Macs Only
| Rick's Home Page |
Macs Only
|
Best viewed with Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer 5 and up, or Netscape 6 and up.
One-line observations on the state of the world as I see it. OK, so some are longer than one line.
Secret police? What secret police? I don't see any secret police. Never heard of 'em.
Those who use the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" to condemn someone are apparently unable to accomplish their agenda without resorting to those words. Their only hope is to enlist the aid of others who react to the word "terrorist" in fear. At this point, we have a mob mentality. Look up the word demagogue.
Military personnel are not attacked by terrorists, but are instead confronted by other armies, insurgents, and guerillas. Though casualties are always a tragedy, fighting is what they're trained to do; it's their job. Terrorist activity is directed against civilians, not military.
It makes no sense to defend a National Guard base in the US against terrorist attack: they're not a target. The only possible reason for such security is to prevent the bad guys from walking in and stealing weapons. That doesn't seem like a difficult thing to do: keep things locked up; you don't need to have all the guns at the ready while on the base.
I rarely use the phrases "America," "Americans," "the American People" or "Our great country" in my daily speech. This does not mean that I consider that our country is not great. It just means that I don't have to use these words to attempt to gain anything from the listener.
Not having a flag on your car doesn't make you a traitor. Conversely, flying the flag doesn't make you a better patriot.
There are no such things as cyber-terrorism, economic terrorism, or most of the other so-called terrorisms that people speak about. These are just made-up words, modern expletives designed to evoke a response, when the speaker hasn't got a good enough argument. Terrorism, as defined by most dictionaries, implies violence against people (usually civilians) to coerce societies or governments. Usually, terrorists are motivated by ideological, religious, or political goals.
Thus, the hacker who writes a computer virus is not a "cyber-terrorist," because his goal is only notoriety. He isn't blackmailing anyone with his actions. The Mexican immigrant who enters the U.S. illegally is not an "economic terrorist," no matter what anyone says.
The woman who steals a credit-card number via computer is also not a "cyber-terrorist." Her goal is to steal money: the crime is still just a form of larceny.
Some airports now have armed soldiers guarding everything, I'm becoming concerned that they may pose a danger. Suppose they're not ready/willing/able to open fire on the bad guys. In that case they wouldn't be helping the situation: they would literally be providing a false sense of security. We aren't keeping our eyes open because we expect the guards to spot everything. They can't.
I'm sure it's possible to train guards to instantly spot trouble, shoot immediately, and carefully take out the problem. Has every guard been expertly trained like this? It seems unlikely, unless they've all been trained by the Israelis. How do we know a guard won't overreact in the moment of crisis and shoot everyone in sight, even us?
Now this web page is liable to pop up on some watch list because of the words in the prior paragraphs...
I love the Bush administration's accounting practices, so perhaps I can use them myself. We see claims of "creating X new jobs this month," but they choose to exclude the number of newly unemployed workers. Isn't it the net number that counts?
So it's Enron-style accounting at the highest levels of government. Maybe we shouldn't have punished Enron at all, but instead rewarded them for upholding the new American values.
Perhaps I should just add up all my income and exclude my expenses, so I can tell people I make tons of money. When it comes to tax time, of course, I'll do just the opposite — exclude the income. In fact, maybe everyone should do that to the IRS. Tell 'em you're just following the leader.
If a key witness suddenly dies or becomes completely incapacitated when a case becomes big news, I get suspicious. (Iran/Contra, Whitewater, Enron...)
The First Amendment says the government can't prosecute you for saying what you want. It does not indemnify you against any legal action that your employeer, your church, or your neighbors may take against you. Yes, your employer can fire you for saying something they don't want you to say. Watch your mouth.
Let's say there are two organizations to whom I can donate money, merchandise, or services. Perhaps one is more deserving, more needy, than the other. I'll give to the one who says "Thank You."
When I start seeing news articles about good things that happen when people use handguns, I'll begin believing that we need to have them.
Some of us are lucky to be able to see around corners that most people don't even see coming. Try explaining this to people — and see if they understand its value. Sadly, the people who would benefit the most from your help won't understand at all.
Too many politicians waste time talking about issues and not doing anything about them. If you're unwilling to make decisions — because you don't want someone to dislike you — then retire. You're supposed to represent people and make decisions. Some won't like the decisions, but it's your job to make them.
If we all return the "business reply" junk mail we get, it will help the Post Service (since the business pays). Just don't include the part with your name and address...
There are people who are givers and those who are takers. You can always spot a taker, because he's the one who's constantly on guard, afraid someone is trying to take something from him. He can't help this defensive behavior, because that's the way he thinks — always trying to take. A giver, on the other hand, is the person who trusts a handshake, who treats others fairly, who cooperates and communicates.
The United States Postal Service does a great job. Then again, they have a few business advantages: a different property tax scheme (do they pay any at all?), no state vehicle registration fees, things like that.
Fully half the US population is of below-average intelligence. If you can't figure out why this is true, you know which half you're in.
The 2001 Tax Relief Act (a rebate check) really struck me as a "bright idea." I'm going to use this idea at home. I'll give away a bunch of money, then when I find out I'm broke, I'll just tell my bank that I'll have to owe them the mortgage next month. Since when does any intelligent person blow a huge amount of his surplus cash, to the extent that he then has to say "oops?" Guess it made sense to GW Bush (but see above).
Recently, someone in charge at the Adult Rec Center in my town got all bent out of shape, because the Youth Rec Center wanted to run a rummage sale to raise a few bucks. Apparently, this person seemed to think the Youth Center would compete by running a sale at the same location where the Adult Center would run theirs in the future. (On property owned by a third party, no less!)
So let me get this straight: a rummage sale is big business? Both organizations are in the same business — the service business — and they don't compete (since you must be 18 to join the adult center.) So what's the problem? What part of service doesn't this person understand? Was it really necessary to be a hard-nose with the Youth Center? Is this the right type of behavior to demonstrate to Youth? To anyone?
Someone with vision would realize that if you want future adults to live in the town — and to join the Adult Rec Center — you should pay attention to today's youth. Assignment: read the Leadership rants.