Matthew Good

Very helpful, thank you guys!
I think I’m going to order the John Keegan and Erwin Rommel books.
Thanks again!

The Money Survey

Question 1:  Would it be valuable to you if your employer offered a low cost ($5 per use), automated program that gave you instant access to earned wages before payday?

[  ] Yes [  ] No

Question 2:  Would you consider using such a program?

[  ] Yes [  ] No

Question 3:  Would you be more likely to stay with or join a company that offered such a program?

[  ] Yes [  ] No

Question 4:  How often do you have trouble paying your weekly expenses?

[  ] Never [  ] Every week [  ] About once per month [  ] Several times per year [  ] Once per year

Question 5:  Not counting your mortgage and car loan, how much debt do you have?

[  ] None [  ] Less than $1,000 [  ] $1000 - $2,500 [  ] More than $2,500 [  ] Not sure

Question 6:  Do you use your credit card to pay bills?

[  ] Yes (skip to question 8) [  ] No

Question 7:  Why have you not used your credit card to pay bills?

[  ] Don’t own a credit card
[  ] Credit card is maxed out
[  ] Credit limit is too small
[  ] Paying with a credit card is not an option
[  ] Other

Question 8:  Have you ever borrowed from the following?  Mark all that apply.

[  ] Payday lender
[  ] Auto title lender
[  ] Pawn shop
[  ] Loan shark
[  ] None
[  ] Other, please specify  ________________________________________________________________

Question 9:  If so, how many times in the past year?

[  ] 1-3 times [  ] 4-8 times [  ] 9-12 times [  ] More than 12 times

Question 10:  On average, how much do you borrow?

[  ] Less than $100 [  ] $101 - $200 [  ] $201 - $500 [  ] $501 - $1,000 [  ] More than $1,000

Question 11:  How much is too much interest on a loan?

[  ] 15% - 20% [  ] 20% - 30% [  ] 30% - 40% [  ] More than 40%

Question 12:  What would prevent you from asking your employer for access to money?  Mark all that apply.

[  ] Embarrassment.  I don’t want my boss to know I don’t have enough.
[  ] Privacy.  My finances aren’t my boss’s business.
[  ] Ethics.  Asking my employer for money is wrong.
[  ] Fear.  I don’t want to get fired.
[  ] Other, please specify.  ____________________________________________________________________________

Question 13: What is your yearly income?

[  ] $0 - $20,000 [  ] $21,000 - $35,000 [  ] $36,000 - $50,000 [  ] $50,000+

Question 14:  Are you currently employed?

[  ] No [  ] Yes If yes, please list employer name _______________________________________

Question 15:  What is your yearly household income?

[  ]$0 - $20,000 [  ]$21,000 - $35,000 [  ] $36,000 - $50,000 [  ] $51,000 - $75,000 [  ] $75,000+

Please provide your city and state so that we can better understand your responses.  Your input will help us improve our products and serve the underbanked and underemployed communities.

City/Town___________________________________________ State/Provence_________________________________________

Thanks for completing the survey!  You can enter your email address below for a chance to win one of four $50 FlexWage Visa gift cards.  NOTE: All personal information is strictly confidential and will never be shared, used or stored for other purposes.

Email address:  ___________________________________________________

on another site people found that moving left to right designating the answers A,B,C,D etc works.  same thing for top to bottom answers, A being the top  and working your way down.

thanks a ton guys.  this history aficionado appreciates it.

ps.  if you don’t want to post the email you can pm me with it.

“Right” is a nebulous concept.  People will always try to do what’s right, whether it’s “morally right” (putting money in the collection plate at church) or “right for them” (taking money out of the collection plate at church).  Often, people will purposefully try to confuse the two, justifying what is actually “right for them” by saying that it is morally justifiable.

This is the pattern seen through history.

I posit that “right”, “wrong”, “good”, and “bad” are subjective terms.  You know what is “right”, you know what is “good”.  Sometimes what is “good” (buttsecks) is not “right” (with your hot sister - unless your culture supports buttsecks with your hot sister, in which case that’s good for you).

But if that is true, all this talk about good, bad, right, and wrong is less important than what is, what will be, and how to convince people of one’s personal worldview.

It’s been mentioned that societies of necessity enforce a certain system of ethics, but I disagree with the idea that there is a TRUE ethical system.  In fact, enforcement of these so-called “ethics” is limited, as violation requires not only detection, but verification (testimony in court possibly), successful prosecution, and real consequences.  How does it matter if it is “against the law” if the crime cannot be detected, or if there is no deterrent?  When a poor man commits a crime for bread, the punishments are inevitably harsher than when those in power commit far worse crimes to retain, maintain, and increase their power.  Is this ETHICALLY correct?  No, not as we are led to understand ethics, but it is clearly and inevitably the case.

Should some abstract “ethic” or “morality” be the foundation of law?  I say the question of SHOULD is irrelevant; ethics and morality ARE NOT the foundation of law, HAVE NOT been the foundation of law, and WILL NOT be the foundation of law.  Those in power will do what they can do to make laws to benefit themselves.  Naturally, those laws will tend to concentrate more power and influence in those few persons’ hands.  The feudal system was not simply the progenitor of the republic, it is the republic’s and democracy’s heir.

Certainly, there is SOME nod to “ethics” in the law; the masses of society have enough control over the process that some true justice is maintained.  But corruption and concentration of power are also natural consequences of the law, and the longer any system is in place, the more the power will concentrate in the hands of the few.

But the concentration of power in the hands of the few is not what I really consider to be ethically or morally wrong, although I think many would call it so.  It is the natural consequence of individuals creating a society.  Can the rabbit be called evil for eating the carrot, or the wolf called evil for eating the rabbit?  In the same way, it is natural for humans to try to profit at the expense of other humans

Arguments over what is right, wrong, good, or bad, are in my mind both unnecessary and ultimately futile.  The real question is - understanding what is natural to the human state, how can the perception of what is natural be altered in a human, or more appropriately, a group of humans?

What I have written has been shocking enough, but i will go a step further and say that I piss on Locke, on Kant, on Thoreau, Confucious, Mencius, Buddha, and even Jesus.  Were each of those worthy of respect, study, and emulation?  Certainly.  But most societies and moral/ethical systems, as I have said, attempt to destroy the individual.  An individual must understand and respect his or own
ability, and understand that it is possible that everyone else could be wrong.  Is it not possible that the very ethical and moral systems that we currently uphold are simply a reflection of the heliocentric astronomical model?

It would be wrong for me to stop there, though, and imply that I think it is wise to simply dismiss those that societies consider important.  In truth, their very status and success is something that is properly studied and emulated.  But as I said before, and state again, societies attack the validity of the individual.  That is the nature of the societal beast.  The lesson to be learned here is not one of respect for society; that lesson has already been learned by any member of any society.

Any individual will have a basic understanding of his or her own self-nature, by virtue of being an individual.  But I think few individuals understand their self-nature in such a way that allows them to apply their knowledge to convincing others of what IS or IS NOT “good”, “bad”, “right”, or “wrong”.

Is what I have written besides the point?  I think it is the point.

If you have a society of peaceful people that respects and loves their fellow man, and a society of warlike people that has tanks and guns and warplanes, in a short time, it will be as if the flower-eaters had never been.  Indeed, I think it entirely possible that has been the fate of morally beautiful civilizations through time.

We are the heirs of those whose arms were drenched in blood.  Those that tell you that there is a some moral imperative, divorced from reality, that must be adhered to are fools, dreamers, or schemers that either have not heeded the lessons of history, or that hope others will not.

To be of any real value, a morality must survive.  To survive, it must be practical.  To be practical, it must take into account individual nature.  To take into individual nature is to take into account the selfish desires of each individual.  So morality requires understanding of the self, the self in relation to society, society, and an understanding of how certain individuals and societies prosper while others perish.

But isn’t this besides the point, again?  For me to say that morality must have a basis in practicality, isn’t that completely against the point of morality to begin with?

I would say again - that is exactly the point.  Morality MUST be practical.  Who treasures what is broken, what is useless, what is defective?  So must it be with morality.  To adopt an impractical morality is to practice destruction of the self, destruction of society, or both.

If any women visited this site, you might have another purpose with that last smilie.

But of course, there are no women on the internet.  :oops:

Definitely one movie, not two.  Chalk that one up to: greed? overambition? trying to do too much at once?  The style/feeling of the movies are different as well; not necessarily a bad thing, but the second segment felt rushed or unpolished and a major letdown.

Enough with the cheese as far as dialogue goes.  This is one of my Tarantino peeves - his dialogue is nauseating, or at least has been developing that way.

I think the major flaw was that it was a parody of low-budget kung-fu flicks on a high-budget.  Maybe not that reason exactly, but something about it just didn’t “feel” right.  A wolf in sheep’s clothing, so to speak.  It’s so hard to pinpoint this, but his emulation of those bad-but-good films just doesn’t amount to a good movie, and I can’t explain why.  A bastardization of some sort…

The story and premise was laughable - even for a parody - and the ending was disappointing.  I apparently went to the bathroom at the exact time she used the Five Point Exploding Heart technique (or whatever it was called) and felt like I missed nothing.

Now, knowing Tarantino, there was probably lots of little things that I missed.  I’m sure they’re fun and interesting, but I don’t think it would change my opinion about the movie.

So, there’s more I’d add to my critique, but let me note some things I did like.  Music is always a good selection from QT.  I liked the animé sequence - from the first movie, I think.  I enjoyed the choreography of the fights from the first movie, but the second was all dirt & grit (more realistic?) and was a harsh contrast to the first - more on it’s lack of continuity.

Plenty to get this thread rolling.  On a side note, I recommend Lady Snowblood, the main inspiration for this movie.  There’s comedic value, but it’s not intended, and everything else is pure story and action.  A true kung fu flick.  :-D
It’s also pretty crazy if you are under the right conditions…  :wink:

Well, the doctor that saves the life of the mother at the expense of the child would be considered a hero. The mother go on to live a full life, whereas the child has many more risks to death before the age of two (SIDS, Bad Infections, Accidents, Viruses, whatever. Adults just arnt as prone to death as children.) So there are times when an abortion may be required and not necessarily be a choice.

The doctor that takes the lives of babies because it is an inconvenience, on the other hand, I do not consider heros and many people around the world do not consider them to be heros.

But, the question was, do they think of themselves as “the good guy”? Sure. As I said with Ossama, you don’t do things that you think would make you the “bad guy”, you do things that, in your mind, are “right.”

DUDE!

Where’s the damn picture?? This large graphic isn’t even showing up in my browser…

Being anonymous and all, I would like to recommend two/three most excellent books:

-The rise and the fall of the Thrid Reich, by William L. Shirer. This book is fantastic! All you wanted to know of the German stirde to power and their downfall is in here. Has won alot of awards. Should last you 6 months.

-The second world war [a very innovative title] by martin Gilbert. This book has a more general overview and is more focused on the how the civilians and soldiers had it during the war.

-Rommel as military commander, by Roanld Lewis. This book has the biography of herr Rommel and all the tactics he used. The book I have is rather old (1968), but it is probably out there somewhere.

Enjoy,

Vinnie