Why are corporate big wigs for some reason treated as royalty? Am I the only one who remembers that the reason that our economy is in the current shitty state is because of them? Seems like everywhere I look I see the GOP falling all over itself to defend these asshats. We can't take back the bonus checks. They EARNED those. Never mind the fact that many of them are at the helm of companies that they helped pilot straight into the ground. Telling them that since they came to the government with hat in hand, asked for, and received money that they now have to start playing by some different rules, well that's just fucking un-American!
People also need to learn what socialism is and stop acting like it means anything that isn't designed to give companies even more profits. Take my work for instance. We have 30 guys laid off right now. This forced me back to what we call the extra board. That is the call me when they need me, basically it's an on call kinda of thing. Now one of the things that goes along with this is what is called a short rest. That's where say I work from 7 to 4, I can be called back out to come and work at 12pm that night after only 8 hours sleep. They have been doing this A LOT for about the last month. However, they REFUSE to bring any of those 30 guys back. They say that this short resting has nothing to do with the lay offs and the business really isn't up enough to justify bringing any of them back. Fucking could have fooled me though. Seems the business is up, and you do need some guys back, otherwise I wouldn't have to be coming out on shortrests and worrying about short resting all the time.
Basically big companies in this country piss me off if you haven't gathered. Personally, I think if they want to cry socialism all the time then lets give it to them. I say effect immeaditly all companies above a certian size in this country are hereby heavily regulated by the government. Workers pay, healthcare benefits, what their profit margins are allowed to be. All of that should be controled by the government for a period of lets say 2 years. Lets show them real socialism, and that GASP it works in certain situations. Though I suppose Europe shouldn't count.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Oh America, what shit will your media spew next?
I saw a commercial for this steaming pile the other day. That's right it's a "game show" where you have to track down a "terrorist". You're put into mock dangerous situations and the audience squeals with excitement. Why don't we just get it over with people, lets have a game show where some one dies. This, I believe is where American TV is taking us. America seems to have this obsession with reality shows, which really, just show people at their worse. Then you get ones likes Fear Factory which show people doing things they fear. Now this crap. Why don't we just re-instate the damned gladiator challenges and have done with it people?
Along with this post I'm going to include a little something extra. Kinda like when you collect action figures and they contain pieces that you save up to build something else. This is what I've decided to do, I'm going to add little snippets in some posts that when put together can give you an outlook on my views. Now, my friend Tera would want me to post something of our arguments about American media, but I'm not going to because I'm ornery like that.
Instead, something else we often argue about, women's Lib. Now Tera and I both agree on the broad outlines of this subject, but we often...... discuss the finer points. Now, I am here to say there are two things that she has indeed changed my mind about. One is the fact that a woman's title is dictated by her martial status. This is, as she pointed out, quite shitty. Being called missus, I now realize, does in fact convey that the woman in question should be defined by her husband. As such, I think that women should be called by the title of Madam, because it's friggin cool and would have nothing to do with martail status. Along with this is the issue of last names. I must admit that I was against women having hypenated names. This, however, was mainly because of what tradition had taught me. Women took men lasts names, I was led to believe, so the hypenated thing seemed strange. This was just me rejecting something that I wasn't comfortable with, which I am against in others. As it would be hypocritical to not hold myself to these same standards I have changed my view on this. Now, I think instead of the wife or husband taking the others last name you should have to come up with a completely new last name that both parties would change thier names too. Of course, I say wife and husband, but I want to make it know that I'm for all types of marriage and just used the above as an easy example because well, I've been drinking. One last thing though, stiff penalties for parents who give their kids first names that are corny when viewed with the last name like "Ima Pig" will still be enforced. Such as wiffle ball bat beatings.
Now for the second part. The use of gender spefic terms for certain things. Things like policeman, mailman, etc. Now at first I thought that the feminist were making much ado about nothing, but have since come to see this in a different light. I was reading an article, I can't remember which one, that pointed out that those kinds of words can have a determinal effect on women wanting to take certain jobs and really would it be all the fing hard to say police officer instead of policeman? The short answer is no, and really this is the only answer we need to worry about. However, I think it important to note that this is something we are going to have to pursue with the children. I think too many of use older folks(men) have words like policeman and mailman hard wired into us by the language our society uses. This doesn't excuse me from trying to make a change, but I can see myself years down the road being corrected by my daughter, if I have one, for using policeman instead of police officer.
Along with this post I'm going to include a little something extra. Kinda like when you collect action figures and they contain pieces that you save up to build something else. This is what I've decided to do, I'm going to add little snippets in some posts that when put together can give you an outlook on my views. Now, my friend Tera would want me to post something of our arguments about American media, but I'm not going to because I'm ornery like that.
Instead, something else we often argue about, women's Lib. Now Tera and I both agree on the broad outlines of this subject, but we often...... discuss the finer points. Now, I am here to say there are two things that she has indeed changed my mind about. One is the fact that a woman's title is dictated by her martial status. This is, as she pointed out, quite shitty. Being called missus, I now realize, does in fact convey that the woman in question should be defined by her husband. As such, I think that women should be called by the title of Madam, because it's friggin cool and would have nothing to do with martail status. Along with this is the issue of last names. I must admit that I was against women having hypenated names. This, however, was mainly because of what tradition had taught me. Women took men lasts names, I was led to believe, so the hypenated thing seemed strange. This was just me rejecting something that I wasn't comfortable with, which I am against in others. As it would be hypocritical to not hold myself to these same standards I have changed my view on this. Now, I think instead of the wife or husband taking the others last name you should have to come up with a completely new last name that both parties would change thier names too. Of course, I say wife and husband, but I want to make it know that I'm for all types of marriage and just used the above as an easy example because well, I've been drinking. One last thing though, stiff penalties for parents who give their kids first names that are corny when viewed with the last name like "Ima Pig" will still be enforced. Such as wiffle ball bat beatings.
Now for the second part. The use of gender spefic terms for certain things. Things like policeman, mailman, etc. Now at first I thought that the feminist were making much ado about nothing, but have since come to see this in a different light. I was reading an article, I can't remember which one, that pointed out that those kinds of words can have a determinal effect on women wanting to take certain jobs and really would it be all the fing hard to say police officer instead of policeman? The short answer is no, and really this is the only answer we need to worry about. However, I think it important to note that this is something we are going to have to pursue with the children. I think too many of use older folks(men) have words like policeman and mailman hard wired into us by the language our society uses. This doesn't excuse me from trying to make a change, but I can see myself years down the road being corrected by my daughter, if I have one, for using policeman instead of police officer.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Gun Control.
This is such a hot topic. People on both sides of the issue tend to take it way too far. As for me, I am for guns, but only in a smart way. Banning guns is not going to make crime go away, nor is it even going to make crime go down. Unless you can find a way to make all the of the guns in the entire world, the blueprints for these guns, and the knowledge already held by people to instantly disappear and never come back, criminals are still going to find a way to get guns and use them. The very definition of a criminal is someone that doesn't follow laws, as such they are not going to listen to gun ban laws and not arm themselves.
So, by completely banning guns all you are going to do is take them away from law abiding citizens. Let's not tip toe around it either. I am talking about the ability for someone to respond to being robbed, mugged, raped, etc via the use of a handgun. There are tons of studies out there that show crime rates go down when you legalize concealed carry laws. I would link to some but when I do I always get then "That's just biased, those numbers don't mean anything." Of course, numbers can always be biased. Remember, 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
However, lets look at this in another way. Say that you and two of your friends are walking down a city street. In the shadows is a criminal with a gun. Now, he knows that since these city has completely banned guns most likely the three people approaching him have no weapons. This means that his gun gives him the ability to do whatever he wants to those people. However, if it is in a city that allows carry concealed he has to stop and think, "What if those three are both better armed and better shots than me?".
Guns are a tool. Yes they are a tool for the taking of another life, yet you could also say that they are a tool that allows someone to protect themselves by having the means of taking the life of someone that is threatening to take theirs. I think a lot of the more militant complete gun ban comes from peoples fear of guns. They are scary, made to seem scary, as such I think a lot of people just have a knee jerk reaction that guns=bad.
All that being said though, allow to say that I am not for complete and total unrestricted gun ownership. There is a large percentage of idiots out there. They don't need to be legally carrying a gun around with them everywhere they go. That's where the permit part comes in. If you can't pass a simple class, or a simple background check you don't need a permit. Along with that, if you do have a permit you don't need a full machine gun. Even the military has gotten away from weapons that are fully automatic. A machine gun is a strategic weapon used as support, not a tactical weapon used in hunting or home protection.
Yes, I do believe that there are certain restrictions that should be placed on weapon ownership. As for the assault weapon ban, can we just forget that now? It was mostly a cosmetic ban, and designed to scare people. Let's have a little lesson here. Fully automatic-You pull the trigger the gun keeps firing until you run out of bullets in the clip. Semi-automatic- You pull the trigger one round is fired, the recoil action chambers the next round. If you want to shoot again, you have to pull the trigger. Now do you see the difference? Yes I agree that your average person does not need a fully automatic weapon, but there is nothing wrong with semi-automatic.
Basically, I say legalize concealed carry nationwide. Have a permit system for it. As for gun control, ban fully automatic gun but nothing else. I mean, yes there are some rifle out there that look really scary and militant. But guess what? If they are semi-automatic then they are pretty much the exact same as the not so scary looking guns. As for the banning the high capacity clips? That's an exercise in futility. There is not difference between one clip that can hold 30 rounds and 3 clips that can hold 10 rounds in the hands of someone that is even passingly good at changing clips.
So, by completely banning guns all you are going to do is take them away from law abiding citizens. Let's not tip toe around it either. I am talking about the ability for someone to respond to being robbed, mugged, raped, etc via the use of a handgun. There are tons of studies out there that show crime rates go down when you legalize concealed carry laws. I would link to some but when I do I always get then "That's just biased, those numbers don't mean anything." Of course, numbers can always be biased. Remember, 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
However, lets look at this in another way. Say that you and two of your friends are walking down a city street. In the shadows is a criminal with a gun. Now, he knows that since these city has completely banned guns most likely the three people approaching him have no weapons. This means that his gun gives him the ability to do whatever he wants to those people. However, if it is in a city that allows carry concealed he has to stop and think, "What if those three are both better armed and better shots than me?".
Guns are a tool. Yes they are a tool for the taking of another life, yet you could also say that they are a tool that allows someone to protect themselves by having the means of taking the life of someone that is threatening to take theirs. I think a lot of the more militant complete gun ban comes from peoples fear of guns. They are scary, made to seem scary, as such I think a lot of people just have a knee jerk reaction that guns=bad.
All that being said though, allow to say that I am not for complete and total unrestricted gun ownership. There is a large percentage of idiots out there. They don't need to be legally carrying a gun around with them everywhere they go. That's where the permit part comes in. If you can't pass a simple class, or a simple background check you don't need a permit. Along with that, if you do have a permit you don't need a full machine gun. Even the military has gotten away from weapons that are fully automatic. A machine gun is a strategic weapon used as support, not a tactical weapon used in hunting or home protection.
Yes, I do believe that there are certain restrictions that should be placed on weapon ownership. As for the assault weapon ban, can we just forget that now? It was mostly a cosmetic ban, and designed to scare people. Let's have a little lesson here. Fully automatic-You pull the trigger the gun keeps firing until you run out of bullets in the clip. Semi-automatic- You pull the trigger one round is fired, the recoil action chambers the next round. If you want to shoot again, you have to pull the trigger. Now do you see the difference? Yes I agree that your average person does not need a fully automatic weapon, but there is nothing wrong with semi-automatic.
Basically, I say legalize concealed carry nationwide. Have a permit system for it. As for gun control, ban fully automatic gun but nothing else. I mean, yes there are some rifle out there that look really scary and militant. But guess what? If they are semi-automatic then they are pretty much the exact same as the not so scary looking guns. As for the banning the high capacity clips? That's an exercise in futility. There is not difference between one clip that can hold 30 rounds and 3 clips that can hold 10 rounds in the hands of someone that is even passingly good at changing clips.
Hello and welcome or Why this isn't on myspace/facebook.
This is my blog. Like I said over there in the profile section I don't know how I feel about blogs. Yes I know they let you get your ideas and such down, but I fear they are just something people do because they feel they are being trendy. Personally I finally started one because I wanted a place to write down all this stuff I think about and say to myself, "I should write this down." Why don't I do this in a journal if I feel these are just for being trendy? Because, I being human, am vain. I want others to read what I write here and comment on it. I want to share my ideas, to be engaged in conversation, to have my hypocrisy pointed out to me.
Why the name Internet Roadstop? You know when you are on a roadtrip and you get off at the gas station? You find all sorts of things at those little stops. Maybe it's the world biggest piece of bubble gum, or maybe just a combination Quicktrip/Qdoba/Tobbaco Shop/Knife Store. Despite what it might actually be it's something unique, and most certainly a collection of ecletic things. This is going to be what you find here. You'll find things that are random, maybe insightful, meaningful, tired internet meme's and sometimes an actual well thought out debate inviting comment and counter debate. Sometimes you are going to find things you don't agree with. These are my opinions, and while I think they are correct of course, this does not make them correct. Feel free to tell me that you think they are wrong, but be prepared to debate if that is the case.
And now for one of those times. Why isn't this myspace and facebook? Because I despise those two things. Now, I've been told that is because I like to think of myself as belonging to some internet elite. This maybe the case but I have another idea I'd like to put out there. In high school, if you are a geek/nerd/bookworm, you are ostracized and made fun of. In normal everyday society, at least in the US, if you don't know who the next idol winner is going to be, or who the contestants are, you're looked at funny. However, if have a passing understanding of how pyshics works and can explain why Han Solo's claim that he can make the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs is funny.....you are looked at funny. Thus was born the internet. It was where people who didn't fit in these situations could go. Here you were regarded for how much knowledge you had.. Here was the place for the high schoolers that didn't like football but loved star trek. In short, it was a safe place where one could find a place to fit in and belong.
Now along comes myspace and facebook. On the surface these seem like good ideas. A way to keep track of your friends and share pictures. Sounds great doesn't it? Except that's not what it is. Really, it's just a giant trendy popularity contest. Everyone is busy sending inane bulletins and cluttering up each others pages with applications. Oh sure you can ignore that shit but then people look at you wierd when you tell them you hate those stupid applications. You're back to the situation where you can fucking explain how nuclear fusion can work but somehow you're the one left out because you don't have that app that tells you who the idol winner is.
That's what I see those two sites as. An attempt to bring to the internet what high school and society has. A way of trying to impose an hierarchy where those who are different are placed at the bottom. Maybe I'm wrong, but I look at those site and all I see is a popularity contest. Before when you got the wierd looks and whispering because you knew all about the Soviet Union but not who that one actor in that one movie was, you could go to the internet where those people would leave you alone because the internet was a strange place in and of itself. Now the internet is becoming one more popularity contest where people can be ostracized becase A)they don't have a myspace/facebook or B) they don't have tons of friends on those sites.
Message end.
Why the name Internet Roadstop? You know when you are on a roadtrip and you get off at the gas station? You find all sorts of things at those little stops. Maybe it's the world biggest piece of bubble gum, or maybe just a combination Quicktrip/Qdoba/Tobbaco Shop/Knife Store. Despite what it might actually be it's something unique, and most certainly a collection of ecletic things. This is going to be what you find here. You'll find things that are random, maybe insightful, meaningful, tired internet meme's and sometimes an actual well thought out debate inviting comment and counter debate. Sometimes you are going to find things you don't agree with. These are my opinions, and while I think they are correct of course, this does not make them correct. Feel free to tell me that you think they are wrong, but be prepared to debate if that is the case.
And now for one of those times. Why isn't this myspace and facebook? Because I despise those two things. Now, I've been told that is because I like to think of myself as belonging to some internet elite. This maybe the case but I have another idea I'd like to put out there. In high school, if you are a geek/nerd/bookworm, you are ostracized and made fun of. In normal everyday society, at least in the US, if you don't know who the next idol winner is going to be, or who the contestants are, you're looked at funny. However, if have a passing understanding of how pyshics works and can explain why Han Solo's claim that he can make the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs is funny.....you are looked at funny. Thus was born the internet. It was where people who didn't fit in these situations could go. Here you were regarded for how much knowledge you had.. Here was the place for the high schoolers that didn't like football but loved star trek. In short, it was a safe place where one could find a place to fit in and belong.
Now along comes myspace and facebook. On the surface these seem like good ideas. A way to keep track of your friends and share pictures. Sounds great doesn't it? Except that's not what it is. Really, it's just a giant trendy popularity contest. Everyone is busy sending inane bulletins and cluttering up each others pages with applications. Oh sure you can ignore that shit but then people look at you wierd when you tell them you hate those stupid applications. You're back to the situation where you can fucking explain how nuclear fusion can work but somehow you're the one left out because you don't have that app that tells you who the idol winner is.
That's what I see those two sites as. An attempt to bring to the internet what high school and society has. A way of trying to impose an hierarchy where those who are different are placed at the bottom. Maybe I'm wrong, but I look at those site and all I see is a popularity contest. Before when you got the wierd looks and whispering because you knew all about the Soviet Union but not who that one actor in that one movie was, you could go to the internet where those people would leave you alone because the internet was a strange place in and of itself. Now the internet is becoming one more popularity contest where people can be ostracized becase A)they don't have a myspace/facebook or B) they don't have tons of friends on those sites.
Message end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
