Saturday, February 26, 2005
Fixed problem
For those who care, the display problem was cause by my post on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 when I linked to Walter William's editorial. The URL was too long and didn't wrap int he post and "pushed" the menu down to below the body. I didn't notice it earlier, because the page was not rendered incorrectly when browsing with FireFox, which I have been doing lately. I noticed it today because I happened to be browsing with IE 6.0 and noticed it. I fixed it by using the TinyURL to link to the editorial.
Something is Awry
Something is awry with my template...not sure what yet, but I am working on it. I didn't make any template changes...but still, my right panel menu is at the end of pages...
Friday, February 25, 2005
Me man...Me Eat Meat...GRRRRRRR
Gary took me to his church's annual Wild Game Supper last night put on by the men's ministry. It was a lot of fun. I ate venison, wild boar, wild turkey, grilled quail, alligator, and frog legs. All the meat was quite tasty, with my favorite being the alligator. There were about 750 men and boys there all praising God, eating meat, and enjoying one another's fellowship. The speaker was a guy from Mobile who is the number one bow hunter in the state. He co-hosts a hunting television show that airs Sunday mornings at 9:30 and has a message of faith interwoven into the program. He focuses on men who probably won't show up in a church, but still need Jesus. He gave his testimony and talked about how he came to Jesus 7 years ago...a very powerful story indeed.
All in all, Gary and I enjoyed ourselves and we ate meat...lots of meat...
All in all, Gary and I enjoyed ourselves and we ate meat...lots of meat...
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Walter Williams: Social Security
A must read editorial:
http://tinyurl.com/3j9vl
Main Points:
http://tinyurl.com/3j9vl
Main Points:
- He cites instances where the government has broken promises to people in the past about Social Security
- He cites two Supreme Court cases where it was ruled that Americans have no legal right to Social Securty payment
- He cites one instance where Democrats are hypocritical about who should be forced into paying Social Security
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Randy maybe proven Right
Well. You heard the strategy hear first. Then I talked about it again here. Now others are starting to see that Randy might just be Right.
I have noticed, from time-to-time, some government domains visiting my site. I often wondered who from the domain whitehouse.gov was reading my blog...now I know. Hello, Mr. President. If you need any other advice, just ask. I have an opinion on everything!!
I have noticed, from time-to-time, some government domains visiting my site. I often wondered who from the domain whitehouse.gov was reading my blog...now I know. Hello, Mr. President. If you need any other advice, just ask. I have an opinion on everything!!
Thursday, February 17, 2005
What you truly cost your employer...
One of my liberal friends at work read my entry on Social Security and tried to discredit the percentage that he pays into Social Security. He sent me an email that said:
Obviously he was educated at government indoctrination centers. Hiring an employee has more costs than just the employee's compensation. When determining how much a person is worth to the business, the company must take all factors into consideration. The total cost of an employee, then, is SALARY+BENEFITS+TAXES+TRAINING+EQUIPMENT+SUPPLIES.
For example, let's say I want to hire someone and I need to pay them $35,000/year. What must I have budgeted for personnel to be able to make this salary? First, I have to add-in benefits. For arguments sake, let say it cost $550/month ($550/month * 12 months/year = $6,600/year) in health insurance and I match $1:$1 in retirement up to 5% of the salary ($35,000*.05 = $1,750/year). I also need to pay the 6.21% payroll tax or $2,174/year. So far, without trying to compute any amounts for training, equipment, and supplies cost, to hire someone for $35,000/year costs me: $45,524/year. Those are real dollars that I have to budget for to hire someone.
Tangent Alert
Now, on top of that, the state and federal government are going to take an income tax and the other half of the payroll tax out of that person's salary. So, according to the IRS, a person making $35,000 a year is taxed at a $1,460.00 plus 15% of the amount over 14,600 (married - filing jointly, no deductions, no other income source). That amounts to $4,520/ year in federal income taxes. We also have to subtract out the 6.21% portion of the employee's payroll tax which is still $2,174/year. Because I live in AL and am hiring someone here, I need to withhold AL State Income tax, which is $1,673. So the employee gets to keep $26,633 (of course, sales tax, gas tax, and other fees have not been removed yet...but you can expect the person to pay another $2,000 - $3,000 in other taxes).
Now isn't that just sad. It costs the employer $45,524/year and the employee only gets $26,633/year to spend. A little under $20,000 goes to insurance companies and government. When I look at these numbers, I am really shocked that we haven't revolted yet. Withholding sure saves the government a lot of hassle. Because people never get the money, they never feel like they own it. They don't feel the impact of the tax, so they don't react to the high level of taxation.
That 12.4 percent of every paycheck up to $90,000 is in reality 6.21 percent. For all but those who are self-employed, half of the payroll tax is paid by the employer and does not come out of the paycheck at all.
Obviously he was educated at government indoctrination centers. Hiring an employee has more costs than just the employee's compensation. When determining how much a person is worth to the business, the company must take all factors into consideration. The total cost of an employee, then, is SALARY+BENEFITS+TAXES+TRAINING+EQUIPMENT+SUPPLIES.
For example, let's say I want to hire someone and I need to pay them $35,000/year. What must I have budgeted for personnel to be able to make this salary? First, I have to add-in benefits. For arguments sake, let say it cost $550/month ($550/month * 12 months/year = $6,600/year) in health insurance and I match $1:$1 in retirement up to 5% of the salary ($35,000*.05 = $1,750/year). I also need to pay the 6.21% payroll tax or $2,174/year. So far, without trying to compute any amounts for training, equipment, and supplies cost, to hire someone for $35,000/year costs me: $45,524/year. Those are real dollars that I have to budget for to hire someone.
Tangent Alert
Now, on top of that, the state and federal government are going to take an income tax and the other half of the payroll tax out of that person's salary. So, according to the IRS, a person making $35,000 a year is taxed at a $1,460.00 plus 15% of the amount over 14,600 (married - filing jointly, no deductions, no other income source). That amounts to $4,520/ year in federal income taxes. We also have to subtract out the 6.21% portion of the employee's payroll tax which is still $2,174/year. Because I live in AL and am hiring someone here, I need to withhold AL State Income tax, which is $1,673. So the employee gets to keep $26,633 (of course, sales tax, gas tax, and other fees have not been removed yet...but you can expect the person to pay another $2,000 - $3,000 in other taxes).
Now isn't that just sad. It costs the employer $45,524/year and the employee only gets $26,633/year to spend. A little under $20,000 goes to insurance companies and government. When I look at these numbers, I am really shocked that we haven't revolted yet. Withholding sure saves the government a lot of hassle. Because people never get the money, they never feel like they own it. They don't feel the impact of the tax, so they don't react to the high level of taxation.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Unintended Consequences
The inner thoughts of a politician:
I find it hilarious that California wants to implement a "mileage tax." Politicians just don't understand how their laws change people's behavior and cause more "unintended consequences." They think they are so smart, but how come a young computer programmer can clearly see the effect of the law while they turn a blind eye.
Sometime in the Past
So. Pollution is a big problem. A lot of people drive gas guzzling automobiles. I know, I'll pass a law to give tax breaks to people who buy enviro-friendly cars like the hybrid cars. That'll fix everything.A year later
Golly. A lot of people are buying these hybrid cars and they aren't using as much gas, which means we aren't getting as much revenue from gas taxes as we used to. This is bad. Hmmm.... Oh! I know, we will tax people based on the miles they drive in between fill-ups rather than on the gallons of gas they use. Let's see $0.02 per mile should be good. That'll fix everything.Sometime in the future
DOH!!! I didn't think charging an extra $5.00 - $15.00 on every fill-up would reduce people's travel. I just figured people would have continued to drive the same amount of miles. Now, however, due to the excessive cost of transportation people are telecommuting. 25% of all office space has closed down. Now we are not getting in the revenue from commercial property taxes that we once did. The cost of goods has skyrocketed because it costs more to transport them. This has caused people to limit their shopping, thus sales tax revenues have dropped. The stores don't need as many people, so they have had to lay off a few people and thus income tax revenues have dropped. Hmmm...I know...I'll _______________________ (fill in the blank with some "solution"). That'll fix everything.
I find it hilarious that California wants to implement a "mileage tax." Politicians just don't understand how their laws change people's behavior and cause more "unintended consequences." They think they are so smart, but how come a young computer programmer can clearly see the effect of the law while they turn a blind eye.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Small Group Materials
Here are the latest documents from the Small Group:
Week 12 - Chapter 4
Week 13 - Chapter 5
I will be teaching Chapter 6 next week. However, due to too many irons in the fire, I will be taking a break and one of the other members of the Small Group will be teaching chapter 7.
Week 12 - Chapter 4
Week 13 - Chapter 5
I will be teaching Chapter 6 next week. However, due to too many irons in the fire, I will be taking a break and one of the other members of the Small Group will be teaching chapter 7.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Freedom to Move About
In a free society, should the government have the right to tell its citizenary where they can travel. The answer, of course, is no. If we are truly a free society, how can something like this happen?
Social Security Reform
Is Social Security in trouble? That appears to be the main point of contention of those who are opposed to any reform of Social Security. They basically claim that the President is exaggerating the problem in order to ram his policy through Congress. I just don't see how anyone can disagree with the facts.
Social Security is financed on a pay-as-you-go system. Unlike an IRA or a 401k, when the money is withheld from a paycheck for Social Security it does not go into an account with your name on it. Instead, that money is used immediately to pay those retirees who are currently drawing Social Security. Presently, Social Security brings in more money in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits. That excess money, though, is not actually placed in a "lock-box" or in a savings account or anything. Congress, basically, spends the excess money on other Government programs and just sends an IOU over the Social Security Administration.
No one disputes the fact that in 2018 the Social Security Trust Fund will take in less in taxes than it pays out in benefits. At that time, in order to meet its commitments to retirees, it will call Congress and say, "Hey, I'm turning is some of these IOUs for some cash." Congress, then, has to make some hard decisions. It is currently using Social Security money to fund programs. That money will not be available for those programs. On top of that, the Social Security will be requesting the money they loaned back. Congress will have to drastically cut spending and/or raise income taxes in order to continue funding those programs that it is currently borrowing money to fund AND to repay the loan that is due.
Estimates vary, but, most people do agree that on or around 2042, the trust fund will have turned it all of its IOUs and will have to be able to pay retirees based only on the Payroll taxes that it is able to bring in. Many estimate that income is only going to be able to cover 70 percent of the benefits it has promised to pay.
There are quite a number of plausible scenarios that would save Social Security. Congress can raise payroll taxes, borrow the money and go even more deeply into debt, or slash the benefits paid to retirees. This last option actually paints the best picture of what is wrong with Social Security. There is no guarantee that government will keep its end of the contract. Social Security was originally designed as a welfare system, not as an insurance or savings program. Individuals may be granted legal rights to benefits, but have no contractual right to any funds contributed to the system. Since Congress makes the laws, they can change any legal rights at any time. I certainly wouldn't call relying on future politicians not to change laws security.
Besides not being guaranteed, there is another huge problem with Social Security, the financial impact it has on currentt workers. From 1935 until 1949, a worker only paid 2% on the first $3,000 of his income into Social Security. That is, no one paid more than $60 a year in payroll taxes. Now days, Social Security steals 12.4% of the first $90,000 earned, or one-eighth of every paycheck. 80% of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in income taxes. It is not surprising, then, why I am against the system: it provides no security for my retirement, while impoverishing me in the present. In exchange for an eighth of my earnings today, it guarantees nothing but higher taxes tomorrow.
Now, opponents to reform think that this is just fine. Why fix today what will not really be broken for many years? Almost everyone that I know who is my age is not relying or even figuring Social Security in their retirement plans. However, trying to place 10-15% of our incomes into IRAs and 401ks is very difficult when 12.4% is already being skimmed off the top for retirement. I know of very few people who can afford to live today on one 75% of their checks.
Thats one of the things that make personal retirement accounts so attractive. I can use a little bit of the money that Congress is taking by force from my paycheck to invest in a retirement account that is mine. There will be a contractual obligation in place that ensures that which I pay in and put into an account can only be used for me and whomever I leave it to when I die. That is ownership. That is liberty. That is freedom.
I think it is important to note that the idea of personal retirement accounts is not new. In January 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke to Congress, unveiling his proposal for what we today know of as Social Security. One of attributes that he believed ought to have been included in the plan was "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." Enacting personal retirement accounts would only be implementing Roosevelt's own ideas.
While I would rather see Social Security completely dismantled, the idea of personal retirement accounts is a good step in the right direction. Maybe we can even model Chile's Mandatory Savings program. While the program forces people to pay in (which is still anti-libertarian to me), it has been very successful. Whatever the solution, something has to be done and be done quickly to prevent the problem from being a problem.
Social Security is financed on a pay-as-you-go system. Unlike an IRA or a 401k, when the money is withheld from a paycheck for Social Security it does not go into an account with your name on it. Instead, that money is used immediately to pay those retirees who are currently drawing Social Security. Presently, Social Security brings in more money in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits. That excess money, though, is not actually placed in a "lock-box" or in a savings account or anything. Congress, basically, spends the excess money on other Government programs and just sends an IOU over the Social Security Administration.
No one disputes the fact that in 2018 the Social Security Trust Fund will take in less in taxes than it pays out in benefits. At that time, in order to meet its commitments to retirees, it will call Congress and say, "Hey, I'm turning is some of these IOUs for some cash." Congress, then, has to make some hard decisions. It is currently using Social Security money to fund programs. That money will not be available for those programs. On top of that, the Social Security will be requesting the money they loaned back. Congress will have to drastically cut spending and/or raise income taxes in order to continue funding those programs that it is currently borrowing money to fund AND to repay the loan that is due.
Estimates vary, but, most people do agree that on or around 2042, the trust fund will have turned it all of its IOUs and will have to be able to pay retirees based only on the Payroll taxes that it is able to bring in. Many estimate that income is only going to be able to cover 70 percent of the benefits it has promised to pay.
There are quite a number of plausible scenarios that would save Social Security. Congress can raise payroll taxes, borrow the money and go even more deeply into debt, or slash the benefits paid to retirees. This last option actually paints the best picture of what is wrong with Social Security. There is no guarantee that government will keep its end of the contract. Social Security was originally designed as a welfare system, not as an insurance or savings program. Individuals may be granted legal rights to benefits, but have no contractual right to any funds contributed to the system. Since Congress makes the laws, they can change any legal rights at any time. I certainly wouldn't call relying on future politicians not to change laws security.
Besides not being guaranteed, there is another huge problem with Social Security, the financial impact it has on currentt workers. From 1935 until 1949, a worker only paid 2% on the first $3,000 of his income into Social Security. That is, no one paid more than $60 a year in payroll taxes. Now days, Social Security steals 12.4% of the first $90,000 earned, or one-eighth of every paycheck. 80% of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in income taxes. It is not surprising, then, why I am against the system: it provides no security for my retirement, while impoverishing me in the present. In exchange for an eighth of my earnings today, it guarantees nothing but higher taxes tomorrow.
Now, opponents to reform think that this is just fine. Why fix today what will not really be broken for many years? Almost everyone that I know who is my age is not relying or even figuring Social Security in their retirement plans. However, trying to place 10-15% of our incomes into IRAs and 401ks is very difficult when 12.4% is already being skimmed off the top for retirement. I know of very few people who can afford to live today on one 75% of their checks.
Thats one of the things that make personal retirement accounts so attractive. I can use a little bit of the money that Congress is taking by force from my paycheck to invest in a retirement account that is mine. There will be a contractual obligation in place that ensures that which I pay in and put into an account can only be used for me and whomever I leave it to when I die. That is ownership. That is liberty. That is freedom.
I think it is important to note that the idea of personal retirement accounts is not new. In January 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke to Congress, unveiling his proposal for what we today know of as Social Security. One of attributes that he believed ought to have been included in the plan was "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." Enacting personal retirement accounts would only be implementing Roosevelt's own ideas.
While I would rather see Social Security completely dismantled, the idea of personal retirement accounts is a good step in the right direction. Maybe we can even model Chile's Mandatory Savings program. While the program forces people to pay in (which is still anti-libertarian to me), it has been very successful. Whatever the solution, something has to be done and be done quickly to prevent the problem from being a problem.
Friday, February 11, 2005
New Type of Leave
As a state worker I am blessed because we earn some great leave. Every two weeks I accumulate 5 hours and 25 minutes of Annual leave and 4 hours and 20 minutes of Sick leave. I also accrue 8 hours of Personal leave annually. This is a whole lot of leave, more than most people who work in the private economy get. Which makes sense. When a person is on paid leave, the employeer is compensating an individual while not getting any work from that individual. In a strict, philosophical sense one could argue that the worker is actually stealing money from the employeer.
Now, most employeers have no problem with reasonable sick and vacation leave policies. They see providing paid leave to their employees as an asset to thier business. People who never get away can become burned out and ineffective. People who are sick come to work and make other workers sick and productivity tanks. Leave, then, becomes a form of insurance to the employeer to keep productivity at good level.
However, paid leave is a benefit provided by the grace and mercy of the employeer and is not a right. This means that employees should look upon leave as a gift from their employeer and, therefore, cherish the gift and respect the gift. We would all consider it rude for someone who had been given a gift to disparge the gift and ask for more features of the gift. We would think that person is ungrateful and selfish.
The Manufacturing Workers Union, I think, can therefore be categorized as ungrateful and selfish. They are requesting a new type of leave. Menstrual leave. Yes, you heard me correctly, they want women to recieve paid, time-off for thier periods. This would be implemented by giving women 12 extra days off a year with pay for menstrual pain. The union says that women shouldn't be disadvantaged against men that don't have periods.
I am in the process of coding a new Time and Leave Tracking Application for my department. I wonder if I should go ahead and add this type of leave to the system now because I have a sneaky suspicion that if it passes in Australia, it won't be too long before we hear women clamoring for the same "right" here.
Now, most employeers have no problem with reasonable sick and vacation leave policies. They see providing paid leave to their employees as an asset to thier business. People who never get away can become burned out and ineffective. People who are sick come to work and make other workers sick and productivity tanks. Leave, then, becomes a form of insurance to the employeer to keep productivity at good level.
However, paid leave is a benefit provided by the grace and mercy of the employeer and is not a right. This means that employees should look upon leave as a gift from their employeer and, therefore, cherish the gift and respect the gift. We would all consider it rude for someone who had been given a gift to disparge the gift and ask for more features of the gift. We would think that person is ungrateful and selfish.
The Manufacturing Workers Union, I think, can therefore be categorized as ungrateful and selfish. They are requesting a new type of leave. Menstrual leave. Yes, you heard me correctly, they want women to recieve paid, time-off for thier periods. This would be implemented by giving women 12 extra days off a year with pay for menstrual pain. The union says that women shouldn't be disadvantaged against men that don't have periods.
I am in the process of coding a new Time and Leave Tracking Application for my department. I wonder if I should go ahead and add this type of leave to the system now because I have a sneaky suspicion that if it passes in Australia, it won't be too long before we hear women clamoring for the same "right" here.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Too early for spring
It is not even mid-Feburary and my neighbor's tree is budding and flowering. I was shocked when I pulled into the driveway this evening and saw flowers on his tree. I took this photo of it with my phone since I knew no one would believe me.
Pastor's Sermon Investigated by FBI
This article reports that someone complained to the FBI about a pastor after he preached a sermon against abortion and homosexuality. The anonymous tipper indicated that the pastor had encouraged violence and rebillion so our government had to check it out.
I guess history bears out the suspicion. Many people forget that pastors were the voice of the Reveloution. It was pastors who preached the concept of Divine Liberty and painted the morality of revolting in spiritual terms. The government should be scared of churches. The rights to life and liberty must come from Someone and only Christian chruches can point to the Author of Liberty and Creator of Life as the source. If people truly understood the ideology of Christiandom, they would throw off the shackles that our goverment has bound us with and restore the nation to view set forth by our Christian founders.
All that being said, the government never has the right to infringe upon or investigate the preachings of pastor. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly are cornerstones of our great country. These freedoms are best expressed in our churches. FBI...come investigate me, because I too would go to jail if the government tries to tell me what I can and can not think.
Government, if you choose to kick the church out of the public square...then stay out of our churches.
I guess history bears out the suspicion. Many people forget that pastors were the voice of the Reveloution. It was pastors who preached the concept of Divine Liberty and painted the morality of revolting in spiritual terms. The government should be scared of churches. The rights to life and liberty must come from Someone and only Christian chruches can point to the Author of Liberty and Creator of Life as the source. If people truly understood the ideology of Christiandom, they would throw off the shackles that our goverment has bound us with and restore the nation to view set forth by our Christian founders.
All that being said, the government never has the right to infringe upon or investigate the preachings of pastor. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly are cornerstones of our great country. These freedoms are best expressed in our churches. FBI...come investigate me, because I too would go to jail if the government tries to tell me what I can and can not think.
Government, if you choose to kick the church out of the public square...then stay out of our churches.
Condi for President
Dick Morris, the greatest American political strategist of the twenthy-century, writes that to stop Hillary in 2008, the Republicans need to draft Condi to run against her. I love the idea. I have been a fan of Secretary Rice for many years, finding her to be intelligent, articulate, graceful, and witty. Morris gives several reasons she is qualified and able to beat Senator Clinton:
Most pundits, though, think that the Republicans will end up nomitating either Rudy Guiliani or Sen. John McCain. Those two men, though, face a tough primary season due to thier liberal/libertarian views on social issues. If I had to give my order of precedence it would be:
- She has proven herself on the world stage as President Bush's National Security Advisor and Secretary of State
- She would undermine the demographic base on which the Democratic Party relies heavily, African-Americans, Hispanics, and single white women.
- She has proven, and will continue to prove, that she has the "ability to handle crises and conduct herself with dignity"
- Her social conservative and deep religious roots will garner the support of the religious right, capitulating her to the lead in the primaries.
- America has a deep desire to prove that we have overcome the prejudices and sins of the past and can show that there is no ceiling, that one can rise as far as his ability, by electing a compentent black woman.
Most pundits, though, think that the Republicans will end up nomitating either Rudy Guiliani or Sen. John McCain. Those two men, though, face a tough primary season due to thier liberal/libertarian views on social issues. If I had to give my order of precedence it would be:
- Secretary Rice
- Former Congressman Watts
- Rudy Guiliani
- Colin Powell (but only with his wife's blessing)
- and I NEVER want to see McCain get the nomination
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
City Council tackles tough issues: Canine Cosmetic Surgery
West Hollywood leaders aim to ban cosmetic surgery for pets
Once again we see that "progressives" don't really care about choice. They want to remove pet owner's (oops...they are not "pet owners" in West Hollywood, they are "pet guardians") ability to make decisions about their pets. So, some random thoughts on this absurdity.
- It looks as if it will only be illegal for vets in the city to perform the procedures. So, a person who moves into the city with a pet that already has had the procedure done, would not be able to be prosecuted. Will they make it illegal to move into the city if you have a pet that has had cosmetic surgery? What is to stop pet owners from driving 2 miles to a vet outside of the city limits to have the procedure done?
- So, it is OK for people in Hollywood to get cosmetic surgery, but not for their animals. Sounds like spiecism to me. Bigotry is bad!
- How can the city council be sure that this is what pets want? Maybe pets like cosmetic surgery. I think they should give pets the right to vote and then place the law up for a referendum and let the pets' barks, meows, and chirps be heard.
- I wonder if it will be OK to have these procedures done if a medical reason exists? For instance, some spaniels have their tails docked because the tails curl up so tightly that they end up cutting off the blood supply to the end of the tail. This results in the end of the tail dying and rotting on the dog. This is clearly unhygienic and unhealthy. Will the dog have to endure a dead tail on its behind in West Hollywood?
- So, it is OK to circumcise little boys, but not OK to trim ears on the dog. Please, somebody, explain to me why this is not a contradiction.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
I am Syndrome
My brother called last night and informed me that I am Syndrome. Now I had no idea who that was, so he preceded to tell me that my cute, adorable 3 year old niece is infatuated with Disney's "The Incredibles." Well, she was assigning Incredible characters to each member of her family. After assigning all the good guys to her immediate family, she realized that she needed someone to be the bad guy, Syndrome. She picked her Dunkle.
I don't understand it. I always get picked to be the bad guy. When Kevin and I were growing up, I always "collected" the bad guy characters and he always got the good guy characters. The "Master of the Universe" action figures are a great example. Kevin had He-man and all his companions while I had Skeletor and all the bad guys. Transformers were the same way, as well as GI Joe. Now that I think about, I spent my youth pretending to be bad guys intent on taking over the world and forcing thier ideology on others. Is it any wonder that I have a puffed-ego and think if everyone would just do what I say, then the world would be a better place? Is it a mystery anymore why I relate so closely to The Brain from "Pinky and the Brain?" I think not!!!
I am a product of my environment. It was my destinity that all should succumb to my evil, genius. Now, if I can just convince my wife to let me out at night, then the world shall be mine!!!
I don't understand it. I always get picked to be the bad guy. When Kevin and I were growing up, I always "collected" the bad guy characters and he always got the good guy characters. The "Master of the Universe" action figures are a great example. Kevin had He-man and all his companions while I had Skeletor and all the bad guys. Transformers were the same way, as well as GI Joe. Now that I think about, I spent my youth pretending to be bad guys intent on taking over the world and forcing thier ideology on others. Is it any wonder that I have a puffed-ego and think if everyone would just do what I say, then the world would be a better place? Is it a mystery anymore why I relate so closely to The Brain from "Pinky and the Brain?" I think not!!!
I am a product of my environment. It was my destinity that all should succumb to my evil, genius. Now, if I can just convince my wife to let me out at night, then the world shall be mine!!!
Monday, February 07, 2005
Mihaela "Walking" all over the place
Last night, Mihaela discovered that if she pulls up on her "Gobble & Go" Hippo, she can walk. She pushed the Hippo around a little bit last night. This evening, though she went crazy with it. She would even remove her hands from the handle and stand on her own for a couple of seconds.
I foresee real walking in her future.
I foresee real walking in her future.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
My faith in Internet Quizzes is Shot
I took another Internet Quiz and there has to be a problem. There is no way that my "Wierdness Quoitent" is so low...
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand
Today would be Ayn Rand's 100th birthday! "So what? Who is Ayn Rand?" you ask. Well, that is the pen name of Alissa Rosenbaum, an author and a philosopher born in St. Petersburg, Russia. Her father owned a chemist shop and the family lived in a spacious apartment above the store. However, after the Russian Revolution began in February 1917, a communist gang nationalized her father's shop, reducing her family to poverty practically overnight.
In January 1926 Ayn Rand was able to garner permission to visit relatives in Chicago. She seized this opportunity to defect, leaving Russia and her family (never to return) and arrived in New York City a few weeks later, with about $50 in her pocket.
Her most famous book is "The Fountainhead" (1943) where Rand tells a great story of American individualism. The story is about an architect, Howard Roark, who struggles to defeat collectivism attitudes by demanding the right to design and build the way his principles says he should. This novel was the first to present Rand's philosophy that rational egoism is moral; that is, any action or decision a person does/makes to the benefit of his own self-interest is a rational action/decision. This philosophy is usually thought of as selfish, and therefore immoral.
The pinnacle of her literary and philosophic career is best seen in her novel, "Atlas Shrugged" (1957) where she dramatized the major elements of her challenging new philosophy of "reason, individualism, and capitalism," which she called "Objectivism."
Objectivism is the cornerstone of true liberty. I tend to lean toward an objective philosophy in my own life, politics, and religion. Ayn Rand is by far one of the best writers of the twentieth century and one of the most courageous philosophers. After seeing the destruction of collectivism in communism, she articulated the morality of true liberty and freedom for all. You go girl!!!
In January 1926 Ayn Rand was able to garner permission to visit relatives in Chicago. She seized this opportunity to defect, leaving Russia and her family (never to return) and arrived in New York City a few weeks later, with about $50 in her pocket.
Her most famous book is "The Fountainhead" (1943) where Rand tells a great story of American individualism. The story is about an architect, Howard Roark, who struggles to defeat collectivism attitudes by demanding the right to design and build the way his principles says he should. This novel was the first to present Rand's philosophy that rational egoism is moral; that is, any action or decision a person does/makes to the benefit of his own self-interest is a rational action/decision. This philosophy is usually thought of as selfish, and therefore immoral.
The pinnacle of her literary and philosophic career is best seen in her novel, "Atlas Shrugged" (1957) where she dramatized the major elements of her challenging new philosophy of "reason, individualism, and capitalism," which she called "Objectivism."
Objectivism is the cornerstone of true liberty. I tend to lean toward an objective philosophy in my own life, politics, and religion. Ayn Rand is by far one of the best writers of the twentieth century and one of the most courageous philosophers. After seeing the destruction of collectivism in communism, she articulated the morality of true liberty and freedom for all. You go girl!!!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
My Task
I am still sitting in the boring training class. I actually had to help the teacher as well as assist the other students as we covered reporting using SQL Queries. Way below my level of programming.
Anyway. I have noticed that most of the hits to my site from search engines are because I have misspelled a word and the searcher misspells the word. I try to spellcheck before I post, but I don't always remember to. So, I have decided to go back through all my posts and spellcheck them. This should take some time and I have the entire afternoon to feign interest in the topic.
Anyway. I have noticed that most of the hits to my site from search engines are because I have misspelled a word and the searcher misspells the word. I try to spellcheck before I post, but I don't always remember to. So, I have decided to go back through all my posts and spellcheck them. This should take some time and I have the entire afternoon to feign interest in the topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)