We all lose. :(
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
America's view on universal healthcare
There are more things wrong with this picture than there are pixels.
Is you're still lost, look at the description next to the red box and cry yourself to sleep tonight.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
For RTVF 141: Links
My Top Ten Favorite sites online. CLICK WITH EXTREME CAUTION! Enjoy with a robust, full-bodied wine.
YTMND
&totse
Buckethead
Cyanide and Happiness
xkcd
Something Awful
Red Meat
thinkgeek
Bash
Digg
YTMND
&totse
Buckethead
Cyanide and Happiness
xkcd
Something Awful
Red Meat
thinkgeek
Bash
Digg
Saturday, February 9, 2008
In response to a Ronpauligist on Hillary's Universal Healthcare
First and foremost, I don't like Hillary and didn't vote for her.
Secondly...
Universal Healthcare is the antithesis of your summary in Canada, France, or any other country (practicing universal Healthcare) that is truly freer than we are. Have you ever been without health insurance? Have you ever been without health insurance, working your ass off, sick, unable to afford care, making it so you can't WORK to make more money because you're so sick? Until you have, then you can talk.
People who spout off about the evils of a government-funded (which is truly funded by the tax payers "hard earned money" as you so eloquently stated. Who, then, have the right to dictate how the Healthcare system is run: eg. no one in their right mind would put up with DMV-esque workers in the Healthcare system. Also, the DMV is a state entity--blame California for that one. Popular sovereignty ftw). Those against Universal Healthcare never seem to see any positives, nor do they research how these positives can be obtained without sucking paychecks dry. If anyone was smart enough to pick up on things other countries have done successfully, (pushing aside the 'America-knows-best' ego) maybe we would be better for it.
I think the problem is people who have never had any hardship in their lives. They assume everything can be paid for by 'hard-earned cash' because their family unit--and usually by extension their group of friends--earns enough money to live a decent life because they were PRIVILEGED by opportunity. You and I both know (unless you are completely blinded by what politicians and the media tells you) that opportunity waxes and wanes throughout this country; it is consistent in places saturated in wealth, as the wealthy can send their children to better schools, tutoring centers, colleges, etc. While the (relatively non-existent) middle class and the poor struggle to get their children into good schools; pay for childcare; pay for the overwhelming cost of health care if they can afford it; and other things necessary to live in this country. When you can say you've lived that life, we can talk.
Finally, this libertarian/anarchist movement makes me sick. Why do people who HATE government want to be IN government? That's something I never understood. While our government is in shambles now, it shouldn't be eradicated. The current problems need to be resolved (we have solutions to these problems, we just need someone to have the balls/ovaries to implement them) and someone needs foresight enough to find solutions to problems that will, inevitably, affect America. If someone *cough Obama* would be willing to admit the problems of this country (while still BELIEVING in it) they will be best able to achieve solutions.
Secondly...
Universal Healthcare is the antithesis of your summary in Canada, France, or any other country (practicing universal Healthcare) that is truly freer than we are. Have you ever been without health insurance? Have you ever been without health insurance, working your ass off, sick, unable to afford care, making it so you can't WORK to make more money because you're so sick? Until you have, then you can talk.
People who spout off about the evils of a government-funded (which is truly funded by the tax payers "hard earned money" as you so eloquently stated. Who, then, have the right to dictate how the Healthcare system is run: eg. no one in their right mind would put up with DMV-esque workers in the Healthcare system. Also, the DMV is a state entity--blame California for that one. Popular sovereignty ftw). Those against Universal Healthcare never seem to see any positives, nor do they research how these positives can be obtained without sucking paychecks dry. If anyone was smart enough to pick up on things other countries have done successfully, (pushing aside the 'America-knows-best' ego) maybe we would be better for it.
I think the problem is people who have never had any hardship in their lives. They assume everything can be paid for by 'hard-earned cash' because their family unit--and usually by extension their group of friends--earns enough money to live a decent life because they were PRIVILEGED by opportunity. You and I both know (unless you are completely blinded by what politicians and the media tells you) that opportunity waxes and wanes throughout this country; it is consistent in places saturated in wealth, as the wealthy can send their children to better schools, tutoring centers, colleges, etc. While the (relatively non-existent) middle class and the poor struggle to get their children into good schools; pay for childcare; pay for the overwhelming cost of health care if they can afford it; and other things necessary to live in this country. When you can say you've lived that life, we can talk.
Finally, this libertarian/anarchist movement makes me sick. Why do people who HATE government want to be IN government? That's something I never understood. While our government is in shambles now, it shouldn't be eradicated. The current problems need to be resolved (we have solutions to these problems, we just need someone to have the balls/ovaries to implement them) and someone needs foresight enough to find solutions to problems that will, inevitably, affect America. If someone *cough Obama* would be willing to admit the problems of this country (while still BELIEVING in it) they will be best able to achieve solutions.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Toilet Paper
Everything was fine until double-roll toilet paper. Before the advent of mass toilet tissue marketing, drug stores were places of indifference and nonchalance: I could enter a Walgreen’s without cringing, and purchase everyday items (cigarettes, energy drinks, mascara, vitamins—staples when in pursuit of the American dream) without feeling hypocritical. Now, the toilet paper mascots of my childhood are pushing bigger, better, and bolder rolls. The gaseous cartoon bear is still making daily trips to the forest’s community toilet hole, but is armed with twice the toilet tissue for his (and I presume the next bear in line—one bear alone can not possibly use a double-roll) wiping pleasure. The group of pleasant elderly women is still working the days away, quilting millions upon millions of tiny-paper-pillows to bring the gift of soft, plush toilet paper to industrialized countries around the world. I am sure they are thrilled to have their workload doubled: the fine craft of toilet tissue quilting will be forever in debt to the Quilted Northern 3, inoculating them into the Quilter’s Hall of Fame for mastery in common reusable goods.
Certainly, the marketing department at Proctor and Gamble was tickled about the double roll idea at its dawn: it’s a time saver, a space saver, a money saver, and (to ice the cake) it helps the environment! The wonders of a forward-thinking company have yet again revolutionized a product that, one would think, was at its peak of performance. At the double roll’s drug store debut, an overwhelming sense of pride and joy must have overcome the slew of designers, advertisers, and marketers; they had put a new edge on toilet paper, and society will surely benefit from it. This is what I think about while I browse the aisles of the corner Longs.
I’m not sure why double roll toilet paper was the catalyst for my disdain for American consumer culture. There are so many products that could have done the same: toothbrushes with plaque-destroying bristles; super-strength multi-scented deodorant; sponges shaped like hearts and farm animals. All these products, along with millions of others, are more than qualified to bring any overly observant individual to their breaking point. Perhaps it was the simplicity—and necessity—(according to our societal definition of needs: I’m not sure where toilet paper lies on Maslow’s hierarchy) of toilet paper that made its makeover so disturbing.
For years, adjectives softer, smoother, sensual were used to describe the two-ply squares, and for years, this never bothered me. The majority of Americans often overlook words directed toward the senses, so I did not feel that Charmin or Scott had roped in buyers by tantalizing their vocabularies. Words that describe size and savings, however, are ear candy for any consumer. Saving a pocket of change and doubling the size trumps a soft, smooth, and sensual wiping. I suppose this puts to question our values as a society, and our purpose as a species: Are we forever doomed to wipe our asses with a never-ending roll of discomfort? Will humanity one day evolve to a people that appreciate a thicker paper over more of a thinner?
I think about this with my cigarettes, energy drinks, mascara, and vitamins in hand. As I pull closer to the register, I don’t know if I am aiding the toilet paper tycoons I despise by supporting an institution that carries their product. And, if I am, where would I go to in protest? I’m sure the Safeway or 7-11 down the way are carriers of the double-roll virus. Even Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods (elite grocery stores for those who bash consumer culture, only to be sucked into a black-hole of hypocrisy) have to subscribe to the tyranny of toilet paper marketing. As the overweight, soul-broken woman scans my purchases, I wonder how I could change consumer culture. If I turned to the line behind me, gave a venom-filled speech about the evils of double-roll toilet paper, and stormed out of the store, would it make a difference? The checker hands me a weighted bag with a balloon-like arm, and tells me to have a nice day. I leave, and continue to live the life I have been leading.
Certainly, the marketing department at Proctor and Gamble was tickled about the double roll idea at its dawn: it’s a time saver, a space saver, a money saver, and (to ice the cake) it helps the environment! The wonders of a forward-thinking company have yet again revolutionized a product that, one would think, was at its peak of performance. At the double roll’s drug store debut, an overwhelming sense of pride and joy must have overcome the slew of designers, advertisers, and marketers; they had put a new edge on toilet paper, and society will surely benefit from it. This is what I think about while I browse the aisles of the corner Longs.
I’m not sure why double roll toilet paper was the catalyst for my disdain for American consumer culture. There are so many products that could have done the same: toothbrushes with plaque-destroying bristles; super-strength multi-scented deodorant; sponges shaped like hearts and farm animals. All these products, along with millions of others, are more than qualified to bring any overly observant individual to their breaking point. Perhaps it was the simplicity—and necessity—(according to our societal definition of needs: I’m not sure where toilet paper lies on Maslow’s hierarchy) of toilet paper that made its makeover so disturbing.
For years, adjectives softer, smoother, sensual were used to describe the two-ply squares, and for years, this never bothered me. The majority of Americans often overlook words directed toward the senses, so I did not feel that Charmin or Scott had roped in buyers by tantalizing their vocabularies. Words that describe size and savings, however, are ear candy for any consumer. Saving a pocket of change and doubling the size trumps a soft, smooth, and sensual wiping. I suppose this puts to question our values as a society, and our purpose as a species: Are we forever doomed to wipe our asses with a never-ending roll of discomfort? Will humanity one day evolve to a people that appreciate a thicker paper over more of a thinner?
I think about this with my cigarettes, energy drinks, mascara, and vitamins in hand. As I pull closer to the register, I don’t know if I am aiding the toilet paper tycoons I despise by supporting an institution that carries their product. And, if I am, where would I go to in protest? I’m sure the Safeway or 7-11 down the way are carriers of the double-roll virus. Even Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods (elite grocery stores for those who bash consumer culture, only to be sucked into a black-hole of hypocrisy) have to subscribe to the tyranny of toilet paper marketing. As the overweight, soul-broken woman scans my purchases, I wonder how I could change consumer culture. If I turned to the line behind me, gave a venom-filled speech about the evils of double-roll toilet paper, and stormed out of the store, would it make a difference? The checker hands me a weighted bag with a balloon-like arm, and tells me to have a nice day. I leave, and continue to live the life I have been leading.