Harder than it looks.
I may be repeating myself here, but I can't be jammed checking previous posts.
This whole blogging thing is a lot harder than it looks. Either I'm not the thinker I thought I was, or I'm just plain boring. Nevermind. On with the post....
I was punting around on the web towards the end of last week looking at other blogs for some inspiration. Man are there a bunch of nuts out there. It almost makes you want to cocoon yourself in a concrete bunker.
And there are some people making a bucket load of cash out of blogging as well. I came across this site called Rocketboom. It's a video blog, and apparently she gets paid $80k, US, a week, for advertising on her blog! Is that nuts or what?! Clearly certain people have more money than sense.
I heard on the radio this morning George W Bush talking up the deal the US has put in front of Iran to try and temp them to stop enriching uranium. Doesn't he just sound like an arrogant little man? I mean he stands up and effectively says "This is the deal. Take it or leave it. But if you don't take it, there'll be hell to pay!". Why don't they just shut up and wait for Iran to respond rather than trying to push all the wrong buttons?
Oh wait. That's right. They don't actually want Iran to take the deal because they want to go on another wee bombing raid in a foreign country and try and tell them what to do. Dickhead.
And another thing: why does the US have to stick it's beak in anyway? I don't like the fact that there are nuclear weapons around as much as the next guy, but were does the US get off telling other sovereign nations they can't have such and such, when the US has plenty? How does that work? Can someone please explain?
I'm normally a nuetral sort of guy in these matters. I like to try and get both sides of the arguement before adding my two cents worth. And I'm sure I don't have all the facts/rumors/etc that are out there, but it just doesn't stack up in my mind.
Much like Isreal getting all the funding and help in the world from the US just so they can shoot at and bomb Palestine and it's people. I know the US has announced they are going to give some money to assist Palestine in running it's basic services, and I know that Palestinians aren't exactly squeaky clean, but they still live in dire need of basic infrastructure and services. Don't they?
And wasn't it the USA (and by USA, I mean George) espousing the virtues of a free and democratic society? And then when a nation they don't particularly like actually has a free and democratic election which results in a Government led by a militant organisation, all of a sudden it's not such a great idea.
It all just seems hugely unfair. Maybe it is all a lot harder than it looks.
This whole blogging thing is a lot harder than it looks. Either I'm not the thinker I thought I was, or I'm just plain boring. Nevermind. On with the post....
I was punting around on the web towards the end of last week looking at other blogs for some inspiration. Man are there a bunch of nuts out there. It almost makes you want to cocoon yourself in a concrete bunker.
And there are some people making a bucket load of cash out of blogging as well. I came across this site called Rocketboom. It's a video blog, and apparently she gets paid $80k, US, a week, for advertising on her blog! Is that nuts or what?! Clearly certain people have more money than sense.
I heard on the radio this morning George W Bush talking up the deal the US has put in front of Iran to try and temp them to stop enriching uranium. Doesn't he just sound like an arrogant little man? I mean he stands up and effectively says "This is the deal. Take it or leave it. But if you don't take it, there'll be hell to pay!". Why don't they just shut up and wait for Iran to respond rather than trying to push all the wrong buttons?
Oh wait. That's right. They don't actually want Iran to take the deal because they want to go on another wee bombing raid in a foreign country and try and tell them what to do. Dickhead.
And another thing: why does the US have to stick it's beak in anyway? I don't like the fact that there are nuclear weapons around as much as the next guy, but were does the US get off telling other sovereign nations they can't have such and such, when the US has plenty? How does that work? Can someone please explain?
I'm normally a nuetral sort of guy in these matters. I like to try and get both sides of the arguement before adding my two cents worth. And I'm sure I don't have all the facts/rumors/etc that are out there, but it just doesn't stack up in my mind.
Much like Isreal getting all the funding and help in the world from the US just so they can shoot at and bomb Palestine and it's people. I know the US has announced they are going to give some money to assist Palestine in running it's basic services, and I know that Palestinians aren't exactly squeaky clean, but they still live in dire need of basic infrastructure and services. Don't they?
And wasn't it the USA (and by USA, I mean George) espousing the virtues of a free and democratic society? And then when a nation they don't particularly like actually has a free and democratic election which results in a Government led by a militant organisation, all of a sudden it's not such a great idea.
It all just seems hugely unfair. Maybe it is all a lot harder than it looks.
posted by DaveNZ at 10:52 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home