Consumption Rules

From Orson Scott Card:

Everyone knows that Christian evangelicals hate Mormons so badly that if they had to choose between a bribe-taking, FBI-file-stealing, relentless-lie-telling, mud-slinging former first lady, and a Mormon ex-governor who doesn’t lie, who’s still married to his first wife, and who supports the entire Christian evangelical agenda, they’d still rather die than vote for a Mormon.

He also answers questions like: (more…)

Share This

I saw Al Gore’s Documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, tonight. I thought it was an interesting presentation and it raised a lot of questions for me about the issue. This probably served Al Gore’s goal of sparking discussion on the debate. I think his argument is a very compelling one. You could go through and argue it point for point, but the way it is presented is very convincing and a well-thought-out argument on the issue. I don’t know all of the science behind the issue; I think it would be interested to talk to someone I trusted who did understand it all. It did raise several thoughts in my head, though, as to the parties surrounding this issue.

• First of all, I wonder why this is an issue that Al Gore has wrapped his heart around.
• Is he doing this out of the goodness of his heart, as a moral crusader defending the fate of the world?
• Or is he becoming the hero of a feel-good cause that can propel him back into political power and prominence?
• Why is there so much controversy surrounding this issue?
• According to Gore there isn’t much dispute in the scientific world, and so, if that’s true, why is there such dispute in public discourse? In the film, Gore highlights this point, but doesn’t answer why.
• What do people stand to gain (or lose) on either side of the issue?
• If global warming really is a problem why isn’t everyone willing to jump on board to solve it?
• If it’s not a problem, why are people contriving it to be such a problem? What do they stand to gain?

I would like to look further into it. He had a very compelling argument, well formulated and thought out, but I would like to keep the jury out while I figure out the answer to these questions.

(more…)

Share This

Did you get a huge tax return last year? Congratulations, but you gave the federal government an interest-free loan the entire year. It’s better to keep it and invest it yourself. Make sure to minimize your tax withholdings from your paycheck and still have enough to cover your tax obligation (nobody likes to write a check to the IRS). The IRS offers a calculator to determine the right number of exemptions to claim on your W-4 to solve this problem. (2007 Withholding Calculator)

Share This

Want to earn bucketloads of money this summer? You can earn enough to pay for school and put a down payment on a new truck. Forget security systems or pest control. Try raising funds for a presidential campaign!

(more…)

Share This

A parody of Apple’s “1984″ commercial:

Here’s another funny video of Hillary singing the National Anthem at a rally in Iowa: (more…)

Share This

The March 19, 2007 issue of Fortune magazine had an interesting article by Roger Parloff (read his blog entry here) about the recent stir surrounding censorship and the role of the FCC in monitoring the media. This issue deserves significant consideration considering its impact on society today and into the future. I wrote a letter to Parloff offering my opinion:

Roger,

In response to “Bleep Deprivation” (Fortune, March 19, 2007), I would just like to comment on the current state of censorship in America. It seems to me that this issue has been the apple that has fallen farthest from the tree of the founding fathers’ original intent of most any. On issues of the first amendment, the courts have sided more and more with the protection of the expression of opinion, and less and less on our rights to be protected from those expressions. It is almost heretical in today’s society for anyone to suggest anything close to censorship, but all of the proponents of “free speech” are missing the point that underlines the entire issue. Just because someone says, writes, paints, publishes, produces, or otherwise depicts something does not mean that I must be subjected to it. Each individual has just as much right to dictate their exposure to expression as others have to express it. The problem with today’s media is moral-standards creep that has polluted the airwaves. Obscenity or sexual innuendo litters all forms of media and has made it nearly impossible for anyone to avoid it - that is taking advantage of first amendment rights for some at the expense of others. In the debate, this side of the issue gets a whisper of attention next to the yells of those worried that censorship infringes the freedom of expression. Why the double standard at the expense of morality? When ambiguities of interpretation arise in the constitution must we always assume the most liberal interpretation with the weakest moral backbone? It’s this kind of moral tepidity that has lead to the drastic decline in standards coinciding with the ubuiqitization of all forms of media throughout this past century. The introduction of the internet has even further accelerated and exacerbated the problem, and something needs to be done.
(more…)

Share This

From Amazon.com: (more…)

Share This

Share This

(more…)

Share This