interiors

Occasionally, noted pundits claim the conservative movement is about values, but I believe almost all liberals are value driven, and this is particularly true among the far left - although often not Democrat-party aligned - but the American debate is typically, at best, practical and materialistic, so liberal values are often expressed as the positive ends of liberal policies. The reason that many of us have the concerns we have are that we have higher moral concerns, and as a rule, most of us are: Against the war Environmentally concerned Humanitarian (gay rights, women's concerns, race issues) Egalitarian (concerned with inequality, poverty, power abuses) I could go on, but obviously liberals have taken a moral high ground, although some conservatives have taken an equivalent moral high ground, although many would disagree since the most vocal Republicans are by their nature of the low moral ground, e.g., only concerned with money and business.

Although I generally avoid books on the NY Times bestseller lists, my interest in economics and statistics led me to read Freakonomics. I found it an enjoyable, easy and quick read. Since my undergraduate was in lab psychology, I have strong abilities in economics, e.g., International Economics Honor Society member, and in finance, e.g., disturbed the curve in my first MBA-level course in finance and scored highest in large classes for tests of mathematics, the application of statistics and economics to social issues was both intriguing and something I did quite often. My own dabbling in such relationships finds interesting correlations between GINI coefficients, economics outcomes with various national cultural qualities. As with The Bell Curve, the book was insightful and flawed, even more so than the former, since it often assumed correlation was causation, and the breadth of its tested variables was less than comprehensive.

Although most educated people are aware of Einstein's greatest equation, E=MC^2, few know of his intense social activism. In the creation of the myth of Einstein a belief in god is proposed, when in fact, Einstein was a humanitarian and an atheist.

A recent article in the journal Religion and Society noted significant correlation between religiosity, as the percentage of the population believing in a god, and social dysfunction. How many honest and humane people wonder if America's extreme religious and rightist philosophy could have a positive social impact. I for one did. That wonder has been laid to rest.

I was doing a bit of research, and being obliged to truth, no matter how ugly, I decided to research some issues on political affiliation. Although I had at times read that education increased with Republican voting - an exit poll, a questionable source - I found a Pew study that showed income and Republican values go hand-in-hand. Although this seems commonsensical, it contradicted my sense that educated people are typically liberal, although IQ correlates with income at 0.3, a relatively low degree. Alternatively, the most educated people, i.e., professors, are more often affiliated with the Democratic party, rather than the Republican, by a 7 to 1 ratio. Regardless, it did make me question myself, and I was reminded of Galbraith's The Economics of Innocent Fraud: Truth For Our Time , that many people in power, both corporate and political, believe in fallacies that are self-rewarding. For those that enjoy economics, the book is a very worthwhile but slender read.

I have not followed this closely, and I do generally adhere to using purchased music only, although I will admit to pirating a few songs that were otherwise not easily available. My concern is not with the issue of sharing licensed products, which really does seem like theft, but the egregious control exercised by corporations over patents and copyrights. As an educated person, you have likely noticed that corporate control over the US government has become contemptuously strong. The constriction of intellectual freedom is not inherently fair, and although stealing music seems inappropriate, one might consider it a growing rebellion against the age of corporate plutocracy. At one time, the law did allow one to copy media for personal use, even to transfer recordings to another person, provided it wasn't for money, so the idea that it is now wrong is at least partially the effect of corporate pressure and propaganda. It wasn't a crime until Congress made it one, after the issue ...

I am a VBA programmer for Excel and Access on Windows, and my technical background includes stints as desktop/server support, project management, and departmental IT management, but all with Windows. Several years ago, before the switch ads, I purchased an iMac with OS X, partially for aesthetics and partially for novelty; I upgraded it to 1Gb RAM a few months ago. Counter to the hype, I would often hang my iMac, and although the software availability is greater for PC's, I've found Mac software much more appealing. Obviously I am not a gamer. My technical background means I have the knowledge required to secure a wireless network, setup firewalls, and avoid viruses/phishing, so my biggest issue with my iMac is speed in everyday use. Generally, the Mac versus Windows debates hovers around several issues, e.g., ease of use, speed/power, installed base, total cost of ownership. There are others, but the reason that Intel in Mac matters is primarily power. The move to Intel ...