Posts
I've been thinking a great deal lately about the conspiracy theorists' projections of a push to create a one-world government. So, let's look at the effects such an event would entail if it came to pass.
Such a thing would, if possible, not actually be all that bad of a thing. Everyone living under the same government could expect to receive approximately the same treatment and benefits the world around. Rather than country-to-country hostilities, we could perhaps finally begin to focus where it would do the most good, which would be in improving the overall quality of life for all people. HOWEVER, that's a bit of a pollyana view. As we know from experience, people don't readily become what we would hope for them to, regardless of how successful we are at creating such a climate for them to do so. There's too much self-interest in the world for such a thing to occur.
But, in the end, I think the real reason we will never see such an event occur is the effect of eliminating war and, therefore, war machinery. Arms manufacturers don't lag far behind the most powerful financial institutions in the world when it comes to power (read "money"). Do we really think they're going to sit back and allow their bread and butter to be destroyed by having a single government? Or... do we expect they'll reform their ways, retooling their factories to build other goods that won't have nearly the income-producing potential as arms sales? No... not likely. Like it or not, conflict, armed and otherwise, is always going to be with us til the end of time. Therefore, demand for war machines is going to exist, making a one-world government impossible to realize.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Obama: The Great Scapegoat
The Republicans recently have made claims that, unfortunately, the general population has swallowed hook, line, and sinker due to their unceasing ignorance. In a nutshell, the Republican claims are these:
President Obama has spent us into the poorhouse.
President Obama has not created jobs with "his" spending bills.
So, let's look at these to see where the truth lies.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. In this clause, CONGRESS is expressly designated as the entity with the power to tax and, implicitly, to spend. Many times we have heard Congress holds the purse strings. This is a true statement. The opposition party to whomever holds the Presidency tends to have intentional memory lapses regarding this Constitutional clause when referring to the sitting President's record when it comes time to gear up for the next election. By virtue of this clause, no President since the founding of this nation has EVER spent a single taxpayer dollar. On the other hand, CONGRESS has spent every single penny of the tax revenues collected AND has authorized every law that subjected the citizenry to any tax.
So, Representative Cantor, Speaker Boehner, Representative Ryan, and other "hardline Republicans"... would you like to explain why the people in your state have voted for a man (you) who is totally ignorant of the definition of the separation of powers and the authority granted to you as members of Congress?
And, speaking of that bastion of support for the little guy (Eric Cantor), when President Obama is asking for taxes to be raised on the top 1% of wage earners, can you explain why you are painting this fact as an attack on the ability of the "average American" to support his family? That's ok, Eric. We know why you are doing it. The "average American", believing wholeheartedly in the American dream, sees himself as being fully capable of becoming one of those top 1%, regardless of the extreme unlikelihood of such an event. So, portraying the proposed allowance of expiration of the Bush tax cuts, through the tactics you are employing, makes it appear to the average person as though they are the ones being targeted, thereby gaining wider support for your argument, regardless of how far beyond the boundaries of reality your claims may be. And, the really unfortunate facts are: the average person has neither the ability to reason out just how far off base your claims are nor the inclination to do so. The citizens of this country are so pissed off at the government that they are willing to listen to anyone who can give them a target at which to vent their anger, regardless of whether the target is the right one or not.
I, for one, would like to see Congress step up and accept responsibility for the wrongness of their own actions instead of passing the buck.
And lest we forget the second claim, the stimulus bill DID create jobs. Due to limitations placed on the bill by Congress, however, it was unable to achieve the initial projections made by President Obama. Where he had originally forecasted 4 million jobs, even with the limited budget for the bill as finally passed by Congress, the bill did create approximately 3.2 million jobs. (The source of this information is the Congressional Budget Office.) Of course, knowing politics as I do, there is no reason the Republicans are going to let truth get in the way of a good story.
President Obama has spent us into the poorhouse.
President Obama has not created jobs with "his" spending bills.
So, let's look at these to see where the truth lies.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. In this clause, CONGRESS is expressly designated as the entity with the power to tax and, implicitly, to spend. Many times we have heard Congress holds the purse strings. This is a true statement. The opposition party to whomever holds the Presidency tends to have intentional memory lapses regarding this Constitutional clause when referring to the sitting President's record when it comes time to gear up for the next election. By virtue of this clause, no President since the founding of this nation has EVER spent a single taxpayer dollar. On the other hand, CONGRESS has spent every single penny of the tax revenues collected AND has authorized every law that subjected the citizenry to any tax.
So, Representative Cantor, Speaker Boehner, Representative Ryan, and other "hardline Republicans"... would you like to explain why the people in your state have voted for a man (you) who is totally ignorant of the definition of the separation of powers and the authority granted to you as members of Congress?
And, speaking of that bastion of support for the little guy (Eric Cantor), when President Obama is asking for taxes to be raised on the top 1% of wage earners, can you explain why you are painting this fact as an attack on the ability of the "average American" to support his family? That's ok, Eric. We know why you are doing it. The "average American", believing wholeheartedly in the American dream, sees himself as being fully capable of becoming one of those top 1%, regardless of the extreme unlikelihood of such an event. So, portraying the proposed allowance of expiration of the Bush tax cuts, through the tactics you are employing, makes it appear to the average person as though they are the ones being targeted, thereby gaining wider support for your argument, regardless of how far beyond the boundaries of reality your claims may be. And, the really unfortunate facts are: the average person has neither the ability to reason out just how far off base your claims are nor the inclination to do so. The citizens of this country are so pissed off at the government that they are willing to listen to anyone who can give them a target at which to vent their anger, regardless of whether the target is the right one or not.
I, for one, would like to see Congress step up and accept responsibility for the wrongness of their own actions instead of passing the buck.
And lest we forget the second claim, the stimulus bill DID create jobs. Due to limitations placed on the bill by Congress, however, it was unable to achieve the initial projections made by President Obama. Where he had originally forecasted 4 million jobs, even with the limited budget for the bill as finally passed by Congress, the bill did create approximately 3.2 million jobs. (The source of this information is the Congressional Budget Office.) Of course, knowing politics as I do, there is no reason the Republicans are going to let truth get in the way of a good story.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Parents vs Genuine Educational Achievement
I was challenged today by a parent of several children when I questioned where the money was going in the form of school taxes that is paid on almost every single item you can buy, outside of groceries, in the state. She was quite indignant, in her denial of truth, by my assertion that my money was being wasted. She evidently viewed my comments as though I was attacking her children personally, which was not the case. The fact is, by comparison to other states, this one ranks in the lower half, usually around the mid-30s, in almost every category, especially beginning in middle school and above. So, yes, I certainly do feel justified in my complaint.
But, the real problem in today's public schools, in my opinion, is we compare ourselves to the dysfunctional education systems of every other state, or district, and not, as we should be doing, comparing ourselves to standards we set in the '60s and '70s when there were few education systems in the world that could compare to the quality we delivered to our students.
In those years, if a student had not mastered the subjects they were taught, they stayed back and repeated that grade until they had proven they had mastered the information necessary to make them ready to advance to the next level in education. What we have today, in "No Child Left Behind", is a system that refuses to allow for differences in children's learning abilities or their motivation level and dedication to learning. Consequently, the entire school (and I daresay, national educational system) is dragged down to a level of incompetence that is wholly unacceptable by comparison with standards of 40 and 50 years prior.We pay more attention now to the kids' self-esteem than their education. Self-esteem is great, but it won't earn a paycheck in a competitive global economy. Self-esteem plus a couple of bucks will get you a loaf of bread at the store if you shop carefully. And, it's a straw man argument that attaining education and self-esteem must be mutually exclusive. Achieving an advanced degree does quite a bit for one's self-esteem, and rightfully so.
The federal government's insistence that a certain percentage of students must attain a level of acceptability on "standardized" tests leaves the teachers in the position of having to "teach to the test" instead of teaching the wider curriculum that would allow in-depth exploration of higher concepts within the discipline, whether that be reading, math, or science. Should we be amazed, under such circumstances, that our education system is failing to keep up with the progress of the rest of the world when our teaching staff is forced to "dumb down" their teaching because of federal mandates that are inextricably tied to funding?
Who is really being served by such a system? It certainly isn't the brightest of our student population, nor is it the student who, if he or she was truly being challenged to rise to the occasion, would respond with renewed interest and perform above expectations. Then again, considering the mediocre expectations of today, perhaps that isn't such a good thing, after all.
There are obviously many who do not subscribe the notion that kids who are genuinely challenged will respond by exceeding what they have previously achieved. As an example, however, I offer myself. From observation, I can say with confidence I am not an isolated case.
When I was a kid, living in Oklahoma, I was not a particularly good student. The grading system was 90-100 was an "A", 80-89 was a "B", 70-79 was a "C", 60-69 was a "D" and below 60 was considered an "F". The courses I had to take were of average difficulty, but I had no real interest in the drudgery of homework. Consequently, I would score well enough on tests, but combined with homework grades, I just got by.
Then came the move to South Carolina. The schools there graded differently: for an "A" you had to score 95-100, a "B" was 88-94, a "C" was 78-87, a "D" was from 70-77, an "F" was from 60-69 and additionally, a "BF" (bad fail) was below 60. Suddenly, there was a new challenge and, in response, my interest level rose. I had to shoot higher to achieve even mediocre letter grades. And, the other kids in my class seemed enthusiastic about getting better grades, which pushed me even harder. As a result, my scores, in terms of percentage rose considerably. Getting better grades had now become a competition.
When we left South Carolina in the middle of my sophomore year of high school and moved to Texas, I found I was quite a bit ahead of the kids there in terms of progress in the same subjects. This was a good Texas school district in a middle-class to upper middle-class neighborhood. That felt pretty good, but... it was short-lived. I was no longer being challenged. I was ahead of the other kids in my class and the grading system reverted to the same as Oklahoma's had been. The materials presented no challenge and I felt I could coast the rest of the way. My grades began to slip back to the middle of the pack because the expectation and challenge had been lost. I did well on tests, still, but lost interest once more in homework. As evidence that I did learn what I needed to know, my composite score on the ACT was 32 (of a possible 36). I do not know if there can be any comparison made between the ACT test of today, or even the SAT test, since so many changes have occurred in the interim to accommodate "learning differences".
We do our children a great injustice, leaving them ill-prepared for the real world, with programs like "No Child Left Behind" and societal notions like political correctness. When we consistently force life's standards downward, the possibilities for a brighter future dwindle year by year. By doing so, the message we send the children is "You don't really have to try harder to succeed. Mommy and daddy will just raise a stink with the school board to make sure you are a success without further effort on your part, regardless of how far below prior expectations you fall."
Granted, there are teachers who are not the greatest at what they do. But, in all honesty, the institutions' policies are even greater in their impact, both on the teachers and the students. How many of those teachers would be more inclined to give their very best if they were getting the support they need to do the job? When you have children in your class who are having to share books or get copies made of the textbook so enough can go around, when you are having to spend from your own pocket to make sure the kids all have writing materials, and when you are told day in and day out you have to structure the course you're teaching so it meets the minimal (rather than highest) requirements of the standardized test, just how enthusiastic are you capable of being?
Not everyone in life is going to succeed. Not everyone is willing to put forth the effort to achieve success. So, why are we forcing our schools to ignore this reality?
It's time for NCLB and P.C. to make a quick exit from our schools and allow the schools to push the willing kids to excellence instead of dragging them to mediocrity.
But, the real problem in today's public schools, in my opinion, is we compare ourselves to the dysfunctional education systems of every other state, or district, and not, as we should be doing, comparing ourselves to standards we set in the '60s and '70s when there were few education systems in the world that could compare to the quality we delivered to our students.
In those years, if a student had not mastered the subjects they were taught, they stayed back and repeated that grade until they had proven they had mastered the information necessary to make them ready to advance to the next level in education. What we have today, in "No Child Left Behind", is a system that refuses to allow for differences in children's learning abilities or their motivation level and dedication to learning. Consequently, the entire school (and I daresay, national educational system) is dragged down to a level of incompetence that is wholly unacceptable by comparison with standards of 40 and 50 years prior.We pay more attention now to the kids' self-esteem than their education. Self-esteem is great, but it won't earn a paycheck in a competitive global economy. Self-esteem plus a couple of bucks will get you a loaf of bread at the store if you shop carefully. And, it's a straw man argument that attaining education and self-esteem must be mutually exclusive. Achieving an advanced degree does quite a bit for one's self-esteem, and rightfully so.
The federal government's insistence that a certain percentage of students must attain a level of acceptability on "standardized" tests leaves the teachers in the position of having to "teach to the test" instead of teaching the wider curriculum that would allow in-depth exploration of higher concepts within the discipline, whether that be reading, math, or science. Should we be amazed, under such circumstances, that our education system is failing to keep up with the progress of the rest of the world when our teaching staff is forced to "dumb down" their teaching because of federal mandates that are inextricably tied to funding?
Who is really being served by such a system? It certainly isn't the brightest of our student population, nor is it the student who, if he or she was truly being challenged to rise to the occasion, would respond with renewed interest and perform above expectations. Then again, considering the mediocre expectations of today, perhaps that isn't such a good thing, after all.
There are obviously many who do not subscribe the notion that kids who are genuinely challenged will respond by exceeding what they have previously achieved. As an example, however, I offer myself. From observation, I can say with confidence I am not an isolated case.
When I was a kid, living in Oklahoma, I was not a particularly good student. The grading system was 90-100 was an "A", 80-89 was a "B", 70-79 was a "C", 60-69 was a "D" and below 60 was considered an "F". The courses I had to take were of average difficulty, but I had no real interest in the drudgery of homework. Consequently, I would score well enough on tests, but combined with homework grades, I just got by.
Then came the move to South Carolina. The schools there graded differently: for an "A" you had to score 95-100, a "B" was 88-94, a "C" was 78-87, a "D" was from 70-77, an "F" was from 60-69 and additionally, a "BF" (bad fail) was below 60. Suddenly, there was a new challenge and, in response, my interest level rose. I had to shoot higher to achieve even mediocre letter grades. And, the other kids in my class seemed enthusiastic about getting better grades, which pushed me even harder. As a result, my scores, in terms of percentage rose considerably. Getting better grades had now become a competition.
When we left South Carolina in the middle of my sophomore year of high school and moved to Texas, I found I was quite a bit ahead of the kids there in terms of progress in the same subjects. This was a good Texas school district in a middle-class to upper middle-class neighborhood. That felt pretty good, but... it was short-lived. I was no longer being challenged. I was ahead of the other kids in my class and the grading system reverted to the same as Oklahoma's had been. The materials presented no challenge and I felt I could coast the rest of the way. My grades began to slip back to the middle of the pack because the expectation and challenge had been lost. I did well on tests, still, but lost interest once more in homework. As evidence that I did learn what I needed to know, my composite score on the ACT was 32 (of a possible 36). I do not know if there can be any comparison made between the ACT test of today, or even the SAT test, since so many changes have occurred in the interim to accommodate "learning differences".
We do our children a great injustice, leaving them ill-prepared for the real world, with programs like "No Child Left Behind" and societal notions like political correctness. When we consistently force life's standards downward, the possibilities for a brighter future dwindle year by year. By doing so, the message we send the children is "You don't really have to try harder to succeed. Mommy and daddy will just raise a stink with the school board to make sure you are a success without further effort on your part, regardless of how far below prior expectations you fall."
Granted, there are teachers who are not the greatest at what they do. But, in all honesty, the institutions' policies are even greater in their impact, both on the teachers and the students. How many of those teachers would be more inclined to give their very best if they were getting the support they need to do the job? When you have children in your class who are having to share books or get copies made of the textbook so enough can go around, when you are having to spend from your own pocket to make sure the kids all have writing materials, and when you are told day in and day out you have to structure the course you're teaching so it meets the minimal (rather than highest) requirements of the standardized test, just how enthusiastic are you capable of being?
Not everyone in life is going to succeed. Not everyone is willing to put forth the effort to achieve success. So, why are we forcing our schools to ignore this reality?
It's time for NCLB and P.C. to make a quick exit from our schools and allow the schools to push the willing kids to excellence instead of dragging them to mediocrity.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Disturbing trends in technology
I listened with interest today to a show on NPR that described developments in "apps" for iPhone and other mobile devices of its ilk. They began talking about handheld devices being able to recognize buildings, which would be a pretty handy device for persons with impaired vision.
So far, nothing to be alarmed about. However, they moved from that concept to speaking about face recognition software being integrated into those same devices. Considering all of the information that is already available about us on the internet, it dawned on me that this technology is going to eliminate the concept of personal privacy.
One quick scan for whatever reason, perhaps initially innocuous, by someone standing near enough to get a decent electronic glimpse of your facial features, and voila! Seconds later, they know your political affiliation, where you live, where (or if) you work, how many marriages you have had and/or children (and perhaps all of your collective SSNs), your medical history, any arrests you may have experienced, who you bank with and who insures your home and other personal effects, what car you drive (and its license plate number), how many times it has been in for service or in an accident, your education level and class standing, (and for the ladies who constantly lie about their age) your DOB, and any number of other tidbits that are then currently available for public consumption if they know the right places to look.
I know... some of you will say "I have nothing to hide and don't care what they know." Don't you? How many of those persons using such devices are going to have distinctly nefarious purposes for their scanning? If you think you will be immune to crimes that could be perpetrated by someone who has the ability to find out everything there is to know about you, then you are sadly delusional.
Let's say, for instance, that your home security system is connected to an external service and that service monitors your instances of being away from home through recognizing your input codes to activate the system. In the course of perhaps weeks or months, they are able to pin down a pattern to your comings and goings. Now, suppose that you advertise in your front window with a certain security company's sticker or yard sign that your home is protected by ABC Co. Now that you have narrowed the list down to a single company for the crooks, all they have to do is compromise that single company's system integrity and they can know when you are normally not at home, decreasing their chance of being surprised while in your domain relieving you of all your hard-acquired goods. If they are really good at cracking the system's security, they may even get access to your personal security code, eliminating the chance that your security company would even become suspicious and notify the legal authorities. So, they can languish a while as they decide what is of value and what's not. No need to rush. They know about what time you will return.
Of course, that is only one side of the coin. Maybe you are an elected official, or a judge, and through execution of your official duties, you have made some dangerous enemies. Or maybe your company underbid another for an extremely lucrative contract and an overzealous competitor wants revenge. Now, they would want to know when you ARE home so chances of exacting that revenge are more likely to succeed. Sure, these examples have to reach far for crediblity, but no one can deny the possibility for such extreme abuses DO exist. As this technology is developed further and becomes widely accepted and used, the chances for people who may have mayhem on their minds to come up with ideas such as I am outlining are going to be more commonplace than any of us might want.
Is there any way to protect ourselves from the abuses technology such as this is subject to? Only to the extent that we take measures to protect our identities and/or likenesses from being divulged for ANY reason by companies, or agencies, with whom we do business or with whom we have personal interaction, and... only to the extent that their computer systems are immune to attacks from outside agents who are bent on getting access.
Selling information about you is a huge business to many corporations. For some corporations, it is their entire income stream. Stopping the trafficking of information about you is very much akin to the little boy with his finger in the hole that penetrates the dike. Nevertheless, we are foolish to allow such practices to continue.
If your family's health and financial well-being is any concern to you, then it is your responsibility to voice your concerns to anyone who will listen, beginning with your state representatives. I know politicians are good for very little and will promise you stardust for a vote, but we can't simply sit back and do nothing any longer.
There's far too much at stake.
So far, nothing to be alarmed about. However, they moved from that concept to speaking about face recognition software being integrated into those same devices. Considering all of the information that is already available about us on the internet, it dawned on me that this technology is going to eliminate the concept of personal privacy.
One quick scan for whatever reason, perhaps initially innocuous, by someone standing near enough to get a decent electronic glimpse of your facial features, and voila! Seconds later, they know your political affiliation, where you live, where (or if) you work, how many marriages you have had and/or children (and perhaps all of your collective SSNs), your medical history, any arrests you may have experienced, who you bank with and who insures your home and other personal effects, what car you drive (and its license plate number), how many times it has been in for service or in an accident, your education level and class standing, (and for the ladies who constantly lie about their age) your DOB, and any number of other tidbits that are then currently available for public consumption if they know the right places to look.
I know... some of you will say "I have nothing to hide and don't care what they know." Don't you? How many of those persons using such devices are going to have distinctly nefarious purposes for their scanning? If you think you will be immune to crimes that could be perpetrated by someone who has the ability to find out everything there is to know about you, then you are sadly delusional.
Let's say, for instance, that your home security system is connected to an external service and that service monitors your instances of being away from home through recognizing your input codes to activate the system. In the course of perhaps weeks or months, they are able to pin down a pattern to your comings and goings. Now, suppose that you advertise in your front window with a certain security company's sticker or yard sign that your home is protected by ABC Co. Now that you have narrowed the list down to a single company for the crooks, all they have to do is compromise that single company's system integrity and they can know when you are normally not at home, decreasing their chance of being surprised while in your domain relieving you of all your hard-acquired goods. If they are really good at cracking the system's security, they may even get access to your personal security code, eliminating the chance that your security company would even become suspicious and notify the legal authorities. So, they can languish a while as they decide what is of value and what's not. No need to rush. They know about what time you will return.
Of course, that is only one side of the coin. Maybe you are an elected official, or a judge, and through execution of your official duties, you have made some dangerous enemies. Or maybe your company underbid another for an extremely lucrative contract and an overzealous competitor wants revenge. Now, they would want to know when you ARE home so chances of exacting that revenge are more likely to succeed. Sure, these examples have to reach far for crediblity, but no one can deny the possibility for such extreme abuses DO exist. As this technology is developed further and becomes widely accepted and used, the chances for people who may have mayhem on their minds to come up with ideas such as I am outlining are going to be more commonplace than any of us might want.
Is there any way to protect ourselves from the abuses technology such as this is subject to? Only to the extent that we take measures to protect our identities and/or likenesses from being divulged for ANY reason by companies, or agencies, with whom we do business or with whom we have personal interaction, and... only to the extent that their computer systems are immune to attacks from outside agents who are bent on getting access.
Selling information about you is a huge business to many corporations. For some corporations, it is their entire income stream. Stopping the trafficking of information about you is very much akin to the little boy with his finger in the hole that penetrates the dike. Nevertheless, we are foolish to allow such practices to continue.
If your family's health and financial well-being is any concern to you, then it is your responsibility to voice your concerns to anyone who will listen, beginning with your state representatives. I know politicians are good for very little and will promise you stardust for a vote, but we can't simply sit back and do nothing any longer.
There's far too much at stake.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Online survey scams
You have surely seen them -- get paid to take our online surveys. Some of them promise you very little money, some promise at least as much as $75 per survey to participate. Now... here's what they DON'T tell you.
Going through these surveys, you will be doing "product evaluations". To do the evaluations, you have to PURCHASE the product or service, which you are NOT, by the way, getting any discounted price for (and more than likely getting it an inflated price so the manufacturer or service provider can kick back to the survey company.) If they're paying you $75 to take this survey, it's because you've already had to shell out very near all of that in order to get the product you're supposed to evaluate. That's not to mention that there may be a recurring monthly charge for the service you are supposed to be evaluating.
Whether the product or service is something you need or want is of no consequence whatsoever. The point is you will be putting very little, if any, money into your bank account that you haven't already had to pay out as part of this survey team.
Now, add to that the fact that your email address, and possibly your mailbox as well as your phone is going to be constantly bombarded with sales pitches. Your personal information is ALSO going to be sold to hundreds, if not thousands, of companies looking to get rich off of selling their products to you. It isn't enough that they likely get kickbacks from the companies they're promoting you to buy products and services from.
So, don't go into any dealings with these companies thinking you're going to make over $50k/yr. Think more along the lines of $500/yr profit and you'll be closer to right, but only if you do it all day long, every day of the year.
There really isn't any such thing as a free lunch.
Going through these surveys, you will be doing "product evaluations". To do the evaluations, you have to PURCHASE the product or service, which you are NOT, by the way, getting any discounted price for (and more than likely getting it an inflated price so the manufacturer or service provider can kick back to the survey company.) If they're paying you $75 to take this survey, it's because you've already had to shell out very near all of that in order to get the product you're supposed to evaluate. That's not to mention that there may be a recurring monthly charge for the service you are supposed to be evaluating.
Whether the product or service is something you need or want is of no consequence whatsoever. The point is you will be putting very little, if any, money into your bank account that you haven't already had to pay out as part of this survey team.
Now, add to that the fact that your email address, and possibly your mailbox as well as your phone is going to be constantly bombarded with sales pitches. Your personal information is ALSO going to be sold to hundreds, if not thousands, of companies looking to get rich off of selling their products to you. It isn't enough that they likely get kickbacks from the companies they're promoting you to buy products and services from.
So, don't go into any dealings with these companies thinking you're going to make over $50k/yr. Think more along the lines of $500/yr profit and you'll be closer to right, but only if you do it all day long, every day of the year.
There really isn't any such thing as a free lunch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)