Posts
Start stockpiling people, the world is getting very interesting. After months of refusing to fall in with the people I thought of as Chicken Littles, I have to admit, a Recession is in fact coming, and is already present here in Kansas.
As grains like Corn and Wheat rise in price 8% a year, with Rice and Wheat up 13%, Dairy up 10%, Eggs up a record 30%, and Meat up between 4.8% and 5.4%, the signs are clear. Rationing is coming back to this country. In fact, two major retail stores, Sam's Club and Costco, have already started rationing Rice and Wheat as people go out and stock up because of perceived food shortages.
As China and India demand more food to feed their people, and fuel companies continue to divert food away from the dinner table and into our gas tanks, prices will continue to rise. While I cannot call shame upon India and China for feeding their people, I have to cry shame on another group.
Shame on TIME Magazine for their recent cover replacing the Flag with a Pine Tree in the historic Iwo Jima picture. Shame on them and all the rest of Al Gore's friends for continuing to push Ethanol though it has been shown to be less efficient, more expensive, and even carcinogenic. Shame on those who have pushed the Global Warming agenda even as the data swings away from them and toward the Helions.
If we do not stop this, we will see a further 100 million people in the developing world pushed into poverty, and Food Riots like those in Haiti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, and the Philippines will spread further, and might even reach the United States in Worst Case scenarios.
Kansas, California, Nebraska, Florida, and Minnesota are all sliding. The Stock Market is sliding, with Berkshire Hathaway A having slid down a full 1,000 points. My friends and readers get ready. If we fall into a full blown Depression, it will be a slow slide, not the sudden collapse seen in the infamous Black Thursday.
At least I have Clinton v Obama to entertain me.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
The True Story of the Economy
Okay folks, time to get some facts straight. First of all, 40% of this
nation made money off of the Income Tax. That's right, the bototm 40% of
this nation got more out of the Income tax than they paid into it. and
the bottom 50% paid in a grand total of 3%. If they where to stop paying,
then the governmetn would notice almost nothing. This is for one
important reason. The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes, and the top 10% pay
70% of the taxes.
That's right, the top 10% pay 70% of their taxes. Is it any wonder that
they create tax shelters? Is it any surprise that the top 1% store their
money in those fabeled "Swiss bank Accounts?"
No. It isn't. If we keep up this "Tax the rich" theory, then we are
going to see the rich leave as their income tax reaches 80% to 90% of the
taxes paid into the government. Once they leave, then this country will
go down the shithole. We need to scale back spending, scale back taxes,
and try to motivate that lower 40% to make more money.
One of the best things I can come up with is this. Voting based on
taxation. Corporations do this, and it has worked well in the past, in
which the more money you have invested in the government, the more you say
in how to run this nation. If you pay more money into the government than
you get back, you get one vote. then, for every $25,000 you pay into this
government you get another vote up to a maximum of five votes. This way,
those who have more money invested in this government get more say in how
it is run.
Now, some will hurl epithets at me, but it actually makes sense for one
very important reason. A democracy can only last until people discover
that they can vote money out of the public treasury and into their own
pockets. By allowing those on welfare to vote, then you will continue to
see money sapped away by people who vote themselves more money.
Look at the sheer amount of waste being spent on by the government.
Archaeological studies on how ancient Americans washed their dishes, a
bridge to nowhere in Alaska, subsidizing wild blueberries. The sheer
bueracracy of the government in general wasts tens of billions.
And then, you have that Feel-Good nonsense with Minimum Wage. Numbers
from the Department of Labor shows that 90% of those on Minimum Wage
actually spend less than a year on minimum wage. When you increase the
wages of minimum wage, then all you do is cause those who are on Minimum
Wage at the time to face job loss. Last hired, first fired. On top of
that, you cause hiring slow downs, because a company now has less money to
spend on hiring people.
And, before you start hurling epithets my way, just know, that under this system, I would have no vote. On top of that, I would not benefit from these minimum wage hikes, though I would be more likely to get a job without them.
nation made money off of the Income Tax. That's right, the bototm 40% of
this nation got more out of the Income tax than they paid into it. and
the bottom 50% paid in a grand total of 3%. If they where to stop paying,
then the governmetn would notice almost nothing. This is for one
important reason. The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes, and the top 10% pay
70% of the taxes.
That's right, the top 10% pay 70% of their taxes. Is it any wonder that
they create tax shelters? Is it any surprise that the top 1% store their
money in those fabeled "Swiss bank Accounts?"
No. It isn't. If we keep up this "Tax the rich" theory, then we are
going to see the rich leave as their income tax reaches 80% to 90% of the
taxes paid into the government. Once they leave, then this country will
go down the shithole. We need to scale back spending, scale back taxes,
and try to motivate that lower 40% to make more money.
One of the best things I can come up with is this. Voting based on
taxation. Corporations do this, and it has worked well in the past, in
which the more money you have invested in the government, the more you say
in how to run this nation. If you pay more money into the government than
you get back, you get one vote. then, for every $25,000 you pay into this
government you get another vote up to a maximum of five votes. This way,
those who have more money invested in this government get more say in how
it is run.
Now, some will hurl epithets at me, but it actually makes sense for one
very important reason. A democracy can only last until people discover
that they can vote money out of the public treasury and into their own
pockets. By allowing those on welfare to vote, then you will continue to
see money sapped away by people who vote themselves more money.
Look at the sheer amount of waste being spent on by the government.
Archaeological studies on how ancient Americans washed their dishes, a
bridge to nowhere in Alaska, subsidizing wild blueberries. The sheer
bueracracy of the government in general wasts tens of billions.
And then, you have that Feel-Good nonsense with Minimum Wage. Numbers
from the Department of Labor shows that 90% of those on Minimum Wage
actually spend less than a year on minimum wage. When you increase the
wages of minimum wage, then all you do is cause those who are on Minimum
Wage at the time to face job loss. Last hired, first fired. On top of
that, you cause hiring slow downs, because a company now has less money to
spend on hiring people.
And, before you start hurling epithets my way, just know, that under this system, I would have no vote. On top of that, I would not benefit from these minimum wage hikes, though I would be more likely to get a job without them.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Right To Smoke
Well, this has become a hot button topic in my world, mainly because Kansas City has banned smoking in bars and restauraunts. Now, while I can see where the health advocates are coming from on this, I must whole heartedly disagree with them on this.
There is a major reason for this. It sets a dangerous precedent. You may be asking me what I mean by this, I have a few examples. For example, in Golden, Colorado, it has recently become illegal to smoke in private residences by order of the Home Owner's Association. In Ontario, it is illegal to smoke in a car if there are children present. And in Britain, there is currently a debate over wether or not to ban smoking period without a liscence from the government.
So, what is the future of the united states in general if we ban smoking in public places? We have already banned it is public establishments, so what is next? I say, be careful people, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Cause and effect.
And thus, you have to be careful as to how you vote, because every action, every theory, has a logical conclusion, and that logical conclusion is usually considered extreme at the time, though with 20/20 hindsight it all makes so much sense.
There is a major reason for this. It sets a dangerous precedent. You may be asking me what I mean by this, I have a few examples. For example, in Golden, Colorado, it has recently become illegal to smoke in private residences by order of the Home Owner's Association. In Ontario, it is illegal to smoke in a car if there are children present. And in Britain, there is currently a debate over wether or not to ban smoking period without a liscence from the government.
So, what is the future of the united states in general if we ban smoking in public places? We have already banned it is public establishments, so what is next? I say, be careful people, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Cause and effect.
And thus, you have to be careful as to how you vote, because every action, every theory, has a logical conclusion, and that logical conclusion is usually considered extreme at the time, though with 20/20 hindsight it all makes so much sense.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Do real Men wear Pink?
its a question that has come up often lately, and one that I feel needs to be put down. It is just beating a dead horse anymore, and here is why.
Pink is a color associated with femininity in our society. Why? Because it is a bright color. Men are expected to wear dark colors or white. Though this has changed, and brighter shades of Red, Blue, Green and Grey have become acceptable, pink is still not considered acceptable, except by women it would seem.
Having scanned the web, I have noticed countless women saying they think it looks hot when men wear pink. However, none have stated anything else on the subject. Thus, I will introduce my own philosophy on the subject.
Pink is worn by men who are insecure about their sexuality, because the common saying that only real men wear pink has become accepted. However, real men are secure enough in their sexuality that they don't have to wear Pink to prove it too the world. By wearing Pink to show that you are a real man, you are saying, "I am insecure about myself and need to make others think that I am."
The real man knows who he is, and does not need to prove it too the world by wearing pink.
Pink is a color associated with femininity in our society. Why? Because it is a bright color. Men are expected to wear dark colors or white. Though this has changed, and brighter shades of Red, Blue, Green and Grey have become acceptable, pink is still not considered acceptable, except by women it would seem.
Having scanned the web, I have noticed countless women saying they think it looks hot when men wear pink. However, none have stated anything else on the subject. Thus, I will introduce my own philosophy on the subject.
Pink is worn by men who are insecure about their sexuality, because the common saying that only real men wear pink has become accepted. However, real men are secure enough in their sexuality that they don't have to wear Pink to prove it too the world. By wearing Pink to show that you are a real man, you are saying, "I am insecure about myself and need to make others think that I am."
The real man knows who he is, and does not need to prove it too the world by wearing pink.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Is McCain Eligible?
Well, ain't this a sticky wicket?
It would seem, that Republican Presidential Candidate Senator of Arizona John McCain may not be eligible under the "Natural Born" clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Now, why is this a problem?
Simple, because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, on a military base, in Panama. Now, personally, I feel that the children of American Citizens born overseas, with special emphasis to Diplomatic and Military Brats, should be considered Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
However, there is no precedent for this. Never have we even had to consider the possibility of people being born on US property over seas being the President. Rumors of Presidents being born over seas have been around for years.
Chester A. Arthur, a native of Vermont, was often rumored to have been born in Canada. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona three years before it became a state, while it was still Arizona Territory.
So the question is. Does a child of American Parents born overseas count as a "Natural Born" citizen of the United States? Personally, I believe that that child does have the right to run for president. But only Time, and the U.S. Supreme Court will tell.
It would seem, that Republican Presidential Candidate Senator of Arizona John McCain may not be eligible under the "Natural Born" clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Now, why is this a problem?
Simple, because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, on a military base, in Panama. Now, personally, I feel that the children of American Citizens born overseas, with special emphasis to Diplomatic and Military Brats, should be considered Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
However, there is no precedent for this. Never have we even had to consider the possibility of people being born on US property over seas being the President. Rumors of Presidents being born over seas have been around for years.
Chester A. Arthur, a native of Vermont, was often rumored to have been born in Canada. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona three years before it became a state, while it was still Arizona Territory.
So the question is. Does a child of American Parents born overseas count as a "Natural Born" citizen of the United States? Personally, I believe that that child does have the right to run for president. But only Time, and the U.S. Supreme Court will tell.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Stand Alone Complex
As a big fan of Ghost in the Shell, I have been long fascinated by the concept of the Stand Alone Complex. In this, an event occurs. More often than not, it is a simple event, though some underlying conspiracy might be possible, even if it is highly improbable. Individuals see this, and act, consciously or sub-consciously as copy-cats. The best example of this in the Ghost in the Shell series is the Laughing Man incident, in which a group of people go out and commit crimes inspired b the Laughing Man, despite the lack of any actual Laughing Man. Another good example is Section 9, the main characters of Ghost in the Shell. In the anime, the entire group comes together out of the thin air seemingly for the same purpose, to stop terrorist actions and major crimes from within the nation of Japan.
Now, we are seeing a true Stand Alone Complex developing in the modern world. Anyone who knows me knows that Scientology makes me uneasy. This is because I have read the words of the likes of L. Ron Hubbard and various defectors. Now, I know that often times Defectors bring tales of horror to try and bring down their church, the best example being the "Former Arch-Lector" of Rome, a former catholic Priest who was active in Kansas City during the Gilded Age as a member of the American Protective Association.
However, Scientology is a very dangerous, greedy organization in which ascendancy is based not on merit, but rather on how much money one has paid into the church. This is well documented from dumpster divings by members of the Blogosphere.
Now, a Stand Alone Complex has formed to try and combat the church. Calling themselves Anonymous, they show up wearing identical suits and masks and hats, a means of protecting their identity, and not to become a mysterious "Suicide" that has plagued the critics of Scientology. Now, there might be an actual leader, but more than likely, it is a Stand Alone Complex.
Don't look for me in the ranks at the next rally of Anonymous. For if I am there, I too shall be wearing my mask. I wear one online, and I will wear one in Real Life. That mask is my Shield, that mask is my Sword.
Now, we are seeing a true Stand Alone Complex developing in the modern world. Anyone who knows me knows that Scientology makes me uneasy. This is because I have read the words of the likes of L. Ron Hubbard and various defectors. Now, I know that often times Defectors bring tales of horror to try and bring down their church, the best example being the "Former Arch-Lector" of Rome, a former catholic Priest who was active in Kansas City during the Gilded Age as a member of the American Protective Association.
However, Scientology is a very dangerous, greedy organization in which ascendancy is based not on merit, but rather on how much money one has paid into the church. This is well documented from dumpster divings by members of the Blogosphere.
Now, a Stand Alone Complex has formed to try and combat the church. Calling themselves Anonymous, they show up wearing identical suits and masks and hats, a means of protecting their identity, and not to become a mysterious "Suicide" that has plagued the critics of Scientology. Now, there might be an actual leader, but more than likely, it is a Stand Alone Complex.
Don't look for me in the ranks at the next rally of Anonymous. For if I am there, I too shall be wearing my mask. I wear one online, and I will wear one in Real Life. That mask is my Shield, that mask is my Sword.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Gun Bans have got to GO!
Dear God people, how long must these go on before people will open up their eyes and realize that Gun Bans on campus are not making us any safer.
Today, an Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, was shot up. 5 dead, 16 wounded. It was the fifth school shooting this week alone.
This 10 months after a rampage at Virginia Tech that resulted in the largest school shooting in history.
With the exception of this latest incident, a group of armed students could have fought back and defended themselves in this situation. Why? Because if they are armed they can fight back.
Thus, I am going to begin an official petition, starting in the state of Kansas and hopefully expanding outward, to allow students with Concealed Carry permits to carry their firearms on campus, for defense and hopefully prevention.
An elementary school in Georgia had it right, when they trained their students how to take out gunmen with ordinary objects that can be found on their desks.
Today, an Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, was shot up. 5 dead, 16 wounded. It was the fifth school shooting this week alone.
This 10 months after a rampage at Virginia Tech that resulted in the largest school shooting in history.
With the exception of this latest incident, a group of armed students could have fought back and defended themselves in this situation. Why? Because if they are armed they can fight back.
Thus, I am going to begin an official petition, starting in the state of Kansas and hopefully expanding outward, to allow students with Concealed Carry permits to carry their firearms on campus, for defense and hopefully prevention.
An elementary school in Georgia had it right, when they trained their students how to take out gunmen with ordinary objects that can be found on their desks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)