It didn't occur to me until I started answering these questions that this week I had to research both beer AND porn. I love this job.
Q: Eric Democko - as previously discussed, please provide us with a detailed history of the India Pale Ale (citing more than just wikipedia or wikipanion). and what are some of the top rated ones? (maybe on beeradvocate?)
A: I spent some time looking around both the Internet and my local public library for an answer to this question. What follows is a quick history of India Pale Ale; for a more complete history just follow the links that follow.
India Pale Ale was invented to solve a problem: getting beer to the British armed forces serving all over the globe during the heyday of the British Empire. Journeys to the far reaches of the Empire (most notably India) took months, passed through hot climates, and resulted in beer that flat, stale, and undrinkable when it arrived. Throughout the 18th century there were many attempts to solve this problem, including such clever ideas as removing the water from the beer and making the soldiers add it themselves when it arrived.
The problem was solved by a brewer named George Hodgson who worked at the Bow Brewery in East London. In the days before refrigeration was available to preserve beer brewers had two ways to keep beer fresh: alcohol and hops. Hodgson took a recipe for Pale Ale that he'd used since the 1750's and vastly increased the amount of hops and alcohol (often up to 10% by volume). This meant that the beer would arrive at its destination, if not "fresh" then less bad. The beer was a hit and has evolved since then into a popular variety to this day.
From "The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing" by Dave Miller: "This beer was brewed very strong and well hopped because it was intended for a long sea voyage, at the end of which it fortified Her Majesty's troops during the heyday of the British Raj. These days IPA is scarcely stronger than ordinary pale ale, but is usually hoppier."
Below are links to some good articles that helped me form this answer:
http://www.evansale.com/india-pale-ale-article.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_pale_ale
http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/styles/2_2style.html
As requested I went to http://www.beeradvocate.com to find the top rated IPAs. They can be found here and in the list below:
1. India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Meantime Brewing Company Limited
2. Blackheart - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Three Floyds Brewing Co. / Brewery & Pub
3. Drake's IPA - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Drake's Brewing Co.
4. 1800 Old English IPA - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Minneapolis Town Hall Brewery
5. Lost Sailor India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Berkshire Brewing Company Inc.
6. Schlafly Export India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Saint Louis Brewery / Schlafly Tap Room
7. Black Toque - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Phillips Brewing Company
8. Golding Indian Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Brasserie Bièropholie
9. Thulza Doom - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Three Floyds Brewing Co. / Brewery & Pub
10. Fuller's India Pale Ale - English India Pale Ale (IPA) - Fuller Smith & Turner PLC
Personally I'm not a fan of IPAs. I did buy a six-pack of Harpoon IPA to help my research of this question, and I liked it as much as I liked the IPA we had at the Tap and Mallet beer tasting event, which was not very much.
Brett Gobe - Salty or sweet snacks?
A: Overall I'm a salty snacker. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for popcorn, with movie theatre popcorn being one of my few true vices in this world. I have also been a fan of pretzels over the past few years. A couple guys I work with have introduced me to some very tasty varieties including honey-wheat and butter-salt.
Q: Bill Jeffers - When did the pornography industry get into full...um...swing?
A: Pornography has existed in one form or another since the dawn of mankind. There has been erotic imagery and artwork throughout history, starting with paintings and sculpture and proceeding all the way to live video on the Internet. The "Porn Industry" is a concept that emerged in the 20th century as pornography moved from an ad-hoc nature to something that responded to consumer demand.
I think the proper answer to your question lies in the date when pornography began to enter the mainstream of society. I place that date at December of 1953, which is the date that Hugh Hefner first published the magazine Playboy (all links are to Wikipedia to make this answer as SFW as possible). This magazine took pornography from seedy bookstores and theatres and into the homes of millions of people (albeit mostly college males). After Playboy came Penthouse and Hustler, which spawned literally hundreds of other magazines.
Once porn became more mainstream that opened the door for the establishment of the porn movie industry. This industry really got going during the late 1970s and 1980s with the advent of home movie players. It is widely accepted that once the porn industry adopted VHS as its medium of choice for video distribution the format wars of the 1980s were over. Building on these successes led to the proliferation of pornography on the Internet.
Q: Adam Barnello - If it's Tim and "I," then who, pray tell, is the editor?
A: Something I've used as a literary device for many years is a surrogate personality that I can use to explore my psyche. [Ed: So you mean I'm not real? I'm afraid not.] On my old Clarkson website I conducted a few self-interviews using this surrogate personality. I find it an amusing way to explore my personality and to give people a window into my thought process. One of my favorite bloggers Glenn Reynolds uses this technique from time to time in his blog posts as a way to put little tongue-in-cheek comments into his posts.
So the answer to your question is that I am my own editor. Not quite in the same way that I am my own drummer, but close.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do you feel about a private equity company(KPS Capital) buying a locally/family/employee owned and operated business(High falls Brewery)?
A: My feelings about such acquisitions depend on the circumstances involved. As I understand the story, High Falls Brewery was in danger of going bankrupt and this private equity company came along and bought them to save them. This saved many local jobs and preserved a popular local business. In general I do not have a problem with large corporate ownership of something so long as that corporate ownership does not change the thing. In this case it seems to me that had the equity firm not come along and bought High Falls then it would have shut down. The real answer here will only emerge in time. If the buyers live up to their word and keep the brewery open and growing then I'd say that the sale was a good one.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
43 - Answer(s)
Q: Sarah LaBombard - A wise person told me to ask you what your favorite color is...so I'm asking!
A: My favorite color is blue. The best description of the blue that I like is the color of the late afternoon sky on a clear day. I experienced this most deeply last April when I was in Ridgecrest, CA. The sky there was simply beautiful during the day, and especially during the waning hours of the day. Below is a picture I took from that trip:
I like other shades of blue as well but that one has always been my favorite. The deeper and richer the color the better.
Q: Brett Gobe - Do you think Bob Seger ever made it to Kathmandu?
A: Let's look at some of the lyrics in the song in order to help us figure out the answer to this question. The full set of lyrics can be found here.
The first line of the song is, "I think I'm goin to Kathmandu. That's really really where I'm goin' to." Right away we get the impression that Kathmandu is a place that he intends to visit. What we don't know is whether or not he's been there in the past. I don't think this is the case, but since he very badly wants to go there it stands to reason that he may have been there in the past. The next line in the song casts some doubt on his prospects. He says that "if I ever get out of here, that's where I'm goin' to." So his travels to Kathmandu would seem to depend first on his ability to "get out of here", but where is "here?" Is he locked up in jail? That would make leaving hard, unless of course he is paroled or escapes. The balance of the song lyrics are basically an apology to the United States for wanting to leave. He seems regretful but ultimately resigned to leave for Kathmandu.
I think this is one of those unanswerable questions, but since I'm forced to give an answer I think that he ultimately did make it to Kathmandu. He hints at having to catch a plane, which implies that he has purchased plane tickets to Kathmandu. Since I imagine that those are very expensive he has an incentive to catch the plane to Kathmandu so that he doesn't waste the money. So yes, he made it to Kathmandu.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Have you ever seen the rain coming down on the plain?
A: My answer depends on exactly which plains you are referring to. I have seen the rain coming down on a plain, but those plains may not be the ones that you mean. If you are referring to the plains in Spain (a reference to the quote "The rain in Spain falls mostly on the plain"), then no, I have not. I have not yet been to Spain. If you are referring to the Great Plains here in America my answer is also no. I have a desire to see the Great Plains, and may do so later this year if my cross-country driving plan comes to fruition. And if I do visit the Great Plains then I will certainly keep my eyes out for rain on them. That and thunderstorms.
A: My favorite color is blue. The best description of the blue that I like is the color of the late afternoon sky on a clear day. I experienced this most deeply last April when I was in Ridgecrest, CA. The sky there was simply beautiful during the day, and especially during the waning hours of the day. Below is a picture I took from that trip:
I like other shades of blue as well but that one has always been my favorite. The deeper and richer the color the better.
Q: Brett Gobe - Do you think Bob Seger ever made it to Kathmandu?
A: Let's look at some of the lyrics in the song in order to help us figure out the answer to this question. The full set of lyrics can be found here.
The first line of the song is, "I think I'm goin to Kathmandu. That's really really where I'm goin' to." Right away we get the impression that Kathmandu is a place that he intends to visit. What we don't know is whether or not he's been there in the past. I don't think this is the case, but since he very badly wants to go there it stands to reason that he may have been there in the past. The next line in the song casts some doubt on his prospects. He says that "if I ever get out of here, that's where I'm goin' to." So his travels to Kathmandu would seem to depend first on his ability to "get out of here", but where is "here?" Is he locked up in jail? That would make leaving hard, unless of course he is paroled or escapes. The balance of the song lyrics are basically an apology to the United States for wanting to leave. He seems regretful but ultimately resigned to leave for Kathmandu.
I think this is one of those unanswerable questions, but since I'm forced to give an answer I think that he ultimately did make it to Kathmandu. He hints at having to catch a plane, which implies that he has purchased plane tickets to Kathmandu. Since I imagine that those are very expensive he has an incentive to catch the plane to Kathmandu so that he doesn't waste the money. So yes, he made it to Kathmandu.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Have you ever seen the rain coming down on the plain?
A: My answer depends on exactly which plains you are referring to. I have seen the rain coming down on a plain, but those plains may not be the ones that you mean. If you are referring to the plains in Spain (a reference to the quote "The rain in Spain falls mostly on the plain"), then no, I have not. I have not yet been to Spain. If you are referring to the Great Plains here in America my answer is also no. I have a desire to see the Great Plains, and may do so later this year if my cross-country driving plan comes to fruition. And if I do visit the Great Plains then I will certainly keep my eyes out for rain on them. That and thunderstorms.
Monday, January 19, 2009
42 - Answer(s)
Q: Bill Jeffers - With all the talk about McNabb not knowing that there were ties in football, and now his team is advancing even though he might be perceived as stupid...what sport has the smartest athletes? Would Jeopardy: Professional Athlete tournament be interestingor embarassing?
A: Bill, as much as I love this question, I don't think I can give you an answer that's as scientific as you deserve. Researching this question has proven harder than I expected. I was hoping to find a list of average IQs for each major sport and just pass that on. Sadly such a list does not exist. Nor can I find any intelligence measurement of the general population that includes professional athletes. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, sure, but not athletes. Or musicians, for that matter.
So I'm going to have to tackle this myself. First, the counter-question that must be asked is what does "smart" mean? Does it mean general intelligence as measured by an IQ or does it mean smart as far as skill required to play the sport? Also, elite and snobby does not necessarily mean smart. I'll admit that my first thought was that golf had the smartest players. Then I realized that it was because of the air surrounding the game, not because of the players themselves.
With that out of the way, what follows is an off-the-top-of-my-head, no-good-reason ranking of the "major" sports:
1. Baseball - Players have to think about their actions and anticipate what others will do. Pitchers and hitters will study film of each other in an effort to gain an advantage.
2. Hockey - Hand-eye coordination like no other sport, plus memorizing plays.
3. Football - You have to memorize complicated playbooks, especially quarterbacks. Lots of time spent analyzing film and learning from it.
4. Basketball - Memorizing plays, but not as complicated as other sports. More about athleticism than intelligence.
5. Soccer - Running up and down a field and kicking a ball.
Like I said, this is hardly scientific. If you'd like me to dedicate more time to this then I will. I find the question fascinating, and I really think it does deserve an entire book. Or maybe a chapter in my book. We'll see.
As for your second question, I think that Jeopardy: Professional Athlete is a great idea. I would actually make it like a tournament. Baseball players one night, football players the next night, and so on. The winner of each round gets to proceed and finally a winner is decided. I would watch that. Especially if the answers were all sports related. That would be some entertaining television.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein -
1) Don't you think speeches such as Crichton's there and movies like Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" only add to the partisan nature of the argument and allowing either of them to profoundly influence your ideas is giving in to the partisan nature of the argument? Both seem to be at the far ends of each sides arguments.
2) Going back to where this started: how is adding solar panels to your house and reducing your "carbon footprint" not adapting to climate change and (trying to) doing something about it?
A: 1. When I say I was profoundly influenced by Michael Crichton's speech I mean that it changed the way that I thought about the issue. I don't see that as giving in to the partisan nature of the debate but rather opening up my mind to other ways of looking at the issue. Once I stopped reflexively believing in whatever the climate change proponents said I was able to start to see the issue in a whole new way. As I said in my last answer I stopped looking at causes and started looking at actions.
I disagree that both Crichton's speech and Al Gore's (and others') films are opposite ends of some kind of spectrum. To me that's engaging in a kind of equivalence between the arguments that misses the point. In the case of the debate about climate change there are scientific facts regarding the issue. Put another way, one side is going to be right and one side is going to be wrong. Will that matter? I don't know. I'll say it again: I see the partisan nature of this debate as the fault of the believers in climate change. Is this because I'm not a believer? Maybe.
2. As I said in my last answer there are many reasons that someone might choose to add solar panels to their house. Motivations and effects are not necessarily linked. Let me illustrate this with a related point. Let's say I trade in my SUV and buy a Chevy Aveo (or some similar small car). What is the effect of that decision? For one thing, I'll get better gas milage and thus spend less money on gas. For another, I'll be polluting less and thus my "carbon footprint" will be smaller. So why did I buy the smaller car? It's impossible to say.
Here's another example that is unrelated to the environment. Back in 1990 President George HW Bush signed a tax increase that included, among other things, a "Luxury Tax" on such things as yachts, private airplanes, and luxury cars. The motivation for the tax was to tax the rich and raise money for the government. The effect of the tax was that the rich bought less of the items being taxed, and thousands of jobs were lost in the industries that produced those goods. Was it President Bush's intention to destroy those jobs? Of course not. But that was the effect.
Similarly the effect of installing solar panels or other "green" home improvements might be to impact climate change (I personally don't believe it, but I'll concede the point for now). But that is not necessarily the motivation for the actions. I'll turn the question back around on you: does it matter what the the motivations for the actions are? I contend that it doesn't, and that we as a people shouldn't be concerned with it. But that's just my opinion, as always.
Q: James Lileks (via Twitter) - What does the guy whose job it is to bang on the drum all day want to do instead of work?
A: This question was not asked of me directly, but I saw it on twitter the other day and was so amused that I had to give my own answer. For those of you who don't know, James Lileks is a humorist who writes for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and is the editor of buzz.mn. He's on par with Dave Barry for humor in my opinion, albeit less wacky than Dave.
Anyway, this is a good question. I think that a professional drummer might want to do any of a number of things all day:
- Work in an office (first suggested by Brett Gobe).
- Learn to play guitar/sing so he can have a chance to get laid.
- Bang on a different drum.
Ultimately it's unanswerable, but still very funny to ponder.
A: Bill, as much as I love this question, I don't think I can give you an answer that's as scientific as you deserve. Researching this question has proven harder than I expected. I was hoping to find a list of average IQs for each major sport and just pass that on. Sadly such a list does not exist. Nor can I find any intelligence measurement of the general population that includes professional athletes. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, sure, but not athletes. Or musicians, for that matter.
So I'm going to have to tackle this myself. First, the counter-question that must be asked is what does "smart" mean? Does it mean general intelligence as measured by an IQ or does it mean smart as far as skill required to play the sport? Also, elite and snobby does not necessarily mean smart. I'll admit that my first thought was that golf had the smartest players. Then I realized that it was because of the air surrounding the game, not because of the players themselves.
With that out of the way, what follows is an off-the-top-of-my-head, no-good-reason ranking of the "major" sports:
1. Baseball - Players have to think about their actions and anticipate what others will do. Pitchers and hitters will study film of each other in an effort to gain an advantage.
2. Hockey - Hand-eye coordination like no other sport, plus memorizing plays.
3. Football - You have to memorize complicated playbooks, especially quarterbacks. Lots of time spent analyzing film and learning from it.
4. Basketball - Memorizing plays, but not as complicated as other sports. More about athleticism than intelligence.
5. Soccer - Running up and down a field and kicking a ball.
Like I said, this is hardly scientific. If you'd like me to dedicate more time to this then I will. I find the question fascinating, and I really think it does deserve an entire book. Or maybe a chapter in my book. We'll see.
As for your second question, I think that Jeopardy: Professional Athlete is a great idea. I would actually make it like a tournament. Baseball players one night, football players the next night, and so on. The winner of each round gets to proceed and finally a winner is decided. I would watch that. Especially if the answers were all sports related. That would be some entertaining television.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein -
1) Don't you think speeches such as Crichton's there and movies like Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" only add to the partisan nature of the argument and allowing either of them to profoundly influence your ideas is giving in to the partisan nature of the argument? Both seem to be at the far ends of each sides arguments.
2) Going back to where this started: how is adding solar panels to your house and reducing your "carbon footprint" not adapting to climate change and (trying to) doing something about it?
A: 1. When I say I was profoundly influenced by Michael Crichton's speech I mean that it changed the way that I thought about the issue. I don't see that as giving in to the partisan nature of the debate but rather opening up my mind to other ways of looking at the issue. Once I stopped reflexively believing in whatever the climate change proponents said I was able to start to see the issue in a whole new way. As I said in my last answer I stopped looking at causes and started looking at actions.
I disagree that both Crichton's speech and Al Gore's (and others') films are opposite ends of some kind of spectrum. To me that's engaging in a kind of equivalence between the arguments that misses the point. In the case of the debate about climate change there are scientific facts regarding the issue. Put another way, one side is going to be right and one side is going to be wrong. Will that matter? I don't know. I'll say it again: I see the partisan nature of this debate as the fault of the believers in climate change. Is this because I'm not a believer? Maybe.
2. As I said in my last answer there are many reasons that someone might choose to add solar panels to their house. Motivations and effects are not necessarily linked. Let me illustrate this with a related point. Let's say I trade in my SUV and buy a Chevy Aveo (or some similar small car). What is the effect of that decision? For one thing, I'll get better gas milage and thus spend less money on gas. For another, I'll be polluting less and thus my "carbon footprint" will be smaller. So why did I buy the smaller car? It's impossible to say.
Here's another example that is unrelated to the environment. Back in 1990 President George HW Bush signed a tax increase that included, among other things, a "Luxury Tax" on such things as yachts, private airplanes, and luxury cars. The motivation for the tax was to tax the rich and raise money for the government. The effect of the tax was that the rich bought less of the items being taxed, and thousands of jobs were lost in the industries that produced those goods. Was it President Bush's intention to destroy those jobs? Of course not. But that was the effect.
Similarly the effect of installing solar panels or other "green" home improvements might be to impact climate change (I personally don't believe it, but I'll concede the point for now). But that is not necessarily the motivation for the actions. I'll turn the question back around on you: does it matter what the the motivations for the actions are? I contend that it doesn't, and that we as a people shouldn't be concerned with it. But that's just my opinion, as always.
Q: James Lileks (via Twitter) - What does the guy whose job it is to bang on the drum all day want to do instead of work?
A: This question was not asked of me directly, but I saw it on twitter the other day and was so amused that I had to give my own answer. For those of you who don't know, James Lileks is a humorist who writes for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and is the editor of buzz.mn. He's on par with Dave Barry for humor in my opinion, albeit less wacky than Dave.
Anyway, this is a good question. I think that a professional drummer might want to do any of a number of things all day:
- Work in an office (first suggested by Brett Gobe).
- Learn to play guitar/sing so he can have a chance to get laid.
- Bang on a different drum.
Ultimately it's unanswerable, but still very funny to ponder.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
41 - Answer(s)
Q: Adam Barnello - Why didn't you like The Big Lebowski?
A: I didn't say that I didn't like The Big Lebowski. I said that I didn't get it. I enjoyed the movie on a number of levels. The characters were well written and acted. The plot, while confusing at times, was neatly wrapped up by the end of the movie. I laughed, I cried, I laughed some more.
But in the end I just didn't "get" it. I realize that the movie can be viewed as a psychological study of humanity. But I didn't see that. I saw a movie about a stoner slacker from the 60's and his two friends. The Dude certainly is an interesting character, but that's nothing special to me. His world and the wacky events of it make for an entertaining story. But I just don't get the obsession, the absolute cult following that this movie has generated. And until I get that, I probably won't "get" this movie.
Q: Brett Gobe - Yeah?
A: Yeah. Sorry, guys. I hate to disappoint you. Maybe someday you both can sit me down and explain it to me.
Q: Eric Democko - Who will be playing in the Super Bowl? And what time does your party start?
A: Right now the teams remaining in the playoffs are as follows:
AFC - Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers
NFC - Arizona Cardinals, Philadelphia Eagles
Of those teams I think that the Ravens will beat out the Steelers and the Cardinals will beat down the Eagles. That means we'll have a Ravens/Eagles matchup in the Super Bowl. And I will be rooting for the Ravens with every fiber of my being due to my hatred of the Eagles.
To answer your other question, the third annual Mitssob Super Bowl Extravaganza begins at 5pm at Mitssob Estates. My address is 1079 Paul Road, Churchville, NY. I will begin a thread in the Rochester/Western NY section of Jolinko after this answer is posted to take suggestions for food, beverages and entertainment. Last year the taco bar went over fairly well and I'd like to see if I can top that this year. Hope to see you and the family at Casa de Mitssob for the game!
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - Why has Global Warming become a partisan political issue rather than a scientific one?
A: There is a lot to talk about in this answer, so please forgive the length. I will try and keep this as coherent and on-point as I can, but if I'm unclear about something and you'd like clarification then please ask followup questions. The topic is very complicated and very heated (forgive the pun) and I don't think one answer is going to cover it. I'd like the opportunity to continue the conversation.
My thinking on the subject of Global Warming was altered dramatically by reading a speech given by the late Michael Crichton in September of 2003. The text of the speech can be found here. The thesis offered is that Environmentalism (and by extension belief in Global Warming) is more of a religion than a scientific pursuit. I recommend reading the speech in its entirety; it had a profound impact on me, and it might have the same impact on you.
With that thesis in mind, I think that one reason it has become a partisan issue is that the people who believe in Global Warming treat those who do not as heretics. "The debate is over" has been stated numerous times by numerous champions of Global Warming (including Al Gore). When it comes to science debates are never over, especially when considering something so complex as the climate of the Earth. The science, quite frankly, is not settled.
The problem with this issue is that the people who believe in Global Warming have tied the issue to environmentalism as a whole. Therefore if someone is skeptical about Global Warming, they are viewed as anti-environment. And no one wants to be seen that way. After all, who wants to be FOR dirty water and dirty air? No one. The idea is stupid. But if you're someone who questions environmental policy or the validity of the theory of Global Warming, you're anti-environment and thus someone not worth debating. That has the effect of turning the issue from a scientific one, where facts can be discussed and evidence weighed, into a political issue where inconvenient facts are ignored if they don't fit into the larger narrative.
Here's a quick question for the Global Warming evangelists: What is the optimal temperature of the Earth? I don't have an answer, and neither to they. And that's the point. There isn't an answer. The Earth's climate is in constant change and has been from the beginning of the Earth's existence.
Adding to the partisan nature of the issue is that Global Warming are framed as a crisis. Since the 1970's Americans have been told that we have less than 10 years to save ourselves or else it will be too late. And they've been wrong. I see no reason to trust people like that. The scientists have been screaming bloody murder for decades and people are not listening as intently as they used to.
So why is it partisan? Because the people who champion the issue have made it partisan. I see no reason why it should be. The issue should be able to be discussed rationally, scientifically, without any prejudice. If the Earth is getting warmer or cooler, the question shouldn't be "What can we do to stop it?", but rather "What can we do ABOUT it?" The Earth's climate will continue to change regardless of what we do. Adapting to that change will enable our survival as a species, and it's something that we should focus on.
A: I didn't say that I didn't like The Big Lebowski. I said that I didn't get it. I enjoyed the movie on a number of levels. The characters were well written and acted. The plot, while confusing at times, was neatly wrapped up by the end of the movie. I laughed, I cried, I laughed some more.
But in the end I just didn't "get" it. I realize that the movie can be viewed as a psychological study of humanity. But I didn't see that. I saw a movie about a stoner slacker from the 60's and his two friends. The Dude certainly is an interesting character, but that's nothing special to me. His world and the wacky events of it make for an entertaining story. But I just don't get the obsession, the absolute cult following that this movie has generated. And until I get that, I probably won't "get" this movie.
Q: Brett Gobe - Yeah?
A: Yeah. Sorry, guys. I hate to disappoint you. Maybe someday you both can sit me down and explain it to me.
Q: Eric Democko - Who will be playing in the Super Bowl? And what time does your party start?
A: Right now the teams remaining in the playoffs are as follows:
AFC - Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers
NFC - Arizona Cardinals, Philadelphia Eagles
Of those teams I think that the Ravens will beat out the Steelers and the Cardinals will beat down the Eagles. That means we'll have a Ravens/Eagles matchup in the Super Bowl. And I will be rooting for the Ravens with every fiber of my being due to my hatred of the Eagles.
To answer your other question, the third annual Mitssob Super Bowl Extravaganza begins at 5pm at Mitssob Estates. My address is 1079 Paul Road, Churchville, NY. I will begin a thread in the Rochester/Western NY section of Jolinko after this answer is posted to take suggestions for food, beverages and entertainment. Last year the taco bar went over fairly well and I'd like to see if I can top that this year. Hope to see you and the family at Casa de Mitssob for the game!
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - Why has Global Warming become a partisan political issue rather than a scientific one?
A: There is a lot to talk about in this answer, so please forgive the length. I will try and keep this as coherent and on-point as I can, but if I'm unclear about something and you'd like clarification then please ask followup questions. The topic is very complicated and very heated (forgive the pun) and I don't think one answer is going to cover it. I'd like the opportunity to continue the conversation.
My thinking on the subject of Global Warming was altered dramatically by reading a speech given by the late Michael Crichton in September of 2003. The text of the speech can be found here. The thesis offered is that Environmentalism (and by extension belief in Global Warming) is more of a religion than a scientific pursuit. I recommend reading the speech in its entirety; it had a profound impact on me, and it might have the same impact on you.
With that thesis in mind, I think that one reason it has become a partisan issue is that the people who believe in Global Warming treat those who do not as heretics. "The debate is over" has been stated numerous times by numerous champions of Global Warming (including Al Gore). When it comes to science debates are never over, especially when considering something so complex as the climate of the Earth. The science, quite frankly, is not settled.
The problem with this issue is that the people who believe in Global Warming have tied the issue to environmentalism as a whole. Therefore if someone is skeptical about Global Warming, they are viewed as anti-environment. And no one wants to be seen that way. After all, who wants to be FOR dirty water and dirty air? No one. The idea is stupid. But if you're someone who questions environmental policy or the validity of the theory of Global Warming, you're anti-environment and thus someone not worth debating. That has the effect of turning the issue from a scientific one, where facts can be discussed and evidence weighed, into a political issue where inconvenient facts are ignored if they don't fit into the larger narrative.
Here's a quick question for the Global Warming evangelists: What is the optimal temperature of the Earth? I don't have an answer, and neither to they. And that's the point. There isn't an answer. The Earth's climate is in constant change and has been from the beginning of the Earth's existence.
Adding to the partisan nature of the issue is that Global Warming are framed as a crisis. Since the 1970's Americans have been told that we have less than 10 years to save ourselves or else it will be too late. And they've been wrong. I see no reason to trust people like that. The scientists have been screaming bloody murder for decades and people are not listening as intently as they used to.
So why is it partisan? Because the people who champion the issue have made it partisan. I see no reason why it should be. The issue should be able to be discussed rationally, scientifically, without any prejudice. If the Earth is getting warmer or cooler, the question shouldn't be "What can we do to stop it?", but rather "What can we do ABOUT it?" The Earth's climate will continue to change regardless of what we do. Adapting to that change will enable our survival as a species, and it's something that we should focus on.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
40 - Answer(s)
Q: Brett Gobe - Are there any boxing matches on Boxing Day?
A: In case anyone doesn't know, Boxing Day is a public holiday in Canada, England, Australia and other countries. It almost always falls on December 26th but that is not always the case. It is roughly the equivalent of Black Friday in the United States in that stores reduce prices and hold sales to lure shoppers.
I checked the ESPN Boxing homepage on Boxing Day and did not see any boxing matches here in the US or anywhere else. There were cricket and soccer matches, but no boxing. I think that having a boxing day boxing match is actually a good idea. Someone could probably make a little money on the event if they put one together.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - When is it when people are talking green updates to their homes all they think of is the "payoff"? What about the fact that you are producing your own power rather than buying it from the electric company? Or even reducing your (gasp) carbon footprint?!? Chances are a system is about the same as your electric bill per month with. Current incentives (NYS currently has some of the best) and financing, especially of you can incorporate the cost into your mortgage.
A: Since I can't speak on behalf of the human race, or even of the Jolinko community at large, I'm going to answer this question entirely from my point of view. I am interested in one day installing one of these systems in my own house and so I will consider your question with my own interests and thoughts in mind. Hopefully what follows will answer your question.
As I interpret your question, you're wondering why people are interested in the monetary payoff of installing so-called green technology rather than other considerations. My initial answer is that money is the most important factor in the decision, which is why people are interested. We live in a capitalistic society. We work so that we can earn money that we then spend on goods and services. One of these services is electricity. Now, most people are interested in saving money. They shop for the best phone plans, clip coupons for groceries, and wait for sales on things that they want to buy. Along those lines, if one reduces one's need for electricity then one will pay less for it. That is one incentive to reduce power usage, and one that I practice in my own life. With the addition of some solar cells or a wind turbine to one's house one can generate electricity and further reduce their need to purchase power from someone else. Since these systems cost a good deal of money, it's natural to consider how long it would take to pay for the installation of the system with the savings in one's electrical bill. If someone isn't planning on living in their house for very long, then they may not want to pay the money to install a system that they won't get the full benefit from.
As to your larger point, I'll admit that I hadn't fully considered the issue until you asked. Money was the most important factor to me, but as I thought about it other factors rose in importance. The fact that by installing one of these systems I'd be generating my own electricity and thus be more self-sufficient than if I were relying entirely on the power company was very appealing to my libertarian instincts. I don't like to be dependent on anyone for my well being, or that of my family when that time comes. That independence can be considered a "payoff" in its own right, a benefit weighed against the cost of installing the system. I would fall into that category. I'd seriously consider installing a system that was capable of providing most of the power to my house if for no other reason than I wouldn't have to depend on RG&E for my electricity.
You mentioned reducing one's "carbon footprint" as an incentive to installing one of these systems. Because I do not believe that man contributes significantly to global warming/climate change/environmental crisis du jour, reducing my carbon footprint is not something that I think about. Does this mean that I go around recklessly dumping garbage in the streets and polluting whenever I feel the need? Of course not. I do things that make sense to me such as recycling and being responsible with the care of my house and my car so that I do not cause more pollution than necessary. But I don't believe that reducing my carbon footprint is a virtue. I find the pursuit quite silly in fact. I look at it as a form of penance to repent for a sin against nature. If you disagree then that's your prerogative, and if that desire to reduce your carbon footprint leads you to install a power generation system then I have no objection. As I've said in previous answers I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. "Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose" is a euphemism that I try and live by. But that means that I believe in liberty, which in turn means that I believe that people should be free to pursue whatever makes them happy without my interference. Want to install solar panels? Great, good for you. Want to mandate that for everyone? Now you're interfering with my freedom.
So what's the conclusion to draw here? I would say that the "payoff" that you speak of does in fact constitute more than just money. Money is the most important factor to most people, as it is to me, but other factors do have an impact. It's up to each person to decide what factors are most important to them and to make decisions based on those decisions.
A: In case anyone doesn't know, Boxing Day is a public holiday in Canada, England, Australia and other countries. It almost always falls on December 26th but that is not always the case. It is roughly the equivalent of Black Friday in the United States in that stores reduce prices and hold sales to lure shoppers.
I checked the ESPN Boxing homepage on Boxing Day and did not see any boxing matches here in the US or anywhere else. There were cricket and soccer matches, but no boxing. I think that having a boxing day boxing match is actually a good idea. Someone could probably make a little money on the event if they put one together.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - When is it when people are talking green updates to their homes all they think of is the "payoff"? What about the fact that you are producing your own power rather than buying it from the electric company? Or even reducing your (gasp) carbon footprint?!? Chances are a system is about the same as your electric bill per month with. Current incentives (NYS currently has some of the best) and financing, especially of you can incorporate the cost into your mortgage.
A: Since I can't speak on behalf of the human race, or even of the Jolinko community at large, I'm going to answer this question entirely from my point of view. I am interested in one day installing one of these systems in my own house and so I will consider your question with my own interests and thoughts in mind. Hopefully what follows will answer your question.
As I interpret your question, you're wondering why people are interested in the monetary payoff of installing so-called green technology rather than other considerations. My initial answer is that money is the most important factor in the decision, which is why people are interested. We live in a capitalistic society. We work so that we can earn money that we then spend on goods and services. One of these services is electricity. Now, most people are interested in saving money. They shop for the best phone plans, clip coupons for groceries, and wait for sales on things that they want to buy. Along those lines, if one reduces one's need for electricity then one will pay less for it. That is one incentive to reduce power usage, and one that I practice in my own life. With the addition of some solar cells or a wind turbine to one's house one can generate electricity and further reduce their need to purchase power from someone else. Since these systems cost a good deal of money, it's natural to consider how long it would take to pay for the installation of the system with the savings in one's electrical bill. If someone isn't planning on living in their house for very long, then they may not want to pay the money to install a system that they won't get the full benefit from.
As to your larger point, I'll admit that I hadn't fully considered the issue until you asked. Money was the most important factor to me, but as I thought about it other factors rose in importance. The fact that by installing one of these systems I'd be generating my own electricity and thus be more self-sufficient than if I were relying entirely on the power company was very appealing to my libertarian instincts. I don't like to be dependent on anyone for my well being, or that of my family when that time comes. That independence can be considered a "payoff" in its own right, a benefit weighed against the cost of installing the system. I would fall into that category. I'd seriously consider installing a system that was capable of providing most of the power to my house if for no other reason than I wouldn't have to depend on RG&E for my electricity.
You mentioned reducing one's "carbon footprint" as an incentive to installing one of these systems. Because I do not believe that man contributes significantly to global warming/climate change/environmental crisis du jour, reducing my carbon footprint is not something that I think about. Does this mean that I go around recklessly dumping garbage in the streets and polluting whenever I feel the need? Of course not. I do things that make sense to me such as recycling and being responsible with the care of my house and my car so that I do not cause more pollution than necessary. But I don't believe that reducing my carbon footprint is a virtue. I find the pursuit quite silly in fact. I look at it as a form of penance to repent for a sin against nature. If you disagree then that's your prerogative, and if that desire to reduce your carbon footprint leads you to install a power generation system then I have no objection. As I've said in previous answers I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. "Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose" is a euphemism that I try and live by. But that means that I believe in liberty, which in turn means that I believe that people should be free to pursue whatever makes them happy without my interference. Want to install solar panels? Great, good for you. Want to mandate that for everyone? Now you're interfering with my freedom.
So what's the conclusion to draw here? I would say that the "payoff" that you speak of does in fact constitute more than just money. Money is the most important factor to most people, as it is to me, but other factors do have an impact. It's up to each person to decide what factors are most important to them and to make decisions based on those decisions.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
39 - Answer(s): Part 2
Q: Bill Jeffers - I've been hearing a range of answers on this one, so I'll ask Mit Ssob: How long would it take to make my money back if I installed solar panels on my house? Any other green updates I can make that make sense for both my tree hugger side and my like to have money to spend on my family side?
A: The answer to this question depends on too many variables for me to get into. Instead of breaking this down into a nice spreadsheet for you, I found a few websites that will sell you solar kits of various sizes, power outputs, and prices. These sites will answer your question better than I could.
http://www.solarhome.org/
http://www.homesolarpanels.org/
http://www.solarcellsales.com/
The last site has a handy calculator on it to calculate savings and cost of the different systems. Therefore I’ll tell you to answer your own damned question by entering info from your last bill. I entered my last bill into the calculator and ran the numbers as an example. According to that calculator it would take me 12 years for the 3600W installation, 19.5 years for the 2000W installation, and 24.5 years for the 1200W installation. These numbers are based on a number of assumptions, including a federal rebate (possibly only available in CA), and 5 hours of sunlight per day. Having lived in Rochester for six years I’m not sure we can guarantee something like that.
As for other “green” solutions for your house that depends on how much you want to spend and how crazy you want to get. There are home kits to harness wind power. More information can be found at the American Wind Energy Association website (http://www.awea.org/). Below are links to some wind turbine providers:
http://www.bergey.com/
http://www.skystreamenergy.com/
http://www.swiftwindturbine.com/
If you want to go down the DIY route I found this site for building your own turbine: http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/
We’ve had conversations about how to harness solar energy to heat your pool as well, so here are a couple of sites with more information about that subject:
http://www.solarexpert.com/heatswimpool.html
http://store.altenergystore.com/Solar-Pool-Heaters-and-Pumps/c622/
I wish you luck with this. Let me know how you make out.
Q: Karyn Graves - Is there a hairstyle for young boys that keeps them warm in the winter and still looks nice (like for pics) & cute? Find me a picture.
A: [Ed: You’re asking Tim this? Have you ever seen his hair? You want your kid looking like that? Hey, be nice!]
I realize that the time has passed for portraits, but I’ll throw down a little rambling for your (and others’) amusement. To keep your son’s head warm I recommend a hairstyle involving more than an inch of hair on top. That rules out a buzz cut or similarly short styles. Those are nice from a maintenance point of view but are less practical in the winter. I’m not sure how long your son’s hair has gotten so far but I’d recommend keeping as much of it as you can. Part of the decision for style will depend on how his hair is growing in. If there’s a natural part to it then I’d work around that. If his head is a blank slate then maybe comb it down the front, trimming the bangs to keep them out of his face. As far as the back goes that’s up to you guys. Since this is a portrait I’d be less concerned about that (unless he has a natural mullet in which case you’ll have to deal with that).
Two sources for inspiration can be found at the JCPenny Portrait Page (http://www.jcpportraits.com/portrait-possibilities.aspx?ft=ato&fv=Winter#) and a Google Image search for “children’s portraits” (http://images.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=XIB&q=children+portraits&revid=1034672479&resnum=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title)
Q: Karyn Graves - Did you know Bernacki is designing solar panel systems for residential and commercial customers now? He says they sell systems for $8,000-$25,000 in CO. "And they usually can produce about 40-100% of your electricity needs."
A: Nope, didn’t know that. Bill, you should contact Bernacki. Get on that. Now.
A: The answer to this question depends on too many variables for me to get into. Instead of breaking this down into a nice spreadsheet for you, I found a few websites that will sell you solar kits of various sizes, power outputs, and prices. These sites will answer your question better than I could.
http://www.solarhome.org/
http://www.homesolarpanels.org/
http://www.solarcellsales.com/
The last site has a handy calculator on it to calculate savings and cost of the different systems. Therefore I’ll tell you to answer your own damned question by entering info from your last bill. I entered my last bill into the calculator and ran the numbers as an example. According to that calculator it would take me 12 years for the 3600W installation, 19.5 years for the 2000W installation, and 24.5 years for the 1200W installation. These numbers are based on a number of assumptions, including a federal rebate (possibly only available in CA), and 5 hours of sunlight per day. Having lived in Rochester for six years I’m not sure we can guarantee something like that.
As for other “green” solutions for your house that depends on how much you want to spend and how crazy you want to get. There are home kits to harness wind power. More information can be found at the American Wind Energy Association website (http://www.awea.org/). Below are links to some wind turbine providers:
http://www.bergey.com/
http://www.skystreamenergy.com/
http://www.swiftwindturbine.com/
If you want to go down the DIY route I found this site for building your own turbine: http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/
We’ve had conversations about how to harness solar energy to heat your pool as well, so here are a couple of sites with more information about that subject:
http://www.solarexpert.com/heatswimpool.html
http://store.altenergystore.com/Solar-Pool-Heaters-and-Pumps/c622/
I wish you luck with this. Let me know how you make out.
Q: Karyn Graves - Is there a hairstyle for young boys that keeps them warm in the winter and still looks nice (like for pics) & cute? Find me a picture.
A: [Ed: You’re asking Tim this? Have you ever seen his hair? You want your kid looking like that? Hey, be nice!]
I realize that the time has passed for portraits, but I’ll throw down a little rambling for your (and others’) amusement. To keep your son’s head warm I recommend a hairstyle involving more than an inch of hair on top. That rules out a buzz cut or similarly short styles. Those are nice from a maintenance point of view but are less practical in the winter. I’m not sure how long your son’s hair has gotten so far but I’d recommend keeping as much of it as you can. Part of the decision for style will depend on how his hair is growing in. If there’s a natural part to it then I’d work around that. If his head is a blank slate then maybe comb it down the front, trimming the bangs to keep them out of his face. As far as the back goes that’s up to you guys. Since this is a portrait I’d be less concerned about that (unless he has a natural mullet in which case you’ll have to deal with that).
Two sources for inspiration can be found at the JCPenny Portrait Page (http://www.jcpportraits.com/portrait-possibilities.aspx?ft=ato&fv=Winter#) and a Google Image search for “children’s portraits” (http://images.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=XIB&q=children+portraits&revid=1034672479&resnum=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title)
Q: Karyn Graves - Did you know Bernacki is designing solar panel systems for residential and commercial customers now? He says they sell systems for $8,000-$25,000 in CO. "And they usually can produce about 40-100% of your electricity needs."
A: Nope, didn’t know that. Bill, you should contact Bernacki. Get on that. Now.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
39 - Answer(s)
[Editor's Note: Due to the time sensitivity of one of the questions Tim is going to forgo a full suite of answers this week. He has promised me that he'll get to the other two soon. I'm not sure I believe him, but there's not much I can do other than threaten to break his thumbs. And since he needs those to answer questions I don't think that would be too effective an incentive.]
Q: Karyn Graves - Say a person doesn't particularly care for government run social programs, but really hates to see greedy execs getting away with handing out bad mortgages and then being 'laid off' with millions in severance. Which way should that person vote? Maybe you want to know which is more important? Let's say that having/keeping jobs that provide an income that is not exceeded by necessary expenses for the family is priority #1.
A: This answer is going to hit on a lot of topics. I don't have time to really plan out an answer properly, and as a result this may end up being a total mess. I'm going to just shoot from the hip, and hopefully by the end of it I'll have some coherent advice. I don't guarantee it, but I'll try.
Let's start off with "greedy execs" and "millions in severance". When I hear people talking about executive pay and generous severance packages, I cringe. Yes, it's fashionable to point out that executives are making more money than they probably deserve. But here's the way I look at it: why is it any of my business how much money a corporation chooses to pay its executives? Who am I to decide what an executive deserves to make? That's up to the corporation. If a corporation wants to overpay for talent then that's their decision. If they screw up, it's up to the board of directors and shareholders to correct the situation, not the government.
Here's something to think about: If the government is allowed to dictate executive pay, what's stopping them from dictating how much money that you or I can make? What if some day it's decided that I make too much money as an engineer, that it would be more fair if that money went somewhere else? Or that doctors make too much money? I don't think that the government should be in the business of deciding what's fair and what's not.
But the gist of that part of your question concerns the mortgage situation that was created when mortgage companies were pressured to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Who pressured these companies? Congress, specifically members of the Democrat party such as Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer. The rationale given was that everyone should have a shot at the American Dream of owning a home. That's a wonderful sentiment, but not everyone can afford a house. But that didn't stop the pressure, so mortgage companies relaxed the rules governing how loans are given out. This resulted in such bizarre things as no-money-down mortages, and even interest only mortgages.
The end result was that more people became homeowners. Fine. But these people couldn't afford the mortgages unless the value in the homes increased. And it didn't. So people began to default on their loans, and banks began to go out of business. And then the government stepped in and bailed out those banks by putting liquidity back into the market. Time will tell whether this was a bright idea (I don't think so, but I'm not in charge).
The qualifier that you put in about jobs was interestingly put. If you're interested in "having/keeping jobs", then I would suggest that you join a union and then support the Democrat party. Unions are good for job security. Once you've got a union job it's harder to get fired, and you've got a strong position from which to negotiate future benefit increases.
That doesn't help the person who doesn't have a job, however. My personal belief is that more jobs should be created. To do that you need to incentivize business owners to hire more people. That can be done in many ways, but in my opinion the best way is for government to get out of the way. What do I mean? I mean that taxes on corporations and businesses should be lowered. Drastically. Lower taxes mean lower costs of doing business, which frees up money for the business to expand, and thus hire more people.
Here's something for you to consider: businesses and corporations do not pay taxes. Now, before people call me crazy let me walk you through what I mean by this. A business exists to provide a good or service to a consumer. The business will charge a price for that good or service. That price contains in it the cost of producing the good or service, as well as a certain amount of profit. Part of the cost of producing the good or service are the taxes that are levied on that business. Thus, the business actually does not pay taxes. The consumer pays the taxes. So when I hear people talking about taxing those big greedy rich corporations, I shake my head in frustration because they're really talking about increasing the costs of the goods and services provided by those corporations.
OK, after all that rambling, what's the answer? How should you vote? Basically speaking, if you do not want big government programs then you should vote for the candidate who supports conservative economic values, regardless of party. You should vote against people who thought that giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them was a good idea, and for people who believe in personal responsibility.
But that's just my opinion on the matter. Your opinion is the one that counts, since it's your vote. I hope I've been of a little help here in clarifying things. Happy voting on Tuesday, everyone!
Q: Karyn Graves - Say a person doesn't particularly care for government run social programs, but really hates to see greedy execs getting away with handing out bad mortgages and then being 'laid off' with millions in severance. Which way should that person vote? Maybe you want to know which is more important? Let's say that having/keeping jobs that provide an income that is not exceeded by necessary expenses for the family is priority #1.
A: This answer is going to hit on a lot of topics. I don't have time to really plan out an answer properly, and as a result this may end up being a total mess. I'm going to just shoot from the hip, and hopefully by the end of it I'll have some coherent advice. I don't guarantee it, but I'll try.
Let's start off with "greedy execs" and "millions in severance". When I hear people talking about executive pay and generous severance packages, I cringe. Yes, it's fashionable to point out that executives are making more money than they probably deserve. But here's the way I look at it: why is it any of my business how much money a corporation chooses to pay its executives? Who am I to decide what an executive deserves to make? That's up to the corporation. If a corporation wants to overpay for talent then that's their decision. If they screw up, it's up to the board of directors and shareholders to correct the situation, not the government.
Here's something to think about: If the government is allowed to dictate executive pay, what's stopping them from dictating how much money that you or I can make? What if some day it's decided that I make too much money as an engineer, that it would be more fair if that money went somewhere else? Or that doctors make too much money? I don't think that the government should be in the business of deciding what's fair and what's not.
But the gist of that part of your question concerns the mortgage situation that was created when mortgage companies were pressured to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Who pressured these companies? Congress, specifically members of the Democrat party such as Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer. The rationale given was that everyone should have a shot at the American Dream of owning a home. That's a wonderful sentiment, but not everyone can afford a house. But that didn't stop the pressure, so mortgage companies relaxed the rules governing how loans are given out. This resulted in such bizarre things as no-money-down mortages, and even interest only mortgages.
The end result was that more people became homeowners. Fine. But these people couldn't afford the mortgages unless the value in the homes increased. And it didn't. So people began to default on their loans, and banks began to go out of business. And then the government stepped in and bailed out those banks by putting liquidity back into the market. Time will tell whether this was a bright idea (I don't think so, but I'm not in charge).
The qualifier that you put in about jobs was interestingly put. If you're interested in "having/keeping jobs", then I would suggest that you join a union and then support the Democrat party. Unions are good for job security. Once you've got a union job it's harder to get fired, and you've got a strong position from which to negotiate future benefit increases.
That doesn't help the person who doesn't have a job, however. My personal belief is that more jobs should be created. To do that you need to incentivize business owners to hire more people. That can be done in many ways, but in my opinion the best way is for government to get out of the way. What do I mean? I mean that taxes on corporations and businesses should be lowered. Drastically. Lower taxes mean lower costs of doing business, which frees up money for the business to expand, and thus hire more people.
Here's something for you to consider: businesses and corporations do not pay taxes. Now, before people call me crazy let me walk you through what I mean by this. A business exists to provide a good or service to a consumer. The business will charge a price for that good or service. That price contains in it the cost of producing the good or service, as well as a certain amount of profit. Part of the cost of producing the good or service are the taxes that are levied on that business. Thus, the business actually does not pay taxes. The consumer pays the taxes. So when I hear people talking about taxing those big greedy rich corporations, I shake my head in frustration because they're really talking about increasing the costs of the goods and services provided by those corporations.
OK, after all that rambling, what's the answer? How should you vote? Basically speaking, if you do not want big government programs then you should vote for the candidate who supports conservative economic values, regardless of party. You should vote against people who thought that giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them was a good idea, and for people who believe in personal responsibility.
But that's just my opinion on the matter. Your opinion is the one that counts, since it's your vote. I hope I've been of a little help here in clarifying things. Happy voting on Tuesday, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)