Salvete.
The other day Disney's Frozen passed the one-billion dollar mark, becoming the highest-grossing animated film of all time (not counting Avatar). I would like to make a brief post to warn the world, if it isn't too late already. So here it is:
Frozen is not as good as you make it to be. It is new, sure, and it has three or four passable songs, but it is not worth a billion dollars. Disney knows this, and they have tried it before. Do you remember Tangled? How you all fawned over that film for months after its release! How easy it was for Disney to see a pattern! Now, that pattern is perfected. You are essentially begging Disney to make the exact same kinds of movies for the rest of its existence, with catchy songs, little plot, and targeted advertising. Innovation is dying, and you ground it beneath your foot. I hope you like Dreamworks, because that may be the only strong animation studio left that is bold enough to try new things. You fed from Disney's hand like animals, and you must now pay the price.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
One-Year Anniversary
Salvete.
Well, I missed the anniversary by a few days. And Straight Pride Week. However, I do have several new posts saved as drafts for the upcoming weeks, so be prepared.
I would just like to thank everyone (most importantly God) for the 1.4 K views that I've received over the past year. Perhaps the upcoming year will get more followers and views. Only time will tell.
Well, I missed the anniversary by a few days. And Straight Pride Week. However, I do have several new posts saved as drafts for the upcoming weeks, so be prepared.
I would just like to thank everyone (most importantly God) for the 1.4 K views that I've received over the past year. Perhaps the upcoming year will get more followers and views. Only time will tell.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Straight Pride Week
Salvete. I'm back from a big long break, in which I got a new job, et cetera. I hope the three of you following this don't blame me. That said, let us continue, as we approach the one-year anniversary of this very blog.
As with most new jobs, I went to a safety course. It was bland and had offered nothing that the online orientation didn't offer, but I was able to meet quite a few fellow employees and observe the building. I noticed that on the tables of the classroom was a shockingly large amount of glitter. Along with several of my peers, I was slightly perturbed at the glitter catching onto my business attire, and during my break I decided that I would ask the safety instructor about the glitter. She responded promptly that they had recently been making tutus. I asked the obvious follow-up question: why on God's green earth would they be making tutus en masse in an official business environment? Why, it's Gay Pride Month, of course! So, seeing as the first post talked about the California debate on gay rights, and seeing that we're rounding the full circle with the first anniversary of the blog, I dub this week Straight Pride Week on Plaustrum20 Politics (not the people, the concept). Why? Because every argument has an opposite, though not necessarily equal, counterargument
Let's address the tutu thing first. Clearly I am not gay, but if I were, I would be insulted. The one thing that the staff could come up with that affiliates with gay people is a tutu? It would be like saying that Black History Month should be full of hoodies, or that females should show their pride by waving shoes [my apologies in advance; I really couldn't think up something better on the spot for stereotypical African Americans]. It's contradictory, fighting prejudice with stereotypes. Granted, I'm all for satirical jests now and then, but not when you're honoring the target in a solemn manner.
Also, why should there be a gay pride month in the first place? It's as preposterous as, as the YouTube comedian Jack Douglass says, "White History Month." I shouldn't care whether I'm white, black, red, yellow, or purple; it doesn't make a lick of difference. I don't need other people telling me that simply being white is good or bad; I know exactly what being white entails: nothing [another slip-up; I guess you know I'm white. Go figure for a Jeffersonian]. That's exactly what being gay entails for the homosexual: nothing. If homosexuality is a choice, then there is little point, and if homosexuality is a genetic flaw, then there is little point. Perhaps Gay Pride Month would be homosexuality's defiance against anti-homosexuality, but it comes off as undeservedly rubbing it in the face of anti-homosexuality.
That, to a degree, is the problem: a big misunderstanding of the conservative view of homosexuality. The left thinks that the right is full of hate for and fear of homosexuals, when in reality we are concerned far more deeply than that. There are very few conservatives that passionately hate specific homosexuals. Rather, we are concerned about the degradation of society and the soul of the homosexual. If the nuclear family is not respected, what is? In this way, we consider divorce in the same way; we want a pure, God-fearing society, but the recent revolutions have tossed that vision aside.
However, the social liberals often don't recognize this claim as legitimate. Without the background motivation for social conservatives, social liberals can only see mindless hate, assuming that conservatives are not socially advanced enough to see their perspective. In a way, they may be right, but the progression of this society doesn't seem to be good, to say the least. Like I said before, conservatives are the brakes, while liberals are the gas.
That's my opinion. I welcome counterarguments and (logically-based) contrary opinions. Expect more later this week.
As with most new jobs, I went to a safety course. It was bland and had offered nothing that the online orientation didn't offer, but I was able to meet quite a few fellow employees and observe the building. I noticed that on the tables of the classroom was a shockingly large amount of glitter. Along with several of my peers, I was slightly perturbed at the glitter catching onto my business attire, and during my break I decided that I would ask the safety instructor about the glitter. She responded promptly that they had recently been making tutus. I asked the obvious follow-up question: why on God's green earth would they be making tutus en masse in an official business environment? Why, it's Gay Pride Month, of course! So, seeing as the first post talked about the California debate on gay rights, and seeing that we're rounding the full circle with the first anniversary of the blog, I dub this week Straight Pride Week on Plaustrum20 Politics (not the people, the concept). Why? Because every argument has an opposite, though not necessarily equal, counterargument
Let's address the tutu thing first. Clearly I am not gay, but if I were, I would be insulted. The one thing that the staff could come up with that affiliates with gay people is a tutu? It would be like saying that Black History Month should be full of hoodies, or that females should show their pride by waving shoes [my apologies in advance; I really couldn't think up something better on the spot for stereotypical African Americans]. It's contradictory, fighting prejudice with stereotypes. Granted, I'm all for satirical jests now and then, but not when you're honoring the target in a solemn manner.
Also, why should there be a gay pride month in the first place? It's as preposterous as, as the YouTube comedian Jack Douglass says, "White History Month." I shouldn't care whether I'm white, black, red, yellow, or purple; it doesn't make a lick of difference. I don't need other people telling me that simply being white is good or bad; I know exactly what being white entails: nothing [another slip-up; I guess you know I'm white. Go figure for a Jeffersonian]. That's exactly what being gay entails for the homosexual: nothing. If homosexuality is a choice, then there is little point, and if homosexuality is a genetic flaw, then there is little point. Perhaps Gay Pride Month would be homosexuality's defiance against anti-homosexuality, but it comes off as undeservedly rubbing it in the face of anti-homosexuality.
That, to a degree, is the problem: a big misunderstanding of the conservative view of homosexuality. The left thinks that the right is full of hate for and fear of homosexuals, when in reality we are concerned far more deeply than that. There are very few conservatives that passionately hate specific homosexuals. Rather, we are concerned about the degradation of society and the soul of the homosexual. If the nuclear family is not respected, what is? In this way, we consider divorce in the same way; we want a pure, God-fearing society, but the recent revolutions have tossed that vision aside.
However, the social liberals often don't recognize this claim as legitimate. Without the background motivation for social conservatives, social liberals can only see mindless hate, assuming that conservatives are not socially advanced enough to see their perspective. In a way, they may be right, but the progression of this society doesn't seem to be good, to say the least. Like I said before, conservatives are the brakes, while liberals are the gas.
That's my opinion. I welcome counterarguments and (logically-based) contrary opinions. Expect more later this week.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Roy Allmond, Pete Peterson, and Dan Schnur: A Closer Analysis
Salvete.
Elections are coming in, and, while I have already gone over my stance for secretary of state, I would like to make a slight footnote. The only other running candidate that is not Green or Democrat is Roy Allmond. I thought I'd give a shout out to him before explaining my choice further.
(For those of you who are too lazy to scroll down a tad and get my choice of secretary of state, here it is:
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
Elections are coming in, and, while I have already gone over my stance for secretary of state, I would like to make a slight footnote. The only other running candidate that is not Green or Democrat is Roy Allmond. I thought I'd give a shout out to him before explaining my choice further.
(For those of you who are too lazy to scroll down a tad and get my choice of secretary of state, here it is:
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
In addition, I would also like to point out a few things about this choice at the end).
Roy Allmond's campaign statement is easy to miss for a standard Republican conservative. I came back to his campaign, educated voter that I am, to dissect it and figure out if he's the right candidate for me. Upon dissection, I find it blatantly clear that he is a supporter of The Blaze. He has a 1791.com email address, and he clearly does not consider the Republican Party to be conservative. That much is clear. I will give him points that his heart is in the right place, and I support him for that.
Unfortunately, that's about as far as it gets. Roy Allmond is the Peace and Freedom candidate of the conservative right; he makes heavily biased, unfounded assertions that would make any Democrat face-palm. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but I definitely would not want that in a leader. I would say that Roy Allmond would walk into office and perhaps regret his decision within a week, just as I might. A candidate whose only policy is being anti-progressive is an okay candidate, but not an optimal candidate. Also, Comic Sans? Why, Roy? Why? (No, I am not basing my argument on the use of Comic Sans, although it is an example of the poor campaigning tactics).
By no means am I saying that Pete Peterson and Dan Schnur are optimal candidates either, which is also why I've decided to blog today. As I research Pete Peterson, I note that the LA Times supports both Pete Peterson and Ashley Swearengin, and they support each other. (For those of you who don't recall, Swearengin is the Republican mayor of Fresno running against David Evans for controller.) I get the sense of establishment that Allmond talked about, even though Peterson is simply a professor at Pepperdine with a load of political experience.
It would also be unfair to accuse Roy Allmond of being blatantly biased without accusing Dan Schnur of being anti-biased. Dan Schnur seems to be against political parties, for fair elections, and little else. Further research shows that he wants to (in the background) demand politics courses and give the office of the secretary of state a technical renovation.
I guess when all is said and done, I'm still voting for either Schnur or Peterson, but the general choice is much less distinct. To Peterson, I have nothing but good will to you, and I hope you excel in life, but I cannot vote for you without experience and a solid plan. God Bless, though.
P.S. David Evans, who is running for controller, is, like Allmond, an outsider in the Republican race, but he is a CFO and has both experience, a constructive philosophy, and a general outline of what he needs to do. I will most likely be voting for him.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
File55's "Intolerable": Fantastic
Salvete.
An amazing documentary has come out just a few hours ago.
File55's Intolerable is one of the most well-writ, well-developed, conservative documentaries I have seen. Its primary focus is the development and the history of the Tea Party, and better yet, it is free to watch and to download. The documentary essentially summarizes the birth of the Tea Party, compares it to the original Tea Party of the 1770s, and debunks several myths about the Tea Party. The documentary goes around to a slew of Tea Party hubs to interview their members and instigators nationwide.
What surprises me most about the Tea Party is the anti-corporation sentiment. The Tea Party isn't so illogical as to generally hate businesses, but they loathe government's connection with large businesses, something that one wouldn't expect of them. An unusually large portion went into explaining that. In fact, the Tea Party seems fairly centrist, perhaps conservative centrist. Sure, the film was developed by Blaze staff and uses Blaze articles, but there is very little pro-establishment-Republican sentiment in the film, if at all. The music and structure is fitting, and I believe it's shockingly well put together, given its background. It's short, it's succinct, and it's well worth one's time.
The link is http://intolerable.us/ . Check it out.
An amazing documentary has come out just a few hours ago.
File55's Intolerable is one of the most well-writ, well-developed, conservative documentaries I have seen. Its primary focus is the development and the history of the Tea Party, and better yet, it is free to watch and to download. The documentary essentially summarizes the birth of the Tea Party, compares it to the original Tea Party of the 1770s, and debunks several myths about the Tea Party. The documentary goes around to a slew of Tea Party hubs to interview their members and instigators nationwide.
What surprises me most about the Tea Party is the anti-corporation sentiment. The Tea Party isn't so illogical as to generally hate businesses, but they loathe government's connection with large businesses, something that one wouldn't expect of them. An unusually large portion went into explaining that. In fact, the Tea Party seems fairly centrist, perhaps conservative centrist. Sure, the film was developed by Blaze staff and uses Blaze articles, but there is very little pro-establishment-Republican sentiment in the film, if at all. The music and structure is fitting, and I believe it's shockingly well put together, given its background. It's short, it's succinct, and it's well worth one's time.
The link is http://intolerable.us/ . Check it out.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Seattle is the New Detroit
Salvete.
Did you hear? Seattle is the new Detroit. Guess who has their new minimum wage set at $15. As of now, we have the corporate giant Microsoft funding the city's economy. As of a few years from now, businesses will have to pay for practically half of their employees. They will either downsize or die out. As of a few years from then, Microsoft will realize that Seattle would be a poor place to run a business, leaving for some other place, perhaps China. Business will be stripped from Seattle, and a desperate citizenry will elect a government that feeds off of desperation. Congratulations, Seattle. You've put yourself on the path to Detroit. Have fun, or get off.
Did you hear? Seattle is the new Detroit. Guess who has their new minimum wage set at $15. As of now, we have the corporate giant Microsoft funding the city's economy. As of a few years from now, businesses will have to pay for practically half of their employees. They will either downsize or die out. As of a few years from then, Microsoft will realize that Seattle would be a poor place to run a business, leaving for some other place, perhaps China. Business will be stripped from Seattle, and a desperate citizenry will elect a government that feeds off of desperation. Congratulations, Seattle. You've put yourself on the path to Detroit. Have fun, or get off.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Plaustrum Political Picks of the Year: California Election Edition, Part 1
Salvete.
Without further ado, here are my picks of the year. First, for the easy ones:
United States Representative: 4th Congressional District of CA: Tom McClintock. I had to start with this guy; he's absolutely amazing. He thinks outside the box, drawing attention to problems that need attention before immediately coming up with an effective solution. He is (to the best of my knowledge) transparent; he even has his own YouTube channel, which he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/McClintockCA04. No, wait, he has two YouTube channels that he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/votemcclintock. He is important to me personally: a few years ago, he supported a charter school that was opening up. Granted, that charter school became a cesspit of mediocrity almost instantaneously, but it was the thought that counted, especially with this great man. Vote for him if you live anywhere in his district, I deplore you.
Insurance Commissioner: Ted Gaines. Between a Democrat, a Peace and Freedom, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for?
Treasurer: Greg Conlon. Between a Democrat, a Green, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for? (Also, how would the Green Party, who sets money as the lowest priority, be in any way qualified for treasurer?) In all honesty, I was pleasantly surprised with the statement presented by both the Democratic and Green candidates, especially the Green candidate. Granted, Ellen H. Brown (Green) ended with a crash ("It's time to break free of from the Wall Street casino and create our own bank- with profits to the people!"), but she made an otherwise sound argument. Still, I would vote for the Republican: The party that focuses the most on a healthy economy would likely be the most qualified for control of the economy.
Controller: David Evans. There was a Green, three Democrats, and two Republicans running for office. Ashley Swearengin was the other Republican, but I seriously doubt that the mayor of the city of Fresno would be to my liking. Between his simple statement ("Most qualified for Controller.") and the fact that he is a certified accountant, "not a career politician," I would say that he makes the better case anyway. The Green Party made me sick. (The latter quote was taken from http://www.evans4controller2014.com/)
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
More in future parts.
Without further ado, here are my picks of the year. First, for the easy ones:
United States Representative: 4th Congressional District of CA: Tom McClintock. I had to start with this guy; he's absolutely amazing. He thinks outside the box, drawing attention to problems that need attention before immediately coming up with an effective solution. He is (to the best of my knowledge) transparent; he even has his own YouTube channel, which he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/McClintockCA04. No, wait, he has two YouTube channels that he continuously updates: https://www.youtube.com/user/votemcclintock. He is important to me personally: a few years ago, he supported a charter school that was opening up. Granted, that charter school became a cesspit of mediocrity almost instantaneously, but it was the thought that counted, especially with this great man. Vote for him if you live anywhere in his district, I deplore you.
Insurance Commissioner: Ted Gaines. Between a Democrat, a Peace and Freedom, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for?
Treasurer: Greg Conlon. Between a Democrat, a Green, and a Republican, who do you think I'm voting for? (Also, how would the Green Party, who sets money as the lowest priority, be in any way qualified for treasurer?) In all honesty, I was pleasantly surprised with the statement presented by both the Democratic and Green candidates, especially the Green candidate. Granted, Ellen H. Brown (Green) ended with a crash ("It's time to break free of from the Wall Street casino and create our own bank- with profits to the people!"), but she made an otherwise sound argument. Still, I would vote for the Republican: The party that focuses the most on a healthy economy would likely be the most qualified for control of the economy.
Controller: David Evans. There was a Green, three Democrats, and two Republicans running for office. Ashley Swearengin was the other Republican, but I seriously doubt that the mayor of the city of Fresno would be to my liking. Between his simple statement ("Most qualified for Controller.") and the fact that he is a certified accountant, "not a career politician," I would say that he makes the better case anyway. The Green Party made me sick. (The latter quote was taken from http://www.evans4controller2014.com/)
Secretary of State: Tie, between Dan Schnur and Pete Peterson. I loved both of these candidates. Dan Schnur, an independent, stresses the need for a nonpartisan judge for both sides. He promises to be anti-corruption, a quality that I see in my beloved Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (IRL) and absolutely adore in a candidate. On the other hand, Pete Peterson has a well laid-out plan of his policies and goals as secretary of state. Quite honestly, I might flip a coin on election day.
More in future parts.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Plaustrum Political Picks of the Year: CA Election Edition: Introduction
Salvete.
Well, after laughably falling short of the Lent-post-a-day quota and having waited more than two weeks to post something again, I figured that I might as well post something now.
A lot has happened. As readers probably know, I'm a Californian conservative, an odd yet pleasant kind of minority. As of last Saturday, I have officially registered as a member of the Modern Whig Party. Some trusted friends of mine have pointed out that I will be left out of Republican primaries, so I may consider switching to registering as a Republican, but for now I am satisfied existing in the league of third parties. I can't wait for what kind of mail they're going to send me.
So, while we're on the topic of voting, I have received a voter information guide. As I look through them, I have made clear observations and picks for the upcoming elections.
For one, I urge the viewer to abstain from voting for the Peace and Freedom Party. They stand for everything that I hate and stand against everything that I love. I stand for everything they hate and stand against everything they love. I would rather vote for the Communist Party, the ever-popular Green Party, anything but the Peace and Freedom Party. They don't even have the logos that I prize so much in my adversaries when they make their arguments. They essentially take liberal cliches, extract and discard the logic, and amplify it to unreasonable amounts before spitting it out in the face of what little decency California has (the same decency that pushed Proposition 8 in our favor).
Look no further than the party's political statement. Count the liberal cliches. My conservative estimate is 7 (pun intended). According to them, they are the party who will "work together democratically and cooperatively for the common good, rather than being slaves to the rich and their corporations." Because, as we all know, "[w]e should not have to sacrifice our health, our livelihoods and our planet for our bosses' profits. We can tax the rich..."
Simply put? Yes, it is that kind of party. You can see why I would rather vote for the Communists; those guys are beacons of reason compared to these guys.
If you choose to look further, please highlight the candidate for insurance commissioner from the Peace and Freedom Party. To compare, I will take out sections from the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively:
"As a family insurance agent for the past 30 years, I've had to fight insurance companies on behalf of my clients... As Insurance Commissioner, I will work to increase criminal penalties for fraud and will aggressively prosecute those who prey on seniors and our most vulnerable citizens... The Insurance Commissioner has a duty to protect consumers and foster a business climate that will improve our state's economy and create more jobs."
-Ted Gaines
"Four years ago, Californians elected Dave Jones as Insurance Commissioner to fight for consumers and hold insurance companies accountable. Dave Jones has saved consumers $1.4 billion by ratcheting down excessive auto and homeowners insurance rates... Dave Jones refuses to accept contributions or gifts from insurance companies... The Consumer Federation of California has named Dave Jones a "Consumer Champion."
-Dave Jones
See, those were good. I dislike the idea of hiring elected officials for the purpose of confronting insurance agencies, but I admire that both the Democratic and Republican candidates realize specifically what their job means for the average Joe, what they need to do, how they have done it, and/or what they will do. Now, here is the Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Literally, this is everything she put down:
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
A word of advice for Mrs. Hrizi: when you're trying to run for office, stuff like this makes you look stupid. Sure, it might give you votes among the people who are either excessively liberal or excessively dumb, but you have lost whatever respect from me that you could have earned. If you want something brief, try something along the lines of what the libertarian candidate for attorney general did:
"Uphold the Bill of Rights, including 2nd Amendment. Protect our privacy. End marijuana prohibition. No death penalty. Prosecute police misconduct. End civil asset forfeiture."
-Jonathan Jaech
Basic outlines of what he plans to do. Perhaps you could leave the audience hanging, like Republican candidate for controller:
"Most qualified for Controller."
-David Evans
Heck, even the Green candidate for secretary of state could do better:
"Label GMOs, legalize cannabis, close nuclear plants, ban fracking, and divest from fossil fuels."
-David Curtis
All of those sound more logical, more cool-headed, and more qualified than... what was it again?
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
The picks will be out in a few.
Well, after laughably falling short of the Lent-post-a-day quota and having waited more than two weeks to post something again, I figured that I might as well post something now.
A lot has happened. As readers probably know, I'm a Californian conservative, an odd yet pleasant kind of minority. As of last Saturday, I have officially registered as a member of the Modern Whig Party. Some trusted friends of mine have pointed out that I will be left out of Republican primaries, so I may consider switching to registering as a Republican, but for now I am satisfied existing in the league of third parties. I can't wait for what kind of mail they're going to send me.
So, while we're on the topic of voting, I have received a voter information guide. As I look through them, I have made clear observations and picks for the upcoming elections.
For one, I urge the viewer to abstain from voting for the Peace and Freedom Party. They stand for everything that I hate and stand against everything that I love. I stand for everything they hate and stand against everything they love. I would rather vote for the Communist Party, the ever-popular Green Party, anything but the Peace and Freedom Party. They don't even have the logos that I prize so much in my adversaries when they make their arguments. They essentially take liberal cliches, extract and discard the logic, and amplify it to unreasonable amounts before spitting it out in the face of what little decency California has (the same decency that pushed Proposition 8 in our favor).
Look no further than the party's political statement. Count the liberal cliches. My conservative estimate is 7 (pun intended). According to them, they are the party who will "work together democratically and cooperatively for the common good, rather than being slaves to the rich and their corporations." Because, as we all know, "[w]e should not have to sacrifice our health, our livelihoods and our planet for our bosses' profits. We can tax the rich..."
Simply put? Yes, it is that kind of party. You can see why I would rather vote for the Communists; those guys are beacons of reason compared to these guys.
If you choose to look further, please highlight the candidate for insurance commissioner from the Peace and Freedom Party. To compare, I will take out sections from the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively:
"As a family insurance agent for the past 30 years, I've had to fight insurance companies on behalf of my clients... As Insurance Commissioner, I will work to increase criminal penalties for fraud and will aggressively prosecute those who prey on seniors and our most vulnerable citizens... The Insurance Commissioner has a duty to protect consumers and foster a business climate that will improve our state's economy and create more jobs."
-Ted Gaines
"Four years ago, Californians elected Dave Jones as Insurance Commissioner to fight for consumers and hold insurance companies accountable. Dave Jones has saved consumers $1.4 billion by ratcheting down excessive auto and homeowners insurance rates... Dave Jones refuses to accept contributions or gifts from insurance companies... The Consumer Federation of California has named Dave Jones a "Consumer Champion."
-Dave Jones
See, those were good. I dislike the idea of hiring elected officials for the purpose of confronting insurance agencies, but I admire that both the Democratic and Republican candidates realize specifically what their job means for the average Joe, what they need to do, how they have done it, and/or what they will do. Now, here is the Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Literally, this is everything she put down:
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
A word of advice for Mrs. Hrizi: when you're trying to run for office, stuff like this makes you look stupid. Sure, it might give you votes among the people who are either excessively liberal or excessively dumb, but you have lost whatever respect from me that you could have earned. If you want something brief, try something along the lines of what the libertarian candidate for attorney general did:
"Uphold the Bill of Rights, including 2nd Amendment. Protect our privacy. End marijuana prohibition. No death penalty. Prosecute police misconduct. End civil asset forfeiture."
-Jonathan Jaech
Basic outlines of what he plans to do. Perhaps you could leave the audience hanging, like Republican candidate for controller:
"Most qualified for Controller."
-David Evans
Heck, even the Green candidate for secretary of state could do better:
"Label GMOs, legalize cannabis, close nuclear plants, ban fracking, and divest from fossil fuels."
-David Curtis
All of those sound more logical, more cool-headed, and more qualified than... what was it again?
"Quality healthcare should be a universal right! Abolish the insurance companies! Register Peace and Freedom Party."
-Nathalie Hrizi
The picks will be out in a few.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Lent Post: Weaponry Picks of the Year
Salvete.
Today, I thought I'd start an annual series on my favorite military weapons coming out this year, based strictly on what http://militaryfactory.com/ tells me about them. As a disclaimer, I know practically nothing about military weapons. The weapons will be judged based on how they look, basic statistics, and general things that I like about them. So, without further ado, let's look into the military weaponry of this year:
The Plaustrum Tank of the Year is, by default, China's Main Battle Tank 3000. What I like about the tank is, well, the retro name, the long history with previous Russian and Chinese tanks, and the large arsenal that accompanies the tank. The website is http://militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=624.
The Plaustrum Military Firearm of the Year goes to the Pindad SS4. It's Indonesian but made by a Belgian company. It a standard rifle, but the rifle's rival was the AK-12 (AK-200), the Call of Duty of assault rifles, so it was the best option. The site is http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=596.
The Plaustrum Military Aircraft of the year was the Italian Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. This plane is not necessarily fast or well-equipped, but it is light and powerful. The design is fantastic. Israel, Singapore, and Italy all want this plane. The site is http://militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=967.
Those were the Plaussies. Have a nice night, everyone. Perhaps next year we'll expand to naval warfare and civilian firearms.
Today, I thought I'd start an annual series on my favorite military weapons coming out this year, based strictly on what http://militaryfactory.com/ tells me about them. As a disclaimer, I know practically nothing about military weapons. The weapons will be judged based on how they look, basic statistics, and general things that I like about them. So, without further ado, let's look into the military weaponry of this year:
The Plaustrum Tank of the Year is, by default, China's Main Battle Tank 3000. What I like about the tank is, well, the retro name, the long history with previous Russian and Chinese tanks, and the large arsenal that accompanies the tank. The website is http://militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=624.
The Plaustrum Military Firearm of the Year goes to the Pindad SS4. It's Indonesian but made by a Belgian company. It a standard rifle, but the rifle's rival was the AK-12 (AK-200), the Call of Duty of assault rifles, so it was the best option. The site is http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=596.
The Plaustrum Military Aircraft of the year was the Italian Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. This plane is not necessarily fast or well-equipped, but it is light and powerful. The design is fantastic. Israel, Singapore, and Italy all want this plane. The site is http://militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=967.
Those were the Plaussies. Have a nice night, everyone. Perhaps next year we'll expand to naval warfare and civilian firearms.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Lent Post: Russia and Estonia
Salvete.
Well, today I read from the ERR (a popular Estonian news source) that ethnic Russians decided to host a pro-Russian rally outside the Russian embassy.
http://news.err.ee/v/politics/9307203d-2534-4587-9fe8-61f86f8166d5
I laugh at their attempt.
That said, I am concerned for the Baltics. I heard on the radio today the concern that NATO would probably not retaliate over an invasion of the Baltics or even an invasion of Poland. If we cede the Baltics, we lose our advantage on the Baltic Sea, since Russia would have ample shoreline. Estonia is too financially and symbolically important to lose in the Second Cold War against Russia. Estonia is the pawn in front of the king, in danger of other pawns, knights, a bishop, and a queen. If Estonia is lost, we get nothing out of it, and they have an incredible position, which they can fortify with any of their pieces. Is Estonia too small and weak to defend with NATO troops? Perhaps, but NATO presence would mean the difference between a solid win and a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians. Russia would think twice before going further, and we would have left the Baltics practically unscathed. The Russian force in Estonia would be weak enough for underground movements to take over the task of reclaiming Estonia, if, of course, Russia moves past the Baltics.
Letting the Baltic states be taken is not a tactical retreat, nor is it a sign of wisdom. It is surrender in the Baltics, just as we surrendered Ukraine by not thinking ahead.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Lent Post: Links of Death
http://science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-requests-ig-review-epa-experiments-humans
Good afternoon.
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-experiments-seek-harm-sick-patients-states-association-151200468.html;_ylt=AwrTWfzR0UlT_RoARxDQtDMD
How is everyone feeling today?
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31968605
Because I'm feeling FANTASTIC.
(for good measure and comparison, here's Gosnell: http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=26304583)
In response, my Catholic friend had but one thing to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDJtBh3LGJg
My the Lord have mercy on our souls.
Good afternoon.
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-experiments-seek-harm-sick-patients-states-association-151200468.html;_ylt=AwrTWfzR0UlT_RoARxDQtDMD
How is everyone feeling today?
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31968605
Because I'm feeling FANTASTIC.
(for good measure and comparison, here's Gosnell: http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=26304583)
In response, my Catholic friend had but one thing to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDJtBh3LGJg
My the Lord have mercy on our souls.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Lent Post: State of Jefferson
Salvete.
Today I heard The Blaze cover the State of Jefferson. I've known about the state of Jefferson for about a year, but I was excited to learn from The Blaze that three counties thus far support the secession. Unfortunately, I live too far south in California to be largely affected, but I very much want my county to join the movement. Essentially, from what I recall of the state of Jefferson, there was an attempt in the 1940s to split from California. While, of course, it didn't work (particularly because of the Pearl Harbor bombing and the start of World War II), it makes far more sense in today's standards. Literally, millions of Republican conservatives are being politically drowned out. When we try to stop the union corruption, the unions out-fund and defeat us. We are taxed without our consent, and we are forced to accept liberal policies, both social and fiscal. These policies have driven California into a dust-bowl, impoverished humiliation, and we desperately want out. I want red counties from the northern, Jefferson-supporting Siskiyou County to the southern Kern county to secede from the Californian government.
Would the economy of Jefferson work? It definitely would not have an economy as large as California's, but it would avoid the economic catastrophes that California has had over the years, such as an enormous debt and a monstrous government. It would function like a Midwestern state, with a small economy and perhaps undesired funds from the United States government, but relatively economically free. Whereas liberals could slander the Southern states as supposedly "racist" or "sexist" or "gun-toting," Jefferson would take a new approach to conservatism, one that would break stereotypes and be a positive light to conservatism. Would the innovation coming from Silicon Valley stop? Secession would cut its flow but would in no means halt the wave of innovation entirely; high school students from Northern California often travel south for their college education but move back north for work.
This is not a independence pipe-dream like the Scottish-independence fiasco that my friend at http://iconosceptic.wordpress.com/ bemoans. This is an upset faction choosing to leave failed policies and bogged-down bureaucracy for decently better policies and economic security, not the other way around.
I, Trygve Plaustrum, support secession from the state of California and formation of the state of Jefferson.
Today I heard The Blaze cover the State of Jefferson. I've known about the state of Jefferson for about a year, but I was excited to learn from The Blaze that three counties thus far support the secession. Unfortunately, I live too far south in California to be largely affected, but I very much want my county to join the movement. Essentially, from what I recall of the state of Jefferson, there was an attempt in the 1940s to split from California. While, of course, it didn't work (particularly because of the Pearl Harbor bombing and the start of World War II), it makes far more sense in today's standards. Literally, millions of Republican conservatives are being politically drowned out. When we try to stop the union corruption, the unions out-fund and defeat us. We are taxed without our consent, and we are forced to accept liberal policies, both social and fiscal. These policies have driven California into a dust-bowl, impoverished humiliation, and we desperately want out. I want red counties from the northern, Jefferson-supporting Siskiyou County to the southern Kern county to secede from the Californian government.
Would the economy of Jefferson work? It definitely would not have an economy as large as California's, but it would avoid the economic catastrophes that California has had over the years, such as an enormous debt and a monstrous government. It would function like a Midwestern state, with a small economy and perhaps undesired funds from the United States government, but relatively economically free. Whereas liberals could slander the Southern states as supposedly "racist" or "sexist" or "gun-toting," Jefferson would take a new approach to conservatism, one that would break stereotypes and be a positive light to conservatism. Would the innovation coming from Silicon Valley stop? Secession would cut its flow but would in no means halt the wave of innovation entirely; high school students from Northern California often travel south for their college education but move back north for work.
This is not a independence pipe-dream like the Scottish-independence fiasco that my friend at http://iconosceptic.wordpress.com/ bemoans. This is an upset faction choosing to leave failed policies and bogged-down bureaucracy for decently better policies and economic security, not the other way around.
I, Trygve Plaustrum, support secession from the state of California and formation of the state of Jefferson.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Lent Post: Equal Pay
Salvete. Before I begin, a friend of mine has started up a blog. Even though I agree with only half of the blog, it is very well writ, and, as was desired, it makes the average debater think and reflect. You may find it at http://iconosceptic.wordpress.com/.
So, the debate for "equal pay" is going on. My response is going to be controversial. You have been warned.
First, income inequality between men and women has far too many factors to be hailed as fact. One would have to include job types, job requirements, job rarity, job hours, and job quality. These practically cannot be measured by any outsider beyond biased narratives; thus, the statistics are essentially worthless. They may serve as a rough estimate at best, but there must be ample room for doubt, bias, and error.
The same goes with a large amount of statistics. Gun crime statistics cannot be accurate because either there were murders/homicides not recorded and thus not included in the report, or the statisticians fudged the numbers to fit the logic behind the gun statistics, thus polluting and biasing the statistics. Either way, there should be ample room for error in the result.
But I digress. People seem to miss the point about "equal pay," most likely because it seems to be too offensive to mention. The business is the organization providing the payroll, so they can be as sexist, homophobic, or racist as they want. To be sure, if I ran a business, pay would be determined based on merit and product, and in no way based on background, race, gender, or any other prejudiced manner. However, when the government establishes a foothold on the output of a business's income, it steps into very dangerous territory.
However, the case is different when the government contributes to a business's income. Because the government is controlled by all American citizens, the government should pay women and men without prejudice and based on merit. In that case, a racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudiced company does not need to receive money from the government. Should the government manipulate its investments to target the business by strengthening the business's rivals? Of course not, although that is possible under my strategy. However, if a company wants to function separate of the social and fiscal policies of the government, it has the right to do so, though the government has just as much right to retract its investments.
Such is my opinion. I'm planning on a solid day of video games tomorrow. It sounds like fun.
So, the debate for "equal pay" is going on. My response is going to be controversial. You have been warned.
First, income inequality between men and women has far too many factors to be hailed as fact. One would have to include job types, job requirements, job rarity, job hours, and job quality. These practically cannot be measured by any outsider beyond biased narratives; thus, the statistics are essentially worthless. They may serve as a rough estimate at best, but there must be ample room for doubt, bias, and error.
The same goes with a large amount of statistics. Gun crime statistics cannot be accurate because either there were murders/homicides not recorded and thus not included in the report, or the statisticians fudged the numbers to fit the logic behind the gun statistics, thus polluting and biasing the statistics. Either way, there should be ample room for error in the result.
But I digress. People seem to miss the point about "equal pay," most likely because it seems to be too offensive to mention. The business is the organization providing the payroll, so they can be as sexist, homophobic, or racist as they want. To be sure, if I ran a business, pay would be determined based on merit and product, and in no way based on background, race, gender, or any other prejudiced manner. However, when the government establishes a foothold on the output of a business's income, it steps into very dangerous territory.
However, the case is different when the government contributes to a business's income. Because the government is controlled by all American citizens, the government should pay women and men without prejudice and based on merit. In that case, a racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudiced company does not need to receive money from the government. Should the government manipulate its investments to target the business by strengthening the business's rivals? Of course not, although that is possible under my strategy. However, if a company wants to function separate of the social and fiscal policies of the government, it has the right to do so, though the government has just as much right to retract its investments.
Such is my opinion. I'm planning on a solid day of video games tomorrow. It sounds like fun.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Lent Post: Fort Hood
Salvete.
Well, it happened again. Hopefully we learned our lesson this time.
My simple reaction is this: for instances like this, you need a gun on you at all times. Otherwise, you are a target. If the firearms of these victims are out of reach, they will rarely be prepared for a surprise attack. Concealed carry works; storing people's firearms with the police where they won't be needed is folly. Why even bring the firearms at all?
I understand that people and businesses should have the policies they want in their domains, but don't tell me that concealed carry doesn't work, nor should you tell me that institutions have the right idea by locking everyone's firearms away for the "safety" of the inhabitants.
Well, it happened again. Hopefully we learned our lesson this time.
My simple reaction is this: for instances like this, you need a gun on you at all times. Otherwise, you are a target. If the firearms of these victims are out of reach, they will rarely be prepared for a surprise attack. Concealed carry works; storing people's firearms with the police where they won't be needed is folly. Why even bring the firearms at all?
I understand that people and businesses should have the policies they want in their domains, but don't tell me that concealed carry doesn't work, nor should you tell me that institutions have the right idea by locking everyone's firearms away for the "safety" of the inhabitants.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Lent Post: Movie #1: Disney's "Frozen"
Salvete.
Now is the time that the three of you following this post have been waiting for: my movie posts. I think I'm going to start with Frozen.
Frozen is by no means worth the hype. There are only two or three marketable songs, and the rest seem about a minute at longest. The end result is a mediocre replacement for Tangled. I wouldn't recommend it for most non-Disney fans, while I do see why some people may like it.
Now, I recall hearing a Christian talking about the homosexual references in Frozen. Believe it or not, I can definitely see the multiple homosexuality references throughout Frozen. Was this intentional? Perhaps. Does it affect the plotline or the my general enjoyment of the movie (or lack thereof)? No. Emphatically no. I keep my views on homosexuality, but I believe that the homosexual references in Frozen are either too well hidden or too skewed to impose anything on the target audience. Thus, I watch Frozen with no feeling of ill will or hatred, bad though the movie is.
More later.
Now is the time that the three of you following this post have been waiting for: my movie posts. I think I'm going to start with Frozen.
Frozen is by no means worth the hype. There are only two or three marketable songs, and the rest seem about a minute at longest. The end result is a mediocre replacement for Tangled. I wouldn't recommend it for most non-Disney fans, while I do see why some people may like it.
Now, I recall hearing a Christian talking about the homosexual references in Frozen. Believe it or not, I can definitely see the multiple homosexuality references throughout Frozen. Was this intentional? Perhaps. Does it affect the plotline or the my general enjoyment of the movie (or lack thereof)? No. Emphatically no. I keep my views on homosexuality, but I believe that the homosexual references in Frozen are either too well hidden or too skewed to impose anything on the target audience. Thus, I watch Frozen with no feeling of ill will or hatred, bad though the movie is.
More later.
Lent Post: Common Core
Salvete.
I'm back, after a spontaneous one week of vacation. Miss me?
Today I'm going to talk about Common Core. Personally, I don't know too much about it, but from what I know, this transformation of American education is unnecessary. I would encourage and promote the condensation of education in youth (teach them calculus by the end of middle school or at least high school) because that would give our youth the educational kick that would perhaps eliminate the need for higher education. A complete rearranging of the curriculum, however, is unnecessary. No one was calling for a change in curriculum schedule because it worked well; it was not the problem. The new rearrangement doesn't seem appropriate, and the curriculum seems quite dumbed down. I wish, if anything, that they took the curriculum and shifted everything down two or three grades, especially considering that the first through fourth grades seem exactly the same.
There are no new connections between different mathematical concepts, and they in fact seem to dumb down each and every grade from the old educational plan. For example, serious two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphing does not come up until high school, perhaps freshman or sophomore year. I love that Common Core is trying to make a connection between the first, second, and third dimensions, but that should be a late-elementary concept at most.
The inspiration of this blog was http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31661801. I get the confusion of the people involved, but I understand what the Common Core exam was trying to do. They were trying to split the subtraction number (316) into hundreds, tens, and ones units and subtracting each of them from the subtracted number (427) to achieve the difference. This, however, can only work to solidify subtraction, addition, and, if applied well enough, factoring. You cannot link this method to multiplication, and in fact it seems to weaken the relationship between addition and multiplication and (eventually) multiplication and exponentials/factorials. Addition should be a quick, easy process, and most students should understand the concepts behind basic addition and basic subtraction. Great. Move on to more applicable functions.
That is part of my Common Core opinion. You shall have more posts as Lent progresses.
I'm back, after a spontaneous one week of vacation. Miss me?
Today I'm going to talk about Common Core. Personally, I don't know too much about it, but from what I know, this transformation of American education is unnecessary. I would encourage and promote the condensation of education in youth (teach them calculus by the end of middle school or at least high school) because that would give our youth the educational kick that would perhaps eliminate the need for higher education. A complete rearranging of the curriculum, however, is unnecessary. No one was calling for a change in curriculum schedule because it worked well; it was not the problem. The new rearrangement doesn't seem appropriate, and the curriculum seems quite dumbed down. I wish, if anything, that they took the curriculum and shifted everything down two or three grades, especially considering that the first through fourth grades seem exactly the same.
There are no new connections between different mathematical concepts, and they in fact seem to dumb down each and every grade from the old educational plan. For example, serious two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphing does not come up until high school, perhaps freshman or sophomore year. I love that Common Core is trying to make a connection between the first, second, and third dimensions, but that should be a late-elementary concept at most.
The inspiration of this blog was http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31661801. I get the confusion of the people involved, but I understand what the Common Core exam was trying to do. They were trying to split the subtraction number (316) into hundreds, tens, and ones units and subtracting each of them from the subtracted number (427) to achieve the difference. This, however, can only work to solidify subtraction, addition, and, if applied well enough, factoring. You cannot link this method to multiplication, and in fact it seems to weaken the relationship between addition and multiplication and (eventually) multiplication and exponentials/factorials. Addition should be a quick, easy process, and most students should understand the concepts behind basic addition and basic subtraction. Great. Move on to more applicable functions.
That is part of my Common Core opinion. You shall have more posts as Lent progresses.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Lent Post: Library
Salvete.
I volunteer at my local library from time to time, and today was one of those days. Near the end of my scheduled shift, a patron of the library called me over from working on her computer. She was an African American woman, likely in her 40s or 50s. As the respectful library volunteer I was, came over to her. Instead of asking me a question about the computer or the library, she asked me personal questions. These weren't investigative questions, mind you; I never gave her my name or any personal information. Rather, she talked to me about my volunteer work.
Naturally, of course, I was slightly uncomfortable, considering that she was a stranger asking me questions about things. Nonetheless, I answered her truthfully and considerately, and she seemed to have no false intentions. I walked away thoughtfully, thinking perhaps about posting this occurrence on my blog.
How often can two strangers have a decent conversation? In a worse scenario, strangers could kill each other just from a mere look. It's sad to see how society has deteriorated, but I guess that is life now. I pray that society changes for the better, and I hope others do as well.
I volunteer at my local library from time to time, and today was one of those days. Near the end of my scheduled shift, a patron of the library called me over from working on her computer. She was an African American woman, likely in her 40s or 50s. As the respectful library volunteer I was, came over to her. Instead of asking me a question about the computer or the library, she asked me personal questions. These weren't investigative questions, mind you; I never gave her my name or any personal information. Rather, she talked to me about my volunteer work.
Naturally, of course, I was slightly uncomfortable, considering that she was a stranger asking me questions about things. Nonetheless, I answered her truthfully and considerately, and she seemed to have no false intentions. I walked away thoughtfully, thinking perhaps about posting this occurrence on my blog.
How often can two strangers have a decent conversation? In a worse scenario, strangers could kill each other just from a mere look. It's sad to see how society has deteriorated, but I guess that is life now. I pray that society changes for the better, and I hope others do as well.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Lent Post: Movie Week?
Salvete.
Today I listened to two sermons and a movie. Yesterday, since I watched another movie, I will be commenting on those movies this week. I won't say the titles, since that will give away the movies and perhaps spoil the blogs. I will be talking about one sermon today, and another sermon tomorrow.
One of the sermons I listened to today was centered around a TED Talk about the psyches of the wealthy and the poor. The link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
I find the results of his experiment fascinating, but I do not find them surprising. There have been numerous studies on the rich and poor, Republicans and Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/republican-democrat-brain-politics-fmri-study_n_2717731.html), and I would say they all narrow down to one truth: rich people are good at making and keeping their money. Duh.
This is a straw man, but it does have backing. For example, when taking the pretzels and candy, the wealthier individual is finding the initiative and taking it. The rich assess wealth and risk, and they are hesitant to randomly give money away. Thus, they are able to increase their wealth over that of a poor person, who may take money less seriously. Whereas Paul Piff concludes that this is an effect of being rich, I would like to assert that it is a cause of being rich.
It is very difficult to become rich without your focus being on making money, at least for a good portion of time. If, as Paul Piff concludes, becoming wealthier means more greed, protectiveness, and self-interest, this explains perfectly the wide income gap in the various regions of the world today. Essentially, once one starts making money, there is no coming back.
However, I might see this as a natural, if not good, aspect of society (minus the greed and the sinful desires). The people who are most ambitious and who know how to make the most use of their money will get the most money. While I would advise the Christian rich to tithe, I am fine with this scenario, and I don't care about the income inequality in America because very little of it affects me. I do hope, however, that all Americans, instead of merely rich Americans, prosper- of their own accord.
Today I listened to two sermons and a movie. Yesterday, since I watched another movie, I will be commenting on those movies this week. I won't say the titles, since that will give away the movies and perhaps spoil the blogs. I will be talking about one sermon today, and another sermon tomorrow.
One of the sermons I listened to today was centered around a TED Talk about the psyches of the wealthy and the poor. The link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
I find the results of his experiment fascinating, but I do not find them surprising. There have been numerous studies on the rich and poor, Republicans and Democrats (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/republican-democrat-brain-politics-fmri-study_n_2717731.html), and I would say they all narrow down to one truth: rich people are good at making and keeping their money. Duh.
This is a straw man, but it does have backing. For example, when taking the pretzels and candy, the wealthier individual is finding the initiative and taking it. The rich assess wealth and risk, and they are hesitant to randomly give money away. Thus, they are able to increase their wealth over that of a poor person, who may take money less seriously. Whereas Paul Piff concludes that this is an effect of being rich, I would like to assert that it is a cause of being rich.
It is very difficult to become rich without your focus being on making money, at least for a good portion of time. If, as Paul Piff concludes, becoming wealthier means more greed, protectiveness, and self-interest, this explains perfectly the wide income gap in the various regions of the world today. Essentially, once one starts making money, there is no coming back.
However, I might see this as a natural, if not good, aspect of society (minus the greed and the sinful desires). The people who are most ambitious and who know how to make the most use of their money will get the most money. While I would advise the Christian rich to tithe, I am fine with this scenario, and I don't care about the income inequality in America because very little of it affects me. I do hope, however, that all Americans, instead of merely rich Americans, prosper- of their own accord.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Lent Post: Vsauce and Obama
Salvete.
Minutes ago, I watched a Vsauce video. I understand that the Vsauce officials are most likely on the opposite side of the spectrum as me, but I like to watch their videos because they are educational, more applicable than courses taught by several academic institutions.
In the video, he talked about meeting President Obama along with several other YouTubers on healthcare reform. Unfortunately, this is a trend that I see all too often, particularly with the vlog brothers. Their attempt is to gain popularity among the masses by seizing control of the modern academic elite, having moved on from the ancient academic elite (professors).
Their plan is to mooch off of the popularity of the educational channels in order to boost their popularity. After all, who wouldn't accept an invitation to join the president at an exclusive White House meeting- for anything? I see the situation in the reverse way. Whereas I disagreed with their views but respected them as educational scholars and (on occasion) masterminds, I can't help but feel that their bias might distort the content of their channels. It certainly won't mollify the conservative theory that the White House is controlling every part of the media. However, until I believe that they are blatantly discarding facts for propaganda, I will continue to watch and enjoy their work.
Minutes ago, I watched a Vsauce video. I understand that the Vsauce officials are most likely on the opposite side of the spectrum as me, but I like to watch their videos because they are educational, more applicable than courses taught by several academic institutions.
In the video, he talked about meeting President Obama along with several other YouTubers on healthcare reform. Unfortunately, this is a trend that I see all too often, particularly with the vlog brothers. Their attempt is to gain popularity among the masses by seizing control of the modern academic elite, having moved on from the ancient academic elite (professors).
Their plan is to mooch off of the popularity of the educational channels in order to boost their popularity. After all, who wouldn't accept an invitation to join the president at an exclusive White House meeting- for anything? I see the situation in the reverse way. Whereas I disagreed with their views but respected them as educational scholars and (on occasion) masterminds, I can't help but feel that their bias might distort the content of their channels. It certainly won't mollify the conservative theory that the White House is controlling every part of the media. However, until I believe that they are blatantly discarding facts for propaganda, I will continue to watch and enjoy their work.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Lent Post: College
Salvete.
I was given the prompt to end the fragment "Because college tuition is so high" with an assertion. Whereas the stereotypical answer would have been raising (more correctly lowering) scholarships, government aid, and like arguments, I came up with the assertion, in a jumbled, improvised manner, that there should be a societal movement that does not fanatically promote college. As always, my liberal colleague was right there alongside me to tell me I was wrong. Once again, in response, I make my case here.
What is the purpose of college? To learn things? We practically have all of the most advanced knowledge ever discovered in the palm of our hand. We simply need to know where to look, which either we ourselves or our job will point us to. Anything that we don't have in the palm of our hand is too advanced to be applicable and thus impractical. So yes, if you are interested in wasting thousands of dollars on useless information that you may never apply, spend your own money, but don't ask for government aid. Speaking of money, college is insanely expensive. How many college alumni break free of their monetary bonds, even with a diploma? If you have plenty of money to spare, then spend that money. If not, you shouldn't have to bother. What about the college experience? You mean the part of college that is the least about education and more about gossip, the social scene, and fun times off of your dollar? I could spend a hundred dollars and have the same amount of fun as I would spending thousands of dollars to goof off in the "college experience." What about connections? If you're looking for connections, you could literally have thousands of them almost instantaneously. College is an incredibly expensive alternative to, say, Facebook. What about the innovation that comes from colleges? That can just as easily come from an educated business workforce, who could get the building blocks for their research from, you guessed it, the Internet.
What about the jobs? Businesses will be looking for the diplomas and the educations, you get from colleges, right?
Right.
We now spend thousands of dollars primarily for the prestige of being a college graduate. Employers currently desire diplomas as either requirements or recommendations for occupations. This is a reasonable tradition; after all, knowledge was not suddenly at the palm of one's hand until the third millennium AD. However, the times have changed; people can now expand their learning and their network without sitting directly next to each other. This is why I want there to be a social movement eliminating the necessity of college.
Granted, I have taken college courses and am glad for them, but I wouldn't have needed to go if my family couldn't afford them. No one needs college to become legend.
I was given the prompt to end the fragment "Because college tuition is so high" with an assertion. Whereas the stereotypical answer would have been raising (more correctly lowering) scholarships, government aid, and like arguments, I came up with the assertion, in a jumbled, improvised manner, that there should be a societal movement that does not fanatically promote college. As always, my liberal colleague was right there alongside me to tell me I was wrong. Once again, in response, I make my case here.
What is the purpose of college? To learn things? We practically have all of the most advanced knowledge ever discovered in the palm of our hand. We simply need to know where to look, which either we ourselves or our job will point us to. Anything that we don't have in the palm of our hand is too advanced to be applicable and thus impractical. So yes, if you are interested in wasting thousands of dollars on useless information that you may never apply, spend your own money, but don't ask for government aid. Speaking of money, college is insanely expensive. How many college alumni break free of their monetary bonds, even with a diploma? If you have plenty of money to spare, then spend that money. If not, you shouldn't have to bother. What about the college experience? You mean the part of college that is the least about education and more about gossip, the social scene, and fun times off of your dollar? I could spend a hundred dollars and have the same amount of fun as I would spending thousands of dollars to goof off in the "college experience." What about connections? If you're looking for connections, you could literally have thousands of them almost instantaneously. College is an incredibly expensive alternative to, say, Facebook. What about the innovation that comes from colleges? That can just as easily come from an educated business workforce, who could get the building blocks for their research from, you guessed it, the Internet.
What about the jobs? Businesses will be looking for the diplomas and the educations, you get from colleges, right?
Right.
We now spend thousands of dollars primarily for the prestige of being a college graduate. Employers currently desire diplomas as either requirements or recommendations for occupations. This is a reasonable tradition; after all, knowledge was not suddenly at the palm of one's hand until the third millennium AD. However, the times have changed; people can now expand their learning and their network without sitting directly next to each other. This is why I want there to be a social movement eliminating the necessity of college.
Granted, I have taken college courses and am glad for them, but I wouldn't have needed to go if my family couldn't afford them. No one needs college to become legend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)