How do you fight an enemy that doesn't fear death?

Well, the thought for this post came from a couple of sources. First one was the F-22 Raptor crash that occurred yesterday. This was the end for a 120+ million dollar plane. Pilot... not sure if he made it out or not. But that's not the focus of this post.

Just a few weeks ago, there was public outcry for AIG to renege on their contracts to some employees. Those totaled around 218 million from the recent numbers. But before the numbers were closer to 150 million or so. Not that I'm asking people to go out and boycott the military and ask for the pilot to repay the money or something, but it makes you think a little bit. WHY in the hell do we need an aircraft that costs 120 million dollars each. Yeah yeah it has sensors that can put a missle up a flys ass from 20 miles away... but does that really matter when your opponent is stuffing bombs in camels? And blowing themselves up.

I do think that technology needs to take a bit of a backseat in these times. How many armed forces do more with less? Now, don't get me wrong, I do think that our guys and gals out in the field need good equipment. I am not saying skimp on proper equipment, but currently I would say that we are doing a lot of experimenting as well, and that experimenting is costing a lot of extra dollars. Check out the A-10 Thunderbolt II or "Warthog" as I like to call it. That tank killing machine has been around for what seems like ages (1977) And costs only 12 million or even the F-16 for under 20 million each. Hell even the F-117 Nighthawk is only just over 42 million. Why must we try to have bigger and faster when what we have obviously works? I'm sure we could have an amazing fleet if we would focus on refining what we have instead of trying to reinvent the 'wing' each time we make an aircraft.

So, how DO you combat an enemy that doesn't fear death? Well, it damned sure isn't by spending excessive money on unnecessary technology.

Bank Bailout Simplified... and why its so Stupid.

OK here goes, put in simple terms... The banks spend all their money essentially gambling with it. And losing badly. The tax payers GIVE them more money (Via bailout). The banks then are supposed to 'lend' the money back to the taxpayers (which is already the taxpayers money anyway), and charges them for lending it to them (via finance charges and fees).

So how I see it. Broken down to kindergarten level. Its like i have this friend... he has a gambling problem and he only has $5. He loses his $5 dollars on a bad bet. So i give him MY $5. He lends it back to me and charges me for him lending it back.

Now i ask... WHERE IN THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!!?!?

I know its oversimplified... but essentially its true. Think about it.

-Jeremy

Why Nothing the U.S. Government Does Will Help the Current Situation

Honestly, it can be summed up in a five words, "Trickle down economics don't work" or how about, "They just don't get it". We (the American Gov't) have thrown the capitalist economic system under the bus, supposedly to 'save' it. Right now the government keeps throwing everything it possibly can at this problem, but there targeting the wrong end.

The engine that drives our economy, (and just about any economy for that matter) is the people. Yet, we don't seem to be first inline to get any assistance. It would have been cheaper to just buy up the shitty mortgages that people were given (I'm not defending the stupid homeowners who got more than they could reasonably afford and then couldn't afford it). I think the most commonly tossed around number was $300 Billion or so for that. But nope, we have given banks access to OVER $700 Billion in accessible funds (most of that through a sweetheart deal with Citigroup wherein the gov't absorbs the majority of FUTURE losses). We did that, and banks went around like O.C. housewives on a shopping spree. Buying up other banks, hoarding cash, laying off employees, and other generally non-corrective behavior.

Ok, now that the government has put all this money in to the system, things are gonna look up right? Eh, well not really. Now we have this little problem of inflation, well quite yet, but wait for it. Right now they are concerned with deflation. But we just injected BILLIONS into the market/economy right? Yep, that's the problem, when things DO start to turn around naturally of course inflation will KILL us. We will have most likely over a trillion dollars that needs to be removed from the system to make the dollar competitive in the currency market. How can we stem the flow of money? Raise interest rates... but in a bad economy... not gonna happen. So how are we gonna get this money BACK out of the market when we need to? I have NO idea. I haven't researched that far on what tools the gov't has to do that. Just something that I noticed.

Now as far as why it won't work, they have given money to the banks to lend. But not to the consumer to spend. I mean what idiot is gonna go and try and take out a loan or purchase something on credit if he doesn't know if hes next on the list to get the proverbial 'axe'. People don't spend, companies don't make money. Companies don't make money, MORE people get laid off. So on so forth, vicious cycle ya see? And the feds are losing options as far as trying to jump start lending. The benchmark interest rate can't really get any lower than it is now (between 0 and .25 percent currently).

Solution to the problem: Let free markets be free, if a company needs to/deserves to fail, then LET IT!!! Isn't that what we prided ourselves on for years. But now we have the capitalization of wealth and the socialization of debt. So when times are tough we backpedal on what supposedly makes us so 'great'?

What is it with this "Straight Acting" nonsense?

Ah yes, time for a nice little rant. I was surfing the web earlier and I saw a personals ad for a guy that was advertising that he was "Straight Acting" and looking for the same. This I usually would have just ignored and moved on. But, this time it kinda struck a chord with me. I do not really get the idea of a straight acting gay. Why can't we just be who we are and that's that? Do we really have to ACT a certain way to appease the general population? Does this mean that these so called straight acting people are putting on a show for the public, by not being true to themselves?

What is the deal with this deep rooted problem with people just being who they are. Dammit if your a big nellie queen then be a gawd-damned nellie queen and be PROUD of who you are. I'm sick and tired (more tired than sick though). Of people not being who they are for fear of what others will think or say. When, if you think about it... all the other people that you are worried about are thinking the same thing.

I'm not a 'straight acting' gay, nor would I consider myself two ticks down from a 'disco inferno', I'm just me, and I wouldn't have it any other way. That's how I carry myself. And people respect me for it, and if they dont... well fuck 'em. So, mr. "straight acting" if your supposed to be so damned butch, so masculine, so "secure" (and I use that word lightly). Why in the hell dont you just be YOU and not worry about ACTING straight just not to draw attention to yourself? Just some food for thought...

Negativity and the News

Why is it that the news media are such vultures for negative information? It's like they 'thrive' off of it. They seem to get more excited when talking about bad things going on (economy in the toilet with Bush scratching his head about how to use the plunger, the bombing/attack in Mumbai). Oh wow, don't they just love discussing the body counts, and making things seem like the whole area is about to burn down. What ever happened to them getting all excited about the good news? Sure, they'll have a good report or two, but notice, they will be overshadowed by the bad in all aspects. I mean they covered this situation in Mumbai like it was 9/11 all over again. I just wanted to get news on the weather, or just an overview of what's going on in the world. But noooooo they were stuck on the 'situation' in Mumbai. Real time reporting of constantly changing and unsubstantiated information.

Which brings me to another point, what's up with this 'unsubstantiated' claims? For instance, they will say some bit of info, then say that its from an unsubstantiated source, and the claim hasn't been confirmed... My question is, "If it hasnt been confirmed, then why in the heck are they even reporting on it???" Or are they trying to use a legal loophole and just say whatever they want and automatically erase liability for misinformation by telling people up front that its unsubstantiated. "I was told that the world was going to blow up at 12:59pm tonight." However, it was from an unsubstantiated source.

Whilst the good news seems to get a 'passing' mention the bad is burned into your retinas. Is 'good' news becoming scarce? Or as a friend suggested, are people just more interested in the perils of others? Whatever it is, sometimes listening to/reading the media is just depressing.

A Little Bit of OCD??

I was just wondering if its just me or do other people do little weird things that may be considered "OCD". Not clinically so, but just slightly. I'll use myself as an example. The volume on the radio, it HAS to be an even number. None of that 13 or 17 or 21 crap. My volume is always set at an even number. If I'm twisting the knob and I end up on an odd, I'll usually twist one more click up or down to get to my even number. I won't go crazy about it or anything. But it's just something that I do. Same thing with certain food. Sunflower seeds for example. If I start eating a bag of sunflower seeds and then when I eventually get tired of eating them, if theres only maybe a few more handfuls in the bag, I feel obligated to finish off the bag, even though I really dont want to. I just like that feeling of "completion". Well anyway, thats me. Just wondering if im alone out there.

Money for GM and Friends???

So here we stand, the auto market in shambles. Our great (and I use that term loosely) automakers are driving themselves in to the ground. Reaping what they sow after so many years. Their business practices are finally catching up to them. Do I have a sympathetic ear? Well... yes and no. I don't wish for any company to go under, however, I do believe that these three need the far reaching corporate restructuring that only bankruptcy can offer. They need to turn over all the current management. And get some new ideas in there. GM most of all, I mean cancelling the VERY future forward EV-1. That car was light years ahead of its time. An entirely electric car in 1996... Who would have thunk it?

Granted GM has "tried" to right their ways in some aspects (the Volt concept), and designing better cars (seen the new Malibu?). And cost cutting in various ways (parts bin sharing to the max). But it's too little too late for these guys. And the Unions have them crippled as well, exorbitant and plush pay packages for workers, cushy retirement plans, benefits that would rival wall street. GM tries to cut costs at the worker level and the Unions go on strike. So their hands are essentially tied. Bankruptcy SHOULD allow GM/Ford/Chrysler to escape the bonds of the UAW to get some restructuring done from the top down.

Bottom line, I think these guys have TRIED (albeit half heartedly, i mean did we need a third Hummer/Tahoe abomination?) to save money. But they can't because you have a 20th Century company trying to run in a 21st Century economy where efficiency is key. My vote: No bailout.