The only problem is that the Fed's cheerleaders are making you look in hiding places rather than down.
On Fox a few minutes ago the panel was talking about, surprise, how to make gas more affordable. Do we attack supply or demand? Do we drill offshore? Do we drill in the shale? So we open our reserves (which is going to be the death of everthing we love. I'll explain in a later post)?
Of course, they never bring up the real problems. The main one is inflation. No one wants to entertain the idea since it's Mad Ben Bernanke's fault and there's almost nothing anyone can do. No, instead of identifying the problem, they want to be gods and be able to do something. They could, but it won't amount to much as long as the Federal Reserve is still around.
The rebate checks we all loved are a big part of the problem. We want things now, but most people didn't see what they couldn't-it fixes things now, but makes it worse in the long run.
There is a secondary problem. Our import from Canada is very impure. It takes a lot to refine it into useable fuel, which costs even more money. So Conservatives and Liberals both want more domestic and "non-terrorist" (read non ay-rab) oil. Where do they get it? Well, here, and Canada. I'm betting the government is going to give oil companies money to drill here. So no matter what, money will be wasted because we can't give those muslims our precious, sacred money.
And yet the blame is falling on speculators and the very Arabs I think we should trade with more.
Neo-Mercantilism, here we come!
Edit: The point of this post was basically "Not much can be done about inflation, so enjoy the ride and hope the government trades with 'our enemies'".
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Subsidizing TV
I haven't seen much in the way of the DTV 2009 deal. Basically, everyone is going to be forced to get digital TV. Fret not though! The government will give you up to $80! That's right, it's basically the community paying for people to get their entertainment. People with compatible TVs and and digital cable are paying anyway. People without TV are paying. Sounds fair? Of course not! Here's a gem.
Is it better? Maybe. The sound can be better and the picture can be clearer. It can also display the wrong colors and get compressed. Yeah, at times it could be like watching youtube. It's also harder to channel surf since theres a bit of buffer time.
More disadvantages from Wikipedia
This one upsets me. Don't mess with my radio.
I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding. I can't play my old games? I'm betting roms won't be legal after this too.
Yes, forcing everyone to go digital really is good, right? Here's something that really worries me.
Broadcasters are transitioning to digital to provide important benefits to consumers. Because digital broadcasting is more efficient, broadcasters require less of the airwaves to provide a better television viewing experience. Once the DTV transition is completed, some television channels will be turned over to fire and police departments for emergency communication and others will be auctioned to companies to provide new wireless services.
Is it better? Maybe. The sound can be better and the picture can be clearer. It can also display the wrong colors and get compressed. Yeah, at times it could be like watching youtube. It's also harder to channel surf since theres a bit of buffer time.
More disadvantages from Wikipedia
Similarly, video recorders for analog signals (including both tape-based VCRs and hard-drive-based DVRs) will not be able to select channels, limiting their ability to automatically record programs via a timer or based on downloaded program information.
Also, older handheld televisions, which rely primarily on over-the-air signals and battery operation, will be rendered impractical since the proposed converter boxes are not portable nor powered with batteries.
This one upsets me. Don't mess with my radio.
Portable radios which feature the ability to listen to television audio on VHF channels 2-13 would also lose this ability, while television stations which formerly broadcast on Channel 6 (with analog FM audio on 87.75 MHz) would no longer be heard on standard FM broadcast band radios. These stations would lose the ability for commuters to listen to their broadcasts.
I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding. I can't play my old games? I'm betting roms won't be legal after this too.
Were any new TVs to contain only an ATSC tuner, this could prevent older devices such as VCRs and video game consoles with only an analog RF output from connecting to the TV. Connection would require an analog to digital converter box, which is the opposite as what is currently being sold. Such a box would also likely introduce additional delay into the video signal. Fortunately, analog inputs suitable for connection to VCRs have remained available on all current digital-capable TV's.
Changes in signal reception from factors such as degrading antenna connections or worsening weather conditions may gradually reduce the quality of analog TV. The nature of digital TV results in a perfect picture initially, until the receiving equipment starts picking up noise or losing signal. Some equipment will show a picture even with significant damage, while other devices may go directly from perfect to no picture at all (and thus not show even a slightly damaged picture).
Yes, forcing everyone to go digital really is good, right? Here's something that really worries me.
Some signals carry encryption and specify use conditions (such as "may not be recorded" or "may not be viewed on displays larger than 1 m in diagonal measure") backed up with the force of law under the WIPO Copyright Treaty and national legislation implementing it, such as the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Long hair is destroying America!
First, I was abducted by aliens. Well, that's my best excuse. Sorry to any lurkers for the lack of updates. Been working on my website though. Yeehaw. Anyway, the show continues.
I'm watching Fox now and the anchor/radio host is picking on some kid (11 I believe) with long hair. It goes past his shoulders. Now, I don't have short hair. It's also not long. Heck, I can't grow long hair without it looking like a total mess. If mine is short, my head looks huge. Absolutely huge. So, my hair helps my head look smaller.
I'm all for people having long hair if they choose (obviously, it's not hurting anyone). The woman said when he goes for a job interview, people might think he's a slacker if it's still long.
I think a fairly close shave looks trashy on a lot of people while long hair could look incredible. Slicked back in a ponytail, combed, whatever. It's not that hard to make long hair look presentable.
Another one of her points was something about the line between boys and girls was being eroded in America or something. God help us all! People aren't wearing that stereotypical 1950's buzz cut or something you might see in the corporate world!
Jesus probably had long hair, and Samson most certainly did. St. Louis IX had long hair. So long for her point.
Finally, she asked what else the mother lets him choose. She said his clothes in the morning. This is pretty good. The only reason children rebel the way they do (in m opinion) is mainly because parents don't want to give thir kids more freedom as they hit puberty. Choosing a hairstyle (and a nice one at that) is a good starting point.
I'm watching Fox now and the anchor/radio host is picking on some kid (11 I believe) with long hair. It goes past his shoulders. Now, I don't have short hair. It's also not long. Heck, I can't grow long hair without it looking like a total mess. If mine is short, my head looks huge. Absolutely huge. So, my hair helps my head look smaller.
I'm all for people having long hair if they choose (obviously, it's not hurting anyone). The woman said when he goes for a job interview, people might think he's a slacker if it's still long.
I think a fairly close shave looks trashy on a lot of people while long hair could look incredible. Slicked back in a ponytail, combed, whatever. It's not that hard to make long hair look presentable.
Another one of her points was something about the line between boys and girls was being eroded in America or something. God help us all! People aren't wearing that stereotypical 1950's buzz cut or something you might see in the corporate world!
Jesus probably had long hair, and Samson most certainly did. St. Louis IX had long hair. So long for her point.
Finally, she asked what else the mother lets him choose. She said his clothes in the morning. This is pretty good. The only reason children rebel the way they do (in m opinion) is mainly because parents don't want to give thir kids more freedom as they hit puberty. Choosing a hairstyle (and a nice one at that) is a good starting point.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Speaking of lightbulbs...
From a facebook group:
Now let's change that up.
I wonder if she would be up in arms about that. Though only one person, this may represent a greater number of people. The radical anti-freedom group have control. As long as us pro-freedom people are not radicalized (i.e. free markets), they will win.
When it comes to the environment- no, your civil rights are NOT more important than steps being taken to save it. Guess what you Republican nitwits, this planet is dying because of humans, I'm all for extinction of the species via not propagating the next generation. Humans don't deserve this world, which provides us with food, water, oxygen and sunlight; costing a little bit more for a lightbulb which may impact the environment positively, even one iota is the LEAST we can do. Mercury is fine by me, get rid of those damn children and fetuses wasting the resources.
You people make me nauseous.
Now let's change that up.
When it comes to national security- no, your civil rights are NOT more important than steps being taken to save the country. Guess what you Democrat nitwits, the terrorists are growing because of so called civil rights and peace, I'm all for the murder of Muslims to stop terrorism. We don't deserve liberty, which provides us with death, terror, destruction and a weakened country; giving a little bit of freedom which may end terrorism, even one iota is the LEAST we can do. Tyranny is fine by me, get rid of those damn freedoms and liberties making us less safe.
You people make me nauseous.
I wonder if she would be up in arms about that. Though only one person, this may represent a greater number of people. The radical anti-freedom group have control. As long as us pro-freedom people are not radicalized (i.e. free markets), they will win.
The Green Movement Encourages Internal Strife
I read an article on Lew Rockwell's site outlining the dangers of fluorescent lightbulbs. Pretty scary stuff. Then I decided to do a bit of research.
If the government doesn't overturn this socialist act, we're going to be forced to pick any of the following:
1. Fluorescent. We have one in the hall. I can say that the lighting is sort of blue, and worst of all, it attracts little bugs. Of course, if it's for the environment, it's alright to have your house as one huge bug zapper. Ever hear of redemptive suffering? Yeah, suffer for the state and you'll end up getting more green heaven points. (maybe tax breaks since the government wants you to believe its a god)
2. LEDs. I have a few LED flashlights. They aren't nearly as good as traditional flashlights. We have an LED spotlight on the garage. It just makes everything glow pretty creepilly. Being a nerd though, I love LEDs. I found some lightbulbs that cost about $35 and end up costing about $10 in energy over it's lifetime. Apparently, it's equivalent to a 45 watt bulb. It's not the same and it's incredibly expensive, but it's the next best thing.
3. ...Incandescent lightbulbs? Well, according to that Wikipedia article, the government is banning bulbs between 40 and 150 watts. So I'm going to assume that 30 Watts are going to be sort of popular. People may end up with 2 to compensate, but it's not the same, so they may just use 3. Of course, 200 watt bulbs are a-okay too! I'm going to bet that's so the government and "special interests" can keep them. Eat your soup while we eat cake, right?
The Democrats claim to care about the little guy. When they attack business, it sure seems like they are, right? Well, who employs the little guy? Business, government, and themselves.
First they came for big business...
Let's see what the act includes:
Automakers must spend money to increase fuel standards. Businesses (both big and small) must spend money to offset these costs.
More money being spent by the failing automotive industry. Indeed, it may boost it a bit at first, but the cost of manufacturing all these cars and parts will take a massive toll. More jobs go overseas. Incentives may "warrant" congress to raise taxes.
And plug in? Well, so long for a lower electric bill!
Gasp! The government making itself do something?!
So long free markets, hello sugar shortages and more farm welfare. More tax hikes. All in the name of self-sufficiency (nationalism)
Goodbye free markets...I hardly knew you.
I don't even want to think how its going to raise to 200% in 6-8 years. Will this mean lightbulbs will cost even more? Sure, incandescents technically cost more, but it's over years, not all at once. Even less money in our pockets because of green socialism.
Oh hey, initiatives! More taxation to encourage environmentalism! Nevermind my socialism statement, hello economic fascism!
Wow, second time the government put itself into something. All right! And they'll do this with stolen money!
And how do they do this? With taxpayer money! Yay!
More subsidies, more taxes.
More subsidies, more tax.
How are they going to do this? Taxes! Government creating jobs is another sword in the heart of capitalism. Seriously, I'm going to miss it.
More taxes and...what's this? Another department?! Well, there we go! They have a foothold to further regulate.
Loans, eh? They'll eventually have to pay back even more, so it hurts the business in the long run. More taxes. Is it me or are they starting to attack the "little guy" directly instead of indirectly?
Well, the grid is pretty screwed up. More taxes though? I'm thinking yes. More efficient and reliable? I'm thinking less output and capacity instead of fixing blackouts. Well, it's for the environment, damn it!
This is a headscratcher. Regulating pools? Obviously, the cost of owning or going to a private pool will rise, public pools will need more taxes.
To the 108 that voted against it-God Bless you. To those that voted for it-I'm sorry, you're misguided. To the president-never talk about free markets again you traitor.
Who will they tax? Well, the rich of course. They have the money to pay for it, right?
Then they came for the rich...
One day, you may be considered rich because you make as much as a rich person does after taxes.
Then they came for me...
Just a step closer to the government's dream-an ultimate fascist or socialist state where business is in bed with the government or the leviathan consumes all business like the parasite it is.
If the government doesn't overturn this socialist act, we're going to be forced to pick any of the following:
1. Fluorescent. We have one in the hall. I can say that the lighting is sort of blue, and worst of all, it attracts little bugs. Of course, if it's for the environment, it's alright to have your house as one huge bug zapper. Ever hear of redemptive suffering? Yeah, suffer for the state and you'll end up getting more green heaven points. (maybe tax breaks since the government wants you to believe its a god)
2. LEDs. I have a few LED flashlights. They aren't nearly as good as traditional flashlights. We have an LED spotlight on the garage. It just makes everything glow pretty creepilly. Being a nerd though, I love LEDs. I found some lightbulbs that cost about $35 and end up costing about $10 in energy over it's lifetime. Apparently, it's equivalent to a 45 watt bulb. It's not the same and it's incredibly expensive, but it's the next best thing.
3. ...Incandescent lightbulbs? Well, according to that Wikipedia article, the government is banning bulbs between 40 and 150 watts. So I'm going to assume that 30 Watts are going to be sort of popular. People may end up with 2 to compensate, but it's not the same, so they may just use 3. Of course, 200 watt bulbs are a-okay too! I'm going to bet that's so the government and "special interests" can keep them. Eat your soup while we eat cake, right?
The Democrats claim to care about the little guy. When they attack business, it sure seems like they are, right? Well, who employs the little guy? Business, government, and themselves.
First they came for big business...
Let's see what the act includes:
Increased CAFE standards. Automakers are required to boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg (14.8 km/l) by 2020. This applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks".
Automakers must spend money to increase fuel standards. Businesses (both big and small) must spend money to offset these costs.
Improved vehicle technology and transportation electrification. Incentives for the development of plug-in hybrids.
More money being spent by the failing automotive industry. Indeed, it may boost it a bit at first, but the cost of manufacturing all these cars and parts will take a massive toll. More jobs go overseas. Incentives may "warrant" congress to raise taxes.
And plug in? Well, so long for a lower electric bill!
New conservation requirements for federal vehicle fleets.
Gasp! The government making itself do something?!
Increased production of biofuels. The total amount of biofuels added to gasoline is required to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. The Energy Act further specifies that 21 billion gallons of the 2022 total must be derived from non-cornstarch products (e.g. sugar or cellulose).
So long free markets, hello sugar shortages and more farm welfare. More tax hikes. All in the name of self-sufficiency (nationalism)
Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs.
Goodbye free markets...I hardly knew you.
Requires roughly 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.
I don't even want to think how its going to raise to 200% in 6-8 years. Will this mean lightbulbs will cost even more? Sure, incandescents technically cost more, but it's over years, not all at once. Even less money in our pockets because of green socialism.
New initiatives for promoting conservation in buildings and industry.
Oh hey, initiatives! More taxation to encourage environmentalism! Nevermind my socialism statement, hello economic fascism!
Requires all lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy Star products.
Wow, second time the government put itself into something. All right! And they'll do this with stolen money!
New standards and grants for promoting efficiency in government and public institutions. New and renovated federal buildings must reduce fossil fuel use by 55% (from 2003 levels) by 2010, and 80% by 2020. All new federal buildings must be "carbon-neutral" by 2030.
And how do they do this? With taxpayer money! Yay!
Accelerated research and development of solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies.
More subsidies, more taxes.
Expanded federal research on carbon sequestration technologies.
More subsidies, more tax.
Green jobs - creation of a training program for "Energy efficiency and renewable energy workers".
How are they going to do this? Taxes! Government creating jobs is another sword in the heart of capitalism. Seriously, I'm going to miss it.
Energy transportation and infrastructure. New initiatives for highway, sea and railroad infrastructure. Creation of the Office of Climate Change and Environment in the Department of Transportation.
More taxes and...what's this? Another department?! Well, there we go! They have a foothold to further regulate.
Small business energy programs, offering small businesses loans toward energy efficiency improvements.
Loans, eh? They'll eventually have to pay back even more, so it hurts the business in the long run. More taxes. Is it me or are they starting to attack the "little guy" directly instead of indirectly?
Smart grid - modernization of the electricity grid to improve reliability and efficiency.
Well, the grid is pretty screwed up. More taxes though? I'm thinking yes. More efficient and reliable? I'm thinking less output and capacity instead of fixing blackouts. Well, it's for the environment, damn it!
Pool safety - new federal standards for drain covers and pool barriers.
This is a headscratcher. Regulating pools? Obviously, the cost of owning or going to a private pool will rise, public pools will need more taxes.
To the 108 that voted against it-God Bless you. To those that voted for it-I'm sorry, you're misguided. To the president-never talk about free markets again you traitor.
Who will they tax? Well, the rich of course. They have the money to pay for it, right?
Then they came for the rich...
One day, you may be considered rich because you make as much as a rich person does after taxes.
Then they came for me...
Just a step closer to the government's dream-an ultimate fascist or socialist state where business is in bed with the government or the leviathan consumes all business like the parasite it is.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Well, I guess it could be worse
I found this Mitt Romney quote on his wikipedia article:
This is a reference to the growing anti-war sentiment. France was a superpower three times (as far as I can remember).
First was way back when Charlemagne was king. What happened? Well, his kingdom split. We all know what happened last time someone tried to split from the US, and there's no reason it won't happen again.
Second was under the Bourbons, mainly Louis XIV's reign. Ultimately, all the wars bankrupted the kingdom.
Third was France under Napoleon. Needless to say, his empire was only great because he conquered so much.
So, what will it be, Willard Mitt? America splitting up, America bankrupting, or America conquering the world then losing everything? Looks like we're #2, trying to be #3s.
If only we were 1s.
If only we, like the French, would grow tired of endless war and empire.
"I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st Century - still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower."
This is a reference to the growing anti-war sentiment. France was a superpower three times (as far as I can remember).
First was way back when Charlemagne was king. What happened? Well, his kingdom split. We all know what happened last time someone tried to split from the US, and there's no reason it won't happen again.
Second was under the Bourbons, mainly Louis XIV's reign. Ultimately, all the wars bankrupted the kingdom.
Third was France under Napoleon. Needless to say, his empire was only great because he conquered so much.
So, what will it be, Willard Mitt? America splitting up, America bankrupting, or America conquering the world then losing everything? Looks like we're #2, trying to be #3s.
If only we were 1s.
If only we, like the French, would grow tired of endless war and empire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)