You’ll be relieved to know that Mayor Michael A Bloomburg and the NY City Council are getting into the bathroom business.
I’m so excited. I almost wet my pants…
Well, not really (they aren’t ACTUALLY in the bathroom business and my pants are still quite dry.)
What the New York City officials ARE doing is passing a new law that tells business owners how many toilets they must have in their buildings.
“The City Council and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg have agreed on proposed legislation to ease an inequality that has plagued women since the dawn of the porcelain age: long lines at bathrooms in public places.
The deal, first reported by The New York Post on Wednesday, would make New York City one of a growing number of jurisdictions across the country to bring so-called potty parity to restrooms in public places.
Officially titled the Women's Restroom Equity Bill, the legislation would require bars, opera and concert halls, movie houses, theaters, dance halls, stadiums and a variety of other buildings to provide roughly two bathroom stalls available to women for every stall or urinal available to men.
"I think it's very important, because New York City tends to set the standard, as they did when they banned smoking, which was immediately followed in many other jurisdictions," said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University who has studied the issue. “
Good old New York City--setting another standard. Pluueeaassseee…
I have mixed emotions on this issue. I certainly don’t want my girlfriend, mother, sister or grandmother suffering unnecessarily due to the lack of adequate restroom facilities.
BUT…
For some strange reason I believe that the actual causes of most if not all of this perceived “Women’s Restroom Inequity” are the women themselves, and adding additional porcelain isn’t going to go very far toward alleviating the problem.
SO…
On behalf of men everywhere I would like to ask this question of Women:
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING IN THE BATHROOM THAT COULD POSSIBLY TAKE SO LONG?
Ok, don’t answer that question in too much detail—but with all due respect, here is my proposed solution to the problem, and it doesn’t involve passing laws, opening the wallets of building owners, or adding any additional toilets.
Ladies, the next time you have to go to the restroom to answer the call of nature (the only reason REAL men go to the restroom,) try taking these steps:
1. Walk quickly and calmly through the door to the bathroom
2. Ignore the mirror
3. Walk to the stall
4. Finish your business with authority and diligence
5. Quickly view your face and hair in the mirror as you wash and dry your hands, then get the heck out of the bathroom, avoiding eye contact and soul searching conversations with anyone else that might happen to coincidentally be visiting the facilities at the same time (after all, there’s probably a Starbucks or Chick Fillet outside around the corner if you need to have a chat and catch up with your sorority sister’s life story.)
See, that wouldn't be so hard to do, you know?
I’m open to criticism, so tell me if I’m mistaken or overlooking something here on this issue. I mean, what can possibly be so darned difficult about going to the restroom and finishing your business in a quick and efficient manner?
If the truth was actually told, is suspect that 90% of the time the reason that there is a line to the Women’s Restroom at places like bars, theaters, and concert halls is because the rooms are full of girls chit-chatting while vainly and unnecessarily screwing around with their hair and makeup. Am I wrong?
If so, why don't they just leave the number of stalls alone and make the building owners hire a couple of "meter maids" to monitor bathroom loitering. Or maybe they could install timers on the doors of the Women's Restroom--sorta like parking meters--and charge by the minute with the first five minutes being free and each additional minute costing a dollar or so?
I think that I'm on to something here, Guys.
And by the way, I have one more suggestion:
Ladies, the next time you pass through the restroom (diligently following steps 1 through 6 outlined above), observe the behavior of the other women using the facility and politely encourage them to “get the heck out” when you see restroom clogging behavior.
And finally, I have to fall back on my favorite old standard canard…
No where in the US Constitution do I see any words that say that American's have the God given right to “life, liberty, and a short line to the restroom.”
Restrooms in privately owned buildings are not now and should not in the future become the governments’ business.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
And The Beat Goes On
(More America Bashing)
It seems to me that some people living here in the US just can’t stand playing for a winning team. I don’t know if the psychosis is genetic or environmental (heavy on the “mental”) in origin, but no matter how much success they enjoy personally and regardless of what the US actually accomplishes on the world stage, they just can’t resist the urge to run around publicly wringing their hands and apologizing for the US being the benevolent world superpower that we are.
With this concept in mind, I present to you this morning Ms. Indra Nooyi.
Ms. Nooyi is the President and Chief Financial Officer for Pepsico, maker of Pepsi Cola and zillions of other consumer food products.
Ms. Nooyi is a native of India, but as they used to say on Saturday Night Live, “America have been belly belly good to her” as evidenced by her Master’s Degree in Public and Private management from the Yale School of Management. She also serves on the Yale Board of Directors.
Looking at her credentials, this woman is way above average academically, as evidenced by the undergrad degrees in chemistry, physics, and math, as well as Masters in Finance and Marketing earned in India before immigrating to the US to attend Yale. A really sharp cookie…
So what would make someone with all of this obvious intelligence deliver the kind of speech that Ms. Nooyi delivered this week at the graduation ceremonies for Columbia University MBA’s? Here is part of what she said…
“This evening, graduates, I want to share a few thoughts about a topic that should be near and dear to your hearts: the world of global business. But, I’m going to present this topic in a way that you probably haven’t considered before. I’m going to take a look at how The United States is often perceived in global business, what causes this perception, and what we can do about it. To help me, I’m going to make use of a model.
To begin, I’d like you to consider your hand. That’s right…your hand.
Other than the fact that mine desperately need a manicure, it’s a pretty typical hand…
As I grew up and started to study geography, I remember being told that the five fingers can be thought of as the five major continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. Now, let me issue a profound apology to both Australia and Antarctica. I bear neither of these continents any ill will. It’s just that we humans have only five fingers on each hand, so my analogy doesn’t work with seven continents.
Clearly, the point of my story is more important than geographical accuracy!
First, let’s consider our little finger. Think of this finger as Africa. Africa is the little finger not because of Africa’s size, but because of its place on the world’s stage. From an economic standpoint, Africa has yet to catch up with here sister continents. And yet, when our little finger hurts, it affect the whole hand.
Our thumb is Asia: strong, powerful, and ready to assert herself as a major player on the world’s economic stage.
Our index, or pointer finger, is Europe. Europe is the cradle of democracy and pointed the way for Western civilization and the laws we use in conducting global business.
The ring finger is South America, including Latin America. Is this appropriate, or what? The ring finger symbolizes love and commitment to another person. Both Latin and South America are hot, passionate, and filled with the sensuous beats of the mambo, samba, and tango: three dances that—if done right—can almost guarantee you and your partner will be buying furniture together.
This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and , in particular, The United States. As the longest of the fingers, it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the had performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.
However, if used inappropriately—just like the U.S. itself—the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I’m talking about. In fact, I suspect you’re hoping that I’ll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I’m not looking for volunteers to model.
Discretion being the better part of valor…I think I’ll pass.
What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S.—the long middle finger—must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand…not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S.—the middle finger—sticks out so much, we send the wrong message unintentionally.
Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as part of the hand—giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers—but, instead, scratching our nose and sending a far different signal”
Can you imagine having spent $100,000 and two years working on an MBA, having your parents and friends travel to your university to attend graduation, and being bashed over the head for being an “ugly American” by a prosperous foreigner living safely within the borders of OUR country?
WHAT TOTAL CRAP. Ms. Nooyi is certainly entitled to her opinions, but her message is COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE at a college graduation ceremony.
Pepsico at first refused to release the transcript of the speech, but finally relented this week at the request of Powerline Blog. Ms. Nooyi has also issued a PR Statement on the Pepsico Web Site trying to backtrack from and qualify her position.
I have a suggestion for Ms. Nooyi:
I suggest, if it really concerns her about the way that America is perceived by Europe and the rest of the world, that she pack her belonging, go outside, stand beside the nearest highway, extend the thumb on her right hand vertically, and hitch-hike her sorry Indian butt back to the Asian continent where she belongs.
That should solve her problem quite efficiently...
It seems to me that some people living here in the US just can’t stand playing for a winning team. I don’t know if the psychosis is genetic or environmental (heavy on the “mental”) in origin, but no matter how much success they enjoy personally and regardless of what the US actually accomplishes on the world stage, they just can’t resist the urge to run around publicly wringing their hands and apologizing for the US being the benevolent world superpower that we are.
With this concept in mind, I present to you this morning Ms. Indra Nooyi.
Ms. Nooyi is the President and Chief Financial Officer for Pepsico, maker of Pepsi Cola and zillions of other consumer food products.
Ms. Nooyi is a native of India, but as they used to say on Saturday Night Live, “America have been belly belly good to her” as evidenced by her Master’s Degree in Public and Private management from the Yale School of Management. She also serves on the Yale Board of Directors.
Looking at her credentials, this woman is way above average academically, as evidenced by the undergrad degrees in chemistry, physics, and math, as well as Masters in Finance and Marketing earned in India before immigrating to the US to attend Yale. A really sharp cookie…
So what would make someone with all of this obvious intelligence deliver the kind of speech that Ms. Nooyi delivered this week at the graduation ceremonies for Columbia University MBA’s? Here is part of what she said…
“This evening, graduates, I want to share a few thoughts about a topic that should be near and dear to your hearts: the world of global business. But, I’m going to present this topic in a way that you probably haven’t considered before. I’m going to take a look at how The United States is often perceived in global business, what causes this perception, and what we can do about it. To help me, I’m going to make use of a model.
To begin, I’d like you to consider your hand. That’s right…your hand.
Other than the fact that mine desperately need a manicure, it’s a pretty typical hand…
As I grew up and started to study geography, I remember being told that the five fingers can be thought of as the five major continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. Now, let me issue a profound apology to both Australia and Antarctica. I bear neither of these continents any ill will. It’s just that we humans have only five fingers on each hand, so my analogy doesn’t work with seven continents.
Clearly, the point of my story is more important than geographical accuracy!
First, let’s consider our little finger. Think of this finger as Africa. Africa is the little finger not because of Africa’s size, but because of its place on the world’s stage. From an economic standpoint, Africa has yet to catch up with here sister continents. And yet, when our little finger hurts, it affect the whole hand.
Our thumb is Asia: strong, powerful, and ready to assert herself as a major player on the world’s economic stage.
Our index, or pointer finger, is Europe. Europe is the cradle of democracy and pointed the way for Western civilization and the laws we use in conducting global business.
The ring finger is South America, including Latin America. Is this appropriate, or what? The ring finger symbolizes love and commitment to another person. Both Latin and South America are hot, passionate, and filled with the sensuous beats of the mambo, samba, and tango: three dances that—if done right—can almost guarantee you and your partner will be buying furniture together.
This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and , in particular, The United States. As the longest of the fingers, it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the had performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.
However, if used inappropriately—just like the U.S. itself—the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I’m talking about. In fact, I suspect you’re hoping that I’ll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I’m not looking for volunteers to model.
Discretion being the better part of valor…I think I’ll pass.
What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S.—the long middle finger—must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand…not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S.—the middle finger—sticks out so much, we send the wrong message unintentionally.
Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as part of the hand—giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers—but, instead, scratching our nose and sending a far different signal”
Can you imagine having spent $100,000 and two years working on an MBA, having your parents and friends travel to your university to attend graduation, and being bashed over the head for being an “ugly American” by a prosperous foreigner living safely within the borders of OUR country?
WHAT TOTAL CRAP. Ms. Nooyi is certainly entitled to her opinions, but her message is COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE at a college graduation ceremony.
Pepsico at first refused to release the transcript of the speech, but finally relented this week at the request of Powerline Blog. Ms. Nooyi has also issued a PR Statement on the Pepsico Web Site trying to backtrack from and qualify her position.
I have a suggestion for Ms. Nooyi:
I suggest, if it really concerns her about the way that America is perceived by Europe and the rest of the world, that she pack her belonging, go outside, stand beside the nearest highway, extend the thumb on her right hand vertically, and hitch-hike her sorry Indian butt back to the Asian continent where she belongs.
That should solve her problem quite efficiently...
Friday, May 20, 2005
One Less Thing To Worry About--Part II
I don't eat that many hot dogs, but it has always puzzled me why the number of dogs never matched the number of buns that you buy in a package.
Well, that's not supposed to be a problem any longer as some bun manufacturers have agreed to start putting eight buns in a pack to match the one pound eight-packs of weiners.
I know I'll sleep better tonight--why can't the issue of appointing federal judges be solved equally easily? After all, we know that the Senate is nothing but a bunch of big old weiners...
Well, that's not supposed to be a problem any longer as some bun manufacturers have agreed to start putting eight buns in a pack to match the one pound eight-packs of weiners.
I know I'll sleep better tonight--why can't the issue of appointing federal judges be solved equally easily? After all, we know that the Senate is nothing but a bunch of big old weiners...
Liar Liar Pants on Fire
"We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there."
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT)-1975
OK, it’s time for me to wade in on the Senate filibuster issue and the so-called "nuclear option."
I’ve kept my mouth pretty much closed and my keyboard directed toward other issues until now because I didn’t have much to add, but after spending a good deal of time researching the issue I feel competent to wade in and tell you what you need to know (that is, assuming that you already haven’t made up your mind on a partisan basis.)
I’ll start out by cutting to the chase…ever heard of a play by a guy named Shakespheare called “Much Ado About Nothing?” Can you guess where this discussion is going?
Ok, now that we are on the same page, let’s look at some details.
My first reference for your review is to point out what is said about the Senate in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
Each House [meaning the House of Representatives and the Senate] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
So Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 says that the Senate may “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” In my opinion, this makes the rest of the arguments against the “nuclear option” moot, but I’ll humor everybody on both sides of the political spectrum by offering additional information.
Also notice that Article II, Section 2, Cause 2 specifically requires Advice and Consent of the Senate by two-thirds concurrence on Treaties, but that it does not make the two-thirds requirement on “Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States…”
On a historical note (as opposed to the hysterical note utilized by the media, the Republicans, and the Democrats,) the Senate does not actually have a 200+ year history (it varies between 200 and 214 years, depending on whether you watch CNN or FOX News) of having rules regarding the filibuster. According to the US Senate Website, the filibuster tactic only saw limited unofficial use in the early 1800’s, and ending debate by “cloture” only become an “official rule” in 1917 (Senate Rule 22). By the way, the original Rule 22 required 67 votes to end debate, but it was changed by …guess who?
The Democrats, that’s who…
“In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional."
Before the current Senate argument and media uproar, a proposal to end ALL filibusters on all Senate business was “introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure."
That measure failed because even the Democrats realized that it was wrong. But changing the rules is still a possibility today, and IT IS A LEGAL ALTERNATIVE.
If changed, the appointment of judges will not be the only issues in which filibusters are forbidden:
“Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well. In fact, there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster. For example:
You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).
You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).
And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.”
In spite of all the screeching heard from Democrats and Republicans in the media and by media “talking heads,” I say that this story to date has been portrayed in an intellectually dishonest manner. The fact is that the Republican party can leglly change the Senate rules to end Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial appointments. They have to be prepared to deal with the consequences if and when the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.
It is also clear that either a) the media is horribly uninformed or misinformed about the issue or, b) the media is doing their normal biased protrayal of the issue to support their own adgenda.
Rather than tendering partisan sound bites and fanning the flames, wouldn’t it be nice if your newspapers and TV news shows did what I just did and actually explained this issue to you in detail?
Don't you agree that when it is all said and done, what we have here is…
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Next question?
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT)-1975
OK, it’s time for me to wade in on the Senate filibuster issue and the so-called "nuclear option."
I’ve kept my mouth pretty much closed and my keyboard directed toward other issues until now because I didn’t have much to add, but after spending a good deal of time researching the issue I feel competent to wade in and tell you what you need to know (that is, assuming that you already haven’t made up your mind on a partisan basis.)
I’ll start out by cutting to the chase…ever heard of a play by a guy named Shakespheare called “Much Ado About Nothing?” Can you guess where this discussion is going?
Ok, now that we are on the same page, let’s look at some details.
My first reference for your review is to point out what is said about the Senate in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
Each House [meaning the House of Representatives and the Senate] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
So Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 says that the Senate may “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” In my opinion, this makes the rest of the arguments against the “nuclear option” moot, but I’ll humor everybody on both sides of the political spectrum by offering additional information.
Also notice that Article II, Section 2, Cause 2 specifically requires Advice and Consent of the Senate by two-thirds concurrence on Treaties, but that it does not make the two-thirds requirement on “Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States…”
On a historical note (as opposed to the hysterical note utilized by the media, the Republicans, and the Democrats,) the Senate does not actually have a 200+ year history (it varies between 200 and 214 years, depending on whether you watch CNN or FOX News) of having rules regarding the filibuster. According to the US Senate Website, the filibuster tactic only saw limited unofficial use in the early 1800’s, and ending debate by “cloture” only become an “official rule” in 1917 (Senate Rule 22). By the way, the original Rule 22 required 67 votes to end debate, but it was changed by …guess who?
The Democrats, that’s who…
“In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional."
Before the current Senate argument and media uproar, a proposal to end ALL filibusters on all Senate business was “introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure."
That measure failed because even the Democrats realized that it was wrong. But changing the rules is still a possibility today, and IT IS A LEGAL ALTERNATIVE.
If changed, the appointment of judges will not be the only issues in which filibusters are forbidden:
“Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well. In fact, there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster. For example:
You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).
You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).
And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.”
In spite of all the screeching heard from Democrats and Republicans in the media and by media “talking heads,” I say that this story to date has been portrayed in an intellectually dishonest manner. The fact is that the Republican party can leglly change the Senate rules to end Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial appointments. They have to be prepared to deal with the consequences if and when the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.
It is also clear that either a) the media is horribly uninformed or misinformed about the issue or, b) the media is doing their normal biased protrayal of the issue to support their own adgenda.
Rather than tendering partisan sound bites and fanning the flames, wouldn’t it be nice if your newspapers and TV news shows did what I just did and actually explained this issue to you in detail?
Don't you agree that when it is all said and done, what we have here is…
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Next question?
Bordering Insanity
I just walked back into the room this morning while FOX News was broadcasting a story about people bitching about the new rules requiring US citizens to use a Passport to exit and re-enter Canada. The change will also affect travel to Mexico and the Caribbean that historically only required a birth certificate and a driver’s license or other form of picture ID. Been there and done that myself without a passport, but…
Canadian officials are telling us that the US is going to lose a bunch of money as a result of the change. The leftists and other bleeding hearts are lamenting the injustice of requiring something as simple as POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION to enter and exit our country.
And of course their reason is the $97 COST of a passport….
OH THE HUMANITY.
I have a message for all of the detractors of our border security efforts:
A. If you are already inside our borders and don’t like the new rules—get the hell out. YES YOU…YOU there, grumbling under your breath. Swim to Cuba, ski to Canada, flee to Mexico, surrender to France, or goose-step off to Germany and apply for residency there, because we don’t want and need your stupid asses here any way.
B. If you are on the outside of our borders and want in, but you don’t want to supply documentation to get a passport and visa—stay the hell out of my country.
It’s just that simple.
Canadian officials are telling us that the US is going to lose a bunch of money as a result of the change. The leftists and other bleeding hearts are lamenting the injustice of requiring something as simple as POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION to enter and exit our country.
And of course their reason is the $97 COST of a passport….
OH THE HUMANITY.
I have a message for all of the detractors of our border security efforts:
A. If you are already inside our borders and don’t like the new rules—get the hell out. YES YOU…YOU there, grumbling under your breath. Swim to Cuba, ski to Canada, flee to Mexico, surrender to France, or goose-step off to Germany and apply for residency there, because we don’t want and need your stupid asses here any way.
B. If you are on the outside of our borders and want in, but you don’t want to supply documentation to get a passport and visa—stay the hell out of my country.
It’s just that simple.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Baby Birds
A pair of Cardinals have built a nest downstairs under our kitchen window over the past few weeks. Our 84 year old neighbor, Mr. Harland "Bucky" Strader, acts like a proud grandpa since they now have two chicks.
Here's a couple of pictures of the grandchildren:
Here's a couple of pictures of the grandchildren:
Outrage and Silence
I read the New York Times online almost every day. I particularly gravitate to the Op Ed pages to see what insanity their columnists and readers are spewing at the moment. Sometimes I can barely get through the first paragraph of a given story without cringing, and other times I just skip it entirely after reading the headline, particularly any writing by Paul Krugman.
“It is hard not to notice two contrasting stories that have run side by side during the past week. One is the story about the violent protests in the Muslim world triggered by a report in Newsweek (which the magazine has now retracted) that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo Bay desecrated a Koran by throwing it into a toilet. In Afghanistan alone, at least 16 people were killed and more than 100 wounded in anti-American rioting that has been linked to that report. I certainly hope that Newsweek story is incorrect, because it would be outrageous if U.S. interrogators behaved that way.
That said, though, in the same newspapers one can read the latest reports from Iraq, where Baathist and jihadist suicide bombers have killed 400 Iraqi Muslims in the past month - most of them Shiite and Kurdish civilians shopping in markets, walking in funerals, going to mosques or volunteering to join the police.
Yet these mass murders - this desecration and dismemberment of real Muslims by other Muslims - have not prompted a single protest march anywhere in the Muslim world. And I have not read of a single fatwa issued by any Muslim cleric outside Iraq condemning these indiscriminate mass murders of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds by these jihadist suicide bombers, many of whom, according to a Washington Post report, are coming from Saudi Arabia.”
I was thinking the same thing myself—where is the outrage in the Muslim world that could and should be directed at the “insurgents” and Jihadists? The Afghanis want to riot in front of TV cameras and maim and kill each other over unproven rumors that a couple of Koran’s might have been flushed down the toilet, but stand silent while Saudi suicide bombers drive into markets and police stations.
Echoing this sentiment, Irshad Manji wrote an Op Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times titled Being a Muslim himself, Irshad shed some interesting light on the same issue…
“So Newsweek has retracted its report about the defiling of Islam's holy book, the Koran, by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.
But it's too late. Muslims everywhere are questioning America's respect for all religions. Journalists are wondering what standards allowed the charge to be printed without proof. Foreign policy analysts are asking how the riots incited by the charge will affect the war on terrorism. Still, at least one more question needs to be asked: Even if the Koran was mistreated, are violent riots justified?
"What do you expect?" my critics will declare. "Abusing the Koran is like abusing basic human rights. If you're a good Muslim, your identity and dignity are bound up in revering the Koran. It's the literal word of God. Unsullied. Untouched. Unedited. Unlike the other holy books."
Sorry. That argument just doesn't wash. One can appreciate the Koran's inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.
For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.
Moreover, they collected the Koran's verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn't personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn't it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?
In asking this question, I'm neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life. I'm saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we're going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?
Many will insist that I'm undermining the dignity of Muslims by challenging a pillar of their identity. By urging my fellow Muslims to consider these questions, I'm showing faith in their capacity to be thoughtful and humane. I'm appealing to their heads rather than only their hearts. Ultimately, I'm fighting not Islam but the routinely low expectations of those who practice it.”
Mr. Manji makes a point that I hadn’t heard made publicly before, that many Muslims, like some fundamentalist Christians here in the US, actually believe that the Koran is the literal word of their God and should not be touched by non-believers.
This is so typical of a society and religion that relinquished their lead in science, technology, art, philosophy, and politicts nearly 2000 years ago. Their culture today is steeped in a rich history of racism, bigotry toward other Muslims (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) and repression of women, yet they want the US and other western countries to respect these same minorities that they kill and maim with impunity.
What a self-serving double standard.
Another thing that I’ve heard no one mention in all of the Newsweek “Korangate” uproar is this—who gave the Guantanamo detainees the Korans in the first place?
THE US SOLDIERS, THAT’S WHO.
(As a footnote, I’ve decided to start referring to the “Koran” using the proper English translation, rather than the pseudo politically correct spelling “Quran” as used in the Newsweek article.)
“It is hard not to notice two contrasting stories that have run side by side during the past week. One is the story about the violent protests in the Muslim world triggered by a report in Newsweek (which the magazine has now retracted) that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo Bay desecrated a Koran by throwing it into a toilet. In Afghanistan alone, at least 16 people were killed and more than 100 wounded in anti-American rioting that has been linked to that report. I certainly hope that Newsweek story is incorrect, because it would be outrageous if U.S. interrogators behaved that way.
That said, though, in the same newspapers one can read the latest reports from Iraq, where Baathist and jihadist suicide bombers have killed 400 Iraqi Muslims in the past month - most of them Shiite and Kurdish civilians shopping in markets, walking in funerals, going to mosques or volunteering to join the police.
Yet these mass murders - this desecration and dismemberment of real Muslims by other Muslims - have not prompted a single protest march anywhere in the Muslim world. And I have not read of a single fatwa issued by any Muslim cleric outside Iraq condemning these indiscriminate mass murders of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds by these jihadist suicide bombers, many of whom, according to a Washington Post report, are coming from Saudi Arabia.”
I was thinking the same thing myself—where is the outrage in the Muslim world that could and should be directed at the “insurgents” and Jihadists? The Afghanis want to riot in front of TV cameras and maim and kill each other over unproven rumors that a couple of Koran’s might have been flushed down the toilet, but stand silent while Saudi suicide bombers drive into markets and police stations.
Echoing this sentiment, Irshad Manji wrote an Op Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times titled Being a Muslim himself, Irshad shed some interesting light on the same issue…
“So Newsweek has retracted its report about the defiling of Islam's holy book, the Koran, by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.
But it's too late. Muslims everywhere are questioning America's respect for all religions. Journalists are wondering what standards allowed the charge to be printed without proof. Foreign policy analysts are asking how the riots incited by the charge will affect the war on terrorism. Still, at least one more question needs to be asked: Even if the Koran was mistreated, are violent riots justified?
"What do you expect?" my critics will declare. "Abusing the Koran is like abusing basic human rights. If you're a good Muslim, your identity and dignity are bound up in revering the Koran. It's the literal word of God. Unsullied. Untouched. Unedited. Unlike the other holy books."
Sorry. That argument just doesn't wash. One can appreciate the Koran's inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.
For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.
Moreover, they collected the Koran's verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn't personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn't it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?
In asking this question, I'm neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life. I'm saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we're going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?
Many will insist that I'm undermining the dignity of Muslims by challenging a pillar of their identity. By urging my fellow Muslims to consider these questions, I'm showing faith in their capacity to be thoughtful and humane. I'm appealing to their heads rather than only their hearts. Ultimately, I'm fighting not Islam but the routinely low expectations of those who practice it.”
Mr. Manji makes a point that I hadn’t heard made publicly before, that many Muslims, like some fundamentalist Christians here in the US, actually believe that the Koran is the literal word of their God and should not be touched by non-believers.
This is so typical of a society and religion that relinquished their lead in science, technology, art, philosophy, and politicts nearly 2000 years ago. Their culture today is steeped in a rich history of racism, bigotry toward other Muslims (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) and repression of women, yet they want the US and other western countries to respect these same minorities that they kill and maim with impunity.
What a self-serving double standard.
Another thing that I’ve heard no one mention in all of the Newsweek “Korangate” uproar is this—who gave the Guantanamo detainees the Korans in the first place?
THE US SOLDIERS, THAT’S WHO.
(As a footnote, I’ve decided to start referring to the “Koran” using the proper English translation, rather than the pseudo politically correct spelling “Quran” as used in the Newsweek article.)
Monday, May 16, 2005
I'm Really Tired Of This Crap--Part II
"But...we swear it’s true—we just can’t prove it…really...it is..."
After I wrote I’m Really Tired Of This Crap early this morning, we learned during the day that Newsweek was qualifying the apology they issued on the “Qurangate” scandal over allegations that US soldiers were flushing Islamic holy books down the toilet in Cuba.
All day today the people at Newsweek followed the Dan Rather and CBS “journalism model” by continuing to represent their story as probable—claiming that they just didn’t have the sources to back it up. They also tried to continue to cite their “anonymous” sources and ridiculously blame their Pentagon sources for failing to deny the veracity of the background information when given the chance before the article was published.
As I said earlier, it was a lose-lose proposition for the Pentagon to make a snap statement without having the time to look into the matter themselves.
It makes me want to know what kind of a miserable bunch of bumbling idiots and morons work at Newsweek? Did they actually go to college to learn how to do this kind of journalism?
If so, someone’s parents deserve a tuition refund, I think.
Finally, late today, Newsweek issued a belated statement retracting the story entirely. The only problem is, the rest of the world that doesn’t have a free press and media probably still believes that the story is true and that President Bush put pressure on Newsweek to make the retraction.
And of course all of the leftists, conspiracy theorists, and other “barking moonbats” will continue to have their eyes rolled back in their heads while they slobber and drool and spit and sputter about the atrocities committed by the evil US military.
I guaran-damn-tee you that at least a few US soldiers and possibly some additional citizens will be killed or injured as a direct result of Newsweek’s irresponsible journalism in this matter.
I say all the Newsweek readers should cancel their subscription and spend the savings on the lottery.
What do you think?
After I wrote I’m Really Tired Of This Crap early this morning, we learned during the day that Newsweek was qualifying the apology they issued on the “Qurangate” scandal over allegations that US soldiers were flushing Islamic holy books down the toilet in Cuba.
All day today the people at Newsweek followed the Dan Rather and CBS “journalism model” by continuing to represent their story as probable—claiming that they just didn’t have the sources to back it up. They also tried to continue to cite their “anonymous” sources and ridiculously blame their Pentagon sources for failing to deny the veracity of the background information when given the chance before the article was published.
As I said earlier, it was a lose-lose proposition for the Pentagon to make a snap statement without having the time to look into the matter themselves.
It makes me want to know what kind of a miserable bunch of bumbling idiots and morons work at Newsweek? Did they actually go to college to learn how to do this kind of journalism?
If so, someone’s parents deserve a tuition refund, I think.
Finally, late today, Newsweek issued a belated statement retracting the story entirely. The only problem is, the rest of the world that doesn’t have a free press and media probably still believes that the story is true and that President Bush put pressure on Newsweek to make the retraction.
And of course all of the leftists, conspiracy theorists, and other “barking moonbats” will continue to have their eyes rolled back in their heads while they slobber and drool and spit and sputter about the atrocities committed by the evil US military.
I guaran-damn-tee you that at least a few US soldiers and possibly some additional citizens will be killed or injured as a direct result of Newsweek’s irresponsible journalism in this matter.
I say all the Newsweek readers should cancel their subscription and spend the savings on the lottery.
What do you think?
How Stupid Do They Think That We Are?
As I mentioned earlier, I like to think about and talk intelligently about most things involving economics. I only have a very basic college level education in economics, but having owned my own business for over ten years and having been otherwise self- employed for most of the past fifteen years, I pretty well know "what is what" when it comes to the economics of income taxes and other employment taxes.
That’s why my head is spinning around again today, at thirty six hundred revolutions per minute, over this news story about Florida Democratic Representative Robert Wexler’s proposed solution to the “non-existant” Social Security crisis.
"WASHINGTON — Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, is poised to become the first congressional Democrat to offer a Social Security restructuring plan that does not include private investment accounts.
Wexler, whose district has the largest number of Social Security beneficiaries of any House Democrat, said Friday he plans to introduce a bill Tuesday that would impose a 6 percent surtax tax — evenly divided between employers and employees — on income above the current $90,000 threshold for the 12.4 percent payroll tax."
Oh, I'm so relieved...I only have to pay half of the new tax...well that's certainly OK with me and my banker.
See, here is a DEMOCRAT, a card carrying demagogue representing the political party that would have us believe that there is no (immediate) problem with the Social Security System, telling us that he wants to take another 6% from all of those "dirty rich people" that have "won life’s lottery" to pay for the non-existent shortfall in the retirement program for “working families.”
I just want to toss my cookies when I see such examples of brazen “class warfare” like this.
You do realize that not one single person is ever going to receive a level of social security retirement income payments that would justify taxing incomes at the $90K level. Once you reach about the $60K level of annual income, your social security benefits max out so they are already stealing from high level earners to finance other “less fortunate” retirees.
Let me tell you from long hard personal experience, if you earn more than$90,000 each year and you’re not a drug dealer or a prostitute, you deserve every damn penny you get because you are most likely at work more than you are at home and you probably spent more than sixteen years fooling around in government schools and at the local junior college.
And another thing: Does anyone out there actually believe that your employer pays half of your payroll taxes?
This concept is total, unmitigated, Bull Crap! You Got That?
Any cash that your employer pays in the form of “payroll taxes” is cash that your employer doesn’t have to pay you with. Here is how it works:
As an employer, when you decide to hire a new employee, you don’t just look at the “take home pay” you’re going to hand out on payday. Noooo, Sir…Mr. “Mean old Rich Business Owner” has to look at not only the cash the new employee is going to take home to their Mama or their "old Lady" every other Friday afternoon, but they also have to consider the cost of the “7.65% matching payroll taxes” and the other fringe benefits like insurance and paid holidays that go along with creating that new position.
See, it's really easy when I explain it like that. So just in case you didn’t already understand this concept, let me reiterate…
YOU PAY ALL OF THE WITHHOLDING TAX ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU JUST THINK THAT THE EMPLOYER PAYS HALF SINCE IT NEVER MAKES IT ONTO YOUR PAY STUB!
Understand?
That’s why my head is spinning around again today, at thirty six hundred revolutions per minute, over this news story about Florida Democratic Representative Robert Wexler’s proposed solution to the “non-existant” Social Security crisis.
"WASHINGTON — Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, is poised to become the first congressional Democrat to offer a Social Security restructuring plan that does not include private investment accounts.
Wexler, whose district has the largest number of Social Security beneficiaries of any House Democrat, said Friday he plans to introduce a bill Tuesday that would impose a 6 percent surtax tax — evenly divided between employers and employees — on income above the current $90,000 threshold for the 12.4 percent payroll tax."
Oh, I'm so relieved...I only have to pay half of the new tax...well that's certainly OK with me and my banker.
See, here is a DEMOCRAT, a card carrying demagogue representing the political party that would have us believe that there is no (immediate) problem with the Social Security System, telling us that he wants to take another 6% from all of those "dirty rich people" that have "won life’s lottery" to pay for the non-existent shortfall in the retirement program for “working families.”
I just want to toss my cookies when I see such examples of brazen “class warfare” like this.
You do realize that not one single person is ever going to receive a level of social security retirement income payments that would justify taxing incomes at the $90K level. Once you reach about the $60K level of annual income, your social security benefits max out so they are already stealing from high level earners to finance other “less fortunate” retirees.
Let me tell you from long hard personal experience, if you earn more than$90,000 each year and you’re not a drug dealer or a prostitute, you deserve every damn penny you get because you are most likely at work more than you are at home and you probably spent more than sixteen years fooling around in government schools and at the local junior college.
And another thing: Does anyone out there actually believe that your employer pays half of your payroll taxes?
This concept is total, unmitigated, Bull Crap! You Got That?
Any cash that your employer pays in the form of “payroll taxes” is cash that your employer doesn’t have to pay you with. Here is how it works:
As an employer, when you decide to hire a new employee, you don’t just look at the “take home pay” you’re going to hand out on payday. Noooo, Sir…Mr. “Mean old Rich Business Owner” has to look at not only the cash the new employee is going to take home to their Mama or their "old Lady" every other Friday afternoon, but they also have to consider the cost of the “7.65% matching payroll taxes” and the other fringe benefits like insurance and paid holidays that go along with creating that new position.
See, it's really easy when I explain it like that. So just in case you didn’t already understand this concept, let me reiterate…
YOU PAY ALL OF THE WITHHOLDING TAX ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU JUST THINK THAT THE EMPLOYER PAYS HALF SINCE IT NEVER MAKES IT ONTO YOUR PAY STUB!
Understand?
I'm Really Tired Of This Crap
(Breaking Things and Killing People—Part II)
”Newsweek Apologizes For Quran Story Errors” the headline reads today. You can read the entire story for yourself if you like—I think that their apology is pretty half assed, half hearted at best.
“NEW YORK - Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan…
In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before it published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.”
Once again a “respected” mainstream media publication has used a “knowledgeable” anonymous source to support their own anti-American, anti-military agenda—this time with disastrous results. Sixteen killed and over 100 injured. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of new “insurgents” have been motivated to attack our citizens and forces overseas.
I say that Newsweek’s apology is insincere and half hearted because they seem to want to point to the silence of the Defense Department officials on the matter as their justification for printing the story in the first place. What complete and total crap. Remember that one of CBS’s excuses for the airing the “Rathergate” story on President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was that spokesmen in the White House didn’t deny the veracity of the documents that were the basis of the allegations?
It’s like that old “when did you stop beating your wife” question. If the “officials” had responded in a negative manner, you know that the story would have been printed any way—it would just have included their denial and some words to the effect that the denial should be discounted because everyone knows that the military always lies to cover up their atrocities.
Why do people that have an anti-war agenda always have to resort to vilifying the individual solders? Do they honestly believe that the military is filled with perverts and masochists that have enlisted so that they can legally prosecute their horrible deeds? Or perhaps they believe that our military is capable of taking guys like Opie Taylor and Gomer Pyle and turning them into Hannibal Lecter during eight weeks of boot camp.
I, personally, am insulted by this type of thoughts and allegations. I spent two years in the Navy Reserve while I was at Georgia Tech in the 1970’s and I can tell you that we were never once told that when the going got tough we could act in any manner and do any thing that we pleased. The foundation of our training as potential officers in the Navy was that of discipline and obeying the command structure, as well as respect for the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.)
Under the UCMJ, you have somewhat fewer “rights” than the average citizen or dumb assed newspaper reporter has, and you are held to a higher standard of behavior. You do not want to screw up under the UCMJ unless you want to find yourself in a stinky metal military brig without TV and gymnasium privileges. Your last concern would be if the guards had placed the bible on top of the toilet in order to insult your religion.
The other thing that I wish that the leftist liberals, the media, and the other peaceniks would understand (but they apparently won’t) is that when you go to war, you are training and paying people to break things and kill people. The side that breaks the most things and kills enough people (but not necessarily the most people) to cause the other side to give up wins the war. History tells us that there has never been a single war fought without some casualties, both civilian and military.
Why do the media always act surprised and outraged at REALITY, yet refuse to accurately report it?
”Newsweek Apologizes For Quran Story Errors” the headline reads today. You can read the entire story for yourself if you like—I think that their apology is pretty half assed, half hearted at best.
“NEW YORK - Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan…
In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before it published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.”
Once again a “respected” mainstream media publication has used a “knowledgeable” anonymous source to support their own anti-American, anti-military agenda—this time with disastrous results. Sixteen killed and over 100 injured. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of new “insurgents” have been motivated to attack our citizens and forces overseas.
I say that Newsweek’s apology is insincere and half hearted because they seem to want to point to the silence of the Defense Department officials on the matter as their justification for printing the story in the first place. What complete and total crap. Remember that one of CBS’s excuses for the airing the “Rathergate” story on President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was that spokesmen in the White House didn’t deny the veracity of the documents that were the basis of the allegations?
It’s like that old “when did you stop beating your wife” question. If the “officials” had responded in a negative manner, you know that the story would have been printed any way—it would just have included their denial and some words to the effect that the denial should be discounted because everyone knows that the military always lies to cover up their atrocities.
Why do people that have an anti-war agenda always have to resort to vilifying the individual solders? Do they honestly believe that the military is filled with perverts and masochists that have enlisted so that they can legally prosecute their horrible deeds? Or perhaps they believe that our military is capable of taking guys like Opie Taylor and Gomer Pyle and turning them into Hannibal Lecter during eight weeks of boot camp.
I, personally, am insulted by this type of thoughts and allegations. I spent two years in the Navy Reserve while I was at Georgia Tech in the 1970’s and I can tell you that we were never once told that when the going got tough we could act in any manner and do any thing that we pleased. The foundation of our training as potential officers in the Navy was that of discipline and obeying the command structure, as well as respect for the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.)
Under the UCMJ, you have somewhat fewer “rights” than the average citizen or dumb assed newspaper reporter has, and you are held to a higher standard of behavior. You do not want to screw up under the UCMJ unless you want to find yourself in a stinky metal military brig without TV and gymnasium privileges. Your last concern would be if the guards had placed the bible on top of the toilet in order to insult your religion.
The other thing that I wish that the leftist liberals, the media, and the other peaceniks would understand (but they apparently won’t) is that when you go to war, you are training and paying people to break things and kill people. The side that breaks the most things and kills enough people (but not necessarily the most people) to cause the other side to give up wins the war. History tells us that there has never been a single war fought without some casualties, both civilian and military.
Why do the media always act surprised and outraged at REALITY, yet refuse to accurately report it?
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Sunday Sunrise
Here's what you missed on St. Simons Island this morning about 6:30 AM while you were lounging in bed...
Am I Smart, Or Really Really Dumb?
I only took two economics classes in college—Engineering Economics and Macro Economics. Both classes were required for graduation, but in retrospect I would have taken the classes on my own any way and I regret not taking more classes addressing economics issues.
Unlike many of my classmates, I devoured the textbooks, making A’s in both courses because I realized that the material they were teaching was good stuff—really useable “real world” information. The mathematics required was only basic algebra, but unfortunately the math was the stumbling block for the non-engineering students that were my classmates. That was really sad since most college level students should have mastered algebra concepts in high school (I took algebra in junior high.)
I believe that every US citizen should have to take a couple of economics classes in order to get your voter registration card. If this were the case, we would see a completely different outcome in elections at both a local and national basis. Almost every single issue, from oil prices, healthcare, taxation, retirement, public debt, and international trade, all have economic foundations that form the fundamental basis of what decisions and policies will produce a positive economic result.
Dozens of current news stories lament $50 oil prices and the US dependence on foreign oil, while others predict the impending doom and gloom scenario of the world actually running out of oil in the next one hundred years. I suggest that a basic understanding of economics provides me with insight that allows me to discount the doom and gloom scenarios presented by the hysterical “nay-sayers.”
You do realize that crude oil was virtually worthless until Henry Ford introduced the $1,000 Model T Ford in 1908. Before that time, crude oil was burned for heating and refined into products like kerosene, tars and paraffin for industrial use.
Before the introduction of the automobile, prices on horses, horseshoes, and saddles were the topics of public conversation and consternation. If your town didn’t have a blacksmith, you had to take the time to ride your horse to where the blacksmith was, thereby increasing the real cost of operating your vehicle (the horse.) If your town grew rapidly and the number of horses increased, your local blacksmith invariably raised the price of a set of horse shoes no matter what your mayor or congressman said or did.
Since that time, the worldwide explosion of automobiles burning gasoline, trucks burning diesel fuel, and aircraft burning kerosene, all produced from crude oil, has caused demand to meet or exceed supply. The present prices are exactly where the supply/demand equations taught in my economics class predicted they should be. The prices have virtually nothing directly to do with our government, other the slight added cost of taxes imposed at the state and federal level. That, and the regulatory influence that government has over new refinery capacity.
As compared to European gas prices, our US prices are still a bargain because of our refinery capacity and the relatively low levels of taxation as compared to European taxation. Imagine the outcry if our prices that of these foreign countries as of March 2005.
Unlike many of my classmates, I devoured the textbooks, making A’s in both courses because I realized that the material they were teaching was good stuff—really useable “real world” information. The mathematics required was only basic algebra, but unfortunately the math was the stumbling block for the non-engineering students that were my classmates. That was really sad since most college level students should have mastered algebra concepts in high school (I took algebra in junior high.)
I believe that every US citizen should have to take a couple of economics classes in order to get your voter registration card. If this were the case, we would see a completely different outcome in elections at both a local and national basis. Almost every single issue, from oil prices, healthcare, taxation, retirement, public debt, and international trade, all have economic foundations that form the fundamental basis of what decisions and policies will produce a positive economic result.
Dozens of current news stories lament $50 oil prices and the US dependence on foreign oil, while others predict the impending doom and gloom scenario of the world actually running out of oil in the next one hundred years. I suggest that a basic understanding of economics provides me with insight that allows me to discount the doom and gloom scenarios presented by the hysterical “nay-sayers.”
You do realize that crude oil was virtually worthless until Henry Ford introduced the $1,000 Model T Ford in 1908. Before that time, crude oil was burned for heating and refined into products like kerosene, tars and paraffin for industrial use.
Before the introduction of the automobile, prices on horses, horseshoes, and saddles were the topics of public conversation and consternation. If your town didn’t have a blacksmith, you had to take the time to ride your horse to where the blacksmith was, thereby increasing the real cost of operating your vehicle (the horse.) If your town grew rapidly and the number of horses increased, your local blacksmith invariably raised the price of a set of horse shoes no matter what your mayor or congressman said or did.
Since that time, the worldwide explosion of automobiles burning gasoline, trucks burning diesel fuel, and aircraft burning kerosene, all produced from crude oil, has caused demand to meet or exceed supply. The present prices are exactly where the supply/demand equations taught in my economics class predicted they should be. The prices have virtually nothing directly to do with our government, other the slight added cost of taxes imposed at the state and federal level. That, and the regulatory influence that government has over new refinery capacity.
As compared to European gas prices, our US prices are still a bargain because of our refinery capacity and the relatively low levels of taxation as compared to European taxation. Imagine the outcry if our prices that of these foreign countries as of March 2005.
| Nation | City | Price in USD Regular/Gallon |
| Netherlands | Amsterdam | $6.48 |
| Norway | Oslo | $6.27 |
| Italy | Milan | $5.96 |
| Denmark | Copenhagen | $5.93 |
| Belgium | Brussels | $5.91 |
| Sweden | Stockholm | $5.80 |
| United Kingdom | London | $5.79 |
| Germany | Frankfurt | $5.57 |
| France | Paris | $5.54 |
| Portugal | Lisbon | $5.35 |
| Hungary | Budapest | $4.94 |
| Luxembourg | $4.82 | |
| Croatia | Zagreb | $4.81 |
| Ireland | Dublin | $4.78 |
| Switzerland | Geneva | $4.74 |
| Spain | Madrid | $4.55 |
| Japan | Tokyo | $4.24 |
| Czech Republic | Prague | $4.19 |
| Romania | Bucharest | $4.09 |
| Andorra | $4.08 | |
| Estonia | Tallinn | $3.62 |
| Bulgaria | Sofia | $3.52 |
| Brazil | Brasilia | $3.12 |
| Cuba | Havana | $3.03 |
| Taiwan | Taipei | $2.84 |
| Lebanon | Beirut | $2.63 |
| South Africa | Johannesburg | $2.62 |
| Nicaragua | Managua | $2.61 |
| Panama | Panama City | $2.19 |
| Russia | Moscow | $2.10 |
| Puerto Rico | San Juan | $1.74 |
| Saudi Arabia | Riyadh | $0.91 |
| Kuwait | Kuwait City | $0.78 |
| Egypt | Cairo | $0.65 |
| Nigeria | Lagos | $0.38 |
| Venezuela | Caracas | $0.12 |
I don't know about you, but if GAS PRICES are all you have to worry about, looks like Caracas Venezuela is a good place to drive your SUV.
And since we have only had a "Petrolium Economy" for about 100 years, I'm certain that if gas prices rise high enough, things like cars powered by Hydrogen fuel cells will become technically and financially feasable. You might also see some cities in the south like Atlanta running public transportation (trains and busses) that go somewhere other than to the slums and the malls.
So which is it--Am I smart, or really really dumb--because I don't understand the hysteria?
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Unhealthy Health Care--Part II
I had been blogging for less than a month when I wrote Unhealthy Healthcare—Part I, addressing the Kerry/Edwards campaign's promise of low cost universal healthcare. It was sort of a “Hillarycare”, phase two.
The posting is a little long winded, but please click on the link and go read it in its entirety if you have the time. What I have to say will probably make you angry regardless of whether you are a liberal or a conservative, so feel free to let me have it in the comments.
The other day I heard a news story saying that there are not really nearly 45,000,000 uninsured Americans—a US Census Bureau statistic that politicians and “advocates” love to quote and the media loves to print in the headlines. It’s hard to actually measure numbers like this, but the real number is said to be closer to 27,000,000. One of the problems with the Census Bureau numbers is that they count you as uninsured for the entire year if you change jobs and have a two week lapse of coverage. What BS.
I have a little more to say today about government provided “universal healthcare.”
How the heck did Americans get the idea that everyone is supposed to have health insurance? Health care—yes. Health insurance, no. It was human nature (greed and stupidity), pandered to by the POLITICIANS like Lyndon Johnson, that got us in this mess with Medicare and Medicaid in the first place
When I was born back in the dark ages, my father’s meager health insurance policy didn’t cover childbirth. He went by the hospital admin office and paid them cash, in full, before my mother and I went home from the hospital. He owned my sorry butt, lock stock, barrel, future size thirteen feet, smart mouth, and all.
Our insurance back then didn’t cover basic check-ups, inoculations, or prescriptions either. If you got the sniffles, you went to the doctor, stopped by the pharmacy, wrote a check or paid cash at both locations, and went home and went to bed. It was just that simple. Insurance was fairly cheep because it only paid when something bad happed and you had to go to the hospital. That kind of insurance is available today for a relatively low cost, but most people want more from their insurance policy.
Today people complain about the cost of insurance, but they think that they should be allowed to run to the emergency room twice a month, smoke, drink heavily, have unprotected sex with total strangers, and squirt out two or three unplanned, illegitimate babies while only having to pay a $10 co-payment.
Can you believe that? Do you think like that yourself?
How can that actually be a financially viable business model for the insurance companies?
It isn't--and there is no health care fairy godmother flying around out there with a big chunk of cash with your name on it.
Health insurance cost money—money that someone is going to have to pay. If the insured individual doesn’t pay any or all of the cost, the insurer and healthcare provider isn’t going to give the services away, they are going to charge someone else for it. They want to charge ME for YOUR insurance and healthcare.
In the case of government provided insurance, this means that the burden of the cost will be shifted from at least the bottom 50% of the working population to the top 50%. If the Democrats have their way, it will probably be more like the bottom 60% or 70% will basically get a free ride and the top 30% to 40% will eat all of the costs.
This is basic class envy and warfare in its purist form.
And another thing that you should know about health insurance—the government wants you to think that its your employer’s or the government’s responsibility to supply it, thus they have historically made it difficult and/or expensive for individuals to acquire. Why should large businesses be allowed to write off the total cost of employee health plans, but until recently an individual or small business owner has to pay the cost of health insurance with after tax dollars?
I say that the federal government has made an intentional, concerted effort over the past forty years to see to it that people are not insured privately, so they can use the ensuing hysteria to justify enlarging existing programs like Medicare/Medicaid and pressure Congress and the public to institute new universal plans.
I’m not buying it. When you have your own private health insurance policy, you have ultimate job flexibility and the security of not being uninsured when you are unemployed.
I feel sorry for poor people and “working families” and perhaps I understand being forced to make a nominal contribution toward supporting their healthcare. After all, we’ve lived with Medicare and Medicaid for 40 years and it’s become a basic fact of life for most of us.
The people that really gripe my butt are the true middle to upper class families that are up to their ass in debt paying a mortgage on an oversize house, notes on three new cars, a bass boat, and two weeks of overseas vacations each year.
These people have everything but some reasonable cash savings and health and life insurance. They are healthy, so they think "what the heck-we'll gamble." Then they wait until they loose their job or their head falls off or their colon rots out and then they are on the news pleading for contributions from the public to pay for their medical bills and demanding that the government get in the health insurance business because no insurance company will write an insurance policy after you've been diagnosed as having terminal lung and liver cancer.
What total, ignorant, selfish, self serving bull crap.
And the government and the "advocates" go along with it because it supports their own agenda..."people are uninsured and dying and we gotta do something...quick, pass a law..."
I personally have spent three quarters of my life with health insurance coverage. Half of that time was spent with me paying for it out of my own pocket because I was self employed.
I am not insured at the moment, but I intend to buy insurance shortly and it isn’t going to be cheep. It will have fairly high deductibles. It will have co-pays, but it will have a $10,000,000 lifetime cap because I’m looking at the long term and I’m not trying to rely on the government to take care of me in my old age.
All you bleeding heart liberals can mail a check with my name on it to St. Simons to help me pay the costs….I’m waiting…
But I won’t hold my breath….
The posting is a little long winded, but please click on the link and go read it in its entirety if you have the time. What I have to say will probably make you angry regardless of whether you are a liberal or a conservative, so feel free to let me have it in the comments.
The other day I heard a news story saying that there are not really nearly 45,000,000 uninsured Americans—a US Census Bureau statistic that politicians and “advocates” love to quote and the media loves to print in the headlines. It’s hard to actually measure numbers like this, but the real number is said to be closer to 27,000,000. One of the problems with the Census Bureau numbers is that they count you as uninsured for the entire year if you change jobs and have a two week lapse of coverage. What BS.
I have a little more to say today about government provided “universal healthcare.”
How the heck did Americans get the idea that everyone is supposed to have health insurance? Health care—yes. Health insurance, no. It was human nature (greed and stupidity), pandered to by the POLITICIANS like Lyndon Johnson, that got us in this mess with Medicare and Medicaid in the first place
When I was born back in the dark ages, my father’s meager health insurance policy didn’t cover childbirth. He went by the hospital admin office and paid them cash, in full, before my mother and I went home from the hospital. He owned my sorry butt, lock stock, barrel, future size thirteen feet, smart mouth, and all.
Our insurance back then didn’t cover basic check-ups, inoculations, or prescriptions either. If you got the sniffles, you went to the doctor, stopped by the pharmacy, wrote a check or paid cash at both locations, and went home and went to bed. It was just that simple. Insurance was fairly cheep because it only paid when something bad happed and you had to go to the hospital. That kind of insurance is available today for a relatively low cost, but most people want more from their insurance policy.
Today people complain about the cost of insurance, but they think that they should be allowed to run to the emergency room twice a month, smoke, drink heavily, have unprotected sex with total strangers, and squirt out two or three unplanned, illegitimate babies while only having to pay a $10 co-payment.
Can you believe that? Do you think like that yourself?
How can that actually be a financially viable business model for the insurance companies?
It isn't--and there is no health care fairy godmother flying around out there with a big chunk of cash with your name on it.
Health insurance cost money—money that someone is going to have to pay. If the insured individual doesn’t pay any or all of the cost, the insurer and healthcare provider isn’t going to give the services away, they are going to charge someone else for it. They want to charge ME for YOUR insurance and healthcare.
In the case of government provided insurance, this means that the burden of the cost will be shifted from at least the bottom 50% of the working population to the top 50%. If the Democrats have their way, it will probably be more like the bottom 60% or 70% will basically get a free ride and the top 30% to 40% will eat all of the costs.
This is basic class envy and warfare in its purist form.
And another thing that you should know about health insurance—the government wants you to think that its your employer’s or the government’s responsibility to supply it, thus they have historically made it difficult and/or expensive for individuals to acquire. Why should large businesses be allowed to write off the total cost of employee health plans, but until recently an individual or small business owner has to pay the cost of health insurance with after tax dollars?
I say that the federal government has made an intentional, concerted effort over the past forty years to see to it that people are not insured privately, so they can use the ensuing hysteria to justify enlarging existing programs like Medicare/Medicaid and pressure Congress and the public to institute new universal plans.
I’m not buying it. When you have your own private health insurance policy, you have ultimate job flexibility and the security of not being uninsured when you are unemployed.
I feel sorry for poor people and “working families” and perhaps I understand being forced to make a nominal contribution toward supporting their healthcare. After all, we’ve lived with Medicare and Medicaid for 40 years and it’s become a basic fact of life for most of us.
The people that really gripe my butt are the true middle to upper class families that are up to their ass in debt paying a mortgage on an oversize house, notes on three new cars, a bass boat, and two weeks of overseas vacations each year.
These people have everything but some reasonable cash savings and health and life insurance. They are healthy, so they think "what the heck-we'll gamble." Then they wait until they loose their job or their head falls off or their colon rots out and then they are on the news pleading for contributions from the public to pay for their medical bills and demanding that the government get in the health insurance business because no insurance company will write an insurance policy after you've been diagnosed as having terminal lung and liver cancer.
What total, ignorant, selfish, self serving bull crap.
And the government and the "advocates" go along with it because it supports their own agenda..."people are uninsured and dying and we gotta do something...quick, pass a law..."
I personally have spent three quarters of my life with health insurance coverage. Half of that time was spent with me paying for it out of my own pocket because I was self employed.
I am not insured at the moment, but I intend to buy insurance shortly and it isn’t going to be cheep. It will have fairly high deductibles. It will have co-pays, but it will have a $10,000,000 lifetime cap because I’m looking at the long term and I’m not trying to rely on the government to take care of me in my old age.
All you bleeding heart liberals can mail a check with my name on it to St. Simons to help me pay the costs….I’m waiting…
But I won’t hold my breath….
Free State-Of-The Art Healthcare For All
Do we need it? Can our society afford it?
Look at this scenario with me…
Suppose that a young couple, John and Jane, both 25 years old, got married in May 1990. Their future together was bright as they were both young and healthy, both had college degrees and each had a good paying professional job.
They wanted to start a family, but first they intend for Jane to work for a few years since her “biological clock” still has plenty of time and wasn’t ticking too loudly yet. John wanted to start his own company, but first he needed to get some more experience in his profession and put away some money for the future.
After five years, both at the age of thirty, they decided to let Jane cut back to part time since she had become pregnant with their first child. John had also started his new consulting business in the basement of his home and was making a modest sum of extra income moonlighting. Jane helped out by answering the phone during the day and handling bookkeeping and doing paperwork.
After five more years (ten years of marriage,) Jane was the stay home mom of two little girls and John just quit his job after twelve years to concentrate on his consulting business. His income at first is less that what he and Jane could make when they both worked full time, but the income rapidly increases over the next few years—things are booming, and John was still planning for the future.
When John quit working for is employer, he made a conscious decision that they would be self insured up to a limit. Rather that buying classic health insurance, John bought “excess major medical insurance” with a $5000 annual deductable and a $10,000,000 lifetime cap.
John had a good reason for doing this. You see, the cost savings over traditional “full service” health insurance was substantial, and he elected to invest the savings he realized in a medical savings account in accordance with IRS rules. This means that John’s family would pay for much of the cost of the births of their future children (if they have any,) pay full price for doctor’s visits, and buy their own prescription drugs. The concept worked for Americans 35 years ago—certainly it would work for John.
John sure is a smart guy, isn’t he?
After five more years it’s now 2005. Things are still going well professionally, but a bombshell is dropped into the lives of Jane, John, and their two children.
Jane hears words that no one ever wants to hear from her doctor during a routine medical exam. Jane has breast cancer—a particularly fast growing invasive form.
But it’s not all bad news, because in the year that John and Jane got married, Genentech, began development of two new drugs-- Avastin and Herceptin—that are proving in clinical trials to be highly effective in fighting exactly the type of breast cancer that Jane has.
Now here is where my fictional story becomes a real life story…
“Nearly two years ago, Mary Vaughan was diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer that had invaded her skin and lymph nodes. Surgery was not an option, so Vaughan entered a research study testing a combination of two drugs that target cancer cells.
Today, her disease has all but disappeared. Vaughan, 56, is still on medication, but is strong enough to work as a nurse near her home in Santa Barbara, Calif. "Most people have no idea I'm sick," she said.
Because Vaughan is in a clinical trial, the cost of her treatment is heavily discounted. That's fortunate, because otherwise her drugs, Avastin and Herceptin, would cost her nearly $8,000 a month -- more than Vaughan says she can afford, even with her insurance.”
And of course there is obligatory complaining about the cost of the new drugs by “health care advocates.” Two years of the medication would have cost $192,000 had it not been for the discount. And of course the “health care advocates” are worrying about how to hand the drug out for free to anyone that needs it.
Let me ask you this question. What incentive exists for companies like Genentech to risk investing billions of dollars and FIFTEEN YEARS of research only to have the government and “health care advocates” demand that they give it away for free or at a reduced cost because some people are said to “NEED” it but can’t afford to PAY for it.
"One question hanging over the four-day gathering is captured by the title of a planned seminar: "Can Society Afford State-of-the-Art Cancer Care?" Scheduled speakers include an executive from Genentech Inc., maker of Avastin and Herceptin.
"These drugs are dramatically driving up the cost of caring for patients," said Leonard Saltz, a cancer specialist at Memorial-Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York. "We really haven't addressed the question of how much society is willing to pay for them." "
Now back to my story about John and Jane. John and Jane could afford to pay for the drug. John and Jane had planned ahead. John and Jane had savings and insurance. John and Jane didn’t rely on the government or a private employer to provide them with health insurance.
WHO SAYS THAT IT’S “SOCIETIES” JOB TO PAY FOR EVERY POSSIBLE HEALTH CARE TREATMENT EVER CONCEIVED BY MAN?
I know that you’re not supposed to place relative values on human life, but are you telling me that an illegal alien or a woman living on the street should be given state-of-the art medical care like these drugs, paid for by “society”?
Remember, “society” doesn’t work. Government doesn’t have a paying job like John and Jane did either.
Government holds a gun to its citizens heads and demands its “fair share” of their income, in the form of taxes. If you don’t pay your “fair share”, the government comes and takes your possessions and puts you in jail. You have no choice but to pay, one way or the other.
I sorry folks, but I say society has no obligation to afford healthcare for anyone. I say that charaties, churches, and foundations should be in the business of ensuring that our downtrodden and poor get anything other than the basic minimums already provided by our government.
Anything else is a slap in the face to all the John's and Jane's out there working hard and taking care of their own needs.
Why bother to work hard if "society" is going to do it for free...
Look at this scenario with me…
Suppose that a young couple, John and Jane, both 25 years old, got married in May 1990. Their future together was bright as they were both young and healthy, both had college degrees and each had a good paying professional job.
They wanted to start a family, but first they intend for Jane to work for a few years since her “biological clock” still has plenty of time and wasn’t ticking too loudly yet. John wanted to start his own company, but first he needed to get some more experience in his profession and put away some money for the future.
After five years, both at the age of thirty, they decided to let Jane cut back to part time since she had become pregnant with their first child. John had also started his new consulting business in the basement of his home and was making a modest sum of extra income moonlighting. Jane helped out by answering the phone during the day and handling bookkeeping and doing paperwork.
After five more years (ten years of marriage,) Jane was the stay home mom of two little girls and John just quit his job after twelve years to concentrate on his consulting business. His income at first is less that what he and Jane could make when they both worked full time, but the income rapidly increases over the next few years—things are booming, and John was still planning for the future.
When John quit working for is employer, he made a conscious decision that they would be self insured up to a limit. Rather that buying classic health insurance, John bought “excess major medical insurance” with a $5000 annual deductable and a $10,000,000 lifetime cap.
John had a good reason for doing this. You see, the cost savings over traditional “full service” health insurance was substantial, and he elected to invest the savings he realized in a medical savings account in accordance with IRS rules. This means that John’s family would pay for much of the cost of the births of their future children (if they have any,) pay full price for doctor’s visits, and buy their own prescription drugs. The concept worked for Americans 35 years ago—certainly it would work for John.
John sure is a smart guy, isn’t he?
After five more years it’s now 2005. Things are still going well professionally, but a bombshell is dropped into the lives of Jane, John, and their two children.
Jane hears words that no one ever wants to hear from her doctor during a routine medical exam. Jane has breast cancer—a particularly fast growing invasive form.
But it’s not all bad news, because in the year that John and Jane got married, Genentech, began development of two new drugs-- Avastin and Herceptin—that are proving in clinical trials to be highly effective in fighting exactly the type of breast cancer that Jane has.
Now here is where my fictional story becomes a real life story…
“Nearly two years ago, Mary Vaughan was diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer that had invaded her skin and lymph nodes. Surgery was not an option, so Vaughan entered a research study testing a combination of two drugs that target cancer cells.
Today, her disease has all but disappeared. Vaughan, 56, is still on medication, but is strong enough to work as a nurse near her home in Santa Barbara, Calif. "Most people have no idea I'm sick," she said.
Because Vaughan is in a clinical trial, the cost of her treatment is heavily discounted. That's fortunate, because otherwise her drugs, Avastin and Herceptin, would cost her nearly $8,000 a month -- more than Vaughan says she can afford, even with her insurance.”
And of course there is obligatory complaining about the cost of the new drugs by “health care advocates.” Two years of the medication would have cost $192,000 had it not been for the discount. And of course the “health care advocates” are worrying about how to hand the drug out for free to anyone that needs it.
Let me ask you this question. What incentive exists for companies like Genentech to risk investing billions of dollars and FIFTEEN YEARS of research only to have the government and “health care advocates” demand that they give it away for free or at a reduced cost because some people are said to “NEED” it but can’t afford to PAY for it.
"One question hanging over the four-day gathering is captured by the title of a planned seminar: "Can Society Afford State-of-the-Art Cancer Care?" Scheduled speakers include an executive from Genentech Inc., maker of Avastin and Herceptin.
"These drugs are dramatically driving up the cost of caring for patients," said Leonard Saltz, a cancer specialist at Memorial-Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York. "We really haven't addressed the question of how much society is willing to pay for them." "
Now back to my story about John and Jane. John and Jane could afford to pay for the drug. John and Jane had planned ahead. John and Jane had savings and insurance. John and Jane didn’t rely on the government or a private employer to provide them with health insurance.
WHO SAYS THAT IT’S “SOCIETIES” JOB TO PAY FOR EVERY POSSIBLE HEALTH CARE TREATMENT EVER CONCEIVED BY MAN?
I know that you’re not supposed to place relative values on human life, but are you telling me that an illegal alien or a woman living on the street should be given state-of-the art medical care like these drugs, paid for by “society”?
Remember, “society” doesn’t work. Government doesn’t have a paying job like John and Jane did either.
Government holds a gun to its citizens heads and demands its “fair share” of their income, in the form of taxes. If you don’t pay your “fair share”, the government comes and takes your possessions and puts you in jail. You have no choice but to pay, one way or the other.
I sorry folks, but I say society has no obligation to afford healthcare for anyone. I say that charaties, churches, and foundations should be in the business of ensuring that our downtrodden and poor get anything other than the basic minimums already provided by our government.
Anything else is a slap in the face to all the John's and Jane's out there working hard and taking care of their own needs.
Why bother to work hard if "society" is going to do it for free...
Friday, May 13, 2005
Insanity On The Border
I was having a hard time finding something worth writing about this morning, then I got my daily E-Mail from the Washington Times. For those of you that don’t know, many online editions of local and national newspapers provide free E-mail links to their news stories. I get a half dozen every day and it’s a great source of news.
One of today’s Washington Times stories is about US border patrol agents. If the story is true, some supervisors need to be fired.
“U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.
"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."
Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.””
So help me think through this process.
It’s been widely reported that our borders are basically undefended by the federal government. Millions of new illegals entering from Mexico every year—over eleven million total. This is because our politicians are too busy trying to get re-elected, arguing about judicial appointments, and funneling our hard earned tax dollars back to their favorite special interests and constituants.
As a result of the situation and in an effort to plug the holes in our porous boarder with Mexico, a group of private citizens, calling themselves The Minutemen, decided to spend the month of April defending a section of the border in Arizona—to the villification and ridicule of the leftists and “immigration activists.”
Their efforts appear to have worked.
Now high ranking employees of our Imperial Idiotic Federal Government are trying to undermine the efforts of our private citizens by telling their co-workers to not do their jobs?
For once I truly hope that this news story is incorrect.
If not, heads should roll...
One of today’s Washington Times stories is about US border patrol agents. If the story is true, some supervisors need to be fired.
“U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.
"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."
Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.””
So help me think through this process.
It’s been widely reported that our borders are basically undefended by the federal government. Millions of new illegals entering from Mexico every year—over eleven million total. This is because our politicians are too busy trying to get re-elected, arguing about judicial appointments, and funneling our hard earned tax dollars back to their favorite special interests and constituants.
As a result of the situation and in an effort to plug the holes in our porous boarder with Mexico, a group of private citizens, calling themselves The Minutemen, decided to spend the month of April defending a section of the border in Arizona—to the villification and ridicule of the leftists and “immigration activists.”
Their efforts appear to have worked.
Now high ranking employees of our Imperial Idiotic Federal Government are trying to undermine the efforts of our private citizens by telling their co-workers to not do their jobs?
For once I truly hope that this news story is incorrect.
If not, heads should roll...
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Forget Boycotting--Get the Heck Out
It seems that the "Hispanics" in Arizona are upset that the Arizona state legislature is passing some new laws designed to curb illegal immigration.
So what did the "immigrant advocacy group" leaders do? They called for all hispanics to boycott businesses and stay home from work yesterday. But the motel rooms were cleaned and the lawns were mowed and the roofs were installed on new houses in Arizona in spite of the "Boycot" 'cause no one listened...
"This is a test so people can see and feel the power we have and the actual stranglehold we have on the economy of this state," Elias Bermudez, executive director of Centro de Ayuda, an immigrant advocacy group in Phoenix, told reporters this week.
"We contribute to the greatness of this state and we should not be pushed around like we are."
"Although advertised extensively on Spanish-language radio and television stations, most community and civic leaders agreed that yesterday's boycott was a failure because many potential participants could not afford to lose a workday or business income."
Can you believe that they have the audacity to say that they have "a stranglehold" on the state's economy?
"State Rep. Russell Pearce, a Republican who has sponsored several bills targeting illegal aliens, said an economic boycott would not have much impact on the state.
"They're boycotting because we believe the law ought to stand for something; they're boycotting because we don't think you can come here illegally and get free stuff; they're boycotting because we think they ought to be citizens of the United States before they can vote," Mr. Pearce said.
"This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the law.
"You can't steal your way into this country and demand stuff in another language," he said..."
All I can say is, Amen brother
So what did the "immigrant advocacy group" leaders do? They called for all hispanics to boycott businesses and stay home from work yesterday. But the motel rooms were cleaned and the lawns were mowed and the roofs were installed on new houses in Arizona in spite of the "Boycot" 'cause no one listened...
"This is a test so people can see and feel the power we have and the actual stranglehold we have on the economy of this state," Elias Bermudez, executive director of Centro de Ayuda, an immigrant advocacy group in Phoenix, told reporters this week.
"We contribute to the greatness of this state and we should not be pushed around like we are."
"Although advertised extensively on Spanish-language radio and television stations, most community and civic leaders agreed that yesterday's boycott was a failure because many potential participants could not afford to lose a workday or business income."
Can you believe that they have the audacity to say that they have "a stranglehold" on the state's economy?
"State Rep. Russell Pearce, a Republican who has sponsored several bills targeting illegal aliens, said an economic boycott would not have much impact on the state.
"They're boycotting because we believe the law ought to stand for something; they're boycotting because we don't think you can come here illegally and get free stuff; they're boycotting because we think they ought to be citizens of the United States before they can vote," Mr. Pearce said.
"This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the law.
"You can't steal your way into this country and demand stuff in another language," he said..."
All I can say is, Amen brother
Blind Daycare?
I'm trying to not get started ranting about the insanity of some of the decisions made based on the Americans With Disabilities Act, but what do you think about the idea of a Colorado judge giving a blind Denver couple a daycare license.
"In his ruling, Norwood said the state could not deny the license based only on the couple's blindness, especially when the Hutchinsons have shown competence in caring for children.
He said the license would include restrictions the Hutchinsons would impose on themselves, including no children under 3, no more than four children at a time and no overnight stays."
So I wonder how they will tell if a kids diaper needs changing?
By taste or smell?
"In his ruling, Norwood said the state could not deny the license based only on the couple's blindness, especially when the Hutchinsons have shown competence in caring for children.
He said the license would include restrictions the Hutchinsons would impose on themselves, including no children under 3, no more than four children at a time and no overnight stays."
So I wonder how they will tell if a kids diaper needs changing?
By taste or smell?
Planes, Trains, And U-Haul Trucks
If you were to decide to worry about protecting yourself and your family from the threat of terrorism, what vehicle do you think would pose the greatest risk to your safety—planes, trains, or U-Haul trucks?
If you guessed that aircraft pose a greater risk than U-Hauls, you’d be wrong.
This issue forms the basis of my consternation over the government’s and general public’s obsession with “no-fly” zones and outright discrimination against the owners and pilots of general aviation aircraft.
You do remember that not one single Piper, Beachcraft, or Cessna was involved in the 9/11 attacks, don’t you?
I was watching FOX News yesterday when the initial reports came out of Washington DC detailing the evacuation of the White House and the Capitol building because of the approach of an inbound airplane. Although the whole situation was defused in a matter of minutes, it just further points out the difficulty of defending critical areas from the threat of light general aviation aircraft and I think that the actual level of threat needs to be totally reassessed.
In addition to Washington DC and Disney World, I just learned that the FAA continues to restrict all airspace within 3 miles and under three thousand feet of all "well attended events." Heck, they close down the whole state of Georgia to private pilots when the president visits Atlanta. You have no idea how hard it is to keep up with no fly zones when you already have so much to worry about when flying an airplane.
Everyone pictures F-16’s and F-18’s scrambling from Andrews Air Force base and running out to intercept the offending airplane and either shoot it down or else escort it back to some airfield so they can strip search the pilots. Certainly the fighters can handle the “shooting down” part of the exercise, but since a Cessna 152 cruises at about 110 MPH, about all that the F16/F18 fighters can do is scare the crap out of the Cessna pilots—the fighters stall at about that same speed the Cessna crusies at. That’s why they also scrambled a Blackhawk helicopter to do the actual escorting because it could fly slow enough to reasonably keep up with the Cessna during the diversion.
Here it the thing that you should really be worrying about rather than if a vehicle has wings or rubber tires—useful load capacity.
A single engine Cessna like most of us can afford to own or rent can only haul about 420 pounds. This means with one lard ass pilot like myself on board, you have less than two hundred pounds of capacity left over to carry little necessiary things like FUEL and luggage if your lucky enough to be staying over night. If you can fly a Piper Cherokee or Seminole your useful load is only increased to around 1000 pounds, thus you can haul more people and fuel and luggage.
Now let’s look at the U-Haul Super26 rental truck. It can legally haul 6430 pounds—probably more if you’re doing something illegal like delivering explosives to the oval office in the White House. Twelve times more than the Cessna 152.
And what is the requirement to get the Cessna out of the parking lot? A pilots license and the skill the fly it.
Getting the U-Haul out of the lot only requires a driver’s license and a $100 deposit. The last time I checked you didn’t even need a credit card to rent one.
So I ask you—what are you going to worry about as you go about your lovely day working or chasing your rug rats around the house?
I say that we start looking a little closer at who’s renting and driving delivery trucks rather than scrambling fighters and scaring the crap out of student pilots.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
This Is Just So Wrong
United Airlines is bailing out on their pension plans—with the Federal Government picking up the tab using our tax dollars.
“United Airlines, which is operating in bankruptcy protection, received court permission yesterday to terminate its four employee pension plans, setting off the largest pension default in the three decades that the government has guaranteed pensions.
The ruling by Judge Eugene R. Wedoff of Federal Bankruptcy Court came after a lengthy hearing in a crowded Chicago courtroom, near where United is based.
Despite pleas by union lawyers, Judge Wedoff sided with United, which had insisted that it could not emerge from bankruptcy protection with its pension plans in place.
The ruling releases United, a unit of the UAL Corporation, from $3.2 billion in pension obligations over the next five years. The federal agency that guarantees pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, will assume responsibility for the plans, which cover about 134,000 people.”
We should all be mad at Bush and Gore and Clinton and Regan and Carter and Nixon and Ford and every other politician, Democrat and Republican, for allowing our government to get involved in matters like this. They create the playing field, meddle in the process of the free market, then bail out the corporations when everything goes south.
I’m not saying that the retiree’s deserve to suffer and sweep French fries out of the floor at McDonalds under the Golden Arches in their “Golden years,” but we’re talking $3,200,000,000 here. That’s Billion with a “B.”
OUCH!
We should also be angry at the Unions and the mindless employees that are members of same. Don’t they remember an old airline called EASTERN that suffered the same fate in the late 1980’s?
When you actively participate in killing the company that you work for as these union employees are doing, I have a hard time having any sympathy for you.
“United Airlines, which is operating in bankruptcy protection, received court permission yesterday to terminate its four employee pension plans, setting off the largest pension default in the three decades that the government has guaranteed pensions.
The ruling by Judge Eugene R. Wedoff of Federal Bankruptcy Court came after a lengthy hearing in a crowded Chicago courtroom, near where United is based.
Despite pleas by union lawyers, Judge Wedoff sided with United, which had insisted that it could not emerge from bankruptcy protection with its pension plans in place.
The ruling releases United, a unit of the UAL Corporation, from $3.2 billion in pension obligations over the next five years. The federal agency that guarantees pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, will assume responsibility for the plans, which cover about 134,000 people.”
We should all be mad at Bush and Gore and Clinton and Regan and Carter and Nixon and Ford and every other politician, Democrat and Republican, for allowing our government to get involved in matters like this. They create the playing field, meddle in the process of the free market, then bail out the corporations when everything goes south.
I’m not saying that the retiree’s deserve to suffer and sweep French fries out of the floor at McDonalds under the Golden Arches in their “Golden years,” but we’re talking $3,200,000,000 here. That’s Billion with a “B.”
OUCH!
We should also be angry at the Unions and the mindless employees that are members of same. Don’t they remember an old airline called EASTERN that suffered the same fate in the late 1980’s?
When you actively participate in killing the company that you work for as these union employees are doing, I have a hard time having any sympathy for you.
Raising The Bar On Stupidity
If you read the newspaper and believe all the stories about dangerous or recalled toys out there today, you might also wonder how I managed to live past the age of twelve without the Consumer Product Safety Council there to protect my every move.
“Fisher-Price is recalling about 150,000 defective Grow-to-Pro Pogo Sticks and about 50,000 Lil' Wagster Dragster push toys because they pose an injury risk to children, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The CPSC says Fisher-Price has received 17 reports of injuries from the pogo sticks, including one of teeth being knocked out.”
Pogo Sticks and push toys are wrecking havoc??? Give me a break here, puuuuleaze. I guess that we need to hire every kid a lifetime lawyer to protect them, rather than raising them to employ a little common sense and develop some self defense skills.
We had things like Monkey Bars, BB guns, bow and arrow sets, gas powered model airplanes, and flying model rockets. By modern consumer standards is it not a miracle that I am alive today with ten fingers and ten toes attached? A pogo stick and push toys would have been a welcome safety improvement from the things we did in my neighborhood.
This list doesn’t even include things that I made up myself to play with—legally. Remember those “Junior Chemistry Sets” with real alcohol burning Bunsen burners and jars full of chemicals?
In case the FBI is reading this posting--I did not know that you could make black powder by combining sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal. I also didn’t know that you could take common “sparklers”—you know, those wire things made out of magnesium and phosphorus salts that you lit with a match that would burn happily at 2000 degrees F while toddlers ran around helter skelter waiving them over their heads—crush the material off of the wire, combine it in a small container covered with masking tape, light the homemade fuse, and run like hell as it exploded in a pyrotechnic display certain to burn holes in the back of your T-shirt from thirty feet away. Luckily I didn’t know how to do that.
Or there was the time I produced the flying coke can. I mounted a Cox .049 model airplane engine on the closed end of a common empty Coke can, cut the other end off of the can and folded four sharp aluminum “blades” outward on the modified can, started the motor, and tossed the flying meat cleaver into the air in the midst of three or four of my juvenile onlookers. This thing would roar around our front yard until it ran out of gas or crashed into a tree or the ground or hit one of the aforementioned bystanders.
Hypnotized with Sony Playstations and Gameboys, Kids today just don’t know how to have a truely safe, good time.
Now where are my lawn darts? I wanna go outside and play…
“Fisher-Price is recalling about 150,000 defective Grow-to-Pro Pogo Sticks and about 50,000 Lil' Wagster Dragster push toys because they pose an injury risk to children, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The CPSC says Fisher-Price has received 17 reports of injuries from the pogo sticks, including one of teeth being knocked out.”
Pogo Sticks and push toys are wrecking havoc??? Give me a break here, puuuuleaze. I guess that we need to hire every kid a lifetime lawyer to protect them, rather than raising them to employ a little common sense and develop some self defense skills.
We had things like Monkey Bars, BB guns, bow and arrow sets, gas powered model airplanes, and flying model rockets. By modern consumer standards is it not a miracle that I am alive today with ten fingers and ten toes attached? A pogo stick and push toys would have been a welcome safety improvement from the things we did in my neighborhood.
This list doesn’t even include things that I made up myself to play with—legally. Remember those “Junior Chemistry Sets” with real alcohol burning Bunsen burners and jars full of chemicals?
In case the FBI is reading this posting--I did not know that you could make black powder by combining sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal. I also didn’t know that you could take common “sparklers”—you know, those wire things made out of magnesium and phosphorus salts that you lit with a match that would burn happily at 2000 degrees F while toddlers ran around helter skelter waiving them over their heads—crush the material off of the wire, combine it in a small container covered with masking tape, light the homemade fuse, and run like hell as it exploded in a pyrotechnic display certain to burn holes in the back of your T-shirt from thirty feet away. Luckily I didn’t know how to do that.
Or there was the time I produced the flying coke can. I mounted a Cox .049 model airplane engine on the closed end of a common empty Coke can, cut the other end off of the can and folded four sharp aluminum “blades” outward on the modified can, started the motor, and tossed the flying meat cleaver into the air in the midst of three or four of my juvenile onlookers. This thing would roar around our front yard until it ran out of gas or crashed into a tree or the ground or hit one of the aforementioned bystanders.
Hypnotized with Sony Playstations and Gameboys, Kids today just don’t know how to have a truely safe, good time.
Now where are my lawn darts? I wanna go outside and play…
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Big Tires
My college roommate, Rusty, and I had the opportunity to work together on a number of projects after we got out of college back in the 1980’s and 1990’s before my air pollution control company went belly up.
Rusty worked for various consulting firms, ultimately starting his own successful show in the last few years. I supplied some crazy ductwork and smoke stack systems for customers he was writing specifications for. Did we ever have a good time back then working together.
In the late 1990's one of our customers was the French company Michelin, who was building a tire plant expansion in Lexington, South Carolina. They intended to make tires for heavy construction vehicles. One of their products, as I recall, was supposed to be the biggest tire in the world—16’ in diameter or some such thing.
Thats why this story caught my eye, talking about big tires for big trucks being in high demand now.
"CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Steve Walker was ready to sell four massive, 200-ton dump trucks, with price tags as high as $3 million, when the orders were canceled.
The buyer, a coal company planning to open a new mine site, was ready to buy. It just couldn't find the 12-foot-high tires to get the trucks rolling.
The mammoth tires, which can cost up to $30,000 apiece, are in short supply worldwide, leaving earth-moving industries, including coal, in a lurch. The shortage results from a rise in equipment orders, an increase in worldwide mining because of increased mineral prices and growth in China and other Asian countries.
Few manufacturers produce the giant tires, and those that do say they are working round-the-clock to improve efficiency and fill orders. At Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., company spokesman Dave Wilkins said every large tire produced through 2006 is already spoken for. Industrywide, demand is expected to outstrip supply until 2007."
So there you go, your stock tip of the day from yours truly…
Rusty worked for various consulting firms, ultimately starting his own successful show in the last few years. I supplied some crazy ductwork and smoke stack systems for customers he was writing specifications for. Did we ever have a good time back then working together.
In the late 1990's one of our customers was the French company Michelin, who was building a tire plant expansion in Lexington, South Carolina. They intended to make tires for heavy construction vehicles. One of their products, as I recall, was supposed to be the biggest tire in the world—16’ in diameter or some such thing.
Thats why this story caught my eye, talking about big tires for big trucks being in high demand now.
"CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Steve Walker was ready to sell four massive, 200-ton dump trucks, with price tags as high as $3 million, when the orders were canceled.
The buyer, a coal company planning to open a new mine site, was ready to buy. It just couldn't find the 12-foot-high tires to get the trucks rolling.
The mammoth tires, which can cost up to $30,000 apiece, are in short supply worldwide, leaving earth-moving industries, including coal, in a lurch. The shortage results from a rise in equipment orders, an increase in worldwide mining because of increased mineral prices and growth in China and other Asian countries.
Few manufacturers produce the giant tires, and those that do say they are working round-the-clock to improve efficiency and fill orders. At Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., company spokesman Dave Wilkins said every large tire produced through 2006 is already spoken for. Industrywide, demand is expected to outstrip supply until 2007."
So there you go, your stock tip of the day from yours truly…
Sunrise On St. Simons Island
I peeked out the front door of the condo a little after 6 AM this morning and was greeted by a really nice pink sky with a few clouds in the east—a preface to sunrise.
I know a good sunrise when I see one coming...
I’m always bragging about my Cannon G3 digital camera, so this morning I grabbed it and walked outside to see what images I could capture for "posterity.”
Here’s the result, looking east across the marsh as the sun rises over Sea Island...
Sunrise over Sea Island
Just wanted to let all of you land lubbers know what you are missing...
I know a good sunrise when I see one coming...
I’m always bragging about my Cannon G3 digital camera, so this morning I grabbed it and walked outside to see what images I could capture for "posterity.”
Here’s the result, looking east across the marsh as the sun rises over Sea Island...
Sunrise over Sea Island
Just wanted to let all of you land lubbers know what you are missing...
At Least This Didn't Happen In Alabama or Georgia
In a world full of stereotypes and prejudices, I just couldn’t resist pointing out this story about people getting hurt and killed in Michigan—riding “souped up” golf carts.
ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- Two souped-up golf carts collided as they sped down a rural road at night, killing a woman and badly injuring a man, authorities said Monday.
The occupants of the modified carts spent Saturday night riding trails. Shortly after midnight Sunday, one cart was being driven along the shoulder of a road when the driver of the other, Mathew Krimmel, tried to pass, said Ottawa County sheriff's Sgt. Steve Austin.
As Krimmel pulled ahead, the carts collided, causing Krimmel's vehicle to veer out of control and roll over, throwing the driver and two passengers.
Two men in the second cart were not injured.
Teresa Fergison, 42, died later in a hospital. Krimmel, 42, was listed in critical condition Monday. Diane Davis, 35, was treated for cuts and bruises and released.
Modified golf carts are popular for trail riding and can reach speeds of 40 mph or more.
The carts are not street-legal and deputies were investigating why they were being operated on the road about 20 miles west of Grand Rapids.
It was unclear how fast the vehicles were moving. Alcohol appeared to be a factor in the accident, which remains under investigation, Austin said
Well of course alcohol was probably involved…and Yankees poke fun of us southerners for racing riding lawn mowers. Heck, I bet they didn’t have a roll bar and weren’t wearing helmets (or baseball caps turned backwards.)
Remember that NASCAR was invented in the south and is slowly being stolen from us by the rest of the nation’s Johnny-come-lately NASCAR fans.
It’s just a matter of time until the Yankees try to steal lawn mower racing as well.
ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- Two souped-up golf carts collided as they sped down a rural road at night, killing a woman and badly injuring a man, authorities said Monday.
The occupants of the modified carts spent Saturday night riding trails. Shortly after midnight Sunday, one cart was being driven along the shoulder of a road when the driver of the other, Mathew Krimmel, tried to pass, said Ottawa County sheriff's Sgt. Steve Austin.
As Krimmel pulled ahead, the carts collided, causing Krimmel's vehicle to veer out of control and roll over, throwing the driver and two passengers.
Two men in the second cart were not injured.
Teresa Fergison, 42, died later in a hospital. Krimmel, 42, was listed in critical condition Monday. Diane Davis, 35, was treated for cuts and bruises and released.
Modified golf carts are popular for trail riding and can reach speeds of 40 mph or more.
The carts are not street-legal and deputies were investigating why they were being operated on the road about 20 miles west of Grand Rapids.
It was unclear how fast the vehicles were moving. Alcohol appeared to be a factor in the accident, which remains under investigation, Austin said
Well of course alcohol was probably involved…and Yankees poke fun of us southerners for racing riding lawn mowers. Heck, I bet they didn’t have a roll bar and weren’t wearing helmets (or baseball caps turned backwards.)
Remember that NASCAR was invented in the south and is slowly being stolen from us by the rest of the nation’s Johnny-come-lately NASCAR fans.
It’s just a matter of time until the Yankees try to steal lawn mower racing as well.
Racism In The NBA?
(say it isn’t so…)
I could really not give a rats ass about the National Basketball Association. In my opinion, their season starts way too early and ends way too late each year. How their fans endure so much boring basketball is beyond me.
I attended a few Atlanta Hawks games twenty odd years ago and the games, played by ten millionaires at a time, would put an insomniac to sleep. Give me the college basketball game any day. Costs half as much and has twice the excitement and action.
In a league populated largely by gigantic, sweaty, foul mouthed, overpaid black men, sportswriter Dan le Batard of the Miami Herald writes this article questioning racism as a factor in Canadian Steve Nash beating out Shaquille O’Neal for MVP of the National Basketball Association.
I did a little checking, and out of the past 24 NBA MVP’s, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousey, Dave Cowans, Bill Walton, Larry Bird, and now Steve Nash are the only white boys on the list.
So what is le Batard crying about any way?
Big deal. White men comprise one out of four MVP’s in a league that in modern times is at least 90% non-caucasion.
If the white guys outnumbered the black guys by this ratio, I bet Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would be screaming foul and demanding quotas and affirmative action programs.
Hey Shaq…get over it buddy…
I could really not give a rats ass about the National Basketball Association. In my opinion, their season starts way too early and ends way too late each year. How their fans endure so much boring basketball is beyond me.
I attended a few Atlanta Hawks games twenty odd years ago and the games, played by ten millionaires at a time, would put an insomniac to sleep. Give me the college basketball game any day. Costs half as much and has twice the excitement and action.
In a league populated largely by gigantic, sweaty, foul mouthed, overpaid black men, sportswriter Dan le Batard of the Miami Herald writes this article questioning racism as a factor in Canadian Steve Nash beating out Shaquille O’Neal for MVP of the National Basketball Association.
I did a little checking, and out of the past 24 NBA MVP’s, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousey, Dave Cowans, Bill Walton, Larry Bird, and now Steve Nash are the only white boys on the list.
So what is le Batard crying about any way?
Big deal. White men comprise one out of four MVP’s in a league that in modern times is at least 90% non-caucasion.
If the white guys outnumbered the black guys by this ratio, I bet Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would be screaming foul and demanding quotas and affirmative action programs.
Hey Shaq…get over it buddy…
Monday, May 09, 2005
NY Times Gets A Clue
“Times panel proposes steps to build credibility” the headline says. Somehow I’m not feeling encouraged…but I’m willing to listen. I'll give it the old college try...really I will.
So talk to me…
“In order to build readers' confidence, an internal committee at The New York Times has recommended taking a variety of steps, including having senior editors write more regularly about the workings of the paper, tracking errors in a systematic way and responding more assertively to the paper's critics.
The committee also recommended that the paper "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues. The 16-page report is to be made available today on the Times company's Web site, www.nytco.com.
The committee, which was charged last fall by Bill Keller, the executive editor, with examining how the paper could increase readers' trust, said there was "an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism."
As examples, the report cited limiting anonymous sources, reducing factual errors and making a clearer distinction between news and opinion. It also said The Times should make the paper's operations and decisions more transparent to readers through methods like making transcripts of interviews available on its Web site.
The report also said The Times should make it easier for readers to send e-mail to reporters and editors. "The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being," the report said."
OK, I have to try to respond in a positive manner because I think that they are on to something here...I have a few suggestions to further their goals...
What did they say??? Something about trying to "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues.
You're damn right when you say that the NY Times could "cover the county in a fuller way."
How about writing about regular Americans that describe themselves as religious as something other than drooling, inbred, snake handling morons incapable of putting five words together in a sentence to describe the sound the tornado made as it ravaged the trailer park.
How about writing about and describing regular, every day citizens that don't live on the slimy, shitty, smelly skanky streets of New York City as something other than ignorant county bumpkins and rubes.
How about not bashing us in the head every day with "diveristy issues" worrying about the plight of multi-racial babies born to absent fathers and crack-head prostitute mothers?
How about not offending our sensibilities with issues like "gay marriage" and intimate descriptions of where "Citizen A" chooses to to place his body parts into the body cavities of "Citizen B."
How about leaving something to the imagination of all of us unenlightened, closed minded, middle Americans rather than spending hundreds of inches of newsprint trying to explain to us the nuanced advantages of accepting "alternative lifestyles" in all of their gory, perverted f**king details.
Oh, sorry Mr. & Mrs. NY Times Editor, but you have a problem doing all that?
Well I guess you can just keep on watching your readership plummet and try to find a real job in the real world like the rest of us have to do.
YOU GOT THAT, MR. & MRS. NY TIMES OWNERS AND EDITORS?
So talk to me…
“In order to build readers' confidence, an internal committee at The New York Times has recommended taking a variety of steps, including having senior editors write more regularly about the workings of the paper, tracking errors in a systematic way and responding more assertively to the paper's critics.
The committee also recommended that the paper "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues. The 16-page report is to be made available today on the Times company's Web site, www.nytco.com.
The committee, which was charged last fall by Bill Keller, the executive editor, with examining how the paper could increase readers' trust, said there was "an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism."
As examples, the report cited limiting anonymous sources, reducing factual errors and making a clearer distinction between news and opinion. It also said The Times should make the paper's operations and decisions more transparent to readers through methods like making transcripts of interviews available on its Web site.
The report also said The Times should make it easier for readers to send e-mail to reporters and editors. "The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being," the report said."
OK, I have to try to respond in a positive manner because I think that they are on to something here...I have a few suggestions to further their goals...
What did they say??? Something about trying to "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues.
You're damn right when you say that the NY Times could "cover the county in a fuller way."
How about writing about regular Americans that describe themselves as religious as something other than drooling, inbred, snake handling morons incapable of putting five words together in a sentence to describe the sound the tornado made as it ravaged the trailer park.
How about writing about and describing regular, every day citizens that don't live on the slimy, shitty, smelly skanky streets of New York City as something other than ignorant county bumpkins and rubes.
How about not bashing us in the head every day with "diveristy issues" worrying about the plight of multi-racial babies born to absent fathers and crack-head prostitute mothers?
How about not offending our sensibilities with issues like "gay marriage" and intimate descriptions of where "Citizen A" chooses to to place his body parts into the body cavities of "Citizen B."
How about leaving something to the imagination of all of us unenlightened, closed minded, middle Americans rather than spending hundreds of inches of newsprint trying to explain to us the nuanced advantages of accepting "alternative lifestyles" in all of their gory, perverted f**king details.
Oh, sorry Mr. & Mrs. NY Times Editor, but you have a problem doing all that?
Well I guess you can just keep on watching your readership plummet and try to find a real job in the real world like the rest of us have to do.
YOU GOT THAT, MR. & MRS. NY TIMES OWNERS AND EDITORS?
Sunday, May 08, 2005
My Mom's Better Than Your Mom
Just in case you live in a cave I want to let you know...It’s Mother’s Day.
As I said earlier…Call your Mama today.
If it wasn’t for mothers, where would we all be? Moms worry about us—that’s their God given job.
If you’re cold, hungry, sick, tired, broke, lonely, sad, whatever--don’t blame your Mom, because if she had her way, you wouldn’t be where you are, and she probably told you not to go there in the first place.
My mom’s a treasure.
How many mom’s in their early seventies can handle being Queen of the local Red Hat Club, property manager of her seventy acre estate, grounds keeper of same, and grandma to the curtest little grandson in the entire southeastern United States?
HAPPY MOTHERS DAY…MOM!
As I said earlier…Call your Mama today.
If it wasn’t for mothers, where would we all be? Moms worry about us—that’s their God given job.
If you’re cold, hungry, sick, tired, broke, lonely, sad, whatever--don’t blame your Mom, because if she had her way, you wouldn’t be where you are, and she probably told you not to go there in the first place.
My mom’s a treasure.
How many mom’s in their early seventies can handle being Queen of the local Red Hat Club, property manager of her seventy acre estate, grounds keeper of same, and grandma to the curtest little grandson in the entire southeastern United States?
HAPPY MOTHERS DAY…MOM!
There Aught To Be A Law...
(All the laws we needed we got in the 10 Commandments)
Ever heard that saying? “There aught to be a law against blaa blaa blaa.” Of course you have.
It seems simple enough at first glance. There aught to be a law against this… There aught to be a law against that… Popular belief is that laws will save us all from the evils of society and our fellow man (and woman.) If you will take the time to read our Constitution and the Bill of Rights you might find out that our founding fathers had some different ideas about laws.
I agree, and say that we had all the laws we needed a long time ago; we just have a hard time remembering that we did. As a result of our attitudes and all of these new laws, the US prison population rose to over 2.1 million last year. There is one person in jail for every 138 citizens in our country. Most are incarcerated for low level drug offenses.
There was a time when I thought “there aught to be a law” myself.
Not any more. Why, you might ask?
Because passing a law, most of the time, doesn’t change the circumstances from which the problem or situation arose in the first place. We are a law passing culture and society today because passing laws gets votes for the “lawmakers” and makes the general public “feel good.” I feel good, don’t you? If you don’t feel good, we’ll just pass a few more laws and take care of what ails you.
For instance, take Jessica’s Law passed by the Florida legislature recently. The new law allows officials to hang them darned old child molesters up on a stake, clip off their gonads, and set them (the child molester and their clipped off gonads) on fire.
Not really…
Actually, the new law requires convicted “sex offenders,” in addition to registering their address with authorities, to wear a “monitoring device” once they are released from jail back into the community—for as long as thirty years.
I’m sorry folks, but this is total BS. This law, just like laws relating to “assault weapons” and “gun control” in general, has a serious defect.
The “Jessica’s Law” requires the willful compliance of the criminal in order to be successful.
Funny thing—real criminals don’t seem to care too much what the law says they ARE NOT supposed to do. Real criminals care even less about what the law says they ARE supposed to do. A pair of wire cutters is all that is between the “sexual predator” and his monitoring device. Unless he was a complete and total idiot, an aspiring sexual predator could cut the band holding his “monitoring device” on his person and run amuck in the community for weeks if not years before the authorities could apprehend his stupid ass living under a bridge or in a fleabag motel.
We don’t need a new law in this instance, we just need to enforce the existing laws we already have on the books and then impose prison sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime. Right?
Before Jessica Lunsford died, it was already against the law to MOLEST a child.
Before Jessica Lunsford died, it was already against the law to RAPE a child.
Before Jessica Lunsford died, it was already against the law to MURDER a child.
Passing a new law is just so much eye-wash designed to make the deceased person’s family members feel better and allow certain “special interest groups” like MADD and others justify their existence.
In spite of the current trend of removing The Ten Commandments from the lobbies of schools and courthouses, I say that all the laws we need are contained within that age old Biblical document.
Let me paraphrase The Ten Commandments for you here:
1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
Don’t worship any God you aren’t prepared to deal with in the end—Mercedes, Diamonds, and excess Cash come to mind.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Ditto for Commandment #1.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thou God in Vain.
Everyone thinks of swearing profanity, but what about false swearing an oath in court, Mr. Clinton?
4. Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy.
Looks like God was pro-Union…not to mention the idea of having a day off—union or non-union.
5. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
…least thy Father kickith thy arse and thy Mother starvith thy stomach…
6. Thou shalt not kill.
…a no brainer
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
…lest thy wife or girlfriend placeith thee on a stake beside the child molester and cutteth off thy gonads…
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Again…a no brainer…lest thee have the shitith kickith out of thee by those that ye stealith from…
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
…that depends on what the definition of “is”…is
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s."
…what about coveting thy neighbor’s wife’s ass??
Oh, come on...get your mind out of the gutter...
Back then your neighbors wife could have owned a donkey...
Ever heard that saying? “There aught to be a law against blaa blaa blaa.” Of course you have.
It seems simple enough at first glance. There aught to be a law against this… There aught to be a law against that… Popular belief is that laws will save us all from the evils of society and our fellow man (and woman.) If you will take the time to read our Constitution and the Bill of Rights you might find out that our founding fathers had some different ideas about laws.
I agree, and say that we had all the laws we needed a long time ago; we just have a hard time remembering that we did. As a result of our attitudes and all of these new laws, the US prison population rose to over 2.1 million last year. There is one person in jail for every 138 citizens in our country. Most are incarcerated for low level drug offenses.
There was a time when I thought “there aught to be a law” myself.
Not any more. Why, you might ask?
Because passing a law, most of the time, doesn’t change the circumstances from which the problem or situation arose in the first place. We are a law passing culture and society today because passing laws gets votes for the “lawmakers” and makes the general public “feel good.” I feel good, don’t you? If you don’t feel good, we’ll just pass a few more laws and take care of what ails you.
For instance, take Jessica’s Law passed by the Florida legislature recently. The new law allows officials to hang them darned old child molesters up on a stake, clip off their gonads, and set them (the child molester and their clipped off gonads) on fire.
Not really…
Actually, the new law requires convicted “sex offenders,” in addition to registering their address with authorities, to wear a “monitoring device” once they are released from jail back into the community—for as long as thirty years.
I’m sorry folks, but this is total BS. This law, just like laws relating to “assault weapons” and “gun control” in general, has a serious defect.
The “Jessica’s Law” requires the willful compliance of the criminal in order to be successful.
Funny thing—real criminals don’t seem to care too much what the law says they ARE NOT supposed to do. Real criminals care even less about what the law says they ARE supposed to do. A pair of wire cutters is all that is between the “sexual predator” and his monitoring device. Unless he was a complete and total idiot, an aspiring sexual predator could cut the band holding his “monitoring device” on his person and run amuck in the community for weeks if not years before the authorities could apprehend his stupid ass living under a bridge or in a fleabag motel.
We don’t need a new law in this instance, we just need to enforce the existing laws we already have on the books and then impose prison sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime. Right?
Before Jessica Lunsford died, it was already against the law to MOLEST a child.
Before Jessica Lunsford died, it was already against the law to RAPE a child.
Before Jessica Lunsford died, it was already against the law to MURDER a child.
Passing a new law is just so much eye-wash designed to make the deceased person’s family members feel better and allow certain “special interest groups” like MADD and others justify their existence.
In spite of the current trend of removing The Ten Commandments from the lobbies of schools and courthouses, I say that all the laws we need are contained within that age old Biblical document.
Let me paraphrase The Ten Commandments for you here:
1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
Don’t worship any God you aren’t prepared to deal with in the end—Mercedes, Diamonds, and excess Cash come to mind.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Ditto for Commandment #1.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thou God in Vain.
Everyone thinks of swearing profanity, but what about false swearing an oath in court, Mr. Clinton?
4. Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy.
Looks like God was pro-Union…not to mention the idea of having a day off—union or non-union.
5. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
…least thy Father kickith thy arse and thy Mother starvith thy stomach…
6. Thou shalt not kill.
…a no brainer
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
…lest thy wife or girlfriend placeith thee on a stake beside the child molester and cutteth off thy gonads…
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Again…a no brainer…lest thee have the shitith kickith out of thee by those that ye stealith from…
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
…that depends on what the definition of “is”…is
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s."
…what about coveting thy neighbor’s wife’s ass??
Oh, come on...get your mind out of the gutter...
Back then your neighbors wife could have owned a donkey...
