Bill’s blog

It has been harder than usual for me to blog this year. Election years are hard to stomach. It’s easier to be optimistic earlier in the process, when one can imagine that we’ll actually get a new kind of president. Maybe an economist or a political scientist with a Ph.D. - someone with an extensive education in what sorts of policies work. Then the choices are narrowed, and I come to realize that it’s going to be another lawyer or war hero - another four years of business as usual. Everyone is all fired up, saying we must elect this candidate or that candidate, and I can only sit back in disbelief that these are our options. These are the leaders that excite you? I just don’t get it. Keep reading →

Supporters of the war in Iraq have repeatedly argued that in order to “support our troops” we must send more of them to Iraq and keep them there indefinitely. This idea is reflected in articles like this one from Senator Joseph Lieberman, but there is certainly no shortage of such articles. Take your pick.

However, the Center for Responsive Politics has found some interesting data from presidential campaign donation records: Keep reading →

Today on Queercents, I describe my rather cynical view of Washington, D.C.:

“The other day on Sirius satellite radio, Howard Stern was complaining about the fact that the merger between XM and Sirius has not yet been approved by US government regulators. The National Association of Broadcasters, which is made up of companies such as Clear Channel who compete against satellite radio, has been lobbying against the merger. Stern was indignant that his competitors would blatantly use the government to harm their competition. It’s hard for me to believe that this was a new revelation for a man over the age of 50, especially one who has been the focus of so much government scrutiny. Maybe he was feigning surprise for his show.”

Read the rest here.

Today on Queercents, I question the benefit of the stimulus package currently working its way through Congress:

“The US government has been moving fairly quickly to pass some form of stimulus package to try to head off a recession. The stimulus package would basically amount to mailing $150 billion out to everyone, with the point being for them to spend it to keep the economy going. Not everyone agrees that an actual recession (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) is in the cards, but I guess no one in Washington, D.C., wants to deal with a recession in the middle of a presidential election, so they’re trying to do something just in case. I have a rather negative view of the federal government’s ability to do anything useful with the money we send their way, and I am usually happy to keep more of my money, so how could I possibly object to the government sending me a few hundred dollars to spend?”

Read the rest here.

Today on Queercents, I describe how I proposed to my partner and how much I ended up spending to do so:

“I previously blogged about how I would eschew diamonds in my marriage proposal to my partner. At the time of that post, I was still trying to figure out exactly how I would go about proposing. Over the holidays I finally did propose, so here’s how it went.

Heterosexual couples have some well-established guidelines that describe all sorts of things surrounding engagements. The man is supposed to propose to the woman. The engagement ring is supposed to have a diamond and cost a certain amount. Immediately after the proposal you’re supposed to call your family. The bride’s parents are supposed to throw an engagement party. In deciding how to propose to my partner during the recent holiday season, none of those guidelines were much help, because they just don’t make sense when a man is proposing to another man.”

Read the rest here.

Over on Cato Unbound, there is a thought-provoking debate over the radical extension of the human lifespan. In his lead essay, Dr. Aubrey de Grey of the Methuselah Foundation argues that we should be doing all we can to cure aging. According to the web site, he thinks we are likely to be able to do this within 30 years if we start trying.

The idea of humans living for 1,000 years immediately brings to mind the image of old, frail people lingering about in nursing homes for centuries, but that’s not what the doctor has in mind. He argues that we could preserve and extend the vitality people have in their 20’s or 30’s. He envisions people who are still young, strong, and energetic at the age of 80… or 800. Some argue that we should not try to achieve such feats of longevity, but I find most of their arguments unconvincing. Keep reading →

In my post on Queercents today, I review The Little Book That Makes You Rich by Louis Navellier:

“While travelling for a business trip last week, I had the opportunity to read The Little Book That Makes You Rich, by Louis Navellier. It’s one of several books in the Little Books Big Profits series, in which various investment professionals cover different investing strategies. The book claims to contain “a proven market-beating formula for growth investing.” Since I personally lean towards the value side of the investing style scale, I was curious to see if Mr. Navellier’s growth strategy would sway me.”

Read the rest here.

Today on Queercents, I discuss some of the charity ratings that are available:

When investors buy shares of company stock, they expect that company to use their money to generate returns by using the money wisely. A good investor will do a lot of research, including looking at the company’s past financial statements, free cash flow, return on equity, and other factors, to be confident that their money will be put to good use and generate a suitable return. Giving money to charity is similar - the returns are just in a different form. Instead of using your money to make more money, you expect the charity to fund AIDS research, find missing children, feed the hungry, etc. Some charities are better at this than others, and just like buying company stock, it’s a good idea to do some research before handing over your money. There are some organizations out there that research and rate charities in order to help you get the biggest bang for your charity buck, but how helpful are these ratings really?

 Read the rest here.

While wandering around the web the other day, I came across this post. The author, Phil Villarreal, writes:

As time continues to speed up and death draws closer, I become more and more convinced that TV sports and video games are a waste of time, and that by spending time staring at a TV in anger over an ultimately meaningless game people a thousand miles away from me are playing, or zoning out with a guitar-shaped controller in my hand, failing for the 30th time in one hour to get pass one song I’ll never have a chance of conquering, I’m squandering what little time I’ve been given. And yet as I age I’m even more drawn to piddling distractions, as if they’re safety blankets I grasp and cower under in order to shelter my senses from the inevitable.

This got me thinking about the nature of meaning. What makes something meaningful or meaningless, and how much of my time should I be spending on meaningful endeavors? Keep reading →

Today on Queercents, I posted about the good side of commercialism:

“My partner and I went to Gay Days at Disney World in Orlando for the first time in June of this year. You may have read stories in the press about the economic impact of this yearly event, but it’s not news to the people who work there. We took cab rides on several occasions, and I think every single cab driver mentioned how they were working all weekend because it’s their best weekend of the year. Hotels all over the area host parties and events for the occasion. An event that used to draw criticism and controversy, including boycotts by religious groups and signs at park entrances warning patrons of large numbers of gays and lesbians, has given way to businesses tripping over each other to welcome and provide products and services to those same people. This is commercialism in action.”

Read the rest here.