They say money talks. I hear mine talking to me, saying Bye-bye!
*******
TV infomercial: Are you ashamed of your ears? Are you so embarrassed by your ears that you wear earmuffs when you go out, even in the summer?
Well, after years of research, medical science now has the answer for you--an astonishing new medical breakthrough called VenEars™.
You don't have to let your ears embarrass you any more. Now you can have ears that will attract notice and admiration from the opposite sex. Just look at these before-and-after photos!
And VenEars are your own natural ears! You wear them swimming, during sports, even when you're sleeping!
Find out what VenEars can do for you to make you beautiful and self-confident as never before! And, they're affordable on most budgets. Visit your licensed, certified VenEars provider today to see how VenEars can change your life.
Copyright © 2013.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Yet Another Shooting
It's happened again, another mass shooting.
I've hoped that one of these times, it would prove to be a tipping point and there would be a loud outcry from millions of Americans saying, "Enough! This has to stop," and effectively pressuring their leaders to do something about these shootings and control guns.
Guns, to my mind, are nasty things. Some people think they need a gun in their home for "protection," but that produces accidents where a very young child picks up the gun and shoots herself or a sibling or parent. (Do a Google search for "father shoots son." It will turn up news items on sons being shot by fathers and fathers being shot by sons—often accidentally.)
But there are those individuals, and the NRA (National Rifle Association), who get paranoid at the very mention of any sort of controls on guns whatsoever. If owning a gun is not a God-given right, it's a Constitutional right. Never mind that (1) there can be a lot of arguing over the meaning and/or intention of the Second Amendment; and (2) there has been a significant history of jurisprudence holding that guns can be regulated.
It's no secret that the NRA is very powerful. The NRA very recently, in Colorado, backed the successful recall of two state senators who had voted for gun-control measures.
The NRA claims it's just a bunch of owners of guns for hunting and handguns possessed for protection or target practice. Why, then, do they oppose legal limits on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines?
One thing that should be understood is that the NRA has not only gun-owning individuals as its members but gun manufacturers as well who, of course, want to see more guns and more ammunition bought. For them, one or two or three guns per household is not enough (and I believe that, as a national average, we already have more than one gun per household).
Other countries can scarcely believe that America is so gun-crazed and that we put up with these shootings again, and again, and again.
Copyright © 2013.
I've hoped that one of these times, it would prove to be a tipping point and there would be a loud outcry from millions of Americans saying, "Enough! This has to stop," and effectively pressuring their leaders to do something about these shootings and control guns.
Guns, to my mind, are nasty things. Some people think they need a gun in their home for "protection," but that produces accidents where a very young child picks up the gun and shoots herself or a sibling or parent. (Do a Google search for "father shoots son." It will turn up news items on sons being shot by fathers and fathers being shot by sons—often accidentally.)
But there are those individuals, and the NRA (National Rifle Association), who get paranoid at the very mention of any sort of controls on guns whatsoever. If owning a gun is not a God-given right, it's a Constitutional right. Never mind that (1) there can be a lot of arguing over the meaning and/or intention of the Second Amendment; and (2) there has been a significant history of jurisprudence holding that guns can be regulated.
It's no secret that the NRA is very powerful. The NRA very recently, in Colorado, backed the successful recall of two state senators who had voted for gun-control measures.
The NRA claims it's just a bunch of owners of guns for hunting and handguns possessed for protection or target practice. Why, then, do they oppose legal limits on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines?
One thing that should be understood is that the NRA has not only gun-owning individuals as its members but gun manufacturers as well who, of course, want to see more guns and more ammunition bought. For them, one or two or three guns per household is not enough (and I believe that, as a national average, we already have more than one gun per household).
Other countries can scarcely believe that America is so gun-crazed and that we put up with these shootings again, and again, and again.
Copyright © 2013.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Why the Rich Are Getting Richer (and you and I are getting poorer)
The news recently has it that income inequality in the United States is at its greatest since the 1920s. That upper 1% owns a staggeringly disproportionate share of the nation's wealth: I think the number is that 1% owns 19% of the wealth.
And if you go "down" to the upper 10%, they control 47% of the nation's wealth.
1) In the past year, the individuals on the Fortune 400 (list of 400 wealthiest individuals) saw their incomes rise 19%.
2) Unemployment among those with an annual income of $20,000 is 23%, whereas unemployment among those with an income of $150,000 was 3.2%.
Update, September 18, 2013. Here is a link to a Huffington Post article that says inequality is at a record high, and that the median income has fallen for five years in a row: Median income falls 5 straight years, inequality at record high
Copyright © 2013.
And if you go "down" to the upper 10%, they control 47% of the nation's wealth.
- The declining membership and power of unions is one factor. Think Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's successful efforts to strip bargaining rights from public employees. Similar things have recently happened in a few other states.
- For another thing, it's been laws that favor wealthy individuals and large corporations and keep tax rates on the upper income brackets low. Thank your Republican senators and congressmen for that. (In the days of FDR and the New Deal, the top incremental rate of the income tax actually was 98%; today it's 38.5%. Yet the super-rich organize Tea Party rallies and shout that taxes are too high, but they are not trying to lower taxes for you and me, but for themselves.)
- And the lobbyists who do the bidding of extremely wealthy individuals and corporations and even submit to legislatures draft laws which are friendly to their bosses. A number of corporations have banded together in a consortium called ALEC for the purpose of lobbying, and ALEC has been quite effective. (Generally, corporations' legislative aims are fewer regulations as well as lower taxes.)
- And of course court decisions, such as the infamous Citizens United decision which gave essentially free reign to the super-rich to anonymously contribute to election campaigns.
- Yet another culprit: It was recently asserted—and I've heard this twice, now--that the policies of the Federal Reserve Board favor the rich by fostering low inflation over low unemployment. Obviously, if a lot of people are unemployed, that lowers their personal income level and income levels overall.
- Another way that the Federal Reserve's low interest policies are supposed to be favoring the rich: The low interest rate lets the rich borrow cheaply. They borrow, using their homes and/or their wealth as collateral, and buy commodities. (More properly, commodities futures, which are contracts to buy or sell commodities such as precious metals; oil; wheat or corn; coffee, orange juice; and the infamous "pork bellies.") It is true that it's mainly the rich who trade in commodities because the amounts of the contracts, in dollars, are very large.
1) In the past year, the individuals on the Fortune 400 (list of 400 wealthiest individuals) saw their incomes rise 19%.
2) Unemployment among those with an annual income of $20,000 is 23%, whereas unemployment among those with an income of $150,000 was 3.2%.
Update, September 18, 2013. Here is a link to a Huffington Post article that says inequality is at a record high, and that the median income has fallen for five years in a row: Median income falls 5 straight years, inequality at record high
Copyright © 2013.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
A Better Model of Homo sapiens
If you believe that God created mankind, I'd like you to consider this: I don't think He did a very good job. (This might appear blasphemous to some people, but the spirit in which this is intended is more one of whimsy. Or, it's what the physical scientists would call a "thought experiment.")
Here are some ways in which I think a new, improved model could be better than the existing model; or--pretty much the same thing, I guess--how I would design Man if I were doing it.
First, how about a human being who is incapable of lying? We would not have to worry about being cheated, conned, etc. Think how that might revolutionize politics! We would not vote for candidates only to find out, once they were in office, that they were not going to keep their promises to us.
Or, a model of human who was less fond of killing his own kind.
How about a human being who was incapable of believing incorrect things? We would not have superstition (like albinos in Africa being killed because their bones are thought to have magical or medicinal value, or rhinoceroses being killed to extinction because the Chinese believe their horns have aphrodisiac properties).
Of course there's a difficulty here: If human beings were fashioned such that they only believed that which is true, we might have the problem, in designing our new, improved model of human, that there might just be some uncertainty as to what is true. Even in Science, that which is true today can be shown to be false tomorrow.
So, this is just an exercise in fanciful thinking. But you have to admit, the prospect of a race of beings who could not lie is intriguing. (Any writer of science fiction: Feel free to use this idea in a story of yours.)
On a more serious note, for anyone who would like to indulge in further contemplation of the Nature of Man, I recommend the (long) poem by the 18th-century English poet Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man.
Here are some ways in which I think a new, improved model could be better than the existing model; or--pretty much the same thing, I guess--how I would design Man if I were doing it.
First, how about a human being who is incapable of lying? We would not have to worry about being cheated, conned, etc. Think how that might revolutionize politics! We would not vote for candidates only to find out, once they were in office, that they were not going to keep their promises to us.
Or, a model of human who was less fond of killing his own kind.
How about a human being who was incapable of believing incorrect things? We would not have superstition (like albinos in Africa being killed because their bones are thought to have magical or medicinal value, or rhinoceroses being killed to extinction because the Chinese believe their horns have aphrodisiac properties).
Of course there's a difficulty here: If human beings were fashioned such that they only believed that which is true, we might have the problem, in designing our new, improved model of human, that there might just be some uncertainty as to what is true. Even in Science, that which is true today can be shown to be false tomorrow.
So, this is just an exercise in fanciful thinking. But you have to admit, the prospect of a race of beings who could not lie is intriguing. (Any writer of science fiction: Feel free to use this idea in a story of yours.)
On a more serious note, for anyone who would like to indulge in further contemplation of the Nature of Man, I recommend the (long) poem by the 18th-century English poet Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
