"I want you to argue with them and get in their face," Obama said in an article from the San Francisco Chronicle online.
Obama is telling his supporters to go out and get in the face of those that support him? Ya, that will help his case.
I was talking with someone about harassment in the workplace. Specifically we were talking about whether or not criticizing someone's political views is considered harassment. I am not saying it is or is not, I am just posing the question. Some might get offended by it, others may see it as constructive. I think it depends on how you approach the argument.
Every day at work I talk politics. Some things I agree with, some I don't. There is a strong Obama supporter here at work. If this guy ever walks in and "gets in my face" about his politics, we will have a very serious problem. I know where he stands, he knows where I stand.
Of course I would never expect this behavior from anyone. I find it very amusing that Obama would ask his supporters to do this. Does he not know those who actually give a damn are already arguing politics across the nation? There is no doubt more people are paying attention to this election than any other.
I can't wait to see the news article that describes the poor Obama supporter who got his ass kicked for getting in someone's face. I am sure anyone who is on the fence does not want to hear either Republicans or Democrats argue with them and get in their face.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Al Gore Was Wrong, It Is Worse Than We Thought
Thomas Friedman, author and New York Times columnist, has written a new book titled Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Promoting his book, he recently came to my neck of the woods to give a speech.
Before the speech, I have to admit, I was not very familiar with him. Turns out he is a flaming liberal. His book is about what he calls energy technology. He referred to it as ET and said we need an ET revolution similar to the IT revolution.
According to Friedman, the government has to put regulation on the consumer to force them to start using cleaner, more reliable sources of energy. By forcing them to do this, companies will be able to reduce the cost of their products, and in turn, provide a cheaper, cleaner, more reliable source of energy.
My question to him is, where the hell does he think all this magical money is going to come from? OK, say the government says you must be using 30% alternative energies by 2018. How do people who are losing their house or businesses struggling to stay open, spring for this increased energy cost?
Perhaps there is a better way to illustrate my point. But certainly you can see the problem with this. You can't just have the government start forcing people to use other sources of energy. When these alternatives become cheaper, then we can start using it. Not vice versa. We don't use the government to bring down the price. The last thing we need is the government doing us any favors.
During the speech he said he was talking with his buddy Al Gore. He told his buddy Al Gore he should write a column titled "I Al Gore, got it wrong. Climate change is worse than I thought." Thats right, worse than even Al Gore thought. Friedman said the polar ice caps will have completely, yes completely melted by 2012. Thats a little more than three years from now. Guess we'll see.
He also said at one point "drill, baby drill" is not the answer. After he soaked up the applause, he said he was not opposed to drilling. When a few in the crowd began to applaud that, he quickly snapped at them and said "this is not crossfire, we are having serious conversation." Well, why didn't he tell the other 2,000 people that were clapping we were having a serious conversation.
photo by: www.morguefile.com
I will say I agree we need to be innovators and leaders in providing alternative energy sources. It is the future and we, as the United States of America, have to be involved in every aspect in order continue to be global leaders. However, having the government force us to use other types of energy is not the answer.
Before the speech, I have to admit, I was not very familiar with him. Turns out he is a flaming liberal. His book is about what he calls energy technology. He referred to it as ET and said we need an ET revolution similar to the IT revolution.
According to Friedman, the government has to put regulation on the consumer to force them to start using cleaner, more reliable sources of energy. By forcing them to do this, companies will be able to reduce the cost of their products, and in turn, provide a cheaper, cleaner, more reliable source of energy.
My question to him is, where the hell does he think all this magical money is going to come from? OK, say the government says you must be using 30% alternative energies by 2018. How do people who are losing their house or businesses struggling to stay open, spring for this increased energy cost?
Perhaps there is a better way to illustrate my point. But certainly you can see the problem with this. You can't just have the government start forcing people to use other sources of energy. When these alternatives become cheaper, then we can start using it. Not vice versa. We don't use the government to bring down the price. The last thing we need is the government doing us any favors.
During the speech he said he was talking with his buddy Al Gore. He told his buddy Al Gore he should write a column titled "I Al Gore, got it wrong. Climate change is worse than I thought." Thats right, worse than even Al Gore thought. Friedman said the polar ice caps will have completely, yes completely melted by 2012. Thats a little more than three years from now. Guess we'll see.
He also said at one point "drill, baby drill" is not the answer. After he soaked up the applause, he said he was not opposed to drilling. When a few in the crowd began to applaud that, he quickly snapped at them and said "this is not crossfire, we are having serious conversation." Well, why didn't he tell the other 2,000 people that were clapping we were having a serious conversation.
photo by: www.morguefile.com
I will say I agree we need to be innovators and leaders in providing alternative energy sources. It is the future and we, as the United States of America, have to be involved in every aspect in order continue to be global leaders. However, having the government force us to use other types of energy is not the answer.
Monday, September 8, 2008
O, be honest
I really don't know why I write this stupid blog...
Oprah Winfrey has turned her back on her audience. She had decided to support Obama and said she will no longer use her show as a political platform for candidates. Huh? So this comes, she says, now that she has aligned herself with one of them. Here is the story.
Oprah is a brand in herself. She has so much power in the media, just the attachment of her name to Obama's campaign is using her show as a platform for a candidate. If she really did not want to use her show as a platform she would not be out campaigning for Obama. She can back whoever she wants. That is not where I have the problem.
The problem here in she should just come out and say "I support Obama and having Palin on my show will decrease his chances. Therefore I will not have her on because I don't want to give the opposition any more media coverage than they are already getting." It's no secret that there is very little media coverage for the opposition in the first place.
I think she is alienating herself from her audience. Women love Oprah. There may be a small portion that support her based on her race. But I think the show is primarily geared toward women. So, the most popular woman in the world right now, who is a prime example of the "supermom" should not be on the show?
Someone will do it and there will be a bunch of people watching. With all of these other competitors to Oprah, it should be no problem finding a replacement to interview Palin. Liberal or not, those would be good ratings for anyone.
Oprah Winfrey has turned her back on her audience. She had decided to support Obama and said she will no longer use her show as a political platform for candidates. Huh? So this comes, she says, now that she has aligned herself with one of them. Here is the story.
Oprah is a brand in herself. She has so much power in the media, just the attachment of her name to Obama's campaign is using her show as a platform for a candidate. If she really did not want to use her show as a platform she would not be out campaigning for Obama. She can back whoever she wants. That is not where I have the problem.
The problem here in she should just come out and say "I support Obama and having Palin on my show will decrease his chances. Therefore I will not have her on because I don't want to give the opposition any more media coverage than they are already getting." It's no secret that there is very little media coverage for the opposition in the first place.
I think she is alienating herself from her audience. Women love Oprah. There may be a small portion that support her based on her race. But I think the show is primarily geared toward women. So, the most popular woman in the world right now, who is a prime example of the "supermom" should not be on the show?
Someone will do it and there will be a bunch of people watching. With all of these other competitors to Oprah, it should be no problem finding a replacement to interview Palin. Liberal or not, those would be good ratings for anyone.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Evil Corporate Monster
According to the The Wall Street Journal, there is legislation that would most likely pass if Sen. Barack Obama were to gain the presidency that could possibly affect Wal-Mart to a great degree. It is called the Employee Free Choice Act. Most importantly, this could make it easier for unions to come into Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart managers and executives have been talking to employees "educating" them on what would happen if they vote for Obama. I don't feel there is anything wrong with this. If it is my company, I will push whatever agenda I wish. All employees have the right to walk out of Wal-Mart and quit their jobs if they don't agree.
The most interesting thing is a belief that Wal-Mart employees need to be saved from their evil employers and the union is the answer.
I used to work for Wal-Mart. They are by far one of the better employers I have ever had. Good pay, good benefits, easy advancement, clean working conditions. What more can a union do for the employees? That is the purpose of a union, to give the employees a voice. To stand up for them.
So it comes down to what is best for the employee. What else could Wal-Mart provide for employees that they don't already? New cars for every employee? Maybe a house to live in too. Well IF the union does get that for you, Wal-Mart loses money. Then they layoff workers. Or they close stores. And nobody gets cars, houses and may even lose those quality benefits they started out with.
It does not seem that difficult to me.
Wal-Mart managers and executives have been talking to employees "educating" them on what would happen if they vote for Obama. I don't feel there is anything wrong with this. If it is my company, I will push whatever agenda I wish. All employees have the right to walk out of Wal-Mart and quit their jobs if they don't agree.
The most interesting thing is a belief that Wal-Mart employees need to be saved from their evil employers and the union is the answer.
I used to work for Wal-Mart. They are by far one of the better employers I have ever had. Good pay, good benefits, easy advancement, clean working conditions. What more can a union do for the employees? That is the purpose of a union, to give the employees a voice. To stand up for them.
Wal-Mart obviously does not want unions. It will only hurt them. But it will also hurt the employee. Unions cost money. That is why those who run unions want more members. Think about the amount of money the union would take in if they could unionize Wal-Mart. Vice versa, Wal-Mart makes more money if there are no unions.
So it comes down to what is best for the employee. What else could Wal-Mart provide for employees that they don't already? New cars for every employee? Maybe a house to live in too. Well IF the union does get that for you, Wal-Mart loses money. Then they layoff workers. Or they close stores. And nobody gets cars, houses and may even lose those quality benefits they started out with.
It does not seem that difficult to me.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Big One
Los Angeles experienced a 5.4 magnitude earthquake today. I was watching the news and one reporter mentioned this may be a preview of what may soon be "the big one."
Here is an article from msnbc.com predicting "the big one" happening within 30 years from 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7832219/.
We can all remember how devastating Katrina was. Now imagine L.A. when "the big one" hits. I am sure there are many minds working hard at an emergency plan, but there is no way it will ever be enough. It was predicted that the levees would eventually give in Louisiana.
I took a geology class in college and my professor mentioned this same exact thing. Its going to happen. Its going to happen soon. And when it does, its going to be very bad. So why not leave?
Why do we insist on habiting places that make no sense. Why rebuild New Orleans. OK, there is heritage and tradition there. So what. Its below sea level. Move on. But instead, we will funnel billions of dollars to the region in order to "rebuild".
Certainly you can not pick up a city, especially L.A., and move it across the country. I understand this. It may take even more money to relocate businesses, homes, families. But bad things are going to happen there. Its not a matter of if, its a matter of when.
Here is an article from msnbc.com predicting "the big one" happening within 30 years from 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7832219/.
We can all remember how devastating Katrina was. Now imagine L.A. when "the big one" hits. I am sure there are many minds working hard at an emergency plan, but there is no way it will ever be enough. It was predicted that the levees would eventually give in Louisiana.
I took a geology class in college and my professor mentioned this same exact thing. Its going to happen. Its going to happen soon. And when it does, its going to be very bad. So why not leave?
Why do we insist on habiting places that make no sense. Why rebuild New Orleans. OK, there is heritage and tradition there. So what. Its below sea level. Move on. But instead, we will funnel billions of dollars to the region in order to "rebuild".
Certainly you can not pick up a city, especially L.A., and move it across the country. I understand this. It may take even more money to relocate businesses, homes, families. But bad things are going to happen there. Its not a matter of if, its a matter of when.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Smoking
Ever seen Kingpin? Woody Harrelson, Randy Quaid. Roy Munson (Harrelson) was a bowler who lost his hand and meets Amish Ishmael Boorg (Quaid) and tries to teach him to bowl like a pro. Pretty funny movie. There is a scene in the movie where they are riding in the car and Munson offers Ishmael a cigarette. Ishmael tells Munson how bad they are for him. Munson replies by explaining how the tobacco company would not want their customers to die because if they were dead, they could not make any money. Therefore they would not make a product that would kill them...
I have decided to quit smoking. So far, so good. I have only been tempted maybe once or twice. Friday night, Saturday morning I think I smoked about two packs. John Wayne used to smoke four to five packs a day. I have no idea how in the hell he did that. He would have to be smoking all the time. There are 24 hours in a day, your awake for about 16 of them. There are 20 cigarettes in a pack. 20 cigarettes times four packs a day, equals 80 cigarettes. That is about five cigarettes an hour. That means a cigarette every twenty minutes. It takes about ten minutes to smoke it. There is no way!! I don't believe it.
I had smoked so much I felt ill. This is not the first time such an event has occurred. Just about every time I get a few drinks in me I smoke a pack. Every smoker knows how much money he wastes. We know how bad it is for our health. We know we smell bad. We know the tobacco companies are trying to kill us. But it's hard. It's very hard. And we all hate being told to stop.
I worked with this guy who used to smoke and thought he was God's gift to mankind. He was so great because he was able to quit smoking and drinking and follow a divine path. Wonderful, to each is own. But don't tell me how I need to live my life. It just makes me want to smoke more. So if you know a smoker, leave them the hell alone. They will quit when they want.
I have decided to quit smoking. So far, so good. I have only been tempted maybe once or twice. Friday night, Saturday morning I think I smoked about two packs. John Wayne used to smoke four to five packs a day. I have no idea how in the hell he did that. He would have to be smoking all the time. There are 24 hours in a day, your awake for about 16 of them. There are 20 cigarettes in a pack. 20 cigarettes times four packs a day, equals 80 cigarettes. That is about five cigarettes an hour. That means a cigarette every twenty minutes. It takes about ten minutes to smoke it. There is no way!! I don't believe it.
I had smoked so much I felt ill. This is not the first time such an event has occurred. Just about every time I get a few drinks in me I smoke a pack. Every smoker knows how much money he wastes. We know how bad it is for our health. We know we smell bad. We know the tobacco companies are trying to kill us. But it's hard. It's very hard. And we all hate being told to stop.
I worked with this guy who used to smoke and thought he was God's gift to mankind. He was so great because he was able to quit smoking and drinking and follow a divine path. Wonderful, to each is own. But don't tell me how I need to live my life. It just makes me want to smoke more. So if you know a smoker, leave them the hell alone. They will quit when they want.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Intelligence
Blogging is stupid...
On that note, I met someone last night that was extremely smart. She graduated Summa Cum Laude and moved here to work for a very large American defense contractor. Oh ya, she is 22!!! As I sit here thinking about what the hell I have been doing for the past ten years, many stupid decisions come to mind. None of which I would like to currently disclose. I am in my mid-twenties and I am only a junior in college. I defend this with the excuse that I started late.
As I reminisce about those early days out of high school, I think about what makes us intelligent. I believe there are many different types of intelligence. Nobody can know everything. Some, such as the girl I met, put importance on things like book smarts. Lebron James went into the NBA right out of high school. He did not have any interest in higher education and he seems to be doing fine. Maybe that's a bad example. I think you get the idea.
All day I have been thinking about that girl I had met and felt so depressed because I could only think about how much better she will make the world and how much of a burden I put on it. I have decided that I think about stuff too much! I believe that you will succeed in the things you apply yourself to. She applied herself to getting through school and earning high grades. I applied myself to some not so wholesome endeavors.
I may place so much importance on intelligence because I feel it ties to success. I know there are stupid people that are rich and smart people that have nothing. I understand this. But aren't your chances of success a little higher if your smarter?
I think the conclusion I have come to is a quote my mother used to always say. I should have just listened to Mom
"You can be anything you want to be, as long as you put your mind to it."-MOM
On that note, I met someone last night that was extremely smart. She graduated Summa Cum Laude and moved here to work for a very large American defense contractor. Oh ya, she is 22!!! As I sit here thinking about what the hell I have been doing for the past ten years, many stupid decisions come to mind. None of which I would like to currently disclose. I am in my mid-twenties and I am only a junior in college. I defend this with the excuse that I started late.
As I reminisce about those early days out of high school, I think about what makes us intelligent. I believe there are many different types of intelligence. Nobody can know everything. Some, such as the girl I met, put importance on things like book smarts. Lebron James went into the NBA right out of high school. He did not have any interest in higher education and he seems to be doing fine. Maybe that's a bad example. I think you get the idea.
All day I have been thinking about that girl I had met and felt so depressed because I could only think about how much better she will make the world and how much of a burden I put on it. I have decided that I think about stuff too much! I believe that you will succeed in the things you apply yourself to. She applied herself to getting through school and earning high grades. I applied myself to some not so wholesome endeavors.
I may place so much importance on intelligence because I feel it ties to success. I know there are stupid people that are rich and smart people that have nothing. I understand this. But aren't your chances of success a little higher if your smarter?
I think the conclusion I have come to is a quote my mother used to always say. I should have just listened to Mom
"You can be anything you want to be, as long as you put your mind to it."-MOM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)