Ok, I know there are plenty of Americans with real financial problems right now. But my gripe is with the moaners who always complain about money, regardless of their situation. The ones who claim they can't afford to buy local, gas costs too much, I need to shop at Walmart..blah, blah.....but I never see a real financial problem because their house is filled with stuff.
So I compiled a list of the top 5 things these complainers could live without:
1- Their giant big screen TV and satellite dishes. Give me a break, do something productive instead.
2-Countless plastic children's toys. A huge issue to me. I was just reading about plastics that don't ever decompose and just wind up floating in a garbage pile in the ocean. These cheap plastic toys fill space and make your house look tacky. Kids don't need roomfuls of toys--they just wind up becoming boring and uncreative!
3- Holiday knick-knacks. I am utterly grossed out by how much money Americans will spend on inflatable Holiday lawn decorations! Then there are window stick-ons, and plastic weird things galore. It used to be just Christmas--but Halloween is just as bad now. What happened to just making a home-made scarecrow for the front yard???
4- Pet luxury items. What an embarrassment to the rest of the world! Why do Americans spend so much on pet treats, toys and even costumes? Holy cow!
5- Blasting the heat and AC. This is crazy. I have had to work with ladies who actually put the heat thermostat on 80 degrees! They just couldn't handle the concept of dressing differently in the winter (like warm). These same people then can't stand the hot summer temps and want AC on 68 degrees?? What gives? It's like oppositional climate disorder or something.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
King Rush and His Serfs
A long time ago in European history, a common way to live was in a feudalistic system. You had the castle and the great lord of this manor. Outside the gates lived the hard working serfs, toiling away to feed the king.
Now I don't remember exactly why the serfs were so obedient--I expect they would simply be killed by the King's men if they did not do as they were told. But if I remember correctly--they were also offered some protection in times of war by the king and his castle.
Fast forward to USA 2009. Quite a few hardworking serfs (if I may call them that) have been fooled by their self-proclaimed King: Rush Limbaugh. Of course he is secretive about his assets, yet I did read he may be making upwards of $33 million a year. Nevertheless, it is nowhere near the amounts of his fiercest supporters, living in working class towns somewhere in middle America.
How did Lord Rush achieve such a diabolical scheme? How do you have the working class actually supporting your right to less taxes and to sit on mass amounts of wealth simply for hurling insults?? Last time I checked, Lord Rush was not dirtying his hands in a coal mine.
Well he as the great Kings of yore, has promised some sort of protection from the enemy army to the loyal serfs. The enemy being "the Liberal agenda". This time around, they will not be stealing your fair maidens and burning your villages. Instead, these warrior liberals have come along to convert your children to homosexuality and tree-hugging. And as long as Lord Rush continues to scare the hard-working serfs into believing the end is near, he gets to laugh all the way to the bank and keep more of his "hard earned money" to pay his pill-popping expenses.
Now I don't remember exactly why the serfs were so obedient--I expect they would simply be killed by the King's men if they did not do as they were told. But if I remember correctly--they were also offered some protection in times of war by the king and his castle.
Fast forward to USA 2009. Quite a few hardworking serfs (if I may call them that) have been fooled by their self-proclaimed King: Rush Limbaugh. Of course he is secretive about his assets, yet I did read he may be making upwards of $33 million a year. Nevertheless, it is nowhere near the amounts of his fiercest supporters, living in working class towns somewhere in middle America.
How did Lord Rush achieve such a diabolical scheme? How do you have the working class actually supporting your right to less taxes and to sit on mass amounts of wealth simply for hurling insults?? Last time I checked, Lord Rush was not dirtying his hands in a coal mine.
Well he as the great Kings of yore, has promised some sort of protection from the enemy army to the loyal serfs. The enemy being "the Liberal agenda". This time around, they will not be stealing your fair maidens and burning your villages. Instead, these warrior liberals have come along to convert your children to homosexuality and tree-hugging. And as long as Lord Rush continues to scare the hard-working serfs into believing the end is near, he gets to laugh all the way to the bank and keep more of his "hard earned money" to pay his pill-popping expenses.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Craziness
I am always trying to figure out what these "conservatives" are really thinking. Their distrust of government (except to blow up other countries) and their bizarre ideology that somehow people can be trusted to do the right thing. Do they really feel humans are that awesome and smart? Or do they only want to protect their own large sums of money so they get everyone all jazzed up about taxes?? (I can't help thinking that Rush simply wants the poor and paranoid to protect his own wealth by staging anti-Obama rallies)
One theory of mine is that many right-winged politicians are simply not well traveled. When you argue that people can make good financial decisions without government legislation--they haven't opened their eyes to the incredible corruption that happens in countries without such regulation. (Don't they know people are greedy little pigs?)
Even Ron Paul, who has some good ideas, but also a few nutty ones, has a silly thought that doctors would uphold the Hippocratic oath to provide free medical care if we eliminated Medicare/Medicaid. It is certainly an interesting theory that Government programs have eliminated personal responsibility towards the poor. However, in this day and age people are definitely more greedy. If you reversed the clock I just don't see people going back to the days of yore when they looked out for each other. It is a fact that the higher your income level, the less you actually help others, volunteer or donate.....
My personal experience growing up in NJ was that people were horrid to one another. Then moving to Alaska I almost fell over how much people trusted and helped one another. My explanation for this difference: the less populated an area, the nicer the people. We get cranky living on top of one another...Just like gerbils attacking their young in a crowded cage...
So for now Government is what we have to protect us from ourselves.
One theory of mine is that many right-winged politicians are simply not well traveled. When you argue that people can make good financial decisions without government legislation--they haven't opened their eyes to the incredible corruption that happens in countries without such regulation. (Don't they know people are greedy little pigs?)
Even Ron Paul, who has some good ideas, but also a few nutty ones, has a silly thought that doctors would uphold the Hippocratic oath to provide free medical care if we eliminated Medicare/Medicaid. It is certainly an interesting theory that Government programs have eliminated personal responsibility towards the poor. However, in this day and age people are definitely more greedy. If you reversed the clock I just don't see people going back to the days of yore when they looked out for each other. It is a fact that the higher your income level, the less you actually help others, volunteer or donate.....
My personal experience growing up in NJ was that people were horrid to one another. Then moving to Alaska I almost fell over how much people trusted and helped one another. My explanation for this difference: the less populated an area, the nicer the people. We get cranky living on top of one another...Just like gerbils attacking their young in a crowded cage...
So for now Government is what we have to protect us from ourselves.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What's The Deal With Swine Flu??
So everyone is scared about swine flu. The media is having a great time scaring the pants off of everyone, as a good thriller is always fun. But here's the let down: it's not as exciting as the media makes it out to be.
For one, I should know as living in Alaska, it looks like I already caught the flu two weeks ago. When I realized that I had the flu and not a cold (because of the chills & lack of runny nose) I started researching more about symptoms. I came upon some British websites that honestly told their population --yes --half of you have the swine flu, but get over it--it is actually MILDER than regular flu.
A statement was released by the government, that yes, 98% of flu right now (Aug/Sept.) in the USA are H1N1. So many of us loyal citizens have the damn thing but don't even realize it--because you are not going to test for something that seems so ordinary...
Of course I understand the flu is never a joke--as vulnerable populations are always at risk for complications. I just don't know why they want people to expect this fearsome disease--when actually it is much milder, they probably already have it and therefore are spreading it without even realizing it.....
For one, I should know as living in Alaska, it looks like I already caught the flu two weeks ago. When I realized that I had the flu and not a cold (because of the chills & lack of runny nose) I started researching more about symptoms. I came upon some British websites that honestly told their population --yes --half of you have the swine flu, but get over it--it is actually MILDER than regular flu.
A statement was released by the government, that yes, 98% of flu right now (Aug/Sept.) in the USA are H1N1. So many of us loyal citizens have the damn thing but don't even realize it--because you are not going to test for something that seems so ordinary...
Of course I understand the flu is never a joke--as vulnerable populations are always at risk for complications. I just don't know why they want people to expect this fearsome disease--when actually it is much milder, they probably already have it and therefore are spreading it without even realizing it.....
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Why Would it Cost $220,000 to Raise a Child??
So I'm reading a Time magazine article about the high cost of raising a child (in the USA that is). The number quoted was $220,000. I looked up the USDA stats that come up with these numbers and sure enough--average spent in 2008 was about $180,00-$220,000 depending on your income, as rich people simply spend more on their kids.
I needed to know more because it seemed so crazy to me, so I looked at the breakdown chart. Ok, the food bills make sense, especially if you buy healthy food. Of course breast feeding your baby would greatly reduce the first years costs. Health expenses probably includes dental, etc..so that wasn't outrageous. Nor was $1,160 on 2 years worth of transportation once you include an occasional plane ticket. However, I contend if we weren't obsessed with driving children to all these sports & lessons and had better public transportation that cost would be less too...
The main issues I had with their numerology (or our voracious lifestyles) was the clothes & housing. I agree that clothing a teenager is expensive--because lets face it, we are so crazy materialistic that our teenagers get heckled for not wearing the hottest trends and having sparkling new sneakers. The only way to fix that is to shake up society. But can't we suck it up and buy more used clothes for the little ones?? Or a few less? I often see daycare kids dressed to the nines in the nicest outfits--in my opinion the parents are alleviating their guilt by dressing them up....yet I regress.
Housing was the big ah-ha moment: The cost breakdown was 33% of that large $200,000 estimate -due to mortgage and utilities. Probably based on the assumption that an American kid will simply fall over and die without his or her own bedroom. Therefore you need to run out and buy a four bedroom three bath house. Baloney!
Many people without children happen to have big mortgages as well, and I'm pretty sure they crank the heat . So I'm not sure how the kids are to blame for the mortgage, except for the perception that you need this big-ass house so you can hide from each other.
Remember the Brady Bunch? Six kids 3 bedrooms. My sister just raised her kids in a 2 bedroom house (the trick was to make the basement a play area) And our house in Alaska used to house 4 kids and it is two bedrooms, tiny office -possible third bedroom, and one bathroom.
Sharing bedrooms actually teaches kids to get along with one another. Sure they can argue and go nuts--but the lesson is you need to deal with it--not shut the door and hide. Plus I know some kids actually find it fun--and that isolation is lonely. Of course if you have a boy and a girl, you probably are going to separate them out at some point (I'm not crazy enough to say they should share a room) Maybe build out that attic like the Brady Bunch did!
But please lets remember, that the high cost of raising a child really has nothing to do with keeping them warm, fed & clothed-- but more with what Americans want and what they have come to expect.
I needed to know more because it seemed so crazy to me, so I looked at the breakdown chart. Ok, the food bills make sense, especially if you buy healthy food. Of course breast feeding your baby would greatly reduce the first years costs. Health expenses probably includes dental, etc..so that wasn't outrageous. Nor was $1,160 on 2 years worth of transportation once you include an occasional plane ticket. However, I contend if we weren't obsessed with driving children to all these sports & lessons and had better public transportation that cost would be less too...
The main issues I had with their numerology (or our voracious lifestyles) was the clothes & housing. I agree that clothing a teenager is expensive--because lets face it, we are so crazy materialistic that our teenagers get heckled for not wearing the hottest trends and having sparkling new sneakers. The only way to fix that is to shake up society. But can't we suck it up and buy more used clothes for the little ones?? Or a few less? I often see daycare kids dressed to the nines in the nicest outfits--in my opinion the parents are alleviating their guilt by dressing them up....yet I regress.
Housing was the big ah-ha moment: The cost breakdown was 33% of that large $200,000 estimate -due to mortgage and utilities. Probably based on the assumption that an American kid will simply fall over and die without his or her own bedroom. Therefore you need to run out and buy a four bedroom three bath house. Baloney!
Many people without children happen to have big mortgages as well, and I'm pretty sure they crank the heat . So I'm not sure how the kids are to blame for the mortgage, except for the perception that you need this big-ass house so you can hide from each other.
Remember the Brady Bunch? Six kids 3 bedrooms. My sister just raised her kids in a 2 bedroom house (the trick was to make the basement a play area) And our house in Alaska used to house 4 kids and it is two bedrooms, tiny office -possible third bedroom, and one bathroom.
Sharing bedrooms actually teaches kids to get along with one another. Sure they can argue and go nuts--but the lesson is you need to deal with it--not shut the door and hide. Plus I know some kids actually find it fun--and that isolation is lonely. Of course if you have a boy and a girl, you probably are going to separate them out at some point (I'm not crazy enough to say they should share a room) Maybe build out that attic like the Brady Bunch did!
But please lets remember, that the high cost of raising a child really has nothing to do with keeping them warm, fed & clothed-- but more with what Americans want and what they have come to expect.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Rush Limbaugh is the Real Socialist Nazi
The few times I have listened to pill popping Rush Limbaugh, I have heard him refer to Hitler as some sort of Socialist. This is true to a point--he believed cleaning his society of any "undesirables" would help propel the arian nation forward, i.e.-- the perfect white people. He wanted what was best for a society of blue eyed, blonde beauties. No minorities, no Jews, no disabled people to keep anyone else down.....
Of course anyone who has read about "socialism" knows that what Marx wanted, and how it was or is interpreted by other countries (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) varies tremendously. Anyone who has read anything by Marx knows that obviously his dream of socialism is nothing like what Hitler wanted....
Either way, that leads to the point--what does Limbaugh actually want?? To the best of my understanding he is against government "entitlement" programs like Social Security or Medicare, or any future government health care. The funding that keeps disabled and old folk living with some sort of human dignity and medical care. So we don't have sickly, frail people starving on the streets. Obviously they should get their lazy asses off of their hospital beds and pay their own bills. Break out of those socialist nursing homes, by getting a job--maybe by spewing hate on the radio?? Perhaps that would be a good job for someone suffering from incurable dementia....
Hitler wanted to gas the disabled, Limbaugh prefers to starve them of care. Oh big difference.
The second reason Limbaugh is the real Hitler is the way he states his message. By screaming propaganda. Being loud and full of controversy. He is not subtle--no way. Well guess who studied this particular way of spreading information?? I believe the quote in Mein Kamf is something like: everyone will listen to the loud fool, as opposed to the quiet thinker. Enough said.
Of course anyone who has read about "socialism" knows that what Marx wanted, and how it was or is interpreted by other countries (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) varies tremendously. Anyone who has read anything by Marx knows that obviously his dream of socialism is nothing like what Hitler wanted....
Either way, that leads to the point--what does Limbaugh actually want?? To the best of my understanding he is against government "entitlement" programs like Social Security or Medicare, or any future government health care. The funding that keeps disabled and old folk living with some sort of human dignity and medical care. So we don't have sickly, frail people starving on the streets. Obviously they should get their lazy asses off of their hospital beds and pay their own bills. Break out of those socialist nursing homes, by getting a job--maybe by spewing hate on the radio?? Perhaps that would be a good job for someone suffering from incurable dementia....
Hitler wanted to gas the disabled, Limbaugh prefers to starve them of care. Oh big difference.
The second reason Limbaugh is the real Hitler is the way he states his message. By screaming propaganda. Being loud and full of controversy. He is not subtle--no way. Well guess who studied this particular way of spreading information?? I believe the quote in Mein Kamf is something like: everyone will listen to the loud fool, as opposed to the quiet thinker. Enough said.
Friday, August 28, 2009
British Columbia Parks and Recreation
Recently we took a trip up the Alaska Highway. From North Dakota back to Alaska--a short jaunt --ha, ha. What struck us as the most amazing thing about our trip wasn't the stone sheep, grizzly bear, or caribou we saw--but the British Columbia Park system. What a pleasant surprise! The public playgrounds/picnic areas/benches were the nicest we have ever seen--and we stopped at three different parks there. We also noticed all the workers buzzing about--cleaning the outhouses, emptying recycling bins, etc....The public bathrooms at Laird Hot Springs even had a 4 stall public composting restroom--and no, it did not stink!
So we don't really know what this all means--we stopped in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Yukon as well--and Yukon parks are very nice too--but B.C. just kicks it up a notch. Do they pay more in taxes?? And how about the economy--do park budgets get cut in Canada?? Or do they just value them more?? (We did not even have to pay any day use fees, except for the hot springs).
As someone who seriously appreciates everything a park offers, I am always upset when Alaska or any other state closes parks first due to "budget shortfalls". As if they don't value them at all, nor does the public find them that important.
I haven't really gotten to why the thinking is so different, but it is amazing nevertheless.
So we don't really know what this all means--we stopped in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Yukon as well--and Yukon parks are very nice too--but B.C. just kicks it up a notch. Do they pay more in taxes?? And how about the economy--do park budgets get cut in Canada?? Or do they just value them more?? (We did not even have to pay any day use fees, except for the hot springs).
As someone who seriously appreciates everything a park offers, I am always upset when Alaska or any other state closes parks first due to "budget shortfalls". As if they don't value them at all, nor does the public find them that important.
I haven't really gotten to why the thinking is so different, but it is amazing nevertheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
