Ramblings of a fictitous Lord

Wealth envy in your daily life

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:58:07 GMT

So, I was with the wife buying some groceries at the store today. The lady at the check stand had missed a couple of items and had to run them. My wife joked about it being her "free gift" like she does. The checker was obviously continuing the joke and said that they get upset about things being free. She then went on to say that it was probably because the so-and-so family (I can't remember the name, but the implication was that it was the family that had started the super market) has a company jet that they need to fuel. All well and fine, nice and funny, ha ha. After I left and was thinking about it... I was a little annoyed. Here's why.

This lady was obviously complaining that the family had "too much" money and then was implying that they were cheap and wouldn't lower their profit margin because they wanted to keep their company jet fueled. Let's assume that's true. Who the hell is she to judge? She doesn't know their personal story. Speaking as a small business person, I can testify to the sacrifices that my family has made for me to go into business for myself, as I'm sure they did as well. I know first hand how hard it is to get credit when you're self employed. I know how hard it can be to juggle your cash flow so that you get payroll out on time, even if it means you have to pay yourself late. I know how it feels to risk everything you have, and everything your family has, on your dream.

Since this family's store is now successful, why shouldn't they be able to make a profit. Why should anyone, especially the people who now have jobs because of their sacrifices and investments, judge the profit they make as "too much". I see this everywhere nowadays and it really pisses me off. I hear Michael Moore complaining that the workplace needs to be more "democratic". This is an "at will" state. You are not an indentured servant. If you don't like the job, you are free to find another. If you want to start your own business, you are free to do so. If you think that a particular business doesn't offer a good product or service, you are free to try and convince others of that. Where's the problem? That sounds rather democratic to me. Why does anyone care what they make? Why is it anyone's business?

I learned very early that probably the single largest factor in earning a larger wage is your personal negotiating skills. I'm not good at that which means I likely haven't negotiated what I was worth from my employers. You know what though, over time, and by keeping my options to change jobs open, my wages have naturally increased based on the merit of my work. I'm not angry about the probably 70% of people who are able to negotiate better salaries than me for the same job for the same reason I'm not angry with people who make a ton of money at the top of a company. It's none of my business. I pay attention to me, my life, what I need to get by on my plans and take care of my family. Nothing else really matters. In my opinion, if people spent more time being concerned with taking care of themselves, and less time being concerned with the wealth of others, they would not only be happier, but they will typically be on the path to better salaries for themselves.

Anyway, that's the end of my rants for the night. Good night, and good luck.

Parents

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:34:41 GMT

Well, as some of you may know, I had to move my parents back here from Florida and they've been living with me for the last couple of months. To say that its been adventure would be an obvious attempt to make it sound better than it is, but at least they are finally coming up on moving into their new place next week. The whole thing has really had me thinking lately though... I've really got to get on the stick and take care of some things so that my kids don't have to take care of me when I get old. Its been a lot of work. Who am I kidding, my folks have always been a lot of work for me. I've been taking care of their finances and helping them take care of day to day decisions since I was a teenager. I guess it isn't that big of a step to help them take showers now as well. Anyway, I got my few years of leave, I guess its time to get back to work. Fortunately, my family is finally at a place where I should be able to balance both now.

Anyway, I've come to realize that it will take sizable financial contribution to have enough for the wife and I in our twilight years. The facility I'm getting my folks into (its an assisted living facility) is $2275.00 per month for a 1 bedroom, and an addition $550.00 for the second person. On the bright side, it includes rent, 3 meals a day per person, utilities, cable, etc. Basically, you just have to provide your phone and a few miscellaneous extras. They have regular vans that you can schedule to take you to doctor's appointments, shopping, etc. They do activities in the facility all the time, as well as "field trips". Really, it isn't too bad, all things considered. Finances aside though, I need to try and get into better shape. Otherwise, I'll end up to crippled to be in one of those places.

On the bright side, I've probably got another 10 years of being able to do what I'm doing now, and then probably another 10 to 20 after that doing more of a supervisory capacity. Considering that all my current debt, including my house and child support obligation, should be completely paid off by then, its safe to say that my ability to save big is just around the corner. And hey, if I or my wife die unexpectedly in the meantime, we have life insurance which will pay off everything we owe and leave the living spouse with about $100,000.00 cash to go forward on. Actually, I think that's a little less for me, but that is the amount for the wife with the idea being that since I am the bread winner at the moment, she may need some time to re-establish herself in that capacity. Anyway, still need to do living wills, fill out DNRs for medical care, and that kind of stuff. What a pain in the butt.

Oh well, all things considered, I think we're doing all right for ourselves.

On a lighter note...

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:44:45 GMT

Boozapalooza '09 kicks off tomorrow. Give 'em hell guys!

Can't sleep

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:47:50 GMT

So, I woke up a couple of hours ago, and I can't seem to go back to sleep. I ended up bouncing around the internet looking for information regarding the 9/12 Tea Party march. I have been following the march since it happened and have been intrigued by the responses that I've seen people post on various blogs. As many of my friends know, I consider myself to be a libertarian. I believe in small government and as much personal freedom as can be afforded without slipping into anarchy. Obviously, I'm not a fan of the current administrations policies. It should go without saying that I am not a fan of the previous regime either, but from the comments I've been reading, I guess it is important to say that. Most of my in-laws are decidedly not libertarian. I'm not sure how they self identify, but its safe to say that they fall soundly into the liberal (democrat-esque) sphere. I am always interested in their opinions because even though we share dramatically different world views, I consider them all to be fundamentally good people who are therefore worth listening to.

Bearing that last bit in mind, I decided to visit a website that I know my mother-in-law frequents called "truthout.org". Since I know she spends a lot of time there, I decided to visit the site and see what they may have written about the 9/12 march. What I found was this. I realize that there are many motivations on both sides of the fence for either inflating or deflating the rally attendance numbers (this particular article sticks with the "tens of thousands" description posited by ABC news) but this article goes in a whole different direction. First off, there will never be official numbers, but a fairly impartial look utilizing basic math skills as demonstrated here clearly demonstrates that the march should be more accurately measured in hundreds of thousands, not tens. Taking that little tidbit into account makes the truthout article even more offensive to me. It brands the entire rally as a KKK gathering without the hoods. I've heard a lot of use of use of the term "racist" lately so I guess I'm not entirely surprised as an awful lot of the blogging out there seems to imply the same. I guess I probably would dismiss it outright if it wasn't for the fact that I'm certain my mother in law has read it.

In my opinion, the rally was first and foremost a demonstration of people concerned about government spending and in particular, upset about the currently proposed healthcare reform. While I am not denying that there are likely to be racists at every large rally, I find it highly unlikely that a rally of hundreds of thousands consisting of people from all over the nation were there at the capital in DC with a message of racism. It bothers me a bit to think that if my mother-in-law has read this article (which in all likelihood she has) that she may consider this march racist. Further, if she does, will she think I am a racist should we ever have a conversation about it in which I mention that I agree with what I believe to be the message of this march? Maybe what bothers me more is that increasingly (from my perspective) many of my political views are being criticized again and again as racist. To me it seems as though disagreeing with current policy is being called racist. For instance, while I think Wilson's outburst during the president's speech on healthcare (the now infamous "you lie!" outburst) was rude and a breach of acceptable protocol, I don't see anything racially motivated in it. However, Jimmy Carter an one of the gentlemen in this interview clearly disagree.

I'm not trying to be smarmy with this post, or sway the masses in any tangible way as so many of the blogs (on both the left and the right) are doing. Frankly, few if any will read it anyway. I am just confused, possibly a little offended, and in a state of bewilderment over the racist allegations I have been reading lately. While my thinking to date has been largely a feeling that most of these claims are unjustified, I find myself needing to ask the question of my friends who may be reading this. Do any of you see the nefarious hand of racism here? Any feedback is appreciated.

Boozapalooza '09

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:33:31 GMT

Well, its time. I've been talking things over with redoubtable1 and if anyone has any ideas for cabins for our upcoming "epic", I'd love to hear it. The good ones appear to have been ransacked immediately upon becoming available. We could still look for private cabins if you're interested, but I need to hear back from folks soon, otherwise, I'll plan to pick a good campsite.

Washington State Senate Bill 5104

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:11:30 GMT

I haven't posted in a while cause I've been quite busy as of late. I felt that this merited a quick post though. Apparently, there are those in Olympia who feel that we need an income tax in addition to our current list.

WA State Bill 5104

If you want to find your Legislator, go here:

Find your legislator

There are links once you find them to send e-mails to one or all of them, as well as phone numbers, addresses, etc...

Just to give you an idea of how many taxes and fees we already have in place, here's a quick list I lifted from a thread. Please note that it appears to include Federal taxes and I haven't had the time to verify all of them, but a quick glance seems to match up with the list of taxes I recall from my state UBI application/manual. It at least gives you a good idea as to how many revenue streams the government already has:

Accounts Receivable Tax
B&O Tax
BIA Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigar Tax
Cigarette Tax
City B&O Tax
Convention and Trade Center Tax
Corporate Income Tax
County/Parish Tax
Concealed Pistol License Tax
Dealer’s Tax
Dog License Tax
Employee Hours Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Food & Beverage Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gambling Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hazardous Substance Tax
Hospital Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Insurance Agent Commission Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties(non-deductible tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Motor Vehicle Sales and Lease Tax
Personal Property Tax
Petroleum Products Tax
Police District Tax
Property Tax
Radioactive Waste Cleanup Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Restaurant/Hotel Tax
RTA Tax
School Tax
State Disability Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Syrup Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Tire Fee
Transaction Tax
Use Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Wireless State Enhanced 911 Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Surveys, surveys

Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:22:41 GMT

The Life Experience Test

Overall, you have partaken in 84 out of 169 possible life experiences.
Your average life experience score is therefore 50%.

The average score is 52%, making your experiences more than 41% of the people who have taken this test.
The average for your age group (26-35) is 53%.

Broken down by category:
Art: 4/17 (24%)

Career & Work: 10/13 (77%)

Civics & Technology: 4/7 (57%)

Crime & Disarray: 3/11 (27%)

Education: 11/18 (61%)

Fashion: 5/10 (50%)

Fitness, Health and Sports: 4/7 (57%)

Life in General: 7/14 (50%)

Relationships: 12/14 (86%)

Religion & Politics: 1/4 (25%)

Social: 12/22 (55%)

Travel: 3/20 (15%)

Vices: 8/12 (67%)

Take the test and see how YOU compare

Results thus far

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:37:00 GMT

So, I have been conducting research on child support, or more specifically, the current child support system. It's interesting and more than a little disturbing, at least to me. Basically, it starts with the establishment of the federal agency of the Office of Child Support Enforcement. There are several articles which explain the evolution and discuss the system in its current form: policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/crowley/SSR-2003.pdf, www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/FatherMag/Inc_Shares/Inc_Shares.htm, www.spig.clara.net/ch-supp/i-shares.htm, mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/28/a-dire-warning-for-families-from-the-rnc/. To summarize, the government system began as a program targeting those in need of government welfare programs and when the feds began tying funding for state programs to the dollar amount of child support collection, the states began expanding the programs to as many people as they could get their hands on. Yes, that's correct, your state makes a tremendous amount of money (from its perspective as federal income tax dollars go to pay for these incentives) collecting child support and it is in its best interests to have those dollar amounts as high as possible. My understanding is that currently the state of Washington profits almost 3 million per year on the child support system. Yes, profits... as in after expenses. That goes a long way in explaining why the Income Shares model has become the dominant formula for calculating child support in 37 states (or an alternative and equally unfair model used in the remaining states). The formula itself, without introducing hard limits (almost all state implementations have to add hard income bracket limits) can and frequently does create child support payments for obligor (legal speak for the person who owes child support) larger than that persons net income. Does that sound at all like a mathematical formula that should be used to calculate the presumptive (more legal speak for the default amount legally considered reasonable in EVERY case unless there are mitigating circumstances) amount of child support?

In this post, I won't bore you with all the details of the formula (its actually broken down in great detail in the links I put in this post) but suffice it to say that completely unfair and because of the repeated court challenges it has created, the legal definition of child support has been substantially mangled. While child support used to be the amount of money going to provide for the child's subsistence, it is now considered to be the amount of money going to sustain the child at a standard of living concomitant with the divorcing parents' income. In other words, there is essentially alimony thrown in to maintain the custodial parent at a standard of living that the court presumes the child would have had if the parents had stayed together. Yes, you can still have to pay alimony on top of that as most people in the child support system don't consider any part of your child support to be alimony. And, in the great state of Washington, you also have to pay your proportionate share of daycare and other extraordinary expenses as well. Take heart though, I believe they can't take more than half of your net income... just make sure you make enough to be able to afford a place to live though, otherwise you can have your ability to see your kids taken away because you aren't providing a place for them live when they are with you.

Its frustrating to me as man in a divorce situation (because even though you are repeatedly told that this is all about the best interests of the child and that gender has no bearing on the decision, statistics clearly show that 95% of cases award custody to the mother) that when I discuss these issues with most people I am immediately dismissed as a man who just doesn't want to pay his child support. Even my own mother in law (with whom I have a great relationship) has argued against reform because "you don't want to take money away from the kids". Basically, the perception is that men suck, they don't care about their kids or responsibilities, and they should be forced to fork over tons of money to the benevolent mothers who always apply the funds to raise the children in the best possible way. I'm admittedly a little biased here. It's difficult to have gone through this situation beginning under the quite naive notion that I would have equal consideration as the custodial parent under the law and not develop a bias 10 years later... especially because this state sends documents to my son's mother every two years requiring her only to have "sign here" in order to have the state prosecute me for more child support (at least generally so. Occasionally if you have had a bad couple of years with no prospects of it getting better, it will go down). Our tax dollars at work. Isn't it grand?

I have a lot more to write on this subject, just not the time at the moment. I am collecting information and intend to collect statistics and realistic child rearing expenses over the coming months, mostly as a mental exercise to attempt to shed some of the angst I have over this whole debacle. Obviously, my experience has been a bitter one. I guess the question I would leave people with is this... If there were to be a people's initiative binding judges in divorce cases to give first option of being the custodial parent (in cases of "all things being equal") to the parent who would have the majority support obligation (in other words, the one who would have to pay the most should they bear the child support obligation), would you sign it and do you think others would as well? My son has suffered considerably because of a system that treats me in practice as only having value as a paycheck. I feel strongly that if we really care about the best interests of the child that the system needs serious reform. Right now though, I don't feel like anyone other than fathers who have been in my position care, and more to the point, I feel like people dismiss complaints from folks like me because they believe me to be cheap. I appreciate your thoughts on the topic. Thanks!

Well this is frustrating

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:00:41 GMT

So, I guess in Washington state this year we have pretty much insured that we don't have a third option. Due to our "top-two" initiative, there is not a single third party listed on the ballot. This sucks. It sucks a lot. While the initiative is being challenged in supreme court, it won't be done in time to have an effect this year.

My new campaign

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:53:38 GMT

So, I have been discussing the campaign with friends and over lunch it came up that Washington is a forgone conclusion for Obama, and frankly, yes it is. I don't feel that either of the two candidates running have a plan that will end well, let alone fix anything. Therefore, I have decided that this year, rather than trying to "pick the lesser of two evils", I wish to encourage anyone not voting for Obama (within the state of Washington) to vote for someone other than McCain. How else can we demonstrate to the masses that there are other options, and more importantly that they deserve to have a nationally public voice. For decades we have been stuck in a political duopoly with both sides lurching ever closer to the same agendas. You can really put the fundamental differences between the parties (other than bullshit posturing) down in like 10 items or less, several of which are retarded to continue to debate over. We should be pushing to have a national call to implement a "top three" type of system where you list your top 3 candidates allowing people to vote first for who they want, followed by their secondary choices. This would help remove the power of the duopoly and allow the cream to rise to the top instead of crap to be drudged up from the bottom.

There are always at least 3 sides to an argument. Isn't it time we started to hear more than 2?

The results are in....

Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:22:39 GMT

You are a
Social Liberal
(80% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(73% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Libertarian

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also : The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

</center>

Teh gout fairy - Part 2

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:21:28 GMT

So, even though I have dramatically altered my diet, apparently, I am not free of teh gout fairy yet. I have had another flare up, but this time my doctor wanted to do the only test that will 100% confirm it to be gout. Basically, they have to stick a needle into the inflamed joint and extract some fluid to put under the microscope and verify the presence of uric acid crystals. This has to be done under a constant X-ray so that they can see where the need is going. Suffice it to say, I have a new definition of pain. So, what did that accomplish?

Well, really it just made my doctor comfortable with the fact that I now have chronic gout. Apparently the previous three episodes and the fact that they all responded to colchicine (yes, it only works on gout which you think would have been a clue) wasn't enough of a clue for him so he had to put me through this test in order to tell me, yes, you have gout, even though you are atypical of gout sufferers who generally speaking have elevated blood serum levels of uric acid. Even though medical documentation clearly states that the presence of elevated uric acid levels in blood serum isn't necessarily an indicator one way or the other, apparently that is my doctor's primary indicator. What a tard. Its been coming for a while, but its time to start looking for a new doctor, one that perhaps has a modicum of diagnostic capability. Oh well, in the meantime, he can at least get me started on suppressive medication. Its just irritating that I have to double check my doctor's work and pay him at the same time.

Arg! The other pirates be doin' it...

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:47:30 GMT

Arg! Avast ye land lubbers... Surrender the booty! Wife? Are ye listnen'? :)

My pirate name is:

Iron Davy Bonney

A pirate's life isn't easy; it takes a tough person. That's okay with you, though, since you a tough person. You can be a little bit unpredictable, but a pirate's life is far from full of certainties, so that fits in pretty well. Arr!

Get your own pirate name from piratequiz.com.
part of the fidius.org network

Was Jesus Black?

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:23:08 GMT

So, before I even begin this post, I'd like to point out several things. First, I do not consider myself religious (spiritual perhaps, but even that is debatable) and by no stretch of the imagination could anyone truly consider me to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I have no personal stake in this question and merely find it to be a fascinating mental exercise. So, on to it...

Biblically speaking, most people supporting the "Jesus was Black" theory reference this passage of Revelation: www.biblegateway.com/passage/. You'll note that I have included several popular versions of the bible in my search. For those who don't want to open up another page, here's a summary of the quotes:
Revelation 1:13-15

American Standard Version (ASV)
13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle.
14 And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 and his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and his voice as the voice of many waters.

King James Version (KJV)
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
13 and in the midst of the seven lamp-stands, [one] like to a son of man, clothed to the foot, and girt round at the breast with a golden girdle,
14 and his head and hairs white, as if white wool -- as snow, and his eyes as a flame of fire;
15 and his feet like to fine brass, as in a furnace having been fired, and his voice as a sound of many waters,

New International Version (NIV)
13 and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"[a]dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.
14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire.
15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters.

The onus of the argument is that his hair was like wool and that his feet were like bronze or brass, thus leading to the conclusion that he was black. However, read the various accounts for yourself and indeed the whole of Revelation 1 and you like me will likely conclude several things. One, this whole passage is a description of a vision, not an actual physical account as inferred from the argument. Two, most accounts imply that his feet were like brass or bronze "glowing" as if in a fire. Three, His head, as well as his hair, was white. Fourth and final, the depiction of his voice as "the sound of many waters" cements the notion that the passage is conveying him in a supernatural light and therefore the depiction of various colors are far more likely to be representative of a visual distortion (geeking out for a second here... but no doubt the side effect of occupying more than 3 dimensions) not unlike the explicit audible distortion of his voice previously mentioned.

This above is the only explicit passage I can find specifically discussing Jesus' appearance. Now, the next argument, which I find personally more compelling, is to simply look at the region which Jesus was from. I do find it highly unlikely that Jesus looked like the long haired white dude we typically see depicted in churches. However, that in and of itself does not imply he was black. Every ethnicity has ranges of skin tone, though there does tend to be a predominant range (much like a single station on a radio dial). I think that most people would consider the term "black" to refer to dark skin and "negroid" facial features like the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa. According to many, many references, Jesus was Jewish. Jews range greatly in color and before the argument comes that Jewish is a religion and not a "race" (though more accurately it would be an ethnicity) I would like to direct your attention to DNA evidence showing strong genetic similarities among those of "Jewish" descent, stronger in fact than many recognized ethnic distinctions that are commonly recognized such Irish, Nordic, Slavic, etc... I guess, while I'm on the subject, I should tangentially relate that DNA evidence shows that no genetic differences are great enough to qualify any ethnicity as a separate "race". We are all human, plain and simple.

The next argument is that Jesus hid among the Egyptians so he must have looked like them. Several holes in this postulation as well. First, its not like he was on America's Most Wanted. They didn't post signs with his picture and description in all the neighboring kingdoms. As evidenced by the many and varied stories of the American West, all one typically had to do to hide in the old days was simply get out of town. Egypt was a thriving nation, with people coming and going all the time. Why wouldn't he fit in regardless of skin tone? Second, isn't Jesus supposed to be godlike? Couldn't he hide wherever he wanted?

There are more arguments, many of which delve in to what amounts to conspiracy theories such as there were no white (read "light skinned") people in Ethiopia before the Caucasians began invading. However, recent genetic studies have concluded that specifically the region of Ethiopia has had almost spontaneous changes in skin color (read genetically "white" Ethiopians) without outside Caucasian genetic influence for much if not most of its history.

Bottom line here. I can not rule out that Jesus was black, no more than I can that he was white. The most likely answer is that he was somewhere in the middle (um... Jewish, yes?). I also cannot rule out that there was a darker purpose in depicting Jesus as white on the part of Caucasians, though Occam's Razor would more likely lead us to conclude that as Jesus was adopted as the lord savior by Caucasians, they made images of him in their own image because they lacked definition to the contrary, something people of all ethnicities have been likely to do throughout history.

I find it interesting that this topic should be so polarizing. As I have done research on it, I have come across some of the most angry accusations and arguments I have ever read. I don't understand why to people of faith, this is such a heated topic. Should it really matter? I'm interested to see any comments or differing opinions on the matter. Though I would like to conclude with this... Again, I am not religious and have no personal stake in this. This post is not intended to be inflammatory in any way and I would ask anyone who replies to try and keep it that way.

Photomeme

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:31:57 GMT

(courtesy chordam7 )

Take a picture of yourself right now. don't change your clothes, don't fix your hair... just take a picture. Post that picture with NO editing.

Post these instructions with your picture.

Wow... I need a shave and haircut... beard trim too.

Random thought on the Abortion debate

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:05:55 GMT

So, I had a random thought today and I'm trying to use my LJ more so I thought I would post it. After all, isn't my caption "ramblings of a fictitious lord"? It certainly doesn't say "silence...". Anyway, here's kind of my deal on the topic. There are two distinct sides to the issue. I have my personal opinion, and then I have what the law should read understanding that we are supposed to be a nation of different peoples, religions, etc... I don't personally believe in abortion, with the notable exception rape, incest, and danger to the mother, etc... I guess morally I also don't have a problem with having one when you are young and have decided it was mistake (assuming you aren't pressured into the decision by your parents and others in your inner circle). Of course, this last thought also presumes that you learn from this action. Having said all that, I don't think it should be illegal as I also don't believe you can tell women what to do with their bodies. I also don't think the government should pay for it. I suppose I don't have a problem with helping to pay for it in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother. I do have a problem with paying for it because someone decides they have made a mistake. Flipping back to the "my view" side, I have a huge ethical problem with those people (which I'm certain we all have known from time to time) who use abortion as birth control.

Having said all that, I'm really pretty much fine with the way the law reads now, with the possible exception of curtailing some of the government spending on the issue. Here's where I take issue. It takes two to tango and in the current scenario, the father's rights are all but removed. Before I hear the onslaught of "he should have kept it in his pants", I would like to point out that history and even clinical studies have repeatedly pointed out that men are particularly weak in the area of "thinking clearly" when aroused. When you boil it down, how many hetero men would actually put up with the crap that most women put us through if it wasn't for the relatively small amount of "gettin' busy" we receive as payment? Anyway, I find it criminal that while a woman can decide "it was a mistake" again without the consent of those would-be fathers who might want the child (there are far more cases of this than you might think), she can also decide to go ahead and have that baby and oblige a man to 18 years or more of child support (unfair support particularly in this state, but that's a separate topic) without his consent. It has led to a culture that pretty much says men have no say in the area of children. I don't feel the current situation is either fair or equitable. Here's what I feel should happen.

I do not suggest taking away the right to abortion. I do however suggest leveling the playing field. I believe that for there to be entitlement (on the part of the mother) to child support, the man must be notified within the first trimester and that he be given a choice to "opt out" fully understanding that he would be forgoing any parental rights to the child. I realize that this sounds harsh and I also realize that people will be immediately inclined to think that every man will opt out. However, I would like to point out several things. First, I don't think this should apply to married couples (but in today's society I think there should be mandatory DNA testing but that is a separate post). Second, this time frame gives the woman a chance for an abortion should he decline. Third, despite the popular opinion of men, the clear majority believe in being honorable as evidenced by more than 80% of men paying their (unfair) child support on time without issue (whereas women owing a burden of child support are somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50%). And finally, I truly believe that leveling the playing field would significantly alter the behavior of the typical woman (particularly young women) in our society today (and for the better lest I not be clear on this point).

I'm interested in your thoughts...

Paying higher taxes is patriotic?

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:08:27 GMT

So, I came across the following article this morning: www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080918/Biden.Taxes/. As some of you know, I personally believe in having a small government and larger personal freedom. I also believe in equality. Here's what I don't understand. If you have looked at the tax charts, you will find that people who make more money already pay higher taxes than everyone else. How is making the wealthy pay even more in order give money back to everyone else improving the situation? Isn't that tyranny of the masses? What incentive does anyone have to strive to achieve more if they know for certain that reaching that level will burden them more than everyone else? I'm sorry, but I find it far more patriotic to work toward a system where everyone pays they same (proportionally, obviously). If there isn't enough money to supply big government, then make some cuts. From my perspective, its too big already.

Voting

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:59:38 GMT

So, for many years now I have talked about how I find it frustrating to get unbiased information in regards to casting an educated vote. I just don't see how the average person has time to do all of the reading necessary to read through the bias of both sides and arrive at a fairly objective decision regarding each and every measure and candidate. Therefore, in an effort to avoid what I feel is the typical "knee-jerk" response, I'm looking for a sort of cheat sheet. I realize that I have quite a few politically minded friends here and I'm looking for posts of web sites and resources used to monitor or dispel issues and candidates. Here's hoping... :)

Booza Update

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:15:16 GMT

Check your booza mail.

Reincarnation

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:09:20 GMT

Hmmm... Interesting:

Your result for Reincarnation Placement Exam...

Starfleet Crewperson

57% Intrigue, 63% Civilization, 62% Humanity, 55% Urbanization.

As Mister Spock would say: Fascinating. It seems you've managed to hit the edge of the curve on all metrics. An extraordinary life is almost certain.

According to your answers, you want it all, you want a lot of it, and you're willing to do what it takes to get it! Adventure! Romance! Technology! Challenge! You love civilization. You like people. You love the complications and joys of a big, weird crowd of humans plus lots of other beings wandering into dangerous and complicated corners of the galaxy.

There is an ideal place for you, and you are ideal for it: Welcome to the crew of the starship Enterprise. Captain Kirk would have welcomed you aboard himself, but his head was too big to fit in the landing bay.

Take Reincarnation Placement Exam at HelloQuizzy

Stupid Bugs...

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:49:05 GMT

Well, its Friday and I'm in a pretty good place (mentally). I am irritated though, cause bugs drive me nuts. They aren't mine, they're just messing up my schedule. It's not even like they aren't taking appropriate steps to fix it, its just that I've installed this software a grip of times and never had an issue. Then I get a new server, with a new type of processor, and pow, bugs. Can't move forward until its resolved. It just sets me back I don't like being behind schedule. Oh well, I guess its inevitable. A lot of it is my fault because I try to fit to much crap (especially work related) into my schedule. Hopefully, though, that is changing and it will get better. Here's hoping. :)

Wives and Special Occasions

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:47:33 GMT

So, do all wives think that they should get a birthday "week", or just mine? I understand that it is a bummer I am working on her birthday this year, but this is a multi-year occurrence. She seems to feel the same way about mother's day as well. What's the deal here? For father's day, I'm lucky to get people to stop pestering me and give me some time to myself. My best shot at a gift is something equivalent to a tie. Admittedly, I have a thing with getting gifts. I'm not really very fond of the whole concept, on several personal levels. But regardless, I just don't understand the sense of entitlement. Perhaps there is some social nuance I am missing here. Help me out if you have an opinion. Oh, and if you have any gift ideas (earrings have been suggested so far), I'd love to hear them. I think that tops for my budget would be $200, but around the $100 mark would be a lot more do-able. :)

My Artwork

Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:04:35 GMT

If anyone cares, I have finally gotten around to converting the best scans I have of my old sketch work to jpeg and posted them in the "My Artwork" gallery. It can be found here:

pics.livejournal.com/lordtorgrin/

I intend, someday, to get back to sketching and other artistic endeavors. If I ever do, or if I come across more of my work, I'll post it here.

Documentation Sucks...

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:29:28 GMT

Well, strictly speaking it doesn't... but when you are preparing it for an audit and you don't like doing it in the first place, well then it does. I recognize that it is part of my job, but its the part that weighs on me the most. Well, I suppose that's enough side tracking myself for now... I'd better get back to it.

Teh gout fairy

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:30:19 GMT

Well, this sucks. It took a few days for the delivery to catch up to me, but when it did, it was a double dose. I actually woke up this morning with gout pain in each foot. Man I could really do without "fat old king's disease". Oh well, BoozaPalooza was worth it. :)