While I was on the road this time, 2 notable things happened, bare with me cause this post could get lengthy, but most of it is funny as hell.

1) while I drive, I listen in on, or participate in numerous conversations over the C.B. radio. This particular event, some bible thumper was going on and on about how his religion says this, or that. The most notable was the time frame involved. His 6 thousand year period and how the predictions for the end of mankind, but about the middle of his triad, I had a vision. In it I could see a bunch of dedicated dinosaurs carrying signs that read "Repent" .. "The end is nigh".. and other such things.. Anyways, I never claimed my sense of humor had to make sense to anyone but me.

2) I was listening to N.P.R on the F.M. radio. In an article, the guy was claiming how its no longer necessary for the USA to have a social security any longer. His basis or pretense for this statement had me scratching my butt and wondering, "Where the f**k does this guy get his numbers from" He claims that over 70% of the US owns their homes now, and over 50% has some sort of a 401k plan. He also claims that we are now prosperous enough of a country to not need such archaic concepts.

First of all, I personally do not know 5 people who fully own their own homes. I know several who are attempting to own them, but that IMO is not the same thing. It is a debt, no matter how you break it down. Secondly, very few jobs in Arkansas even offer a 401k plan at all. So I am wondering exactly where these numbers are coming from. Its not as if Arkansas is the only poor, or low income state. 70% of the people own a home? Hell 90% of the people I know, or have even heard about rent. Not only do the rent, but the rent apartments, not homes, as home rental is not as popular and apartments give more bang for the buck so to speak. Also, 50% of the people I know, are on some form of a governmental assistance program, because things like medical insurance is so rampantly high around here.

/rant

1) There is nothing more mind numbing than the mindset of creationists. You reminded me of a particularly funny Bill Hicks rant about this. Why are there no dinosaurs in the bible? "And the Lord and his disciples went down to bethlehem and Lo! A giant diplodocus blocked their road..."

While they have various 'scientific' explanations e.g. all the bones settled under the ground during the great flood. (why were'nt there T-Rexes on the Ark?, etc), my personal favourite is "Dinosaurs bones were put there to test our faith."

I used to actively seek these people, so that I could argue against this idea. But it never works, which I suppose is fair enough since I could never be convinced that creationists are right...

Yeah Orph, nothing beats a good lunatic rant to pass the day!

(My all time favourite one that I've heard is the (well thought out) theory that The Smurfs are Marxists. )

The problem with these people is that they take these stories to be literal truth, against all evidence, even though there's nothing in the Bible to say these things are true and it does not pronounce its own infallibility. But, should you take it to be literal? I think it's clear from examples such as Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son (when he could just read his mind) that god isn't meant to be that straightforward with us, plus if it was written in the bible for the last few thousand years that there were these gigantic "dinosaur" creatures or it took billions of years for the universe to be created people simply wouldn't believe it.

Anyway, if there was a flood a few thousand years ago, where did today's genetic diversity come from if there's no such thing as evolution? Where did pandas and elephants and bisons and polar bears fit into things? If you don't believe in dinosaurs, where do Neanderthals and other extince Homo species come into it?! (This is part of my objection to Christianity right now, basically that the Jews before hand were making all this nonsense up to explain what they couldn't... metal chariots that god couldn't defeat, pah. (Judges 1:19))

Unfortunately I haven't got a clue what you're going on about with 401k plans etc. in your 2nd rant

google is your friend dear lep

i think the link could explain it far better than i.. but in essence, its an employer driven retirement plan which takes a portion of your salary, before you even see it, so you essentially do not miss it being gone.

most Arkansas employers do not sponsor this program, because its customary for the employer to match any dollar amounts taken. IE you send 20 dollars, they send 20 dollars, and you have 40 dollars credited to your retirement fund.

Arkansas really doesn't care how you retire.

god please, at least take a moment to consider what you are typing.

why would a rich person even bother with SS? are they complaining that because they don't need it, they should not have to pay it? if thats the case, what about us younger types whom will never see it at all, why do we need to pay it?

his comments specifically state that we are a nation who is more than able to support itself without the need for such a system as SS. i disagree. our nation is made up predominantly of procrastinators. there is always a tomorrow, until suddenly there is none left. i do not know 5 people whom save for retirement. i do not know 2 people whom even think of old age, and its obvious shortfalls.

i was listening to the radio, and the sentence that hit me strongest was "President Bush seems more inclined to assist other countries instead of his own"

i can take you to residents with 30 miles of here without an inside bathroom. its rare, but it is a sign that all is not well.... yet.

ahh, i read blue=humor

my bad.

Don't even get me started on creation science... Those people are as bad as Jahzel!

To answer your question Orph, I live in a very affluent home. Upper middle class I guess you'd call it. My parents have "owned" a home for my whole life, and at this point, I think my Dad makes $100k+ per year. I don't expect that my parents will ever need SS, and I don't expect that I will either. It may sound cold, but I don't think the government should support people who are too short sighted to plan for their own futures. What I would like to see is a SS cutoff, where by everyone my age or younger never sees a penny, and then there is some sort of gradient so that the older you are (right now) the larger a percentage of your benefits will be paid. This way those who are already on social security won't get screwed, and my children won't have to pay for the damn system anymore. I realize that this sticks my generation with the bill for everyone older than ourselves, but I think it's a price that needs to be paid. I don't think that the system works, and if he government wants to provide for peoples retirements, it ought to mandate a certain percentage of savings for every citizen. That would be much more effective for individuals, better for the economy, and more efficient since it wouldn't involve a huge government bureaucracy.