My opinion on Hillary Clinton

I'll start off this post by saying two things up-front. I wouldn't vote for McCain if he was the only person in the election. He's a terribly uncharismatic speaker and his tone is so dull, I actually start getting sleepy when he speaks. I'll probably go on about him some other time. I also want to state, that I like Obama. Sure, he's an idealist, but lets face it, if he actually does half the things he says, we'll be three times better off then we are. I'll post about him later too. This post is about Hillary Clinton. I've never been a fan of H.C., I've always taken issue with her duplicitous nature and her seeming fraudulentness. I'm pretty sure McCain would be preferable over her we're the choices up to me, thats right, I'd pick Obama, then McCain, then someone from an independent party, then an illegal immigrant, THEN H.C. The thing about the Clinton campaign is I think Bill clinton was a great president, the enviroment was on the mend, there was a surplus of money, jobs were on the rise, we weren't at WAR.....

That said, I can't even say i disagree with all of H.C. stances, I don't, she and Obama are a lot similiar in their stances. the problem with Hillary Clinton.... is Hillary Clinton. "Huh, what?" you might think, let me show you commentary on some recent things she has said:



Having seen that video, maybe you see what I'm saying. Hillary feels she is preordained to be the first female President and frankly if she were, that'd be fine and dandy. The problem seems to be that although she may be right about some issues, she can't be satisfied with being respected or a rolemodel for women, hard working white women (I guess), or any young women (no matter their color or nationality) that need to be able to see that politically females can be anything men can be. Hey, I have a daughter, I understand wanting your child to know that they are only limited by their own dreams and ambitions. My issue in particular is that no matter what it is you want to be or that you want to do you shouldn't lie (misremember) or attempt to change the rules when your losing or even pull the gender card because it seems like it might get you what you want. Besides, it wasnt 2 months ago that this same person was saying "politics is a tough business", unless it seems it's her.

For the record, using assassination in the context of your opponent or using past assassinations as a reference to your campaign is the lowest of the low and anyone that says differently is basically, a moron.

(stay tuned for editing)

Disabilities... aren't they called a handicap for a reason?

U.S. court: Dollars discriminate against blind - U.S. business- msnbc.com

OK. Don't hate me for my opinion but.....Your money could be changing in the not so near future. Hooray progress. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against blind people, in fact, they are to be admired. That being said, seriously, WTF?? Money is discriminatory? Are you kidding me??? Yeah it sucks that money is the same size... correction it sucks if your blind, that money is the same size, but for the rest of us, its great. I deal with money all the time and personally I like how nice and neat it stacks, I like how symmetrical money is, why does it need to change?

So billions should be spent retrofitting vending machines? How about those cash counters at the bank thats money well spent or should I say flushed down the toilet. Those super awesome weighing money counters, yeah they all need to be programmed to weigh the new money since shearing the size down changes the weight of all the paper paper money. And what the hell about all the money currently in circulation? Should businesses run by the blind be able to deny currency because it's not this new standardized size? Trillions of dollars should be just "pulled" out of circulation? and who's going to do this? Yeah that's a lot to consider now isn't it? I'm just one person but all that just popped into my head and this has been a 6 year court battle?!?

Besides, disabilities are disabilities because you can't do everything everyone else does. No one says you cant have cash if your blind, hell, my cats can have money if they want, but they cant decipher 1's from 5's (and they complain they can't flip through it because they don't have opposable thumbs) so they rather I pay them in food and shelter. Roads are discriminatory too you know, you have to look where your going. Blind people aren't hired as money handlers? Neither are stupid people, but they don't complain (maybe because they're too stupid to, but hey they don't). Not that I'm sexist but theirs things some women shouldn't do and it's not discriminatory it's just common sense. An example....

Ninety pound Buffy, who's cute as a button, smart as a whip, blond and sociable shouldn't be a firefighter who runs into a burning building to save me. Sorry Buffy, you may be a great person, you may be beautiful, you may have passed all your theoretical tests without breaking a sweat but You.Cannot.Lift.Me. I weigh 3 times what you do and I'm unconscious and time is of the essence and most importantly, I don't feel too keen about dying today. No I want Jack McDrinksalot, he's like 250 pounds and can bench press twice his body weight, I want Mr. McDrinksalot to rush in drag my passed out carcass from wherever I am, throw me over his shoulder and get me out of there! And just to be clear, same scenario with another guy: I also dont want 85 pound Irwin who Buffy beat up the night before in there trying to calculate the best way to get me to safety either.

See, the problem isn't dollar bills, they are great for most activities and yeah other countries have money of varying sizes and such, but thats them. Once again the government seeks to punish the many for the sake of the few, and yes, I'm sorry but the blind people don't outnumber the rest of us who don't have a problem with currency in its current form. If you really wanna effect change, how about subsidizing and lowering the cost of electronic verbal money counters for the blind? Oh, hey here's an idea make it mandatory ALL stores use debit and credit card readers. There are places in the US I still cant use my debit card, are you freakin' kidding me? There's totally no excuse for that other then pure laziness on the part of the business owner. If I can open and operate an online business and accept credit, debit, AND paypal cards, then there's no reason a real brick and mortar business can't do the same thing. Personally, I find it annoying as hell that people like to go after the most ridiculous possibility first. Yes , cash sucks at times but when its not a problem for all blind people and there are literally at least a dozen alternatives, why the hell punish everyone?

A business model for Twitter: Pay up | Outside the Lines - CNET News.com

I'm a Twitter user and i think it's a pretty neat service so i read the following Cnet article by Dan Farber .

A business model for Twitter: Pay up | Outside the Lines - CNET News.com

 

I like a lot of the things Mr. Farber says in a lot of his articles, but the monetization pholosophy that so many people try to insert into web culture prompter me to post a reply.  I'll post my reply in full right here:

by Trapfnder May 16, 2008 2:56 PM

 

Interesting Web 2.0 philosophizing in the article, "Hey, pay for it", here's the problem I find with this argument. Everyone likes free, some people like subscriptions, most people wouldn't mind paying, and noone likes being ripped off. Twitter serves a basic function that's fast but doesn't offer anything "new" persay; it's a modded InstantMessenger with a public directory. I already use 6 Instant messengers, I like Twitter, but contrary to what the technorati wants everyone to believe, Twitter is a dirty, fun pleasure,not an addiction. Jaiku and Pownce both offer cool stuff that Twitter doesn't but Twitters easy and fun. People like to monetize everything and yeah its the capitalist way but the old bait and switch is nothing new. If you want to monetize something then start it off as a paid service. What's wrong with that? Using the public for a testing ground then saying "Well, people like it, though we started it free, time to make them pay but only because it's popular" rarely works. You'll get some hangers-in, but for the most part the rest of us will migrate elsewhere. Sure, that thinking sucks, but that's the way it is, sucks or not.

 

Instead of most pundits who gripe about how people don't like to pay, I submit that people are just tired of paying 2 or 3 times for things so they look for alternatives. As a consumer I pay for a movie, jacked up snacks, then I'm subjected to commercials (not movie trailers) actual TV adds which are supposed to subsidize free content like um... network TV shows?!? But that's ok somehow, I pay for content and then an advertiser gets to freely STEAL my time and I don't care that it's 30 seconds it's MY 30 seconds. If I did that at work it wouldn't be acceptable, so why is the consumers time acceptable to steal? The music industry seems to think charging me multiple times for the same item in different formats is great, so why shouldn't my food at home follow the same premise? I buy hamburger meat but I decide to make a casserole, that's another charge, or meatloaf, which is another charge, yeah, that's about as much sense as the record industries argument makes. The movie studios aren't any better when it comes to DVDs. Now, i admit I go along with the premise that, there's a certain amount of money involved in the production of mass market DVDs. I like the packaging and i usually only buy the "Special Edition" because i like watching the behind the scenes stuff after I enjoy a film. That said, what's the deal with me downloading movies for about the same cost as a DVD and having it "delivered digitally"? DVDs cost money, albeit, nowhere near the amount they gouge me for, and I'm usually willing to pay. Are you trying to tell me that it's perfectly to charge me the same premium on a product that requires no ink, no plastic, no stamping process, oh and a lot of the times, no extras??? Are you kidding me?

 

But that's capitalism, that's what people will say. Other people will say.. "Well, what can you do?" What can i do? I can refuse not to pay, I can look for free and cheaper alternatives, and that's what happens with these Web 2.0 plans. The consumer is just tired of being scammed. There seems to be some double standard where consumers are wrong because they find something offered for free then they argue when it's monetized. There are plenty of reasons why alot of business models can not be applied to certain things. Twitters simplicity and it being free is its success, it's that simple, take away one or the other and people get bored and frustrate and move on. I summarize my argument with this: If you went home and enjoyed sex with your wife/girlfriend for free and you found value in it and then one day she decided to monetize and charge you for services @ $5 a pop would you do it? Or like so many other services in life would you look for the free alternative? (Maybe I should have written my own article... eep...)

 

Maybe you agree, maybe you don't, but feel free to comment.