Tuesday, October 25, 2016

What should I do with online earnings?

For several years now I have involved myself with many different online content sites, or some people like to call them revenue sharing sites. You can lump sites like WebAnswers, HubPages, Bubblews, and one I have recently joined called Niume, into this category.

By the way, if you want to check out Niume, here's a way to get started.

The truth is, for a while it wasn't so difficult to make thousands of dollars per year doing this. Especially if you happened to be someone like me who has at least a smidgen of knack for writing content.

Some people in the past have called me a windbag actually.

Of course, the one downfall for me in writing online content has been that I write mostly opinion pieces, and mostly on politics, business, and finance. The business and finance pieces have a bit more longevity. But because the politics pieces tend to be in the now they aren't relevant over a longer period of time and tend to fizzle out over time.

No matter.

So, what is the catch here? The catch is that many of the models to pay you that these revenue sharing sites use are faulty. In other words, the money will come, but it may also be short lived because what the creators of these sites are trying to do is to attract as many content providers as they can in as little time as they can, pay up a bit to incentivize and motivate those content providers, and then slowly begin to siphon off whatever pennies they can before the site shuts down, gets caught cheating, and content providers begin to head for the exits.

Such was the case with certainly WebAnswers and Bubblews.

But until that day comes these sites do pay actually quite well. So, what do you do with any money you earn online?

I think the key here is to understand that one day the cash cow will die. It's just a fact that seems to be the norm when it comes to online revenue sharing sites. So, I have always resorted to at least taking the money while it is free flowing into my bank account from these activities...

And running.

Many people choose to spend it. They may buy new shoes, a new TV, hell, a new laptop computer to make banging away at the keys and providing more revenue producing content easier—or more fun since getting a new computer can be fun.

I happen to think that it is better to make the money last longer. And to do that I think it is best to plunk the money into an investment which pays dividends over the long haul. That way, even when the revenue sharing site dies, the money is still there that you earned, and still able to earn for you as you work to seek out new sites to make up the difference.

So where do you put it?

Look, the reality is many people simply aren't too keen on investing in general, and so this can be a daunting task in and of itself. But one can keep it simple. Simply open an account at a site like Ameritrade or ShareBuilder and start depositing your online earnings into that account. When you've accumulated enough to start buying shares, pick stocks or ETFs which are fairly stable and that produce good dividends.

Here are a few I recommend; BXMX, F, KO, MRO, and YYY.

BXMX is an exchange traded fund, or ETF, that pays almost an 8% dividend, and I have owned it for over a decade. It's been stable, providing mostly dividends since the price doesn't move much. I hate to use the word 'safe,' but actually BXMX is fairly safe. It's a part of the Nuveen family of funds, and before it was BXMX it was JSN.

Ford (F), Coca-Cola (KO), and Marathon Oil (MRO) are all fairly stable stocks to own as well that pay a fair amount of dividends. Ford is somewhere around 6% if you account for the regular dividend and annual special dividends. Coca-Cola pays around 3.5%, and MRO is about the same as KO.

Keep in mind the most volatile of these three stocks is MRO.

I consider income earned from online sources as extra. And because I love to write it means I get to do what I love and make some money doing it. But I also like to increase all of my streams of income overall. And so putting the money I earn online away to earn over the long haul is simply a great way to make any money I earn doing what I love last longer than any of the revenue sharing sites will ever last.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

A porn star speaks out against Trump?

Wait a minute. What?

Now don't get me wrong here, will you? I am a typical guy. I like porn. And don't you start to get all righteous and fuddy duddy on me here because I came right out and said not only do I like porn, but as a typical guy I like porn.

Folks, the numbers don't lie. Sex sells, and so does porn, so it's not like anyone isn't watching it—and if they say they're not they are either dead or lying through their teeth.

Look folks, can't you see the media is really grasping at straws here? I mean, there's all of this stuff that is out there, front and center, being put out by Wikileaks that gives a glaring insight into the inner working of the Hillary Clinton campaign and all of those spineless fuckers that surround her.

Yeah, I said spineless fuckers. I am not worried about my language folks so long as it happens to be the truth.

I am not going to say that Trump may never have groped anyone. The fact is I don't have any proof he didn't. But then, I don't really see any proof that he did either. I mean, even the first one (or was it the first one) that came out about the woman who was groped by Trump in first class on an airplane was a bit debunked. It's not the only debunking factor that the arm he raised between the seats to get to her actually could not have been raised. But it's the fact that once you have one detail in the story off, you have to question the entire story. Maybe there's some truth in it. But probably there's more story telling than truth.

I didn't mind the groping until he went south.

What? Again I ask that question. What? Now I am not going to say that just because a woman lets me touch her breasts, and maybe even her arm or her belly is an open invitation to go south and just expect that she wants me to finish the job. But certainly I have to ask, "What did you think I was going to think when you said 'ooh' and 'ahh' when I touched your top lady parts? I was probably going to think something else might also be okay."

It's not that you touch me ladies. But if you touch me a certain way above my southern regions and I don't mind, I may be surprised if you don't reach down a little farther.

Well. If I wadn't married girls. Yeah I say wasn't with a 'd.' Then I'd have to stop you. But I would have stopped you at the first soft caress personally.

But now we have a porn star that not only says Trump groped her, but asked her how much? How much? Well, she is a porn star. Now granted, being a porn star is different than being a prostitute to some extent I must say. After all, this is a profession with credentials to boot. Yeah, you get paid to screw on screen, and you're choosing your partner...

Do you choose? Well, maybe after you've been doing it for a while. Before that you have to screw who the director tells you to.

But I digress. I don't want to make light of any situation a woman may find herself in. Even a porn star. Even a prostitute for that matter. These are still human beings of course. But I mean, does the media really take itself seriously that this is what they put out there? A porn star who may have been groped and may have been asked if she'd be willing to do it for money off screen?

I wouldn't doubt there have been many porn stars asked this question by the way.

And all the while what are we missing? Four dead Americans in Benghazi. Where Clinton was on the night of the call? What happened to the missing emails? What was in them? And why she seemed to deny she knew what the letter 'C' meant but she is otherwise qualified to handle the nation's greatest secrets? And the list goes on.

I just hope that the people who the media hopes has their heads up their asses when they report this nonsensible trash are few and far between. Because what Hillary Clinton may do to us could arguably be far worse than anything Trump may have tried to get his hands on in his past.

What makes you think Donald Trump is actually winning the election?

It used to be that while one could not completely rely on the polls, the polls still got you somewhere closer in the ballpark. Sort of like the local weatherman giving his report on what the weather will look like tomorrow, you know? It may not be exactly 66 degrees and sunny. But you could expect that it would at least be somewhere within 60-70 degrees and the sun would probably shine for a good part of the day.

The polls have always been slanted. Or at least they have always been mostly slanted. Keep in mind all polls are, really, are interpretations of consensus which are formulated using mathematical calculations—and weighting. The weighting part is a key factor in how a poll result is formulated mind you, since the idea behind it is that certain weight is given to a particular representational factor within the poll itself.

For example, hispanics may only represent a very much smaller percentage of the population. So, naturally when you poll, less answers will be representative of the hispanic population as a whole. So you have to calculate how much weight should be placed on that answer in order to better calculate (or speculate depending on your perspective) how that answer weighs in for that particular group on the focus of the question.

But someone ultimately decides how much weight gets placed on any answer. And of course, they also have the ability to word a question in a way that presumes an outcome, and distracts from a more complete answer, and even can overweight a segment to sway a poll one way or the other.

I am not suggesting polling is rigged, per se. Although it may well be to some extent, especially nowadays. What I am suggesting is that polls are often times wrong—and since they are largely controlled by the media, or special interest groups, pollsters go into a poll with a predetermined desired outcome and will go to whatever length is necessary to have the poll answer their question in a way that better fits their desired narrative.

Sort of like saying if you ask ten people whether or not you are ugly and 5 people say you are and the other 5 say you're not, just ask one more person to see if you can get one more vote for not ugly and there you have it...

If 6 out of 11 say you're not ugly, then roughly 55% of those polled think you're not. You must not be ugly.

Of course, you can ask the question another way and get a totally different outcome. You might ask ten people, for example, if you are butt-ugly. Well, most people might think you are ugly. But probably most people won't think you are butt-ugly. So no matter how many people you ask, the most likely result is that you will come out with a desirable answer.

It's a silly analogy I know. But stick with me if you will. I like Springboard Answers to have a bit of tongue-in-cheek about it these days.

But okay, the question was "What makes you think Donald Trump is actually winning the election?" Because of course I think the polling is wrong, and I think the electoral map is skewed by wrong polling data, and of course there is also the factor that the media wants Hillary Clinton to be the victor in all of this, and so thus becomes the portrayal we all get to see.

But do you ever notice one thing that the media also does when it reports on the rallies? Yeah, you know, those things that the candidates hold for their actual supporters? It pans in on Hillary Clinton when it shows snippets of hers. Why? Because when you compare how many people are attending her rallies as opposed to how many people are attending Trump's...

Wow, is the result amazingly glaring and different.

And therein lies, at least for me, a very telling truth about the polls, and what the actual outcome of this election is going to be when all is said and done. Why does Trump win? Why are the polls wrong? Why do the electoral maps and all of the predictions of the liberal pundits paint a picture in favor of Hillary Clinton advancing to the White House?

It's in the rallies.

Trump is gathering enormous crowds. Can I use the term yuuge? On the flip side, Hillary is drawing very small crowds. While most of the time Trump is speaking from a podium in front of masses, we see Clinton stumping before very small groups.

The proof is in the rallies, folks. I'm telling you. Take that in for what it's worth. The people are gathering for Trump in far larger numbers than they are for Hillary, and it has the pollsters and the liberal media grasping at straws trying to make it look like it's the other way around. They're really trying.

Now look. I am no genius. I am not smarter than anybody and certainly I am not suggesting  I am. But I do think there are times when I see things that others do not. And this is one of those times. I am able to see the forest for the trees, you know. I am able to read between the lines. The story is in there, folks, plain to see. The deal is not done, mind you. I am not calling this election now. That would be foolish and downright stupid. And of course I am not going to put any money on it. But mark my words, the truth is that I think more of the country is for Trump than are not.

But, like the polls may be rigged, there's a very good chance that elections are rigged, and so we still may see an outcome that flies in the face of things that should be obvious.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

What do you think of Ruler Foods?

You're talking about the Kroger equivalent of an Aldi store? Well, let's just put it this way. I do love to shop Aldi, but ever since a Ruler Foods store went up in my area I have frequented that store more often than the Aldi store.

And this is not to say anything bad about Aldi. Aldi is a great place to find affordable and quality groceries.

But Ruler Foods has a very similar concept. It's a lot of their brand stuff, and the prices are actually quite good—on most items of course—and I really like the concept of having to put in a quarter to get a cart. One thing I have observed at both Ruler Foods and Aldi Stores is that there is almost never a cart left in the parking lot.

That being said it's kind of cool when some schmuck DOES leave his cart behind in the parking lot since I happen to be a bit of a money loving fool, and for me...it's free quarter time.

And then there is the quality of the food. It's actually quite good if you ask me and compares well to any store brand and even Aldi brands you might find. One thing that does set Ruler Foods apart? Their meat prices and their meat selection is actually way better than Aldi Stores, and in some instances even beats most of the prices at other more notable food chains.

For example, while it is 73/27 hamburger meat, the 5 pound tube is mostly cheaper than the other guy's. The last time I bought one of these I paid about $1.88 per pound. Their 13 ounce packages of Polska kielbasa and smoked sausage regularly runs about $1.99. Their 24 ounce bricks of cheese average about $4.88. A dozen of eggs fluctuates a bit, but hovers around 79 cents to 89 cents. They actually recently upped the price to about $1.10 and they sat there and they quickly lowered the price back down. If you happen to be a milk drinker, a gallon of milk costs about $1.89.

Beware the sliced cheese however...

If you have ever followed me I always stress about unit price over total price. The average package of sliced cheese is 8 ounces. But Ruler Food's sliced cheese packages are only 6 ounces. And if you take into account the unit cost, it's cheaper to buy sliced cheese somewhere else.

But their shredded cheese at $1.79 for an 8 ounce package is actually not bad at all. All of the shredded cheeses are fine except for the mozzarella which does not seem to want to melt right. But the yellow cheeses are just fine.

You can buy a can of pasta sauce, if that is your thing, for about 89 cents. Doctor it up a bit if you need to. Hell, with the price of their produce, the hamburger meat, and even mushrooms, you could make a nice little sauce for a fraction of the cost of even a jar of Ragu.

Speaking of spaghetti sauce mind you, I have a little bit of a really good recipe to make your own sauce if you want to check that out—why buy jarred when making spaghetti sauce from scratch is so much better, so much cheaper, and easy as hell to make?

All in all if you like Aldi stores you're really going to like Ruler Foods. Going one step further, if you like Save-A-Lot Stores, Ruler Foods and Aldi Stores are both much cleaner stores, and to be honest, seem to have better selections and typically better prices. They also tend to be in slightly better locations as well.

Ruler Foods is certainly worth a look if you want a pleasant shopping experience, a clean store, great choices from brand name to store brand, and certainly great prices to make it all extra special.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Why did CNN single out Ken Bone?

Okay, so Ken Bone was the pudgy guy in the audience during the 2nd presidential debate who was wearing a red cardigan sweater, tie, and who donned black-rimmed glasses, and according to many in the lamestream media he was the guy who stole the show for all intents and purposes. Well, they say it was the name. They say it was the way he was dressed. They say it was the question that he asked of the candidates, which, was a good question mind you. I am not taking anything away from his moment if you will. Nor am I going to diss the question he asked.

Did I say it was a good question? It really was.

So where did Ken Bone stand on the candidates? Well, he said in a following interview that he had leaned Trump, but that after the debate while still being undecided, favored Clinton's demeanor and composure, and felt she had stated her issues better than Trump did.

Bingo. We, folks, have a WINNER!

That's what did it. That's what made the story for the liberal media crew. Had he stood firm and said he was still leaning Trump, had he stated that he did not like Clinton's demeanor or skirting the issues about her emails...

The media would have dumped him like a burnt, useless hot potato.

In a CNN article they also did one other thing here which a weird guy like me, one who likes to make certain observations, caught right away. That would be the picture of the "staring black guy." Now, think about this for a minute will you? You have Ken Bone, the guy who looks like the All-American good guy, one observer actually saying, "This is a guy who probably brings roses home to his wife...just because," to the angry black man who, according to the wording in the article, staring at Mr. Trump with what can only be described as the evil-eye, who seemed to be saying "I am not falling for your B.S. Mr. Trump."

It is glaring. Don't you see it? Average all around American guy in a cardigan sweater, a concerned American citizen about not just how we get our energy now, but how we get it later (climate change lovers smiled), and the fact that he talked nice about Clinton, and then angry black guy—

Because all black people have benefited so greatly from the policies of the democrat party over the years, this man was important to convey the idea that no matter what Trump says, no black man would ever fare better under anything other than democratic regimes...

Ken Bone did not really steal the show. He did not really win the debate. His question was good. I said that. He does seem like a well-rounded guy, and he's even probably genuinely a nice guy. But had he touted Trump instead of Clinton? He'd have gotten not one second of coverage at all by anyone in the media.

Maybe Fox would have...

But we know that Ken Bone would have been dismissed, only to make any rounds on the Internet, enjoying the limelight there. But no reporters would have stopped him. No news stories would have been written about him. No one would have cared one iota about the pudgy man in the red cardigan sweater who asked a great question.

But we would have probably still seen a picture of the angry black man glaring at Mr. Trump. In fact, we might have even seen him getting all of the attention instead of Ken Bone.