I've had these windows open forever, and it's really dragging down my computer (downside I guess of running a brand new OS (linux) on a 6 year old laptop).
anyways -- I share:
10.25.2010
10.21.2010
The Separation of Church and State
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html
God, I'd hope I'd never have to write anything about this. I thought it would be common sense to ANYONE who has grown up in America that there is a separation between church and state within our government. Apparently, it's too difficult to also remember all of our freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment, at least beyond speech (by the way, it's speech, religion, assembly, press, and petition, in no particular order). Why not, I'll just post what the first amendment is, aka the easy amendment.
God, I'd hope I'd never have to write anything about this. I thought it would be common sense to ANYONE who has grown up in America that there is a separation between church and state within our government. Apparently, it's too difficult to also remember all of our freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment, at least beyond speech (by the way, it's speech, religion, assembly, press, and petition, in no particular order). Why not, I'll just post what the first amendment is, aka the easy amendment.
10.18.2010
Deficit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20101015/pl_yblog_exclusive/what-would-it-really-take-to-trim-the-deficit
There's all of this talk this election season about controlling the deficit, reducing the national debt, etc.
First -- definitions
The national debt is the cumulative amount of money the nation owes to other entities.
The national deficit is the amount of money the nation accrues in debt over the course of a year.
Only one President has ever gotten the debt to 0, Andrew Jackson. The last President to have a deficit of 0 was Bill Clinton, who upon the Internet boom of the late 1990s, began to pay back against the debt.
Moving on, both the debt and deficit have been big issues of this, and most, election years. Many want us to get rid of some/most/all of the debt to reduce dependence on foreign entities, namely China -- who actually only owns a plurality of the debt. Many have also seen deficit spending as one of the best ways to get the nation out of recession. The latter statement has been less popular since the passing of TARP, and most tend to focus on the other "half" of Keynesian economics -- tax cuts.
I wonder what the figures are on what the taxes would be currently, with the bush tax cuts, with the bush tax cuts for just those who earn under $250,000 a year, and without the bush tax cuts entirely. Sadly, I don't think anyone would make such a chart, and me being only 14-15 at the time the cuts took place, I am woefully unaware of what it was like financially pre-cut.
As the article states, I find it interesting that tax cuts are among the most inefficient ways to help the economy. I knew of the fact that upper-class cuts help the economy the least, but seeing as how they are the ones who control the media etc, the fact is easily ignored.
How have we really gotten so bad that tax cuts are the only way our politicians can campaign about fixing the economy, that not being for tax cuts is the equal of being against tax cuts?
The Republican plan, which was published earlier this year, in the summer I believe, only has rhetoric about cutting the deficit, while not doing much to actually reduce it in the meat and bones. The tea party contingent plans on cutting back the government as much as possible, except in the personal government project that helps each individual person.
The Democrats have not listed any plan besides letting the bush tax cuts above 250,000 expire, and keeping the rest (Obama pledged not to raise taxes on anyone who makes under that, and you'd be damn sure he's gonna keep that if he wants any shot at re-election, it killed Bush Sr.'s shot).
Honestly, raising taxes might be the only way to get out of it. With the current economic recession being largely caused by fiscal instability in people being unable to pay off their houses and credit cards, perhaps the country should look inwards and not become a parody of its people. We've spent more than we've had, but the projects can't be cut, people need them, they've come to rely upon them. So we need to suck it up, and make more than the minimum monthly payments.
-- Knuttel
There's all of this talk this election season about controlling the deficit, reducing the national debt, etc.
First -- definitions
The national debt is the cumulative amount of money the nation owes to other entities.
The national deficit is the amount of money the nation accrues in debt over the course of a year.
Only one President has ever gotten the debt to 0, Andrew Jackson. The last President to have a deficit of 0 was Bill Clinton, who upon the Internet boom of the late 1990s, began to pay back against the debt.
Moving on, both the debt and deficit have been big issues of this, and most, election years. Many want us to get rid of some/most/all of the debt to reduce dependence on foreign entities, namely China -- who actually only owns a plurality of the debt. Many have also seen deficit spending as one of the best ways to get the nation out of recession. The latter statement has been less popular since the passing of TARP, and most tend to focus on the other "half" of Keynesian economics -- tax cuts.
I wonder what the figures are on what the taxes would be currently, with the bush tax cuts, with the bush tax cuts for just those who earn under $250,000 a year, and without the bush tax cuts entirely. Sadly, I don't think anyone would make such a chart, and me being only 14-15 at the time the cuts took place, I am woefully unaware of what it was like financially pre-cut.
As the article states, I find it interesting that tax cuts are among the most inefficient ways to help the economy. I knew of the fact that upper-class cuts help the economy the least, but seeing as how they are the ones who control the media etc, the fact is easily ignored.
How have we really gotten so bad that tax cuts are the only way our politicians can campaign about fixing the economy, that not being for tax cuts is the equal of being against tax cuts?
The Republican plan, which was published earlier this year, in the summer I believe, only has rhetoric about cutting the deficit, while not doing much to actually reduce it in the meat and bones. The tea party contingent plans on cutting back the government as much as possible, except in the personal government project that helps each individual person.
The Democrats have not listed any plan besides letting the bush tax cuts above 250,000 expire, and keeping the rest (Obama pledged not to raise taxes on anyone who makes under that, and you'd be damn sure he's gonna keep that if he wants any shot at re-election, it killed Bush Sr.'s shot).
Honestly, raising taxes might be the only way to get out of it. With the current economic recession being largely caused by fiscal instability in people being unable to pay off their houses and credit cards, perhaps the country should look inwards and not become a parody of its people. We've spent more than we've had, but the projects can't be cut, people need them, they've come to rely upon them. So we need to suck it up, and make more than the minimum monthly payments.
-- Knuttel
The Marcellus Shale
The Marcellus Shale is a large natural gas reserve that will likely be developed soon, due to its size and the demand for natural gas. Most of this reserve lies in the northern Appalachian mountains, and thus what to do with it has become somewhat of an issue for this years Pennsylvania Gubernatorial race
So the main issue is ... should the energy companies be taxed for mining the natural gas? How should they be taxed, if taxed?
Passage of a bill looks eminent, so it looks as if the issue will be more rhetorical and theoretical than anything else.
I look at it this way. The natural gas is there. How much is there is unclear, but it's there. Unless the states decide to go to war with one another, or some country invades and takes over the Marcellus Shale, it will still be there, and it will still be in Pennsylvania. In this case, it is the job of the government to make sure minimal damage is done in order to extract the natural gas, or to ensure that what damage is done can be reversed. If it takes a tax to make sure this can be done within the state budget, a tax which is the similar in neighboring Marcellus states (which, by the way, because it's in shale form, cannot be a "my milkshake drinks your milkshake" scenario), then the tax must be enacted. It's the only responsible thing to do. Having the tax will not drive away business because the industry is fixed. The natural gas is where it is and it cannot move. In fact, it is the duty of the state to make sure it is getting its fair share for parting with its limited precious resources. Is not the state its own actor in this market?
Given the recent history of the energy mining industry (ahem, BP, ahem) I'm not so certain stasis can be trusted to the corporations. And to put it flatly, once the natural gas there is gone, so is the industry with the region. Recompense of some kind must be had.
RECOMPENSE!!!!
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20101012_On_Pa__natural_gas_tax__different_polls_yield_different_results.html
-- Knuttel
So the main issue is ... should the energy companies be taxed for mining the natural gas? How should they be taxed, if taxed?
Passage of a bill looks eminent, so it looks as if the issue will be more rhetorical and theoretical than anything else.
I look at it this way. The natural gas is there. How much is there is unclear, but it's there. Unless the states decide to go to war with one another, or some country invades and takes over the Marcellus Shale, it will still be there, and it will still be in Pennsylvania. In this case, it is the job of the government to make sure minimal damage is done in order to extract the natural gas, or to ensure that what damage is done can be reversed. If it takes a tax to make sure this can be done within the state budget, a tax which is the similar in neighboring Marcellus states (which, by the way, because it's in shale form, cannot be a "my milkshake drinks your milkshake" scenario), then the tax must be enacted. It's the only responsible thing to do. Having the tax will not drive away business because the industry is fixed. The natural gas is where it is and it cannot move. In fact, it is the duty of the state to make sure it is getting its fair share for parting with its limited precious resources. Is not the state its own actor in this market?
Given the recent history of the energy mining industry (ahem, BP, ahem) I'm not so certain stasis can be trusted to the corporations. And to put it flatly, once the natural gas there is gone, so is the industry with the region. Recompense of some kind must be had.
RECOMPENSE!!!!
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20101012_On_Pa__natural_gas_tax__different_polls_yield_different_results.html
-- Knuttel
10.11.2010
KA-BROOM
Question: What is the sound of a sweep?
The playoff future looks bright for the Phillies, with but one exception -- the offense looked rather anemic. That is to say, most of their offense was generated from defensive errors. This needs to be rectified.
Pitching was stellar.
2 complete games, 1 no hitter, and no runs surrendered by the bullpen -- against the NL's most potent offense of the year, no less. The Reds had the team triple crown, and their first baseman was close to getting a personal one.
The next series shall be interesting, and I hope they both exhaust eachother.
I don't know how I feel exactly about the possibility of a Yankees/Phillies rematch though. Sure, having the Phillies win would be awesome, but would that particular matchup be good for baseball?
-- Knuttel
The playoff future looks bright for the Phillies, with but one exception -- the offense looked rather anemic. That is to say, most of their offense was generated from defensive errors. This needs to be rectified.
Pitching was stellar.
2 complete games, 1 no hitter, and no runs surrendered by the bullpen -- against the NL's most potent offense of the year, no less. The Reds had the team triple crown, and their first baseman was close to getting a personal one.
The next series shall be interesting, and I hope they both exhaust eachother.
I don't know how I feel exactly about the possibility of a Yankees/Phillies rematch though. Sure, having the Phillies win would be awesome, but would that particular matchup be good for baseball?
-- Knuttel
10.02.2010
The Modern Anti-Hero
The modern day anti-hero is in our midst, upon the TV screen: Jersey Shore's Angelina "Jolie" Pivarnick.
But Knuttel, one might say, how could this possibly be?
It's quite simple, really.
First off, no one on the program displays true heroic qualities. None of them have any explicit virtue or anything like that. They may display "jerk with a heart of gold" qualities, but that rarely ever extends beyond their "family" or anyone else allowed within their group. This too extends to Angelina.
So what does she do that makes her heroic, in an anti-hero kind of way?
She remains (or at least remained).
She was an early departure on the first season, leaving the rest of the cast to bond without her. Sure, she did an annoying thing or two (notably cock blocking Mike and Pauly D in an extremely obvious way), but the whole cast annoys each other really. They're all immature, annoying assholes. It's what they do.
So why then does Angelina get outcast as such? Sure, she wasn't there for the first season, but that didn't stop the cast from accepting other second season people, such as her friend Jose.
Week in and week out she continuously took shit from the rest of the cast. She slowly worked at gaining their trust, only to have it taken back in a quarter of the time for something usually trivial, something any other cast member would be just as likely to do -- in the hot tub with Vinny's uncle hitting the ball into Snooki's face could easily be an accident, especially with someone who would probably not be very athletic or coordinated, something that Snooki could have very easily done to Angelina (except she would've brushed it off as nothing and no one would have left the hot tub terribly upset).
Among other things held against her was Vinny taking offense to Angelina saying that JWoww is talking about how drunk Pauly is, saying it like, "she's talking shit," when it's closer to, "she's talking a matter of factly, with little inflection of criticism." This of course leads to a fight. Later after a long dispute between her and Vinny, they end up drunkenly sleeping together. Vinny later states this act as doing it so he has something against her. Let me say that again, Vinny slept with Angelina so he could later hold it against her. How evil is that? Anyways, this comes within a day of Angelina saying she slept with Jose, when she didn't, leading to the later vitriolic accusation of sluttery -- you slept with two dudes under 24 hours. Nevermind the fact that MVP (Mike, Vinny, and Pauly) are either aspiring to or successfully doing this with their respective opposite gender the entire Miami stay.
And then the hammer comes down on her in the form of Mike, formalizing his anger against her and urging every second for her exit. JWoww offers advice to just stay and deal with it, Mike is an asshole, but the damage is done. The pressure is too great, as Mike is a forceful asshole who believes his opinions are synonymous with those of the rest of the house, and besides the advice, she gets no support.
The impetus behind the final argument is a misplaced menstrual pad, though I suspect it was moved by MTV's cameramen or staff. While I believe she is a sloppy and dirty person, I have a hard time believing someone would purposely do something like that -- leaving the alternate hypothesis to be something accidental, like as if she threw it at the trash can, it failed to make it in, and she didn't look back (which is still very dirty). Either way she had deniability.
In any case, her only true crime is being herself. She refused to submit in a culture of misogyny. Simply look at the relatively subdued personalities of the other female cast members, as well as the very one sided accusations of slutty behavior (Mike, for instance, is never criticized for sleeping with many women, rather sleeping with ugly women).
In summary: she is ostracized mainly for not fitting in, and takes abuse from the other house mates on a daily basis for doing this. For refusing to be someone besides herself (when all options are rather morally neutral at best), she is the modern anti-hero. At the very least, she carries the hero's burden. She doesn't want to simply be another guidette, she wants to be Angelina the guidette, and for this she should be commended.
-- Knuttel
But Knuttel, one might say, how could this possibly be?
It's quite simple, really.
First off, no one on the program displays true heroic qualities. None of them have any explicit virtue or anything like that. They may display "jerk with a heart of gold" qualities, but that rarely ever extends beyond their "family" or anyone else allowed within their group. This too extends to Angelina.
So what does she do that makes her heroic, in an anti-hero kind of way?
She remains (or at least remained).
She was an early departure on the first season, leaving the rest of the cast to bond without her. Sure, she did an annoying thing or two (notably cock blocking Mike and Pauly D in an extremely obvious way), but the whole cast annoys each other really. They're all immature, annoying assholes. It's what they do.
So why then does Angelina get outcast as such? Sure, she wasn't there for the first season, but that didn't stop the cast from accepting other second season people, such as her friend Jose.
Week in and week out she continuously took shit from the rest of the cast. She slowly worked at gaining their trust, only to have it taken back in a quarter of the time for something usually trivial, something any other cast member would be just as likely to do -- in the hot tub with Vinny's uncle hitting the ball into Snooki's face could easily be an accident, especially with someone who would probably not be very athletic or coordinated, something that Snooki could have very easily done to Angelina (except she would've brushed it off as nothing and no one would have left the hot tub terribly upset).
Among other things held against her was Vinny taking offense to Angelina saying that JWoww is talking about how drunk Pauly is, saying it like, "she's talking shit," when it's closer to, "she's talking a matter of factly, with little inflection of criticism." This of course leads to a fight. Later after a long dispute between her and Vinny, they end up drunkenly sleeping together. Vinny later states this act as doing it so he has something against her. Let me say that again, Vinny slept with Angelina so he could later hold it against her. How evil is that? Anyways, this comes within a day of Angelina saying she slept with Jose, when she didn't, leading to the later vitriolic accusation of sluttery -- you slept with two dudes under 24 hours. Nevermind the fact that MVP (Mike, Vinny, and Pauly) are either aspiring to or successfully doing this with their respective opposite gender the entire Miami stay.
And then the hammer comes down on her in the form of Mike, formalizing his anger against her and urging every second for her exit. JWoww offers advice to just stay and deal with it, Mike is an asshole, but the damage is done. The pressure is too great, as Mike is a forceful asshole who believes his opinions are synonymous with those of the rest of the house, and besides the advice, she gets no support.
The impetus behind the final argument is a misplaced menstrual pad, though I suspect it was moved by MTV's cameramen or staff. While I believe she is a sloppy and dirty person, I have a hard time believing someone would purposely do something like that -- leaving the alternate hypothesis to be something accidental, like as if she threw it at the trash can, it failed to make it in, and she didn't look back (which is still very dirty). Either way she had deniability.
In any case, her only true crime is being herself. She refused to submit in a culture of misogyny. Simply look at the relatively subdued personalities of the other female cast members, as well as the very one sided accusations of slutty behavior (Mike, for instance, is never criticized for sleeping with many women, rather sleeping with ugly women).
In summary: she is ostracized mainly for not fitting in, and takes abuse from the other house mates on a daily basis for doing this. For refusing to be someone besides herself (when all options are rather morally neutral at best), she is the modern anti-hero. At the very least, she carries the hero's burden. She doesn't want to simply be another guidette, she wants to be Angelina the guidette, and for this she should be commended.
-- Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)