You know, I haven't posted in a long while. I've been too freaked out to post. EVERYTHING IS WRONG. You can't get over one thing before something else happens. Whether it's earthquakes, oil spills, the burning hot world, killer mosquitoes, countrywide flooding, trapped miners, or gigantic hurricanes coming to your house, the average person does not have a moment anymore to call down. I personally can't take it anymore.
I live on the east coast and right now they're telling us all to have an evacuation plan for Hurricane Earl. THE WHOLE EAST COAST. Where the hell is the whole east coast supposed to go? Anyway, I don't have a car so I guess I'll just have to wade it out. Not funny really. But the point is they're panicking us because of their failures with Katrina. Katrina was such a problem because of where it hit. New Orleans is below sea level. I don't know how many places on the east coast are below sea level but it's not everyone. Are the other places that got hit by Katrina still bad off? I don't know they don't say. But they did a whole week on Katrina on CNN because they can't get over it. New Orleans looked a lot better off mentally than the media did.
The media is our problem. They keep freaking everyone out about everything. I don't know why. I don't know how much power they think people have over things. They want to keep us focused on these issues, but for what? We can't do anything about them. Future disasters are going to affect people too. That just can't be helped. But this constant panic making people think they're responsible for fixing everything and making sure it never happens again. They've got people in a mental vice. It's too much. It's been too much. And they're not going to stop.
The one thing I'm absolutely sure they did get people to do is to create this wretched economy. It was their panic that they spread to normal people that got people to cash in their investments and close their accounts that started us on this tumble. You can blame the housing crash all you want but that was one of the things that really got it rolling. And this was all after it started going downhill the day after the election that made George W. Bush president. People thought the salad days were gone when Gore didn't make it, they panicked, and that's when the stock market started diving. Then after 9/11, and don't we all remember how very much the media taught us to panic that day, it was pretty much a done deal, starting with the airline industry.
They're still doing it. They still can't shut up. They keep spreading the fear and honestly, I kinda think it's too late now. How can we possible get our minds back from these fear mongers?
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
It's about F'in time!
Investigation into Jackson, Murphy, Haim deaths
This has been going on for so long. I wondered how many high-profile people they were going to let die first. You can just imagine how many normal people succumbed to these vipers.
This has been going on for so long. I wondered how many high-profile people they were going to let die first. You can just imagine how many normal people succumbed to these vipers.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Haiti
Sorry if I'm not the nice person I'm supposed to be. But the point of a blog imo is to say exactly what you think.
Haiti had an earthquake. People have earthquakes. For some reason everything in Haiti fell down. And it fell onto people. Haiti only seems to make bad news. I think of it as a place where it gets slammed with hurricane after hurricane. And to now find out that it's on top of a huge fault line, I have to wonder how people even survived there long enough to have a civilization or culture. You think they would have been wiped out hundreds of years ago or something. But then again hundreds of years ago, they probably didn't live in big buildings. Didn't work in office buildings or go to hospitals. They probably lived in more natural homes that they could make from scratch that wouldn't hurt as much if it fell on you. But we have to make buildings, right? We have to have concrete. But we can't think about where we're putting that concrete and what happens if it falls down. I think maybe a place like that would be better with Gilligan type housing. We don't need all the crap we think we do. And if you live in a place prone to natural disasters perhaps you should build for the inevitable disaster.
Secondly, every place on earth, as far as I know, is susceptible to natural disasters. And they're not nice, that's why they're called disasters. During and after Katrina, I got so sick of my fellow American, and I guess the world, for the criticism leveled at the government because of the expectation people seemed to have that the government could magically save or feed and shelter everyone within ten minutes of the hurricane ending. Disasters happen. People die in them. It's not supposed to be pretty. People can't accept that. They can watch disaster movies two, three times a year but when it happens in real life and there are actually dead people in the street, they can't accept that there might not have been anything anyone could do about that. So they start blaming. I never blamed Bush the way everyone else did for his poor response to Katrina. It wasn't perfect but it was a disaster. It needed preparation. Once the damage is done you can't make people come back to life again by getting there faster. This time they're picking on Obama. Or they were trying to already but it's ridiculous.
Anderson Cooper on night two, I think, was complaining about "stupid deaths". People dying because they didn't have antibiotics. He seemed mad about it, like someone was supposed to do something. But I'd have to ask, why didn't Anderson Cooper bring antibiotics? I'm sure he brought his Blackberry. Probably brought some makeup, a hairbrush, tooth floss. But if he didn't think to bring antibiotics to help people then how can he be angry at people who weren't lucky enough to get there as quickly as he was? Maybe he should realize that the priority for him and his ilk are to cover disasters not to do anything about. So when the actual help gets there 2 days after the reporters (did we need Al Roker there?) don't wonder why people are dying "stupid deaths".
Money. We have no money in this country. That was the story of 2009. So a disaster strikes Haiti and everyone tells Americans to send money. For the record, this pisses me off all the time. Especially when it's celebrities. And by celebrities, I mean millionaire superstars. They get on TV or websites, now twitter telling all their fans to donate to Haiti. They think they're really doing something. I think it's the height of assholeness. If a 20 million dollar a movie person asks Sue Smith, Mom, USA to donate even 5 dollars that really pisses me off. Let me explain why.
If Sue Smith is a normal person in the US right now, she doesn't have a lot of spending money month to month. If she has any savings, she's lucky. Let's, for the hell of it, say after expenses and paying bills, Sue Smith has $100 spending money per month. Okay, the earthquake happens. Let's pick a celebrity who we know is rich who was also tweeting for people to send money to Haiti. How about Ben Stiller? Okay, let's assume that Ben Stiller's got about $100 million in savings at least. Let's also assume that he made $20 million last year. He's got a wife and kids so let's say Stiller took home $15 million after taxes just for fun (we know it had to be more than that). Okay now let's say his yearly expenses are 5 million dollars. So that would give him $10 million a year in spending money. Sue Smith has 100 a month. $100 times twelve would be $1200 a year. So, are you following me now? If Sue Smith gives 5 dollars, that leaves her with $1195 dollars in spending money for the rest of the year. That may seem like a lot but it's not. The only way I will accept someone asking her to give $5 is if that person, in this example Stiller, gives enough money so that they also end up with $1195 spending money for the year. So the way I see it, using this example, Ben Stiller would have to donate $9,998,805 in order to ask Sue to donate $5 without being an asshole.
My opinion is that multi-millionaires asking the general public to donate a minimal amount is just not cool. Even if they donate a million dollars because it's a hell of a lot easier for them to donate a million when they've got millions more, than it is to donate 5 when you don't have that much money to start with. I was being generous when I gave Sue 100 dollars in spending money each month. Most American's haven't had that for a long time, let alone in this economy.
And then there's the whole texting thing. You know why they do that don't you? So that kids can donate. Kids have cellphones but unless their parents are crazy they don't have credit cards. They can't just go and charge a donation without asking mom. If they called a donation hotline and the person answering the phone heard a young voice, I don't think they'd legally be able to take that pledge. But a text? It happens in an instant. Most kids have cellphones, especially teenagers. They don't have to ask mom or dad to donate. It just goes on the bill. So when celebrities who are popular with children ask for text donations they know exactly what they're doing. They're getting kids to donate money without their parents permission and I'm sure they think it's okay because it's a worthy cause. But what if a particularly doofy kid is following Ben Stiller, Jim Carrey, and Dane Cook on Twitter. That's likely, they're all comedians. So each one of those celebrities tweets to donate 5 or 10 dollars by text. What if the kid does it every time so they can tweet back "I just donated!!! :D". Now there's 2o bucks on the phone bill that no one asked mom or dad if they could put there. 20 bucks they might not have especially if kids have a cellphone just for emergencies. Well kids are kid enough to think an earthquake counts as an emergency. So they might do just that and figure if they get in trouble it's "the right thing to do". Celebrities and their idiocy really get to me sometimes. It must be nice to be rich and famous and so much better than the rest of us that you have to keep telling people to donate to an earthquake they would have never heard of if it wasn't for you. Clooney's doing a telethon next week. I'm sure we will have forgotten about it by then. So it's a good thing we have good old George to keep us on the straight and narrow and in the poorhouse.
So where is this money going? That money isn't going to get converted into any actual stuff for a few days. After a few days whoever was alive is going to be dead. So that money isn't going to save lives. I hope that's not what the donors thought it would be doing. Then what? Okay it will go for food, but then what? Are they going to build more shitty buildings with that money? Who will build it? A construction company. Whose construction company?
What people donated that money for is already being done by people who were already paid for by organizations like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders. They lept into action without this money. After 9/11 when people found out the money they donated to the Red Cross was going to go to future tragedies they threw a fit. They only wanted their money to go to 9/11. It seems like a weird way to donate but that's how people are. Are people going to throw a similar fit when they find out how their money was used? Are they going to hold Ben Stiller accountable? I'm starting to think we should. Most of those celebrities were tweeting to donate to Wyclef Jean's charity. That charity's practices have already been called into question by The Smoking Gun. So for me. It's a repeat. A repeat of panic and outrage and people wanting to do something and being taken advantage of by people they trust concerning something there is very little anyone can do anything about. Why anyone would trust Ben Stiller is beyond me, but they do. I don't think he's evil or anything. I think he and the rest of these idols think they're doing something pretty awesome. But I just think they've been too rich for too long and are so clueless that they only see tragedy when it's completely obvious like war torn regions and people being crushed by buildings and dying in the street. They could never see the tragedy that is the American person who has to rub two quarters together to make enough money to take their kids to see Night at the Museum so they can pretend that things aren't as bad as they are. So how could they ever see the assholeness of asking those same people to use more of their money for something so "important"?
Haiti seems like a crappy place to live. If it was possible I'd vote for moving everyone out of there. Being so prone to natural disasters makes me think they'll never be able to get their situation completely together. They'll always get knocked back down. They're poor and they're gonna be poor. So why rebuild their poor conditions? Either let them live in tune with nature and try to go with it or leave them alone. But trying to "civilize" the place is what made this disaster. Those buildings wouldn't have fallen on people if they weren't there in the first place. Let it be an island. The island way. But that's not what's going to happen. Some asshole is going to make money "rebuilding" Haiti. And that in the end is going to be what all these donations are going to go for. Not to mention any tax money that the government uses to rebuild another country. So Sue Smith will be paying for it twice, but Ben Stiller will be deducting it. What a world.
Haiti had an earthquake. People have earthquakes. For some reason everything in Haiti fell down. And it fell onto people. Haiti only seems to make bad news. I think of it as a place where it gets slammed with hurricane after hurricane. And to now find out that it's on top of a huge fault line, I have to wonder how people even survived there long enough to have a civilization or culture. You think they would have been wiped out hundreds of years ago or something. But then again hundreds of years ago, they probably didn't live in big buildings. Didn't work in office buildings or go to hospitals. They probably lived in more natural homes that they could make from scratch that wouldn't hurt as much if it fell on you. But we have to make buildings, right? We have to have concrete. But we can't think about where we're putting that concrete and what happens if it falls down. I think maybe a place like that would be better with Gilligan type housing. We don't need all the crap we think we do. And if you live in a place prone to natural disasters perhaps you should build for the inevitable disaster.
Secondly, every place on earth, as far as I know, is susceptible to natural disasters. And they're not nice, that's why they're called disasters. During and after Katrina, I got so sick of my fellow American, and I guess the world, for the criticism leveled at the government because of the expectation people seemed to have that the government could magically save or feed and shelter everyone within ten minutes of the hurricane ending. Disasters happen. People die in them. It's not supposed to be pretty. People can't accept that. They can watch disaster movies two, three times a year but when it happens in real life and there are actually dead people in the street, they can't accept that there might not have been anything anyone could do about that. So they start blaming. I never blamed Bush the way everyone else did for his poor response to Katrina. It wasn't perfect but it was a disaster. It needed preparation. Once the damage is done you can't make people come back to life again by getting there faster. This time they're picking on Obama. Or they were trying to already but it's ridiculous.
Anderson Cooper on night two, I think, was complaining about "stupid deaths". People dying because they didn't have antibiotics. He seemed mad about it, like someone was supposed to do something. But I'd have to ask, why didn't Anderson Cooper bring antibiotics? I'm sure he brought his Blackberry. Probably brought some makeup, a hairbrush, tooth floss. But if he didn't think to bring antibiotics to help people then how can he be angry at people who weren't lucky enough to get there as quickly as he was? Maybe he should realize that the priority for him and his ilk are to cover disasters not to do anything about. So when the actual help gets there 2 days after the reporters (did we need Al Roker there?) don't wonder why people are dying "stupid deaths".
Money. We have no money in this country. That was the story of 2009. So a disaster strikes Haiti and everyone tells Americans to send money. For the record, this pisses me off all the time. Especially when it's celebrities. And by celebrities, I mean millionaire superstars. They get on TV or websites, now twitter telling all their fans to donate to Haiti. They think they're really doing something. I think it's the height of assholeness. If a 20 million dollar a movie person asks Sue Smith, Mom, USA to donate even 5 dollars that really pisses me off. Let me explain why.
If Sue Smith is a normal person in the US right now, she doesn't have a lot of spending money month to month. If she has any savings, she's lucky. Let's, for the hell of it, say after expenses and paying bills, Sue Smith has $100 spending money per month. Okay, the earthquake happens. Let's pick a celebrity who we know is rich who was also tweeting for people to send money to Haiti. How about Ben Stiller? Okay, let's assume that Ben Stiller's got about $100 million in savings at least. Let's also assume that he made $20 million last year. He's got a wife and kids so let's say Stiller took home $15 million after taxes just for fun (we know it had to be more than that). Okay now let's say his yearly expenses are 5 million dollars. So that would give him $10 million a year in spending money. Sue Smith has 100 a month. $100 times twelve would be $1200 a year. So, are you following me now? If Sue Smith gives 5 dollars, that leaves her with $1195 dollars in spending money for the rest of the year. That may seem like a lot but it's not. The only way I will accept someone asking her to give $5 is if that person, in this example Stiller, gives enough money so that they also end up with $1195 spending money for the year. So the way I see it, using this example, Ben Stiller would have to donate $9,998,805 in order to ask Sue to donate $5 without being an asshole.
My opinion is that multi-millionaires asking the general public to donate a minimal amount is just not cool. Even if they donate a million dollars because it's a hell of a lot easier for them to donate a million when they've got millions more, than it is to donate 5 when you don't have that much money to start with. I was being generous when I gave Sue 100 dollars in spending money each month. Most American's haven't had that for a long time, let alone in this economy.
And then there's the whole texting thing. You know why they do that don't you? So that kids can donate. Kids have cellphones but unless their parents are crazy they don't have credit cards. They can't just go and charge a donation without asking mom. If they called a donation hotline and the person answering the phone heard a young voice, I don't think they'd legally be able to take that pledge. But a text? It happens in an instant. Most kids have cellphones, especially teenagers. They don't have to ask mom or dad to donate. It just goes on the bill. So when celebrities who are popular with children ask for text donations they know exactly what they're doing. They're getting kids to donate money without their parents permission and I'm sure they think it's okay because it's a worthy cause. But what if a particularly doofy kid is following Ben Stiller, Jim Carrey, and Dane Cook on Twitter. That's likely, they're all comedians. So each one of those celebrities tweets to donate 5 or 10 dollars by text. What if the kid does it every time so they can tweet back "I just donated!!! :D". Now there's 2o bucks on the phone bill that no one asked mom or dad if they could put there. 20 bucks they might not have especially if kids have a cellphone just for emergencies. Well kids are kid enough to think an earthquake counts as an emergency. So they might do just that and figure if they get in trouble it's "the right thing to do". Celebrities and their idiocy really get to me sometimes. It must be nice to be rich and famous and so much better than the rest of us that you have to keep telling people to donate to an earthquake they would have never heard of if it wasn't for you. Clooney's doing a telethon next week. I'm sure we will have forgotten about it by then. So it's a good thing we have good old George to keep us on the straight and narrow and in the poorhouse.
So where is this money going? That money isn't going to get converted into any actual stuff for a few days. After a few days whoever was alive is going to be dead. So that money isn't going to save lives. I hope that's not what the donors thought it would be doing. Then what? Okay it will go for food, but then what? Are they going to build more shitty buildings with that money? Who will build it? A construction company. Whose construction company?
What people donated that money for is already being done by people who were already paid for by organizations like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders. They lept into action without this money. After 9/11 when people found out the money they donated to the Red Cross was going to go to future tragedies they threw a fit. They only wanted their money to go to 9/11. It seems like a weird way to donate but that's how people are. Are people going to throw a similar fit when they find out how their money was used? Are they going to hold Ben Stiller accountable? I'm starting to think we should. Most of those celebrities were tweeting to donate to Wyclef Jean's charity. That charity's practices have already been called into question by The Smoking Gun. So for me. It's a repeat. A repeat of panic and outrage and people wanting to do something and being taken advantage of by people they trust concerning something there is very little anyone can do anything about. Why anyone would trust Ben Stiller is beyond me, but they do. I don't think he's evil or anything. I think he and the rest of these idols think they're doing something pretty awesome. But I just think they've been too rich for too long and are so clueless that they only see tragedy when it's completely obvious like war torn regions and people being crushed by buildings and dying in the street. They could never see the tragedy that is the American person who has to rub two quarters together to make enough money to take their kids to see Night at the Museum so they can pretend that things aren't as bad as they are. So how could they ever see the assholeness of asking those same people to use more of their money for something so "important"?
Haiti seems like a crappy place to live. If it was possible I'd vote for moving everyone out of there. Being so prone to natural disasters makes me think they'll never be able to get their situation completely together. They'll always get knocked back down. They're poor and they're gonna be poor. So why rebuild their poor conditions? Either let them live in tune with nature and try to go with it or leave them alone. But trying to "civilize" the place is what made this disaster. Those buildings wouldn't have fallen on people if they weren't there in the first place. Let it be an island. The island way. But that's not what's going to happen. Some asshole is going to make money "rebuilding" Haiti. And that in the end is going to be what all these donations are going to go for. Not to mention any tax money that the government uses to rebuild another country. So Sue Smith will be paying for it twice, but Ben Stiller will be deducting it. What a world.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Turning over a new leaf
I think I'm going to try to be more global and less local with my rants. Thinking about my local area doesn't help me and all and it's never gonna change. This kind of stupidity is permanent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
