I hate people who point at their wrist while asking for the time, like I don’t know where on my body to look for the time!
I hate people who are willing to get up to search the entire room for the T.V. remote but won’t walk up to the T..V. to change the channel!
I hate people who say “you just want to have your cake and eat it too!” Well, of course, what else would I do with it?
I hate people who say “it’s always in the last place you look.”…yeah, or I would keep looking!
I hate when people who are watching a show with you look over and say “Did you see that?” No, I was sitting here looking the other way!
I hate people who say “Can I ask you a question?” Didn’t really give me a chance to say “No”, did you?
I hate when something is advertised as “new and improved”…which is it? New or Improved? And what was it before? Old and ruined?
I hate when you wait for the bus and someone next to you asks, “Did the bus come yet” DUH! Would we still be standing here?
I hate anti-theft detectors on C.D.’s…you nearly break the disc just trying to get the package open!
I hate people who use so much slang in emails you can’t even understand what they’re saying!
I hate people who wear their pants down around their thighs.
I hate people who honk and wave at me who I don’t know.
I hate when someone leans over my shoulder to read and mumbles to themselves.
I hate semi-truck drivers who never get it…your turn signal has been on for the last fifteen miles and you’ve missed all exits!
I hate people who never name their dogs and just call them “dog”.
I hate it when my sister licks out all the filling of an oreo cookie and puts all the cookie parts back in the tray.
I hate when someone you’re forced to take a long ride with wears A LOT of cologne.
I hate it when people who I invite to a party in turn invite a lot of OTHER people to the same party!
I hate it when a crooner asks if they can get “fries with that shake”?!
I hate people who tell the end of movies.
I hate people who stand in line with more than 10 items in the “10 items or less” line.
I hate people who chew on pens they’ve borrowed …and actually return them.
I hate people who try to tell a joke that isn’t funny; or worse, people who tell a joke, but forget the punch line and then tell you that it was a real “hoot”.
I hate neighbors who leave their Christmas lights up until September.
I hate being in job interviews when the interviewer never makes eye contact.
I hate someone yelling random numbers while I’m trying to count money.
I hate people who stand up and announce that they’re going to the bathroom.
I hate popping gum during class.
I hate drivers who tailgate old people.
I hate people who leave the supermarket cart in the only open parking space when it’s 20 below zero.
I hate people who pee in the swimming pool.
I hate people who tell me how they were “so much worse off” in their day.
I hate drivers who turn on their bright lights just as they get in front of you.
I hate people who tell little kids the truth about Santa Claus.
I hate people who put everyone on speaker phone.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Reaffirmation
I often wonder: what is it about us humans, that we tend to make ourselves out to be bigger than we actually are?
Sometimes we forget the grand scheme of things. Or ignore it, I suppose.
Louie Giglio put the 'grand scheme of things' into perspective for me, though, through his Dvd 'Indescribable'. Now, I'm usually one to sniff at people when they come to me saying their "lives were changed by this Dvd," or "their perspectives have been revamped for one book," etc.
Being of a slow, deliberate, and practical nature myself, how can I not scoff at such people? To all appearances, their "life changing experiences" seem to be the result of whimsy.
But perhaps I shouldn't be too quick to judge. 'Indescribable' didn't change my life completely, per se. I have been a believe in God for a few years now. But what Giglio showed during his sermon completely changed my worldview.
Essentially, he showed me how ridiculously huge the universe is. Consequently, I now feel incredibly small. But in a good way.
Now I'm aware merely mentioning the size of the universe doesn't automatically validate the existance of a god(s). But I already believe in God. I didn't watch this video to validate that belief. All it did was put everything into perspective for me. It was a reaffirmation of sorts, if you will.
The first part of the 'Indescribable' Dvd can be viewed here:
Oh, and here is another link to an tour of our universe, though it's not affiliated with Giglio's tour in any way:
Crazy creepy awesome. And that's about it. I really shouldn't be blogging right now because I don't have the time...but I needed to say this. Maybe now I can concentrate long enough to get back to studying for my AP exam.
OH, and one more thing: HOLY COW:
Sometimes we forget the grand scheme of things. Or ignore it, I suppose.
Louie Giglio put the 'grand scheme of things' into perspective for me, though, through his Dvd 'Indescribable'. Now, I'm usually one to sniff at people when they come to me saying their "lives were changed by this Dvd," or "their perspectives have been revamped for one book," etc.
Being of a slow, deliberate, and practical nature myself, how can I not scoff at such people? To all appearances, their "life changing experiences" seem to be the result of whimsy.
But perhaps I shouldn't be too quick to judge. 'Indescribable' didn't change my life completely, per se. I have been a believe in God for a few years now. But what Giglio showed during his sermon completely changed my worldview.
Essentially, he showed me how ridiculously huge the universe is. Consequently, I now feel incredibly small. But in a good way.
Now I'm aware merely mentioning the size of the universe doesn't automatically validate the existance of a god(s). But I already believe in God. I didn't watch this video to validate that belief. All it did was put everything into perspective for me. It was a reaffirmation of sorts, if you will.
The first part of the 'Indescribable' Dvd can be viewed here:
Oh, and here is another link to an tour of our universe, though it's not affiliated with Giglio's tour in any way:
Crazy creepy awesome. And that's about it. I really shouldn't be blogging right now because I don't have the time...but I needed to say this. Maybe now I can concentrate long enough to get back to studying for my AP exam.
OH, and one more thing: HOLY COW:
Monday, April 20, 2009
Nuclear Power For the Win!
Nuclear Power FTW!!
In a world of limited resources, it is paramount for the United States to constantly engineer new methods for maintaining a constant energy source, lest we risk our quality of life. The condition of our energy policies is directly related to vital issues such as national security, economic stability, and a higher standard of living. And though there are several sources that have been suggested as being the ideal (hydrogen power, anyone?), our condition is such that, at the moment, we lack the technology to take advantages of these sources. A stopgap needs to be implemented while we research that elusive ideal, a stopgap that will remove our worries by centuries while maintaining our standards of living. To that end, a nuclear energy-centric plan is the one I am in full support of.
Statistics taken from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) website shows several consistent truths concerning nuclear energy: the fuel (uranium) is inexpensive, the waste is compact and can be recycled via breeder reactors, and finally, to satisfy the environmental enthusiast, I might add that there are absolutely no greenhouse or acid rain effects to worry about. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy and Energy Information Administration reports a direct correlation between the increase of dependence on nuclear power and a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions.
Of course, there are plenty other aspects of nuclear energy that they might be concerned with, such as the volatile nature of the waste. It is highly radioactive, meaning it would take years to decay in the open environment. But this is assuming that the maintainers of the power plant would be content to let it sit out in the open. Sending the excess waste through a breeder reactor would solve this problem quite nicely; not only by getting rid of the hated environmental anti-Christ that would make even Al Gore wet his pants, but by recycling the small amount of waste into energy. Indeed it is small; according to the NEI, the entire industry has produced about 58,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel over the past four years. Collectively, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep; hardly a worrisome size of waste.
Then there is the most amusing argument against nuclear energy: “But what about proliferation?! Because, you know, terrorists might find the nuclear waste and create of bomb out of it in their backyard!” Please. It isn’t hard to see why this argument is so flawed that it isn’t so much an argument as a joke – the people perpetuating this point are forgetting that a breeder reactor is required in order to make anything truly volatile out of a granule of nuclear waste. If a terrorist is technologically inclined enough to steal radioactive uranium from us and convert it into a bomb, then he wouldn’t. He would simply create his own with the aforementioned, metaphorical reactor he already owns.
Though the immediate use of nuclear energy has been restricted to powering homes, etc., if enough nuclear reactors were established, it could lead to the implementation of a fuel cell economy. Fuel cell based cars, combined with nuclear powered homes, would result in energy independence for the United States, given that the uranium we use only comes from our homeland.
I can only conclude that nuclear power promotes safety in every possible way; by providing a route towards energy independence, by being environmentally safe, and by being economically healthy. Indeed, it is the stopgap we have been searching for until we should stumble upon the technology that will give us access to an unending, ideal, and collectively perfect resource.
In a world of limited resources, it is paramount for the United States to constantly engineer new methods for maintaining a constant energy source, lest we risk our quality of life. The condition of our energy policies is directly related to vital issues such as national security, economic stability, and a higher standard of living. And though there are several sources that have been suggested as being the ideal (hydrogen power, anyone?), our condition is such that, at the moment, we lack the technology to take advantages of these sources. A stopgap needs to be implemented while we research that elusive ideal, a stopgap that will remove our worries by centuries while maintaining our standards of living. To that end, a nuclear energy-centric plan is the one I am in full support of.
Statistics taken from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) website shows several consistent truths concerning nuclear energy: the fuel (uranium) is inexpensive, the waste is compact and can be recycled via breeder reactors, and finally, to satisfy the environmental enthusiast, I might add that there are absolutely no greenhouse or acid rain effects to worry about. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy and Energy Information Administration reports a direct correlation between the increase of dependence on nuclear power and a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions.
Of course, there are plenty other aspects of nuclear energy that they might be concerned with, such as the volatile nature of the waste. It is highly radioactive, meaning it would take years to decay in the open environment. But this is assuming that the maintainers of the power plant would be content to let it sit out in the open. Sending the excess waste through a breeder reactor would solve this problem quite nicely; not only by getting rid of the hated environmental anti-Christ that would make even Al Gore wet his pants, but by recycling the small amount of waste into energy. Indeed it is small; according to the NEI, the entire industry has produced about 58,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel over the past four years. Collectively, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep; hardly a worrisome size of waste.
Then there is the most amusing argument against nuclear energy: “But what about proliferation?! Because, you know, terrorists might find the nuclear waste and create of bomb out of it in their backyard!” Please. It isn’t hard to see why this argument is so flawed that it isn’t so much an argument as a joke – the people perpetuating this point are forgetting that a breeder reactor is required in order to make anything truly volatile out of a granule of nuclear waste. If a terrorist is technologically inclined enough to steal radioactive uranium from us and convert it into a bomb, then he wouldn’t. He would simply create his own with the aforementioned, metaphorical reactor he already owns.
Though the immediate use of nuclear energy has been restricted to powering homes, etc., if enough nuclear reactors were established, it could lead to the implementation of a fuel cell economy. Fuel cell based cars, combined with nuclear powered homes, would result in energy independence for the United States, given that the uranium we use only comes from our homeland.
I can only conclude that nuclear power promotes safety in every possible way; by providing a route towards energy independence, by being environmentally safe, and by being economically healthy. Indeed, it is the stopgap we have been searching for until we should stumble upon the technology that will give us access to an unending, ideal, and collectively perfect resource.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Naivete
Just something I wrote.
—–
Summary: She was a silly little thing, really, with china doll limbs and a chubby, pouty face that turned tomato red when she didn’t get her way. Fiction. Third person limited.
Naïveté
She was a silly little thing, really, with china doll limbs and a chubby, pouty face that turned tomato red when she didn’t get her way.
“Mommy, watch me!”
It was Sunday, and she was wearing her favorite Easter dress, though Mommy had told her not to. She spread it out and twirled - she was a blur of pink and white and lace, a nymphet in the morning. Her stiff new shoes skipped and danced in the dewy grass of the graveyard, the damp soaking through her white stockings.
“Mommy! Are you watching me? Look!” she paused mid-twirl, flushed and panting from her performance. Her ribboned sailor cap hung askew on her curly golden head.
“No, Angie, just a minute,” Mommy said, her voice sad. She was gazing at the ground pensively, and a fresh bouquet of yellow flowers crinkled in her hand as she gripped them. “Mommy’s busy.”
Angie sucked in an angry breath, but, instead of screaming, she tripped over to Mommy’s side and setttled for a sad pout. Something was wrong with Mommy, she could tell by the way her slender neck was bowed, by the way curtains of dark hair fell in disarray about her face. Angie pressed against her mother’s leg, gloved hands gripping the folds of the black mourning dress.
“I like your flowers, Mommy,” Angie offered quietly.
“They’re not my flowers.”
Angie blinked, comprehending this in her childish wisdom. “Oh,” she said finally. “For someone else.”
Mommy nodded, her eyes trained on the stone at her feet.
Angie released her mother’s skirts and knelt next to the stone curiously, her white-stockinged knees soaking up the damp earth. Mommy really liked to look at this stone, but Angie didn’t know why. It was a flat, cold rectangle in the ground with letters on it - big words that Angie couldn’t read. And numbers too.
She ran her tiny hand over the strange symbols, her stubby fingers brushing the indentions and picking at the ivy growing over one corner. Mommy knelt down next to her and placed the flowers across the marble, her head bowed quietly.
Angie tottered to her feet, brushing out her grass-stained dress subconsciously. Without a word to her mother, she danced away, holding out her skirts like a fairy princess again.
Maybe if Mommy saw her dancing, she would laugh again. Maybe Mommy would dance too, and twirl round and round, like she used to do with Daddy.
“Mommy, look at me,” Angie called again, softer this time, dipping into a clumsy curtsy for her audience, toes pointed like they had taught her in ballet.
“I’m watching, Honey,” Mommy was looking up from where she knelt next to the grave, her eyes hidden by her unkempt hair.
But her lips were smiling softly.
Angie laughed and twirled, tripping over the gravestones, carefree and giddy. It was alright. Mommy was smiling again. She was happy.
—–
Summary: She was a silly little thing, really, with china doll limbs and a chubby, pouty face that turned tomato red when she didn’t get her way. Fiction. Third person limited.
Naïveté
She was a silly little thing, really, with china doll limbs and a chubby, pouty face that turned tomato red when she didn’t get her way.
“Mommy, watch me!”
It was Sunday, and she was wearing her favorite Easter dress, though Mommy had told her not to. She spread it out and twirled - she was a blur of pink and white and lace, a nymphet in the morning. Her stiff new shoes skipped and danced in the dewy grass of the graveyard, the damp soaking through her white stockings.
“Mommy! Are you watching me? Look!” she paused mid-twirl, flushed and panting from her performance. Her ribboned sailor cap hung askew on her curly golden head.
“No, Angie, just a minute,” Mommy said, her voice sad. She was gazing at the ground pensively, and a fresh bouquet of yellow flowers crinkled in her hand as she gripped them. “Mommy’s busy.”
Angie sucked in an angry breath, but, instead of screaming, she tripped over to Mommy’s side and setttled for a sad pout. Something was wrong with Mommy, she could tell by the way her slender neck was bowed, by the way curtains of dark hair fell in disarray about her face. Angie pressed against her mother’s leg, gloved hands gripping the folds of the black mourning dress.
“I like your flowers, Mommy,” Angie offered quietly.
“They’re not my flowers.”
Angie blinked, comprehending this in her childish wisdom. “Oh,” she said finally. “For someone else.”
Mommy nodded, her eyes trained on the stone at her feet.
Angie released her mother’s skirts and knelt next to the stone curiously, her white-stockinged knees soaking up the damp earth. Mommy really liked to look at this stone, but Angie didn’t know why. It was a flat, cold rectangle in the ground with letters on it - big words that Angie couldn’t read. And numbers too.
She ran her tiny hand over the strange symbols, her stubby fingers brushing the indentions and picking at the ivy growing over one corner. Mommy knelt down next to her and placed the flowers across the marble, her head bowed quietly.
Angie tottered to her feet, brushing out her grass-stained dress subconsciously. Without a word to her mother, she danced away, holding out her skirts like a fairy princess again.
Maybe if Mommy saw her dancing, she would laugh again. Maybe Mommy would dance too, and twirl round and round, like she used to do with Daddy.
“Mommy, look at me,” Angie called again, softer this time, dipping into a clumsy curtsy for her audience, toes pointed like they had taught her in ballet.
“I’m watching, Honey,” Mommy was looking up from where she knelt next to the grave, her eyes hidden by her unkempt hair.
But her lips were smiling softly.
Angie laughed and twirled, tripping over the gravestones, carefree and giddy. It was alright. Mommy was smiling again. She was happy.
Extreme Christian Romance Part 1: Marriages that Rob the Cradle
I am not ashamed of the fact that I’m a born again Christian.
It’s fantastic. And it's the only philosophy that's ever made sense to me.
But be prepared. Just be prepared if you ever decide to join us, because your way of thinking is in for one hell of a facelift. Especially where dating and marriage is concerned. Legalism abounds in certain subsets of Christian subcultures. Why, oh WHY are so many of us just plain weird?
Oh, and be prepared if you're a young single person. Because some old harpy is going to take you under her wing and make it her personal business to hook you up, for sure!
I don’t know WHY some Christians insist that we all marry each other before we hit 18. Furthermore, I don’t know WHY they give me a pitying, withering look when they find out I’m single and happy about it.
These people - the close-minded ones that subscribe to the idea that you MUST be married in order to be happy - are just one polarized extreme from Christian dating gone horribly wrong. I’ll touch on the other extreme in another blog post, but for now I’m going to rip a new one in the types of Christians I call ‘Marriage or Die!’ extremists.
Want an example of a close encounter with a ‘Marriage or Die!’ extremist? Check this out:
MARRIED WOMAN: Hello, Linnie. How was your weekend?
ME: Fine, thanks.
MARRIED WOMAN: Are you married yet?
ME: No, sorry.
MARRIED WOMAN: *Bursts into tears* :’(
As if my ability to find a man defines me. Psh. What a load of bullshit.
I don’t go out with people because I don’t like them. Not because I’m resisting ‘The will of God’. Somehow I doubt God wants me to marry a socially challenged, overly romantic, idealistic little boy whose entire romantic experience is derived from the cheesy advice columns published in Lifeway magazine.
If that had been God’s intention, then He would’ve docked my IQ score a few points. That would be the only way I could possibly cope with such inane naive boyishness.
Also, He would have instilled in me a contentment to forego higher education and societal advancement so that I may spend the rest of my womanly years knitting, cooking, ironing men’s shirts, and cutting coupons for baby formula.
Have these matrimony-obsessed people even read the Bible? Paul was single, for crying out loud. He said it was good to remain single. Better, even, than marriage.
[Then again, this is also the guy who built tents for a living and was later stoned and shipwrecked, so maybe that's not such a valid argument anymore...ah well. Moving on...]
Look, I’m not writing this as a ’screw you’ to every married couple on earth. I think marriage is great if done for the right reasons. But I am just TIRED of being ragged on for being single.
I’m only 19. My biological clock IS NOT ticking that fast.
Even if it is, it sure the hell isn’t the church’s damn business.
Leave me alone! Stay out of my business! ARGH!
—-
That’s all for Part 1. Up next: Extreme Christian Romance Part 2: Let’s Ignore Each Other Until We’re Married.
It’s fantastic. And it's the only philosophy that's ever made sense to me.
But be prepared. Just be prepared if you ever decide to join us, because your way of thinking is in for one hell of a facelift. Especially where dating and marriage is concerned. Legalism abounds in certain subsets of Christian subcultures. Why, oh WHY are so many of us just plain weird?
Oh, and be prepared if you're a young single person. Because some old harpy is going to take you under her wing and make it her personal business to hook you up, for sure!
I don’t know WHY some Christians insist that we all marry each other before we hit 18. Furthermore, I don’t know WHY they give me a pitying, withering look when they find out I’m single and happy about it.
These people - the close-minded ones that subscribe to the idea that you MUST be married in order to be happy - are just one polarized extreme from Christian dating gone horribly wrong. I’ll touch on the other extreme in another blog post, but for now I’m going to rip a new one in the types of Christians I call ‘Marriage or Die!’ extremists.
Want an example of a close encounter with a ‘Marriage or Die!’ extremist? Check this out:
MARRIED WOMAN: Hello, Linnie. How was your weekend?
ME: Fine, thanks.
MARRIED WOMAN: Are you married yet?
ME: No, sorry.
MARRIED WOMAN: *Bursts into tears* :’(
As if my ability to find a man defines me. Psh. What a load of bullshit.
I don’t go out with people because I don’t like them. Not because I’m resisting ‘The will of God’. Somehow I doubt God wants me to marry a socially challenged, overly romantic, idealistic little boy whose entire romantic experience is derived from the cheesy advice columns published in Lifeway magazine.
If that had been God’s intention, then He would’ve docked my IQ score a few points. That would be the only way I could possibly cope with such inane naive boyishness.
Also, He would have instilled in me a contentment to forego higher education and societal advancement so that I may spend the rest of my womanly years knitting, cooking, ironing men’s shirts, and cutting coupons for baby formula.
Have these matrimony-obsessed people even read the Bible? Paul was single, for crying out loud. He said it was good to remain single. Better, even, than marriage.
[Then again, this is also the guy who built tents for a living and was later stoned and shipwrecked, so maybe that's not such a valid argument anymore...ah well. Moving on...]
Look, I’m not writing this as a ’screw you’ to every married couple on earth. I think marriage is great if done for the right reasons. But I am just TIRED of being ragged on for being single.
I’m only 19. My biological clock IS NOT ticking that fast.
Even if it is, it sure the hell isn’t the church’s damn business.
Leave me alone! Stay out of my business! ARGH!
—-
That’s all for Part 1. Up next: Extreme Christian Romance Part 2: Let’s Ignore Each Other Until We’re Married.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Roesgen just doesn't understand these Tea Parties, does she?
If you are of an obtuse mind, or if you are one of the few who still listens to "news" programs such as CNN and MSNBC, then your opinion of the Tax Day Tea Parties was probably something along these lines:
You believe the protests were anti-taxation in general. You believe they were anti-CNN, anti government. You believe they were sponsored by Fox News. You believe they were racist, because they were solely anti-Obama. Oh, and that the only people at these Tea Parties were the frothing-at-the-mouth right wingers who like to chuck Bibles at you. Hmmm?
While there may be a few Tea Partiers who conform to these particular stereotypes, the majority of us do not feel that way, and were there for a more specific purpose.
To accuse these characterstics of being the sentiment of the majority is, quite frankly, naive and extremely obtuse on your part. Rather, let me explain what this was really about.
To clarify, I am going to say this once. And I am going to say it clearly.
The Tax Day Tea Parties were about IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING, they were about BIG GOVERNMENT and they were about our frustration with Washington. And yes, this includes everyone in Washington. We know enough to blame Bush, Obama, Congress, Barney Frank, etc., - ie, EVERYONE - rather than scream mindlessly "those liberals did it!" or that Obama "is the antichrist!"
This event was hardly partisan. It was never meant to be. It was purely a grassroots movement that MANY took part in - and yes, I met a few Libertarians and even more Democrats while I was wandering around the steps of the state capitol.
In this day and age, where there is widespread internet access, it is hardly expensive or difficult to spread the word when it comes to orgnanizing something like this. And please don't accuse us by being backed by multi-millionaire right wingers like one person I argued with.
He seemed to believe that pointing out the numerous amounts of teabags at each location was evidence of multi-millionaire conspiratorial funding. Because, tea bags are so darn expensive, you know?
Please. We didn't need a 'Rent-a-Mob' because we already have real one.
Not to say that we were rowdy or violent, as CNN's Susan Roesgen seemed to believe.
I couldn't help but roll my eyes when she complained to the camera that the Tea Parties were obvious, "Anti-CNN, and obviously not family viewing".
Not family viewing? Really, Susan? I mean, you did say right after talking to a dad who was holding his two-year-old son. Granted, you didn't really talk TO him so much as OVER him. All you did was inject your opinion with condescending snideness, and, frankly --- no one wants to hear it!
There are several reasons why no one wants to hear your opinion, Susan. (1)You are a news reporter. You aren't SUPPOSED to offer your opinion. That's the job of a news COMMENTATOR. (2)The reasoning behind your opinion was seriously flawed. Moreover, what you were spouting out had little to no relevance as far as the issues at hand were concerned.
And I quote, courtesy of a draft I found on Fox News:
The first problem is obvious. Roesgen spoke over the man and did not do her job. Now, granted, I think the guy was way off base talking about Lincoln and that he was taking time to get to the point, but that still didn't come anywhere near to giving her an excuse to talk over him.
Now if you want to see someone do a commendable job of facing down Roesgen, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVNfM0bwmXw
Naturally, this is courtesy of Founding Bloggers, not CNN. Once you watch it, you will understand why the CNN cameraman was ignoring this bit of drama. Would've made them look bad I suppose.
Now, about what Roesgen said. A $400 tax credit? Really? Technically speaking she's correct, depending on the guy's salary--- Obama HAS lowered taxes.
But this is hardly a significant amount. Point of reference? My father makes a six figure salary and gets approximately $11 back a week. And this is suppose to stimulate the economy? What the heck is he supposed to do with that? It doesn't even fill up a tank of gas!
The only reason Obama lowered taxes by the tiniest margin was for the sake of appeasement. So that he would be able to say "Hey, look at me, I lowered your taxes! I kept my promises right? Tax rates are the lowest they've been in a decade!" and, essentially, shut the mouths of those crazy greedy right wing people. Make them think they have no basis for complaint.
However, we do have cause to complain, and here's why.
Cutting taxes wasn't the only promise Obama made during his campaign, remember? He has also reiterated many times about how he would like to expand this social program, create that social program (universal health care anyone?), etc. But wait a second...where is he going to get all of that money? That means he'll have to raise taxes or cut government spending in other areas, right?
Usually these are the only two obvious choices. Since Obama has lowered taxes, most would naturally try to figure out where Obama is cutting government spending in order to compensate for it in other areas.
But the fact is, not only is he not trimming enough back, the little he does cut is in the wrong places. He refuses to weaponize space. He wants to cut back on our military spending.
You know, I'd say I'm disappointed in him, but for that to be true, I'd have to be surprised. As it stands, however, this is a typical move for someone like Obama. Apparently, he would rather expand AmeriCorps (courtesy legislation HR 1388) than the actual military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqhoiK8-Ww
What I find disturbingly hilarious is that he thinks we can win a war by cutting back on military spending. Oxymoron much? And as for "seeking a world without nuclear weapons", does he really think that refraining from developing them in America will stop OTHER countries from developing weapons? Hello? Mr. President? You can't tell them what to do! They won't listen. Especially if you *don't* have nuclear weapons, mind you.
But back to the point. I was talking about how Obama thinks he's going to pay for all of these social programs. Since he is not cutting enough in the right places, logically that just leaves us with raising taxes. If he decides to go that route, it would be simple for him to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 1.5 years. That way taxes would be brought up and then redistributed into the social programs Obama is so fond of.
However, what is really happening has nothing to do with raising taxes, or curbing government spending.
And it has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with the trillions of dollars that our federal government has manufactured out of thin air.
So what does this mean? Trillions of dollars can be pumped into federal programs. At the same time, your taxes will not be raised, because the government already has trillions that it pulled from thin air.
Thsi also means that once these trillions get into circulation, the individual dollar worth will plummet.
Essentially, this means the adminstration has taken monetary value from you without actually raising your taxes. In fact, they even tweaked your taxes a bit to make it technically the lowest rates in a decade. By doing this, they maintain the illusion of keeping all of their campaign promises. This buys them votes, which gets them power, which is, quite frankly, all they care about.
It's a terrible long term strategy, but excellent for short term. And considering we elect our officials in short term cycles, it's perfect for our politicians.
Susan Roesgen, are you listening? This is what the Tea Parties are about. Either you are willfully ignornat or woefully uninformed. In either case, you have no business pretending to be a journalist and embarrassing people like myself who wish to enter that field.
I'd like to leave with you with something I found quite informative and entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxG0Eo3QtY&feature=channel
Cheers, everyone.
You believe the protests were anti-taxation in general. You believe they were anti-CNN, anti government. You believe they were sponsored by Fox News. You believe they were racist, because they were solely anti-Obama. Oh, and that the only people at these Tea Parties were the frothing-at-the-mouth right wingers who like to chuck Bibles at you. Hmmm?
While there may be a few Tea Partiers who conform to these particular stereotypes, the majority of us do not feel that way, and were there for a more specific purpose.
To accuse these characterstics of being the sentiment of the majority is, quite frankly, naive and extremely obtuse on your part. Rather, let me explain what this was really about.
To clarify, I am going to say this once. And I am going to say it clearly.
The Tax Day Tea Parties were about IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING, they were about BIG GOVERNMENT and they were about our frustration with Washington. And yes, this includes everyone in Washington. We know enough to blame Bush, Obama, Congress, Barney Frank, etc., - ie, EVERYONE - rather than scream mindlessly "those liberals did it!" or that Obama "is the antichrist!"
This event was hardly partisan. It was never meant to be. It was purely a grassroots movement that MANY took part in - and yes, I met a few Libertarians and even more Democrats while I was wandering around the steps of the state capitol.
In this day and age, where there is widespread internet access, it is hardly expensive or difficult to spread the word when it comes to orgnanizing something like this. And please don't accuse us by being backed by multi-millionaire right wingers like one person I argued with.
He seemed to believe that pointing out the numerous amounts of teabags at each location was evidence of multi-millionaire conspiratorial funding. Because, tea bags are so darn expensive, you know?
Please. We didn't need a 'Rent-a-Mob' because we already have real one.
Not to say that we were rowdy or violent, as CNN's Susan Roesgen seemed to believe.
I couldn't help but roll my eyes when she complained to the camera that the Tea Parties were obvious, "Anti-CNN, and obviously not family viewing".
Not family viewing? Really, Susan? I mean, you did say right after talking to a dad who was holding his two-year-old son. Granted, you didn't really talk TO him so much as OVER him. All you did was inject your opinion with condescending snideness, and, frankly --- no one wants to hear it!
There are several reasons why no one wants to hear your opinion, Susan. (1)You are a news reporter. You aren't SUPPOSED to offer your opinion. That's the job of a news COMMENTATOR. (2)The reasoning behind your opinion was seriously flawed. Moreover, what you were spouting out had little to no relevance as far as the issues at hand were concerned.
And I quote, courtesy of a draft I found on Fox News:
SUSAN ROESGEN, CNN REPORTER: OK. You're here with your two-year-old and you're already in debt. Why are you here today?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed that people had the right to liberty and they had the right...
ROESGEN: Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me finish speaking.
ROESGEN: Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me finish my point. Lincoln believed that people had the right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it. And we have clearly gotten to that point.
ROESGEN: Wait. OK. Well, Kyra, we'll move on over here. I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network FOX, and since I can't really hear much more, and I think this is not really family viewing I'll toss it back to you, Kyra.
The first problem is obvious. Roesgen spoke over the man and did not do her job. Now, granted, I think the guy was way off base talking about Lincoln and that he was taking time to get to the point, but that still didn't come anywhere near to giving her an excuse to talk over him.
Now if you want to see someone do a commendable job of facing down Roesgen, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVNfM0bwmXw
Naturally, this is courtesy of Founding Bloggers, not CNN. Once you watch it, you will understand why the CNN cameraman was ignoring this bit of drama. Would've made them look bad I suppose.
Now, about what Roesgen said. A $400 tax credit? Really? Technically speaking she's correct, depending on the guy's salary--- Obama HAS lowered taxes.
But this is hardly a significant amount. Point of reference? My father makes a six figure salary and gets approximately $11 back a week. And this is suppose to stimulate the economy? What the heck is he supposed to do with that? It doesn't even fill up a tank of gas!
The only reason Obama lowered taxes by the tiniest margin was for the sake of appeasement. So that he would be able to say "Hey, look at me, I lowered your taxes! I kept my promises right? Tax rates are the lowest they've been in a decade!" and, essentially, shut the mouths of those crazy greedy right wing people. Make them think they have no basis for complaint.
However, we do have cause to complain, and here's why.
Cutting taxes wasn't the only promise Obama made during his campaign, remember? He has also reiterated many times about how he would like to expand this social program, create that social program (universal health care anyone?), etc. But wait a second...where is he going to get all of that money? That means he'll have to raise taxes or cut government spending in other areas, right?
Usually these are the only two obvious choices. Since Obama has lowered taxes, most would naturally try to figure out where Obama is cutting government spending in order to compensate for it in other areas.
But the fact is, not only is he not trimming enough back, the little he does cut is in the wrong places. He refuses to weaponize space. He wants to cut back on our military spending.
You know, I'd say I'm disappointed in him, but for that to be true, I'd have to be surprised. As it stands, however, this is a typical move for someone like Obama. Apparently, he would rather expand AmeriCorps (courtesy legislation HR 1388) than the actual military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqhoiK8-Ww
What I find disturbingly hilarious is that he thinks we can win a war by cutting back on military spending. Oxymoron much? And as for "seeking a world without nuclear weapons", does he really think that refraining from developing them in America will stop OTHER countries from developing weapons? Hello? Mr. President? You can't tell them what to do! They won't listen. Especially if you *don't* have nuclear weapons, mind you.
But back to the point. I was talking about how Obama thinks he's going to pay for all of these social programs. Since he is not cutting enough in the right places, logically that just leaves us with raising taxes. If he decides to go that route, it would be simple for him to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 1.5 years. That way taxes would be brought up and then redistributed into the social programs Obama is so fond of.
However, what is really happening has nothing to do with raising taxes, or curbing government spending.
And it has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with the trillions of dollars that our federal government has manufactured out of thin air.
So what does this mean? Trillions of dollars can be pumped into federal programs. At the same time, your taxes will not be raised, because the government already has trillions that it pulled from thin air.
Thsi also means that once these trillions get into circulation, the individual dollar worth will plummet.
Essentially, this means the adminstration has taken monetary value from you without actually raising your taxes. In fact, they even tweaked your taxes a bit to make it technically the lowest rates in a decade. By doing this, they maintain the illusion of keeping all of their campaign promises. This buys them votes, which gets them power, which is, quite frankly, all they care about.
It's a terrible long term strategy, but excellent for short term. And considering we elect our officials in short term cycles, it's perfect for our politicians.
Susan Roesgen, are you listening? This is what the Tea Parties are about. Either you are willfully ignornat or woefully uninformed. In either case, you have no business pretending to be a journalist and embarrassing people like myself who wish to enter that field.
I'd like to leave with you with something I found quite informative and entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxG0Eo3QtY&feature=channel
Cheers, everyone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
