It's been some time since I have updated the blog, but I felt compelled to post something this week. Listening to the news and seeing events unfold ( Affordable Care Act, Massive power outage, Immigration policy, etc. ). I was listening to Tom Sullivan on the drive home the other day and the topic was immigration. Tom did a nice job outlining the policy the US has on immigration and the costs associated by the massive influx of immigration into states like Arizona, Texas and California. One call in particular stood out to me. The caller was a Mexican US citizen who had gone through the proper channels to become a documented US citizen. His take was very simple: Either you have a plus sign on your head or a minus sign on your head. Either you are a contributor to this country or you are a drain on the economy. His idea was forget immigration policy altogether. In his view anyone could become a documented US citizen just by proving they are a plus sign to the economy. Come here and start a company or bring a desired skillset into the country and get your documentation. Coming here just to get medical services or government handouts should get you deported. Overall I agree with the sediment, I'm sure the policy details would be a nightmare, but I think all of us could buy into a immigration policy like that.
No more bi-partisanship:
I have had enough bi-partisanship. Let one ideology win the day and be done with it. In my view Republicans are trying to save the country long term and have the clearest vision for what the country needs to do fiscally to reach those goals. Spending has gotten out of control and Democrats seem to never want to hold people who make poor life decisions accountable. I have crossed the partisan divide where even good intentioned Democrats are now the enemy. This mess we are in now will take a very long time to get out from under. High unemployment, limited manufacturing, high fuel costs, housing, etc.. One party needs to control all three branches of government to make any real changes and I'm hopeful that one party becomes clear in this election cycle. Even if the Republicans lose this election at least the writing will be on the wall. Not that both sides can't agree on some topics, but I think the overall vision for the country of both parties is polar opposite. This election should be about the size and scope of government. I think Republicans want a smaller government with limited social safety nets and more focus on personal responsibility and rewarding those who make wise life decisions. I think the Democrats vision for America is a larger central government with larger social safety nets and more entitlements coupled with higher taxes on the population base that actually produces. I get the angst at wall street execs and greedy CEO types, but let the free market decide when those guys overreach and not punish the entire entrepreneur class of people trying to make a living in this country.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Liberalism and Occupy Wall Street
Contained below is an article by Dr. Milton R. Wolf , a Washington Times columnist, diagnostic radiologist and President Obama's cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.
Liberalism is dying before our eyes, not with a whimper or a bang, but with a grand unbathed and so apropos whine-fest. The central tenets of statism are in free-fall, and its benefi- ciaries, namely those who live off the fruits of other people's labor, are in a panic for one last round of government handouts before they completely bankrupt the nation.
Consider for a moment the tortured psyche of today's American liberal. The 2008 election promised that "the smartest guy ever to become president" would "fundamentally transform the United States of America" into some liberal utopia. Wars would end. Seas would calm. And Barack Obama would spread the wealth. Instead, all he spread was misery as he unleashed the twin terrors of redistributionist economics and government-controlled health care. Hope and change became despair and more of the same.
The failed Obama presidency, however, is just the beginning. The most liberal president in history, with an assist from his predecessor, has unmasked the structural flaws of liberalism itself. All told, nearly $5 trillion of government bailouts and stimulus spending between the two presidents failed to rescue our economy. Their $5 trillion bought the most expensive lesson in human history: Government cannot create wealth, and an overtaxed and overregulated private sector can't, either.
Keynesian economics, as it has evolved, is the debunked belief that government can stimulate, direct, regulate and bail you into prosperity. This failed religion is now so thoroughly disproved that it simply cannot survive the collapse of the Obama presidency, except perhaps on the calcified pages of the New York Times. After all, if $5 trillion isn't a large enough stimulus, what is? And if the smartest guy ever to become president can't manage liberalism, who can?
Enter the disillusioned "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. Suddenly the 1970s "Me Generation" seems altruistic, and the '60s hippies seem hygienic. What a perfect name for their movement: "Occupy" - to take up space. If there's one thing these overcredentialed but undereducated people excel at, it's taking up space. They occupy university campuses for years without learning skills that can actually contribute to our society's economy. They demand to occupy a child's place on their parents' health insurance plan and then can't understand why everyone's premiums have risen further out of reach. They occupy a place in their mothers' basements and can't believe their fathers have become little Eichmanns in a capitalist world. Heck, at this point, I'd be happy if they'd just occupy a shower once in a while.
Somewhere between the occupiers' curbside sex and public defecation, many of them have begun listing their demands. Brace yourself. Truth is more hilarious than fiction. Years ago, the parody news website the Onion ran a fictitious (but spot-on) point-counterpoint piece. Point: "America's homeless want a hand up, not a handout." Counterpoint: "I want handouts! Hey, speak for yourself, buddy. I want handouts! I want other people's money, I want it in my pocket, and I don't want to work for it!" Rarely in real life, however, is truth laid so bare - until now. The public sex performers have demands: They want handouts.
Among the occupiers' demands is a "living wage" of $20 per hour that should be bestowed whether or not the recipient chooses to work. Another demand: Forgive all student loan debt. Imagine this thought process: A hapless student goes $75,000 into debt pursuing a worthless degree in community organizing appreciation and then blames not the university that swindled him out of his money but instead, the bank that gave him a loan. Other demands include free single-payer socialized health care, free college education, open borders and trillions more in spending for infrastructure and the environment.
More than 800 arrests later, the occupiers predictably have become disruptive and even violent. One wishes they opposed violence with the same fervor as they do bathing. Evidently, years of practice denying their mothers access to clean their filthy rooms has finally paid off as the occupiers successfully prevented New York City workers from cleaning their encampment in Zuccotti Park. How did these upstanding citizens celebrate their victory? By throwing bags of garbage at police.
Where's Mayor Richard Daley when you need him? Maybe Nurse Bloomberg would start cracking skulls if we could somehow convince him that Occupy Wall Street protesters are cooking with trans fats and salting their food. Then again, if this is the face of liberalism, let's not. Let's hope these occupiers stay around until Election Day.
The whole thing would be comical but for the fact that, from the president on down, Democrats are openly embracing the "I want handouts!" coalition. At the nexus of the liberal universe, these refugees of their own failed statism are agitating for yet more state control, and the ruling class is eager to oblige them.
"God bless them for their spontaneity," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gushed. "It's young, it's spontaneous and it's focused. And it's going to be effective." Yeah, it's going to be effective, all right. The Occupy Wall Street crowd, while defecating on police cars and demanding giveaways, has effectively become the face of the modern-day liberal Democratic Party.
I could not agree more with this article. The cold hard facts are we just cant afford liberalism anymore. I'm pleased that the Democrats are backing this movement because it shows the raw distinction between them and the conservative movement. It's about time the Democrats came out and told us what they really stood for. Socialism here we come if the Democrats hold power in this country.
Liberalism is dying before our eyes, not with a whimper or a bang, but with a grand unbathed and so apropos whine-fest. The central tenets of statism are in free-fall, and its benefi- ciaries, namely those who live off the fruits of other people's labor, are in a panic for one last round of government handouts before they completely bankrupt the nation.
Consider for a moment the tortured psyche of today's American liberal. The 2008 election promised that "the smartest guy ever to become president" would "fundamentally transform the United States of America" into some liberal utopia. Wars would end. Seas would calm. And Barack Obama would spread the wealth. Instead, all he spread was misery as he unleashed the twin terrors of redistributionist economics and government-controlled health care. Hope and change became despair and more of the same.
The failed Obama presidency, however, is just the beginning. The most liberal president in history, with an assist from his predecessor, has unmasked the structural flaws of liberalism itself. All told, nearly $5 trillion of government bailouts and stimulus spending between the two presidents failed to rescue our economy. Their $5 trillion bought the most expensive lesson in human history: Government cannot create wealth, and an overtaxed and overregulated private sector can't, either.
Keynesian economics, as it has evolved, is the debunked belief that government can stimulate, direct, regulate and bail you into prosperity. This failed religion is now so thoroughly disproved that it simply cannot survive the collapse of the Obama presidency, except perhaps on the calcified pages of the New York Times. After all, if $5 trillion isn't a large enough stimulus, what is? And if the smartest guy ever to become president can't manage liberalism, who can?
Enter the disillusioned "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. Suddenly the 1970s "Me Generation" seems altruistic, and the '60s hippies seem hygienic. What a perfect name for their movement: "Occupy" - to take up space. If there's one thing these overcredentialed but undereducated people excel at, it's taking up space. They occupy university campuses for years without learning skills that can actually contribute to our society's economy. They demand to occupy a child's place on their parents' health insurance plan and then can't understand why everyone's premiums have risen further out of reach. They occupy a place in their mothers' basements and can't believe their fathers have become little Eichmanns in a capitalist world. Heck, at this point, I'd be happy if they'd just occupy a shower once in a while.
Somewhere between the occupiers' curbside sex and public defecation, many of them have begun listing their demands. Brace yourself. Truth is more hilarious than fiction. Years ago, the parody news website the Onion ran a fictitious (but spot-on) point-counterpoint piece. Point: "America's homeless want a hand up, not a handout." Counterpoint: "I want handouts! Hey, speak for yourself, buddy. I want handouts! I want other people's money, I want it in my pocket, and I don't want to work for it!" Rarely in real life, however, is truth laid so bare - until now. The public sex performers have demands: They want handouts.
Among the occupiers' demands is a "living wage" of $20 per hour that should be bestowed whether or not the recipient chooses to work. Another demand: Forgive all student loan debt. Imagine this thought process: A hapless student goes $75,000 into debt pursuing a worthless degree in community organizing appreciation and then blames not the university that swindled him out of his money but instead, the bank that gave him a loan. Other demands include free single-payer socialized health care, free college education, open borders and trillions more in spending for infrastructure and the environment.
More than 800 arrests later, the occupiers predictably have become disruptive and even violent. One wishes they opposed violence with the same fervor as they do bathing. Evidently, years of practice denying their mothers access to clean their filthy rooms has finally paid off as the occupiers successfully prevented New York City workers from cleaning their encampment in Zuccotti Park. How did these upstanding citizens celebrate their victory? By throwing bags of garbage at police.
Where's Mayor Richard Daley when you need him? Maybe Nurse Bloomberg would start cracking skulls if we could somehow convince him that Occupy Wall Street protesters are cooking with trans fats and salting their food. Then again, if this is the face of liberalism, let's not. Let's hope these occupiers stay around until Election Day.
The whole thing would be comical but for the fact that, from the president on down, Democrats are openly embracing the "I want handouts!" coalition. At the nexus of the liberal universe, these refugees of their own failed statism are agitating for yet more state control, and the ruling class is eager to oblige them.
"God bless them for their spontaneity," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gushed. "It's young, it's spontaneous and it's focused. And it's going to be effective." Yeah, it's going to be effective, all right. The Occupy Wall Street crowd, while defecating on police cars and demanding giveaways, has effectively become the face of the modern-day liberal Democratic Party.
I could not agree more with this article. The cold hard facts are we just cant afford liberalism anymore. I'm pleased that the Democrats are backing this movement because it shows the raw distinction between them and the conservative movement. It's about time the Democrats came out and told us what they really stood for. Socialism here we come if the Democrats hold power in this country.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wealth redistribution vs GPA redistribution
Not sure if anyone caught the article about the college student that did a political science study on students with high GPA's. The premise goes something like this:
The student surveyed other students who had 3.8 or higher grade point averages and asked them two questions. The first question was: Do you believe in wealth redistribution through taxation?
Many of the students answered "yes" with various explanations that you can see if you do a simple google on GPA redistribution. YouTube has many videos as well as other media outlets so this experiment appears to have taken place many times over the course of the past few years. The brilliant part of this social experiment is the follow up question and the reactions that go along with it.
The follow up question goes something like this: Since you believe in wealth redistribution, would you like to redistribute some of your GPA to a student who is struggling to make it?
Everyone of the students who answered "yes" to the wealth redistribution questions answered "no" to the GPA redistribution question.
To be fair, this is not an apples to apples question, but the general theme of the questioning holds considerable merit. Needless to say many of the students reactions were typical along those lines citing the question as being unfair in its nature. Other students actually had never thought through their political position on taxation and you could tell this question challenged them to reevaluate some long held positions. So lets knock out some of the unfairness of the question that many will argue:
1). You can't inherit a 4.0 GPA like one can be born into money: Fair enough. Some citizens do win the genetic lottery and are born into wealth, but if they are unwise with their investments those riches could be squandered quickly leaving the next generation to fend for themselves. Even if one could inherit a 4.0 GPA would those same students be willing to redistribute their GPA? My anecdotal reaction would be they would not be. They would still have to study and progress to maintain their lofty inherited GPA's and although they may be more inclined to assist others they would not be willing to sacrifice GPA points for no gain unto themselves.
2). GPA's are capped at a top level and income is not: This is an interesting argument for which I have several simple answers. A). This has been tried and is also know as communism. Just ask the former Soviet Union how that all worked out. B). This scenario also produces very little incentive to achieve and progress as a society. C). This would be unconstitutional but we are playing what if, so who cares about the constitution. If we actually could implement this history shows us the societal structure we would have and sure enough everything boils down to 99% lower middle class with a very wealthy 1% ruling class with no possibility to progress. No thank you, I would rather take my chances here in the US under a Republic where I can go from nothing to Bill Gates. ( FYI these are the remaining communist countries: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam ) Care to trade places with anyone in one of those countries??
3). Everyone is being taught the same curriculum but not everyone has the same upbringing: This question could be phrased a different way. Lets state it like this... In the classroom everyone is hearing the same message and has the same opportunity to take notes, ask questions etc. Outside the confines of the classroom not everyone had the same upbringing / opportunity. I can see how this could affect ones future ability to earn income, and in some respects this is the most difficult one to define logically. There are so many factors one has to consider when addressing this issue that it would be virtually impossible to give a just answer. When I boil this down in my mind a few things stand out. The government does not offer equal outcomes but only guarantees equal opportunity. I can't compare my life to someone who grew up in the ghetto who had a single parent that work two jobs to support the kids and was never around. What I can state is that everyone has something inside them that drives them. Some people are more motivated to achieve then others. Some have a greater work ethic and internal drive to not be satisfied with mediocre results. This country is filled with success stories of people who came from nothing but worked hard to get ahead and make a name for themselves. Just like those students sitting in that classroom hearing that same lecture. Not everyone will have the same level of dedication to study as hard as the next person. Some students will be content putting in half the effort getting by with a C and other students will put fourth a greater effort and work harder to get the A. Our economy works in a similar way.
I agree this is a loaded question proposed for some shock value, but I think the merit of the question holds real value even if one could argue based on the details above. I am sure there are more ways to break down comparison and if you think of any please let me know. I am always interested in hearing feedback.
The student surveyed other students who had 3.8 or higher grade point averages and asked them two questions. The first question was: Do you believe in wealth redistribution through taxation?
Many of the students answered "yes" with various explanations that you can see if you do a simple google on GPA redistribution. YouTube has many videos as well as other media outlets so this experiment appears to have taken place many times over the course of the past few years. The brilliant part of this social experiment is the follow up question and the reactions that go along with it.
The follow up question goes something like this: Since you believe in wealth redistribution, would you like to redistribute some of your GPA to a student who is struggling to make it?
Everyone of the students who answered "yes" to the wealth redistribution questions answered "no" to the GPA redistribution question.
To be fair, this is not an apples to apples question, but the general theme of the questioning holds considerable merit. Needless to say many of the students reactions were typical along those lines citing the question as being unfair in its nature. Other students actually had never thought through their political position on taxation and you could tell this question challenged them to reevaluate some long held positions. So lets knock out some of the unfairness of the question that many will argue:
1). You can't inherit a 4.0 GPA like one can be born into money: Fair enough. Some citizens do win the genetic lottery and are born into wealth, but if they are unwise with their investments those riches could be squandered quickly leaving the next generation to fend for themselves. Even if one could inherit a 4.0 GPA would those same students be willing to redistribute their GPA? My anecdotal reaction would be they would not be. They would still have to study and progress to maintain their lofty inherited GPA's and although they may be more inclined to assist others they would not be willing to sacrifice GPA points for no gain unto themselves.
2). GPA's are capped at a top level and income is not: This is an interesting argument for which I have several simple answers. A). This has been tried and is also know as communism. Just ask the former Soviet Union how that all worked out. B). This scenario also produces very little incentive to achieve and progress as a society. C). This would be unconstitutional but we are playing what if, so who cares about the constitution. If we actually could implement this history shows us the societal structure we would have and sure enough everything boils down to 99% lower middle class with a very wealthy 1% ruling class with no possibility to progress. No thank you, I would rather take my chances here in the US under a Republic where I can go from nothing to Bill Gates. ( FYI these are the remaining communist countries: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam ) Care to trade places with anyone in one of those countries??
3). Everyone is being taught the same curriculum but not everyone has the same upbringing: This question could be phrased a different way. Lets state it like this... In the classroom everyone is hearing the same message and has the same opportunity to take notes, ask questions etc. Outside the confines of the classroom not everyone had the same upbringing / opportunity. I can see how this could affect ones future ability to earn income, and in some respects this is the most difficult one to define logically. There are so many factors one has to consider when addressing this issue that it would be virtually impossible to give a just answer. When I boil this down in my mind a few things stand out. The government does not offer equal outcomes but only guarantees equal opportunity. I can't compare my life to someone who grew up in the ghetto who had a single parent that work two jobs to support the kids and was never around. What I can state is that everyone has something inside them that drives them. Some people are more motivated to achieve then others. Some have a greater work ethic and internal drive to not be satisfied with mediocre results. This country is filled with success stories of people who came from nothing but worked hard to get ahead and make a name for themselves. Just like those students sitting in that classroom hearing that same lecture. Not everyone will have the same level of dedication to study as hard as the next person. Some students will be content putting in half the effort getting by with a C and other students will put fourth a greater effort and work harder to get the A. Our economy works in a similar way.
I agree this is a loaded question proposed for some shock value, but I think the merit of the question holds real value even if one could argue based on the details above. I am sure there are more ways to break down comparison and if you think of any please let me know. I am always interested in hearing feedback.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Politics of the week
Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme??
Much debate has been going around about Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme, so I decided to delve into this topic a little deeper and form an opinion for myself. Lets start with the basic definition of a Ponzi Scheme:
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
Ok, lets take out the "fraudulent" part for a sec and see if Social Security meets the technical requirements of a Ponzi Scheme:
Indeed it does, but it is a lot more complicated then what you may think which is why I will link to a few articles to help support this opinion.
First article: http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Krauthammer-Social-Security-lockbox-is-full-of-1690376.php
This article outlines what happens with the money you pay into Social Security while you are working. You basically get an IOU in the form of a treasury bond from the government, but they spend those dollars today to pay retirees who are receiving Social Security now, so in effect, there is NO MONEY in there for you. This is screaming Ponzi Scheme, but it actually gets worse...
Second article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13625
This article lays out the numbers game that is being played out with Social Security right now. In a nutshell the number of working citizens paying for retirees is headed towards an unsustainable equation. Here is a key quote from the link above: "In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two."
So how does Social Security keep on going when it is clearly based on the Ponzi Scheme?
Good question and here is the reason Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme.
1). In a real Ponzi Scheme the investors are voluntary: Social Security is mandatory so you can't "opt out". This protects Social Security from falling apart like Bernie Madoff's Ponzi Scheme.
2). In a real Ponzi Scheme, investors can take their money out whenever they want: Social Security has an age eligibility requirement that must be met which protects it from falling apart like Bernie Madoff's Ponzi Scheme.
3). In a real Ponzi Scheme, you can't change the rules or the contribution amount: With Social Security the government can always change contribution amounts and age requirements to keep the program solvent. Say the numbers look really really bad for the baby boomer generation, they just keep moving up the age requirements to 69, 70, 72, 75 etc... Eventrually the number of eligible retiree's will match up favorably to what is being taken into the treasury.
4). In a real Ponzi Scheme you can't print your own money: Unlike any other investment, the US government can decide to just print more money when it runs out of tax payer funded money.
I'm sure there are more reasons that I am leaving out, but the overall point is Social Security is not a real Ponzi Scheme, it is just based off the Ponze Scheme and made worse by the mandates that the government can control.
I'm looking forward to hear feedback on this and hear what others have to say about Social Security. Needless to say I'm 36 and don't think I'll see a penny of my Social Security, but who knows.
Much debate has been going around about Social Security being a Ponzi Scheme, so I decided to delve into this topic a little deeper and form an opinion for myself. Lets start with the basic definition of a Ponzi Scheme:
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
Ok, lets take out the "fraudulent" part for a sec and see if Social Security meets the technical requirements of a Ponzi Scheme:
Indeed it does, but it is a lot more complicated then what you may think which is why I will link to a few articles to help support this opinion.
First article: http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Krauthammer-Social-Security-lockbox-is-full-of-1690376.php
This article outlines what happens with the money you pay into Social Security while you are working. You basically get an IOU in the form of a treasury bond from the government, but they spend those dollars today to pay retirees who are receiving Social Security now, so in effect, there is NO MONEY in there for you. This is screaming Ponzi Scheme, but it actually gets worse...
Second article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13625
This article lays out the numbers game that is being played out with Social Security right now. In a nutshell the number of working citizens paying for retirees is headed towards an unsustainable equation. Here is a key quote from the link above: "In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two."
So how does Social Security keep on going when it is clearly based on the Ponzi Scheme?
Good question and here is the reason Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme.
1). In a real Ponzi Scheme the investors are voluntary: Social Security is mandatory so you can't "opt out". This protects Social Security from falling apart like Bernie Madoff's Ponzi Scheme.
2). In a real Ponzi Scheme, investors can take their money out whenever they want: Social Security has an age eligibility requirement that must be met which protects it from falling apart like Bernie Madoff's Ponzi Scheme.
3). In a real Ponzi Scheme, you can't change the rules or the contribution amount: With Social Security the government can always change contribution amounts and age requirements to keep the program solvent. Say the numbers look really really bad for the baby boomer generation, they just keep moving up the age requirements to 69, 70, 72, 75 etc... Eventrually the number of eligible retiree's will match up favorably to what is being taken into the treasury.
4). In a real Ponzi Scheme you can't print your own money: Unlike any other investment, the US government can decide to just print more money when it runs out of tax payer funded money.
I'm sure there are more reasons that I am leaving out, but the overall point is Social Security is not a real Ponzi Scheme, it is just based off the Ponze Scheme and made worse by the mandates that the government can control.
I'm looking forward to hear feedback on this and hear what others have to say about Social Security. Needless to say I'm 36 and don't think I'll see a penny of my Social Security, but who knows.
Welcome to my blog
About me:
My name is Chad. I'm not exactly sure what I hope to accomplish by starting this blog other then getting my own opinions out and in blog format for folks to see and discuss. I will probably cover a wide range of topics from politics to sports to local happenings in the community, technology, stocks, family, etc... I'm an engineer and see the world in very black and white terms on a lot of things, and that will probably come through in my posts as well. I hope you enjoy this blog and return often to see more of my ramblings.
My name is Chad. I'm not exactly sure what I hope to accomplish by starting this blog other then getting my own opinions out and in blog format for folks to see and discuss. I will probably cover a wide range of topics from politics to sports to local happenings in the community, technology, stocks, family, etc... I'm an engineer and see the world in very black and white terms on a lot of things, and that will probably come through in my posts as well. I hope you enjoy this blog and return often to see more of my ramblings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)