Rants and Raves

E-mails from an Asshole

2010-02-24T21:22:00.000-08:00

This website is hilarious. My thanks go out to the author for doing this.

E-mails from an Asshole

Video | Ovechkin crushes Jagr, Malkin scores | NBC Olympics

2010-02-24T21:17:00.000-08:00

Video | Ovechkin crushes Jagr, Malkin scores | NBC Olympics

NoScript - JavaScript/Java/Flash blocker for a safer Firefox experience! - features - InformAction

2010-02-24T20:27:00.000-08:00

NoScript - JavaScript/Java/Flash blocker for a safer Firefox experience! - features - InformAction

Downtown Manhattan

2009-02-16T15:08:00.000-08:00

Center. The neighborhood we will explore is to the west of Broadway and includes a blend of modern skyscrapers and classical wonders. The September 11^th attacks in 2001 had a profound and a direct effect on many, if not all, of the buildings we will be covering. As an employee of NY Mercantile Exchange (the last building on our walk), I can tell you that even though the damage done to our building was not structural it was definitely emotional. The reason being is that, on any given day the Twin Towers held meetings in its offices that were attended by employees of all the buildings in the neighborhood and beyond. Many good co-workers lost their lives in the attacks and their names are forever engrained in the lobby of our building.

We will take the “R” or “W” trains from Broadway and Waverly to the “Cortlandt St” stop. We will than meet outside of the “Brooks Brothers” store beneath 1 Liberty Plaza.

As we stand with our backs to what remains of the World Trade Center, we are facing 1 Liberty Plaza. This is a modern building, built in the International style and completed in 1972. It was built in place of the Singer Building, which was the tallest in its day in 1908 (compare to the Little Singer built by the same architect, Ernest Flagg, 4 years prior). The building was commissioned by the U.S. Steel Company. The architects were of the firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. The firm is internationally renowned with perhaps its greatest accomplishment being the world famous Sears Tower in Chicago.

One of the most remarkable things about this building (which took years of preparation) is that each of its 54 floors has about an acre of column-free, rentable space. After U.S. Steel relocated, the building was sold first to Merrill Lynch and than to Olympia & York Developers – two names that will come up again later in our walk. Current tenants of the building, owned by Brookfield Properties Corp. are: Brooks Brothers – occupying the floor level, Goldman Sachs, and the administrative offices of the NASDAQ Stock Market.

As far as the architecture is concerned, the building is just another steel and glass box. U.S. Steel, in an obvious effort to promote “steel”, used as much of it as possible. This resulted in 6 foot wide girders running the complete height of the façade. The entrance to the building is from a narrow, sunken arcade, defined by the supporting massive steel columns and the glass walls of the lobbies.

We will about-face from the U.S. Steel building and for a second look at the 4 large structures of the World Financial Center. From this distance we get a feel for the scope of the project and the similarities and differences between the towers.

Let us now move a few yards to the north and stop in front of the skinny, black, box of the Millenium Hilton Hotel. The building was constructed in 1992 after the first World Trade Center bombing. The architect, Eli Attia, was recently in the news arguing against Daniel Libeskind’s “Wedge of Light” theory. Attia simply stated the light will not shine on the new WTC at the specific times that Libeskind wanted because the Millenium Hilton will be blocking the sunlight.

Architecturally, the building is pretty high tech. The entire structure is made of reinforced concrete. The facade is tinted glass held by silicon adhesive and supported by invisible aluminum mullions.

Let’s now cross Church Street and look at the Federal Building (90 Church Street) as it undergoes a facelift. This 1935 high-rise was constructed in the Art-Deco style by two firms: Cross & Cross and the other one being Penninton, Lewis & Mills. The building received substantial, non-structural damage after the 9-11 attacks. Many of its windows were shattered and the limestone on the west facade (facing WTC) needed to be treated after it was damaged by the smoke and the debris. The building was built of limestone in a typical Federalist Style with a granite base and decorative, symbolic eagles above the top floor cornices. The winged top structure is reminiscent of City Hall and the Municipal Building and the wings are spread in the exact same direction.

The Federal Office Building was closed off to the public after the 9-11 attacks. The main tenant, U.S. Postal Service was relocated to another location. For a while a post office truck stood outside the previous entrance, selling stamps, money orders, and such but at this point no signs remain of the Post Office.

We will now take the narrow Vesey Street walkway, admire the gaping hole of the WTC, and use the newly constructed (Nov 2003) bridge to cross the West Side Highway. As we turn around we see the Barclay-Vesey Building named for its two intersecting streets below.

The building was built in 1923 by McKenzie, Voorhees & Gmelin (Bank of NY Building from our Wall Street walk) for the New York Telephone Company - later known as Verizon (the building is sometimes called the Verizon Building). Considered to be the first Art Deco Skyscraper, this building is very unusual. Taking up an entire city block in a district that does not have a conventional city grid, allowed this building to have a weird trapezoidal shape.

The brick-clad building has a steel frame and is topped with a short, sturdy tower, with vertical piers and battlements on top. Ornaments on the dramatic setbacks are marked by buttresses and sculptures.

The entrances are decorated with bronze engravings of many bells and the ceiling of the lobby has frescoes with the theme of the history of communication, all symbolizing a telephone company.

The building sustained heavy damage, internal and external, following September 11^th attacks. The restorations are still going on and will cost in excess of $200 million. The restorations include the lobby frescoes, entrance bas-reliefs and more serious internal structures.

We will now take a few steps north along the West Side Hwy and begin our examination of the World Financial Center. The WFC complex consists of 4 main buildings, addressed 1 – 4 WFC. The complex is owned by Brookfield Properties, a huge publicly traded company with many holdings in the downtown area. Interestingly Brookfield bought a major stake in the complex in 1996 from the than bankrupt of firm of Olympia & York (owners of 1 Liberty Plaza), which owned 3 of the 4 towers. Today Brookfield owns the four towers and 1 Liberty Plaza.

The tower we see to our left is 3 World Financial Center home to the American Express Global Headquarters. With its 51 floors, this is the tallest of the four structures rising more than 700 feet into the air. It is also the funkiest of its 3 cousins because it is rotated on its base to compliment the Barclay-Vesey Building diagonally across the street. 3 WFC sustained the heaviest damage after the attacks and remained closed for a number of months afterward. The construction of this building was completed in 1986 and the architecture will be discussed later in a summary of the WFC since all 4 buildings are very similar.

We will now walk down further west on Vesey St. and stop next Chevy’s restaurant. By the way the WFC area sports a good array of restaurants and shops and a movie a theater, which unlike its Wall Street counterpart ensure that the neighborhood sees a lot of pedestrians well after the 5 o’clock rush out.

The building across from us is 4 WFC, home to Merrill Lynch. 4 was completed the same year as 3. Merrill relocated here from its previous home at 1 Liberty Plaza. I think the sole reason it did that was so its envelopes would include the words “World Financial Center” written for the address. 4 is the shortest of the group and since it is tucked away neatly behind 3 and 2 it barely received any damage from Sept. 11. Workers were allowed to return to the building in less than 2 months.

We now will walk to North End Ave, turn left and hold on to our feet. As we are walking between the 4 WFC on our left and the NY Merc Building on our right, the wind created by the tunnel effect of these two high rises can literally knock us over. A certain gloomy sense that we experienced on Pine Street also comes to mind. Anyway as we get to the beautifully decorated docks with its huge private boats we look to the left and marvel at 2 WFC and the gorgeous Winter Garden, which connects it to 3 WFC.

The Winter Garden is a marvelous glass-house like structure made to resemble a spaceship in my opinion (we can see another spaceship-like structure if we look across the river). The indoors are clad with marble and the two most interesting features are the 15 full grown palm trees which are apparently from the Mojave Dessert and the arcing marble staircase. The two floors of the Garden are adorned with stores, eateries, and boutiques.

2 WFC is a lot like 3 except it sports a huge, ugly, green smoke stack on its southern side. It is shorter than 3 rising only 44 stories and it is the home of the mega-rich Oppenheimer Funds. 2 was completed a year after 3 in 1987.

To the south of 2 we see the shaft of 1 WFC rising in the background. It is almost identical to 2 with its complimentary smoke stack but it is a little shorter. It was completed first out of them all in 1985 and is home to Dow Jones.

Battery Park City on which the WFC stands was reclaimed from the Hudson River with the dirt and rocks excavated from the World Trade Center construction

Culture Wars

2009-02-16T15:02:00.000-08:00

United States has always been considered the “land of the free.” One of the freedoms Americans cherish most is their freedom of speech, which naturally includes the freedom to maintain any opinion. However, there comes a time when certain opinions held by a group of people become detrimental to the prosperity and the well being of the country. One example of such a detriment is the moralists’ belief that the United States is experiencing a steady moral and spiritual decay. This argument is the fundamental backbone of the culture wars that have been plaguing this country since its conception. In reality, “[the moralists] who preach of the moral decline of the nation are splitting the country into warring factions”, and are, in fact, causing these culture wars themselves.

Contemporary moralists point to issues such as the rising rates of crime, divorce, welfare dependency, and sexual activity as a sign that this country is going straight to the devil. These moralists, or progressives as they can also be called, opt for government intervention to, at best, improve or to, at least, stabilize the moral standard of the nation. Superficially, their petition to improve America cannot look menacing at all. However, upon closer inspection, their demands unintentionally divide the country into what James Morone calls “virtuous us” or those who are considered “moral”, and the “vicious them”- those who are statistically responsible for the rising rates mentioned

This mythical divide constructs an enemy, an explanation for the difficulties facing the United States, to such an extent that the public, with the coaxing of the moralists, is willing to fight this fabricated enemy at the expense of their own welfare. The prior statement raises two important questions: why are the divides mythical and what are the expenses facing the society for believing in them?

The divides do not exist because the moralists fail to see the broader cultural changes that explain most increases in immoral behavior of the society. To begin to understand these changes, let us consider the crime rate that the moralists are so quick to indicate skyrocketed in respect to the levels of previous generations. Gertrude Himmelfarb, an epitome of a moralist, points to the statistics that show the serious crimes, such as homicides, ” are 50 percent higher today than they were in 1950.” This statistic, however, fails to include three lurking variables that explain the discrepancy in the rates. The first of these variables is the manufacturing and marketing of faster and more powerful guns; the second, American war on drugs has succeeded in limiting the supply but also made the drugs more lucrative, hence, increasing criminal activity; Third, the drop in demand for unskilled labor, due to technological replacements, forced many to engage in criminal exploits, for a source of income. The combination of these three factors, not a decline in morals, account for the surge in criminal activity.

Another issue moralists surface when preaching about the decay of the nation’s ethics is divorce. Again, to use Himmelfarb as a progressive representative, she states that the number of children living with one parent has risen from less than one-tenth to more than one-quarter and the number of children under 15 living with unmarried couples has grown from 200,000 to 1.3 million, in the 35 years since 1960. This statistic completely ignores the changes in the American work force. Over these 35 years, women have earned their place among the men in the business world and grew less reliant on marriage as a source of income and security. This growth in women’s economic independence translated to women marrying for the pursuit of happiness rather than out of necessity. Happiness, unlike financial security, is harder to find, hence, the increase in the divorce rate, which in exchange for women’s rights and opportunities is not a steep price to pay.

Next issue on the moralists’ agenda is society’s dependence on government programs such as welfare. Welfare itself, however, was a progressive idea that originated from previous generations of moralists, who tried to raise the standard of living for the poorest class. The fact that welfare is failing or is destined to fail has little to do with people’s chronic dependency on it. Welfare, like communism, was a good idea but not a very practical one. The problem with welfare is not the people’s dependency on it as their only source of income, but that many people on welfare cannot find decent (check paying) jobs or turn to mediocre job that pay cash. If the people who work for cash would honestly report their true income, they would not be eligible for welfare. Most, however, see no point in disclaiming their true earnings (there is no record of it anyway) and losing their welfare check every month.

If crime, divorce, and welfare do not express decay in the morals of the United States but show a mere progression in the modernization of society, can that decline be seen through an increase in sexual activity, especially among younger teenagers?

The society has not only progressed technologically, but also psychologically. Children are being exposed to issues such as sex and death ever earlier in their lives through mediums such as cinema and television. This accounts for children’s maturation at a rather adolescent age, a phenomenon that can be equated to prearranged marriages of young teens and even Himmelfarb’s “tweens” in Shakespearean and pre-modern times, which compelled young boys and even younger girls to enter into marriage at an age that would seem inappropriate by today’s standards. An increase in sexual activity is also related to a greater awareness and availability of contraception and also a medically proven fact that puberty is occurring prematurely in both boys and girls.

Seeing an increase in these rates as evils or as a lack of morality of the society, entices progressives to stimulate a change that will curb their effects on the United States. The result is the creation of client-based government programs that inflict damage to the entire nation and have almost no effect on the actual causes of the problem. Examples of such creations is welfare (as noted previously) and affirmative action. Welfare is not a cure for dishonesty, laziness, or a lack of skills and affirmative action is not a cure for racism.

Moralists and progressives, who are blaming people for losing a sense of righteousness, due to an increase in several statistics, are polluting our country. It is rather the natural progressive change in society that fluctuates these numbers. Proof of that is the fact that the numbers fluctuate and are not on a steady incline. Himmelfarb, herself, admits the crime rate fell since the 1980s and so did sexual activity among adolescents. This country is far from going to hell as a whole, hence, conservatives should control and legislate laws before the progressives will send the nation there.

Rant # 6 The Value of Women

2008-04-15T19:02:00.000-07:00

The women's movement had it all wrong. For the past few decades, women have been trying to convince men and themselves that they are just as capable and competent as men are. Whether it be in the workplace or in combat or in sports, the drive for equality by these Amazon princesses has been relentless.

Nowhere has this fight been more prevalent than in the belief that men and women should not have salary imbalances. "Equal pay for equal work" is the slogan that launched a thousand lawsuits.

But men and women are not equal. Women, in my opinion, are a far more superior gender. Take the latest college statistics for instance. Women are outnumbering men on campuses, getting better grades, and get involved in more potent extracurricular activities.

They are also more prominent and vocal in politics, peace movements, public speaking. They are more adept to handling pain, mature faster, and have the unbelievable burden of having to give birth.

So how is it that with all these qualifications, they are still earning only 80 cents for each male dollar?

The answer is simple really. Society, by recognizing all the qualities I mentioned, made women more valuable than men. Take an instance of a burning building - a firefighter rushes in to find a man and a woman, both just as capable of being rescued. The firefighter will always rescue the woman first. Or an instance of a ship going down, women before men yet again.

And just as any object of value needs to be insured, women are no exception. Women need to pay a societal insurance or a tax to maintain their position of value and superior status. As such, from every dollar they earn, some amount has to be displaced to insure their right of first survival.

What should that amount be? You might ask. Well, if you are a woman, how much more valuable do you consider your life to be then a man's? If you answer "a lot more valuable", well then, pay the piper. If you don't think it is more valuable, then I invite you to become a card-carrying member of the "my life is just as important as his, Mr. Firefighter" club. Slowly but surely, the salary will rise, the life expectancy will fall, and harmony will be achieved.

Until all women join this club, please allow me to enjoy my extra 20 cents in peace, as I patiently wait to be not rescued.

But seriously. By heedlessly arguing that women are just as valuable as men, women are actually devaluing themselves. And that is a real shame.

Rant # 5 Real Men

2008-04-11T14:32:00.001-07:00

A definition: The do's and do not's

Real Men...

...Do not discuss their feelings
...Do not talk to men who discuss their feelings
...Do not wear hats in the winter or caps in the summer
...Do not walk with hands in their pockets
...Do not carry open umbrellas by themselves
...Do not walk under an open umbrella of another "man"
...Do not curse in front of women
...Do not cross their legs in the "thigh on thigh" fashion
...Put the toilet seat down
...Do not urinate while sitting down (thought that was a given)
...Finish all the food on their plates
...Drink
...Drink more than their partners
...Do not puke
...Stay in shape
...Do not wear spandex
...Do not wear briefs (underwear or swimwear)

ELECTION 2008 TIPS

Hillary: You are a woman so run like one. Put out a sex tape or at least a bikini photo shot.
Obama: Not black enough? Put out a rap video. Make sure you wear a lot bling.

Joint Ticket? An Obama rap video with Hillary as one of the scantily-clad dancers.

Raves for February 31th, 2008

2008-03-08T13:52:00.000-08:00

Busted Tees

Smoking ban workaround in bars: Hold "theater nights"

Weird Trend History

Isiah Thomas' Knicks Legacy, Summed Up In One Possession

Scientists Predict When World Will End

Raves for February 28th, 2008

2008-03-08T07:45:00.000-08:00

Girl of the Day:

Guess My Crime!

Suicidal pets get anti-depressants

Jimmy Kimmel Live

Charts and graphs of rap song lyrics

NOW THAT'S ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU SICK!

Girl, 16, gives birth to triplets - for the SECOND time

Full Service Bank

Dropping A Deuce At The Beijing Olympics Is Going To Be An Adventure

Man dies in cake-eating contest

Blood money: Nets arena to be named after bank founded on slave money

Fact of the Day:

In Old English, the word with meant "against", a meaning still preserved in phrases such as "to fight with".

Rant # 4 Company Stock Offering

2008-02-21T19:31:00.000-08:00

Come May or June, most companies will offer their employees a chance to participate in what's known as the "Stock Purchase Program". This program allows employees to participate in the company's future by purchasing the firm's shares at a discount.

The perks offered range from matching contributions to a discount in the stock price, or some combination of both. But the outcome remains the same: You are now long your company's performance; as the company does better, so does the share price and your wallet (and vice versa).

The problem with that is... You are already long your company's performance. You work there! If the company does well in a given year, that will be reflected in your higher bonus and pay raise. If the company does poorly, well, so does your paycheck.

Here are two ideas on how to better the situation:

1. A company should give their employees a chance to own shares in a competing firm. As silly as it sounds, this idea will have far reaching consequences. For one, if the firm has a bad year, the employees will be less likely to run to the competing firm. They are already partaking in that firm's performance and are reaping the rewards of a higher stock price. Plus, they are enjoying those benefits without having to go through the grueling turn-over process.

In return for the money lost on purchasing shares of a competitor, the firm will reduce expenses by not having to pay for recruiters and training programs for new employees.

This is a win-win situation for me.

2. This one is a bit tricky. Let employees short the firm's shares at a premium. In effect, the employee is simply hedging his working there. If the company's performance is poor, the loss in the bonus will be counteracted by a gain in the short position. This idea is more for older employees who want to manage their bonus and salary risk.

By purchasing shares of your company, you are doubling your exposure and potential for loss. So, tread lightly and ask your H.R. representative if my ideas are right for you.

(This post does not apply to employees of Goldman Sachs)

Raves for February 19th, 2008

2008-02-19T17:40:00.000-08:00

Site News: We can now be found by searching Google

Girl of The Day:

The World's 16 Least Inspiring Flags

Tournament of blood: The sheer horror of horse-fighting

L.I. Woman Accused In Parking Lot Road Rage Incident

Bas Rutten Street Defense ... Video

Best of Bas Rutten ... Video

The 15 Most Annoying Video Game Characters (From Otherwise Great Games)

The 10 Most Irritatingly Impossible Old-School Video Games

ICED: (I Can End Deportation) Video Game

41 Hilarious Science Fair Experiments

NEW WALL STREET STATUS SYMBOL: STEADY JOB

Chuck Norris Fact:

When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down

Raves for February 15th, 2008

2008-02-19T16:21:00.000-08:00

Girl of The Day:

How People Count Cash ... Video

Knicker Picker Online Lingerie Dressing Room

Sleep position gives personality clue

Homeless: Can you build a life from $25?

The Greatest Movie Theater On Earth

Stuff White People Like

Gladiator Dog ... Video

Patrick Ewing NBA Stats

Make Big Profits Illegally (and Maybe Keep Them, Too)
NY Times

Diary Of A Fake Goldman Trader: Doing Charity Work on Valentine's Day

Chuck Norris Fact:

Most tough men eat nails for breakfast. chuck Norris does all of his grocery shopping at Home Depot.

Rant # 3 Welfare State

2008-02-14T20:14:00.001-08:00

Currently there about 4 million people receiving government assistance; about 1% of the US population. Total spending on all government aid programs was about $1.8 trillion or 20% of our GDP.

Of this 1%, a large chunk comes from Welfare recepients. Having my family personally be on welfare, I know how critical this assistance can be in certain cases. I also know how sensitive this topic can be.

Nonetheless, I will state my reasons for believing that a person should be allowed to be on welfare for only a very short period of time (2 years should be sufficient to find a job) and, in that period of time, his/her benefits should decrease each month.

As a unit, we all have to contribute, in some way, to the country we live in. There are only two ways of doing that: serving in the military or being part of the ranks of the employed. Everyone else, who is capable of performing either of these two tasks but is not, is a freeloader and a leech on our society.

As a libertarian, and as someone who works relatively hard for my paycheck, I do not believe I have to subsidize for others. I have worked hard to be at the stage where I am somewhat financially secure. If I can do it, If my parents, who came to this country not speaking a word of English, can do it, then anyone else can.

People on welfare have no motivation to find a job. Why would they? A paycheck comes every month, so why bother. And after a while they settle in their routine and adjust to that lifestyle. If not for that, they find a job that pays cash and continue to receive assistance at everyone else's expense.

We should not live in a nanny state, distributing our hard earned assets to those less fortunate. We are not all equal, some of us are smarter, some have special talents, and others just need to work harder to make something of themselves. In either case, I believe if you take the safety net of welfare away, you'll see a much more productive society. When that happens, we all benefit.

Raves for February 14th, 2008

2008-02-14T19:36:00.000-08:00

Girl of the Day:

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models 2008

Amazon Plays Dumb in Internet Sales Tax Debate

Man Accused Of Posting Bond For Women In Exchange For Sex

Women Think About Sex At Work 34 Times A Day

Bars will bring on the bacon (lots of it)

Guess The Religion

Awesome Sacramento Kings' Dancers Face Discipline

Not Looking for Love: Romance in America

Hairy hunks are a hit with ladies

Cougars On The Prowl

Top 9 unique structures soon to be built

Police Take Advantage of a Drunk Girl

Sleeping at work invention:

Eyelid Stickers

Chuck Norris Fact:
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.

Raves for February 13th, 2008

2008-02-13T18:43:00.000-08:00

World’s Fattest Man Finds Love

Tagoo Emerging as Russian Napster?

The Best Sandwiches in America

MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System CIWS aka vulcan fires 100's of round per second

The Six Most Violently Amazing Real Weapons Ever

Surprising reasons you're not having sex

DVD Rip Automates One-Click DVD Ripping

Top Mugshot Award goes to:

This dude with the baseball cap imprint on his crown.

To see the rest of the mugshots found click here.

Chuck Norris Fact of the Day:

Chuck Norris can eat just one Lay's potato chip.

Raves for February 12th, 2008

2008-02-12T19:28:00.000-08:00

Eateries go on spring roll strike
Reuters

Mini-muscleman: Meet the world's smallest bodybuilder
Daily Mail

Dubai to Build the World's Largest Arch Bridge in 2012
IO9.com

Marijuana vending machines have arrived
Guestofaguest.com

Fat Guy With a Little Gun
Break.com

Russia in Ukraine missile threat
BBC

Shot from Russia:

Rant # 2 Health Insurance

2008-02-11T15:52:00.000-08:00

There's a lot to say for the old adage "you always get what you pay for". Do not be surprised that this applies to health care.

Sure, you hear a lot about the universal health coverage of our neighbors to the north and of the many countries in the European Union. Sounds wonderful doesn't it? Affordable health care for all. But in reality universal health care, just as "universal" anything for that matter, is a horrible idea.

Have you ever heard of any American saying "Oh I am going to go to Canada, the doctors there are simply amazing"? No. Of course not.

The truth is, just as with any other product, good doctors are a commodity that you must pay a premium to get. What universal health care really does is create a single provider (the government) which can then bargain for prices. That, in effect, puts a cap on a doctor's salary and he has no incentive of becoming any better than the guy across the street. Is that what we really want? A number of so-so doctors that could care less about progressing but that we all can afford?

This is not to say that our system is the best. Our system sucks but for a different reason. Our health care is heavily intertwined with our legal system. Example: you go to a doctor who misdiagnoses you, so you don't realize you are sick and end up dead. Great. Now your family sues the doctor for $100 million and wins. The doctor's malpractice insurance covers it but has to raise its premiums to stay in business. In turn, the doctors have to raise the cost of health care to pay these high premiums. And, finally, in turn, the insurance company raises the health insurance premiums on the public.

As you can see the only clear monetary winner here is the family that received the $100 million. Clear loser? everyone else of course. So really the solution to our health insurance costs is a cap on lawsuits. This will lower the doctor's premiums AND lower health insurance costs for all of us.

Let's be real here...Since when has democracy turned into enriching the few at the expense of all?

Rant # 1 Do away with popular voting

2008-02-10T19:06:00.000-08:00

Do away with popular voting in America?

You hear all the time about the need to eliminate the electoral college. How it's an archaic system used to keep the general population from actually mattering.

I would like to offer another solution:

The electoral college was put in place because our founding fathers did not have enough faith in the public to select a president. How little have times changed. These days, our public barely knows who's running and if they do know, they cannot name more than 2 issues that the candidate is running for.

This is not the public that I would entrust to elect the president of the strongest country in the world. And yet on election day, everyone and anyone who is eligible to vote, hits some form of a button that ultimately does influence who our president will be. These are the people who base their opinion on hairstyles and "personality" seen in the election stage.

I say enough is enough. How about only letting people with at least a high school diploma or 4 years of work experience and filing taxes to vote. These are the people who actually might understand the issues and care about the situation of this country as opposed to whether the candidate inhaled weed when he was younger.

Let's be serious, the average person in America is an idiot because our education system is in shambles. And yet, somehow, these people and those even worse are given the right to vote for the President???

The voting should be left to qualified individuals, who will make the correct decision based on important issues. When that happens, the electoral college will be totally obsolete.

The rest of the idiots can still elect local officials. But when it comes to issues that matter... let's stick to what our founding fathers knew 200 years ago and let the smart people decide what's best.