While companies that have benefited from the bailout plan are using our tax dollars to party (AIG, who received an additional $30+ billion in tax dollars) and coming down on consumers (home foreclosures, credit freezes, rising interest, no compassion for high debt/late payments), the American public is in a frenzy with no where else to turn but death.
It's a shame that when the people need their government the government is instead using our hard-earned income they acquired illegally through the unconstitutional federal income tax to reward those who are responsible for the mess we are in leaving only death for relief of those in distress.
If any of the tax payers dollars were going to be spent in assistance of our ailing economy it should've gone from the ground up, addressing the issue from it's point of origin: bad mortgages. The government should've bought up these bad home loans to allow families to remain intact without being uprooted to the streets. This would've benefited countless homeowners, families, and restore the gaps in our financial institutions.... A move denounced by Obama but supported by McCain.
John McCain's HOME Plan Will Keep 200,000 To 400,000 Families From Losing Their Homes. "But at the same time, McCain is calling for aggressive federal action to help keep 200,000 to 400,000 families from losing their homes. That plan has many of the elements of a proposal by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., requiring participating lenders to forgive part of the loan principal and then write a new loan that would be backed by the federal government through the Federal Housing Administration." (Tom Raum, "Everyone's Invited: McCain Economic Plan Draws From Both Parties," Tucson Citizen, 4/17/08)
AP Report
An out-of-work money manager in California loses a fortune and wipes out his family in a murder-suicide. A 90-year-old Ohio widow shoots herself in the chest as authorities arrive to evict her from the modest house she called home for 38 years.
In Massachusetts, a housewife who had hidden her family's mounting financial crisis from her husband sends a note to the mortgage company warning: "By the time you foreclose on my house, I'll be dead."
Then Carlene Balderrama shot herself to death, leaving an insurance policy and a suicide note on a table.
Across the country, authorities are becoming concerned that the nation's financial woes could turn increasingly violent, and they are urging people to get help. In some places, mental-health hot lines are jammed, counseling services are in high demand and domestic-violence shelters are full.
"I've had a number of people say that this is the thing most reminiscent of 9/11 that's happened here since then," said the Rev. Canon Ann Malonee, vicar at Trinity Church in the heart of New York's financial district. "It's that sense of having the rug pulled out from under them."
With nowhere else to turn, many people are calling suicide-prevention hot lines. The Samaritans of New York have seen calls rise more than 16 percent in the past year, many of them money-related. The Switchboard of Miami has recorded more than 500 foreclosure-related calls this year.
"A lot of people are telling us they are losing everything. They're losing their homes, they're going into foreclosure, they've lost their jobs," said Virginia Cervasio, executive director of a suicide resource enter in southwest Florida's Lee County.
But tragedies keep mounting:
• In Los Angeles last week, a former money manager fatally shot his wife, three sons and his mother-in-law before killing himself.
Karthik Rajaram, 45, left a suicide note saying he was in financial trouble and contemplated killing just himself. But he said he decided to kill his entire family because that was more honorable, police said.
Rajaram once worked for a major accounting firm and for Sony Pictures, and he had been part-owner of a financial holding company. But he had been out of work for several months, police said.
After the murder-suicide, police and mental-health officials in Los Angeles took the unusual step of urging people to seek help for themselves or loved ones if they feel overwhelmed by grim financial news. They said they were specifically afraid of the "copycat phenomenon."
"This is a perfect American family behind me that has absolutely been destroyed, apparently because of a man who just got stuck in a rabbit hole, if you will, of absolute despair," Deputy Police Chief Michel Moore said. "It is critical to step up and recognize we are in some pretty troubled times."
• In Tennessee, a woman fatally shot herself last week as sheriff's deputies went to evict her from her foreclosed home.
Pamela Ross, 57, and her husband were fighting foreclosure on their home when sheriff's deputies in Sevierville came to serve an eviction notice. They were across the street when they heard a gunshot and found Ross dead from a wound to the chest. The case was even more tragic because the couple had recently been granted an extra 10 days to appeal.
• In Akron, Ohio, the 90-year-old widow who shot herself on Oct. 1 is recovering. A congressman told Addie Polk's story on the House floor before lawmakers voted to approve a $700 billion financial rescue package. Mortgage finance company Fannie Mae dropped the foreclosure, forgave her mortgage and said she could remain in the home.
• In Ocala, Fla., Roland Gore shot his wife and dog in March and then set fire to the couple's home, which had been in foreclosure, before killing himself. His case was one of several in which people killed spouses or pets, destroyed property or attacked police before taking their own lives.
"The financial stress builds up to the point the person feels they can't go on, and the person believes their family is better off dead than left without a financial support," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Washington D.C.-based Violence Policy Center.
Dr. Edward Charlesworth, a clinical psychologist in Houston, said the current crisis is breeding a sense of chronic anxiety among people who feel helpless and panic-stricken, as well as angry that their government has let them down.
"They feel like in this great society that we live in we should have more protection for the individuals rather than just the corporation," he said.
It's not yet clear there is a statistical link between suicides and the financial downturn since there is generally a two-year lag in national suicide figures. But historically, suicides increase in times of economic hardship. And the current financial crisis is already being called the worst since the Great Depression.
Rising mortgage defaults and falling home values are at the heart of it. More than 4 million Americans were at least one month behind on their mortgages at the end of June, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
A record 500,000 had entered the foreclosure process. And that trend is expected to continue through next year, despite the current programs from the government and the lending industry to refinance delinquent homeowners into more affordable loans.
Counselors at Catholic Charities USA report seeing a "significant increase" in the need for housing counseling.
One counselor said half of her clients were on some form of antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication. The agency has seen a decrease in overall funding, but it has expanded foreclosure counseling and received nearly $2 million for such services in late 2007.
Adding to financially tense households is an air of secrecy. Experts said it's common for one spouse to blame the other for their financial mess or to hide it entirely, as Balderrama did.
After falling 3 1/2 years behind in payments, the Taunton, Mass., housewife had been intercepting letters from the mortgage company and shredding them before her husband saw them. She tried to refinance but was declined.
In July, on the day the house was to be auctioned, she faxed the note to the mortgage company. Then the 52-year-old walked outside, shot her three beloved cats and then herself with her husband's rifle.
Notes left on the table revealed months of planning. She'd picked out her funeral home, laid out the insurance policy and left a note saying, "pay off the house with the insurance money."
"She put in her suicide note that it got overwhelming for her," said her husband, John Balderrama. "Apparently she didn't have anyone to talk to. She didn't come to me. I don't know why. There's gotta be some help out there for people that are hurting, (something better) than to see somebody lose a life over a stupid house."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Cell Phones the New Cigarette?
As Congress rushes to pass legislation banning cell-phone use on airlines before Europe allows it to strain American airlines from doing the same, we've already been denied our right to dial in the car.
California, as well as many other states, have banned the use of cell phones while driving. Of course you can get around this by using a hands-free contraption (Bluetooth or wired) but it still isn't hands free. You must still dial or browse through the address book and then... Most people hold their phone. Despite the use of these devices the phone is still in hand which defeats the entire purpose of "hands-free." The use of the speaker phone constitutes hands-free as well, though, even more so than bluetooth, you're more than likely to be holding the phone the entire duration of your conversation... Does holding the phone while using the speaker or bluetooth constitutes hands-free? I don't think so.
The bigger concern is our increased exposure to brain tumers. Not for the speaker phone but the bluetooth device... Cell phones emit electromagnetic enegy which can cause clusters to form brain tumors. Bluetooth devices, that are shoved into the ear, and usually left there for the entire day, emit the same radiation and may be of a greater threat due to the increased time of being there and the closeness of it.
This ban against cell phone use while driving is a solution looking for a problem as less than 7% of automobile accidents are attributed to cell-phone use. Moreover, studies have shown it isn't the use of a cell-phone that distracts the driver but rather the conversation itself which uses the same side of the brain as driving. Instead of banning cell phones, which has several loop-holes and most people won't bother to follow anyway, we should instead focus on encouraging light, quick calls in the car or none if unneeded.
Same as with smoking, instead of banning it. Instead of demonizing the smoker. Instead of the junk science that plagues society... We should be honest about it. We're honest about drinking. Drink, but don't over do it. Drink responsibly. The same should be said for smoking. The same should be said for driving and cell phone use.
Now we also have a texting while driving ban here in California that'll go into affect next year that was signed by Arnold (the faux Republican like McCain). What does this mean exactly? It means that instead of holding your phone up to send that quick text where you can see the road and the phone at the same time you will be compelled to hold the phone down and look down and hope for the best. It also means, just as with cell phone use, just as with "speeding," you will be looking out for cops too. Instead of driving and watching the traffic you'll be wasting some amount of focus looking out for cops that when you see, you panic which in and of itself can cause an accident.
Just as how we can no longer smoke in restaurants, in bars, in parks, in theme parks, in our own homes at times... You can no longer use your cell phone on the bus either. Congress is acting to ban cell phone use on airlines which they label as fighting "noise," which is absurd as the flight itself generates so much noise from the wind that you sometimes cannot even hear your own Ipod or just barely so... I don't think a private conversation will yield much distraction from looking at the chair in front of you that is way too damn close.
And now we can no longer use our cell phones on buses. Publicly funded modes of transportation. A woman boarding the Golden Gate Transit bus in the bay area was told over the loudspeaker to get off her cell phone leaving her bewildered as there was no signs. A similar incident occurred on a New Jersey bus line as well.
So... Just as what happened to cigarettes and smokers in the 90s to only grow into a full-blown witch-hunt of oppression is happening now to fast-food, foods deemed unideal by the government, those who don't share the waistline of whoever is on the cover of People... Now we got cellphones.
What's next? Table conversation at the restaurant? Don't want to bother the table next to you or nothing. And conversation in the elevator with a co-worker? Cell phone use is no different than talking to someone right next to you, either can be annoying or distracting depending upon one's perspective.
Our voice is now under attack.
California, as well as many other states, have banned the use of cell phones while driving. Of course you can get around this by using a hands-free contraption (Bluetooth or wired) but it still isn't hands free. You must still dial or browse through the address book and then... Most people hold their phone. Despite the use of these devices the phone is still in hand which defeats the entire purpose of "hands-free." The use of the speaker phone constitutes hands-free as well, though, even more so than bluetooth, you're more than likely to be holding the phone the entire duration of your conversation... Does holding the phone while using the speaker or bluetooth constitutes hands-free? I don't think so.
The bigger concern is our increased exposure to brain tumers. Not for the speaker phone but the bluetooth device... Cell phones emit electromagnetic enegy which can cause clusters to form brain tumors. Bluetooth devices, that are shoved into the ear, and usually left there for the entire day, emit the same radiation and may be of a greater threat due to the increased time of being there and the closeness of it.
This ban against cell phone use while driving is a solution looking for a problem as less than 7% of automobile accidents are attributed to cell-phone use. Moreover, studies have shown it isn't the use of a cell-phone that distracts the driver but rather the conversation itself which uses the same side of the brain as driving. Instead of banning cell phones, which has several loop-holes and most people won't bother to follow anyway, we should instead focus on encouraging light, quick calls in the car or none if unneeded.
Same as with smoking, instead of banning it. Instead of demonizing the smoker. Instead of the junk science that plagues society... We should be honest about it. We're honest about drinking. Drink, but don't over do it. Drink responsibly. The same should be said for smoking. The same should be said for driving and cell phone use.
Now we also have a texting while driving ban here in California that'll go into affect next year that was signed by Arnold (the faux Republican like McCain). What does this mean exactly? It means that instead of holding your phone up to send that quick text where you can see the road and the phone at the same time you will be compelled to hold the phone down and look down and hope for the best. It also means, just as with cell phone use, just as with "speeding," you will be looking out for cops too. Instead of driving and watching the traffic you'll be wasting some amount of focus looking out for cops that when you see, you panic which in and of itself can cause an accident.
Just as how we can no longer smoke in restaurants, in bars, in parks, in theme parks, in our own homes at times... You can no longer use your cell phone on the bus either. Congress is acting to ban cell phone use on airlines which they label as fighting "noise," which is absurd as the flight itself generates so much noise from the wind that you sometimes cannot even hear your own Ipod or just barely so... I don't think a private conversation will yield much distraction from looking at the chair in front of you that is way too damn close.
And now we can no longer use our cell phones on buses. Publicly funded modes of transportation. A woman boarding the Golden Gate Transit bus in the bay area was told over the loudspeaker to get off her cell phone leaving her bewildered as there was no signs. A similar incident occurred on a New Jersey bus line as well.
So... Just as what happened to cigarettes and smokers in the 90s to only grow into a full-blown witch-hunt of oppression is happening now to fast-food, foods deemed unideal by the government, those who don't share the waistline of whoever is on the cover of People... Now we got cellphones.
What's next? Table conversation at the restaurant? Don't want to bother the table next to you or nothing. And conversation in the elevator with a co-worker? Cell phone use is no different than talking to someone right next to you, either can be annoying or distracting depending upon one's perspective.
Our voice is now under attack.
Friday, September 26, 2008
What PETA Wants You To Eat
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has proposed to Ben & Jerrys (plain ol' ice cream that is diluted with bottom barrel candies, much like the bottom barrel argument of any Liberal) to use the milk of breasting mothers rather than cows.
Due to the tremondous "harm" inflicted on cows and calves by milking them PETA believes it would be more sound and "healthy" for Ben & Jerry's ice cream to be with the milk of nursing mothers. PETA seems to believe that the milk from cows is "hazardous" to the health of humans.
While the spokesperson for Ben & Jerrys praised PETA's absurd idea they declined the move to using the milk of nursing mothers and will continue with their happy, Vermont cows who according to PETA are in dire agony from being milked. Wonder when the last time anyone at PETA had good sex? =/
Jane Crouse, spokesperson for La Leche, stated that the milk from cows and that of nursing mothers are unique and nontransferrable. Noting the dynamic differences between the milk of nursing mothers and their child amongt each other.
As with all things that come out of PETA, rather offensive, anti-semitic, racist, or just plain loony, this one is no exception. Though it is a bit creepy and unsettling.
Due to the tremondous "harm" inflicted on cows and calves by milking them PETA believes it would be more sound and "healthy" for Ben & Jerry's ice cream to be with the milk of nursing mothers. PETA seems to believe that the milk from cows is "hazardous" to the health of humans.
While the spokesperson for Ben & Jerrys praised PETA's absurd idea they declined the move to using the milk of nursing mothers and will continue with their happy, Vermont cows who according to PETA are in dire agony from being milked. Wonder when the last time anyone at PETA had good sex? =/
Jane Crouse, spokesperson for La Leche, stated that the milk from cows and that of nursing mothers are unique and nontransferrable. Noting the dynamic differences between the milk of nursing mothers and their child amongt each other.
As with all things that come out of PETA, rather offensive, anti-semitic, racist, or just plain loony, this one is no exception. Though it is a bit creepy and unsettling.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Shut Down Day
A group of Canadians has come up with an idea of "Shutdown Day" and trying to spread it globally.
A day during which everyone takes a break from their computers, televisions, and all things electronic to go outside.
This group of Canadians contends the purpose of this day of de-progression is to get people away from such vile, dangerous electronics that are "allowing society finding an excuse not to socialize," says Shutdown Day co-founder Ashutosh Rajekar.
Social networking sites, and online forums, if anything, bring people together. No matter where one is, they can find like-mind individuals to socialize with. Who is to say online socialization is any less than real-world? A connection is a connection. A relationship is a relationship. Moreover, people meet people online. Plain and simply.
People are not less social due to electronic devices which is the claim this organization is making to justify their day of de-progression. If anything, I say, thanks to the internet, people are more social.
The internet allows anyone and everyone with access to freely post their opinion and share their ideas without fear of persecution or banishment.
People are, though, less social in reality. Political correctness has caused everyone to censor their thoughts and feelings for fear of being falsely labeled as a ____ (hater, racist, bigot, sexist, close-minded, etc, etc.).
The government and society itself has imposed restrictions on individual expression. Even smoking. Smoking is a form of self-expression. The choice of cigarette says a lot about a person. The choice of their Zippo says a lot. However, the government has stripped that right away from us.
Moreover, like alcohol, smoking is a social thing. Smokers are forbidden from getting together in the growing number of towns that have banned smoking outside. Banned smoking inside. Banned smoking in apartment complexes.
Smoking brings people together to relax and socialize. Not being able to smoke. Not being able to drink (in some counties).... What reason do people have to get out of the house to get together other than physical contact which they can find online?
Even to enjoy the great outdoors. You cannot smoke in parks or on beaches. Where is one to go?
The assumed lack of socialization based on electronic devices is absolutely unfounded. People are just as social as ever, if not more, through virtual means. People are less social in the physical world due to fear.
Fear imposed by our government and ignorant, back-ward thinkers as the organizers of this day of de-progression.
A day during which everyone takes a break from their computers, televisions, and all things electronic to go outside.
This group of Canadians contends the purpose of this day of de-progression is to get people away from such vile, dangerous electronics that are "allowing society finding an excuse not to socialize," says Shutdown Day co-founder Ashutosh Rajekar.
Social networking sites, and online forums, if anything, bring people together. No matter where one is, they can find like-mind individuals to socialize with. Who is to say online socialization is any less than real-world? A connection is a connection. A relationship is a relationship. Moreover, people meet people online. Plain and simply.
People are not less social due to electronic devices which is the claim this organization is making to justify their day of de-progression. If anything, I say, thanks to the internet, people are more social.
The internet allows anyone and everyone with access to freely post their opinion and share their ideas without fear of persecution or banishment.
People are, though, less social in reality. Political correctness has caused everyone to censor their thoughts and feelings for fear of being falsely labeled as a ____ (hater, racist, bigot, sexist, close-minded, etc, etc.).
The government and society itself has imposed restrictions on individual expression. Even smoking. Smoking is a form of self-expression. The choice of cigarette says a lot about a person. The choice of their Zippo says a lot. However, the government has stripped that right away from us.
Moreover, like alcohol, smoking is a social thing. Smokers are forbidden from getting together in the growing number of towns that have banned smoking outside. Banned smoking inside. Banned smoking in apartment complexes.
Smoking brings people together to relax and socialize. Not being able to smoke. Not being able to drink (in some counties).... What reason do people have to get out of the house to get together other than physical contact which they can find online?
Even to enjoy the great outdoors. You cannot smoke in parks or on beaches. Where is one to go?
The assumed lack of socialization based on electronic devices is absolutely unfounded. People are just as social as ever, if not more, through virtual means. People are less social in the physical world due to fear.
Fear imposed by our government and ignorant, back-ward thinkers as the organizers of this day of de-progression.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Incompetancy of Cops
Aside from handing out tickets for jay-walking when no cross-walk is to be seen, or cars for that matters; aside from ticketing drivers for talking on their cell phone or issuing tickets for smoking... What are cops good for? Good ol' harassment, at most.
Surely no cop I ever known has put his life on the line for the safety or protection of the public, unless of course it's to defend of the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.
It's no surprise that cops, as judges, as our entire legal system, enjoy blaming the victim. A man was arrested in Florida for dialing 911 after a Subway restaurant prepared his Italian Sub without the sauce... The man complained and asked for the sauce to which the Subway employees refused, eventually locking him outside of the restaurant (I thought we only experience rude, incompetent service here in LA, good to know I'm not alone.)
The cops arrived on the scene to arrest the man for improper use of 911... I have to wonder, what IS proper use? When I fell victim to an attack and was intentionally runned down by a moving vehicle, the cops blamed me as if I shouldn't have bothered them with my 911 call. They then humored me with an undocumented police report. On another occasion when my car was broken into on my own drive-way, an attack launched out of hate, the cops didn't even humor me but demonstrated absolute apathy towards my situation.
What ARE cops doing? What ARE they for? We know what they're suppose to be doing, what they're suppose to be for... But somewhere between their intended purpose and what they believe to be their job there is a disconnect.
America is absolutely in shambles. From our education system to our legal system to our politicians to our cops to our economy. No matter how much works needs to be done, it can be done and we can prevail. But who cares? Not Congress. Not our Presidential nominees. Not even most of the people you know.
The greatest problem facing America today is not oil dependency. Not obesity. Not whatever cause you wish to believe. The problem is apathy. From Congress down to the people themselves, apathy is our greatest problem. Even with oil prices surging, our Democratic led Congress refuses to find a solution, promising that even $10 a gallon won't motivate them for an answer.
Until the apathetic outlook is shed, there is no hope for America.
Surely no cop I ever known has put his life on the line for the safety or protection of the public, unless of course it's to defend of the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.
It's no surprise that cops, as judges, as our entire legal system, enjoy blaming the victim. A man was arrested in Florida for dialing 911 after a Subway restaurant prepared his Italian Sub without the sauce... The man complained and asked for the sauce to which the Subway employees refused, eventually locking him outside of the restaurant (I thought we only experience rude, incompetent service here in LA, good to know I'm not alone.)
The cops arrived on the scene to arrest the man for improper use of 911... I have to wonder, what IS proper use? When I fell victim to an attack and was intentionally runned down by a moving vehicle, the cops blamed me as if I shouldn't have bothered them with my 911 call. They then humored me with an undocumented police report. On another occasion when my car was broken into on my own drive-way, an attack launched out of hate, the cops didn't even humor me but demonstrated absolute apathy towards my situation.
What ARE cops doing? What ARE they for? We know what they're suppose to be doing, what they're suppose to be for... But somewhere between their intended purpose and what they believe to be their job there is a disconnect.
America is absolutely in shambles. From our education system to our legal system to our politicians to our cops to our economy. No matter how much works needs to be done, it can be done and we can prevail. But who cares? Not Congress. Not our Presidential nominees. Not even most of the people you know.
The greatest problem facing America today is not oil dependency. Not obesity. Not whatever cause you wish to believe. The problem is apathy. From Congress down to the people themselves, apathy is our greatest problem. Even with oil prices surging, our Democratic led Congress refuses to find a solution, promising that even $10 a gallon won't motivate them for an answer.
Until the apathetic outlook is shed, there is no hope for America.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
F0cked in 08
Hussein is to Liberal as Super bug is to bug.
Hillary is a snake, thought the lesser of three Liberals.
McCain... A senile old man who forgot what party he is in. Was slowly warming up to him but to find out, he’s not only paired with Kennedy in leaving our borders wide open and vulnerable to terrorists but also in cahoots in giving FDA full regulation over tobacco. Including, but not limited to, the bannage of flavored cigarettes.
What in God's name happened to our free market? And moreover, our Republican party? Huckabee was no Republican either, he single handedly led the blanketed smoking ban across his state of Arkansas as governor using stealth tactics and the health lobbyists. McCain wants open borders and the same revocation of freedom as Huckabee.
Romney lost out thanks to Huckabee hucking around and those damned open primaries that let all these know-nothings rig our presidential nomination with sympathy votes for McCain but for chrissakes... I don’t know what to do anymore as Hillary, being the lesser of three Liberals, faces an uphill battle in winning the DNC’s nomination due to the fact that Obama losing out from Superdelegates will cause Rodney King riots.
Smokers are totally screwed in the coming years unless the 40+ million of us begin making some demonstrations as these politicians are continually passing stealth measures without public consent and they seem to be only growing in power. It was Pelosi herself who banned smoking on the House floor when the bigot came to power.
Oh Noez He Dihint!
Do your daughters Sasha and Malia ever ask about Britney Spears?
"Actually, yeah. But they're very sensible. They're pretty down on Britney and Paris and all of that. They think that's very "yuck." They're way more into Hannah Montana and Beyonce. They got to go backstage and meet Beyonce and they just love her to death." -- Barack Hussein Obama
Wow... Is this dude a hater or what? Absolutely out of it, no less. You don't run for president and knock America's Sweetheart.
In this quote he is indirectly knocking Spears by saying his daughters are "sensible" for being "down" on Britney and incoherently relaying his daughter's opinion of her as being "yuck" which he demonstrates a mutual feeling for due to his language.
Moreover, the question was asked about Britney Spears. America's sweetheart. The young woman who has hit platinum on every album she ever released, 4 original studio albums, one greatest hit compilation, and a remixed collection. A woman who contributes over 10 million dollars annually to the US economy without even touring and brought about the phenomena of the paparazzi and tabloid industry. Britney also heralded in two laws! One requiring children to be in a child seat AND a law restraining the paparazzi.
For chrissakes... When asked about Britney Spears, how the hell do you link her of such stature to a low-life, trust-fund imbecile as Paris Hilton? You don't. Unless you're the greatest moron to ever run for an office of such prestige as the Oval.
Yet another reason why Hillary is the best suited candidate for the Democratic party. Obama ends up running in November... McCain all the way, sadly.
"Actually, yeah. But they're very sensible. They're pretty down on Britney and Paris and all of that. They think that's very "yuck." They're way more into Hannah Montana and Beyonce. They got to go backstage and meet Beyonce and they just love her to death." -- Barack Hussein Obama
Wow... Is this dude a hater or what? Absolutely out of it, no less. You don't run for president and knock America's Sweetheart.
In this quote he is indirectly knocking Spears by saying his daughters are "sensible" for being "down" on Britney and incoherently relaying his daughter's opinion of her as being "yuck" which he demonstrates a mutual feeling for due to his language.
Moreover, the question was asked about Britney Spears. America's sweetheart. The young woman who has hit platinum on every album she ever released, 4 original studio albums, one greatest hit compilation, and a remixed collection. A woman who contributes over 10 million dollars annually to the US economy without even touring and brought about the phenomena of the paparazzi and tabloid industry. Britney also heralded in two laws! One requiring children to be in a child seat AND a law restraining the paparazzi.
For chrissakes... When asked about Britney Spears, how the hell do you link her of such stature to a low-life, trust-fund imbecile as Paris Hilton? You don't. Unless you're the greatest moron to ever run for an office of such prestige as the Oval.
Yet another reason why Hillary is the best suited candidate for the Democratic party. Obama ends up running in November... McCain all the way, sadly.
Shutdown Day
A group of Canadians has come up with an idea of "Shutdown Day" and trying to spread it globally.
A day during which everyone takes a break from their computers, televisions, and all things electronic to go outside.
This group of Canadians contends the purpose of this day of de-progression is to get people away from such vile, dangerous electronics that are "allowing society finding an excuse not to socialize," says Shutdown Day co-founder Ashutosh Rajekar.
Social networking sites, and online forums, if anything, bring people together. No matter where one is, they can find like-mind individuals to socialize with. Who is to say online socialization is any less than real-world? A connection is a connection. A relationship is a relationship. Moreover, people meet people online. Plain and simply.
People are not less social due to electronic devices which is the claim this organization is making to justify their day of de-progression. If anything, I say, thanks to the internet, people are more social.
The internet allows anyone and everyone with access to freely post their opinion and share their ideas without fear of persecution or banishment.
People are, though, less social in reality. Political correctness has caused everyone to censor their thoughts and feelings for fear of being falsley labeled as a ____ (hater, racist, bigot, sexist, close-minded, etc, etc.).
The government and society itself has imposed restrictions on individual expression. Even smoking. Smoking is a form of self-expression. The choice of cigarette says a lot about a person. The choice of their Zippo says a lot. However, the government has stripped that right away from us.
Moreover, like alcohol, smoking is a social thing. Smokers are forbidden from getting together in the growing number of towns that have banned smoking outside. Banned smoking inside. Banned smoking in apartment complexes.
Smoking brings people together to relax and socialize. Not being able to smoke. Not being able to drink (in some counties).... What reason do people have to get out of the house to get together other than physical contact which they can find online?
Even to enjoy the great outdoors. You cannot smoke in parks or on beaches. Where is one to go?
The assumed lack of socialization based on electronic devices is absolutely unfounded. People are just as social as ever, if not more, through virtual means. People are less social in the physical world due to fear.
Fear imposed by our government and ignorant, back-ward thinkers as the organizers of this day of de-progression.
A day during which everyone takes a break from their computers, televisions, and all things electronic to go outside.
This group of Canadians contends the purpose of this day of de-progression is to get people away from such vile, dangerous electronics that are "allowing society finding an excuse not to socialize," says Shutdown Day co-founder Ashutosh Rajekar.
Social networking sites, and online forums, if anything, bring people together. No matter where one is, they can find like-mind individuals to socialize with. Who is to say online socialization is any less than real-world? A connection is a connection. A relationship is a relationship. Moreover, people meet people online. Plain and simply.
People are not less social due to electronic devices which is the claim this organization is making to justify their day of de-progression. If anything, I say, thanks to the internet, people are more social.
The internet allows anyone and everyone with access to freely post their opinion and share their ideas without fear of persecution or banishment.
People are, though, less social in reality. Political correctness has caused everyone to censor their thoughts and feelings for fear of being falsley labeled as a ____ (hater, racist, bigot, sexist, close-minded, etc, etc.).
The government and society itself has imposed restrictions on individual expression. Even smoking. Smoking is a form of self-expression. The choice of cigarette says a lot about a person. The choice of their Zippo says a lot. However, the government has stripped that right away from us.
Moreover, like alcohol, smoking is a social thing. Smokers are forbidden from getting together in the growing number of towns that have banned smoking outside. Banned smoking inside. Banned smoking in apartment complexes.
Smoking brings people together to relax and socialize. Not being able to smoke. Not being able to drink (in some counties).... What reason do people have to get out of the house to get together other than physical contact which they can find online?
Even to enjoy the great outdoors. You cannot smoke in parks or on beaches. Where is one to go?
The assumed lack of socialization based on electronic devices is absolutely unfounded. People are just as social as ever, if not more, through virtual means. People are less social in the physical world due to fear.
Fear imposed by our government and ignorant, back-ward thinkers as the organizers of this day of de-progression.
Smokers Exploited Through Interactive Media
Ubisoft is developing a video game for the Nintendo DS system to "coach" smokers away from cigarettes.
According to Christian Salomon, vice president of worldwide licensing at Ubisoft, "the player experiences a truly interactive engagement with the game, through which he or she learns that it can actually be enjoyable to quit smoking."
... For those who wish to quit, they usually end up going back to the cigarette as their reasons for quitting are not of their own but rather a subconscious desire based upon the discrimination they face on a daily basis along side the ever-increasing tax hikes... A smoker eventually comes to ask themselves: Why even bother?
Why even bother smoking when I can't do it anywhere, where I can do it I am badgered, and am paying the most taxes from any American yet denied this simple pleasure... Why bother smoking? The flipside of that equation is: Why bother? Why bother quitting when I find some pleasure of that occasional cigarette similar to that occasional drink after a long day at work?
The cycle never ends. Those who truly wish to quit smoking quit. It's not a matter of physical addiction, especially not come the third day of being without, but rather an emotional one if any. But for those who truly are ready to quit, they can, they will, they do. With or without any cheap attempt to exploit the smoking community, farther giving us a bad name, and making headway into our subconscious.
I am absolutely appalled at this attempt by the video game industry to now exploit smokers. Already there have been exploitations of the supposed obesity "epidemic" in this country, the Wii console all around is a covert attempt at encouraging physical activity for a timeless pastime that was once relaxing.
Personally, despite owning a Wii console and having had waited in line over night, the first in line, to purchase my Wii at launch, I rarely buy titles for it... I'm sort of in boycott of Nintendo as the console is cheap, gimmicky, and the titles all suck except for two percent of the first-party titles.
Ubisoft's cheap shot at exploiting the smoking community and perpetuating the myth that cigarettes kill, porno turns you blind, and Bush is the most beloved President in our history... Appalling.
Turning the video game into a utility to join the assault against smokers is absolutely heinous.
The game is to feature a measly 15 mini-games to "dispel the illusions about nicotine addiction" and is expected to release November.
Going to think long and hard before purchasing any titles from Ubisoft in the future.
According to Christian Salomon, vice president of worldwide licensing at Ubisoft, "the player experiences a truly interactive engagement with the game, through which he or she learns that it can actually be enjoyable to quit smoking."
... For those who wish to quit, they usually end up going back to the cigarette as their reasons for quitting are not of their own but rather a subconscious desire based upon the discrimination they face on a daily basis along side the ever-increasing tax hikes... A smoker eventually comes to ask themselves: Why even bother?
Why even bother smoking when I can't do it anywhere, where I can do it I am badgered, and am paying the most taxes from any American yet denied this simple pleasure... Why bother smoking? The flipside of that equation is: Why bother? Why bother quitting when I find some pleasure of that occasional cigarette similar to that occasional drink after a long day at work?
The cycle never ends. Those who truly wish to quit smoking quit. It's not a matter of physical addiction, especially not come the third day of being without, but rather an emotional one if any. But for those who truly are ready to quit, they can, they will, they do. With or without any cheap attempt to exploit the smoking community, farther giving us a bad name, and making headway into our subconscious.
I am absolutely appalled at this attempt by the video game industry to now exploit smokers. Already there have been exploitations of the supposed obesity "epidemic" in this country, the Wii console all around is a covert attempt at encouraging physical activity for a timeless pastime that was once relaxing.
Personally, despite owning a Wii console and having had waited in line over night, the first in line, to purchase my Wii at launch, I rarely buy titles for it... I'm sort of in boycott of Nintendo as the console is cheap, gimmicky, and the titles all suck except for two percent of the first-party titles.
Ubisoft's cheap shot at exploiting the smoking community and perpetuating the myth that cigarettes kill, porno turns you blind, and Bush is the most beloved President in our history... Appalling.
Turning the video game into a utility to join the assault against smokers is absolutely heinous.
The game is to feature a measly 15 mini-games to "dispel the illusions about nicotine addiction" and is expected to release November.
Going to think long and hard before purchasing any titles from Ubisoft in the future.
Blood & Oppression on the hands of SF Mayor
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is responsible for declaring the city that of a sanctuary for illegal immigrants which resulted in the loss of a woman's entire family who was murdered by an illegal who should've been deported for several offenses, besides already being an illegal intruder of our nation.
Now, besides the blood on Newsom's hand, we have farther oppression of the smoking community as well as the revocation of the rights of pharmacy shops who, thanks to the effort of Newsom, are now banned from selling tobacco products.
A spokesman for the Mayor's office says pharmacies are where people go to get well, not to "get cancer." Well, we should probably ban cough syrup (Mind trips), alcohol (Car crash, rape, wreckless endangerment, Korsokoffs, throat cancer, mental retardation, liver malfunction), all the drugs that are not fully approved as being safe (Chantix, causing dementia, pulled from the market now), nicotine gums/patches (carcinogenic), etc etc etc etc etc... Oh, we should probably prohibit the sales of candy, soda, ice cream as well... These foods cause obesity and diabetes, certainly not something one should pick up while at a pharmacy.
Let us also not forget this cities ban on plastic bags from super markets and pharmacies.
Does San Francisco do anything good or bear any point of existence?
SAN FRANCISCO - The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 on Tuesday to ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies beginning this fall, making it the first U.S. city to impose such a ban, a mayor's office official said.
The measure, which was proposed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, amends San Francisco's health code to prohibit tobacco sales in any pharmacy, whether a small mom-and-pop store or a large retailer like Walgreens. Drugstores caught selling tobacco products in the city will be fined up to $1,000.
"A pharmacy should be a place you go to get better, not a place you go to get cancer," said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for the mayor's office.
The citywide ban was modeled on rules enacted in eight Canadian provinces.
Similar proposals have failed this year in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Illinois and New York. San Francisco is the first city in the country to ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies, Ballard said.
Opponents of the ban say it puts pharmacies at a competitive disadvantage against other retailers and will do little to curb the smoking habits of San Franciscans.
In a letter to Newsom's office, Dennis Loper of the California Distributors Association wrote that the ban "limits the rights of legitimate retailers from selling a legal product."
The city's ban was supported by numerous anti-smoking and health advocacy groups, including the California Medical Association and the American Cancer Society.
Tobacco use is responsible for more than 400,000 deaths a year in the U.S. and is the leading cause of preventable death nationally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores, which also sent a letter to the city opposing the ban, did not immediately return messages seeking comment late Tuesday.
Now, besides the blood on Newsom's hand, we have farther oppression of the smoking community as well as the revocation of the rights of pharmacy shops who, thanks to the effort of Newsom, are now banned from selling tobacco products.
A spokesman for the Mayor's office says pharmacies are where people go to get well, not to "get cancer." Well, we should probably ban cough syrup (Mind trips), alcohol (Car crash, rape, wreckless endangerment, Korsokoffs, throat cancer, mental retardation, liver malfunction), all the drugs that are not fully approved as being safe (Chantix, causing dementia, pulled from the market now), nicotine gums/patches (carcinogenic), etc etc etc etc etc... Oh, we should probably prohibit the sales of candy, soda, ice cream as well... These foods cause obesity and diabetes, certainly not something one should pick up while at a pharmacy.
Let us also not forget this cities ban on plastic bags from super markets and pharmacies.
Does San Francisco do anything good or bear any point of existence?
SAN FRANCISCO - The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 on Tuesday to ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies beginning this fall, making it the first U.S. city to impose such a ban, a mayor's office official said.
The measure, which was proposed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, amends San Francisco's health code to prohibit tobacco sales in any pharmacy, whether a small mom-and-pop store or a large retailer like Walgreens. Drugstores caught selling tobacco products in the city will be fined up to $1,000.
"A pharmacy should be a place you go to get better, not a place you go to get cancer," said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for the mayor's office.
The citywide ban was modeled on rules enacted in eight Canadian provinces.
Similar proposals have failed this year in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Illinois and New York. San Francisco is the first city in the country to ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies, Ballard said.
Opponents of the ban say it puts pharmacies at a competitive disadvantage against other retailers and will do little to curb the smoking habits of San Franciscans.
In a letter to Newsom's office, Dennis Loper of the California Distributors Association wrote that the ban "limits the rights of legitimate retailers from selling a legal product."
The city's ban was supported by numerous anti-smoking and health advocacy groups, including the California Medical Association and the American Cancer Society.
Tobacco use is responsible for more than 400,000 deaths a year in the U.S. and is the leading cause of preventable death nationally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores, which also sent a letter to the city opposing the ban, did not immediately return messages seeking comment late Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
