September 2004 Archives
What an awesome website. http://www.mybrokenleg.com/ I wish I had
found this last year.
if you want to know what it was like (as the anniversary of my leg
approaches), try http://www.mybrokenleg.com/tips.html (the "General"
section towards the bottom brings back the most vivid memories) :)
found this last year.
if you want to know what it was like (as the anniversary of my leg
approaches), try http://www.mybrokenleg.com/tips.html (the "General"
section towards the bottom brings back the most vivid memories) :)
This takes the cake. What was a joke is now reality. The Associated
Press has written up the summary of the debate hours before the debate
even occurred. Why don't the overlords just save us the trouble of
voting and tell us who is the next president?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1184.html
Press has written up the summary of the debate hours before the debate
even occurred. Why don't the overlords just save us the trouble of
voting and tell us who is the next president?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1184.html
This website is awesome, I check it daily.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
but, as the webmaster notes, polling itself is becoming irrelevant, due
to 1) cell phones, 2) overseas and absentee ballots, 3) paid pollsters,
and 4) "normalizing" based on "likely to vote" formulas that get less
and less likely each year. Almost all pollsters are using normalizing
numbers that didn't even match the last election's voter turnout, let
alone this one.
Anyway, fun to have a daily heartattack keeping up with the polls on
this site.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
but, as the webmaster notes, polling itself is becoming irrelevant, due
to 1) cell phones, 2) overseas and absentee ballots, 3) paid pollsters,
and 4) "normalizing" based on "likely to vote" formulas that get less
and less likely each year. Almost all pollsters are using normalizing
numbers that didn't even match the last election's voter turnout, let
alone this one.
Anyway, fun to have a daily heartattack keeping up with the polls on
this site.
>From http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski94.html
Al Lorentz is a reserve Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in
Iraq. His article on Iraq
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html>; has raged over the
wires since it was published on LewRockwell.com. The military chain of
command is considering charging Al with violation of Article 134 for
making a statement with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection
toward the U.S. by any member of the Armed forces. They are also
considering charging Al with violation of 1344.10, the conduct of
partisan political activity, and violation of Standards of Conduct for
unauthorized use of Government assets to create and email stories.
This is laughable, as active duty members apparently constituted 3% of
the delegation at the Republican National Convention
<http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040816_1414.html>; only a few
weeks ago. Do you think those military members will be accused of
violating 1344.10?
When I was an officer I avoided any politicking; I didn't even vote.
But I think soldiers should at least be allowed to write uncensored
letters, blog, and speak for themselves, when off duty, as long as
they're not giving away classified information and obeying the legal
orders they're given. Any less is just attempted mind control,
impossible and self-destructive. My personal theory on this is (having
been an officer) - in the short term, soldiers don't have to like
what they're doing or even agree with it. Like with exercise.
Soldiers don't like it, you make them do it anyway. They still have to
obey orders. But in the long term, if they don't come around and agree
that what you want is right, you'll never succeed. In the long run
they're glad you made them exercise. Anyway I think they should be
allowed to write articles if they want.
(if you want, you can read Al's article linked from the kwiatkowski page
I linked above).
If that one doesn't make you mad, try this one about the draft:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/featherstone4.html
If you'd rather laugh than get mad, read this one instead:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings39.html
Al Lorentz is a reserve Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in
Iraq. His article on Iraq
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html>; has raged over the
wires since it was published on LewRockwell.com. The military chain of
command is considering charging Al with violation of Article 134 for
making a statement with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection
toward the U.S. by any member of the Armed forces. They are also
considering charging Al with violation of 1344.10, the conduct of
partisan political activity, and violation of Standards of Conduct for
unauthorized use of Government assets to create and email stories.
This is laughable, as active duty members apparently constituted 3% of
the delegation at the Republican National Convention
<http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040816_1414.html>; only a few
weeks ago. Do you think those military members will be accused of
violating 1344.10?
When I was an officer I avoided any politicking; I didn't even vote.
But I think soldiers should at least be allowed to write uncensored
letters, blog, and speak for themselves, when off duty, as long as
they're not giving away classified information and obeying the legal
orders they're given. Any less is just attempted mind control,
impossible and self-destructive. My personal theory on this is (having
been an officer) - in the short term, soldiers don't have to like
what they're doing or even agree with it. Like with exercise.
Soldiers don't like it, you make them do it anyway. They still have to
obey orders. But in the long term, if they don't come around and agree
that what you want is right, you'll never succeed. In the long run
they're glad you made them exercise. Anyway I think they should be
allowed to write articles if they want.
(if you want, you can read Al's article linked from the kwiatkowski page
I linked above).
If that one doesn't make you mad, try this one about the draft:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/featherstone4.html
If you'd rather laugh than get mad, read this one instead:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings39.html
"Welfare capitalism" is the idea that companies will provide for their
workers out of self-interest (to keep them happy) with things like
health benefits, pensions, et cetera. It's kind of a unique Americn
phenomenon - other countries seem to prefer having the state provide or
enforce the benefits with laws (and we call them socialist, or in
extreme cases, welfare states). Possibly Ford was the beginning of this
movement. But today welfare capitalism is eroding. I have no pension,
and I don't know many people anymore who have one. We have self-funded
401Ks, and consider ourselves lucky if the company has any matching at
all. We get health benefits but they make us pay the premiums - and you
get HMO level care ... the coverage is so limited and costly that you
might as well pay out of pocket - anything catastrophic they're not
going to pay anyway. (I exaggerate slightly but you know what I'm
talking about if you are paying premiums on an HMO yourself.)
As corporations like mine stop providing benefits and pensions, people
(and corporations looking to get out of their obligations, such as
USAir) are going to look more and more to the government to do it. I'd
tell you to vote for a particular candidate, but both Kerry and Bush's
platforms say Social Security has plenty of money (of course it does, at
least until Nov 2nd anyway...)
Recommended article: http://slate.com/id/2107108/
workers out of self-interest (to keep them happy) with things like
health benefits, pensions, et cetera. It's kind of a unique Americn
phenomenon - other countries seem to prefer having the state provide or
enforce the benefits with laws (and we call them socialist, or in
extreme cases, welfare states). Possibly Ford was the beginning of this
movement. But today welfare capitalism is eroding. I have no pension,
and I don't know many people anymore who have one. We have self-funded
401Ks, and consider ourselves lucky if the company has any matching at
all. We get health benefits but they make us pay the premiums - and you
get HMO level care ... the coverage is so limited and costly that you
might as well pay out of pocket - anything catastrophic they're not
going to pay anyway. (I exaggerate slightly but you know what I'm
talking about if you are paying premiums on an HMO yourself.)
As corporations like mine stop providing benefits and pensions, people
(and corporations looking to get out of their obligations, such as
USAir) are going to look more and more to the government to do it. I'd
tell you to vote for a particular candidate, but both Kerry and Bush's
platforms say Social Security has plenty of money (of course it does, at
least until Nov 2nd anyway...)
Recommended article: http://slate.com/id/2107108/
Those of you who went on the Europe trip last year that I missed :(
remember the Paris Catacombs? and how you could only explore a tiny
part of it?
They found an underground theater with power, phone lines, a wet bar and
restaurant! But no one knows the mysterious group of "cataphiles" who
created it and now abandoned it with a spooky note : "Don't try to find
us..."
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guardian/0,4029,1299449,00.html
remember the Paris Catacombs? and how you could only explore a tiny
part of it?
They found an underground theater with power, phone lines, a wet bar and
restaurant! But no one knows the mysterious group of "cataphiles" who
created it and now abandoned it with a spooky note : "Don't try to find
us..."
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guardian/0,4029,1299449,00.html
To win a free latte, guess who wrote the following quote:
"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
... For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
... For abolishing the free System of Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government ..."
The answer is Thomas Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence.
I have no doubt that many, even most of Guantanamo's "detainees" could
be guilty of being part of the Taliban, or their army, or terrorism.
For their crimes they should be charged, tried and punished, if found
guilty. But I want to identify with the American revolutionaries in that quote, not their English imprisoners, denying them lawyers, trials, or even being charged. and apparently any
American citizen could end up someplace like
that.
I'm trying to sell my house now and I wonder if anyone will pull my blog up and decide against buying it based on politics? Hey, there's a home theater built into it, and you could watch O'Reilly on Fox News on a
9' screen with 5.1 surround sound! Listen to Bill at 200 watts per channel!
In between all the noise for and against Bush or Kerry, there's a few
quiet voices starting to come through about the similarity of the two
candidates, and the issues they're both conveniently ignoring. The
reality is that no matter which is elected, there's still going to be
soldiers in Iraq, and there's still going to be terrorists. And we
still have economic doom waiting for us...and nobody's talking about it.
We're now at a point that's easy to visualize, without too many
numbers: if we act right now, we can either double your taxes, or
halve Social Security/Medicare. Double or half. Wait, and it will get
worse. It's not going to go away.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/12/MNG2S8NOI21.DTL
And when people finally do realize this doom - the market crash will be
huge. And even those of us did ARE saving for our retirement, not
depending on the government, will lose as well, as the dollar crashes
and savings become worthless. How did the Republicans let themselves
become the "big-spenders" party? Not that the Dems are any better.
One of these days I have to write a blog about our house, move, or baby....
quiet voices starting to come through about the similarity of the two
candidates, and the issues they're both conveniently ignoring. The
reality is that no matter which is elected, there's still going to be
soldiers in Iraq, and there's still going to be terrorists. And we
still have economic doom waiting for us...and nobody's talking about it.
We're now at a point that's easy to visualize, without too many
numbers: if we act right now, we can either double your taxes, or
halve Social Security/Medicare. Double or half. Wait, and it will get
worse. It's not going to go away.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/12/MNG2S8NOI21.DTL
And when people finally do realize this doom - the market crash will be
huge. And even those of us did ARE saving for our retirement, not
depending on the government, will lose as well, as the dollar crashes
and savings become worthless. How did the Republicans let themselves
become the "big-spenders" party? Not that the Dems are any better.
One of these days I have to write a blog about our house, move, or baby....
*Back to the Future* - What Bush would do if he were president. For $2.4
trillion, guess what word—other than "a," "and," and "the"—occurs most
frequently in the acceptance speech George W. Bush delivered tonight.
The word is "will." It appears 76 times. This was a speech all about
what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106214/
trillion, guess what word—other than "a," "and," and "the"—occurs most
frequently in the acceptance speech George W. Bush delivered tonight.
The word is "will." It appears 76 times. This was a speech all about
what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106214/
