The last couple of days, I've noticed a strong focus on the stock market. It's been a "wild week" as one news anchor described it. Another said that investors are nervous and fearful. Today the DOW fell about 200 points, but ended up the day off just a few points. Whew!
Well, I'm an investor. Most of my assets are in stocks right this minute, invested in some companies that you may have heard of such as Costco, Boeing, and Microsoft. Guess what? I have absolutely no idea how well the stocks have done this week, and I really don't care. I'm not nervous, nor am I fearful. I am hopeful, however, that stocks will crash terribly hard. For a couple of weeks, at least, so I can buy up more for so much less. When I hear news anchors saying that I'm nervous and fearful, that I should step back and rethink my investments, I get very excited. To me, that means it's time to buy.
Why does the news always get everything so darned wrong?
Friday, August 10, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
What Your Car Says About You
I recently read somewhere that the number one reason people give for buying a Toyota Prius--any guesses out there? Perhaps to do good for the environment? I never really believed that for a minute since the concept of hybrids didn't really take off until after gas prices more than doubled seemingly overnight a few years back. I would have guess it was to save on fuel costs, but apparently, that's not the reason either.
The number one reason people provide for buying a hybrid--it makes them look cool. They want others to think they are environmental stewards of the world. I'm a bit conflicted about that. On the one hand, it bothers me that people are more concerned about their image than they are about the world. On the other hand, it's kind of nice to know that we can peer pressured people into doing what's good for the environment. (Not all peer pressure is bad!)
Ever since I read that article, though, whenever I see a Toyota Prius, I can't help but think, "How sad. They must have low self esteem if they are so concerned about how they look."
At the same time, however, I have a bit more respect for those driving around in a non-Prius hybrid. Perhaps they're doing it for selfish reasons (to save money at the gas pump), or maybe they're doing it for the environment (two thumbs up!), or maybe a combination of both. But those are reasons I can understand and support. Oddly, the more someone actively works on their image, the less respect I tend to have for them. Be proud of who you are! And if someone doesn't like that, well, that's their problem, not yours. Isn't it? =)
What your car says about you (the serious version)
What your car says about you (the not-so-serious version)
The number one reason people provide for buying a hybrid--it makes them look cool. They want others to think they are environmental stewards of the world. I'm a bit conflicted about that. On the one hand, it bothers me that people are more concerned about their image than they are about the world. On the other hand, it's kind of nice to know that we can peer pressured people into doing what's good for the environment. (Not all peer pressure is bad!)
Ever since I read that article, though, whenever I see a Toyota Prius, I can't help but think, "How sad. They must have low self esteem if they are so concerned about how they look."
At the same time, however, I have a bit more respect for those driving around in a non-Prius hybrid. Perhaps they're doing it for selfish reasons (to save money at the gas pump), or maybe they're doing it for the environment (two thumbs up!), or maybe a combination of both. But those are reasons I can understand and support. Oddly, the more someone actively works on their image, the less respect I tend to have for them. Be proud of who you are! And if someone doesn't like that, well, that's their problem, not yours. Isn't it? =)
What your car says about you (the serious version)
What your car says about you (the not-so-serious version)
Monday, July 02, 2007
Bush spares Libby from prison
Doesn't that title make you angry? Yeah, me too.
The article then quotes Bush as saying, "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." Excessive? I've heard the same thing about Paris Hilton's prison sentence, but I didn't see her get a pardon.
Perhaps Libby's sentence is excessive--I'm not sure what is typical in a case such as this. But doesn't taking Libby out of prison completely mean his sentence is now too light?
There was also this nugget in the article: "Bush stopped short of an outright pardon, leaving intact a $250,000 fine and Libby's two-years' probation."
Hey, anybody else out there would rather have Libby serve out 30 months in prison and pardon the fine and probation instead? I think that would have been a fair trade. =)
I'm actually very surprised about the pardon, and wonder if Bush is trying to hide even bigger secrets. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories. I think Lee Harvey Oswald really did do it. But consider this. This just looks bad. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, it stinks to high heaven. Bush had nothing to gain by keeping Libby out of jail, but a whole lot of bad press (which is the last thing he needs). So why would he do it? For justice? This, from the same guy that's probably done more to erode civil liberties and privacy than perhaps any other president in American history? So really, why would he keep Libby out of jail with absolutely nothing to gain?
Libby was entrenched very deeply in the White House. He probably knows a lot of things that Bush would rather not have public. How do you buy such silence?
Okay, it's circumstantial. Maybe Bush is just trying to be a good man, pushing for a fair sentence. But he's not exactly an impartial observer to be making such decisions. Just because he has the legal right to do so doesn't mean he should. I'm very disappointed.
The article then quotes Bush as saying, "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." Excessive? I've heard the same thing about Paris Hilton's prison sentence, but I didn't see her get a pardon.
Perhaps Libby's sentence is excessive--I'm not sure what is typical in a case such as this. But doesn't taking Libby out of prison completely mean his sentence is now too light?
There was also this nugget in the article: "Bush stopped short of an outright pardon, leaving intact a $250,000 fine and Libby's two-years' probation."
Hey, anybody else out there would rather have Libby serve out 30 months in prison and pardon the fine and probation instead? I think that would have been a fair trade. =)
I'm actually very surprised about the pardon, and wonder if Bush is trying to hide even bigger secrets. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories. I think Lee Harvey Oswald really did do it. But consider this. This just looks bad. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, it stinks to high heaven. Bush had nothing to gain by keeping Libby out of jail, but a whole lot of bad press (which is the last thing he needs). So why would he do it? For justice? This, from the same guy that's probably done more to erode civil liberties and privacy than perhaps any other president in American history? So really, why would he keep Libby out of jail with absolutely nothing to gain?
Libby was entrenched very deeply in the White House. He probably knows a lot of things that Bush would rather not have public. How do you buy such silence?
Okay, it's circumstantial. Maybe Bush is just trying to be a good man, pushing for a fair sentence. But he's not exactly an impartial observer to be making such decisions. Just because he has the legal right to do so doesn't mean he should. I'm very disappointed.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
If they have to tell you....
For those of you not living in the Seattle area, one of the news stations around here is the first to broadcast in high definition. King5 news. I saw it a month or so ago when they first started it, with a flashy intro like a laser cutting across the screen and a noise not unlike someone pressing 20 keys on an organ simultaneously. You know the sound--you hear it often at the beginning of movies when they want to brag about the sound quality. I wish I could tell you what it was called, but frankly, I don't really care. But I recognize that sound.
But here's the thing for me. I don't have a high definition television. The broadcast looks exactly the same to me. But now they make it sound like the news is so much glitzier because whew! Thank God we can see the pimple on the face of the news anchor. Well, at least if you have a high definition television.
I find the whole thing annoying, though. It's like a smack in the face to everyone who doesn't have a high definition set, and those that already have it--shouldn't they be able to SEE the difference anyhow? If you have to tell people you're broadcasting in HD, does it really count?
If that wasn't enough, the meteorologist on that station now has new software that can take you "into" a storm. You can view it in three dimensions. Is this really helpful? When I want the weather report, I really want answers to questions such as:
And then I realized. They're trying to dazzle you with all these pictures because.... they don't really know how hot it is going to be, or if it'll rain today! They're distracting you with useless information so you won't notice how little information they do have. It's all fluff. I don't care that an area of low pressure is coming in. What the heck does that mean? There have been times I've wanted to pay attention to the weather to see if it would rain, and while presenting all that fluff, my eyes glaze over and next thing I know, they're thanking me for tuning in and they'll be back at 5:00 the next morning. (And who the heck watches the news at 11:00 at night then gets up at 5:00 the next morning to find out what happened during that time?) And I'm thinking, "Damn! I missed the weather report! How did that happen?"
Now there's a little sketch they've been showing, where the news anchors tell you what they like most about summer. One of them says they like to lounge around in the backyard, and another one talks about how they can get together with friends and family and have a 'really good time.' And she says that in the same tone as if she's reporting the death of seventeen kids after a school bus ran off the cliff. Do these people even know what fun is?
I tell you, I would absolutely love to watch the late night news if the anchors actually had any personality at all. Why do the powers that be feel that they have to suck the personal element out of the news?
And finally, one last pet peeve about the news. I first noticed this while watching the news down in my hometown of San Luis Obispo. It was Kimberly Romo. I'm not sure why I remember her name so well, but I couldn't take my eyes off her whenever she was on. I'd just stare at those impossibly white teeth of hers, like a ship drawn to a lighthouse. I had this incredible urge to rub dirt all over her teeth.
Then I started noticing it on other people. Those blinding, white teeth. Impeccably straight. I've noticed it on actors and actresses. I've noticed it on family members and friends, who I won't name to protect their embarrassment. It's a terrible trend, and I'll tell you why:
They actually looked too perfect. It's look their teeth are fake! Ewwww! Granted, you don't want to walk around with brown or green teeth, but snow white teeth are ugly, people. Don't fall for their tricks. Lightening your teeth if they're badly stained from coffee or smoking is one thing, but they aren't supposed to be white either.
Not to be all negative, I have noticed a woman filling in for the sports recap on King5, which I absolutely love. A woman, telling the sports? It's the only time I've ever seen that happen. I can't say she's any better or worse than any of the men who've done the sports, but I love the fact that it's a woman who's doing it. It's about time one station has broken that particular gender stereotype. =)
I really hate television news, though. I watch it, but usually because it's late at night, I'm bored, and there's nothing else on. Especially now in this time of summer reruns.
But here's the thing for me. I don't have a high definition television. The broadcast looks exactly the same to me. But now they make it sound like the news is so much glitzier because whew! Thank God we can see the pimple on the face of the news anchor. Well, at least if you have a high definition television.
I find the whole thing annoying, though. It's like a smack in the face to everyone who doesn't have a high definition set, and those that already have it--shouldn't they be able to SEE the difference anyhow? If you have to tell people you're broadcasting in HD, does it really count?
If that wasn't enough, the meteorologist on that station now has new software that can take you "into" a storm. You can view it in three dimensions. Is this really helpful? When I want the weather report, I really want answers to questions such as:
- How hot will it be today?
- How cold will it be today?
- It is going to rain today?
And then I realized. They're trying to dazzle you with all these pictures because.... they don't really know how hot it is going to be, or if it'll rain today! They're distracting you with useless information so you won't notice how little information they do have. It's all fluff. I don't care that an area of low pressure is coming in. What the heck does that mean? There have been times I've wanted to pay attention to the weather to see if it would rain, and while presenting all that fluff, my eyes glaze over and next thing I know, they're thanking me for tuning in and they'll be back at 5:00 the next morning. (And who the heck watches the news at 11:00 at night then gets up at 5:00 the next morning to find out what happened during that time?) And I'm thinking, "Damn! I missed the weather report! How did that happen?"
Now there's a little sketch they've been showing, where the news anchors tell you what they like most about summer. One of them says they like to lounge around in the backyard, and another one talks about how they can get together with friends and family and have a 'really good time.' And she says that in the same tone as if she's reporting the death of seventeen kids after a school bus ran off the cliff. Do these people even know what fun is?
I tell you, I would absolutely love to watch the late night news if the anchors actually had any personality at all. Why do the powers that be feel that they have to suck the personal element out of the news?
And finally, one last pet peeve about the news. I first noticed this while watching the news down in my hometown of San Luis Obispo. It was Kimberly Romo. I'm not sure why I remember her name so well, but I couldn't take my eyes off her whenever she was on. I'd just stare at those impossibly white teeth of hers, like a ship drawn to a lighthouse. I had this incredible urge to rub dirt all over her teeth.
Then I started noticing it on other people. Those blinding, white teeth. Impeccably straight. I've noticed it on actors and actresses. I've noticed it on family members and friends, who I won't name to protect their embarrassment. It's a terrible trend, and I'll tell you why:
They actually looked too perfect. It's look their teeth are fake! Ewwww! Granted, you don't want to walk around with brown or green teeth, but snow white teeth are ugly, people. Don't fall for their tricks. Lightening your teeth if they're badly stained from coffee or smoking is one thing, but they aren't supposed to be white either.
Not to be all negative, I have noticed a woman filling in for the sports recap on King5, which I absolutely love. A woman, telling the sports? It's the only time I've ever seen that happen. I can't say she's any better or worse than any of the men who've done the sports, but I love the fact that it's a woman who's doing it. It's about time one station has broken that particular gender stereotype. =)
I really hate television news, though. I watch it, but usually because it's late at night, I'm bored, and there's nothing else on. Especially now in this time of summer reruns.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Danger Lurks Everywhere!
There was a piece on the news the other day, about one in three cars on the road having dangerously under-inflated tired. And they shows a harrowing video of a mini van swerving around cones at a high velocity with tires that probably needed an extra 20 psi in them, and you could see the sides of the tire stretching horizontally under the pressure.
The is the worst case of hype I've seen in a long time. I've seen a lot of car tires in my day, and while walking around the parking lot here, it's entirely possible that one-third of the cars have under-inflated tires. But not one--out of over one hundred-or-so cars I checked out--not one had tires as under-inflated as shown in this so-called piece of breaking news. At worst, the tires have been low about 5 psi of pressure, hardly a "dangerous" situation in my book.
My tires have an "ideal" pressure of 30 psi, and a maximum rating of 35 psi. I couldn't find a minimum recommended pressure, but the fact that there is an acceptable variance suggests that a tire that's not at the ideal pressure is not a safety hazard. Perhaps it decreases gas mileage, but it's not automatically a safety hazard.
And if you can believe that video, severely under-inflated tires are only a safety hazard if you drive a mini van through a series of curves like a race car. NOT LIKELY, I should think.
Stupid, fluffed up piece of news. *grumbling* That was the best they could come up with?
The is the worst case of hype I've seen in a long time. I've seen a lot of car tires in my day, and while walking around the parking lot here, it's entirely possible that one-third of the cars have under-inflated tires. But not one--out of over one hundred-or-so cars I checked out--not one had tires as under-inflated as shown in this so-called piece of breaking news. At worst, the tires have been low about 5 psi of pressure, hardly a "dangerous" situation in my book.
My tires have an "ideal" pressure of 30 psi, and a maximum rating of 35 psi. I couldn't find a minimum recommended pressure, but the fact that there is an acceptable variance suggests that a tire that's not at the ideal pressure is not a safety hazard. Perhaps it decreases gas mileage, but it's not automatically a safety hazard.
And if you can believe that video, severely under-inflated tires are only a safety hazard if you drive a mini van through a series of curves like a race car. NOT LIKELY, I should think.
Stupid, fluffed up piece of news. *grumbling* That was the best they could come up with?
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Evolution of a Newspaper Reader....
The other day, I was reading through the Seattle P-I, and it occurred to me that I've evolved over the years. When I was a kid, my favorite section was the comics. It was like that section was designed specifically FOR kids, and I liked that. I never understood why so many of the comics weren't very funny or didn't make sense to me, but they were cartoons! It was for kids, darn it, and I could enjoy some of the comics such as Garfield. That's a comic that kids can understand.
I outgrew Garfield. Too simple and not nearly as funny as when my brain was still in its formidable development years. Today my tastes lean towards Ziggy and Dilbert. Most of the comics I still don't think are very funny. Why do they call them comics again?
But that's not my favorite part of the newspaper anymore. Sometime around high school, I preferred reading the front page stuff. It was educational and made me feel smart. I learned about the political landscape, read about scandals, and so forth.
Somewhere along the way, though, I realized that most of it--it really doesn't matter much. Most the stuff on the front page doesn't actually have much impact on an individual such as myself. I don't have a paper handy at the moment, but a brief look through the major headlines includes such insights as:
Al Queda says holding U.S. soldiers in Iraq
Bush visits Jamestown on 400th anniversary
Airlines risk ballooning frequent-flyer payout
Pope decries rich-poor gap in Latin America
U.S. soldiers held by Al Queda in Iraq--sad (assuming it's even true--just because they SAY they have soldiers doesn't mean it's true), but there's not a whole lot I can do about that.
Bush visits Jamestown: I'd like to think he has better things to do than celebrate the conquering of the Native Americans, but that's REALLY old history and him visiting Jamestown doesn't have much impact on my plans for this afternoon.
The airlines impeding doom due to ballooning frequently-flyer miles? I don't have much in frequent-flyer miles--I actually prefer to use the few I do have for magazine subscriptions to Smithsonian or BusinessWeek--and even then I suspect the "problem" is being blown way out of proportion. Yes, perhaps airlines have built up a large number of frequent-flyer miles that are coming due, but people who use them have actually paid for them in one manner or another, regardless if it was by buying flights, milk at the grocery store, or renting a car. The airlines have essentially got themselves cash up front to collect interest and invest and don't have to pay out for months or years. Pretty good business, I should think. The more frequent-flyer miles grow, the better it is for the airlines. But still, it's not my problem. It's something the airlines have to deal with, and perhaps those who have a large number of frequent flyer miles, but for the average joe, it's not important.
The Pope decrying the rich-poor gap in Latin America. That's true, but what am I supposed to do about that? As individuals, we can't fix that problem. Heck, we can't even fix the growing rich-poor gap in our own country much less worry about Latin America's rich-poor gap.
These are the top headlines for today? And not one of them has any effect on my day-to-day living.
Then I moved onto the business section of the newspaper. That's now my favorite section. This is the section that can change my life. Invest in companies, search for ideas, and the pros and cons of various industries and companies. I can actually do something constructive with the information from the business section. I bought Boeing stock a few years back. Airlines were having a tough time of it after 9/11 and the recession, the company was having ethical lapses left and right, and they decided to develop the 787, a.k.a. the Dreamliner. The more I read, the more I liked. The hard economic times were temporary. The ethical lapses could be overcome. The company could fix itself, and I was thrilled when the CEO got the boot, and even more thrilled when the next one got the boot after an affair with a co-worker came to light. They're cleaning house. And I felt very strongly that the Dreamliner was going to be a huge success. I couldn't understand why Airbus was so focused on their mammoth big plane. The wave of the future is not a hub-and-spoke model.
I read a lot about Boeing back then, and finally decided to put a pile of money from my IRA account into it. The stock has done quite well since those dark days, more than doubling from my purchase price. I eventually sold half of those holdings to buy into Costco, another company whose stock I decided was suffering from temporary problems that could be fixed.
I wouldn't buy either of the companies at today's prices, and I'm actually leaning towards selling them for other companies with more promising prospects. They're both solid companies that are doing very well right now, and unfortunately everyone else knows it. =) Companies like Home Depot and Wal-Mart look much more interesting to me since everyone has so much fun picking on them. They've both stumbled badly, but they're still both behemoths, they're both still very profitable, and both will eventually get their acts together.
Once I become president of the United States, though, I suspect the front page will probably be of more interest to me. I wouldn't be able to invest in individual businesses (too many conflicts of interest), but as president I could do something about the problems on the front pages. =)
Okay, I don't really intend to become president--terribly thankless task, if you ask me--but it makes me wonder.... Will I always be a fan of the business section? Or will I continue to evolve and discover the joys of another section sometime in my golden years?
I outgrew Garfield. Too simple and not nearly as funny as when my brain was still in its formidable development years. Today my tastes lean towards Ziggy and Dilbert. Most of the comics I still don't think are very funny. Why do they call them comics again?
But that's not my favorite part of the newspaper anymore. Sometime around high school, I preferred reading the front page stuff. It was educational and made me feel smart. I learned about the political landscape, read about scandals, and so forth.
Somewhere along the way, though, I realized that most of it--it really doesn't matter much. Most the stuff on the front page doesn't actually have much impact on an individual such as myself. I don't have a paper handy at the moment, but a brief look through the major headlines includes such insights as:
Al Queda says holding U.S. soldiers in Iraq
Bush visits Jamestown on 400th anniversary
Airlines risk ballooning frequent-flyer payout
Pope decries rich-poor gap in Latin America
U.S. soldiers held by Al Queda in Iraq--sad (assuming it's even true--just because they SAY they have soldiers doesn't mean it's true), but there's not a whole lot I can do about that.
Bush visits Jamestown: I'd like to think he has better things to do than celebrate the conquering of the Native Americans, but that's REALLY old history and him visiting Jamestown doesn't have much impact on my plans for this afternoon.
The airlines impeding doom due to ballooning frequently-flyer miles? I don't have much in frequent-flyer miles--I actually prefer to use the few I do have for magazine subscriptions to Smithsonian or BusinessWeek--and even then I suspect the "problem" is being blown way out of proportion. Yes, perhaps airlines have built up a large number of frequent-flyer miles that are coming due, but people who use them have actually paid for them in one manner or another, regardless if it was by buying flights, milk at the grocery store, or renting a car. The airlines have essentially got themselves cash up front to collect interest and invest and don't have to pay out for months or years. Pretty good business, I should think. The more frequent-flyer miles grow, the better it is for the airlines. But still, it's not my problem. It's something the airlines have to deal with, and perhaps those who have a large number of frequent flyer miles, but for the average joe, it's not important.
The Pope decrying the rich-poor gap in Latin America. That's true, but what am I supposed to do about that? As individuals, we can't fix that problem. Heck, we can't even fix the growing rich-poor gap in our own country much less worry about Latin America's rich-poor gap.
These are the top headlines for today? And not one of them has any effect on my day-to-day living.
Then I moved onto the business section of the newspaper. That's now my favorite section. This is the section that can change my life. Invest in companies, search for ideas, and the pros and cons of various industries and companies. I can actually do something constructive with the information from the business section. I bought Boeing stock a few years back. Airlines were having a tough time of it after 9/11 and the recession, the company was having ethical lapses left and right, and they decided to develop the 787, a.k.a. the Dreamliner. The more I read, the more I liked. The hard economic times were temporary. The ethical lapses could be overcome. The company could fix itself, and I was thrilled when the CEO got the boot, and even more thrilled when the next one got the boot after an affair with a co-worker came to light. They're cleaning house. And I felt very strongly that the Dreamliner was going to be a huge success. I couldn't understand why Airbus was so focused on their mammoth big plane. The wave of the future is not a hub-and-spoke model.
I read a lot about Boeing back then, and finally decided to put a pile of money from my IRA account into it. The stock has done quite well since those dark days, more than doubling from my purchase price. I eventually sold half of those holdings to buy into Costco, another company whose stock I decided was suffering from temporary problems that could be fixed.
I wouldn't buy either of the companies at today's prices, and I'm actually leaning towards selling them for other companies with more promising prospects. They're both solid companies that are doing very well right now, and unfortunately everyone else knows it. =) Companies like Home Depot and Wal-Mart look much more interesting to me since everyone has so much fun picking on them. They've both stumbled badly, but they're still both behemoths, they're both still very profitable, and both will eventually get their acts together.
Once I become president of the United States, though, I suspect the front page will probably be of more interest to me. I wouldn't be able to invest in individual businesses (too many conflicts of interest), but as president I could do something about the problems on the front pages. =)
Okay, I don't really intend to become president--terribly thankless task, if you ask me--but it makes me wonder.... Will I always be a fan of the business section? Or will I continue to evolve and discover the joys of another section sometime in my golden years?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Just say no!
I did my taxes this last weekend. It's the American way. It's been awhile since I've worried about taxes. Ever since becoming unemployed, I'd have the occasional income from dividends and interest, or the sale of a stock. One year I even converted my traditional IRA into a Roth IRA, but it was small enough that I didn't have to pay any taxes on it since it was below the standard deduction.
Alas, I'm sad to report, I am no longer unemployed. I have joined the ranks of the self-employed, and running Atlas Quest is my job. =) Gotta pay taxes--not a whole lot mind you (the government doesn't require you pay much if you don't make much)--but for the first time in several years, I'm an honest-to-goodness tax-paying citizen. I'm helping to pay those poor soldiers stuck in Iraq, road improvements, teachers, and subsidizing farmers everywhere. And, I'm embarrassed to admit, helping to pay the president's salary.
But it's the American way. I'll get over it. The thing I don't get, however, that makes me mad is that little check box on my 1040 asking if I'd like three dollars to go towards the presidential election. HELLO?! Why would anyone but a politician check this box? Do you want to see your tax dollars used to create attack ads on television? Annoy you with stupid little banners people put up in their yards? And bumper stickers that you'll still see stuck on used cars for years and sometimes even decades after the election is over?
Checking this box supposedly does not cost you anything more. Oh really? Where, do you suppose this money comes from? That three dollars could have been used to help pay down the national deft. It could have been used to hire more teachers, fix broken bridges. And you want to throw it down the toilet so politicians can bad mouth each other?
Sure, it's only three dollars, but there are so many more needy places it can be used. Don't give it to the politicians. Use it for a better America instead. I'd like to change that box so if I check it, the president (or even my representatives in Congress) would be required to pay ME three bucks. See how they like it for a change.
Just say no to rich white guys asking for handouts. Let them earn it like the rest of the tax-paying American public.
Okay, that's not very fair. The top two Democrats for the presidential nomination are a woman and a black guy. I like that. I don't really know much about either of them. I know the woman was married to Bill Clinton and is the senator of New York, but outside of that, I really don't know a whole lot about her. The black guy is a senator for Illinois, is trying to quite smoking, and has a name strangely reminding me of Osama Bin Laden, but I won't hold that against him.
Normally, I don't care much about who's running for president so early in the race. The election is still over a year away and a lot can change before then, and I don't even know much about anyone who's running. Except that I absolutely love the idea of a minority being president of the United States. Black, female, gay, Hispanic, Asian, Native American--I don't really care. I'm tired of rich white guys running this country, and I just love the fact that in almost all probability, it will be a minority that will be the main contender for the presidential race for the Democratic party.
Okay, maybe a woman isn't technically a "minority" in this country--I think they actually outnumber men 50.1% to 49.9% or something like that, but there's never been a woman president before and I just want someone who's not a rich white guy in the oval office.
If you're tired of rich white guys running the country running this country, raise your hand? Yeah, I thought so. Let's give women and blacks a chance to screw things up too. It's only fair.
And check NO to giving them your hard earned money. Frankly, I don't think they've earned it.
Alas, I'm sad to report, I am no longer unemployed. I have joined the ranks of the self-employed, and running Atlas Quest is my job. =) Gotta pay taxes--not a whole lot mind you (the government doesn't require you pay much if you don't make much)--but for the first time in several years, I'm an honest-to-goodness tax-paying citizen. I'm helping to pay those poor soldiers stuck in Iraq, road improvements, teachers, and subsidizing farmers everywhere. And, I'm embarrassed to admit, helping to pay the president's salary.
But it's the American way. I'll get over it. The thing I don't get, however, that makes me mad is that little check box on my 1040 asking if I'd like three dollars to go towards the presidential election. HELLO?! Why would anyone but a politician check this box? Do you want to see your tax dollars used to create attack ads on television? Annoy you with stupid little banners people put up in their yards? And bumper stickers that you'll still see stuck on used cars for years and sometimes even decades after the election is over?
Checking this box supposedly does not cost you anything more. Oh really? Where, do you suppose this money comes from? That three dollars could have been used to help pay down the national deft. It could have been used to hire more teachers, fix broken bridges. And you want to throw it down the toilet so politicians can bad mouth each other?
Sure, it's only three dollars, but there are so many more needy places it can be used. Don't give it to the politicians. Use it for a better America instead. I'd like to change that box so if I check it, the president (or even my representatives in Congress) would be required to pay ME three bucks. See how they like it for a change.
Just say no to rich white guys asking for handouts. Let them earn it like the rest of the tax-paying American public.
Okay, that's not very fair. The top two Democrats for the presidential nomination are a woman and a black guy. I like that. I don't really know much about either of them. I know the woman was married to Bill Clinton and is the senator of New York, but outside of that, I really don't know a whole lot about her. The black guy is a senator for Illinois, is trying to quite smoking, and has a name strangely reminding me of Osama Bin Laden, but I won't hold that against him.
Normally, I don't care much about who's running for president so early in the race. The election is still over a year away and a lot can change before then, and I don't even know much about anyone who's running. Except that I absolutely love the idea of a minority being president of the United States. Black, female, gay, Hispanic, Asian, Native American--I don't really care. I'm tired of rich white guys running this country, and I just love the fact that in almost all probability, it will be a minority that will be the main contender for the presidential race for the Democratic party.
Okay, maybe a woman isn't technically a "minority" in this country--I think they actually outnumber men 50.1% to 49.9% or something like that, but there's never been a woman president before and I just want someone who's not a rich white guy in the oval office.
If you're tired of rich white guys running the country running this country, raise your hand? Yeah, I thought so. Let's give women and blacks a chance to screw things up too. It's only fair.
And check NO to giving them your hard earned money. Frankly, I don't think they've earned it.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Are you scared yet?
Apparently, you should be. I was getting the oil changed in my car the other day, sitting in the lobby of Jiffy Lube waiting for them to finish with the car. Completely off topic, but bear with me for a minute, someone ahead of me went to the counter to pay and asked the luber if he could use a student or AAA discount, and the luber said he could use one or the other, but not both. And I thought, "WHAT?! They accept AAA discounts?"
So when it was my turn to pay, I asked about the AAA discount, showed them my card, and got 10% off the order. Remember that the next time you get your oil changed. I had no idea they accepted it--it's certainly not a discount they tell everyone about.
But back to the subject at hand--they had CNN running on the television and one of the reporters that covers Wall Street was talking about how "scary" last week was (or was it the week before that?) when the market dropped over 400 points in one day. The exact quote I might have wrong, but I think it was something like this: "It was very scary," and she nodded with a somber look.
I own stocks. Most of my money, in fact, is tied up in the stock market, but you know what? I wasn't scared. In fact, I didn't even know about the 'blood bath' until after the music had stopped when I was talking on the phone and Amanda mentioned that the market dropped over 400 points that day. My reaction was to raise an eyebrow. Not necessarily because the stock market dropped over 400 points, but rather I was surprised that Amanda would know it. She doesn't usually keep up with that sort of information. =)
I'll admit, the stock market doesn't drop 400 points in a day every day, but it was what? About a 2 or 3% drop? Not exactly something that would ruffle my feathers. I expect stocks to drop 2 or 3% on a regular basis. Heck, I expect stocks will often drop 10 to 20% over periods of time--maybe even more when times really get rough. And they think a less than 3% drop is "scary"? No, I don't think so.
If you think a 2 or 3% drop in the stock market is scary, you should not have put money into the stock market in the first place. This doesn't even rank as one of the 10 biggest drops in stock market history. As far as I'm considered, it's a complete and absolute non-event. Not even newsworthy.
But you know, they have to fill all that air time with something, so they call a 400-point drop scary. It sells paper. It keeps people glued to the television. People wring their hands in fear and frustration. But it's much ado about nothing. Don't fall for the hype.
And heaven forbid, do NOT invest in the stock market if a 2 or 3% drop scares you. That's just stupid, because it WILL happen to you if you're in it long enough.
So when it was my turn to pay, I asked about the AAA discount, showed them my card, and got 10% off the order. Remember that the next time you get your oil changed. I had no idea they accepted it--it's certainly not a discount they tell everyone about.
But back to the subject at hand--they had CNN running on the television and one of the reporters that covers Wall Street was talking about how "scary" last week was (or was it the week before that?) when the market dropped over 400 points in one day. The exact quote I might have wrong, but I think it was something like this: "It was very scary," and she nodded with a somber look.
I own stocks. Most of my money, in fact, is tied up in the stock market, but you know what? I wasn't scared. In fact, I didn't even know about the 'blood bath' until after the music had stopped when I was talking on the phone and Amanda mentioned that the market dropped over 400 points that day. My reaction was to raise an eyebrow. Not necessarily because the stock market dropped over 400 points, but rather I was surprised that Amanda would know it. She doesn't usually keep up with that sort of information. =)
I'll admit, the stock market doesn't drop 400 points in a day every day, but it was what? About a 2 or 3% drop? Not exactly something that would ruffle my feathers. I expect stocks to drop 2 or 3% on a regular basis. Heck, I expect stocks will often drop 10 to 20% over periods of time--maybe even more when times really get rough. And they think a less than 3% drop is "scary"? No, I don't think so.
If you think a 2 or 3% drop in the stock market is scary, you should not have put money into the stock market in the first place. This doesn't even rank as one of the 10 biggest drops in stock market history. As far as I'm considered, it's a complete and absolute non-event. Not even newsworthy.
But you know, they have to fill all that air time with something, so they call a 400-point drop scary. It sells paper. It keeps people glued to the television. People wring their hands in fear and frustration. But it's much ado about nothing. Don't fall for the hype.
And heaven forbid, do NOT invest in the stock market if a 2 or 3% drop scares you. That's just stupid, because it WILL happen to you if you're in it long enough.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Hypocracy in the House
The House of our esteemed Congress is trying to pass a bill so Wal-Mart cannot own a bank known as an industrial loan company. It is very much "let us pick on Wal-Mart because everyone hates them and we will look good to our voting public" kind of bill.
Target, for instance, already owns such a bank. Why should Wal-Mart not be able to? Wal-Mart says they want to create such a bank to process credit card transactions and such on their own instead of using a middleman which takes a cut and raises their prices and that they are not interested in running commercial banks for the public at large.
The fear, of course, is that they will change their mind and open Wal-Mart branded banks around the world. And maybe they will, but.... so what? Who will this hurt? Other banks are an obvious choice. More competition and all that. If Wal-Mart tries to undercut Bank of America, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, or whatever, they might have to cut fees, increase interest rates on your money in their vaults, or provide better interest rates for loans to stay competitive.
But you know what? I hate banks. I really, really hate banks. They try to nickel and dime you to death. They charge you if you do not keep a minimum amount in the account. They charge you to use certain ATMs. I have a list of possible bank fees from one of my banks that I might face if I do not jump through every single hoop at the appropriate time that that is about 30 items long! And "free checking" is rarely ever truly free.
Frankly, if Wal-Mart wants to compete with these folks, that is something I would very much support. You would not even have to change banks to benefit from the increased competition as the established players will have to cut fees and improve service to stay competitive.
And consider this--if mixing a retail business with a bank is such a bad thing, why are our esteemed members of Congress not trying to pass a bill so Wells Fargo cannot choose to buyout and own Krogers in the future? A bank is allowed to own a retail business, but a retail business is not allowed to own a bank? That is just plain stupid.
This is nothing more than a ploy by politicians to look good by picking on the evil Wal-Mart, but the only person that such a bill will help is the already existing banks--not the consumer. For the average working person out there, this is very bad legislation.
Target, for instance, already owns such a bank. Why should Wal-Mart not be able to? Wal-Mart says they want to create such a bank to process credit card transactions and such on their own instead of using a middleman which takes a cut and raises their prices and that they are not interested in running commercial banks for the public at large.
The fear, of course, is that they will change their mind and open Wal-Mart branded banks around the world. And maybe they will, but.... so what? Who will this hurt? Other banks are an obvious choice. More competition and all that. If Wal-Mart tries to undercut Bank of America, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, or whatever, they might have to cut fees, increase interest rates on your money in their vaults, or provide better interest rates for loans to stay competitive.
But you know what? I hate banks. I really, really hate banks. They try to nickel and dime you to death. They charge you if you do not keep a minimum amount in the account. They charge you to use certain ATMs. I have a list of possible bank fees from one of my banks that I might face if I do not jump through every single hoop at the appropriate time that that is about 30 items long! And "free checking" is rarely ever truly free.
Frankly, if Wal-Mart wants to compete with these folks, that is something I would very much support. You would not even have to change banks to benefit from the increased competition as the established players will have to cut fees and improve service to stay competitive.
And consider this--if mixing a retail business with a bank is such a bad thing, why are our esteemed members of Congress not trying to pass a bill so Wells Fargo cannot choose to buyout and own Krogers in the future? A bank is allowed to own a retail business, but a retail business is not allowed to own a bank? That is just plain stupid.
This is nothing more than a ploy by politicians to look good by picking on the evil Wal-Mart, but the only person that such a bill will help is the already existing banks--not the consumer. For the average working person out there, this is very bad legislation.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Oh, PLEASE! *rolling eyes*
Time magazine's Person of the Year is YOU? What a cop out. The article I read says:
But come on! It's a PERSON of the year. Not a PEOPLE of the year. Singular. One person. Okay, I'll give them suck-up points for naming the American solider a person of the year, but I really must protest using YOU as a person of the year. It's not personal, but my blogs aren't getting much action, all things considered, and I've never uploaded anything to YouTube, and I never created an account on MySpace. Frankly, I'm not very good at being "you."
Some of you might be surprised that the person of the year is "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse." For good or for ill. Yep, the runner ups this year include Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, China's President Hu Jintao, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
I like the idea of only nominating good people for this particular award--person of the year sounds like a title one should strive for, but we really don't want some people trying to get this illustrious honor. However, so long as "for good or for ill" is the criteria, I agree whole heartedly that Adolph Hitler was an excellent choice for 1938 (perhaps it would have been even better to use him as the Person of the Year in 1939 when WWII actually started--who won in 1939 anyhow?)
But am I the only person who thinks it's a strange contradiction to know that Adolph Hitler and the American soldier have won the same award? And now, every one of us--you who are reading this blog, and me who is writing it--have the honor of sharing an award with Adolph Hitler.
No thanks, I'll take a pass.
You were named Time magazine "Person of the Year" on Saturday for the explosive growth and influence of user-generated Internet content such as blogs, video-file sharing site YouTube and social network MySpace.I was skeptical when they called the American Soldier the Person of the Year in 2003--couldn't they find ONE soldier, a soldier with a name, as representative of our armed forces? What's that say about English soldiers? Are they somehow inferior to American soldiers? Seems cold hearted to me.
But come on! It's a PERSON of the year. Not a PEOPLE of the year. Singular. One person. Okay, I'll give them suck-up points for naming the American solider a person of the year, but I really must protest using YOU as a person of the year. It's not personal, but my blogs aren't getting much action, all things considered, and I've never uploaded anything to YouTube, and I never created an account on MySpace. Frankly, I'm not very good at being "you."
Some of you might be surprised that the person of the year is "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse." For good or for ill. Yep, the runner ups this year include Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, China's President Hu Jintao, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
I like the idea of only nominating good people for this particular award--person of the year sounds like a title one should strive for, but we really don't want some people trying to get this illustrious honor. However, so long as "for good or for ill" is the criteria, I agree whole heartedly that Adolph Hitler was an excellent choice for 1938 (perhaps it would have been even better to use him as the Person of the Year in 1939 when WWII actually started--who won in 1939 anyhow?)
But am I the only person who thinks it's a strange contradiction to know that Adolph Hitler and the American soldier have won the same award? And now, every one of us--you who are reading this blog, and me who is writing it--have the honor of sharing an award with Adolph Hitler.
No thanks, I'll take a pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
