Monday, May 31, 2010
5-31-2010 MEMORIAL DAY
It is Memorial Day today. So go visit a military cemetery and take a moment to think about those who died so that we have the freedoms that most of us take for granted today.
Friday, May 28, 2010
5-28-2010 (Friday)
Happy Friday everybody. I hope those of you that are able to get away for the weekend have a good one.
I do not really have anything today. I am sorry about that. I have not lately been inspired by anything. That isn't to say I am in a funk or anything but I just have not really felt the need to complain about something or been so excited about something that I felt like I had to tell you about it. I sometimes wonder exactly what the purpose of this blog is for me. Am I using it as a form of therapy to get out my crap? I do not think I am because I am very careful about what I write and I do censor myself. I know it may seem like I just vomit out things but that is not true at all. Do I write because I feel like I am smarter then everybody and I need to educate you all to my wisdom? While I will freely acknowledge that there is a small truth in that. I do think pretty highly of myself. But I think anyone who writes for free must think like that otherwise why would I bother.
I think I mainly write because I enjoy it and this allows me to write in short bursts when I can find the time. I do wish that I could stick to a type a little more. I realize I veer all over the place from pieces on news to entertainment to my personal life to me just rambling on and on about things that most of you readers could really care less about. Which I am doing write now as a matter of fact. I am not planning on stopping writing I am just trying to process what my reasons are for writing. It was easier by far when I was in college because there were topics just handed to me to write about on a daily basis. Maybe, I need to go to graduate school? That might be kind of cool. I could go to law school and be the next Perry Mason or perhaps just get my PHD and start teaching by the time I am 50 and be that crazy wild haired professor who shakes things up.
Well that is about it. I hope my ramblings were a little bit entertaining for you today. I will talk to you on Monday.
I do not really have anything today. I am sorry about that. I have not lately been inspired by anything. That isn't to say I am in a funk or anything but I just have not really felt the need to complain about something or been so excited about something that I felt like I had to tell you about it. I sometimes wonder exactly what the purpose of this blog is for me. Am I using it as a form of therapy to get out my crap? I do not think I am because I am very careful about what I write and I do censor myself. I know it may seem like I just vomit out things but that is not true at all. Do I write because I feel like I am smarter then everybody and I need to educate you all to my wisdom? While I will freely acknowledge that there is a small truth in that. I do think pretty highly of myself. But I think anyone who writes for free must think like that otherwise why would I bother.
I think I mainly write because I enjoy it and this allows me to write in short bursts when I can find the time. I do wish that I could stick to a type a little more. I realize I veer all over the place from pieces on news to entertainment to my personal life to me just rambling on and on about things that most of you readers could really care less about. Which I am doing write now as a matter of fact. I am not planning on stopping writing I am just trying to process what my reasons are for writing. It was easier by far when I was in college because there were topics just handed to me to write about on a daily basis. Maybe, I need to go to graduate school? That might be kind of cool. I could go to law school and be the next Perry Mason or perhaps just get my PHD and start teaching by the time I am 50 and be that crazy wild haired professor who shakes things up.
Well that is about it. I hope my ramblings were a little bit entertaining for you today. I will talk to you on Monday.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
5-26-2010 (Wednesday)
I do not have much going on today folks. The radio was all of the usual stuff really this morning. The oil spill, the chance that North and South Korea are going to start shooting at each other again.
A couple of farmers in kind of southern and eastern Oregon got permission to shoot at Wolves if they catch them eating their livestock. I didn't realize you needed permission to protect your livestock from a predator. It might be that way only for Wolves actually. I do not know about Bears or Cougars.
The state of Idaho is trying to lure business from Oregon and Washington. The biggest reason they are giving is because voters passed Measures 66 and 67 in the last voting cycle. I imagine that there are parts of Idaho that are nice. I have not seen them. I have been to Boise and was really unimpressed and the only stories I have heard about Coeur d'Alene is that a nice lake is there. But also that white supremacists had compound in the area for a long time. I believe that with the election of President Obama that the Arayan Nation group has returned to the area. I know longer just believe it according to their website the head quarters of the group is in Coeur d'Alene. So feel free Idaho to continue to try to lure in business to your state. Good luck with that. I myself have no desire to live there.
I will talk to you later folks. You have a good day.
A couple of farmers in kind of southern and eastern Oregon got permission to shoot at Wolves if they catch them eating their livestock. I didn't realize you needed permission to protect your livestock from a predator. It might be that way only for Wolves actually. I do not know about Bears or Cougars.
The state of Idaho is trying to lure business from Oregon and Washington. The biggest reason they are giving is because voters passed Measures 66 and 67 in the last voting cycle. I imagine that there are parts of Idaho that are nice. I have not seen them. I have been to Boise and was really unimpressed and the only stories I have heard about Coeur d'Alene is that a nice lake is there. But also that white supremacists had compound in the area for a long time. I believe that with the election of President Obama that the Arayan Nation group has returned to the area. I know longer just believe it according to their website the head quarters of the group is in Coeur d'Alene. So feel free Idaho to continue to try to lure in business to your state. Good luck with that. I myself have no desire to live there.
I will talk to you later folks. You have a good day.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
5-25-2010 (Tuesday)
"I want to say one word to you. Just one word."
"...Plastics"
The Graduate
If you are not aware of this by now. I live in the Pacific Northwest. In Oregon to be exact. I mentioned last week the anniversary of the MT ST. Helens eruption well that isn't the only active volcano in the Pacific Northwest.
That graphic above from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows the volcanic eruptions in the last 4000 years in the part of the country that I live in. As you can see there appears to be a fair amount of seismic activity. My question, for the big brains amongst my readers, is why do we in the Pacific Northwest not use more thermal energy. Below is what I found from the state of Oregon website
"The city of Klamath Falls uses geothermal energy directly to supply heat for a district heating system. Geothermal heat sources in several other Oregon counties supply heat to buildings, swimming pools and resorts and industrial uses.
There is no generation of electricity from geothermal sources within the state of Oregon. However, there are several sites where geological data suggest a resource sufficient for power generation may exist. The potential for production of electricity from Oregon´s geothermal resources has been explored at three sites in Oregon.
In 1996, CalEnergy Company received a site certificate from the Energy Facility Siting Council to build a 30-megawatt geothermal power plant near the Newberry Volcanic Monument in Deschutes County. However, despite considerable investment in exploratory drilling, the company did not find a source of heat and steam sufficient for generating electricity. The company canceled the Newberry project and is now pursuing a similar project in northern California.
Other exploration has occurred near Vale and in the Alvord Dessert near Borax Lake. The latter site is no longer feasible due to the risk of harm to the endangered Borax Lake chub. The exploration at the Vale site failed to locate a geothermal source adequate for generating electricity.
Resource uncertainty as well as high development and exploration costs are substantial barriers to future development of geothermal sources for power production. The location of potential geothermal sources in environmentally sensitive areas has been a barrier to siting geothermal power facilities in the state."
That pretty much answered my question but I also wonder if we should be pursuing this more then we are despite the cost of it. I know that part of the reason I like the idea is because it just sounds so cool to me. I like the idea of Oregon getting a good chunk of its energy from geothermal. I am also a big fan of Hydroelectric as well. So any thoughts folks on why we are not looking even deeper into this?
"...Plastics"
The Graduate
If you are not aware of this by now. I live in the Pacific Northwest. In Oregon to be exact. I mentioned last week the anniversary of the MT ST. Helens eruption well that isn't the only active volcano in the Pacific Northwest.
That graphic above from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows the volcanic eruptions in the last 4000 years in the part of the country that I live in. As you can see there appears to be a fair amount of seismic activity. My question, for the big brains amongst my readers, is why do we in the Pacific Northwest not use more thermal energy. Below is what I found from the state of Oregon website
"The city of Klamath Falls uses geothermal energy directly to supply heat for a district heating system. Geothermal heat sources in several other Oregon counties supply heat to buildings, swimming pools and resorts and industrial uses.
There is no generation of electricity from geothermal sources within the state of Oregon. However, there are several sites where geological data suggest a resource sufficient for power generation may exist. The potential for production of electricity from Oregon´s geothermal resources has been explored at three sites in Oregon.
In 1996, CalEnergy Company received a site certificate from the Energy Facility Siting Council to build a 30-megawatt geothermal power plant near the Newberry Volcanic Monument in Deschutes County. However, despite considerable investment in exploratory drilling, the company did not find a source of heat and steam sufficient for generating electricity. The company canceled the Newberry project and is now pursuing a similar project in northern California.
Other exploration has occurred near Vale and in the Alvord Dessert near Borax Lake. The latter site is no longer feasible due to the risk of harm to the endangered Borax Lake chub. The exploration at the Vale site failed to locate a geothermal source adequate for generating electricity.
Resource uncertainty as well as high development and exploration costs are substantial barriers to future development of geothermal sources for power production. The location of potential geothermal sources in environmentally sensitive areas has been a barrier to siting geothermal power facilities in the state."
That pretty much answered my question but I also wonder if we should be pursuing this more then we are despite the cost of it. I know that part of the reason I like the idea is because it just sounds so cool to me. I like the idea of Oregon getting a good chunk of its energy from geothermal. I am also a big fan of Hydroelectric as well. So any thoughts folks on why we are not looking even deeper into this?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
5-21-2010 (Friday)
Sorry about yesterday folks. I was in the middle of something of a project at work and I never got around to writing anything. As far as today goes? I am not sure. There is not anything right now that really has me fired up. I am sure I could do some sniffing around and find something that could get me going but I am not sure if I want to.
So that is it for me today folks. Have a good weekend.
So that is it for me today folks. Have a good weekend.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
5-19-2010 (Wednesday)
I just wanted to say a quick thanks to those of you who responded yesterday. I found your memories about the eruption to be very interesting reading to me.
I am writing today's post on a new keyboard so this is an interesting experience. I was writing on a laptop before and this is going to take some getting used to that is for sure. But I will give it my best shot.
Well the Oregon primaries are over and as expected Chris Dudley won for the Republicans and John Kitzhaber won for the Democrats in the Oregon Gov race. I think the run up to the main election is going to be an interesting one. The basic movement around the country yesterday seemed to be really an anti-incumbent one. So I wonder of that feeling is going to continue into November and if Dudley can use that to propel him past Kitzhaber to the Gov seat.
My friend Chad posted something yesterday on his Facebook wall that caused a little debate. One that S (regular commenter here) and I promptly took into the real of Free Will and Determinism but I wanted to put what he posted here and see if we can get any more conversation going.
"You will not solve the problems of the poor by helping them become middle class."
Now, for myself, I am just not sure. I do not have an answer for this issue. I think poverty is something that has been an issue all over the world. One thing that I am aware of is that sometimes what I as an American see as poverty in another country may not seem like poverty to the people who are actually living and dealing with it on a regular basis. I know it is hard to believe but everyone may not want a 60 in plasma television and wall to wall carpeting or the latest cell phone. I also am aware of what we consider middle class is not what was considered middle class 10 or 20 years ago. I am just not sure how to really address this statement. So, what do you guys and gals think?
I am writing today's post on a new keyboard so this is an interesting experience. I was writing on a laptop before and this is going to take some getting used to that is for sure. But I will give it my best shot.
Well the Oregon primaries are over and as expected Chris Dudley won for the Republicans and John Kitzhaber won for the Democrats in the Oregon Gov race. I think the run up to the main election is going to be an interesting one. The basic movement around the country yesterday seemed to be really an anti-incumbent one. So I wonder of that feeling is going to continue into November and if Dudley can use that to propel him past Kitzhaber to the Gov seat.
My friend Chad posted something yesterday on his Facebook wall that caused a little debate. One that S (regular commenter here) and I promptly took into the real of Free Will and Determinism but I wanted to put what he posted here and see if we can get any more conversation going.
"You will not solve the problems of the poor by helping them become middle class."
Now, for myself, I am just not sure. I do not have an answer for this issue. I think poverty is something that has been an issue all over the world. One thing that I am aware of is that sometimes what I as an American see as poverty in another country may not seem like poverty to the people who are actually living and dealing with it on a regular basis. I know it is hard to believe but everyone may not want a 60 in plasma television and wall to wall carpeting or the latest cell phone. I also am aware of what we consider middle class is not what was considered middle class 10 or 20 years ago. I am just not sure how to really address this statement. So, what do you guys and gals think?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
5-18-2010 (Tuesday)
Hello, hello ladies and gentlemen. I hope this Tuesday finds you well. Today marks the 30th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens.
" At 8:32 Sunday morning, May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted.
Shaken by an earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter scale, the north face of this tall symmetrical mountain collapsed in a massive rock debris avalanche. In a few moments this slab of rock and ice slammed into Spirit Lake, crossed a ridge 1,300 feet high, and roared 14 miles down the Toutle River.
The avalanche rapidly released pressurized gases within the volcano. A tremendous lateral explosion ripped through the avalanche and developed into a turbulent, stone-filled wind that swept over ridges and toppled trees. Nearly 150 square miles of forest was blown over or left dead and standing.
At the same time a mushroom-shaped column of ash rose thousands of feet skyward and drifted downwind, turning day into night as dark, gray ash fell over eastern Washington and beyond. Wet, cement-like slurries of rock and mud scoured all sides of the volcano. Searing flows of pumice poured from the crater. The eruption lasted 9 hours, but Mount St. Helens and the surrounding landscape were dramatically changed within moments.
A vast, gray landscape lay where once the forested slopes of Mount St. Helens grew. In 1982 the President and Congress created the 110,000-acre National Volcanic Monument for research, recreation, and education. Inside the Monument, the environment is left to respond naturally to the disturbance"
So I was wondering those of you who are from the northwest or really anywhere. Where were you when the mt blew? I was in grade school and I remember being pretty aware of it but I do not think I really realized the enormity of the damage it caused. I still haven't been up to the viewing center despite having driven past the area numerous times.
What are your thoughts and memories about the event readers?
" At 8:32 Sunday morning, May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted.
Shaken by an earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter scale, the north face of this tall symmetrical mountain collapsed in a massive rock debris avalanche. In a few moments this slab of rock and ice slammed into Spirit Lake, crossed a ridge 1,300 feet high, and roared 14 miles down the Toutle River.
The avalanche rapidly released pressurized gases within the volcano. A tremendous lateral explosion ripped through the avalanche and developed into a turbulent, stone-filled wind that swept over ridges and toppled trees. Nearly 150 square miles of forest was blown over or left dead and standing.
At the same time a mushroom-shaped column of ash rose thousands of feet skyward and drifted downwind, turning day into night as dark, gray ash fell over eastern Washington and beyond. Wet, cement-like slurries of rock and mud scoured all sides of the volcano. Searing flows of pumice poured from the crater. The eruption lasted 9 hours, but Mount St. Helens and the surrounding landscape were dramatically changed within moments.
A vast, gray landscape lay where once the forested slopes of Mount St. Helens grew. In 1982 the President and Congress created the 110,000-acre National Volcanic Monument for research, recreation, and education. Inside the Monument, the environment is left to respond naturally to the disturbance"
So I was wondering those of you who are from the northwest or really anywhere. Where were you when the mt blew? I was in grade school and I remember being pretty aware of it but I do not think I really realized the enormity of the damage it caused. I still haven't been up to the viewing center despite having driven past the area numerous times.
What are your thoughts and memories about the event readers?
Monday, May 17, 2010
5-17-2010 (Monday)
Hey there and welcome to Monday. Thanks for stopping in and visiting my little corner of the internet. There is some coffee in the pot and feel free to pull up a chair. We talk about what ever comes to mind around here. On some days that might mean a robust debate about politics on others it may mean a friendly disagreement about what might be the top 10 films of all time.
I like it that way and I hope you do as well. I really like having the flexibility to talk about whatever I have found interesting and what I would like to bring to peoples attention. That being said I do not have really anything right now that has got me fired up.
The primary elections for Oregon are finishing up this week and we will see who the two major parties are going to put up for Gov. I think that for the Republicans it is going to be Chris Dudley and for the Democrats it is going to be John Kitzhaber.
With that being said. I am well aware that Kitzhaber is a returning Gov and a favorite to win the election. But, I wonder if the unrest and dissatisfaction that voters are feeling are going to translate to a Dudley win. I think that most Oregon voters have good memories of when Kitzhaber was in office last time and think that he will be able to lead Oregon back to those good times.
Dudley on the other hand is in a good position as an outsider with ties to Oregon due to his basketball time that people like as well. He may very well be able to ride the Tea Party wave to victory.
So, for sake of argument lets say that for the first time in 30+ years Oregon gets a Republican Gov. Well that change anything in the state? I think it may a little bit. But unless the election of a Republican Gov cause there also to be sweeping change in Oregon's Legislature I do not think thinks will be all that different in the state. I am going to wait and see on this one.
I think I would like to see Dudley win. I would like that because I would like things to be shaken up a little bit in Oregon. I do not have super high hopes that were he to win Dudley would do that. I think at best he will be a centrist and will do things like all the other politicians do them. It isn't that I want there to be a huge amount of political drama in Oregon but I like it when Oregon pushes the Federal Government on things. I love when we as a state exert our right to govern ourselves.
I like Federalism and I like when Oregon tells the Federal Government to mind their own business. That doesn't matter to me if it is a Republican or Democratic Fed. I think states should be free to do whatever crazy thing it's residents want to. If people do not like it then they are free to move to a different state or work to change things within the state.
So...enough rambling what are your thought precious readers on states rights?
I like it that way and I hope you do as well. I really like having the flexibility to talk about whatever I have found interesting and what I would like to bring to peoples attention. That being said I do not have really anything right now that has got me fired up.
The primary elections for Oregon are finishing up this week and we will see who the two major parties are going to put up for Gov. I think that for the Republicans it is going to be Chris Dudley and for the Democrats it is going to be John Kitzhaber.
With that being said. I am well aware that Kitzhaber is a returning Gov and a favorite to win the election. But, I wonder if the unrest and dissatisfaction that voters are feeling are going to translate to a Dudley win. I think that most Oregon voters have good memories of when Kitzhaber was in office last time and think that he will be able to lead Oregon back to those good times.
Dudley on the other hand is in a good position as an outsider with ties to Oregon due to his basketball time that people like as well. He may very well be able to ride the Tea Party wave to victory.
So, for sake of argument lets say that for the first time in 30+ years Oregon gets a Republican Gov. Well that change anything in the state? I think it may a little bit. But unless the election of a Republican Gov cause there also to be sweeping change in Oregon's Legislature I do not think thinks will be all that different in the state. I am going to wait and see on this one.
I think I would like to see Dudley win. I would like that because I would like things to be shaken up a little bit in Oregon. I do not have super high hopes that were he to win Dudley would do that. I think at best he will be a centrist and will do things like all the other politicians do them. It isn't that I want there to be a huge amount of political drama in Oregon but I like it when Oregon pushes the Federal Government on things. I love when we as a state exert our right to govern ourselves.
I like Federalism and I like when Oregon tells the Federal Government to mind their own business. That doesn't matter to me if it is a Republican or Democratic Fed. I think states should be free to do whatever crazy thing it's residents want to. If people do not like it then they are free to move to a different state or work to change things within the state.
So...enough rambling what are your thought precious readers on states rights?
Friday, May 14, 2010
5-14-2010 (Friday)
The Timbers lost 1 to nothing last night. Today shall be spent in mourning. SO it is decreed. So it is done. Amen.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
5-13-2010 (Thursday)
I went to see "Iron Man 2" last night with some friends and while I enjoyed seeing a movie with a group of people I was not all that impressed. I am not really sure what the problem was. I really liked the first "Iron Man" but this did nothing for me. I think one reason might be that when I went to see the first one I did not have very high hopes for it and I was surprised by it. I think that for the second one my expectations may have just been to high.
I really like Robert Downey Jr and I would see him, and have, in most everything. He, as usual, was amazing but even that was not enough for me to say that I enjoyed the film. It just did not do anything for me. There were some pretty cool set piece action sequences and some very good visuals but it just was kind of blah for me. I am willing to consider though that part of the problem for me may have been the group of young woman behind me who seemed to have a hard time following the film. I mean it isn't like it is a hard movie to follow at all but they way that they were asking each other questions made me wonder if they had even heard of Tony Stark before.
But, part of the problem might have been that their higher brain functions must have been tied up in keeping them breathing. Because they seemed pretty dim, if you know what I mean.
I would have to say for me as far a good popcorn shut your brain off kind of movie that "Kick Ass" was a far better film. I will not be seeing "Iron Man 2" again and I will be seriously considering if I want to see the upcoming Avengers movie as well.
I really like Robert Downey Jr and I would see him, and have, in most everything. He, as usual, was amazing but even that was not enough for me to say that I enjoyed the film. It just did not do anything for me. There were some pretty cool set piece action sequences and some very good visuals but it just was kind of blah for me. I am willing to consider though that part of the problem for me may have been the group of young woman behind me who seemed to have a hard time following the film. I mean it isn't like it is a hard movie to follow at all but they way that they were asking each other questions made me wonder if they had even heard of Tony Stark before.
But, part of the problem might have been that their higher brain functions must have been tied up in keeping them breathing. Because they seemed pretty dim, if you know what I mean.
I would have to say for me as far a good popcorn shut your brain off kind of movie that "Kick Ass" was a far better film. I will not be seeing "Iron Man 2" again and I will be seriously considering if I want to see the upcoming Avengers movie as well.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
5-12-2010 (Wednesday)
Hello, hello, hello. I just have to tell everyone that I enjoyed yesterdays discussion. I find that when I can actively discuss something (even over the internet) it really helps me to refine and sharpen up my thinking process.
I am well aware that despite my best efforts sometimes my positions on certain issues do not always make the most sense or even follow a logical path. So, I feel, that it is better for me to get them out there so I can discuss them with others rather then just keeping them to myself and assuming that they are correct. I am not afraid to be wrong. I do not particularly enjoy it but I am okay with it. There are always going to be people in the world who know more about some things then I do. I, for instance, am always going to know more about "The Brady Bunch" and "Buck Rogers" then anyone in the world. That information does not do me a lot of good and has never made me any money. But, you never know.
I really have nothing else for today. I hope you are well and I intend to see you tomorrow.
I am well aware that despite my best efforts sometimes my positions on certain issues do not always make the most sense or even follow a logical path. So, I feel, that it is better for me to get them out there so I can discuss them with others rather then just keeping them to myself and assuming that they are correct. I am not afraid to be wrong. I do not particularly enjoy it but I am okay with it. There are always going to be people in the world who know more about some things then I do. I, for instance, am always going to know more about "The Brady Bunch" and "Buck Rogers" then anyone in the world. That information does not do me a lot of good and has never made me any money. But, you never know.
I really have nothing else for today. I hope you are well and I intend to see you tomorrow.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
5-11-2010 (Tuesday)
I mentioned yesterday that I would address my problems with the Supreme Court here in America. So here we go.
It isn't that I have a problem with the Supreme Court existing. But I have a problem with how it is made up. I do not like the fact that it is a position that is made up of appointed individuals. Now, I realize I am yelling about a problem and I have not come up with a way to fix it. I am not sure how we would go about it. I realize that it would be problematic to have an election every time a judge needs to be replaced. It is enough of a head ache to have a presidential election every four years.
But those problems aside. I guess my biggest issue with the Supreme Court is that it is an appointed position that is a lifetime appointment. I find it disturbing that in a country that at least gives lip service to the idea of democracy. The highest court in the land is made up of lifetime appointees. Another area of concern for me is that if Kagan becomes a justice that means that 5 of our justices will have gone to Harvard. Let me think, who else in politics has gone to Harvard?
Oh! That's right. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both went to Harvard along with Al Gore the administration before. I do not know about you guys but I am getting tired of the Ivy Leagues running our country. I am not sure but the last time I looked they do not seem to be doing a very good job of things. In fact 18 of past and present Supreme Court justices have come out of Harvard. I will admit that I sometimes like to dabble in conspiracy theories and it is mainly for my own amusement. But I think one could build a pretty good case and find valid reasons to be concerned with the fact that the majority of people making and interpreting law in this country have all gone to the same university. That sameness of institution concerns me.
That is all for today.
It isn't that I have a problem with the Supreme Court existing. But I have a problem with how it is made up. I do not like the fact that it is a position that is made up of appointed individuals. Now, I realize I am yelling about a problem and I have not come up with a way to fix it. I am not sure how we would go about it. I realize that it would be problematic to have an election every time a judge needs to be replaced. It is enough of a head ache to have a presidential election every four years.
But those problems aside. I guess my biggest issue with the Supreme Court is that it is an appointed position that is a lifetime appointment. I find it disturbing that in a country that at least gives lip service to the idea of democracy. The highest court in the land is made up of lifetime appointees. Another area of concern for me is that if Kagan becomes a justice that means that 5 of our justices will have gone to Harvard. Let me think, who else in politics has gone to Harvard?
Oh! That's right. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both went to Harvard along with Al Gore the administration before. I do not know about you guys but I am getting tired of the Ivy Leagues running our country. I am not sure but the last time I looked they do not seem to be doing a very good job of things. In fact 18 of past and present Supreme Court justices have come out of Harvard. I will admit that I sometimes like to dabble in conspiracy theories and it is mainly for my own amusement. But I think one could build a pretty good case and find valid reasons to be concerned with the fact that the majority of people making and interpreting law in this country have all gone to the same university. That sameness of institution concerns me.
That is all for today.
Monday, May 10, 2010
5-10-2010 (Monday)
Hey, I hope you all had a good weekend. I am not feeling particularly inspired this morning.
There was an interesting development in Utah over the weekend in that a GOP senator who was the incumbent lost his primary. What that means is that he is not going to be able to run for office. He could run as a write in candidate but he will not be nominated by the GOP party.
Most analysts think that he basically got politically assassinated by the more conservative Tea Party people in the state. I am not sure what it means. But I do find it very interesting that an incumbent is getting knocked around by his own party. This does not happen often and makes me wonder what this next election cycle is going to look like nationwide. I think it could go one of two ways. I think either the Democrats will end up stronger as the GOP eats itself with all the in-fighting. The end result might mean that the Republican party the GOP ceases to exist in a few years. Or that all of the dissatisfaction with President Obama causes the GOP to become even stronger and the final two years of President Obama's term becomes one where absolutely nothing gets done in Washington. So, there you have it my predictions for the future.
Also the President nominated another Supreme Court Justice. I just do not really care. We have had conversations on the blog before about my feelings about the Supreme Court. I do not like them. I do not like the institution and I do not like that they are appointed for life. I think that they are a completely undemocratic institution in America and they do not benefit us as a country. If you disagree that is fine and I would love to have a conversation about that as well. It isn't that I do not think they are needed. I just do not think they should be appointed to serve for a lifetime. That bothers me.
That is all. Good day sir!!
There was an interesting development in Utah over the weekend in that a GOP senator who was the incumbent lost his primary. What that means is that he is not going to be able to run for office. He could run as a write in candidate but he will not be nominated by the GOP party.
Most analysts think that he basically got politically assassinated by the more conservative Tea Party people in the state. I am not sure what it means. But I do find it very interesting that an incumbent is getting knocked around by his own party. This does not happen often and makes me wonder what this next election cycle is going to look like nationwide. I think it could go one of two ways. I think either the Democrats will end up stronger as the GOP eats itself with all the in-fighting. The end result might mean that the Republican party the GOP ceases to exist in a few years. Or that all of the dissatisfaction with President Obama causes the GOP to become even stronger and the final two years of President Obama's term becomes one where absolutely nothing gets done in Washington. So, there you have it my predictions for the future.
Also the President nominated another Supreme Court Justice. I just do not really care. We have had conversations on the blog before about my feelings about the Supreme Court. I do not like them. I do not like the institution and I do not like that they are appointed for life. I think that they are a completely undemocratic institution in America and they do not benefit us as a country. If you disagree that is fine and I would love to have a conversation about that as well. It isn't that I do not think they are needed. I just do not think they should be appointed to serve for a lifetime. That bothers me.
That is all. Good day sir!!
Friday, May 07, 2010
5-7-2010 (Friday)
I thought we had a good conversation yesterday and at the end of the day my friend CT (who writes a far better blog then mine called Word Around The Net) joined in with what I felt was a very good statement and I felt like he put into words what I have long felt about business in America and really the world today. I have long felt that the "Free Market" has not been free due to the meddling that goes on when people conspire to make rules that allow things to go easier for them. As usual I feel that my ability to explain what I mean in this case is escaping me so I am going to put CT's statement below.
CT commented
"...One of the problems we face in modern culture is that people think the big business cronyism and inside playing with government is somehow capitalism when its nothing of the sort. If you have senators and presidents doctoring the system to benefit your company because its so big and powerful ... and so big they cannot be allowed to fail when they do stupid things or face a bad business cycle, that's not capitalism. There's no competition there, no true free market, so the system is choking out capitalism.
In essence, you have a reverse socialism, where the economy is controlled by the government, but only for the benefit of a favored, powerful few, a sort of Socialistic Oligarchy.
When Goldman-Sachs and Citibank are allowed to effectively write the legislation which affects them and stock the executive department (regardless of which president or party) with their guys, that's not capitalism."
I think Christopher hit the nail on the head. A free market is just that. It is free it is not being manipulated by outside sources to control who gets ahead. The only issue at hand is who have the better product and what consumers choose to purchase.
My friend S also commented with this little gem
"...liability requirements for damage to public assets don't even begin to cover the cost of potential losses as they do with private assets.
Surgichrome (along with countless others, I don't mean to single them out) couldn't afford to fix the problems they caused, we paid the bill to fix the problem, and they continued operating and offending. Does anyone doubt we'll see that scenario repeated with BP?
That's public subsidization of private profit, and that's my beef."
So much good stuff yesterday and I feel intellectually unable to keep up with it. We also had some discussion about business responsibility and personal responsibility. It was I felt a really good discussion overall and I want to encourage you readers to go back and look at it again and comment. Bring it up here or back there or link other people to it. I think so good points were made and some good questions brought up. I would love for this conversation to continue.
CT commented
"...One of the problems we face in modern culture is that people think the big business cronyism and inside playing with government is somehow capitalism when its nothing of the sort. If you have senators and presidents doctoring the system to benefit your company because its so big and powerful ... and so big they cannot be allowed to fail when they do stupid things or face a bad business cycle, that's not capitalism. There's no competition there, no true free market, so the system is choking out capitalism.
In essence, you have a reverse socialism, where the economy is controlled by the government, but only for the benefit of a favored, powerful few, a sort of Socialistic Oligarchy.
When Goldman-Sachs and Citibank are allowed to effectively write the legislation which affects them and stock the executive department (regardless of which president or party) with their guys, that's not capitalism."
I think Christopher hit the nail on the head. A free market is just that. It is free it is not being manipulated by outside sources to control who gets ahead. The only issue at hand is who have the better product and what consumers choose to purchase.
My friend S also commented with this little gem
"...liability requirements for damage to public assets don't even begin to cover the cost of potential losses as they do with private assets.
Surgichrome (along with countless others, I don't mean to single them out) couldn't afford to fix the problems they caused, we paid the bill to fix the problem, and they continued operating and offending. Does anyone doubt we'll see that scenario repeated with BP?
That's public subsidization of private profit, and that's my beef."
So much good stuff yesterday and I feel intellectually unable to keep up with it. We also had some discussion about business responsibility and personal responsibility. It was I felt a really good discussion overall and I want to encourage you readers to go back and look at it again and comment. Bring it up here or back there or link other people to it. I think so good points were made and some good questions brought up. I would love for this conversation to continue.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
5-6-2010 (Thursday)
So as part of the conversation yesterday my friend S. asked this question and made this statement.
"Well, while we're on a timely and semi-related topic, how about the fact that profit is private, but risk is shared?
All of the good things that happen are due to the hard work of the individual or entity, so they owe the public nothing. When bad things happen it's not their fault, so the public (that would be you) is left to pick up the tab."
So, I would like to hear from some of my more conservative friends or my more liberal friends or even my more centrist friends. There, I think I covered all the bases. What do you people think? Is S making a good point? Is this something to even consider?
I think he makes an interesting observation myself. I know that often to lure business to an area the state or town will offer tax incentives to the business. But, what seems to happen so often after the tax incentive runs out is that the business packs up and moves away to a new place that is going to give them some more tax breaks.
An example of the problems this can cause is below. This comes from a background paper by the Tax Foundation Check it out if you have the time.
"State lawmakers are always mindful of
their states’ business tax climates, but they are
often tempted to lure business with lucrative
tax incentives and subsidies instead of broadbased
tax reform. This can be a dangerous
proposition as a case in Florida illustrates. In
July of 2004 Florida lawmakers cried foul
because a major credit card company announced
it would close its Tampa call center,
lay off 1,110 workers, and outsource those
jobs to another company. The reason for the
lawmakers’ ire was that the company had
been lured to Florida with a generous tax
incentive package and had enjoyed nearly $3
million worth of tax breaks during the
previous nine years."
Now, I totally understand that a business is free to do what they want when they want to do it. Other then maybe being limited by whatever contracts they may have signed. But I wonder is there an ethical or moral responsibility to whatever community that a business sets up shop in? I like to think there is. I would think that after you have been a part of a community and benefited greatly from the tax cuts and incentives they gave you that you would be willing to give a little back to help support the infrastructure that was in place that allowed your business to be a success. Or am I naive to even think that this should be a consideration for a company?
What do you think folks? I do think that the precedent that the bailouts set are not going to be a good thing for this country. I think that for a long time we had given lip service to the idea of America being a place where great risk can make for great reward and when that blew up in the face of some big companies President Bush and the Congress that was in place decided to bail them out and then President Obama came along and continued the tactic. I think that was a mistake.
Please folks, tell me what you think and as always do not hesitate to correct me. I do not mind at all.
"Well, while we're on a timely and semi-related topic, how about the fact that profit is private, but risk is shared?
All of the good things that happen are due to the hard work of the individual or entity, so they owe the public nothing. When bad things happen it's not their fault, so the public (that would be you) is left to pick up the tab."
So, I would like to hear from some of my more conservative friends or my more liberal friends or even my more centrist friends. There, I think I covered all the bases. What do you people think? Is S making a good point? Is this something to even consider?
I think he makes an interesting observation myself. I know that often to lure business to an area the state or town will offer tax incentives to the business. But, what seems to happen so often after the tax incentive runs out is that the business packs up and moves away to a new place that is going to give them some more tax breaks.
An example of the problems this can cause is below. This comes from a background paper by the Tax Foundation Check it out if you have the time.
"State lawmakers are always mindful of
their states’ business tax climates, but they are
often tempted to lure business with lucrative
tax incentives and subsidies instead of broadbased
tax reform. This can be a dangerous
proposition as a case in Florida illustrates. In
July of 2004 Florida lawmakers cried foul
because a major credit card company announced
it would close its Tampa call center,
lay off 1,110 workers, and outsource those
jobs to another company. The reason for the
lawmakers’ ire was that the company had
been lured to Florida with a generous tax
incentive package and had enjoyed nearly $3
million worth of tax breaks during the
previous nine years."
Now, I totally understand that a business is free to do what they want when they want to do it. Other then maybe being limited by whatever contracts they may have signed. But I wonder is there an ethical or moral responsibility to whatever community that a business sets up shop in? I like to think there is. I would think that after you have been a part of a community and benefited greatly from the tax cuts and incentives they gave you that you would be willing to give a little back to help support the infrastructure that was in place that allowed your business to be a success. Or am I naive to even think that this should be a consideration for a company?
What do you think folks? I do think that the precedent that the bailouts set are not going to be a good thing for this country. I think that for a long time we had given lip service to the idea of America being a place where great risk can make for great reward and when that blew up in the face of some big companies President Bush and the Congress that was in place decided to bail them out and then President Obama came along and continued the tactic. I think that was a mistake.
Please folks, tell me what you think and as always do not hesitate to correct me. I do not mind at all.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
5-5-2010 (Wednesday)
I heard an interesting piece this morning on my way to work courtesy of NPR. It was about Aqua-logging and what Washington and Oregon state have to say about the practice. There is a show on the History channel called Axmen and one of the groups of the loggers on the show is a group in Washington state called S&S Aqua Logging. Well what the aqua-loggers do is go out onto rivers and lakes and retrieve logs that have been sunk. They take logs off the bottom of the beds. Now these are logs that have been cut down years and years ago and basically were sunk during transport to the mills. In the old days when logging was huge in the north west tug boats used to push and pull huge rafts of timber up and down the rivers in the north west.
These guys realized that there was a lot of unclaimed timber just laying on the bottom of the waterways in the northwest and it might be a money maker to scoop those logs up. The state of Washington sees things differently. Here is a link to the OPB story. Aqua-logging
So, for myself, after listening to the piece and reading it again. I need to put down here in quotes what really stands out for me in the piece.
"Larry Raedel is the chief enforcement officer for Washington's Department of Natural Resources.
Larry Raedel: "We basically said we don't allow that practice to happen. Then come to find out later, he went off on his own and did it without the permission of DNR."
Raedel started an investigation of Jimmy Smith's company after seeing them in action on national TV. The Grays Harbor County prosecutor is currently weighing a charge of theft of state timber."
Yes the state said you can't do that and he went ahead and did it anyway. I understand the moral ramifications of those actions and Jimmy should be fined at the very least for that. But what gets my goat is that they are talking about a charge of theft of state timber against him. There is another aqua logger in Oregon who is facing the same charge. THEFT!! THEFT!! Are they serious? These men are not going out onto state or federal land and chopping down a tree. They are picking up logs that have been laying on the bottom of a river in some cases for more then 50 years. If anything the logs are owned by the logging company that first cut them down.
I do not see how anyone can justify a charge of theft against them. I can see licensing these guys in some way and making sure that they are using safe practices. That makes sense but if anything these logs are public domain. They were most likely cut down in Canada and then shipped down here to the mills to be processed and at some point in the trip they got sunk. The state does not own them. Again a quote from Larry Raedel
"It boils down really to habitat. They don't pose a threat to property owners. They're down there for a reason to provide habitat for fish and those types of wildlife creatures that are down there."
The key phrase for me there is that the logs are down there for a reason. Well, I hate to break it to you, Larry but the state didn't put those logs there. They are there for purely accidental reasons. They fell off a log raft and sunk. It was complete random chance that they ended up there. I think his argument is basically invalid and I hope someone comes to their senses before one of these loggers end up in jail.
Have a good day folks.
These guys realized that there was a lot of unclaimed timber just laying on the bottom of the waterways in the northwest and it might be a money maker to scoop those logs up. The state of Washington sees things differently. Here is a link to the OPB story. Aqua-logging
So, for myself, after listening to the piece and reading it again. I need to put down here in quotes what really stands out for me in the piece.
"Larry Raedel is the chief enforcement officer for Washington's Department of Natural Resources.
Larry Raedel: "We basically said we don't allow that practice to happen. Then come to find out later, he went off on his own and did it without the permission of DNR."
Raedel started an investigation of Jimmy Smith's company after seeing them in action on national TV. The Grays Harbor County prosecutor is currently weighing a charge of theft of state timber."
Yes the state said you can't do that and he went ahead and did it anyway. I understand the moral ramifications of those actions and Jimmy should be fined at the very least for that. But what gets my goat is that they are talking about a charge of theft of state timber against him. There is another aqua logger in Oregon who is facing the same charge. THEFT!! THEFT!! Are they serious? These men are not going out onto state or federal land and chopping down a tree. They are picking up logs that have been laying on the bottom of a river in some cases for more then 50 years. If anything the logs are owned by the logging company that first cut them down.
I do not see how anyone can justify a charge of theft against them. I can see licensing these guys in some way and making sure that they are using safe practices. That makes sense but if anything these logs are public domain. They were most likely cut down in Canada and then shipped down here to the mills to be processed and at some point in the trip they got sunk. The state does not own them. Again a quote from Larry Raedel
"It boils down really to habitat. They don't pose a threat to property owners. They're down there for a reason to provide habitat for fish and those types of wildlife creatures that are down there."
The key phrase for me there is that the logs are down there for a reason. Well, I hate to break it to you, Larry but the state didn't put those logs there. They are there for purely accidental reasons. They fell off a log raft and sunk. It was complete random chance that they ended up there. I think his argument is basically invalid and I hope someone comes to their senses before one of these loggers end up in jail.
Have a good day folks.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
5-4-2010 (Tuesday)
So yesterday I was talking about old television and some of the shows that I grew up with as a child. My friend Joel jumped in and mentioned 'Romper Room' as well as the "Electric Company" both classic shows for their time. I am not intending to go back that far. I do kind of remember those shows but not all that well. Joel then mentioned "Flintsones" and "Gilligans Isle". I do remember those shows and what stands out for me was my real dislike of the "Flintstones". I am not sure why. I mean my brother really liked it and it was part of the daily television routine after school. But I never could get into it. The shows always seemed the same. It was just Fred doing a lot of yelling and then some kind of shenanigans going on. It just never resonated with me.
But Gilligan on the other hand or should I say the ladies on Gilligan most definitely did. There was one lady in particular and her looks were all a young man needed to make him think that the future was going to be a fine place. She had class and style and she knew how the world worked. Her mere presence on the island made it a classier place. You see she came from old money and she kept it real. Mrs Howell was the top lady on the island oh sure you can have your Ginger or your Mary Ann but that old GB will always have my heart.
Travis mentioned that he had been a game show junkie and I can relate to some degree but for me game shows tended to be only in the summertime. I would get up and watch The Price is Right which was followed by I believe Threes Company or it could have been the other way around and then Love Boat was in there somewhere which really was all just a build up to the mighty Perry Mason. Then there was the afternoon movie and followed by the sitcoms which off the top of my head were the Flintstones and then Gilligan and then Brady Bunch I am not sure what was next but at some point Wonder Woman was there along with Starsky and Hutch.
But I need to stop today's trips down memory lane and show you this amazing video I found of some hot new young Parkour talent. Check it out. I think these kids could go along ways
But Gilligan on the other hand or should I say the ladies on Gilligan most definitely did. There was one lady in particular and her looks were all a young man needed to make him think that the future was going to be a fine place. She had class and style and she knew how the world worked. Her mere presence on the island made it a classier place. You see she came from old money and she kept it real. Mrs Howell was the top lady on the island oh sure you can have your Ginger or your Mary Ann but that old GB will always have my heart.
Travis mentioned that he had been a game show junkie and I can relate to some degree but for me game shows tended to be only in the summertime. I would get up and watch The Price is Right which was followed by I believe Threes Company or it could have been the other way around and then Love Boat was in there somewhere which really was all just a build up to the mighty Perry Mason. Then there was the afternoon movie and followed by the sitcoms which off the top of my head were the Flintstones and then Gilligan and then Brady Bunch I am not sure what was next but at some point Wonder Woman was there along with Starsky and Hutch.
But I need to stop today's trips down memory lane and show you this amazing video I found of some hot new young Parkour talent. Check it out. I think these kids could go along ways
Monday, May 03, 2010
5-3-2010 (Monday)
Good morning everybody! It is Monday May third and the first Monday in May. I hope people had a nice weekend.
Now, I remember saying that we would be looking at some classic television shows this week and I was wondering before I jumped into my list if any of my readers had any shows that they absolutely loved. I liked a lot of different shows when I was a child and not all of them have stood up to the test of time for sure. There are several that I regret going back and watching again because they just are so bad now. I think that mainly that seems to be the case for the sit-coms that I liked. I feel that most of the dramas to tend to stand up pretty well regardless of the costumes and things like that. I mean sure some of the shows do suffer when you look at outfits and hairstyles but overall if the show was good and had good characters and stories then it didn't matter how the actors looked or what types of cars they were driving.
Another aspect of the shows that I did not notice as a child but I do now is what shows may or may not have been sponsored by different companies. So I will try to keep focused on the old shows that I liked and do a little digging into them. Please feel free to comment and to mention shows you enjoyed I would love to do a little discussing of them. As usual I also well allow for some space for me to roam without any kind of direction or path where ever the daily news takes me.
So let me know what you liked folks and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Now, I remember saying that we would be looking at some classic television shows this week and I was wondering before I jumped into my list if any of my readers had any shows that they absolutely loved. I liked a lot of different shows when I was a child and not all of them have stood up to the test of time for sure. There are several that I regret going back and watching again because they just are so bad now. I think that mainly that seems to be the case for the sit-coms that I liked. I feel that most of the dramas to tend to stand up pretty well regardless of the costumes and things like that. I mean sure some of the shows do suffer when you look at outfits and hairstyles but overall if the show was good and had good characters and stories then it didn't matter how the actors looked or what types of cars they were driving.
Another aspect of the shows that I did not notice as a child but I do now is what shows may or may not have been sponsored by different companies. So I will try to keep focused on the old shows that I liked and do a little digging into them. Please feel free to comment and to mention shows you enjoyed I would love to do a little discussing of them. As usual I also well allow for some space for me to roam without any kind of direction or path where ever the daily news takes me.
So let me know what you liked folks and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)