Why Michele Bachmann Is Wrong To Ask Iraq For Reparations

Michele Bachmann says Iraq should pay us back for giving them freedom. They should also pay each of the 4,000+ families "million of dollars" for their loss of family members there.

Okay. Fair enough.

But then we should pay the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq the same debt.

Sounds like a wash to me. Or a pretty easy way to increase our debt exponentially.

Michelle Bachmann is not a stupid woman, but she does nothing but say stupid things.

On The "Rich" And The "Job Creators"

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. - Alessio Rastani

To begin with, I'm in favor of taxes, and taxing wealth. I think people deserve to keep what they earn, but earnings are not the result of a windfall, they take time to mature into wealth. My views are unorthodox, but I'd tax exceptional incomes at exceptional rates. Nobody on earth is going to try to earn less money simply because it's taxed more--especially the people who love money the most.

Short term gains should be taxed at the highest rates. Long term investments should be taxed lower. Wages, actual, honest wages should be taxed at the lowest rate since they are the most "earned." I'd still tax income progressively, though, and my top tax bracket would not be $250,000.

A lot of the rhetoric in politics lately talks about the rich and the job creators. Frankly, this gets us nowhere. There's no unilateral definition for "rich." Even job creator as a class is ambiguous. Rich in Connecticut is different than rich in Florida. Rich in Greenwich, Connecticut is different than rich in Derby, Connecticut. Most people would agree that $10 million is rich, but some wouldn't. Some people find this whole conversation irrelevant, because their money is theirs. Period.

Job creator as a title is equally ambiguous. Anyone who has hired someone is a job creator. And referring to a class of people as a job creator doesn't do anything for the national conversation. Should we tax job creators? Absolutely. Should we encourage them to create jobs? Absolutely. Does offering tiny tax cuts to businesses do it? No, not really. But cutting their taxes entirely won't either.

The logic is that if the corporations and rich have more money, they will hire more. The Job Creator Fallacy. The problem with this logic is that corporations are hoarding trillions of dollars in loans from the treasury, and they aren't using it to hire people. They are sitting on it. They are buying their competitors with it. And they are buying patents with it. This actually gets rid of jobs with things like consolidation and excessive litigating. Congress recently passed a law to "reform" patents. This did nothing to solve the problem, though. Google shouldn't be spending $12.5 billion on patents, they should reinvest it, or create jobs. The same is true for every other tech company battling over patents.

The problem with this whole conversation is how polarized and politicized it has become, however. Liberals see the rich as a bunch of assholes hoarding the wealth of this country while taking a massive dump on the rest of Americans. Conservatives see the rich as benevolent job creators who want to reinvest their money in their companies and create jobs, if only their taxes were lower. If only America wasn't such a high-taxed, terrible place to house a corporation. Lower their tax burden, and the jobs will come.

Liberals would counter that this "race to the bottom" gains nothing. Sure, there are jobs then (maybe) but what kind of job? All jobs aren't created equally. There are good quality jobs and terrible quality jobs. And wages are only a very small part of the quality equation.

Conservatives would counter that liberals in favor of taxing the wealthy and spreading their wealth constitutes socialism, and socialists are very, very bad. Why should they have to give up what they earn to lazy, incompetent people who don't want to work, they'd argue. It's a valid point, but who says the poor don't want to work? Maybe no one will give them a job. It's one big circle jerk, where the poor man on the totem pole isn't getting his, but ends up with everyone else's "egg" on their face. And I'm not exactly referring to trickle down "economics."

I don't care where you are on the map of conservative or liberal views, but people like this deserve to be taxed. This person deserves to be taxed at the standard rate up until $75,000 (and I'm being very, very generous. Anything after that should be taxed at 100%.



Some gems in case you don't want to watch the whole five minutes or so:

The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.

The savings of millions of people are going to vanish" in less than a year

This economic crisis is like a cancer, if you just wait and wait thinking this will go away, just like a cancer it's going to grow and it's going to be too late

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.

When the market crashes... if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.

For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it

Until next time.

The Moral Ambiguities Of The Pro Choice/Pro Life Argument

Rick Santorum, if you don't kow, will probably run for president in 2012. Recently, he came under fire for saying this:

"The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the constitution?" he said. "And Barack Obama says no. Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

He then explained what he meant a few days later:

"For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country."

I know that there are few fights that incite more anger and vitriol in this country than ones centered around abortion rights, and everyone is entitled to their views. There is no right or wrong, necessarily, just right and left, up and down, et cetera. Views are views, they are unique to each person and we must all deal with that fact.

What never really occurred to me, though, is the argument Rick Santorum is making. I don't mean about Obama and blacks and slavery. No, I mean how he is arguing that an unborn fetus is a person, and that he would hope the constitution might recognize that one day.

I understand the moral argument against abortion. I can see how people would think it's wrong. It's not a choice I'd make, and certainly not one I'd ever want to have to consider. But, I know there are many situations where it is the right choice. For those who make it. And their choices never affect me, so I don't really get hung up over what other people choose to do with their own bodies.

But Rick Santorum is suggesting that unborn fetuses are people. People. But how? In what capacity? Do fetuses have any rights? Obviously he'd want them to have the right to life, but what else? I can't imagine what other rights they could give, really. I mean, they are unborn, they have no physical presence in this earthly world.

But what really got me thinking is death. Specifically, the death of an unborn person.

You see, if an unborn fetus is a person, and they have the right to life, then what of their deaths? What if abortion were illegal, but someone did it anyway? Who is the criminal? Is it the mother? The doctor? The father? Maybe it's all of them.

What if the baby is stillborn? That's really no one's fault, but that doesn't change the fact that a person is dead. Would there be a crime there? What about a lithopedion pregnancy, or an ectopic pregnancy?

When does a cell become a person? Conception? When they develop organs? A brain? A heartbeat? How does one even decide that? At the very least, I can understand the rationale some have for arguing that a fetus isn't a person until they are born, until they exit the womb. At that point, they are here, on land, independent of their mother's body. How could one pinpoint any stage earlier than that? Even conception is kind of early, considering it's mostly just two things mushed together to form a cell. (My recollection of health class is a bit fuzzy, so my terms may not be super accurate.)

So would that make abortions murder? Would they be punished the same way killing a child or baby would be? Would it be capital punishment? Is taking someone's life because they took someone else's just another moral conundrum? Especially if that "person" hasn't breathed their own air yet?

Is a miscarriage, or any other complication like those mentioned before, considered manslaughter? Because, when people dies, there are investigations. Someone is at fault when someone dies. A little kid in Connecticut recently died at a gun range firing an Uzi. His dad and the owner of the range were help responsible. If the mother's body destroyed the fetus or the baby, is she liable?

I don't necessarily think people should get abortions, but sometimes they are vital to saving a life. What if the pregnancy will kill the mother, should the baby be aborted? Would that abortion be legal or illegal?

There are a great many things that I do not know, and even more that I am unsure of. but I don't think we can or should legislate morality, because everyone's morals are different. In some cultures, shaking hands is prohibited, or rude. Some people settle arguments with a few punches. Sometimes, maybe it's necessary to have an abortion.

Besides, you have to admit, it's kind of ironic that people get so angry over abortions but those same people (generally) don't seem to have any problems whatsoever with the death penalty.When is it okay to take a life, and when is it prohibited?

Where does the line get drawn?

We're All A Bunch Of Kholops

It's true. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, Kholops are like serfs, except instead of having its etymology based in French and Latin, it's based in Ukrainian, like me.

It's no secret I'm not a fan of the corporatization of the world and the incessant bureaucracy that such a life entails.Workers and company owners nowadays are far too removed from each other, in my opinion. I mean in the literal sense, too, not just financially. Let's say you're a regular worker at a regular company, you might have as many as 3 supervisors. There are supervisors, managers, operations managers, department managers, so on and so forth. This system would work fine for me. In this system, you can, on a daily basis, interact with your superiors and work together. Unfortunately, this is merely the beginning; this is serfdom.

After the initial supervisory tiers, there are the corporate social orders. There are district managers, regional vice presidents, area presidents, presidents, executives, CEOs, CFOs, CBOs, CCOs, CMOs, so on and so forth. When is the last time you met any of these people in your company? How accessible are they? At a company with tens of thousands of employees, how can we expect them to care for one person?

We're all familiar with the concept of being just a number. I suspect this concept has its origins in prison, since prisoners are often prescribed numbers. Large companies, too, have to treat their employees in this manner; it's inevitable. I can't imagine knowing more than a hundred or so people well, so how could a CEO of a large company be expected to know anything about its employees, even their names?

In that same sense, workers are merely numbers, replaceable by cheaper workers. This is a big part of the current unemployment crisis. Businesses can be very picky about who they want to hire and how much they value them. People have to accept massive pay cuts because if they don't, someone else will. But then, how does that make us seem if we are so willing to devalue ourselves? What does is say if we are not only willing, but begging, to be another number, so long as that number isn't adding to the unemployment rate?

We are kholops, and large businesses are our lords. We work for them, they watch over us, but they are responsible for us. If we mess up, it's on their hands. As such, we are replaceable. In feudal times, Lords could sell or kill their serfs much like they can, and do, now in a figurative sense.

Financially, it's like each job level represents a social order, with pay increasing exponentially the higher up the social ladder you find yourself. Workers earn peanuts and the upper echelon of the company earns thousands of times what the soul of the company earns. I don't like this and neither should you.

This is why I love small businesses. This is why when I have money, they get it. I may hate telephones, but I can call the owner and talk to them, most of the businesses here even encourage it. When I walk into a store, the people there are earnestly engaging because they love what they do; it's not only their livelihood, it's their lifeblood.

I hope we can break down these walls that have been created. Every wall that's fallen has started with a small stone being removed.

On Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is kind of misleading. One would think, by its name, that it is the very least you could make and survive, but that's just over $17,000 before taxes in Connecticut, and ours is higher than the rest of the country's. I can't think of a single place you could live in Connecticut on that. Maybe you could hope to find a couch to sleep on at someone else's home, and hope they don't charge you rent?

I understand the argument people will make; minimum wage isn't meant to live on, it's for 16-year olds who are working their first job. Maybe that's true, but I believe there's a better way to go about it. Technically, for the first forty-five days (give or take, I'm not an HR person) they don't even have to pay minimum wage.

So how about we make the minimum wage something a person could actually survive on? Connecticut is expensive. Our taxes are high (we have the third highest tax burden of the country, go us!), homes cost a fortune, and land is exorbitant. So make the minimum wage something like $20/hour. Don't think I don't understand what that means though. Believe me, I know that people would argue that that wage would crush small businesses, but I think those people are wrong.

I realize that that is a lot of money; it's a bit over $41,000 before taxes, and I understand that costs three times more per employee than it does now. I can add up the numbers and figure what that would do to our local grocery store (who pays minimum wage) and realize the costs that would add on. I do realize that this would cost billions of dollars across the country and cost large companies like Target and Wal*Mart millions. But that's okay. I don't mind.

For what it's worth, if I ever employ someone, I am going to pay them a fair wage, not minimum wage, and here's why. Do I want someone doing the bare minimum for me? Say I owned a grocery store, does paying my employees minimum wage inspire them to care? There are a lot of theories in running a business, and I don't know any of them, but I know how I'd run mine: I want everyone to care. When I see school pictures from Lifetouch (or any of the other studios) I can tell the photographer doesn't care. The entire process is filled with people who don't care.

Lifetouch could actually use a pre-school photographer right now; let's look at what they want:

Requirements
• High school diploma or equivalent
• Customer service experience strongly preferred
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• Previous experience working with children preferred
• Ability to work with minimal supervision as well as in a team environment
• Willing to work a varied seasonal schedule, including early mornings
• Demonstrate a positive and professional image
• Ability to effectively interact with preschool age children and adults
• Accessibility to reliable insured transportation to reach assigned locations. Vehicle insurance must be current and in compliance with state law.
• Must have a valid driver’s license
• Ability to operate camera equipment
• Ability to travel up to 75 mile radius

First and foremost, they want someone who graduated high school, fair enough. They want someone who has customer service experience. I can see that being useful, but for pre-school kids? I kind of don't think customer service helps you deal with pre-schoolers. Communication and interpersonal skills are great, too, but four and five year olds require far different approaches with regard to interpersonal skills than, say, teenagers or adults. Just sayin'. Finally, they get to working with children. I think this is more important, personally. Children are very fickle, and can see right through you; knowing how to approach them and deal with them is paramount, in my opinion. The next few make sense and are basically par for the course with any job. Eighth on the list is the ability to interact with teachers and students, really? Again, I'd suggest this would be more appropriate at number two or so, certainly not eight. Astonishingly, though, is that second to last is the ability to operate a camera, which unto itself is incredibly vague.

If you think about it, though, you realize what their priorities are. Lifetouch doesn't want to hire photographers. No, photographers are expensive. They want someone who can take a picture the way they tell them to. Notice, they don't look for photography experience, just the ability to operate a camera. My niece is four and can operate a camera; alas, she doesn't have a high school diploma though, their number one priority. It doesn't talk about pay, but I'm going to assume it's not a lot; they're looking for, arguably, the bare minimum.

Think about when you go to retail stores and how unhelpful people are. Sure, you get that one really helpful kid that you always look for (that was me!), but most of the people seem like they could care less, right? Well, why should they? These kids generally get treated like garbage (I've seen it, and it's been me), they need to do the jobs of three people, and they have to deal with customers who are usually upset for a reasons that aren't their fault. So for $8.25 an hour, how much do you think they are going to care? Not much, they just want their shift to end.

Imagine if they were paid $20 an hour though. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I think it's worth it. Consider how expensive training employees is; companies hate having to hire people because of that cost. Most of the time they have to go through the pain that is hiring someone because someone quit or was fired. If a business owner needs to hire someone new because business is going so well, I doubt they'd be unhappy. I bet business owners would treat that process better if it cost them $20 an hour, but more importantly, they'd put more effort in because the quicker their employee can work, the better.

Anywhere I have ever worked, training has been an afterthought. They stick you in front of a computer, or have you listen to a CD, or watch a video. That's hardly effective training. It's like going to college. Book knowledge is great, but the real learning is the first six months on the job (from what I hear, I wouldn't know). You had better believe anyone I hire, will be trained by me. I want to know them and I want to trust them. An employee for your company represents you; would you want that person to honestly care, or be there for spending money, because that's what minimum wage is at its current rate.

At this point, I've discussed why I would pay someone a fair wage, but am I right? Moral obligations to your fellow man aside, what about financially? It is awfully expensive to be a human being sometimes, you know. Maybe I am a dreamer, and what I envision in my mind is utterly wrong, but this is how I see it.

I live in Woodbury, it is a small, but affluent town. We have a lot of elderly people here and probably more antique shops than I can count. But let's pretend it's your town. Think of all the business and workers in your town, think of the people spending money. Imagine they all made $40,000 minimum. Most who retail jobs shop where they work. It's convenient because they are there all the time and they know where everything is. Plus, I bet if they were paid well, they'd like the store more (and care about being there more). There are a lot of little shops here in Woodbury. We have a really awesome indie toy store, Geppetto's, but it's expensive. That is, I can't afford it, unless I really think the recipient will appreciate the gift. But I'd rather shop there than K-Mart. Actually, I wouldn't buy a toy from another store (unless it was similar in style). I do this because their toys are well constructed and will last, unlike those from most stores.

There's a grocery store here too. It's different than your average grocery store, though. There are two checkout lanes, they use a wood stick for an order divider. They offer local produce, and local handmade items. I can buy chocolate goat milk there (yum!), along with all kinds of spices and baking goodies I've not found elsewhere. But I can't afford it, although I really wish I could. I want to give them my money (and indeed I sometimes do), but just not enough of it.

I could do a lot with $40,000 a year, though. Combined with Krissy, we'd make no less than $80,000 pre-tax. That's a number I like, and it's just above the number surveys have shown is what it takes to make people happy. (Technically the survey is $75,000 a year per person). We could do a lot with that money, we could, you know, actually live a life. We could, and would, spend money at local businesses. We would buy handmade crafts from local (and not-so-local, thank you Etsy) crafters. We might go out to eat at one of the few nice local places once a week instead of cooking. Ayla's is good for lunch, too. What I'm trying to say is that we would inject a lot more money into the economy, specifically, the local economy. So while it may cost businesses more to pay $20 per hour, in the long run they will reap the benefits.

I wonder what's better for the economy, money circulating or sitting in stocks. Does it really help small businesses when people own billions of dollars in stock? I'm pretty sure if we all had more money, we'd be likely to spend it, no?

Good For Youth?

Something that I think might be even more important, though, is for the younger workers. Teaching kids financial sense aside, a higher minimum wage is common sense. There's no denying that we've become indebted to credit card companies. But what might surprise you is that student loan debt has surpassed that of credit card debt.

Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today -- both federal and private -- total some $829.785 billion

Yeah, we have a combined $1,656,285,000,000 (that is, one trillion, six hundred fifty six billion dollars) in debt between the two. Considering also that 84% of students had credit cards in 2009 with an average debt of $3,173, maybe having the option of saving is a viable one. I figure even working part-time, a student could feasibly save quite a bit before school, and work some during school part-time as well. I don't see how slapping graduating college students with anywhere from $50,000 to $400,000 in debt is a good idea. Perhaps a better, more honest, minimum wage could alleviate some of that. (The larger problem of tuition costs and banks shelling out awful loans could use a revamp, too).

Good For The Elderly?

I've had the pleasure of working with some amazing older folks. Granted, some were a bit ornery and obnoxious, but most of them were happy people who I'm glad to have worked with. But I don't think we ought to have people working until they die. I'm all in favor of people working because they want to, but they shouldn't have to work to pay bills at seventy or eighty.

Let's face it, the older we get, the more our health, and that of our loved ones, suffers. Healthcare is, regrettably, far too expensive. Social Security isn't exactly an amount one can live on, so we have to use savings. Healthcare can obliterate savings in a matter of months to a few years. Increasingly, people are working longer than they have to just to survive. What if those older people, instead of making a paltry $8 or $9 per hour made over twice that. They are capable, and work harder than most people I've worked with. And, hey, they may even enjoy going to work, too.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening. Minimum wage has stayed the same for fifty five years once adjusted for inflation, but the cost of living has skyrocketed. Minimum wage is supposed to combat poverty, but politicians who decide minimum wage don't have to worry about ever earning such a pitiful wage. Maybe they should.

Perhaps having public service jobs pay minimum wage could make a difference. Public service is, after all, a service, not a career. (FYI: most members of congress are actually millionaires). At minimum wage, politicians wouldn't be doing the job for the money, but for the people they represent. It's hard for me to imagine that a millionaire can understand my plight and where I am coming from on a daily basis.

For what it's worth, poverty, in Connecticut, is defined as $21,027 for a married couple with two children. I'm not even going to address how ridiculously low that is. I actually kind of wrote about it here, with some caveats. First, the numbers I used are for a married couple with no children. Second, I used $40,000 in annual salary, almost double the poverty level. My question is, if a married couple in Connecticut can't survive on $40,000 a year, then how can we expect a family of four to survive on $21,027?

Be Kind.

To Middle-Aged People: Ignorance Isn't Bliss

Let me begin by apologizing if you are middle-aged and this does not apply to you. If you are not afraid of technology, then I salute you; you are my kind of person. By no means am I lumping any group of people together, other than the group of people who pride themselves on their ignorance. That said, I hope you read and enjoy, nonetheless; maybe you will feel my pain. I'm sure we all know a few of these types of people.

Ignorance Is...Well, Ignorant

You know the maxim, "Ignorance is bliss"? It's total crap. Really, when is ignorance ever bliss? Sure, for the person who is ignorant, it's kind of nice, but they are ignorant, so why should that count for enough to coin a phrase? No, ignorance isn't bliss, because the rest of us, unfortunately, have to put up with it. But what's even worse, is sometimes we have to defend it. Oh, don't hold it against her, she's just ignorant. Well, maybe she should be educated. (For what it's worth, I didn't intend to suggest with that statement that women exclusively are ignorant, I just needed a gender and it came out, if you are offended, change "she's" to "he's" and "her" to him.")

I have, in the last five years or so, come across a lot of people who claim to be horrible with technology. Any technology. The number of people who use the same excuse kind of bewilders me. What is even more odd, is that I don't talk to that many people, although I did work at CompUSA. That said, I have never liked the phrase "I'm not good at". We all have things that try us more than others. I have struggled with math for most of my life. Am I no good at it? No. I'm pretty sure if I really applied myself, and had the right person to help me, I could get it. Besides, my trouble was mostly with physics, which is another beast altogether. But technology, computers, et cetera, how do people get away with it?

What is even more...infuriating, is that these people actually pride themselves on their ignorance. How is the inability to operate a cellphone a point of pride for some people? It's kind of like being proud that, as a man, you don't put the seat down, you proudly piss all over it (and the floor). (There you go ladies, there's your redemption from earlier. Are we even now?)

What ultimately bothers me though is that I worry for these people. The future is unavoidable. Five years ago, sure maybe you could get away with this kind of attitude. Cell phones weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they are now, computers could be avoided, Twitter didn't exist, and Facebook still required an e-mail address from certain colleges. But what if they get into an accident? What if something happens to them and they can't get help because they can't make a phone call and proudly never got a cell phone. Maybe these people haven't realized it yet, but pay phones don't exist anymore. I think in my travels across the fine state of Connecticut, I've seen maybe two.

I think that we have lost our way as a people. I think there was a time when people did things for themselves, learning and knowing a bit about everything. I'm not expecting the Renaissance, no, but maybe we can be more than one-trick-ponies. No, that sounds a bit unfair. Maybe we shouldn't be so scared of things that are new. Why do new things scare us?

Why So Scared?

I understand newness is scary; we like the familiar. But isn't there at least some exhilaration to cracking something new? I am not a car guy. Cars really don't interest me. I don't need to drive two hundred miles-per-hour, nor do I need a vehicle with six hundred horsepower. Truth be told, I really want a Vespa. But, if something goes wrong, I'd kind of like to give fixing it a try if it's easy enough. Case in point, a battery died, not on my car, but it died nonetheless. I thought to myself that I'd like to deal with it. Changing a battery isn't rocket science (despite what some people may think), so I figured I'd look up what I needed to know and spent an hour or so fixing it. And you know what? I liked it. Maybe it made me feel a little manly, but most of all I was pleased to do something myself and not have to pay someone else to do it. Am I now a car guy? No, not in the least, but I'm still going to attempt to be one.

As the ranking computer person in my family, and the ranking boy in another, I've found myself on the receiving end of this type of unapologetic ignorance. I have changed quite a few batteries, and screwed things that needed screwing (get your mind out of the gutter, mind you, they were screws). I've carried bags, plugged things in, and opened computer cases and that hardly scratches the surface. It's not that I don't mind helping. Honestly I like helping people. What bothers me the most is when someone asks for help because they don't want to try something. I can't tell you how many times this happened at my jobs. Every single one of them, too.

To be honest, I understand the elderly who don't want to deal with computers. I think that maybe they've earned that right. I'm not going to fault them for their stubbornness, but I know of quite a few elderly people who absolutely love their technology now that they've embraced it. But if you are in your forties or fifties, it kind of boggles my mind to ignore computers and technology as a whole.

Looking Forward

I worry for these people. What happens when you are at your job, which you feel secure in, warrants this technology you so fear? Consider for a moment that jobs are being consolidated. Companies figure why pay two people what one can do? Truth be told, the larger the company the more it seems like they want to consolidate four or five jobs into one, but that's a blog for another date.

Technology isn't going anywhere. Technology is here to stay and evolve, and the longer anyone avoids it, the further behind they find themselves. There are a lot of people who dislike math. Like I wrote before, it's not been my strongest subject in life. But you know who doesn't have problems with math? Mathematicians. It's not because they're geniuses. Sure, I bet many of them are, but I think it's for a different reason. Consider the fact that the people involved in the forward motion of math are mathematicians. They don't need to relearn everything, because they are travelling with math as it evolves. This same is true with computers and technology.

Once upon a time, computers were harder to learn than now. Instead of a nice, usable user interface like Windows 7, we had only console screens. Nothing but text. Did you want to plug something in? Well, lots of plugs were proprietary and there were a great many ports on a computer. There are still some remnants left on the back, too. You likely still have a printer port back there. It's, frankly, huge and takes up space. You may have a serial port too, which is much smaller. You may have a floppy drive, too. All of these have been replaced of course to become easier. Most peripherals connect now via USB ports. Fortunately, computers (and most technology) has actually gotten easier to use over time. Computers are actually incredibly easy to use, especially compared to twenty or more years ago. Cellphones, too, are really simple to use. Frankly, I'd hate for something terrible to happen to someone because they couldn't operate a cell phone. So, too, would I hate for someone to lose a job, or be unable to get a job, because they opted to ignore computers.

Looking Back

I remember the beep beep pang whizz of my modem dialing up AOL. I remember the first time I surfed the internet on a decent connection. I remember LAN parties at ten years old. Suffice to say that I am a nerd, a geek, whatever your word of choice for me, I am that. I grew up in a home that wasn't afraid of computers or technology. We had an IBM PS/2, an archaic bit of technology now, but it worked, and I learned on it. To this day I have fond memories of five-inch floppies and the games I played on that machine. As much as I love the new, fancy look and feel of games, I feel that that love is indebted to DOS games and that IBM PS/2.

I remember my brother, Chris, got a computer for Christmas or his birthday one year. Finally, I was moving on up. Yes, it was his computer, in his room, but it was as good as mine. I used it a lot, especially at night. I remember the rise and fall of Napster on that computer, the ever familiar "You've Got Mail" on that computer, and the beginning of my fascination with the internet in general on it. I don't know when it was, but I got a computer eventually, too, from my dad. It's kind of funny in a way, I only got rid of that computer a few years ago. I have a problem discarding computers.

The thing is, I like the environment, I care deeply for it, and I hate to know that I'm hurting it by throwing a computer in the garbage. But my computers have largely been my amigos, so to speak. I've lived through events in my live with them being a part of it. I feel like a lot of my views on life have, at least in part, been formed by my life on the computer.

In The End...

I'm not asking the uninitiated and ignorant people to delve deeply into computers and technology. I don't expect them to understand that everything is ones and zeroes, nor do I want them to understand gates, NAND operations, or the like. No, I just want them to be able to plug one in and turn it on. I want them to be able to take a cell phone and make a phone call. I don't require that they make accounts on Facebook and Twitter (though, I bet a lot of them would like Facebook).  I just want them to try and to realize that, ultimately, computers and all modern technology is precisely that: modern.

I suspect that back in the fifties when televisions were new people weren't so scared. Didn't watching tv together become something of a family event where everyone would gather to watch? It was new, it was exciting! How about microwaves? They were a technological innovation at the time. Cooking food quickly and easily? No need to fire up the oven? Yes, please! But now, all of a sudden, where is this enthusiasm? Aren't the people who are so afraid of modern tech the same who grew up with these innovations? How would they have felt if their parents were afraid of television, and instead held onto their radios like television would be the death of all things good?

Truth is, computers can be daunting. The internet invites us, our humble little selves, in our humble little towns, into the larger, grander world. There are a lot of awful and dangerous things on the internet. There's a lot to fear: viruses, porn, liberals, conservatives, Jesus freaks, atheists, hate mongerers, hippies; they're all there. But that is kind of the beauty of the internet, too. Everyone is represented.

I like vintage things. I like the idea of taking something old but functional and keeping it around. I'd rather reuse something than buy something new. And when I do buy something new, I like it to be something that will last forever. It's very difficult to find that kind of stuff around here though. I also like handmade things. No offense to big corporations, but I like being able to meet the person who made my (fill in the blank), or at the very least being able to talk to them. I don't know where my socks came from, or my pants. Nor do I know who made my television or my mirror. But if I buy hand towels from Etsy or a craft fair instead of K-Mart I feel more of a connection. What I'm trying to say, in an extremely roundabout way, mind you, is that for all the bad that is on the internet, there is an infinite amount of good to counter it. I can now find like minded folks, without having to move to a place like New Haven. But what about those people in the middle of nowhere? Where can they turn? What about gay people who live in fiercely conservative areas? The internet could provide the only solution for them. Sure, there's a lot of hate and controversy on the internet, but there's just as much if not more in real life.

So don't worry. Technology isn't all that scary. And if you need a hand, I don't mind helping you. I'm sure there are others, too, that want to help. All I ask is that you make an effort. That's it, just try. I want you to learn. I want to help you do just that. It's a crazy place out there, but it's the same crazy we're all used to.

Baby Animals Are Adorable, No?

Baby cheetah is cute.

Who doesn't love baby animals, right? There's something especially cute about baby animals that. when adults, will tear your face off. Unfortunately, there are some (let's call them mentally deficient) people who seem to ignore the fact that while bobcats may be cute, they have paws the size of my face.

This brings me to this little guy:

 

This fine young  lad is a Savannah, and the one cat I really, really want. Unfortunately they may be illegal in Connecticut. See, technically the Savannah is a hybrid cat. But what cats aren't. tight? Well, the part that makes it illegal, from what I understand, is that part of it's hybridity (I totally made that word up) is that its daddy is a Serval, and Servals are wild cats. Lamesauce. By the way. the mommy is a domestic Siamese. Picture that, big, male Serval mating with a wee little Siamese. Yeoch. I imagine it'd look something like this:

 

A few things I would like to point out:

• Yes, that is a full-sized adult male holding a Savannah; they are huge!
• Please tell me you see that painting in the background. Epic.It looks like a naked lady straddling a basilisk. I want it. (the painting, not the lady)

Savannah's tend to weigh around 10-15 pounds but can weigh up to 20. If you have a fat cat like some people maybe they can weigh more. The Guinness record for the biggest cat is a Savannah (18 inches tall  and almost 42 inches long). Yowza.

I think my favorite trait of the Savannah, though, is it's basically a dog. Imagine all the best traits of a dog with some of the more mischievous characteristics of a cat, and you have a Savannah. The cats are very playful, and can be trained, much like a dog. They will follow around their owners and are extremely loyal, whereas cats always seem like they're holding out for something better.

Savannah's greet people with head butts (as does our beloved Meatball)


and sometimes they can actually pounce. But this is more of a "Hi! pleased to meet you!" kind of pounce, not the more treacherous "Die! I'm going to rip you to shreds and eat your carcass" kind of pounce you need to be afraid of with other cats.

Savannah's are incredibly smart, managing to open doors, cupboards, and anything else they can get their paws on or into (See, little troublemakers!). Oh, and from a standing position they can jump 8 feet! Eat your heart out LeBron, there's a new king in town.

You know what cats hate more than anything else? That's right, water. Except Savannah's don't! They actually love water. Just like dogs, Savannah's will frolic and swim in water and, believe it or not, you can actually shower with them. It sounds bizarre, I know, and I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable doing it, but apparently a lot of Savannah owners do it. I think cats are a little to prone to swatting though, if you know what I mean.

I don't think they should be illegal. Sure they look scary (compared to most domestic cats) but they're pretty harmless. Unfortunately, Connecticut likens them to Grizzly Bears:

Possession of potentially dangerous animal. Bill for costs of confiscation. Civil penalty.
For the purposes of this section, the following wildlife, or any hybrid thereof, shall be considered as potentially dangerous animals: The felidae, including, but not limited to, the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx and bobcat; the canidae, including, but not limited to, the wolf and coyote; and the ursidae, including, but not limited to, the black bear, grizzly bear and brown bear.

That's right, owning this sweet cat is just like owning a pet wolf, bear, or lion. True Story. It just makes me want to break the law though, or move to another state.

Here kitty, kitty. Maybe one day I will own one of you, but for now I guess I'm out of luck.

Man Cat: A True Republican

A couple weeks ago, our republican friends in the senate continued their vow to get nothing done. You see, there was a bill up for vote called the Paycheck Fairness Act. Sounds understandable, right? Nah, it's actually a jobkiller because, if you're a republican, everything except tax cuts is a jobkiller. Let's dive into this bill, shall we?

First of all, this isn't a new bill; it passed the House of Representatives almost two years ago in January of 2009. That's how congress works, the House passes things and the Senate occasionally might vote on some of them. This isn't an exaggeration; through filibustering and other nonsensical senate rules the House has passed an astonishing 420 bills that the senate has just let sit around. It's kind of stupid when you consider that the house has several hundred more members to have to wrangle to get things accomplished than the Senate. But the Senate has the filibuster, their Golden Gun, so to speak. Not only does the Senate have the option to ignore bills the House passes as they please, but should one of these bills come up for a vote a mere 41 senators can stop a bill from being voted on. Yeah, senators are such children that they need to vote on whether or not to vote. And unless you have a supermajority of sixty votes, forty one senators can block anything from getting a vote to pass.

One such senator is Susan Collins from Maine (yes, a woman) who argues that the bill would place an undue burden on small businesses and "impose increased costs and restrictions on small businesses in an already difficult economic climate." That's right paying women the same amount as men simply costs too much. Not to mention, asking business owners to pony up that extra cash at a time like this? Hell no, ain't gonna happen. Who wants to be restricted on what they can pay a man when they have to constantly worry if the women they employ are also worth that much. Or maybe this will hurt men in the long run, because they won't get the raises they deserve for fear of needing to also give women that same raise, as Forbes suggests.

It kind of pisses me off when people try to blame problems on unrelated things or skirt issues by changing the subject. The major complaints people have is that women have more rights in wage parity and more resources to fight for equal pay. How is that controversial? The law doesn't say that you can't pay Jim $35,000 and Susan $32,000. No, what it says is if you're going to pay Jim more it has to be because he is better at his job than Susan is.

I think we've all been at a job sometime working our ass off getting paid practically peanuts while someone less skilled was, shall we say, more handsomely rewarded. Doesn't it suck? I know I've literally been in the room with a boss of mine while he thanked someone else and told them what a good job they did on something that I actually did. And when that person pointed out that I actually did the work, not him? Nothing. I can only imagine the strife and annoyance women go through on a daily basis in the workforce.

I'm not feeling particularly wordy anymore, and I'm tired and annoyed by this kind of crap. Over and over again and this childish behavior really out to end. Be a fucking human being already.