|
Wait, wat? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_5
Seriously? Seriously? Interviewer: How long have you been out of work? Candidate: Oh, I'm not. I'm pretty good at my job. Just looking to progress my career, ya know. I see a great future with your company and think I'd be a valuable asset. Interviewer: Oh, sorry. We're looking for someone who's been un-hirable for at least 60 days. Later that day... Interviewer: So, how long have you been out of work? Candidate: Beaver Monkey Dishwasher! Purple! Interviewer: Longer than 60 days? Candidate: I engineer! ENGINEER! I make things go BING! BADA! PURPLE! MONKEY! Interviewer: You sound perfect. You can start today! *sigh* Or how about the companies who decide to lay off workers for 60 days, re-hire them, then lay off a different set of workers for 60 days? Is there any logic left in our congress critters? Any at all? Has there ever been any? For the love of Snarf, stop meddling with the fucking economy you damned dirty apes. It will do just fine without you :/
Judge judges salary; gets judged http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1
The problem is, when the pay is relatively low (compared to the rest of the legal practice) any sane person will determine how much extra pay is worth serving the country. In this judge's case he will almost certainly make at least twice as much in the private sector. Most likely much, much more. So who is left to judge? The less intelligent? Not likely. It's bloody hard to not only become a lawyer, but prove yourself capable of being a judge. No. Like other low-pay high-responsibility positions (teachers included) many will be people who value their cause and agenda over the money. Or who have a power trip. Yeah, you'll have a few who are wonderful judges and truly do it to serve their community. Not most, I think. And before you start, I'm not talking about the ridiculous notion of "activist judges." There's no such thing. Judges are a pillar of the separation of power and must be able to rule against law. I'm talking about racist judges. About judges who simply want to gloat their power over others. Impartial. Biased. Driven by un-judgly desires. So what's the answer? Pay caps? Lawyers will simply leave. "Oh, good!" you say. But with them goes a ton of tax income. Remember it's the rich who pay the vast majority of taxes. Not to mention pay caps go against everything capitalism stands for. Prohibit judges from quitting? Uh-huh. Raise taxes to pay them more? Yeah, that will be approved. Government has a finite pool of money. In my mind, it should focus its efforts on a select few things that are simply too abusable to be left to the private sector. Military. Education. Oversight. Regulation. Police. Justice (judges, in this case). Scientific research. Etc. Yes, I'd rather fund the space program than provide health care for "unprivileged" adults. I'd rather pay judges what they're worth than expand entitlements. I simply believe there are things more important than humanitarian care. Providing for all simply cannot be a mandate for our leaders.
Alan Turing again http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571 I'm not a big fan of new governments apologizing for old governments actions. It's also irritating when said apologies contain takebacks like, "While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time..." Still, though, I smiled. Turing's dust by now but I'm sure this is appreciated by a great number of living people. I wonder if he ever imagined the connected world we live in today would come to pass in part because of his amazing work. May he never be forgotten, ne? ^_^
Simple question Not trying to rile up anger here but it seems all my arguments against social programs come down to a single question: Why should government take care of people? Why should it feed the starving? Don't argue that it's the humanitarian thing to do. This isn't my question. I'm asking why government is the right organization to do this? The only answer I can find is that government is the only organization that can forcibly take money from people and do as they see fit with it via taxation. I mean, if everyone thought we should take care of the jobless out of the kindness in our hearts charities would be enough. Welfare funded by the state strikes me as, "Because nobody else will do it." It's Robin Hood, isn't it? Steal from the rich to give to the poor? Thus I conclude: Those in favor of socialism-type programs have no faith in individuals to do the right thing and believe the only way to save the "less fortunate" is to force the "fortunate" to pay their way via legalized stealing. OK; so maybe that was a bit antagonistic :P I'd still like to hear a counterpoint.
Fuck Europe http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/bu...bulb.html?_r=1 Look. I actually love CFLs. We've replaced nearly every bulb in our house (except the dimmers and our touch-dimming bed lamp) with them. The light is soft enough for me when a shade is put over it for lamps and the ceiling lights are there to provide illumination, not quality light. We get to enjoy cost savings (the bulbs are pretty cheap at Costco) and rarely need to replace a light bulb. They're great. Forcing people to use them...not so great. This is a blatant case of government abusing its power to rescind liberty. It makes me angry. It makes me sad when I hear people supporting things like this. Lots of people in the United States are voluntarily switching most of their bulbs to CFLs. And why not? They're better for most things, not to mention the tax incentives and subsidies. It's a free market with a bit of encouragement paid with taxpayer money. That's the right way to do things. Not ban them. Fuck you, Europe. My living room is ringed by beautiful incandescent dimming light bulbs. The fucktarded CFL dimmers are terrible. Really, terrible. I've replaced 90% of my bulbs with CFLs, but CFLs simply aren't acceptable for this one use. A 90% conversion rate is good enough. This is a goal achieved entirely through incentives and voluntary conversion. Will Europe get the same by forcing people to switch? Or will it just piss off a ton of people and not even achieve a 90% conversion rate as people stockpile and import? Who refuse to switch just because they're pissed they can't have a single incandescent bed lamp? Yeah. Fuck you, Europe.
The Welfare State
First thing's first: I'm certain this article has been taken out of context for sensationalism. That said, there is simply no "other side" of this argument that would make this less terrifying. Second: Unlike most libertarians I fully endorse the concept of the state taking children away from bad parents. I think it should be done more often and far more resources devoted to providing good homes for the kids that had to be removed. The rights of a child to receive a mentally and physically healthy childhood trump the rights of a parent to raise their kid however they like. Those disclaimers out of the way I'll proceed with my rant. The reason the UK is becoming increasingly 1984-ish is due to the Welfare State. Put another way, I believe socialism drastically increases the risk of a 1984-style surveillance society. I think the term, "Nanny State" is far too mild. Socialism does nothing less than turn the government into parents. And if the state is paying for your health care, food and shelter then why shouldn't it be able to dictate how you live? And why shouldn't the welfare of a society as a whole be valued higher than an individual's freedom? For the greater good, why shouldn't the state be in charge of your life? I don't really advocate absolute laissez-fare capitalism. I do hold both socialism and a mixed economy of capitalism with socialistic scaffolding like ours in contempt, however. While I believe in a minimal safety net I think it should be very limited. I think the vast majority of social services should be directed solely at children and the elderly. I find nothing immoral about allowing mentally competent adults to fail due to their own shortcomings. I do not find it imperative that all such adults have access to a minimum standard of living. I think compassion belongs in the realm of charity, not state. I'm against extending unemployment benefits further--I was against extending them at all. The only ethical use of taxpayer money to fight unemployment would be to use that money to create new menial government jobs. There's always work to be done that wouldn't conflict with private contractors. Those who are still jobless after all this time (and are of sound mind and body) should be cut off. If they have dependents who are unable to work (kids, adult dependents, etc) they should be provided for directly. But they cannot continue to be an excuse to simply hand over money to the unemployed. I'm sure there's plenty of heartbreaking stories about why various families shouldn't be broken up like this. Or why it's "not their fault," etc. If a charity wants to step in--great. If not.. The state simply cannot be the arbitrator of conscience. For us to thrive we need to let individuals excel far above the common crowd. The only way to embrace this level of individual freedom, however, is to allow individuals fall into the depths of failure. A social safety net almost always comes with a ceiling. If the government is responsible for an individual's health and physical well-being, why not their mental well-being as well? If the state must pay for an individual's dental care, why shouldn't it force her to brush their teeth? Go to bed on time? Eat only healthy food? Exercise twice a day? Why shouldn't we be monitored to ensure we comply?
Government Trust An interesting point was made to me a few days ago that has forced me to re-evaluate several of my opinions. Q: You trust the Government to run our military and wage war, right? Me: Yeah, of course. Q: Yet somehow they're going to fuck up our financial district or health care. Me: Err... Q: So you trust them to own tanks and kill people, but not to manage a car factory. I was a bit at a loss. I didn't have a good answer then. I do now. I don't trust the Government to run our military and wage war. They are, however, the only realistic option. There is no other alternative. One can extrapolate that thought and suggest that I therefore trust Government more than I do big businesses, insurance companies, etc. Yeah. I guess I do. I trust them more to make important decisions that affect the nation as a whole. I trust corporations to act in a way that benefits them most. I trust they will pursue the path of greed. Greed is efficient. Greed is non-discriminating. Greed is predictable, understandable and noble. It needs oversight, sure--but that's an entirely different topic. I trust greed more than I trust integrity, patriotism or honor for most things. For the military? Not a chance. For our police force? Of course not. To build our nation's infrastructure and staff our emergency services? Obviously not. To manage our health care? Well, I'm on the fence on that one. There are excellent arguments on both sides. I'm willing to say I probably favor Universal Government-run healthcare (despite my rants) more than I oppose it. But our factories? How the hell is integrity, patriotism and honor supposed to make a fucking profit? I don't want our Government running our banks or factories. Not when greed can run them so much better. So I can answer that question now. It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of efficiency and purpose. There are some things we simply cannot allow efficiency and greed to run. That's why we have government.
|  Categories All posts (2341 posts)Video (164 posts) Humor (20 posts) Review (22 posts) Image (516 posts) Rant (42 posts) Recent Page Views Recent Articles Tag Cloud Wow Russia Video Simon's cat Animated Sketch Teddy bear Finance Robot Humor Car Interesting Photography Cat Monkey Walking House Japan Anime Dog Food Heart Halloween Holiday Easter Religion Art Socialism Cute Fail Funny Dumb Idiot Awesome Review Dranok Thought Education Linux Government Libertarian Photoshop Terrible Clouds Austrailia Internet Picdump Cats Paint Image Colors Fish Wsj Creepy Gay Killua Draw Lineart Drawing Painting D gray-man Allen walker Music video Song Economy Opinion Cctv Big brother Squirrel Amv News Rant Article Story Link Technology Politics Shys Smokeherb cs:s match Intermediate Random Image  Recent Members |
