INTERESTING THINGS FOR YOU AT NIGHT PART 2 + 3 (ULTIMATE EXPANSION)
Japan Video Games Blog
TO THOSE WHO DON'T WANT THEIR WORK PROMOTED
We're not making money off the site, nor are we publishing anything to other places through feedburner claiming that it's our work, just a hobby of finding cool things around the internet, that's all. Sometimes we copy and paste too quickly and a link giving you credit doesn't appear, if that's the case and you DO want your work promoted, we will add in the backlink, we would love to give credit where credit is due!
Please contact me or drop a comment on any posts you guys don't want up and I'll take it off within 24 hours, thanks!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
“Determine exactly what you intend to give in return for the money you desire. (There is no such reality as “something for nothing.) “
If you get rich without an intention to give something in return then you are just a heartless machine. He even asserts that without a specific purpose built around giving back you won’t manage to become rich in the first place.
I like the idea of thinking as every action I do as something I can win. I can fight the battle to be more intelligent, or smarter about saving money, or become more successful at business, etc. I don’t think it makes me unpleasant - it’s not like I’m challenging people to arm wrestle me all the time!
Getting rich is important. You can do great things without getting rich. Gandhi wasn’t rich. However, for many of us the capacity to do good becomes significantly more pronounced if we do become rich. There are some caveats; you can’t work 18 hours a day and neglect your family to be rich. You can’t be the best stay-at-home parent in history if your spouse stays home, too - somebody has to earn money.
I have several very specific reasons I want to be rich, but one of the first and foremost is that I want to be a full-time dad, or at least one who spends more time parenting than working. Right now I spend more than 50% of my waking hours either working or commuting to work, and I am at the low end of time commitment for my profession since I’m an hourly-paid consultant (which discourages my client from keeping me for overtime). I don’t see any way to change that percentage without getting rich enough to not need to work (a lot). Someone who works a lot is not winning, in my opinion, they are losing. The trick is to work smart, not hard. Bill Gates is a good example - until recently the richest man in the world, he’s given $29 billion to charity, has three kids under 10 years old and is retiring early at the age of 53 later this year. That’s much more effective than someone who works hard, buys a Lexus and retires at 65 once his kids are gone from home. It’s also more effective than someone who drops out of society and lives an ultrafrugal lifestyle. The best way I can serve myself and my family and friends - and hopefully the world at large - will be to amass the resources I am able to and redistribute them in a beneficial way. Nobody will be served by high consumption or ultra-frugality. The best way to give back is to get rich.
So that’s just a small clarification. I don’t want to be rich so I can buy a Porsche. Travel to Italy? Yeah. Stay at home when I don’t want to work? Yeah. Support my extended family? Yeah. Have the means to give back to my community? Yeah. Buy a Wii, as so many of my frugal blogging compatriots aspire to? No. Getting rich is about removing money (or the lack thereof) as a barrier to my REAL goals.
Nobel Laureates Condemn China on Tibet
NEW YORK — Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and 25 other Nobel laureates on Thursday condemned the Chinese government's violent crackdown on Tibetan protesters and called on Beijing to exercise restraint.
"We protest the unwarranted campaign waged by the Chinese government against our fellow Nobel laureate, His Holiness the Dalai Lama," the group said in a statement released by Wiesel.
Wiesel told The Associated Press that the group wanted renewed negotiations between China and the Dalai Lama, who won the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize.
"The latest events are dramatic and the main thing is to stop the present oppression, persecution and violence," Wiesel said.
"I don't understand the Chinese hierarchy there," he added. "Why are they afraid of Tibet?"
Led by Buddhist monks, protests had begun peacefully in Lhasa early last week but erupted into rioting on March 14, drawing a harsh response from Chinese authorities.
The crackdown drew worldwide attention to China's human rights record, threatening to overshadow Beijing's attempts to project an image of unity and prosperity in the lead-up to the Aug. 8-24 Olympics.
Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, said he is close friends with the Dalai Lama and that the Tibetan leader has repeatedly said he is not asking for a sovereign independent Tibet. "All he wants is religious and cultural autonomy," Wiesel said.
That autonomy, the statement said, "is fundamental to the preservation of the ancient Tibetan heritage."
When asked what he would do if the Chinese did not agree to talks, Wiesel said: "If they don't agree and the violence goes on we will have to ask for more, maybe the reconsideration of the Olympics ... but we are not there yet."
Wiesel said it was not the time for the international community to take actions such as boycotts. But he said pressure for peace and dialogue is needed until we "hear reports from the Tibetan themselves that all has been restored and the prisons are opened."
Tibetan exile groups have claimed that 80 people were killed during the protest and its aftermath, while Beijing maintains that 16 died and more than 300 were injured.
WASHINGTON — Who knew? President Bush wants to be unpopular.
Not really, of course, but that's what his press secretary said Thursday.
Spokeswoman Dana Perino was making the case that it's no surprise that Bush has low poll ratings because he is overseeing an unpopular war. But then her argument went off the tracks.
"Both the president and the vice president have long believed, and it's a part of what has made them the leaders that they are, which is not to chase popularity polls but to hold themselves to a standard that requires people not to like them," she said.
Huh? Requires people not to like them?
She apparently didn't realize what she had said and continued on without correction.
She put it a little better later on in her briefing.
"What I've heard him (Vice President Dick Cheney) say and what I've heard the president say is that regardless of how bad it could get in terms of your popularity rating, you can't make decisions based on chasing popularity."
And speaking of polls, Bush thinks there are too many of them.
"I think there might be a little bit more frustration that this — we are so over-polled in the country," Perino said. "And I think that the way that the president looks at it is that there's — I don't know, maybe — the media polls a lot. That's your prerogative; go ahead. And I think that the questions are — that come to us, that every day when there's a new poll that's out, and that the numbers don't change dramatically, we're expected to express frustration."