
Please sign up for a google account and post comments on your feelings. If you would rather email me: krisco65@gmail.com
Also don't forget to vote in the poll at the top right of my site.
Also don't forget to vote in the poll at the top right of my site.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Internet Explorer vs Mozilla Firefox vs Google Chrome
I'm going to do this one a little differently. I'm going to analyze this debate from two different standpoints:
Number two is like my mom. She can check her email but that's about as far as her knowledge goes.
So, here is My Take:
First I'm going to lay out what I believe are the pros and cons:
Pros:
Internet Explorer
Internet Explorer
I have personally done testing and have used all three. I will never use Internet Explorer again based on the fact that Microsoft has basically deemed it good enough and no longer actively updates it. Not to mention its SLOW AS HELL. Oh and I am not a big fan of being hacked either. If I run into a issue where a website will only work in IE, there are extensions that allow Firefox and Chrome to view it IE style.
I have been a longtime user of Firefox but recently I got a lot of recommendations to use Google Chrome. After using it I am now a Google Chrome user. Here's why:
Google Chrome is FAST. I mean FAST. It loads up webpages almost instantly. While it doesn't have as many "apps" as Firefox it does have all the ones I need and used in Firefox. It doesn't require nearly as much memory to run so everything else my computer is doing runs faster. Google is constantly updating/fixing bugs which means any issues are usually resolved very fast.
So what about the "Number Two" perspective?
Google Chrome is VERY simple. It doesn't have alot of extra crap, no extra toolbars at the top. This makes it extremely easy to use. Plus once again, its fast :)
Let me know your thoughts on this debate, and don't forget to vote in the poll.
- Educated, involved computer user.
- Wtf is a browser user.
Number two is like my mom. She can check her email but that's about as far as her knowledge goes.
So, here is My Take:
First I'm going to lay out what I believe are the pros and cons:
Pros:
Internet Explorer
- Years of experience
- Backed by Microsoft
- Large budget
- Compatible with everything
- Tons of extensions or "apps"
- Fast
- Easily customizable
- Fairly secure
- Huge budget
- Very fast
- Simple and easy to use
Internet Explorer
- The most hacked of all the browsers
- Click a link, go make a sandwich. SLOW.
- Requires a lot of memory to run, which in turn slows down your computer
- Microsoft has ventured away from putting a lot of effort into improving it
- Not so much funding
- Not compatible with everything
- Faster than IE but still takes a lot of memory to run
- Not as many extensions as FireFox
- Not compatible with everything
- Still fairly new so there are a few bugs
I have personally done testing and have used all three. I will never use Internet Explorer again based on the fact that Microsoft has basically deemed it good enough and no longer actively updates it. Not to mention its SLOW AS HELL. Oh and I am not a big fan of being hacked either. If I run into a issue where a website will only work in IE, there are extensions that allow Firefox and Chrome to view it IE style.
I have been a longtime user of Firefox but recently I got a lot of recommendations to use Google Chrome. After using it I am now a Google Chrome user. Here's why:
Google Chrome is FAST. I mean FAST. It loads up webpages almost instantly. While it doesn't have as many "apps" as Firefox it does have all the ones I need and used in Firefox. It doesn't require nearly as much memory to run so everything else my computer is doing runs faster. Google is constantly updating/fixing bugs which means any issues are usually resolved very fast.
So what about the "Number Two" perspective?
Google Chrome is VERY simple. It doesn't have alot of extra crap, no extra toolbars at the top. This makes it extremely easy to use. Plus once again, its fast :)
Let me know your thoughts on this debate, and don't forget to vote in the poll.
Just a quick note.
A few people asked me about making comments on my posts. You have to sign up for a Google account which is incredibly easy. Takes like 25 seconds. So sign up, write some comments, and follow :)
Click here
Click here
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The "Mosque" in New York.
My Take:
First lets lay down the facts.
Constitution states freedom of religion. We are also the "land of the free". If we follow everything we stand for then there should be no debate on this "mosque".
The issue is that most Americans are misinformed. If you ask the average American about the Muslim religion it will almost always link to terrorism. While it was Muslim extremists who were involved in 9/11, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. So even calling it a mosque is inaccurate because its not even a mosque, its a community center.
This being said, choosing to build it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake for a few reasons. Its going to attract a lot of unwanted attention. It will probably be constantly vandalized. Completely peaceful Muslims who go to this community center are going to be criticized and labeled as terrorists. Having it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake. They could easily build it farther away and avoid most of these issues, along with it probably being cheaper.
So why are they building it so close? Some might say to make a strong religious and political statement. Throwing it in our faces that Muslims can do something so terrible, then move in next door. Some might say its based solely on demographics and it is just a convenient location for Muslims.
Whichever the case, it is going to be a constant reminder to those who have been affected by 9/11 every time they pass it. So my stance is this: Build it. Absolutely. I fully support freedom of religion and think its great they want to make a community center. But don't build it next to a place of grief knowing that it will only bring more grief and will endanger your people.
First lets lay down the facts.
- A group of people want to build a community center in downtown New York near ground zero.
- It is going to be primarily for Muslims and will have a prayer room.
- The terrorist act of 9/11 was committed by Muslim "extremists".
Constitution states freedom of religion. We are also the "land of the free". If we follow everything we stand for then there should be no debate on this "mosque".
The issue is that most Americans are misinformed. If you ask the average American about the Muslim religion it will almost always link to terrorism. While it was Muslim extremists who were involved in 9/11, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. So even calling it a mosque is inaccurate because its not even a mosque, its a community center.
This being said, choosing to build it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake for a few reasons. Its going to attract a lot of unwanted attention. It will probably be constantly vandalized. Completely peaceful Muslims who go to this community center are going to be criticized and labeled as terrorists. Having it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake. They could easily build it farther away and avoid most of these issues, along with it probably being cheaper.
So why are they building it so close? Some might say to make a strong religious and political statement. Throwing it in our faces that Muslims can do something so terrible, then move in next door. Some might say its based solely on demographics and it is just a convenient location for Muslims.
Whichever the case, it is going to be a constant reminder to those who have been affected by 9/11 every time they pass it. So my stance is this: Build it. Absolutely. I fully support freedom of religion and think its great they want to make a community center. But don't build it next to a place of grief knowing that it will only bring more grief and will endanger your people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)