There's a commercial on television asking you to support prop 87 here in California. It claims to reduce dependence on foreign imports, reduce energy prices, and help prevent global warming. In a nutshell, Proposition 87 would impose a tax on oil produced in California.
Think about that. Do you think adding a tax to anything actually reduces energy prices? How exactly does imposing a tax on locally produced oil reduce dependence on foreign imports? If anything, it makes foreign imports even more desirable since they don't get the extra tax. Prevent global warming--well, that's probably true. High oil prices do tend to cause people to carpool more, use public transit more, and buy less oil products thereby reducing the pollution going into the air. Long term, the extra money generated from taxes would go towards funding alternative fuel sources which is also a good thing.
I'm not dissing prop 87. I haven't really read enough to make a truly informed opinion on the subject, claiming that adding a tax to locally produced oil will reduce foreign imports and reduce energy prices is absurd. All-in-all, it probably is good for the environment in the long haul, but I wonder if the people of California are willing to pay higher energy prices and increased foreign imports for the healthier environment. There's no right answer here--it's a pretty simple case of environment vs. extra costs. Is the cost worth it? I don't know. But I tell you, I'd be inclined to vote for the side that actually told the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of lies coming out of both camps, so I guess it comes down to those who think the expense is worth it and those who don't. *shrug*
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
Quit Smoking Made Easy!
I was in a bookstore this afternoon, wandering the aisles, trying to find something that caught my eye. They say you can't tell what a book is like from its cover. Perhaps that is the case many times, but as a whole, I disagree. You can tell a lot about a book from its cover!
One book I noticed out of the corner of my eye had an eye catching title of something about how to quit smoking, and how easy they'll make it. Really? Now, I'm not a smoker and never have been, so I can't speak from direct experience, but is there really an "easy" way to quit smoking? From everything I've ever heard, it's incredibly hard. Most people who quit often take years and several tries before they succeed. Some people who've had a lung removed because of lung cancer haven't even been able to stop.
And this book, on its cover, it promising to make quitting 'easy'? I never even touched this book. I never picked it, I didn't leaf through the pages. I didn't read about the author's credentials. Why should I? (Besides the fact that I don't smoke, of course.) It's obviously a bold-faced lie on the cover. What else do I really need to know about the book? If the title is a blatant lie, dare I ask what the contents inside might include?
It's easy to find such books in a bookstore. Just wandering around the aisles, you'll see plenty of titles like Make millions in real estate in just three years with no money down! or Lose 30 pounds by eating more!
Obviously, publishers wouldn't publish these books if people weren't buying them, but why the heck do people buy into such bold-faced lies? If making millions was so easy or losing weight was so easy, wouldn't everyone already be doing it?
I'm not sure what sickens me more--that people are stupid enough to fall for such a pile of manure or that there are people who are willing sell you such crap. I'd like to think a book titled something like, "The hardest thing you'll ever do: Quit smoking" could become a runaway bestseller. If I were a smoker, I wouldn't necessarily buy the book, but of all the choices on the bookshelf, it would certainly be the first to grab my attention, and I'd perhaps leaf through the pages to see if the inside is as remarkably candid as the cover.
Just say no to hype, people. If a book lies to you on the cover, the inside isn't even worth the effort of checking out.
One book I noticed out of the corner of my eye had an eye catching title of something about how to quit smoking, and how easy they'll make it. Really? Now, I'm not a smoker and never have been, so I can't speak from direct experience, but is there really an "easy" way to quit smoking? From everything I've ever heard, it's incredibly hard. Most people who quit often take years and several tries before they succeed. Some people who've had a lung removed because of lung cancer haven't even been able to stop.
And this book, on its cover, it promising to make quitting 'easy'? I never even touched this book. I never picked it, I didn't leaf through the pages. I didn't read about the author's credentials. Why should I? (Besides the fact that I don't smoke, of course.) It's obviously a bold-faced lie on the cover. What else do I really need to know about the book? If the title is a blatant lie, dare I ask what the contents inside might include?
It's easy to find such books in a bookstore. Just wandering around the aisles, you'll see plenty of titles like Make millions in real estate in just three years with no money down! or Lose 30 pounds by eating more!
Obviously, publishers wouldn't publish these books if people weren't buying them, but why the heck do people buy into such bold-faced lies? If making millions was so easy or losing weight was so easy, wouldn't everyone already be doing it?
I'm not sure what sickens me more--that people are stupid enough to fall for such a pile of manure or that there are people who are willing sell you such crap. I'd like to think a book titled something like, "The hardest thing you'll ever do: Quit smoking" could become a runaway bestseller. If I were a smoker, I wouldn't necessarily buy the book, but of all the choices on the bookshelf, it would certainly be the first to grab my attention, and I'd perhaps leaf through the pages to see if the inside is as remarkably candid as the cover.
Just say no to hype, people. If a book lies to you on the cover, the inside isn't even worth the effort of checking out.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
George W. Bush! George W. Bush!
There's a commercial showing here in California. It's election time, and one of my biggest annoyances living in this country are political ads. Most people would be better off and make better educated voting decisions if they did not have to listen to such crap. They're choked full of emotional pleas rather than logical discussion. They're full of information taken out of context, and twisted into what often becomes outright lies. It's disgraceful and does nothing to help the voting public, but rather confuses them more.
The particular ad I'm annoyed with now is against re-electing Schwarzenegger for another term as governor of this populous state. The reason? He supported re-electing George W. Bush. I had him, chanting with an audience, "George W. Bush!" with a narrator saying something about would you want to support someone who supports George W. Bush.
Really? Is that the worst they can do? As much as most people hate to admit it today, he was actually voted into office after getting more of the popular votes than anyone else--which is more than can be said for the first time he made it into office--but that's besides the point. More people in this country felt that George W. Bush was the best man for the job. Arnold Schwarzenegger felt that George W. Bush was the best man for the job.
Maybe Arnold made a mistake--George pulled the wool over his eyes just like he did with the rest of America. But is that really the best reason not to like Schwarzenegger? I wonder how many people who voted for Bush in the last election are thinking, "Yeah! That bastard voted for Bush too!" If that was a good reason not to elect Arnold, then it seems to me that everyone else who voted for Bush's second term really shouldn't be qualified to be voters anymore. They screwed up! They've lost the right to an opinion, and they've lost the right to vote!
Doesn't really make sense, I know, which is what is so friggin' annoying to me. They're trying to convince the very people who voted Bush into office that Arnold is not fit to govern because he supported Bush. That's f*cked up.
The particular ad I'm annoyed with now is against re-electing Schwarzenegger for another term as governor of this populous state. The reason? He supported re-electing George W. Bush. I had him, chanting with an audience, "George W. Bush!" with a narrator saying something about would you want to support someone who supports George W. Bush.
Really? Is that the worst they can do? As much as most people hate to admit it today, he was actually voted into office after getting more of the popular votes than anyone else--which is more than can be said for the first time he made it into office--but that's besides the point. More people in this country felt that George W. Bush was the best man for the job. Arnold Schwarzenegger felt that George W. Bush was the best man for the job.
Maybe Arnold made a mistake--George pulled the wool over his eyes just like he did with the rest of America. But is that really the best reason not to like Schwarzenegger? I wonder how many people who voted for Bush in the last election are thinking, "Yeah! That bastard voted for Bush too!" If that was a good reason not to elect Arnold, then it seems to me that everyone else who voted for Bush's second term really shouldn't be qualified to be voters anymore. They screwed up! They've lost the right to an opinion, and they've lost the right to vote!
Doesn't really make sense, I know, which is what is so friggin' annoying to me. They're trying to convince the very people who voted Bush into office that Arnold is not fit to govern because he supported Bush. That's f*cked up.
Monday, September 04, 2006
I dunt no no inglish
Since when has it been okay to use a double negative in this country? For instance, take this sentence, "I have not not gone shopping." Technically, it is grammatically correct. I suppose. It's awkward, obviously, but the two 'nots' essentially cancel each other out and you wind up with the meaning, "I have gone shopping." More or less.
Apparently, geeks with GPSes never learned this fact, because I constantly see coordinates written like this: "The latitude of Cumberland is 43.756N and the longitude is -70.189W."
It's that -70.189W that really bugs me. What is it? -70.189 degrees, or 70.189W? You can't have both. Well, technically, it's possible, but -70.189W actually means 70.189 east, which is clearly not what they meant to write since it would put Cumberland, Maine (a real city, btw, which I use as an example since it's the latest one to have bugged me) somewhere in Siberia, I suspect.
Think of it like this. Start at the prime meridian. Face west. Then walk precisely -70.189 degrees. That negative means you'd have to walk backwards and be walking a complete 180 degrees in the wrong direction!
So please, unless you live in Latin America (where two negatives actually IS a negative), use either a negative sign or the letter for W, but never use both at once. You just look like an idiot when you do that.
-- Ryan, who's currently located in Seattle not far from 47.57N and 122.39W, but will probably never be found at 47.57N and -122.39W (which would put me not far from Qiqihar, China)
Apparently, geeks with GPSes never learned this fact, because I constantly see coordinates written like this: "The latitude of Cumberland is 43.756N and the longitude is -70.189W."
It's that -70.189W that really bugs me. What is it? -70.189 degrees, or 70.189W? You can't have both. Well, technically, it's possible, but -70.189W actually means 70.189 east, which is clearly not what they meant to write since it would put Cumberland, Maine (a real city, btw, which I use as an example since it's the latest one to have bugged me) somewhere in Siberia, I suspect.
Think of it like this. Start at the prime meridian. Face west. Then walk precisely -70.189 degrees. That negative means you'd have to walk backwards and be walking a complete 180 degrees in the wrong direction!
So please, unless you live in Latin America (where two negatives actually IS a negative), use either a negative sign or the letter for W, but never use both at once. You just look like an idiot when you do that.
-- Ryan, who's currently located in Seattle not far from 47.57N and 122.39W, but will probably never be found at 47.57N and -122.39W (which would put me not far from Qiqihar, China)
Saturday, August 26, 2006
The Fox Guarding the Hen House....
One of my loyal readers--perhaps the only one--has recently complained about my not getting irate about something recently, so I promised that I would. I read the recent news online, and found this little article labeled "U.S. management-led buyouts soar." If that's not something to get your blood boiling, nothing will!
In a nutshell, what happens is that the management of a publicly traded company decides to take the company "private"--which means they own the company and you do not. Let's take a made-up example to make this clear.
The management of a company named Fuku decides that the stock is dirt cheap at $10. Too cheap, in fact. It really should be much higher--perhaps $20/share. Rather than wait for people to wake up and notice this absurdly low price, they offer to buy it themselves for $15/share. The shareholders, allegedly, are happy since they've just nabbed themselves a 50% profit overnight. The management is happy because they just screwed you out of $5 per share!
If there's one thing that management cares more about than shareholders--and remember, their job is to please and answer to YOU above all else--it's themselves. It should be absolutely criminal to allow management to act as both the seller of a publicly traded company and the buyer of the same company. Talk about major conflicts of interest!
All publicly traded companies trade over and below their true value for extended periods of time. When they trade below their intrinsic value, the management should be purchasing shares and retiring them to improve the fortunes of the shareholders. When shares trade above their real value, management should THEN start looking to sell shares to any idiot that would buy overpriced shares.
It's good business. And a CEO that wants to sell out the company out from under you when it's underpriced? That's a CEO that needs to get the boot. Any board members who support such an action should likewise get the boot.
Never, EVER sell out to insiders! They know more about the company than you do, and they're only going to buy when they know they can screw you out of money that's rightfully yours to begin with. Just say no to management-led buyouts! Then boot the management out of office. You can do better than that.
In a nutshell, what happens is that the management of a publicly traded company decides to take the company "private"--which means they own the company and you do not. Let's take a made-up example to make this clear.
The management of a company named Fuku decides that the stock is dirt cheap at $10. Too cheap, in fact. It really should be much higher--perhaps $20/share. Rather than wait for people to wake up and notice this absurdly low price, they offer to buy it themselves for $15/share. The shareholders, allegedly, are happy since they've just nabbed themselves a 50% profit overnight. The management is happy because they just screwed you out of $5 per share!
If there's one thing that management cares more about than shareholders--and remember, their job is to please and answer to YOU above all else--it's themselves. It should be absolutely criminal to allow management to act as both the seller of a publicly traded company and the buyer of the same company. Talk about major conflicts of interest!
All publicly traded companies trade over and below their true value for extended periods of time. When they trade below their intrinsic value, the management should be purchasing shares and retiring them to improve the fortunes of the shareholders. When shares trade above their real value, management should THEN start looking to sell shares to any idiot that would buy overpriced shares.
It's good business. And a CEO that wants to sell out the company out from under you when it's underpriced? That's a CEO that needs to get the boot. Any board members who support such an action should likewise get the boot.
Never, EVER sell out to insiders! They know more about the company than you do, and they're only going to buy when they know they can screw you out of money that's rightfully yours to begin with. Just say no to management-led buyouts! Then boot the management out of office. You can do better than that.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The Real Problems in Society....
Did you hear? If not, you were probably dead or maybe vacationing in Guatemala, but Mel Gibson was caught drinking and driving and alas, verbally abused the Jewish people of the world while getting arrested. It's a big scandal. People of all religions were shocked and horrified. Many are ready to boycott his movies.
Did I miss something here? Since when has verbally bashing Jews been a bigger crime than drinking and driving!!! Mel Gibson could have run over a pedestrian, ran into a bus full of school children, or drove over the side of a cliff onto a bunch of beach hippies. Nobody cares about that, though. No, nobody seems surprised or concerned that he felt he could drink and drive and risk not only his own life but the people around him.
No, because he had a few bad words to say about Jews, he's off the hook for drinking and driving. It's the anti-Semite defense.
"You killed your wife, three children, and the pet dog. What do you have to say for yourself?"
"It's those damn Jews! It's all their fault! They're the cause of all the world's wars and problems!"
"Well, shoot, that's just wrong. We're going to boycott your movies! So there! You can go home now."
Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Jews myself. In fact, my first girlfriend was Jewish, and although it did not work out between us, her religion was the least of our problems. My thought it is that drinking and driving is a far more dangerous, far more disturbing problem than a few bad words against Jews. This should be a time to educate the masses about the dangers of drinking and driving. This should be a time to remind people that even famous movie stars are expected to follow common sense and respect the safety of others.
But no, sadly, it's just turned into an opportunity that a small minority in this country can use to educate the masses on their problems. I can't blame them for that--they're actually pretty smart doing this. Grab attention for their woes when they can. I only wish Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the police, and the news media would focus on the bigger crime--the one that could very well have ended in death.
Did I miss something here? Since when has verbally bashing Jews been a bigger crime than drinking and driving!!! Mel Gibson could have run over a pedestrian, ran into a bus full of school children, or drove over the side of a cliff onto a bunch of beach hippies. Nobody cares about that, though. No, nobody seems surprised or concerned that he felt he could drink and drive and risk not only his own life but the people around him.
No, because he had a few bad words to say about Jews, he's off the hook for drinking and driving. It's the anti-Semite defense.
"You killed your wife, three children, and the pet dog. What do you have to say for yourself?"
"It's those damn Jews! It's all their fault! They're the cause of all the world's wars and problems!"
"Well, shoot, that's just wrong. We're going to boycott your movies! So there! You can go home now."
Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Jews myself. In fact, my first girlfriend was Jewish, and although it did not work out between us, her religion was the least of our problems. My thought it is that drinking and driving is a far more dangerous, far more disturbing problem than a few bad words against Jews. This should be a time to educate the masses about the dangers of drinking and driving. This should be a time to remind people that even famous movie stars are expected to follow common sense and respect the safety of others.
But no, sadly, it's just turned into an opportunity that a small minority in this country can use to educate the masses on their problems. I can't blame them for that--they're actually pretty smart doing this. Grab attention for their woes when they can. I only wish Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the police, and the news media would focus on the bigger crime--the one that could very well have ended in death.
Friday, July 21, 2006
A Real Chance of Winning Big... NOT!
I saw a commercial the other day. I wasn't paying particular attention to it--just your usual lottery commercial--at least until it claimed that you have a "real" chance of winning.
Really? Has there ever been a single lottery that gives people a "real" chance of winning? Aren't they designed to suck money out of your pocket faster than Las Vegas? Just because there are $26 million up for grabs doesn't mean the cost of 'winning' it is substantially more than that.
Besides giving people a false sense of hope, I have a special bone to pick on state lotteries. They're the absolute worst form of gambling--the largest state-sponsered fraud of all time. Las Vegas has payback ratios in excess of 95%. You see the ads all the time about the 'loosest slots' and even some with payback ratios of 98%. So for every one dollar you gamble, you'll likely get back 98 cents. The casinos still have the odds stacked in their favor, but they cash in when you go back and bet the 98 cents, then come out with 96 cents. Then try your luck again with 96 cents and come back with 94 cents. And so forth.
Those state lotteries, though--those are the worst. They typically payback about 50% of what you bet. Your odds of winning are significantly better by going to Las Vegas and doing your gambling there. Think about that. Those magnificent casinos were built off of the common man's gambling losses.
The worst part about state lotteries isn't the lousy payouts, though. No, the absolute worst part is that because so many states have become so reliant on the income lotteries generate, they actually encourage their citizens to play. A tax on stupid people, as it's called. Our state governments, which should be protecting us, are doing everything in their power to destroy the fiscal responsibilities of their constituents. They have lots of convincing reasons to throw your money out the window.
For instance, proceeds from the lottery help fund schools. It helps justify the state raping you. "Yeah, they took all my money, but at least it's going towards a good cause!" You know what happens when you take money from the lottery and give it to schools? Schools become very dependent on that money. The state may not fund the schools as much from general tax revenue--and why should they? The lottery is paying for it! Net gain for the schools: Absolutely nothing. When you hear about all this money the lottery provides for schools, ask yourself: Why have so many of them sold out to Coke or Pepsi? Why have so many of them started selling food from Pizza Hut and other fast-food locations? They aren't doing it "for the kids." They're doing it for the money. That such a terrible conflict of interest would be allowed to exist is astounding.
Now I'm not really qualified to say if schools are getting their fair share of money or not--I don't have kids nor is the total amount of money going to schools my beef--but rather, if we want to fund schools, I'd rather it come from the general tax revenue instead of putting schools into the awkward situation of promoting other businesses (lottery, fast food, or anything else for that matter) that, in the long run, can have an extraordinarily bad influence on the kids its supposed to be helping.
Lotteries are a terribly inefficient way to collect taxes. Satistically, it's the poorest people who fall for it--the very people who can least afford it. What would you do if a politician comes up for reelection after promoting a tax on the poorest of the poor?
Just say no to lotteries!
Really? Has there ever been a single lottery that gives people a "real" chance of winning? Aren't they designed to suck money out of your pocket faster than Las Vegas? Just because there are $26 million up for grabs doesn't mean the cost of 'winning' it is substantially more than that.
Besides giving people a false sense of hope, I have a special bone to pick on state lotteries. They're the absolute worst form of gambling--the largest state-sponsered fraud of all time. Las Vegas has payback ratios in excess of 95%. You see the ads all the time about the 'loosest slots' and even some with payback ratios of 98%. So for every one dollar you gamble, you'll likely get back 98 cents. The casinos still have the odds stacked in their favor, but they cash in when you go back and bet the 98 cents, then come out with 96 cents. Then try your luck again with 96 cents and come back with 94 cents. And so forth.
Those state lotteries, though--those are the worst. They typically payback about 50% of what you bet. Your odds of winning are significantly better by going to Las Vegas and doing your gambling there. Think about that. Those magnificent casinos were built off of the common man's gambling losses.
The worst part about state lotteries isn't the lousy payouts, though. No, the absolute worst part is that because so many states have become so reliant on the income lotteries generate, they actually encourage their citizens to play. A tax on stupid people, as it's called. Our state governments, which should be protecting us, are doing everything in their power to destroy the fiscal responsibilities of their constituents. They have lots of convincing reasons to throw your money out the window.
For instance, proceeds from the lottery help fund schools. It helps justify the state raping you. "Yeah, they took all my money, but at least it's going towards a good cause!" You know what happens when you take money from the lottery and give it to schools? Schools become very dependent on that money. The state may not fund the schools as much from general tax revenue--and why should they? The lottery is paying for it! Net gain for the schools: Absolutely nothing. When you hear about all this money the lottery provides for schools, ask yourself: Why have so many of them sold out to Coke or Pepsi? Why have so many of them started selling food from Pizza Hut and other fast-food locations? They aren't doing it "for the kids." They're doing it for the money. That such a terrible conflict of interest would be allowed to exist is astounding.
Now I'm not really qualified to say if schools are getting their fair share of money or not--I don't have kids nor is the total amount of money going to schools my beef--but rather, if we want to fund schools, I'd rather it come from the general tax revenue instead of putting schools into the awkward situation of promoting other businesses (lottery, fast food, or anything else for that matter) that, in the long run, can have an extraordinarily bad influence on the kids its supposed to be helping.
Lotteries are a terribly inefficient way to collect taxes. Satistically, it's the poorest people who fall for it--the very people who can least afford it. What would you do if a politician comes up for reelection after promoting a tax on the poorest of the poor?
Just say no to lotteries!
Monday, July 17, 2006
Turning Green?
I was in the library the other day and couldn't help but notice the cover of Newsweek. It was green. The whole cover. You'd have thought it was St. Patricks Day or something, but no, the headline on the cover said something about how "green" was in. Which was kind of surprising for a couple of reasons.
First, I thought being environmentally conscious had been "in" for quite a number of years now. When I was a kid, I don't ever recycling anything. It wasn't exactly yesterday recycling became "in". Probably the early 90s, I'd imagine, but don't quote me on that. My point being that it wasn't exactly yesterday, and there's already a whole generation of young adults today who probably don't even remember the time before recycling was a fashion statement.
My second thought was, "Bullshit!." Few people have had a sudden change of heart to save the environment. Nobody cared about hybrids when gas was selling at a dollar per gallon--they wanted SUVs. They didn't care about using double-paned windows to keep heat in and the cold out during the winter--electricity was cheap so they didn't care about conserving it. Few people worried about 'energy-efficient' appliances, carpooling, or public transportation.
The sudden change of heart has nothing to do with saving the environment--it's the wallet, stupid. People want more full-efficient cars to save money. They want to stop heat from leaking out the windows during the winter to save on heating costs. They want energy-efficient appliances to save on the electric bill, and washing machines that use less water to save on that water bill.
Give someone a million bucks and I'll bet you most of them will 'upgrade' their vehicle to something a bit less fuel efficient. Millionaires don't worry about the price of gas, after all. Drive down electric prices and people will start wondering if less expensive appliances that use more electricity might be the way to go.
It's the pocketbook, the almighty pocketbook. Sure, saving the environment is a nice bonus, but who are we kidding? High energy prices might save this planet yet. =)
*** This just in! ****
I just ran a spell check on this article, and it complained about the word 'carpooling'. I'm pretty sure I spelled it right and the spell checker just doesn't know the term--not a very green spell checker, is it? Or is it...? The first suggestion it offered as a correction was "corpulence". Make that a lesson--get out and walk whenever you can! Carpooling is good, but walking, riding a bike, or riding the public bus is even better. ;o)
First, I thought being environmentally conscious had been "in" for quite a number of years now. When I was a kid, I don't ever recycling anything. It wasn't exactly yesterday recycling became "in". Probably the early 90s, I'd imagine, but don't quote me on that. My point being that it wasn't exactly yesterday, and there's already a whole generation of young adults today who probably don't even remember the time before recycling was a fashion statement.
My second thought was, "Bullshit!." Few people have had a sudden change of heart to save the environment. Nobody cared about hybrids when gas was selling at a dollar per gallon--they wanted SUVs. They didn't care about using double-paned windows to keep heat in and the cold out during the winter--electricity was cheap so they didn't care about conserving it. Few people worried about 'energy-efficient' appliances, carpooling, or public transportation.
The sudden change of heart has nothing to do with saving the environment--it's the wallet, stupid. People want more full-efficient cars to save money. They want to stop heat from leaking out the windows during the winter to save on heating costs. They want energy-efficient appliances to save on the electric bill, and washing machines that use less water to save on that water bill.
Give someone a million bucks and I'll bet you most of them will 'upgrade' their vehicle to something a bit less fuel efficient. Millionaires don't worry about the price of gas, after all. Drive down electric prices and people will start wondering if less expensive appliances that use more electricity might be the way to go.
It's the pocketbook, the almighty pocketbook. Sure, saving the environment is a nice bonus, but who are we kidding? High energy prices might save this planet yet. =)
*** This just in! ****
I just ran a spell check on this article, and it complained about the word 'carpooling'. I'm pretty sure I spelled it right and the spell checker just doesn't know the term--not a very green spell checker, is it? Or is it...? The first suggestion it offered as a correction was "corpulence". Make that a lesson--get out and walk whenever you can! Carpooling is good, but walking, riding a bike, or riding the public bus is even better. ;o)
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Prospering is a good thing.... right?
Some people like to read People magazine. Me? I like to read BusinessWeek. It took me awhile to find this publication. I wasn't really looking for it, though--I had frequent flyer miles with Continental Airlines but, alas, I wasn't flying frequently enough. After three years, they sent me a letter saying I had to have *some* sort of activity on my account or they'd close it. But, to help me out, God bless them, they included a form so I could subscribe to lots of magazines and use those miles that were sitting around doing nothing. Plus, since that would make my account 'active', they wouldn't close it for another three years.
I looked over the list and the more lusty magazines didn't seem to be offered, so instead I selected Smithsonian, BusinessWeek, Backpacker, Outside, and probably a couple of others I now forget. Anyhow, I had no idea that I'd become a BusinessWeek addict. First of all, it comes every single week! I really enjoy the other magazines. Smithsonian is amazing and I feel a certain degree of fondness for if for no other reason than introducing America to letterboxing. Who knew that such a little article could ultimately change the course of my entire life. The biggest irony of all was that I never did read that original article! =)
But it comes once a month. I get really into the magazine, finish it from cover to cover, wishing there were more. And a week later, the feeling's gone. "What? Smithsonian?" I think a month later when the next issue comes. "Did I subscribe to that?"
But BusinessWeek--oh, they hook you. Every single week. =) It's great. It has scandals! Sex! Shocking turns of events! The greatest of successes and the greatest of failures. Fascinating stuff.
The last issue I read had a small article about website that bring people who need money together with people who have money. Person-to-person loans. And it mentioned a website: Prosper.com
I'm fascinated by this idea. Cut out the middleman (i.e. banks). In theory, those lending money can get better rates than they would by giving it to a bank, and those needing money can get better rates than they could get from a bank--if they can get a loan from a bank in the first place. In a nutshell, borrowers list the loan they need, then lenders bid on the loan until the borrower can get the best rate possible. So I went to prosper.com and checked out the site in question.
I was hooked. I read late into the night. What kind of interest rates was it for someone with an AA credit rating? What about a D or E rating? Who were these people that borrowed money from other people on the web? Who were these people that lent money to other people on the web?
I never did learn much about the people lending money, but if you check out the front page of prosper.com you'll see a list of "Featured Loan Listings". When I visited, there was a woman in her early 20s wanting a $20,000 loan to start a consulting business. Another person was trying to consolidate credit card debt into a low, or rather, lower cost loan. He itemized all of his monetary expenses and listed his monthy income to show he could reliably pay off the loan.
I'm not sure there's anyone actually verifying all the information they put online, and certainly the borrowers have a good reason to make themselves look like better borrowers than they might be, but it's fascinating how much personal--very personal--information they've put online.
It was well after midnight when Amanda walked in on me. "What are you doing?"
"Uhh....." I looked ashamed. "I was surfing the web. Prosper.com"
So I explained what the site was about, then clicked on the loan for the woman who wanted $20,000 for a consulting business. Amanda gasped. "It's porn!"
"No it's not! It's just someone who needs a loan!"
"It's financial porn!"
And I knew she was right. It is financial porn. I couldn't pull myself away. I wanted to read about other hardship stories. People with medical problems and the large debts they incurred because of it. Students trying to pay for their next semester of college. I kept clicking and clicking, unable to pull myself away from the monitor.
I'm still fascinated by the idea, and I keep going back to the site to read about newly listed loans. Right now, there's a woman with an E credit rating asking for $2,550 at 24.99%. A real tear-jerker of a story with a spouse that abused her and ruined her life, but she's digging out right now. I'm not really sure I believe the story--it could be true, but she seems a little too desperate for money. I'm not convinced she'd actually pay it all back. I wish her the best of luck, but as an investment, I'd stay away from her.
The next person needs $1,500 at 18% for nursing school. She has a D credit rating with a debt/income ratio of 11%. Not stellar, but definitely could be worse. I think this might be a good investment. Nurses are in high demand, and with baby boomers getting older the demand is bound to continue increasing. I like the fact she's in her 40s. Most of those kids in their 20s seem like irresponsible idiots, while most of the people I knew in school who were in their 40s really wanted to better their lives. This loan is actually already 100% funded by 13 different people, but the bidding doesn't finish for another 6 days, 15 hours, and 27 minutes. I could still get in on the bidding, but I'd have to offer something lower than 18% (as does anyone else who choose to bid on this loan).
I'm not going to bid on this loan--I've sent no money to prosper.com to do any bidding--but I'm glad this person's loan is already fully funded. It sounds like she'll likely get a much better rate than the 18% she was asking for, and I want her to do well. This is a story, I think, that will have a happy ending. =)
Financial porn. Love it or hate it, it's here to stay.
I looked over the list and the more lusty magazines didn't seem to be offered, so instead I selected Smithsonian, BusinessWeek, Backpacker, Outside, and probably a couple of others I now forget. Anyhow, I had no idea that I'd become a BusinessWeek addict. First of all, it comes every single week! I really enjoy the other magazines. Smithsonian is amazing and I feel a certain degree of fondness for if for no other reason than introducing America to letterboxing. Who knew that such a little article could ultimately change the course of my entire life. The biggest irony of all was that I never did read that original article! =)
But it comes once a month. I get really into the magazine, finish it from cover to cover, wishing there were more. And a week later, the feeling's gone. "What? Smithsonian?" I think a month later when the next issue comes. "Did I subscribe to that?"
But BusinessWeek--oh, they hook you. Every single week. =) It's great. It has scandals! Sex! Shocking turns of events! The greatest of successes and the greatest of failures. Fascinating stuff.
The last issue I read had a small article about website that bring people who need money together with people who have money. Person-to-person loans. And it mentioned a website: Prosper.com
I'm fascinated by this idea. Cut out the middleman (i.e. banks). In theory, those lending money can get better rates than they would by giving it to a bank, and those needing money can get better rates than they could get from a bank--if they can get a loan from a bank in the first place. In a nutshell, borrowers list the loan they need, then lenders bid on the loan until the borrower can get the best rate possible. So I went to prosper.com and checked out the site in question.
I was hooked. I read late into the night. What kind of interest rates was it for someone with an AA credit rating? What about a D or E rating? Who were these people that borrowed money from other people on the web? Who were these people that lent money to other people on the web?
I never did learn much about the people lending money, but if you check out the front page of prosper.com you'll see a list of "Featured Loan Listings". When I visited, there was a woman in her early 20s wanting a $20,000 loan to start a consulting business. Another person was trying to consolidate credit card debt into a low, or rather, lower cost loan. He itemized all of his monetary expenses and listed his monthy income to show he could reliably pay off the loan.
I'm not sure there's anyone actually verifying all the information they put online, and certainly the borrowers have a good reason to make themselves look like better borrowers than they might be, but it's fascinating how much personal--very personal--information they've put online.
It was well after midnight when Amanda walked in on me. "What are you doing?"
"Uhh....." I looked ashamed. "I was surfing the web. Prosper.com"
So I explained what the site was about, then clicked on the loan for the woman who wanted $20,000 for a consulting business. Amanda gasped. "It's porn!"
"No it's not! It's just someone who needs a loan!"
"It's financial porn!"
And I knew she was right. It is financial porn. I couldn't pull myself away. I wanted to read about other hardship stories. People with medical problems and the large debts they incurred because of it. Students trying to pay for their next semester of college. I kept clicking and clicking, unable to pull myself away from the monitor.
I'm still fascinated by the idea, and I keep going back to the site to read about newly listed loans. Right now, there's a woman with an E credit rating asking for $2,550 at 24.99%. A real tear-jerker of a story with a spouse that abused her and ruined her life, but she's digging out right now. I'm not really sure I believe the story--it could be true, but she seems a little too desperate for money. I'm not convinced she'd actually pay it all back. I wish her the best of luck, but as an investment, I'd stay away from her.
The next person needs $1,500 at 18% for nursing school. She has a D credit rating with a debt/income ratio of 11%. Not stellar, but definitely could be worse. I think this might be a good investment. Nurses are in high demand, and with baby boomers getting older the demand is bound to continue increasing. I like the fact she's in her 40s. Most of those kids in their 20s seem like irresponsible idiots, while most of the people I knew in school who were in their 40s really wanted to better their lives. This loan is actually already 100% funded by 13 different people, but the bidding doesn't finish for another 6 days, 15 hours, and 27 minutes. I could still get in on the bidding, but I'd have to offer something lower than 18% (as does anyone else who choose to bid on this loan).
I'm not going to bid on this loan--I've sent no money to prosper.com to do any bidding--but I'm glad this person's loan is already fully funded. It sounds like she'll likely get a much better rate than the 18% she was asking for, and I want her to do well. This is a story, I think, that will have a happy ending. =)
Financial porn. Love it or hate it, it's here to stay.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Flag Burning
What better day to post about flag burning than Independence Day. The day our small, little colonies decided to get together and cast off the heavy glove of King George.
Since the dawn of time, flags have had a patriotic value, are cheap to make, and easy to burn. Thus, flag burning as a form of protest came about. Quite simple, really, and oh so controversial. The house passed a constitutional amendment to bad flag burning, but the senate did not. Even if the senate passed it, fully three-fourths of the states would have also had to agree to it. It's not easy getting a constitution amendment passed, which might be the reason it's happened only about two dozen times in over 200 years since our independence. The first ten you can't really count since it was a requirement to get the colonies to agree to the constitution in the first place.
People have spent a lot of time, money, and effort trying to protect or ban flag burning as a right to free speech which I think is the biggest tragedy of all. Of all the problems in this world to get worked up about, of all the millions of people around the globe who are starving, sick with AIDS, or tortured for having an opinion about their government, why the hell would anyone spend two minutes worrying about whether someone else can burn a flag or not?
Let's say we did ban it. What then? People who are so upset at the government to burn the American flag probably aren't going to let a little civil disobedience stop them. Never has before--civil disobedience has been a very popular option over the years for those who wish to protest, and making it illegal would just give those guys another way to attract even more attention than before. I sure as heck don't want to PAY money to keep such hardened, flag-burning criminals in jail. And when push comes to shove, they'll still show their disrespect for our country. Perhaps they'll buy little figurines of an eagle and drive over them.
But banning the flag burning--where does it end? Should we outlaw all forms of protest that might be considered disrespectful to our national symbols? What if we want to throw an anti-war protest and include a burning effigy of President Bush? After all, he's the face of the American government at the moment, and protesting him or anything he does could be considered anti-American.
Now, I'm not a flag burner myself. I'm pretty fond of this country I live in--despite the terrible things this country has done in the past from allowing slavery to the near extinction of the Native Americans. I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that they've earned the right to burn the American flag in spades for the way we've treated them.
What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if you lived in Cuba and Castro decided to make flag burning illegal? Would that be terribly bad? Ruthless dictatorships don't really deserve much respect, in my humble opinion. The irony, of course, is they can ban flag burning far more easily than a free country such as ourselves.
If you don't like flag burning--try something new. Ignore them. Don't give those people the time of day and when they realize their message isn't getting across, they'll stop and do something else.
Since the dawn of time, flags have had a patriotic value, are cheap to make, and easy to burn. Thus, flag burning as a form of protest came about. Quite simple, really, and oh so controversial. The house passed a constitutional amendment to bad flag burning, but the senate did not. Even if the senate passed it, fully three-fourths of the states would have also had to agree to it. It's not easy getting a constitution amendment passed, which might be the reason it's happened only about two dozen times in over 200 years since our independence. The first ten you can't really count since it was a requirement to get the colonies to agree to the constitution in the first place.
People have spent a lot of time, money, and effort trying to protect or ban flag burning as a right to free speech which I think is the biggest tragedy of all. Of all the problems in this world to get worked up about, of all the millions of people around the globe who are starving, sick with AIDS, or tortured for having an opinion about their government, why the hell would anyone spend two minutes worrying about whether someone else can burn a flag or not?
Let's say we did ban it. What then? People who are so upset at the government to burn the American flag probably aren't going to let a little civil disobedience stop them. Never has before--civil disobedience has been a very popular option over the years for those who wish to protest, and making it illegal would just give those guys another way to attract even more attention than before. I sure as heck don't want to PAY money to keep such hardened, flag-burning criminals in jail. And when push comes to shove, they'll still show their disrespect for our country. Perhaps they'll buy little figurines of an eagle and drive over them.
But banning the flag burning--where does it end? Should we outlaw all forms of protest that might be considered disrespectful to our national symbols? What if we want to throw an anti-war protest and include a burning effigy of President Bush? After all, he's the face of the American government at the moment, and protesting him or anything he does could be considered anti-American.
Now, I'm not a flag burner myself. I'm pretty fond of this country I live in--despite the terrible things this country has done in the past from allowing slavery to the near extinction of the Native Americans. I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that they've earned the right to burn the American flag in spades for the way we've treated them.
What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if you lived in Cuba and Castro decided to make flag burning illegal? Would that be terribly bad? Ruthless dictatorships don't really deserve much respect, in my humble opinion. The irony, of course, is they can ban flag burning far more easily than a free country such as ourselves.
If you don't like flag burning--try something new. Ignore them. Don't give those people the time of day and when they realize their message isn't getting across, they'll stop and do something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
