Politics: It’s getting impossible to get away from politic discussion. It didn’t seem like the news dwelled on it nearly as much as they do now. I believe originally politics started out as a noble idea, in that politicians weren’t paid and actually believed they were doing good for society. Not so now. It’s a self serving job, in which you are trying to get voted in by doing the best for your constituents. That’s our system. Presidents do what’s good for their party and only care about the country to the extent it does them and their party good, NOT a global view of what is good for the country as a whole.
Patriotism: is a great thing. It is fine to love your country. While you can dislike aspects of your country, I do not like people who bash entire countries as a whole. It is okay to be a superpower, despite the apologetic attitude the world community seems to feel every country that is a superpower needs to adopt. Back in history Britain was a superpower, no one is asking them to apologize for anything they’ve done in history. The U.S. has nothing to apologize for in any of its history. It has never practiced genocide. It helps other countries when they ask for aid. It tries to promote peaceful societies around the world with the maximum amount of freedoms for everyone. Informing other societies of the freedoms we have and enjoy is NOT attacking your society, it is just pointing out a different quality of life that maybe you’d like if you were given a chance to try it rather than being oppressed.
News: despite claims to the contrary, the news has never been unbiased. It has a built in bias as nothing can be presented that is completely non-subjective. The news liked to give the image that they were fair and objective, however this has always been a fallacy. The best way to find news is to look at as many sources of information as possible to figure out what the ‘reality’ truth is about whatever topic you’re interested in. Do some research, stop letting yourself be spoon-fed your information, and especially your opinions.
TV news: has turned pathetic beyond giving just light ‘surface’ news. TV news is good for local news. National and world news can’t be communicated in the time frame that tv news allows, unless you are watching a newschannel (which again will also be biased.) I much prefer reading news as opposed to watching it. I do not need the newscaster’s facial expressions and intonations to give me their emotional opinion on a subject – if I want their opinion on the subject, then label it an editorial and not news. Give me the facts and not your smiles, your frowns, your head bobs, your slanted adjectives. I’m pretty sure most of you are just reading what you are given and only have half a clue about what you are supposed to be informing me about.
Paying for Things that used to be Free: TV. Radio. Internet. I have to hand it to all the larger corporations, they’ve managed to take away stuff that used to be free and made us pay for it completely under our noses and without any major outcries. Broadcast tv, bye bye. It’s still there but such a pain in the ass I don’t know anyone who still uses it besides public facilities – and not all of them even. Radio. Still free, but the content is such garbage compared to the pay stuff. Not that it matters much, but pay radio will eventually have all the commercials that the free has now. Money speaks louder than any fan ever did. Internet. Netzero – gee used to be free, what happened? Phones. Never free. In fact, managed to nickle and dime all of us with ‘surcharges’ and ‘additional taxes’ right under our nose for years. NOW doing it with hardlines and cell lines. Do people still have hardlines for their homes? I do, the main reason being I don’t have wireless for my PC. Healthcare. Not free ever. Used to be a perk with working. Soon likely to be another bill I will have to pay or go to jail if O gets his way. I think the next step the ‘educated’ people in Congress are going to tackle will be outlawing the junk foods I like as well, and I’ll have to get my Nacho Cheese Gorditas off the street on the rough side of town like a crack addict. End goal – a bunch of healthier people who are in foul moods because pleasure has to be good for you, otherwise we can’t allow it. Because we know better.
Tina Fey and Julia Louis-Dreyfus: I don’t get the comedy of these two. As characters other comedians play off of, they are entertaining in a group, but individually I just don’t get it. Neither makes me laugh. Amy Poehler definitely makes me laugh, her face and delivery are hysterical to me. Even Phyllis on ‘The Office’ makes me laugh. David Letterman was funny before the 90s, now he is just old and codgety. Just pissing on things does not make me laugh, DL. Craig Ferguson, entertaining (again, in the delivery.) DL and his snark, that gets old after the first minute. And you did it back in the early 90s.
Religion: I try to think I’m somewhat of a practical person. Religion serves a purpose – it provides hope when a person can’t or won’t find hope in a more scientific way, and for some provides a purpose in their lives that makes them feel better. In these respects, I have no problem with religion. I DO have a problem when it comes to moral and value structure. I am a person who feels you should define these things for yourself rationally, rather than having it imposed as a part of a belief of a religion. I feel that children are taught to do as their parents tell them because the parents ‘say so’ and is more intelligent and experienced about life and hopefully is pointing their children’s behavior in the right direction. Now, I feel some adults still need this guidance when they become adults – for some reason they do not want or cannot rationally figure out how their own moral and value structure should be for them to live the sort of life they want to. These adults rely on religion for this moral and value structure. Again, this I find valid – if I wanted to go learn Japanese, I would turn to an authority on Japanese to learn this, as it is not something I can just figure out in my own brain. I have no problem with people taking morals and values from religion as a model that they want to use on their own, without following the belief required from those religions. As Americans we understand the concept of liberty and freely copy it from one another – morals and value beliefs I feel are the same, one can copy them and it doesn’t diminish the belief, NOR does it diminish the religion in any manner if a person adopts those concepts from your religion but does not choose the belief structure in a deity that you have. Where I have a HUGE issue with religion is when a religion goes down the path of CONTROLLING its believers. I’m a huge believer in individual freedom. If a religion suggests ways to behave, I am fine with this as the religion is not FORCING you to do anything. When a religion forces its followers to do things (either bad OR good), I feel it has ceased being a religion as I define it (borrowing from online: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs), and has turned into something more political. I feel it has turned into a group entity that is trying to accomplish something for its group beyond the intents of what a religion hopes to do. I feel that oftentimes the agendas that these controlling religions (for want of a better term, I’ll try to find one) have is either their own aggrandizement for property, power, or status; or for the benefit of specific members of that controlling religion who hold key places of significance within the religion. Religions that actively promote violence or dislike of other religions I feel fall into this category of controlling religions, as I cannot see where the action of hurting/killing someone who doesn’t follow your belief structure is somehow bettering their life or situation (in fact, it is taking away from their life, as they are having to take time and energy figuring out how to hurt/kill you.)
Pascal’s Wager: defined – even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Yes, logically this makes sense. But if there is a God, don’t you think he’s smart enough to see through this sham believing? It’s not genuine faith, so if your faith consists of this type of belief, you’re as much an agnostic as everyone else.
Social Security Program: what an amazingly BAD idea this was. FDR, you probably never realized that what you thought was a good idea at the time would jack up all future generations to come. That’s a shame, because any competent economist could have told you it was a completely stupid idea fiscally. The idea was that payroll taxes of the currently employed would assist those in need in a variety of assistance programs. That idea is all well and good IF IT IS A DEFINABLE DURATION PROGRAM. It must have an end. Otherwise you get exactly what has been created – an entitlement program that will never go away because people have come to rely on it, and more importantly, feel it is their right. If you give someone something, they learn to rely on it and expect it. By enacting this, FDR guaranteed all future politicians would have to support it, to garner support from the voters to keep themselves in office. By supporting the program, a tax burden of a constantly growing population of people using the program imposed greater and greater amounts to maintain the benefits the program imposes. A point has been reached where costs are exceeding the amount that can be taxed from the working population. Thus you created a budget deficit, requiring borrowing. HORRIBLE ECONOMIC IDEA. If the program had had limited duration, costs would have been contained to the duration of the program only. Voters would not have the expectation mindset, and politicians wouldn’t have had to worry about keeping the program to maintain their voters’ confidence. But by allowing it to continue infinitely, you created a perpetual growing budget with decreasing tax revenue which is ultimately doomed to fail. At some point it will not provide what it promises, or the taxation level required to sustain it will rise to the point that the working class will decide working is not providing enough benefit to warrant the taxes. Stopping all benefits immediately and creating a new program not reliant on the payroll taxes would be the best solution, however political structure currently will not allow that, as no politician can gain office with that as his/her agenda.
Products with stupid names that need to change: Twitter.
