Specifically with respect to oil consumption.
It is always nice to hear people discussing conservation, but it often misses much of the point. I would love for every selfish jackass driving a Hummer or a Suburban or the like around town to stop (the 1% or less of SUV drivers who actually need such a vehicle are excluded...none of them drive Cadillac or Porsche or Lexus or probably Hummer). I would love if the feds would initiate a high gas guzzler tax for cars less than five years old or with values under $10k (reasons here). I would love it if people in this country would really, truly conserve. But we won't, and for myriad reasons, but the largest is that we don't really know what it means.
Gas prices are high, yes. Behemoth SUV's are partially responsible, yes. Gasoline demand is the reason demand is outpacing supply, maybe. The problem is that, while a fair amount of the oil use in this country is for gasoline, that is not all of it. From homes that use oil for heat to the power generators in this country, the vast majority of which are fossil fuel generators (both coal and oil), to the various industries that require oil as a raw material for manufacture (plastics, chemical plants, ...), the dependence that this nation has on oil is enormous. True conservation will require far more than improving the average gas milage of automobiles. True conservation will not occur until we have no choice. The government can give us no choice by outlawing new and late model vehicles that don't get at least 25+ mpg. They can limit the amount of power/gas allowed per citizen in this country. They can, but they shouldn't.
Restrictions don't do a good job of accounting for need. Workarounds will always favor those with the means. Tax breaks/penalties do a better job of getting those with means to conserve more, but they tend to, again, favor wealthier individuals, and often go to those who would do such things anyway. In large cities subsidized public transit and use of tolls/taxes for driving on the streets could be good, but the latter will never happen, and the former is all but useless without it. I am a big fan of severe gas taxes (gas should cost a minimum of $3/gal), but they must be implimented nationwide, not just in Chicago, and it is a bad move politically, so it won't happen anyway. The only real fix is individual responsibility, and I weep for the future.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
Dropouts
Okay, I know that I am generally talking about how education is imporant and all, but this really does not bother me too much. I believe strongly in having and educated public, but, for me, an educated public is one that can think for itself, not one that knows a lot of stuff. This education is born of experience, not classrom learning, at least not the way most classrooms operate. What is the real motivation for someone to stay in high school?
People frequently cite the discrepencies in pay between those with and without high school degrees. That does not mean that finishing high school will improve the pay you will receive, though. It means that people who finish high school are, by and large, more motivated to excell, or at least improve themselves. That motivation is what drives the discrepency. Can that be taught? No, not really. People can learn more things, but someone who doesn't want to put forth effort in their life will not necessarily find such motivation in a bit of extra knowledge.
Specific jobs have varying educational requirements, but someone who has a target job in mind, likely has the motivation required already.
Parents, family, friends. For most people, dropout or not, these are the seeds of motivation for their lives. This is where all people start and find the will and the drive to continue. The government can not provide these things, nor can it fix problems that relate to them. Not through the educational system anyway. If the dropout rate rises, falls, or remains the same it is most likely an indicator that home life, on average, is improving, degrading, or going unchanged. The government can not really fix home lives, but it can help. Social welfare, tax cuts to the POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS, police and other such programs are all things that can help. Fix these and dropout rates will take care of themselves. Fix these, and kids will find motivation in a happier home. Ignore them, and nothing changes.
People frequently cite the discrepencies in pay between those with and without high school degrees. That does not mean that finishing high school will improve the pay you will receive, though. It means that people who finish high school are, by and large, more motivated to excell, or at least improve themselves. That motivation is what drives the discrepency. Can that be taught? No, not really. People can learn more things, but someone who doesn't want to put forth effort in their life will not necessarily find such motivation in a bit of extra knowledge.
Specific jobs have varying educational requirements, but someone who has a target job in mind, likely has the motivation required already.
Parents, family, friends. For most people, dropout or not, these are the seeds of motivation for their lives. This is where all people start and find the will and the drive to continue. The government can not provide these things, nor can it fix problems that relate to them. Not through the educational system anyway. If the dropout rate rises, falls, or remains the same it is most likely an indicator that home life, on average, is improving, degrading, or going unchanged. The government can not really fix home lives, but it can help. Social welfare, tax cuts to the POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS, police and other such programs are all things that can help. Fix these and dropout rates will take care of themselves. Fix these, and kids will find motivation in a happier home. Ignore them, and nothing changes.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Corruption
(Ick, this is too prosaic, even for me. This is hardly a complete discussion, or even rant, but it won't get any better with out getting even more tedious. I'm posting it anyway...)
It's a popular topic this election year, and I'm sure many have brought up what will be shown as my view of it. Corruption is not equal to illegal. There are illegal activities that have brought corruption to the forefront of politics, but there is no way congress is going to fix the broken machine because the legal corruption is rampant.
Let's suppose you are elected to congress (either the House or Senate). Let's suppose you are a "good" congressman/woman and do everything you should. You sit on your committees, you vote on every bill, and you are present every day congress is in session (barring illness/death in the family/other emergency). You will work, in the Capitol, about 100 days in a year. There are 260 weekdays in a year. There are 10 federal holidays; a new employee typically gets 10 days paid vacation; I'll add another 10 days miscelanious time off. So there are 230 work days in a year. Your congressional work is less than half that. The remaining time is supposedly meant for spending in your district/state finding out what your constituents need and want. But that job is now done by polling, which is done and analyzed by various staff members.
Further, due to volume, most of the reading of congressional documents is done by staff who then summarize it for the congressperson. Speaches are written by speachwriters. Email and letters are read by aids first. Some may get passed on to the congressperson, but there are form responses for many hot button issues. What does congress spend its spare time doing? Mostly fundraising. This is work, of a sort. For big name politicians it often involves pricy dinners and speaches. For freshmen (and freswomen, grumble) it may be a more personal experience.
Now these are generalities, and the smaller you go, the more representative your representative will be. At the national level, however, there is not enough time to be that personal. Of course there is too much time to not be, so there should be a balance struck, and there is sometimes, but more often, the result is too much power, too much free time and too many people courting that power that are not constituents.
It's a popular topic this election year, and I'm sure many have brought up what will be shown as my view of it. Corruption is not equal to illegal. There are illegal activities that have brought corruption to the forefront of politics, but there is no way congress is going to fix the broken machine because the legal corruption is rampant.
Let's suppose you are elected to congress (either the House or Senate). Let's suppose you are a "good" congressman/woman and do everything you should. You sit on your committees, you vote on every bill, and you are present every day congress is in session (barring illness/death in the family/other emergency). You will work, in the Capitol, about 100 days in a year. There are 260 weekdays in a year. There are 10 federal holidays; a new employee typically gets 10 days paid vacation; I'll add another 10 days miscelanious time off. So there are 230 work days in a year. Your congressional work is less than half that. The remaining time is supposedly meant for spending in your district/state finding out what your constituents need and want. But that job is now done by polling, which is done and analyzed by various staff members.
Further, due to volume, most of the reading of congressional documents is done by staff who then summarize it for the congressperson. Speaches are written by speachwriters. Email and letters are read by aids first. Some may get passed on to the congressperson, but there are form responses for many hot button issues. What does congress spend its spare time doing? Mostly fundraising. This is work, of a sort. For big name politicians it often involves pricy dinners and speaches. For freshmen (and freswomen, grumble) it may be a more personal experience.
Now these are generalities, and the smaller you go, the more representative your representative will be. At the national level, however, there is not enough time to be that personal. Of course there is too much time to not be, so there should be a balance struck, and there is sometimes, but more often, the result is too much power, too much free time and too many people courting that power that are not constituents.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Silly Government,
Decisions are for citizens. We are getting fat. No denying it. How should we fix the problem? ... Oh, I know, we should have the government limit our ability to make decisions regarding our own health and habbits! After we eliminate junk food from schools, we can outlaw fast food restaurants. Then we can implement manditory exercise. At least one half hour per day of cardio, and probably some calisthenics as well. (light sarcasm, and by light I mean heavy)
Look, I don't eat a lot of junk food--mostly because I think it's a waste of money, of which I don't have much--but I sure liked it when I was in elementary through high school and didn't need to spend my little allowance on things like rent, dog food, and electricity (or real food, I suppose). Of course I also liked running around, playing soccer, basketball, and, in high school, track and field. I didn't need legislation to keep from becoming a Hut (as in Jabba) because I had parents who didn't provide tons of junk. I learned to make cookies in grade school because that was about the only way for me to get cookies. There was plenty of junk in our cafeteria and vending machines, but I never had money enough to buy it (and I would have if I had).
Today, I am definately a touch overweight (by BMI, I think I'm obeise, but BMI is very flawed for those with higher muscle mass), but that is primarally due to college: lots of beer, pizza and video games with little activity to offset--intramural sports can't even begin to compare with varsity high school sports in terms of practice and hard work. I think that this country is getting fatter, but, oddly enough, I also think that it is getting thinner. I think the latter is part of the problem. For decades women's lib groups have brought up the fact that women in public view (typically celebrities from TV, movies, modeling) present a rediculously skinny image, and that impressionable girls try and emulate this, often can't, and either end up anorexic or depressed and fat. Generalizations aside this is not too far off and has, more recently, been extended to men's images. Actually, this rant could go on for a while so I'm going to end it here with the note that obsession about something rarely helps, and this nation is obsessed with fat. ...Also, America, get off you ass and move.
Look, I don't eat a lot of junk food--mostly because I think it's a waste of money, of which I don't have much--but I sure liked it when I was in elementary through high school and didn't need to spend my little allowance on things like rent, dog food, and electricity (or real food, I suppose). Of course I also liked running around, playing soccer, basketball, and, in high school, track and field. I didn't need legislation to keep from becoming a Hut (as in Jabba) because I had parents who didn't provide tons of junk. I learned to make cookies in grade school because that was about the only way for me to get cookies. There was plenty of junk in our cafeteria and vending machines, but I never had money enough to buy it (and I would have if I had).
Today, I am definately a touch overweight (by BMI, I think I'm obeise, but BMI is very flawed for those with higher muscle mass), but that is primarally due to college: lots of beer, pizza and video games with little activity to offset--intramural sports can't even begin to compare with varsity high school sports in terms of practice and hard work. I think that this country is getting fatter, but, oddly enough, I also think that it is getting thinner. I think the latter is part of the problem. For decades women's lib groups have brought up the fact that women in public view (typically celebrities from TV, movies, modeling) present a rediculously skinny image, and that impressionable girls try and emulate this, often can't, and either end up anorexic or depressed and fat. Generalizations aside this is not too far off and has, more recently, been extended to men's images. Actually, this rant could go on for a while so I'm going to end it here with the note that obsession about something rarely helps, and this nation is obsessed with fat. ...Also, America, get off you ass and move.
Thought Police at Work
Look, I know people are frightened out of their wits by the notion of terrorism, and teenage killing sprees, but at what point did it become okay to criminalize planning? Hell, an author may have ellaborate and workable assaniation/terrorism plans that he/she will use for a novel. Maybe we should arrest all fiction writers.
So, in this case, another group of teenagers was planning a massacre at their high school. My guess is that we would be hard pressed to find a high school in this country where there are not teenagers with similar thoughts. High school is a bitch, whether you are a popular student or not. When I was in high school I knew students who talked about killing others. One in particular was probably the most frightening as he did have a couple assault rifles at his house, but another was a good friend of mine, he had a few guns at his place (a .22 handgun and a bolt action, small guage rifle). Could either of them, or any of the others who had similar thoughts/made similar jokes, have snapped? Sure, maybe. Did they? No...at least not while in high school. I haven't exactly kept up and anything is possible, but I seriously doubt that they have since, either.
There are always people who would rather certain others were not around, many may joke/talk/fantasize about them dying or being killed in some gruesome manner. No matter what a person thinks about, they are not criminals until they act. They may need help. They may need to be removed from the environment. They should not be put in jail.
These students (aged 14 to 16) are being charged under an anti-terrorism law, and could be tried as adults. If convicted as adults they would receive a minimum 30 year sentance with no parole. Minimum. Why would this country rather hurt than help?
So, in this case, another group of teenagers was planning a massacre at their high school. My guess is that we would be hard pressed to find a high school in this country where there are not teenagers with similar thoughts. High school is a bitch, whether you are a popular student or not. When I was in high school I knew students who talked about killing others. One in particular was probably the most frightening as he did have a couple assault rifles at his house, but another was a good friend of mine, he had a few guns at his place (a .22 handgun and a bolt action, small guage rifle). Could either of them, or any of the others who had similar thoughts/made similar jokes, have snapped? Sure, maybe. Did they? No...at least not while in high school. I haven't exactly kept up and anything is possible, but I seriously doubt that they have since, either.
There are always people who would rather certain others were not around, many may joke/talk/fantasize about them dying or being killed in some gruesome manner. No matter what a person thinks about, they are not criminals until they act. They may need help. They may need to be removed from the environment. They should not be put in jail.
These students (aged 14 to 16) are being charged under an anti-terrorism law, and could be tried as adults. If convicted as adults they would receive a minimum 30 year sentance with no parole. Minimum. Why would this country rather hurt than help?
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Bleach is for the Weak
I really can't stand the whole disinfect, bleach, sanatize the hell out of everything idea that has grown so prevalent over the last 10-20 years. (It really infuriates my sister.) It generates massive amounts of waste, much of it is chemical in nature (households can generate more chemical pollution than research chemical labs, also, overfertilization of lawns leads to more runoff per acre in subarbs than on farms), and, though it has been suspected/known for a while, it also weakens our, and our children's, immune systems. I love it when a new study comes out concerning this because I feel as though the antibacterial crowd will feel unbearably stupid. I know they really won't. People that oversanitize are influenced by commercials, not research, they don't read/pay attention to the news. They are idiots who will not learn. They probably buy hybrids and think that makes them good stewards. Still, this does allow me to continue with my knowledge that my lack of allergies/asthma is an indication that I am stronger/better than the rest of you.
Amusing, Anyway
I think I'll take credit for this even though it is completely undeserved. The whole thing may not be over with but the apology is still good. I really just hope we do not hear any more about it, though that is unlikely.
Hold on
On the radio this morning I heard about something called the Second Wives' Club. It's basically (advertised as) a support type group for women who are married to men who have a (at least one) divorce in their past. They deal with current spouses making alimony/child support payments to their ex, they talk about visitations and the like. All and good, right, then there was the last line:
"Single divorced men are welcome"
Now I'm confused. The first reason that jumps to mind for this (single?) is that the second wives' club is a player's club. I know there may be other reasons, like getting the male perspective, or educating other divorcees so that they will better understand their next wife's concerns. But that's not what it sounds like. It's just, well, strange.
"Single divorced men are welcome"
Now I'm confused. The first reason that jumps to mind for this (single?) is that the second wives' club is a player's club. I know there may be other reasons, like getting the male perspective, or educating other divorcees so that they will better understand their next wife's concerns. But that's not what it sounds like. It's just, well, strange.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Gee, Mr. President How Do We Fix...
... "Tax cuts for the rich! Yippee!" -paraphrase of Dubbya's entire economic policy.
So it's no surprise. Anyone with an I.Q. greater than 12 who actually thought about the GW Bush tax cuts already knows that the only thing it really helps is the rich to get richer. The article pisses me off. Why does anyone like this president?
Probably the more frustrating thing is the economist who says the cuts should be permanent because they stimulate job growth by encouraging more investment. I may have said this before but it bears repeating: WE DON'T NEED TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN THE STOCK MARKET. (Damn caps lock key.)
The stock market does a fine job of encouraging investment by being, year in year out, the best place to invest. Period. (Edit: well, aside from real estate, which requires even more money and is where extra tax breaks to the ultra rich likely end up anyway, not the stock market.) A better way to bolster the stock market may be to strengthen the companies by encouraging spending which will increase demand stimulating stocks and encouraging growth and employment (of course the increases in employment will likey be in India). So where does the government get the most spending increase per tax cut dollar??? That's right, from the poorer and middle classes. People who don't have extra money to invest, won't take their tax refund and pour it into the stock market, they will use it to make purchases. This stimulates an economy. Pouring more money into a stock market full of companies who are not increasing revenue stimulates market crashes when people pull their heads out of their asses and realize how overvalued things have been and that they were investing because they had the money, not because there were good investments.
Giving more money back to poorer individuals and families will always do good for the economy. It is also a much cheaper proposition. Of course some of those might start getting ideas in their heads and this nation may see the rise of a large group of people who demand a living wage, and that could even lead to a lessening of the gap between the rich and poor, which is now greater in the US than in was in Britan in the 18th century. Wait, wait, nevermind, that last thing will never happen.
So it's no surprise. Anyone with an I.Q. greater than 12 who actually thought about the GW Bush tax cuts already knows that the only thing it really helps is the rich to get richer. The article pisses me off. Why does anyone like this president?
Probably the more frustrating thing is the economist who says the cuts should be permanent because they stimulate job growth by encouraging more investment. I may have said this before but it bears repeating: WE DON'T NEED TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN THE STOCK MARKET. (Damn caps lock key.)
The stock market does a fine job of encouraging investment by being, year in year out, the best place to invest. Period. (Edit: well, aside from real estate, which requires even more money and is where extra tax breaks to the ultra rich likely end up anyway, not the stock market.) A better way to bolster the stock market may be to strengthen the companies by encouraging spending which will increase demand stimulating stocks and encouraging growth and employment (of course the increases in employment will likey be in India). So where does the government get the most spending increase per tax cut dollar??? That's right, from the poorer and middle classes. People who don't have extra money to invest, won't take their tax refund and pour it into the stock market, they will use it to make purchases. This stimulates an economy. Pouring more money into a stock market full of companies who are not increasing revenue stimulates market crashes when people pull their heads out of their asses and realize how overvalued things have been and that they were investing because they had the money, not because there were good investments.
Giving more money back to poorer individuals and families will always do good for the economy. It is also a much cheaper proposition. Of course some of those might start getting ideas in their heads and this nation may see the rise of a large group of people who demand a living wage, and that could even lead to a lessening of the gap between the rich and poor, which is now greater in the US than in was in Britan in the 18th century. Wait, wait, nevermind, that last thing will never happen.
The Poor Congresswoman
Rep Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is screaming racism and looking like a complete jackass. I'm pretty sure that if I had walked my white male butt through there, not going through the metal detector, not stopping when asked, and then hitting a guard I would have been tackled, dragged off in cuffs and had to stay in jail a night, and rightly so. If I had been allowed to continue then I'm sure Rep. McKinney would be in support of some bill that would toughen security, like setting a taser point for entrants who don't listen to the guards.
There are 535 senators and representatives (a handfull of faces change every two years). Even for a guard that has been there a long time, if one of those people makes a change in their appearance (like shaving a beard, or changing from cornrows to an afro) then they may not get the instant recognition and you should be expected to have to stop. Moreover, her whining about this is only serving to set herself up as a talking point so that Republicans can, once again, ignore the problems in this country and distract its voters.
To Rep. McKinney: apologize, shut up, and sit down. You are only hurting [the possibilities for] this country by being (in perception if not in fact) an uppity, whiny bitch. Even if you are right about racism being the factor, your approach to this is horribly off base. You sound like a spoiled brat. You sound like King George "Dubbya" acts.
There are 535 senators and representatives (a handfull of faces change every two years). Even for a guard that has been there a long time, if one of those people makes a change in their appearance (like shaving a beard, or changing from cornrows to an afro) then they may not get the instant recognition and you should be expected to have to stop. Moreover, her whining about this is only serving to set herself up as a talking point so that Republicans can, once again, ignore the problems in this country and distract its voters.
To Rep. McKinney: apologize, shut up, and sit down. You are only hurting [the possibilities for] this country by being (in perception if not in fact) an uppity, whiny bitch. Even if you are right about racism being the factor, your approach to this is horribly off base. You sound like a spoiled brat. You sound like King George "Dubbya" acts.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Concern for Americans and Compassion for Immigrants...
...are not mutually exclusive. So, Lou Dobbs speaks for working Americans now? According to him:
"One of the things that frustrates many of us who care about our country and the truth is the rampant barrage of misinformation, disseminated by such vociferous special interests, whether they are ethnocentric social activists, labor unions, the Catholic Church or Corporate America. The truth is advocates of amnesty, guest-worker programs and open borders are unconcerned about the 280 million American citizens, the men and women of this country who work for a living and their families."
First off, social activists, labor unions, and the Catholic Church may be special interests, but they are, in order, pro humanity, pro American worker, and pro life (not meaning anti-abortion here, but in support of all life in all places). If they can be described as vociferous then it only because they have been consistently ignored, trampled on, and discounted by those in power. Even mentioning them in the same sentence with corporate America is indicative of the complete absense of a clue. Corporate America is getting its way more now than at any time since the great trusts and monopolies were brought down, in fact they are being built back up.
More importantly wishing/asking/hoping for kindness and mercy towards those who come here seaking a better life is not demonstrating a lack of concern for "280 million American citizens." It is extending concern to those who need it more. At the same time, something that a majority of Americans want is not the same as something that is best for them. Most people would choose to eat chocolate and ice cream over spinach and brussels sprouts. Now there is an obesity epidemic. Immigration is very complex and most people are only motivated by a few noisy talking point individuals (like ol' Lou). The decision that they would make would not be informed because our news organizations no longer seek to inform. They want to yell over the others screamers, they want to entertain. People getting along and caring for others doesn't sell like controversy and violence. Open borders may not be the answer, but neither is crimanalizing those who hope for better for themselves and thier children.
"One of the things that frustrates many of us who care about our country and the truth is the rampant barrage of misinformation, disseminated by such vociferous special interests, whether they are ethnocentric social activists, labor unions, the Catholic Church or Corporate America. The truth is advocates of amnesty, guest-worker programs and open borders are unconcerned about the 280 million American citizens, the men and women of this country who work for a living and their families."
First off, social activists, labor unions, and the Catholic Church may be special interests, but they are, in order, pro humanity, pro American worker, and pro life (not meaning anti-abortion here, but in support of all life in all places). If they can be described as vociferous then it only because they have been consistently ignored, trampled on, and discounted by those in power. Even mentioning them in the same sentence with corporate America is indicative of the complete absense of a clue. Corporate America is getting its way more now than at any time since the great trusts and monopolies were brought down, in fact they are being built back up.
More importantly wishing/asking/hoping for kindness and mercy towards those who come here seaking a better life is not demonstrating a lack of concern for "280 million American citizens." It is extending concern to those who need it more. At the same time, something that a majority of Americans want is not the same as something that is best for them. Most people would choose to eat chocolate and ice cream over spinach and brussels sprouts. Now there is an obesity epidemic. Immigration is very complex and most people are only motivated by a few noisy talking point individuals (like ol' Lou). The decision that they would make would not be informed because our news organizations no longer seek to inform. They want to yell over the others screamers, they want to entertain. People getting along and caring for others doesn't sell like controversy and violence. Open borders may not be the answer, but neither is crimanalizing those who hope for better for themselves and thier children.
Lazy French
Ok, this is incomprehensible to me. It's like labor unions run amok. I heard about this years ago; it is rather pervasive in Europe (less so in Britan). Basically once you get a job, you're pretty much guaranteed to keep it, short of the company going under or something. The government(s) protect workers jobs by making so difficult to fire someone that companies are forced to keep incompetent/lazy workers. This means that companies are somewhat less likely to hire someone since they won't be able to fire them if they are useless. The result of overprotecting workers is abnormally high unemployment (usually 2-5 times that in the US). (Incidently this also stifles innovation which is why the U.S., Japan, Korea, etc. tend to have growing economies and more research, and why Citroen will never beat Subaru for sales/quality/anything.)
Students are rioting opposing a bill that would change this (easing policy so companies can release dead wood). So they appear to be putting forth more effort now than they plan on doing once they get a job. Otherwise why protest? If you plan on doing your job well, then there would be little to worry about. Oh, well, this is one of those reasons why Europe will always lag the US in terms of economies, innovation, invention, research, unemployment... Yes, there will be accomplishments, but fewer and less significant. It's a shame too, because there is no reason to think the people there are any less capable than here, the environment is just not right.
Students are rioting opposing a bill that would change this (easing policy so companies can release dead wood). So they appear to be putting forth more effort now than they plan on doing once they get a job. Otherwise why protest? If you plan on doing your job well, then there would be little to worry about. Oh, well, this is one of those reasons why Europe will always lag the US in terms of economies, innovation, invention, research, unemployment... Yes, there will be accomplishments, but fewer and less significant. It's a shame too, because there is no reason to think the people there are any less capable than here, the environment is just not right.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Jobs and the American Dream
It has always been seemingly clear that there are plenty of jobs available in this country but people are seldom willing to compromise and take them. Retail, sanitation, manual labor (especially roofing/painting/non-skilled construction) are jobs that many feel are beneath them. Even people without some higher education.
I remember in high school being somewhat reluctant to admit that I was working at a McDonald's, but was very quick to tell about my job at Black Eyed Pea (which may have gone under since). There is no good reason for this...well maybe the fact that McD's paid minimum wage ($5.65 at the time), but I managed over $10/hr with tips at the Pea. And that is the crux of the matter. Money. Money makes the unseemly more workable. Many (most?) women would never consider stripping, but when those that do can take in $100-$1000 per hour it kind of makes me jealous. Sanitation workers (garbagemen...and women) may have a rather disgusting, smelly job, but if they are taking home $70k+ per year with full benefits working no more than 40 hrs/week, well, why not? One of the problems is that the American dream, which used to be that by working hard we can do better than our parents, has become a bit tarnished.
My parents were able to buy a house right out of college with one income and two children. For most people leaving college now, that is not possible. The cost of housing is prohibitive. Salaries have not increased at nearly the same rate as cost of living because of the housing issue. Debt has increased at all levels, but for those between 19 and 30 Debt is a more significant problem. There is no house to refinance to eliminate credit card debt. The cost of education and the resultant student loans are through the stratosphere. There is no forseeable way out in the near future. Many people, even capable, hard working individuals see things like the lottery and get rich quick schemes as real ways out. They are not, of course, but their success is an indication of how bad things really are. I want a house. I can not get one because of debt (mostly student loans). I cannot reduce my debt without a house.
I do see a way out...for me...in the next few years. That doesn't mean that I am any less frustrated right now. That doesn't mean others can see a way out for themselves. The government will not do what is necessary to help (increase grant money for students by at least ten-fold). The lottery jackpot is over $100 million again.....
I remember in high school being somewhat reluctant to admit that I was working at a McDonald's, but was very quick to tell about my job at Black Eyed Pea (which may have gone under since). There is no good reason for this...well maybe the fact that McD's paid minimum wage ($5.65 at the time), but I managed over $10/hr with tips at the Pea. And that is the crux of the matter. Money. Money makes the unseemly more workable. Many (most?) women would never consider stripping, but when those that do can take in $100-$1000 per hour it kind of makes me jealous. Sanitation workers (garbagemen...and women) may have a rather disgusting, smelly job, but if they are taking home $70k+ per year with full benefits working no more than 40 hrs/week, well, why not? One of the problems is that the American dream, which used to be that by working hard we can do better than our parents, has become a bit tarnished.
My parents were able to buy a house right out of college with one income and two children. For most people leaving college now, that is not possible. The cost of housing is prohibitive. Salaries have not increased at nearly the same rate as cost of living because of the housing issue. Debt has increased at all levels, but for those between 19 and 30 Debt is a more significant problem. There is no house to refinance to eliminate credit card debt. The cost of education and the resultant student loans are through the stratosphere. There is no forseeable way out in the near future. Many people, even capable, hard working individuals see things like the lottery and get rich quick schemes as real ways out. They are not, of course, but their success is an indication of how bad things really are. I want a house. I can not get one because of debt (mostly student loans). I cannot reduce my debt without a house.
I do see a way out...for me...in the next few years. That doesn't mean that I am any less frustrated right now. That doesn't mean others can see a way out for themselves. The government will not do what is necessary to help (increase grant money for students by at least ten-fold). The lottery jackpot is over $100 million again.....
Monday, March 27, 2006
F-bomb
Is there anyone out there, over the age of five who does not know what word is represtned by: f***, f-bomb, the 'F' word, f---in' a', 'F', fuuuuuudge? How about: s--- or a-- or any other substitued swear. When someone is clearly angry and that person uses a word like crap, shoot, dang, screw (you), or rajafragin', is there anyone who doesn't imagine the analogues in their head? I have no problem with swearing, and do so often. It doesn't come up often here because I generally consider it crude when writing. There are typically far more amusing ways to express disgust/anger/frustration. But sometimes you really just need to say: "What...the...fuck?!?"
Friday, March 24, 2006
If you missed it...
Thankfully those of us who did not see CBS' "Without a Trace" episode featuring flashback clips to "a teenage sexual orgy" can see the softcore free of charge at the two sites below. Thank goodness these intrepid souls working to keep offensive material off of my tv set have the courtesy to post the offensive material online, where anyone can see it, repeatedly. I haven't been able to find this elsewhere, and I looked. You can even, thankfully, save the video to your hard drive. Hopefully someone will clean it up so that the offensive material, particularly the exposed breasts (in profile) can be more clearly seen. Thank you parentstv.org for providing the quasi-softcore material many [children] have been looking for but blocked by filters from seeing. It's good stuff.
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/content.htm
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/bw/2005/0102worst.asp
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/content.htm
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/bw/2005/0102worst.asp
UPenn is Doing Good
Even though I don't really consider $50k a year "low income," this is pretty cool. You know, I would really like to work there.
On that note, if someone from the Penn chemistry department stumbles by here, my research work will be fundamentally electrochemical with focuses (focci?) on nanomaterials--particularly with regard to photochemical properties (ECL, photo-initiated heterogeneous electron transfer)--and biological analysis (e.g. cyclic voltammetric SECM). I believe that teaching less by lecture and more with interaction (within small student groups and between the students and instructors) produces better results and more capable thinkers. Certainly presentations/lectures will still be used, but as one component, rather than the only one. I do not think that homework should ever lower a grade. I do not have a problem with failing a student who performs poorly because I believe that, in college, it is the responsibility of the students to know if they are struggling. Letters of recommendation are available upon request.
Also, don't worry if I am elected to Congress, they work less than 100 days/year, and you could pay my (faculty) salary to the chemistry department, rather than to me...until I lose in the next election.
On that note, if someone from the Penn chemistry department stumbles by here, my research work will be fundamentally electrochemical with focuses (focci?) on nanomaterials--particularly with regard to photochemical properties (ECL, photo-initiated heterogeneous electron transfer)--and biological analysis (e.g. cyclic voltammetric SECM). I believe that teaching less by lecture and more with interaction (within small student groups and between the students and instructors) produces better results and more capable thinkers. Certainly presentations/lectures will still be used, but as one component, rather than the only one. I do not think that homework should ever lower a grade. I do not have a problem with failing a student who performs poorly because I believe that, in college, it is the responsibility of the students to know if they are struggling. Letters of recommendation are available upon request.
Also, don't worry if I am elected to Congress, they work less than 100 days/year, and you could pay my (faculty) salary to the chemistry department, rather than to me...until I lose in the next election.
Like they Know
So there is a Florida proposal to require high school students pick majors. High school students? Pick majors?
"'It's just stuff I don't think I'm really going to need for the job I want,' Lila said. 'I'd probably like it if I had more things to help me in the future.'"
- 15 year old Lila Zoghbi (wants to be an engineer)
Yes, she is an honor student. I'm sure she will be a very successful person. Right now, however, she lacks the wisdom, understanding, knowledge base, and foresight necessary to discern which of the things she is learning now will be helpful in her future. Neither are her parents, politicians, or even teachers able to know such things. I know this will come as a huge surprise, but the future is UNKNOWN. "Woah, really?!?" Yes, really. Even if her career choice is known and plays out as she sees it now, that does not change that she can not discern these things. Because while science and math courses have obvious associations with engineering, the effect of social studies, literature, fine arts, foreign language, et cetera is less clear. Most people think these things are important, but to what degree? Do they produce better personal skills, more complete and capable voters/citizens? Do they just allow someone to have a greater appreciation of the variety in life? No matter how many studies are done, we will never really know.
Beyond that, someone who wants to be an engineer is going to go to college, where she/he will receive all of the [engineer] specific training that he/she needs. There is no reason to target high school courses to a career. Further, core high school curricula are far from demanding for "...honor students with high ambitions..." they are virtually non-existant. If these students are so horribly bored they should take more classes, they must have room for it. I finished high school with about twice the state required classes. There was plenty of room for me to take lots of extra math, science, foreign language and fine arts (plus extra social studies and religion classes--it was a Catholic school). If Florida's school system is so strapped for cash that students are not allowed to enroll in full schedules, then that is the real problem. If students want to take more, targeted classes, that is fine, but they should never come at the expense of other coursework. If they must then either the student is in fact lazy, or the state funding is insufficient. Pushing people to choose careers earlier and earlier is a good way to make the population less and less capable.
"'It's just stuff I don't think I'm really going to need for the job I want,' Lila said. 'I'd probably like it if I had more things to help me in the future.'"
- 15 year old Lila Zoghbi (wants to be an engineer)
Yes, she is an honor student. I'm sure she will be a very successful person. Right now, however, she lacks the wisdom, understanding, knowledge base, and foresight necessary to discern which of the things she is learning now will be helpful in her future. Neither are her parents, politicians, or even teachers able to know such things. I know this will come as a huge surprise, but the future is UNKNOWN. "Woah, really?!?" Yes, really. Even if her career choice is known and plays out as she sees it now, that does not change that she can not discern these things. Because while science and math courses have obvious associations with engineering, the effect of social studies, literature, fine arts, foreign language, et cetera is less clear. Most people think these things are important, but to what degree? Do they produce better personal skills, more complete and capable voters/citizens? Do they just allow someone to have a greater appreciation of the variety in life? No matter how many studies are done, we will never really know.
Beyond that, someone who wants to be an engineer is going to go to college, where she/he will receive all of the [engineer] specific training that he/she needs. There is no reason to target high school courses to a career. Further, core high school curricula are far from demanding for "...honor students with high ambitions..." they are virtually non-existant. If these students are so horribly bored they should take more classes, they must have room for it. I finished high school with about twice the state required classes. There was plenty of room for me to take lots of extra math, science, foreign language and fine arts (plus extra social studies and religion classes--it was a Catholic school). If Florida's school system is so strapped for cash that students are not allowed to enroll in full schedules, then that is the real problem. If students want to take more, targeted classes, that is fine, but they should never come at the expense of other coursework. If they must then either the student is in fact lazy, or the state funding is insufficient. Pushing people to choose careers earlier and earlier is a good way to make the population less and less capable.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
On War and Posting.
Someone, I think Albert Einstein, once asked Sigmund Freud why we have war. His answer was Civilization and its Discontents which taught people to never ask Freud a question at parties. A rediculously simplified summary is that society places constraints on people that prevents them from acting as they would like, and war is [an] outlet. It is a way for societal stress to be released.
The internet provides a similar release valve. If someone (me) is in a good mood then there is nothing to release. If I were to post it would be rather boring reading. "Well, I took my dog out today...she is sooooo cute, I mean you wouldn't even believe it. Also I had a beer and that was mighty tasty." Okay, so I wouldn't write like that, but you get the idea. Good moods don't translate to written word so easily. Also when things are good, then I am (generally) not motivated to post. I will be more motivated to do other things, typically more active in nature. So is the general mood here going to be angry/depressed. Not always, but generally. If some politician says/does something that draws my ire, I can't exactly punch him/her in the face. It's probably not even a good idea to suggest doing so. I can rant about it. Most people don't want to hear me rant constantly, so I don't. But I don't want to fume internally about any/all of the little and big things that make me anywhere from a touch upset to boilingly irate...my head would explode thanks in large part to Dubbya n' Cronies. So I vent here. That's catharsis. I'm not really discontent, and certainly don't want to go to war, but a little venting will prevent spontaneous human combustion.
Do I think Freud was 100% right? No. While society must be involved for a conflict to become a war, the decisions made that lead to war are made by individuals. I think war is the result of weak mindedness (or evil) on the part of the agressor. As for what society stifles and how we seek to find happiness I don't really think the deliniation between the sexes is as clear cut as Freud postulates. But there is truth to be found in his writing.
Ooh, ooh, random.
The internet provides a similar release valve. If someone (me) is in a good mood then there is nothing to release. If I were to post it would be rather boring reading. "Well, I took my dog out today...she is sooooo cute, I mean you wouldn't even believe it. Also I had a beer and that was mighty tasty." Okay, so I wouldn't write like that, but you get the idea. Good moods don't translate to written word so easily. Also when things are good, then I am (generally) not motivated to post. I will be more motivated to do other things, typically more active in nature. So is the general mood here going to be angry/depressed. Not always, but generally. If some politician says/does something that draws my ire, I can't exactly punch him/her in the face. It's probably not even a good idea to suggest doing so. I can rant about it. Most people don't want to hear me rant constantly, so I don't. But I don't want to fume internally about any/all of the little and big things that make me anywhere from a touch upset to boilingly irate...my head would explode thanks in large part to Dubbya n' Cronies. So I vent here. That's catharsis. I'm not really discontent, and certainly don't want to go to war, but a little venting will prevent spontaneous human combustion.
Do I think Freud was 100% right? No. While society must be involved for a conflict to become a war, the decisions made that lead to war are made by individuals. I think war is the result of weak mindedness (or evil) on the part of the agressor. As for what society stifles and how we seek to find happiness I don't really think the deliniation between the sexes is as clear cut as Freud postulates. But there is truth to be found in his writing.
Ooh, ooh, random.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
When the Environment meets the Poor
The Poor lose.
I live in Chicago. Vehicle emissions testing is required. Sounds good, right? Well, maybe. The fundamental problem with vehicle emissions testing (as it exists here, anyway) is that it is biased against the poor. Environmentally friendly often means more expensive. Hybrids: more expensive. New vehicles: more expensive. Catalytic converters are one of the more expensive pieces of a car (in part because they require platinum and maybe rhodium, even though it's only a little). This is extended to most environmental protection tech. Solar cells are pricy. Fuel cells are too. Though there is hope that, at an unidentifyable point in the future, those will be affordable. Now they are expensive.
I don't want smog. I don't want to breathe pollutants and carcinogens when I'm in the city. I get enough of that in the lab. I also wouldn't want to tell someone with a $1000 1988 Pontiac POS that they need to clean up their emission--the cost of which could easily be greater than the value of the car--or get a car that is cleaner (i.e. newer). It is not fair, it is not right. People that draft the legislation that mandates that my 15 year old SHO with 154k miles on it must meet some set of emissions criteria, don't drive 15 year old vehicles with 150k miles on them. The legislation also doesn't--and, really, can't--take into account how much someone drives. Someone with a "clean" vehichle that commutes at least 30 min to work in rush hour, and goes out for dinner/entertainment/whatever (drives) often contributes far more pollution than I do (maybe 2 hr driving/month, biking to work, taking the el, walking), with the possible exception that they drive a hybrid.
The testing is also biased against vehicles without OBD (on-board diagnostics) because they actually measure by blowing air over the engine/undercarridge and collecting at the back (at the exhaust, but also other air that is blown back), and you know what gets measured by that testing that OBD won't pick up? Splatter. If I kick oil, grease, even mud up onto the underside of my car near a hot spot (muffler, catalytic converter, ...), if oil is spilled on the engine block, if old tubing is starting to breakdown, then some of that will burn off and be detected. That will increase hydrocarbon measurements. That is not checked for with OBD. The entire of the testing is biased against older cars and poorer citizens.
Protecting the environment is a noble goal, and one which I support, but any legislaiton drafted should protect those who cannot afford to comply--I like by taxing the rich, but hey, whatever. Cars are pretty much a necessity in all but a few cities in this nation (and even in those cities, they are still a necessity for many). I would love to drive a hybrid. I cannot afford one. In the end I am going to have to increase my debt, either by spending the money on repair, or by purchasing a new(er) car, because I cannot afford either. In the end, the way the law works is unjust and immoral. It'd be nice to think that it will do some good, but even that's not really likely.
I live in Chicago. Vehicle emissions testing is required. Sounds good, right? Well, maybe. The fundamental problem with vehicle emissions testing (as it exists here, anyway) is that it is biased against the poor. Environmentally friendly often means more expensive. Hybrids: more expensive. New vehicles: more expensive. Catalytic converters are one of the more expensive pieces of a car (in part because they require platinum and maybe rhodium, even though it's only a little). This is extended to most environmental protection tech. Solar cells are pricy. Fuel cells are too. Though there is hope that, at an unidentifyable point in the future, those will be affordable. Now they are expensive.
I don't want smog. I don't want to breathe pollutants and carcinogens when I'm in the city. I get enough of that in the lab. I also wouldn't want to tell someone with a $1000 1988 Pontiac POS that they need to clean up their emission--the cost of which could easily be greater than the value of the car--or get a car that is cleaner (i.e. newer). It is not fair, it is not right. People that draft the legislation that mandates that my 15 year old SHO with 154k miles on it must meet some set of emissions criteria, don't drive 15 year old vehicles with 150k miles on them. The legislation also doesn't--and, really, can't--take into account how much someone drives. Someone with a "clean" vehichle that commutes at least 30 min to work in rush hour, and goes out for dinner/entertainment/whatever (drives) often contributes far more pollution than I do (maybe 2 hr driving/month, biking to work, taking the el, walking), with the possible exception that they drive a hybrid.
The testing is also biased against vehicles without OBD (on-board diagnostics) because they actually measure by blowing air over the engine/undercarridge and collecting at the back (at the exhaust, but also other air that is blown back), and you know what gets measured by that testing that OBD won't pick up? Splatter. If I kick oil, grease, even mud up onto the underside of my car near a hot spot (muffler, catalytic converter, ...), if oil is spilled on the engine block, if old tubing is starting to breakdown, then some of that will burn off and be detected. That will increase hydrocarbon measurements. That is not checked for with OBD. The entire of the testing is biased against older cars and poorer citizens.
Protecting the environment is a noble goal, and one which I support, but any legislaiton drafted should protect those who cannot afford to comply--I like by taxing the rich, but hey, whatever. Cars are pretty much a necessity in all but a few cities in this nation (and even in those cities, they are still a necessity for many). I would love to drive a hybrid. I cannot afford one. In the end I am going to have to increase my debt, either by spending the money on repair, or by purchasing a new(er) car, because I cannot afford either. In the end, the way the law works is unjust and immoral. It'd be nice to think that it will do some good, but even that's not really likely.
Banks are Evil
And I don't mean Hamster Dance evil, I mean full on Dick Cheney with a weapon evil. If you don't have at least $10k to keep and do nothing with, they don't give a damn about you. Even if you meet this minimum *and* have a mortgage with them, you only get upgraded to whipping boy. The only thing poor people (anyone who rents and has less than $10k of liquid assets) are good for to a bank is credit cards (debt).
Think, for just a second, about how evil they are: You give them money (which they invest) and they give you nothing. Then they make something as meaningless as free checking sound like the second comming. "Oh, my, God. You mean I can use my own money? You mean I can take cash out at an atm, or look at my balance online, or write as many checks as I like without getting overdrawn? You won't charge me for any of that while at the same time you will earn 15% interest on every dollar that runs through you including my paycheck? What kind of interest does it pay? Zero, really? Oh, if I maintain a $10,000 balance then I can get 1% return. No, no I'm sure your service is worth that." It's only a big deal because banks are greedy bastards. Try and obtain an unsecured loan at a bank and the interest rate you receive will likely be worse than that of many credit cards. CREDIT CARDS!
Credit Unions are the brick and mortar answers. Profit is all returned to those with shares (savings, checking, cd...). Interest rates are better, loans are easier to come by and there are fewer penalties. In terms of savings alone, the internet is king. Zero minimum balance, no load, highly liquid money market accounts can easily earn upwards of 4% interest. You often need at least $25k at a bank to approach that number. The competition is actually making banks offer slightly better deals, but they still make any tiny little thing seem like some amazing, shocking, benefit that they do because they care so much for people. If you must use one, and I must, then do a "free checking" deal and keep the balance as low as possible (I like using PayPal--4.25%--and a cash back credit card paid off each month).
I don't like banks because they reap massive profits off of people in horrible debt.
Think, for just a second, about how evil they are: You give them money (which they invest) and they give you nothing. Then they make something as meaningless as free checking sound like the second comming. "Oh, my, God. You mean I can use my own money? You mean I can take cash out at an atm, or look at my balance online, or write as many checks as I like without getting overdrawn? You won't charge me for any of that while at the same time you will earn 15% interest on every dollar that runs through you including my paycheck? What kind of interest does it pay? Zero, really? Oh, if I maintain a $10,000 balance then I can get 1% return. No, no I'm sure your service is worth that." It's only a big deal because banks are greedy bastards. Try and obtain an unsecured loan at a bank and the interest rate you receive will likely be worse than that of many credit cards. CREDIT CARDS!
Credit Unions are the brick and mortar answers. Profit is all returned to those with shares (savings, checking, cd...). Interest rates are better, loans are easier to come by and there are fewer penalties. In terms of savings alone, the internet is king. Zero minimum balance, no load, highly liquid money market accounts can easily earn upwards of 4% interest. You often need at least $25k at a bank to approach that number. The competition is actually making banks offer slightly better deals, but they still make any tiny little thing seem like some amazing, shocking, benefit that they do because they care so much for people. If you must use one, and I must, then do a "free checking" deal and keep the balance as low as possible (I like using PayPal--4.25%--and a cash back credit card paid off each month).
I don't like banks because they reap massive profits off of people in horrible debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)