Skinplant and Stardock have released a series of premium "Mini Suites".  $5 suites that include the visual style, the icons, and the wallpapers. Just the basics -- done in a professional manner.

Check them out for yourself.

If you have Object Desktop, WindowFX 2.2 is in beta and boy does it have some cool stuff.

The main new feature is window scaling. See the main screenshot along with this one here:
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowfx/wfx-feb04a.jpg

Window scaling is where you take a regular window and have it be any size you want on the screen. If you hold down the shift key when you minimize a window, WindowFX will turn it into a tile. You can then use the Ctrl key to resize the tiled window to any size you want and optionally interact with it.

The tiled window isn't just some snapshot or some other hack its live. With real-time window updating. This can be quite useful for those of you have multiple chat windows open at once and want to keep track of them at once. You can also optionally set the tiled windows to stay on top so that it's easy to go back and forth to a group of windows you're working on.

If you don't have Object Desktop, you can get it at www.objectdesktop.com. It's a suite of desktop enhancements that includes WindowBlinds, DesktopX, IconPackager, Theme Manager, ObjectBar, Keyboard LaunchPad, and more.

There are 3 Americas. The rich. The middle class and the poor.

From the 1995 Census Bureau:

Population:
The rich: 6 million households
The middle class: 52 million households
The poor: 8 illion households

Family:
The rich: 4 out of 5 are married
The middle class: 4 out of 5 are married
The poor: 2 out of 5 are married

The rich: <5% are single parents
The middle class: <5% are single parents
The poor: nearly 2 out of 3 are single parents

Education
The rich: >9 out of 10 finished high school
The middle class: 9 out of 10 finished high school
The poor: half of them didn't finish high school

Work
The rich: 97% work full time
The middle class: 97% work full time
The poor: 23% work full time

Anyone see a pattern?

The problem I have debating people on welfare and other issues is well frankly, a lot of people are just incredibly ignorant. They just espouse platitudes without knowing what the hell they're talking about. It's a bit frustrating. No one expects everyone to be experts on what they choose to write about. But often times it's obvious that they haven't taken even a serious glance at the facts behind the issue they speak of. I don't mean "facts" as in from some left-wing or right-wing website. I mean the actual facts.

Al Sharpton, on 20/20 publicly claimed that the rich (top 5%) don't even pay for 2% of the taxes. Sadly, he's typical of the people who want to raise taxes on "the wealthy". It would have only taken him a few minutes to learn that the top 5% of income earners pay 54% of the federal income taxes. But he, like many Americans who talk about things like "corporate welfare" and "tax cuts for the rich" are just mouthing things they've heard from without bothering to look it up.

The left-wing whining and claims have done their job though. Since the 1960s, contrary to claims by right-wing radio, the left has won. The right was defeated utterly. We now spend most of our federal budget giving money to other people. Job training programs? We got them. Food delivered to the poor? Did it. Oh, but that wasn't enough. So it was upgraded to food stamps. Food stamps can't be used as cash? No problem, a certain percent can now be received as cash. Widen the scope of these programs so that millions of Americans qualify for it? No problem. Subsidized housing for those who make significantly less than the mean income? Here you go.

And what is the lesson? The people who demand we do more for the poor continue to claim we don't do enough. They will often not even acknowledge what we actualy do do.

"Oh we don't spend enough to help the poor." We sure the hell do. It's easy for people who either pay no or little federal taxes to bitch and moan about how nice it would be for other people to pay more, but those of us who actually pay serious taxes have made it our business to look at what that money is spent on. You see, half the population of the United States pays virtually no federal income taxes. And polls have made it pretty clear that they are the ones who are the numerous  in demanding more programs for "the poor".

If 5% of the population gets food stamps, for the sake of argument, based on what we spent in 1998 just on food stamps then each man, woman, and child getting foodstamps got $3,000.  That's not $3,000 per family. That's per person. So a family of 4 on food stamps would be getting $12,000. Obviously they're not really getting that much because of the waste that is government. But in 1998 the Federal Government spent about $40 billion on food for the poor. Which means that $40 billion of our taxes were spent on it. Well, the taxes of the 60% of Americans who actually pay something to the federal government in federal income taxes. 

We also spend a similar amount on federally subsidized low income housing.  And job training? We spend billions on that too.

It makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy to care so much about the poor. There will always be poor people. You know why? Because most poor people are either disabled or are...well losers. And I say that having grown up poor.  My dad left when I was very young and my mom and I (well my mom mainly) struggled to make ends meet. She worked her way up working multiple jobs at minimum wage. No health care. No insurance. But we made it. Today she lives a middle class lifestyle. She doesn't make much still but a lifetime of living within ones means adds up. It taught me a great deal about life.  My first "job" was at 6 years old. I took out the trash in the apartment complex we lived in for the various welfare mothers in our building. I was paid 10 cents per bag. The dumpster was quite a distance away, especially to a 6 year old in the middle of winter.  Even at that age, however, I observed some things about "the poor". 1) They always managed to afford lots of smelly cigarettes. 2) They always managed to afford beer and other booze.

As a result, I don't tend to be that compassionate for most poor people. The key word is most. I have plenty of compassion for people who are truly disabled or have gotten a legitimately raw deal. My mom got a raw deal too.

But show me a chronically poor person (i.e. someone poor all their life -- and I mean actually poor as in making less than $15,000 annually) through most their life and I'll show you (statistically) someone who's either disabled or someone who's just a total loser.  People don't like that word. Loser. But in life there are winners and losers. Some people will try to turn such terms into being so relativistic as to losing all meaning. But there are losers out there. And while not all poor people are losers, most losers are poor. Losers are people who are either chronically stupid, terminally foolish, lazy, or all of the above. But it's not compassionate to admit that. We're supposed to pretend that they're somehow noble, courageous people struggling against the odds. What odds? The odds of them finishing high school without getting pregnant multiple times? The odds of them not calling in "sick" twice a week because they just didn't want to get up? The odds that they couldn't resist telling their foreman or boss or whatever what they really think of them? The odds of them recognizing that attention deficit disorder is not a disability that one should apply for federal disability aid for? You get the idea.

And since the 1960s, we've spent TRILLIONS trying to help losers. But there's only so much you can do to help losers. They will always be poor because they're losers and no amount of free hand outs to them will change that.  Give them a big check of money and they'll waste it. Give them a nice house and they'll trash it.

But I'm sure it makes many of people feel nice and good about themselves to advocate that other people should be taxed even more to pay for those losers. It makes them feel holier than thou to point at people like me and say how mean and "greedy" I am. Bear in mind, people like me actually do the paying but those people who want something for nothing are the ones arguing I'm "greedy".  What would I do if taxes were lower? I'd hire more people. That's what I do with my capital. We hire people. We give people jobs. Jobs that help them support their families. Jobs that provide additional tax revenue to the government. And the people we hire make pretty good money.  Give us back the hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes we paid last year and I'd hire another several people next year. Spread those tax cuts across the entire country, particularly in the form of corporate tax cuts and you'll see more people get hired.

But instead some of these guys would rather even more money to be thrown at the losers of society. The dumb ass 19 year old with 3 kids.  The high school drop out who can't understand why he can't get a good job.  The 30 year old career student with several meaningless degrees who can't get a real job because the job market for people with a masters in philosophy or anthropology just isn't there who bitches at how unfair life is. 

There are some people out there who are poor that got a raw deal. It's for that tiny minority of people who aren't habitually idiotic in their life decisions that I do support a social safety net. 

I don't support abolishing the social safety net.  I am simply saying that the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year at the state and federal level is more than adequate to help those who are having a rough time of things through no fault of their own. I'm willing to subsidize the lifestyles of losers to try to help the truly needy. But enough is enough. We don't need more. We're running huge deficits. If the national debt were paid off and we just had more money than we knew what to do with I'd be all for trying some experiment to reform the losers of the world. But we don't. And subsidizing the losers of the world hurts the rest of society in ways that the people who advocate more help for them recognize.

Unless those advocating these programs are willing to step up to the plate and demand that their taxes be increased further (gee, funny how those who advocate these programs never support flat tax proposals) then all they're doing is making themselves feel good at society's expense (again: people like me who pay most of the taxes don't take that money and spend it on jewels or something, we invest it back into the economy in the form of hiring more people, investing in new start-ups, etc.).

The poor will always be with us because losers will always be with us. We can't afford to do anymore more for them. We need to get our finances together to eliminate the deficit and start paying off the debt before it keeps us from being able to provide basic services.

Recently there was some debate about the current fiscal deficit. When people talk about balancing the budget, it is important to know what we spend money on. When someone just parrots "We need to cut defense" or "raise taxes" it gets frustrating because those things won't necessarily solve the problem. The real problem is much more complex than that.  In reality, the federal government has slowly morphed into a social program provider.

Bush hasn't helped things either. He has signed budgets that have seen the biggest increases in spending across the board in the past decade. Even spending on the Arts has gone up under Bush. Defense spending is, of course, way up. And he's added a prescription drug benefit to the mix -- one that alienates conservatives while not satisfying the left who say (without evidence) that it's just a big giveaway to drug companies. Where we can agree is that it is a big "giveaway" to someone.

I tend to rely on the Annual Report books by Meredith Bagby. The last one is from 1998's budget but the reason I like it is that it is a non-partisan book. She just goes through the stats and puts them together in tables that are clear and concise. No political BS in there. Amongst the stats are where the government's money comes from and where it goes.

This is the 1998 federal income report. Social Security, unemployment insurance, medicare, etc. come out to $585 billion in taxes. Remember that number.  The other taxes come out to be about $1 trillion.

Now look closely here.  This is what we actually spend the money on.  If you just add up Social Security and Medicare, you can see that the amount exceeds what is being taxed. On top of that, Unemployment insurance is another $27 billion on top of that. That shortfall is made up by money from the general fund. Now, this is 1998 so most of these numbers are lower than they are today (particularly defense). But the categories are still applicable.

People like me would argue that the social programs, other than the veterans benefits and fed retirement, are really not something the federal government should be involved in.  $39 billion in food stamps. Now, AFDC and such are gone because of Welfare Reform. But we still spend $39 billion just on federal food stamps.  We still spent another $30 billion or so on subsidized housing.  And we still spent $138 billion on Medicaid and other programs of that nature.  Some of this is important I'm sure but if we want to trim the deficit, these are all things we need to look at.

Meanwhile, in the services, the much maligned foreign aid is only $15 billion.  But $15 billion is still a good chunk of change when you're borrowing to do it. Agriculture subsidies are largely corporate welfare. Education, which is largely paid for by your local millages and state taxes makes up a whopping $56 billion, much of it is squandered according to reports.

And then we have...the debt. The interest in the debt in 1998 was $250 BILLION.  This is why the deficit not only needs to be reduced but why we need surpluses to pay down the debt. $250 billion on interest is money just wasted. Money we pay today because of the money spent in the past that they couldn't afford. And that wasn't money spent on defense only.  It was a team effort.

In reality, we spend a lot of money on give-aways.  No matter what you want to call it, giving people money and aid that they did not earn is a freebie. Now, you can say we need a social safety net. I'm with you there. I agree. In the United States there is no excuse for anyone to go hungry. But this isn't something the federal government should be involved in. It's too inefficient to send money to the federal government and then back to the states to implement.  It's best left with states and local governments to come up with programs to suit their particular requirements.

At the same time, people who are constantly advocating that we don't spend enough to help the poor need a reality check. In 1998 we spent $150 on every man, woman and child in the United States just in food stamps. Very few people get food stamps so obviously the amount allocated to that program is much higher than $150.  In fact, let's say that only 5% of the American population requires food stamps. The number jumps to $3,000 per food stamp recipient. That's about $300 per month which is about the amount my family spends today on groceries each month for our family of 4. I'm sorry but if you're going hungry in the United States, there's no amount of money that's going to fix it. You either slipped through the cracks or the person is just so incredibly inept that they couldn't figure out how to obtain food.  BTW, keep in mind that this is only federal spending on these programs. Those soup kitchens and the like are usually run by either charities or state or city governments without federal assistance.

Then there's the $77 billion spent on "Misc". I couldn't find out what that is. Just "Misc." Terrific. 

Today the budget is about $2 trillion. We're running a $400 to $500 BILLION deficit. If you want to balance the budget, a lot of programs will need to be cut. Not just defense. When you see so much waste, it's hard to get too excited about having to pay more in taxes for some latest/greatest boondoggle program.

If the federal government focused on doing the things it's supposed to do you would have a budget that looks something like this:

Income: $1 billion

Expenses: $469 billion (services)  + $74 billion (fed retirement) + $41 billion (veterans) = ~$580 billion in expenses.

That is what the general fund should look like.

The social programs would fall under a social tax that could be scrutinized on its own. $585 billion in taxes comes in from Social Insurance Taxes so let the social programs be budgeted based on meeting that criteria. Remember, these other programs are monies taken from one person and given to someone else. Whether you're for or against these programs is irrelevant. That's what they are, they are wealth redistribution programs and shouldn't be part of the general fund. But when you look at things in this way, it becomes easier to see where the shortfalls are coming from.

In other words, if you want to balance the budget, lots of cuts are going to be needed and one thing is for sure, it's mostly going to come from the "entitlements".

http://www.alphecca.com/archives/alarc022804.html#d

Brice: Could you perhaps tell us about some of the policy initiatives of a Kerry administration?

Kerry: Um, what?

Brice: You know, what are your plans for stimulating job growth, fixing Social Security, protecting America's borders, Medicare, education, the nation's infra-structure--

Kerry: I fought in the Viet Nam war. That's my platform.

Brice: I've listened to your speeches, watched your TV commercials, surfed your web site. Don't you think you might need to actually offer some substance? Some ideas?

Kerry: Hey, you can view my entire service record on my web site!

It's a good satire interview with John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry. Earth to Kerry: Clinton was a draft dodger and he still kicked the crap out of Senator Bob "I served in World War II" Dole. But by all means, please keep dwelling on Vietnam...because we all care about it sooo much. If your primary asset is something you did 30 years ago, you must not have much to talk about.

A constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage? Ack. For the record, I oppose gay marriage. But I'm pro civil-unions. But I am definitely not in favor of mucking around with the constitution in order to thwart gays trying to twist the definition of marriage to now fit them.

The issue is fairly complex. We could probably get a majority of people who would favor gays having the right to civil unions. The problem is that civil unions don't provide any federal rights. Civil unions provide the same benefits to couples as marriage does, but none of the federal benefits (such as social security). The real problem is that marriage is something the government shouldn't have gotten involved with in the first place. It should have had civil unions between two people with marriage remaining a purely religious institution -- i.e. a religious wrapper on top of a federal civil union.  But it didn't and now we have this idiotic mess.

The problem I have with gay marriage is that is that I really don't like "special interests" (and let's face it, the gay rights advocates are about as "special interest" as you get) trying to shove their values down the throats of the vast majority of Americans. Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman for thousands of years. That is what marriage is. Don't shoot the messenger but marriage has long been defined and no tiny special interest group should have the right to change marriage for their own sake. I mean hell, I know I'm not "cool". But maybe I'd like to be cool. Maybe if I make a big enough stink I can force the courts to redefine what cool is to fit my description (nerdy opinionated guy).  In other words, it's a semantics issue.

But again, we have this mess. I don't like the idea of gays being able to call their unions "marriage". But I strongly oppose the federal government withholding any rights from any two consenting adults. Heck, I also firmly believe that civil unions should extend to any number of people. I actually think it would be beneficial to society if civil unions were extended to multiple people. Think about it, you could have families or groups of families able to legally share their resources more seamlessly. Sure, the share per person would be much smaller.  We already have these concepts on the Internet in the form of clans or guilds and what not where groups work under an official framework to help one another that is recognized by the controlling authority.  Even here on JoeUser.com we have blog groups where people can get together and combine their blogs into one.  Why shouldn't individuals do the same?

So rather than trying to screw with the constitution, the President could instead propose to try to be...you know...a leader. He could propose a federal law allowing civil unions between any two people. This could later be extended upwards to more people. The civil unions would then have the same exact federal and state protections marriage has while allowing marriage to slowly evolve into a purely religious institution which becomes an issue only between the individuals and their church.

I am a strong believer in democracy. And I know most Americans are against gay marriage. But at the same time, I think most Americans could be convinced of the validity for federal civil union laws. Consenting adults should not be legally restricted in what sort of legal arrangements they wish to enter into.

Bush has really made a mistake by taking such a militant line. I mean that statistically too. His "base" tends to be of people who hold the constitution to be quite sacred. People like myself. I would rather see the courts rule that gays can be "married" than add an amendment to the constitution. He missed an opportunity to be a leader of a nation rather than a leader of a political party today. He has also opened the door to his opposition, John Kerry, who can now play the role of moderate by espousing the viewpoint I just wrote about here. Marriage no, constitution sanctity yes, federal civil unions yes.

irc.stardock.com in the channel #stardock (you can get there via Stardock Central too) is a place a lot of us hang out.

One advantage of the channel is that when we have something new to play with we often post the link to try out the internal version. So if you're interested in hanging out with us, feel free to join the channel!

Stardock has released The Desktop Aquarium. 

It's a stand alone program that turns your desktop into an aquarium full of fish swimming around.

Here's a screenshot: https://www.stardock.com/products/aquarium/aq2.jpg

What's particularly cool about the program is that when the fish are covered by windows, it doesn't use CPU. So when you're doing real work, the fish don't slow down your computer. The aquarium is not just full of fish but also fully animated plants that wave gently in the background as well as having a treasure chest that controls whether the aquarium sound is on or off.

The Desktop Aquarium is only $8.95 (Object Desktop users can get it for a discounted amount).

One thing that's a bit frustrating these days is that it's really hard to make good use of system RAM to improve your performance.

In the good gold days of DOS. I could use HyperCache or SmartDrv or some other disk caching program and feel the performance improvements. For instance, in 1992 I had a 386SX with 8 megs of RAM which, back then, was immense. So when in DOS, I'd set SmartDrv to have a 4 meg cache. And when I loaded Windows 3.0, the hard drive barely crunched at all and the system instantly booted up it seemed.

But then I moved to OS/2 and later Windows 2000/XP and disk caching apparently hasn't been a priority with them. And bizarrely, third parties haven't seem terribly interested in this area either.  Windows seems to want to do hard drive crunching for anything. 

Even if I turn off swapping in XP and stick with my 1 gig or 2 gigs of RAM (depending on the machine) I still hear tons of disk crunching.  Why? If I have a gig of RAM for disk caching, I shouldn't hear that hard drive crunch at all when I'm switching between programs. Yet I do.

I have concluded that Windows XP handles memory very inefficiently.  I'm looking into various ways to improve performance on my machine through the use of RAM. Any ideas?