Several months ago I designed several shirts. I had an online t-shirt store print them. One of the shirts came out looking crappy because they forget to print the white part of the shirt. This was the second time this company made this mistake so I have moved onto another t-shirt printing company.

About six months ago I ate at a Greek restaurant. The food tasted disgusting and was unappetizing. The service was terrible and so I tipped about 10 percent. The server decided that was not enough tip and reported to the credit card company that I had tipped more, about three dollars more. Needless to say I have not, and never will eat there again. Fortunately there is another greek restaurant that I now eat at.

I’m not a big fan of Wal-Mart. The place always seems dirty, fellow customers are rude, and I deplore the decor. Usually the only time I will shop there is when it’s late at night when none of the other stores are open. Even though things are a little more expensive I prefer to shop at Target because the service is good, the store is clean and fellow customers don’t seem as rude.

Starting in January, a new administration has been running our country. He has already enacted several polices that I vehemently oppose and has increased the budget by four times its previous amount. He is running a massive deficit. He is going to push for the mother of bad policy and try to get universal health care enacted. Suffice it to say, I would like to replace him with another administration. I would like to get a fiscal conservative as the president to help us weather this recession. However I can’t despite being told that politicians are more accountable then companies.

If companies are less accountable than politicians why am I able to change what companies I wish to do business with but have no recourse when it comes to political administrations. When those that run companies do things I disagree with I hold them accountable by refusing to give them my business. When political administrations do things I disagree with the absolutely best I can do is vote against them once every four years. However, even this is not a sure thing, since I voted against the current administration and they somehow still got elected.

How do I hold the current administration accountable for the wretched economic policy they are putting forth?

Several years ago I was playing a game of trivial pursuit. One of my friends was really good at the game and as a result cleaning house. As he played I noticed the way he went about answering questions. When a question was asked that he didn’t know the answer to, he would sit and ponder the question for a while and think about association that came to mind after hearing the question. In this way he often was able to recall the answer after some heavy thinking.

I remember this strategy so clearly because it was in stark contrast to how I went about answering questions. After I heard the question either I would quickly determine if I knew the answer or not and then move on. I didn’t take time to ponder the association our figure out an answer. For me, either I knew the answer or I didn’t. I usually didn’t know the answer, and as a result my team lost alot.

I bring up this thinking strategy because to this day I prefer not to ponder over questions. Either I know the answer or I don’t, if I don’t know it then I move on and don’t waste any more time working on the solution. To get around the problem of being unwilling to answer a question through intense concentration, I ask people around me that I have estimated will be able to answer the question. In this way I’m able to have the same knowledge as the more ponderous while at the same time avoid the arduous task of recalling answers to questions when they do not immediately appear to me.

I can’t help but wonder that as children the development of either one of these strategies is predicated on how social one is. That is the more withdrawn and less social you are, the less viable of an option to ask others an answer to question becomes. Thereby, you develop a skill to recall answer to questions through association making the process less arduous and something you are more inclined to use more situations. While those that are more social, when faced with doing the thinking or just asking, they ask, and as a result do not develop the same kind of skill of recall and ultimately find thinking by association arduous and avoid it.

Thinking about my own childhood, I’m reminded of the fact that my older brother was always around to answer all my questions. When I had a question, or we got into a debate, his superior recall ability would enable him to find the answer or prevail in argument. I wonder, if this solely a factor of birth order, and had I been born with all of the same genetics, but as the first child, I would of become the bookish socially inward but with superior recall. He would be socially outward with no patience or skill for recall.

I don’t understand why vigilantes insist on taking matter into their own hands.

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

This is a perfect example of how a call to the police would of saved lives but instead one of the assailants was killed instead. Such needless violence is unnecessary and highlights the importance of gun control. When you let vigilantes have guns, monsters that rape and murder innocent people end up dead when trying to rape and murder people. And that kind of injustice just ain’t right.

The president or CEOs? Darwin implies that CEOs have more power than the state.

I believe that politicians are much more answerable to the public than are CEOs, therefore we need to rely LESS on their benevolent nature.

The current situation with Chrysler does a nice job of showing who is answerable to who.

Obama has decided a priori, however, that the interests of the United Auto Workers come first. Forget the fact that many of the people who now own Chrysler debt are secured creditors, and thus entitled by centuries of precedent to a preferred position in the disposition of Chrysler’s assets, ahead of the government (which lent unsecured TARP funds) and the UAW (to whose health-care fund Chrysler is obligated to pay cash).

What appears to have happened, according to published reports, is that holders of about $6 billion in Chrysler debt were offered $2 billion, and then $2.25 billion. When they asked for more, Obama got mad and broke off the negotiation.

Imagine telling your bank that you’ve decided to pay off your mortgage in full, but you’re only going to give them 35 cents on the dollar, take it or leave it. Then when they protest, you lose patience, walk out of the room, and go on national television to say that your bank is a bad actor, they’ve exhausted your patience, and now they’ll have to settle for a big fat zero. And by the way, maybe the White House press corps will start spreading nasty rumors about them.

Out of nowhere contract law is being broken. And its not being broken by a CEO, but by the President of the United state of America. Do you think that if the CEO was able to break the onerous union contracts that are at least in part destroying Chrysler he would of done so? Of course he would, but he can’t because he is accountable to the legal system. The president, on the other hand can break these laws because he is not accountable to the legal system, well at least not in the same capacity the CEO is.

And so I ask you, who is more accountable? The president that can break legal contracts at will or the CEO who must follow legal contracts.

CNN handed me a story bursting with potential today:

When the highly anticipated movie “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” opened Friday in theaters, many fans had already seen it.

The online leak of a pirated, unfinished version of the 20th Century Fox film a month ago sent federal authorities springing into action and stoked a heated conversation within the entertainment industry about digital piracy.

Piracy of upcoming films is not new, but the theft of “Wolverine” is especially troubling for an industry concerned with a stalled economy and the financial bottom line.

Oh poor industry. Wolverine only made $85.1 million on it’s opening weekend, the highest opening gross of 2009. This stands in the face of the swine flu hysteria, the much talked about pre-release pirated copy, and largely negative reviews.

Yet the CNN article bemoans the plight of the movie producers, who, it turns out, are on target for a record year, with revenue up 17% from last year, according to the Wall Street Journal.

This year’s summer season could set a record not only for the period but help bring about the first-ever $10 billion year in domestic receipts, Dergarabedian said.

The industry set a record in summer grosses last year at $4.2 billion on its way to $9.6 billion for all of 2008. The full-year total was down marginally from 2007.

A record 45 films are making “wide” debuts in more than 2,000 theaters, up from 40 last year and 37 in 2007.

So why does CNN claim that piracy is destroying the movie industry? Maybe because they share a parent company with Warner Bros, which thankfully they copped to in the article. Yet they left out any business figures from the story, which is smart, as all the numbers point to piracy helping the movie industry, not hurting. So why do they expend so much energy to fight the unwinnable war against digital piracy?

CNN titled their article “In digital age, can movie piracy be stopped?” The answer is no, and you would make a lot more money if you stopped trying to fight it.

There can be no question, regulation is essential to a well functioning free market system. Despite it’s necessity, regulation has many problems, perhaps it’s biggest problem is that it expands the power of the state. With this expansion comes corruption.

Currently, congress is developing a set of regulations to manage global warming. Of particular notice is this:

But the sweeping climate bill Mr. Waxman and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the panel’s key environmental subcommittee, introduced at the end of March includes a provision that benefits Duke Energy Corp., a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), whose climate plan released in January the lawmakers have frequently called a “blueprint” for their climate legislation.

The exemption would save Duke Energy — along with other firms now building new coal power plants — from having to spend millions of dollars outfitting its Cliffside, N.C., power plant currently under construction with “clean coal” technology.

“The USCAP companies must be delirious over the freebies that they’ve received after writing the blueprint for [the House draft bill],” said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Those in support of increased regulation to manage global warming must be willing to accept the expansion in state power and the resulting corruption. They must also be willing to accept that such regulation creates avenues in which wealthy individuals and corporations are able to influence politicians.

One can not ardently support increased regulation, while at the same time bemoan the avenues of corruption it open’s up. It’s why I hardly ever support regulation. The need for regulation must be so essential as to justify the cost of increased state expansion and resulting corruption. Most regulation is not worth the cost and this is most certainly the case with legislation to address global warming.

Would infer from companies moving profits to offshore locations that the solution is to increase regulation.

The president’s plan would limit the ability of U.S. companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on overseas profits. At the same time, Obama would step up efforts to go after evaders who abuse offshore tax shelters.

…

Lost revenue isn’t the only problem, Obama says. He contends the current system gives companies an incentive to invest overseas rather than creating jobs in the U.S.

Yep, that’s how job creation works. By taking more money away from companies, they will have the additional resources to create new jobs. Bizzaro logic.

Will have to concede that the new Pew research study clearly shows that the MSM clearly has a bias towards Obama.

Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

This study empirically demonstrates the reality of press bias. Those of you that have argued no empirical data exists that demonstrates such a bias should quickly rescind your argument. Empirical data exists and loudly states a bias in the press.

If you respect the data, as some of you claim, you will accept MSM bias.

To invest in companies that stand to make millions if global warming laws are enacted. It creates a rather obvious conflict of interest that will sully your position on saving the environment because its the right thing to do.