As we get poorer, our government gets richer?

Somehow I found myself reading through an article titled, "The Richest Member of the Congress," today and was struck by something very odd.

The richest member of congress, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas) has a net worth of $294 million - to be specific, the CNBC.com article reads, "annual survey of The 50 Richest Members of Congress in 2005, he reported a minimum net worth of about $12 million. His financial disclosure report now depicts a fortune worth almost 25 times that amount."

So, let me get this straight, making the list in 2005, required 12 million bucks. A lot of money either way. But, doesn't it seem that comparitively, the 294 million he makes now is quite a big leap in 5 years.

I mean the bar has definitely been raised to make the list since 2005. Lots of red flags (as per usual, with these beyond wealthy politicians) - for me at least. I mean in 2005, the average household median income was 46k. Looking at today, that number isn't much higher at roughly 49k, no 25 times larger or 280 million more.

I mean there are 245 millionaires in Congress, that's a lot of competition I suppose. It's no wonder you need to multiply by 25 in order to make the list. In fact according to the CBS News article, "Based on 2009 data, there are currently 66 in the Senate and 179 in the House (among current voting members). So while just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members."

So let me get this straight, Americans earn a meger 3k more now than they did 5 years ago, not even 1 times the amount - and congress/senate who need to earn 100s of millions more to be a part of this "richest congress member" list sit around and determine how to bail us out financially?

Each year they get richer, while we barely improve...I wonder how they fix their own problems? My guess: throw money at them. So instead of sitting around and playing Barbies with the poor folks' money (and yes, that's us), throw your own money at it because clearly what you are doing with ours isn't working.

Oh debate season...

Prior to our previous election, I did a similar thing on my old blog - I gave my initial reactions to the GOP candidates...removing thought, previous biases, etc - only listening/watching and relying on previous knowledge (yes, knowledge not a media-watered-down assumption). Awhile back I read the book "Blink" and while I won't go into detail about what it entails, let's just say, it references "gut reaction" to things, proving that usually what first comes to mind about any given thing, is generally correct.

Seeing as how I have now watched two GOP debates, I will simply go over what my initial reaction was to each candidate - though I can't really do it for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney as I have obviously seen them debate before and know of them.

Because both debates seemed to focus a lot of attention on Romney and Rick Perry, I will start with Rick Perry.

Perry - first stating the obvious, he evoked another coming of Bush. Being a Texan and even having the look of one, I felt oddly as though I was listening to President Bush. Don't get me wrong, I preferred this country under Bush than under Obama, but Bush wasn't exactly the pick of the litter. Another thing about Perry is his air of smugness. The smirks and giggles while others rebuttle him, is pretty annoying. The state of this country is no joke. Additionally, when listening to him I didn't feel like there was an actual answer. Kind of like Captain Hindsight from South Park he stated the obvious and what went wrong but I didn't hear a solution or plan from him. I also don't trust him. He has a sense of evangelical idealism mixed with neo-conservative BS. Not to mention, he reportedly lied about his "$5,000 donation" from Merck, which turned out to be $28,000.

And next, sadly, yet another woman who seemingly adds to the impossibility of women being elected to president...Bachmann

Bachmann - where to begin...I get the same anxious feeling looking at her that I get from Pelosi. Anyone who finds time/money for plastic surgery while in a position of power, has some egotistical sense of self. I am not against women keeping up their looks - but come on, the blatently obvious pinched skin is frightening and WASP-like. Also, this isn't a school yard. We don't need every little remark to be an attack on another candidate. Again, our country is in dire need of help - rather than attack Perry for your own political gain, TELL US WHAT YOU WILL DO! Smoke and mirrors and plastic surgery. I would rather Palin.

Rick Santorum - not sure what else there is to say. Googling his name says it all (though to be fair I wasn't aware of the santorum search result thing until after). My first reaction was oh look at the smug, overly confident career politician. He didn't speak much but when he did, he and Bachmann did the whole resume thing. I cannot stand hearing, "Well when I..." as though some political-bureacrat accomplishment means anything to me. I am a middle class American, I pay more taxes than the rich and here I sit listening to how wonderful he was when he was some BS appointment...really, anyone with a deep wallet can be a politician and anyone can claim to have done something - what will you do. Suffice to say, I am not a fan, though I find his internet presence hilarious.

Bill Huntsman - thankfully he was part of the debate otherwise I don't know when else I would have gotten up to eat/go to the bathroom/etc. What does he stand for? Who is he? Why is he even part of this? I would rather listen to alien-abducted Dennis Kucinich. But seriously, the stern, insignificance he brought to the table screamed "boring version of Huckabee" - some uber religious idiot.

Okay time for some good...

Herman Cain - I like him - his personality anyway. Though liking a potential candidate's personality is no reason to elect them president. But, I will say I really like that he is not a politician. Our founding fathers and historical philosophers never intended our country to be run by career politicians. Well, Plato referred to them (though in different terms) as bankers - as we know half of them are. How can people with so much money understand how to run a country filled with people so different then themselves? Sorry for the tangent, but that is my Pro for Cain - his non-politician, won't-bail-out-the-banks attitude.

Newt Gingrich - He was the most intelligent person on the stage for both debates. I don't know how I feel about him as a policy-maker and a president, but I feel as though he should have a place in the economic side of things. Is he the man I want to hear address the country in a time of crisis? Probably not, he is almost too logical to be sincere. I like his ideas and think he is a smart man, but not a president.

Okay, so I will briefly talk Mitt and Ron Paul...

My biggest issue with Mitt is my fear of putting a Paulson-type in charge. Also, his salt and pepper hair reminds me of Nixon. But, I do think he is a smart businessman - unfortunately, hearing about his multi-million dollar upgrades on his mansions makes me like him less. I want a working man's president.

Ron Paul - I was almost embarassed for the state of Florida during the CNN debate. He spoke the truth, particularly when saying that the entire Muslim population isn't to blame for 9/11 - BOOing that? Really? Well, Tampa is the same city that the jurors for Casey Anthony came from (sorry, Clearwater - a whole 10 minutes away from Tampa) so I think it's safe to say that the intelligence level is a little lower.

I am a Ron Paul fan - I know many doubt him but that's because even after all the financial tragedy in the USA, we still seek to hear what we want to hear rather than the truth. The truth hurts, Paul gives it. I also like that he gave 100k back to the treasury of unspent money.

Alright...back to work, just wanted to share my own impressions.

Commercial Product FAIL of the week: iTunes

Freaking Apple products. From the iPod to taking over the universe, Apple has cornered their market on MP3-listening hipsters, birthers...well everyone. I can't really complain about their music and multi-touch devices without being a hypocrite as I own an iPad and an iPod Touch. I can, however, gripe about iTunes.

The features of iTunes started off as a pretty simple idea. You could add your own music, regardless of where you got it, onto your iTunes library and playlist - no sacrifices or redundant spending, iTunes allowed all MP3 files in their library and, in turn, on your iPod device.

I like things that are simple and I like spending money on purchases that I can do what I please with. I used my money to buy them, so I should be able to enjoy them in my own form. This is no longer the case with iTunes.

Because of my own closet preference for Apple products, regardless how Wal-martized they are (I use this term to explain any big business take over of their market), I chose to remain hush-hush about all things Apple. Well, the corporate greed in cornering the MP3/computer market is out of control.

I downloaded a whole season of one of my favorite shows recently, Sons of Anarchy. I used iTunes for two reasons: one I could watch the shows on my iPad and two I could not find the most recent season in any stores. I think I spent $29.99 for the season, not too shabby.

But, I wanted to enjoy the show with others and thus, I found a problem. Some stupid encrypted/coding system iTunes uses now does not allow you to burn your own purchases onto a DVD. I bought the season, I should be able to watch it however I choose. No, after dabbling with some free encoding applications that I thought might mitigate this issue, I still couldn't. Of course not, I needed to purchase a FULL program to this, which would cost another 30 bucks.

Resilient as I often am, I tried a new method. I hooked up my XBox to my computer to use a Microsoft service that will allow you to play TV shows and such from your computer through the XBox and onto the TV. Hello error messages, no such luck. Apple in their protection coding or whatever, has forbid this - all of their iTunes products are given a super special file name, only readable through iTunes.

Well, well I chose to give my money, yes mine, to Apple for a product rather than Amazon or some other misc. video-selling store and now I can only use said product through iTunes.

Is this necessary? No. It's called greed. And like Netflix, another big company has chosen to limit the use of a product you spent money on, in order to move out their competition.

This is the same company that recently got caught with child labor in China. Skim some bucks from production and limit the use of your products among your consumers - well, thank you. We all appreciate your greed. Capitalism, fascism, communism - whatever. It's my money that you are controlling to fund your overpriced lifestyles.

I am a Darwinist...so what?

I once saw a variation of the Jesus fish on someone's car - difference was, it had feet and said "Darwin." I loved it. I really think the whole idea of "survival of the fittest" makes more sense than most things. Constantly carrying the weight of others who cannot survive on their own is apparent in many aspects of our livelihood - we can look at any element of humanity and see, i.e. politics: we constantly support every single person who cannot support themselves. In reality, we should be offering them opportunity not giving them a free ride...the government was not put in place to support every drug addicts,illegal immigrant, etc.

Though this topic is vague and I just led with a ramble, the Amy Winehouse death inspired me to write about it.

Since I saw the video of Amy Winehouse smoking crack, I have had a quasi-phobia of her. The sagging skin, sunken eyes and black beehive gave me the heebie jeebies. She literally looked decrepid, though she has been dead for years. I could not bring myself to hear her name or see a photo of her without having a chilling, unpleasant feeling.

Thing is, what did she really offer to society? It was already a sin that we put her on a peddastool for our youth to see - we used to praise her music; award shows honored her with trophies and live performances...all the while she is a drug addict who is mostly famous for a song that taunts those who thought she should get help for addiction. We were idolizing the worst possible example of a person for our youth and upcoming generations to be subject to. In fact, she didn't even try to hide it. At least in the 50's and 60's, it was a faux-pas to be a druggie, so celebs tried to hide it. Not anymore - and now we have become a celeb-worshiping country, despite the character and unlawfulness of the celebrity themself.

And now she's gone, and has been for almost a week now, yet at least one in ten headlines references her. Whether it's putting blame on her ex-husband for introducing her to drugs or her parents saying it's because she stopped drinking - either way, it's done and over and it's Darwin at his finest. She chose to marry a druggie, she chose to use the drugs; to drink the booze; she chose to go back to all of those things despite rehab. She was a weak person and not an example for anyone to follow. She sealed her fate. It's a shame when anyone dies; but it's part of life.

Instead of pointing fingers, make her an example. Should you be a weak person, you may very well end up as Amy Winehouse.

Commercial Product Fail of the Week: Netflix

Time and time again we are betrayed by our beloved discount services. We watch companies pop-up that offer some of our favorite things or services at cheaper prices than we currently have at our dispose. Even the mothership of cheap/discount products, Wal-Mart, trick us in to thinking we have a new one-stop location for an item or product.

This time, Netpricks, I mean Netflix, have Walmartized themselves. Netflix offered convenient video rentals for our tool shed home (tool is a term I learned a few years back that refers to Americans never having to leave their house for everything they need). Netflix's services were a mere $7.99 per month - wow 7.99!? We couldn't rent two DVDs from Blockbuster for $7.99.

Blockbuster...RIP. Thanks to Netflix, you could get cheaper movie rentals without ever even having to leave your house (except of course to walk to your mailbox). Such services at such rates successfuly and rapidly started to shutdown Blockbusters all over the country.

Aha victory for Netflix. Their biggest, and basically only competitor was no longer a factor. Now that they have the video rental market to themselves, it's time...time to raise prices?? Less competition = higher subscription rates and thus, less need to charge even $7.99.

Big business at it's best. And no, the argument regarding a need for more resources (people, places, etc) doesn't hold true for Netflix. They are operated out of one huge warehouse. Think about it, they just need envelopes and DVDs - it's not even like they have a ton of each DVD to send out - otherwise there would be no need for a wait list for your favorite movies.

So, here's to you Netflix. You put Joe the Plumber (err DVD store clerk) out of business, and successfully shut down your biggest competitor. Looks like it's time to add the American people to the list of those you screwed. Problem is, we are YOUR customers. Unlawful rate increases for an unchanged product/service is an ugly side of corporate America that we DO NOT like - bad economy, high gas prices and now greedy Netflix higher-ups, trying to squeeze yet another dollar or 7.99 out of us.

Ladies' Room Observations: the good, the bad and the ugly

I've thought about writing about this topic for awhile, but always feared publicizing my opinions and observations about a taboo topic. As women, we spend a lot of time in shared bathrooms - whether at work, at bars and nightclubs, our home bathrooms and even those we quickly venture into at events (sometimes this means port-a-johns). Over the course of the years, I have made observations in such shared space - some because of annoyances and others just out of curiousity.

General observations and ponderings:

- What determines which stall in a public bathroom a woman chooses? Though I have heard quasi-psychological interpretations I don't really know the answer. I have my own theories: women who go to the farthest possible stall from the entrance are either going to drop it like its hot or they are embarassed by the act of using a public bathroom. In terms of going for the deuce, I feel like these women have the unproven idea that less people will hear them if they are further from the door. This brings me to my second point.

- Different in-stall activities women partake in. Have you ever heard the constant rolling of toilet paper from the metal holder? When utilized, in a lot of cases, it is one of the first noises to come from a newly entered stall. It's like these particular women are preparing ahead of time. Considering the TP roll is typically 6 inches away from the seat, I don't quite understand it. Will these women be unable to obtain the necessary TP for the job if they reach for it during/after the act? Or, perhaps, these women don't like to multi-task - the idea of having to worry about grabbing TP while going to the bathroom is simply daunting. Maybe they are obsessive compulsive planners...I really don't know. But, I will say, this is one of the rarer activities.

More commonly, a lot of women seem to find ways to make rustling noises for the sake of covering up other noises. This may include the act (yes, act not necessity) of blowing their nose, repeatedly. Or, sometimes, just messing with the toilet paper holder or using their feminine products as a way to make a distracting noise. This is definitely more common - I think that women who have to go number 2 just don't like other women to hear. We are fine with peeing, in fact if we are in the presence of others who have to pee when we need to do number 2, we gladly welcome it is an opportunity to push. Similarly, we welcome hand-washers. Personally, hand-washing is the most effective means of drowning out the miscallenous sounds that may occur while doing number 2.

I would guess that close to 3/4 of women prefer a bit of background noise while going number 2 in a public bathroom - almost purely for the purpose of muffling their own noise.

Annoyances in Public Restrooms:

- Though most likely experienced at the public restroom at work, I hate when people wash their food dishes/bowls etc in bathroom sinks. Let's get real, these sinks most likely have a sifted drain - so if you had anything with any substance, there will be food floaters left behind. Those food floaters are disgusting - I am using the sink to clean my hands, not see an old peice of diced pepper. Additionally, there are enough smells in the bathroom, no need to add the stench of whatever you had for lunch. If there was somewhere to heat it up (i.e. a kitchen area), I am sure there is a sink in that area as well.

- Vanity in a busy restroom. Let's me honest if you are at the kind of bar that doesn't have a seperate powder area with a full length mirror, the crowd you are around probably isn't the kind you need to impress. I can't stand when you are at a busy bar, have to wait in a long line for the restroom and then you have to stand around and wait to wash your hands because there is some half-drunk girl thoroughly examining her face in front of one of the few sinks. Buy a compact.

There are other annoyances I have that I am sure are shared with the rest of the female population. Things like toilet seats covered in vomit or bloody feminine products on the floor, I won't elaborate on those. I do, however, wonder if there is a bathroom etiquette book out there and if so, maybe I can start some publicly funded program that places them on sink areas/tables in public restrooms nationwide. One can only wish.

Pro-Pot website slams drug war?

Though this isn't something I would normally blog about - the former journalist in me can't help it. A website, called "Toke of the Town," decorated with pot leaves, has a little section called "News."

To their credit, I am sure News has a different meaning in the world of avid marijuana users, but to my dismay, one specific article is being dugg on digg.com by too many people. If this website put their article, "U.S. Can't Justify Its Drug War Spending: News Reports," in their "views" section, I wouldn't be as peeved.

But it doesn't. And showing statistics as to how we have failed as a country to overcome a drug war, while informative, is simply a conflict of interest coming from a website that is pro-illegal substance. I am sorry it is.

Of course we are failing the drug war - and how does a pot-enthusiast, like those who probably work for Toke, explain otherwise if they are very publicly declaring an affinity for a DRUG. Pot calls kettle black, then criticizes kettle?

I mean seriously. Even more so, what do the U.S. Government budgetary experts at Toke (kidding) suggest we do? Cut funding designated to stopping illegal substances from entering this country? I assume so. And, if that's the case, I shouldn't be so peeved because the source of the subject at hand is surely lacking credibility and probably hitting a bong as we speak while waiting for their unemployment check.

How's that for conflict of interest? Oh wait, unlike this liberal, hippie-babble BS site, I don't have a conflict of interest because I make it pretty well clear that I will talk fact, fiction or opinion on any given topic rather than support something illegal then claim to give people the "News."