Remember back in those early years (if you are under 40, you don't qualify for this, BTW) how strong an emotional response you could evoke with the word 'hate'. How someone who had crossed you (even your best friend) could become the most loathsome creature on the planet, so loathsome that it blinded you, so powerful that you could feel the pressure to lash out at anything in your path? No? Funny, neither did I, until today.
Crossed the teenager today. During a discussion, I suggested in an overly loud voice that perhaps thinking about the situation at hand was what was needed, rather than attempting to make something work that wasn't going to. What followed was a "I hate you", and a steadfast insistence that all parents wish to make their (teenage) children suffer. No amount of reason (yeah, funny. Reasoning with a child, right? Sometimes I kill even myself) made the slightest dent. I was being unfair, and being unfair is an unforgivable sin. The hated one was not going to be given an inch of respite, no matter how many hours the argument drug out too.
Fine. As an 'old guy', I have a emotional investment cap that I set for myself. At some point I just have to say "do I really care that much about X?" ('X' being whatever the child, or whoever, is raging about at the moment) If the answer is 'no', I don't make the investment in working up a decent rant, and I walk away none the worse and not feeling any regrets. In the ever more infrequent instances that the answer is 'yes', then I have to make a stand.
So here it is. It's 'not' unfair to expect teenagers to pull their weight and do household chores; and I really 'hate' it when someone thinks they are exempt from doing them, whether they get paid or not.
Yes, I know. A radical stand, and a serious emotional investment in working up such a lengthy rant as well. Sometimes you just have to draw the line.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Monday, November 28, 2005
Your ALD and ELD have doubled!
The base value for an ounce of silver in the ALD system doubled from 10 dollars to 20 dollars at the end of last November. Anyone currently holding certificates or rounds denoted "10 dollar base" has effectively doubled their money. Silver rounds are available NOW. The "reminting fee" will be a buck fifty until January 20th, when it will go up to 3 dollars. Certificates, as stated in LIBERTY DOLLAR NEWS will be available in March of next year.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
NRA comes callin'
The NRA has called me several times over the last few weeks. It hasn't really added to the problem of 10 or more calls from telemarketers that I get every day; maybe I just expect better from the defenders of the second amendment than to be harassed at home by their monetary fishing expeditions.
A few years back I responded to a survey that the NRA sent me and ever since then they've decided that I'm a great untapped fiscal resource. While I think it's sweet that they thought of me, I have a little problem with them, and here it is. The NRA wants to protect hunting. Not the right to keep and bear arms, hunting. For the NRA the argument is only about the rights of gun owners to go out and shoot at animals as a sport, not about maintaining an adequate defense of the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. And that is a problem for me.
I'd give to the NRA if they only had the balls that they act like they have. If you want to know what I mean, drop by the GOA (Gun Owners of America) site and take a look at what they have to say on the issue of guns and gun possession, and then go and read the documents that formed the republic that was the US. Once you've done this you'll probably begin to understand that hunting was never an issue for the framers. Oh, hunting was part of the deal, while you were out drilling with the militia you had to eat something; but they didn't want the average person to have guns so that they could hunt deer on the weekends. The reason is, that an armed and trained population is a force to be reckoned with all on it's own. The ability to stand up and say no when push comes to shove is something that keeps the power hungry at bay. Or it should.
(And this is the real problem with focusing on the right to bear arms as the key issue right here and now)
The average man not just having, but being trained in the use of weapons is key to the deterrent effect. Outside of a few active militias, that training is sadly lacking. Without the training, guns in the hands of average citizens is a minor deterrent at best, which probably does more to explain the current state of the union than anything else. Without education, without an understanding of how and why things work the way they do, all our potential is wasted. A loaded gun just waiting to be misused. And misused it most likely will be.
A few years back I responded to a survey that the NRA sent me and ever since then they've decided that I'm a great untapped fiscal resource. While I think it's sweet that they thought of me, I have a little problem with them, and here it is. The NRA wants to protect hunting. Not the right to keep and bear arms, hunting. For the NRA the argument is only about the rights of gun owners to go out and shoot at animals as a sport, not about maintaining an adequate defense of the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. And that is a problem for me.
I'd give to the NRA if they only had the balls that they act like they have. If you want to know what I mean, drop by the GOA (Gun Owners of America) site and take a look at what they have to say on the issue of guns and gun possession, and then go and read the documents that formed the republic that was the US. Once you've done this you'll probably begin to understand that hunting was never an issue for the framers. Oh, hunting was part of the deal, while you were out drilling with the militia you had to eat something; but they didn't want the average person to have guns so that they could hunt deer on the weekends. The reason is, that an armed and trained population is a force to be reckoned with all on it's own. The ability to stand up and say no when push comes to shove is something that keeps the power hungry at bay. Or it should.
(And this is the real problem with focusing on the right to bear arms as the key issue right here and now)
The average man not just having, but being trained in the use of weapons is key to the deterrent effect. Outside of a few active militias, that training is sadly lacking. Without the training, guns in the hands of average citizens is a minor deterrent at best, which probably does more to explain the current state of the union than anything else. Without education, without an understanding of how and why things work the way they do, all our potential is wasted. A loaded gun just waiting to be misused. And misused it most likely will be.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Sony: What do they do for the pirates?
Have you heard the wonderful things that Sony is doing for people who legitimately purchase music on disk these days? Seems they install software on your system that hijacks your hardware and attempts to prevent you from copying their disks. Unfortunately it opens the system up for other malicious uses, not to mention voiding 'fair use' for all intents and purposes.
Seems to me you wouldn't want to punish the people who pay you money for your product, something I've meticulously done when music that I like is available on disk. You know, plan A: follow the law, reward the creative types with the money they deserve for creating the music we enjoy; doing the "right thing". After Sony's little fiasco, I think I'll go with plan "B" from now on.
As someone who does computer maintenance as a sideline, I've seen what it takes to clean up a hijacked system like they are describing. It's called "Fdisk, format, reinstall". If that's what you get for following the rules and purchasing music from the RIAA supporting music vendors, then I think I'm a rule breaker from here on out.
This is what you get for letting the corporations dictate policy for you, as the link under the RIAA above points out. Snooping bastards poking around in all the nooks and crannies on your system just to make sure you don't have a secret copy of Bob Dylan's version of "Watchtower" (or heaven forbid anything by Metallica) out there that you didn't actually pay for.
Do any of us need that?
I'm thinking of digging out all my old vinyl and re-mastering the content to MP3 just for the hell of it now. All those old Barry Manilow and Earth, Wind and Fire albums in fresh new MP3 format. That'll show 'em, right?
The Sony BMG rootkit scandal is finally winding down.
The settlement that Sony has agreed to includes a payment of 150 dollars to anyone who can show damage due to the rootkit, as well as replacement of any CD's which contain the rootkit. I hope the rest of the media companies are paying attention to this.
Yahoo story, ARS story
Seems to me you wouldn't want to punish the people who pay you money for your product, something I've meticulously done when music that I like is available on disk. You know, plan A: follow the law, reward the creative types with the money they deserve for creating the music we enjoy; doing the "right thing". After Sony's little fiasco, I think I'll go with plan "B" from now on.
As someone who does computer maintenance as a sideline, I've seen what it takes to clean up a hijacked system like they are describing. It's called "Fdisk, format, reinstall". If that's what you get for following the rules and purchasing music from the RIAA supporting music vendors, then I think I'm a rule breaker from here on out.
This is what you get for letting the corporations dictate policy for you, as the link under the RIAA above points out. Snooping bastards poking around in all the nooks and crannies on your system just to make sure you don't have a secret copy of Bob Dylan's version of "Watchtower" (or heaven forbid anything by Metallica) out there that you didn't actually pay for.
Do any of us need that?
I'm thinking of digging out all my old vinyl and re-mastering the content to MP3 just for the hell of it now. All those old Barry Manilow and Earth, Wind and Fire albums in fresh new MP3 format. That'll show 'em, right?
The Sony BMG rootkit scandal is finally winding down.
The settlement that Sony has agreed to includes a payment of 150 dollars to anyone who can show damage due to the rootkit, as well as replacement of any CD's which contain the rootkit. I hope the rest of the media companies are paying attention to this.
Yahoo story, ARS story
Friday, November 18, 2005
"You know what that means..."
Shaved off the beard (that I've been working on for better than a month) today in preparation for the annual visit to relatives that occurs every holiday season. I do this for one reason and one reason only. The only time I've worn a beard in this particular relatives presence, she was completely scandalized that I would wear a beard. When I queried her as to the problem with it, her response was "well, you know what that means..."
She's never completed the sentence. Actually, I do know what it means to me. It means it's getting colder outside and I want to keep my chin warm. It means I hate shaving and jump at the chance to avoid it (even though 'beard' is a loose term for what actually grows) It means I like to try growing a beard every fall. Don't know what it means to her. Don't think I actually want to know. Which is, in fact, the reason for shaving in the first place.
If I can't get an all in one guide to "what things mean", then I'd just as soon be spared the tortuous process of figuring out why something means something else to the person who is offended. And since I can't avoid family, I'll just shave and avoid the process altogether. It's the least I can do.
I wonder what she would think if I told her I once had an ear pierced? That I shared earrings with my female friends when we would go to clubs? "Well, you know what that means..."
She's never completed the sentence. Actually, I do know what it means to me. It means it's getting colder outside and I want to keep my chin warm. It means I hate shaving and jump at the chance to avoid it (even though 'beard' is a loose term for what actually grows) It means I like to try growing a beard every fall. Don't know what it means to her. Don't think I actually want to know. Which is, in fact, the reason for shaving in the first place.
If I can't get an all in one guide to "what things mean", then I'd just as soon be spared the tortuous process of figuring out why something means something else to the person who is offended. And since I can't avoid family, I'll just shave and avoid the process altogether. It's the least I can do.
I wonder what she would think if I told her I once had an ear pierced? That I shared earrings with my female friends when we would go to clubs? "Well, you know what that means..."
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Peak Oil
Scared a member off today by posting the following in response to a "What do you think of Peak Oil?" Question.
----
If such a thing did occur (sudden collapse of the economy due to lack of oil) there wouldn't be much left that is worth living for, much less investing in. Thankfully, there are replacements for natural oil that are making headway in the marketplace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel is one example.
When I first stumbled across the doom and gloom mantra being preached by modern 'environmentalists' (I was recycling when recycling wasn't cool, BTW. I don't think much of today's crop) I did some research into the subject of shortages and what has happened through history when they occurred.
The one that seemed most similar was the period when we shifted from whale oil to crude oil (the IMHO misnomered 'fossil fuel') there were similar predictions of doom and gloom, none of which came to pass because the markets simply shifted to crude oil.
I was unable to track down the articles I originally referenced for these facts, they have been covered up by thousands of repetitive articles on 'Peak Oil'. That fact says more than any number of historical links. It's the 'in' idea of the moment, and that's all they are talking about. But it isn't convincing to me.
"Why would Peak Oil be different?" (not my blog, but a good entry) quotes Steven Levitt:
What most of these doomsday scenarios have gotten wrong is the fundamental idea of economics: people respond to incentives. If the price of a good goes up, people demand less of it, the companies that make it figure out how to make more of it, and everyone tries to figure out how to produce substitutes for it. Add to that the march of technological innovation (like the green revolution, birth control, etc.). The end result: markets figure out how to deal with problems of supply and demand.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
----
Just don't have time to contemplate end of the world scenarios, I guess. Coming on too strong?
----
If such a thing did occur (sudden collapse of the economy due to lack of oil) there wouldn't be much left that is worth living for, much less investing in. Thankfully, there are replacements for natural oil that are making headway in the marketplace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel is one example.
When I first stumbled across the doom and gloom mantra being preached by modern 'environmentalists' (I was recycling when recycling wasn't cool, BTW. I don't think much of today's crop) I did some research into the subject of shortages and what has happened through history when they occurred.
The one that seemed most similar was the period when we shifted from whale oil to crude oil (the IMHO misnomered 'fossil fuel') there were similar predictions of doom and gloom, none of which came to pass because the markets simply shifted to crude oil.
I was unable to track down the articles I originally referenced for these facts, they have been covered up by thousands of repetitive articles on 'Peak Oil'. That fact says more than any number of historical links. It's the 'in' idea of the moment, and that's all they are talking about. But it isn't convincing to me.
"Why would Peak Oil be different?" (not my blog, but a good entry) quotes Steven Levitt:
What most of these doomsday scenarios have gotten wrong is the fundamental idea of economics: people respond to incentives. If the price of a good goes up, people demand less of it, the companies that make it figure out how to make more of it, and everyone tries to figure out how to produce substitutes for it. Add to that the march of technological innovation (like the green revolution, birth control, etc.). The end result: markets figure out how to deal with problems of supply and demand.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
----
Just don't have time to contemplate end of the world scenarios, I guess. Coming on too strong?
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Liberty Dollar
First time to talk about it, going to call it what it is. Anyway, Jason gave the site I moderate a favorable plug, I thought I'd do the same for his blog that plugs it. http://austinsilver.blogspot.com (Thanks Jason!)
I was introduced to ALD about 4 years ago by Michael Badnarik, back when he was just a computer programmer looking for work, and not the most recognizable Libertarian on the face of the planet. If I only knew then what I know now...
I'd have bought more silver, that's for sure.
I'm enjoying the fall chest crud. I'm crawling back off to bed.
I was introduced to ALD about 4 years ago by Michael Badnarik, back when he was just a computer programmer looking for work, and not the most recognizable Libertarian on the face of the planet. If I only knew then what I know now...
I'd have bought more silver, that's for sure.
I'm enjoying the fall chest crud. I'm crawling back off to bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)