I was thinking about how the USA is borrowing and printing money that it will never be able to repay. How the current trend is to make it easy for corporations to leave our shores rather then face punative penalties for being successful.
How this is a horribly cruel spiral that our Country may never recover from.
Then I heared a commercial http://www.debtmerica.com They can cut our Debt by 40%!!!!
"But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion."
Ugh, what an bland performance. Why do we even have someone speaking from the "other side" after a state of the union address? I read transcripts after speeches, I find what a politician says is much more important then how they speak. When the two come together you have something amazing. Unfortunately we have Obama who says nothing well (I'm against big Government??), and Jindal who states conservative policy in a stilted manner.
"You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility, Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Our party is determined to regain your trust." -- Bobby Jindal
Here is why I like Bobby Jindal. Watch him take two minutes to stake out the kind of economic policy territory I could back.
According to a January 27 press release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, only one state in the entire union recorded an increase in employment in December: you guessed it, Louisiana.
"Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.…"
His awesome on-the-fly management of the response after two major hurricane one as a congressman who clearly outperformed the mayor and the past governor, the next as governor himself shows he has a quick mind, a strong will, a good heart, and a gut-level competence with can do mentality.
Nonetheless Jindal is still has a ways to grow. A very good work in progress. While his speech did not live up to his "superstar" billing, he provided some necessary correctives to Obama's speech, along with some hope for the future.
It's Ash Wednesdays, and all us Catholics head to a service so the rest of the day we can be told we have a smudge on our forehead.
Lent begins and for forty days we prepare for Easter. The forty days is representative of Jesus fasting in the desert where he endured temptations of Satan. Not, a fun time.
Among the many traditions during lent there is one that I recall from my youth that is not practiced anymore. The Passiontide.
For the last two weeks of lent the crucifixes and holy statues would be veiled in violet. It was always a bit sad and poignant with a revelation at the ending. All in all it was a nice tradition that enjoyed.
Seems today that there is quite a bit of talk about the reasons for Sacrifice. I have an awesome example.
"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," -->President Obama.
Cutting government spending, making it more efficient and taxing the 'richest' Americans." Richest" is a moving target as well,
In my opinion pulling off government effiency alone would be awesome. I can imagine the Democrats in congress drooling at the prospect of jacking up taxes on the rich.
In this talk of "Fairness" how fair is it to tax someone at a higher percentage? The top 1% of wage earners pay about 40% of taxes. You take the top 25% you have 97% paid by them. Then add to that you get a tax return if you pay no taxes.
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
With the expansion of government and the promise of more, including Health care and possibly banks. We keep moving away from being a prosperous Capitalist nation and moving to a poor socialist one. People are warning the administration, but who should you believe?
How about Vladamir Putin? “In the 20th. century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute." “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.” “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”[Snip.]
I have empathy for Microsoft, Apple and Google. They have such a success and failure relocate ride of a history.
Microsoft has always been embattled, they saw a market where there was none and through various means kept themselves in the forefront. They have always been the black hats though, from Bill Gates letter against software piracy, to tactics used in the market place. They have huge products in Xbox, Windows and Office. Do not forget Office was a come from behind winner.
Now then, aside from Windows, Office Xbox and mice, what other market are they a big player? As far as Office and Windows they are damned if they do damned if they dont. Add to that a lack of cool factor. They have all this potential but lack of ability to capitalize.
Apple does have a coolness factor. They found niche markets and got them controlled in a neo-monopoly. When it comes to predatory tactics, they are stealth and devastating. Perception and mind share are the grand illusions. And now they face the loss of the cult leader. While Steve is reportedly not the sweetest guy in the world, he has a large elitism umbrella that make people want to be a part of his company. The Macintosh has taken a back seat to the I-pod destroying iPhone. What will happen when he is no longer able to be the front man? The stock market reacts to things like his being unwell.
Google is a goofy kind of company that you really have to look deep into to figure out how they make money. Oh, they make money, just not from the consumer. They started out with a good way to find things on the Internet. They are the closest thing to alchemists on the planet, turning things to gold. Where else can you have the computer desktop functions without having your own computer? E-mail, Office software, Database, Research, entertainment that moves with you when you log on. The coolness falls someplace between Apple and Microsoft, yet, they are becoming the black hats.
Google is to big, Google is too dominate, Google has all the ad revenue, Google cannot sustain its growth, Google is too powerful and so on. Just a few weeks ago some one at google brought the Internet to its knees by making a typo. It really was n0t brought to its knees, just perceived to be.
I enjoy seeing companies do well. That means more real jobs. These three have been the movers and shakers for an industry that is going from small potato's to worldwide saturation in my lifetime.
Still, any company that gets too bloated can become problematic.
His lips move. If you were expecting President Obama to be a man of his word, to continue his message of Hope for Change and an end to business as usual in DC. Here is some evidence that nothing changes.
We will put every pork barrel project online. (still waiting)
Now there used to be a News Media that would look for the truth of things and let the public know when our representatives stopped representing us and started representing their party. By and large that Media is a spin doctor for a biased favored son.
Blogging has taken up the gauntlet. There is a problem in that for every good blog you get a dozen or so bomb thrower, cults worshiping blogs. So sorting the wheat from the chaff is difficult at best. At least we know by content and expletives. That is you assume a blog is going to be editorializing. The Nightly news, you would hope would be straight with you.
Aside from the BBC our media is in need of an enema.
Take for instance this story from TIME. Touting that Obama is a Pro-Life president. Sullivan's evidence? Well, the president has picked a Pentecostal preacher -- who once worked for a New Jersey Congressman with a 100% score by NARAL Pro-Choice America -- to head his faith-based initiatives office and "abortion reduction" is one of the major stated goals of one of the president's advisory boards.
So President Obama's actual Pro Abortion record is beside the point? Take this example for what you will. There is a lot of similer spun stories that the Obama pocketed Media is foisting upon a public too tired of news overload to sift through.
The Old Media (TV, Cable, Newspaper) needs to be switched off. Or maybe the fairness doctrine needs to be put in place.
I'm a fan of Joss Whedons work. Starting with the Original Buffy the Vampire slayers.
Tonite on Fox is his latest show. Dollhouse is about a group of people called 'Actives' who have had their personalities wiped clean so they can be imprinted with any number of new personas, including memory, muscle memory, skills, and language, for different assignments. They're then hired out for particular jobs, crimes, fantasies, and occasional good deeds.
Just like FireFly, Joss has a viral campaign going on as well Save Hazel!
Or you can just try your luck. I am hoping for some exciting, entertaining moments and Joss has always provided them. If you check local listings and tune in or DVR this show, I am hopeful you will not be disapointed.
When dealing with Connor and his life and our expectations, choosing your approach can be a challenge. To whit: He watches You-Tube. We have him logged in as a youth and the screening does eliminate a goodly bulk of objectionable material. Still, he will come across an occasional bad word.
Adult language at the workplace tends to be non-restrictive unless it crosses certain boundaries. This is not true in elementary school or at my house.
So what to do? Connor already knows that we will not accept certain behaviors. When told to refrain from some action, in general he complies after some consistency on our part.
When he says something along the lines of a colorful metaphor, we correct him, usually giving him an alternative.
This has lead to him using the phrase 'mother heck-er'.
We could tighten down what he is exposed to at the house. That would not do much other then isolating him from a world that he will be exposed to anyways. Further, he would be exposed without benefit of our beliefs and ethics.
You have to consider this. Language to him is more a series of sounds that when put together a certain way gets a response from someone else. Saying to him "It's time for bed" and "bed time" will give two different responses. Most kids will understand that they are the same.
Connor will not. One of the series of sounds means to go to bed. The other series of sounds has no meaning. Given time and consistency he will associate the two.
For a neophyte autism parent the above might sound ponderous. In truth we adapt quickly to this regimen and pick up on the verbal queues he understands. It becomes second nature, not unlike getting a new job and learning the lingo.
The other part of this, that I find interesting, is Connors association of names and people. He can parrot a name he has associated to a face with some consistency. The more people in a situation or the length of time between having to recall the name lowers his chances of getting it right.
However, if there is a defining event between Connor and that person. The name becomes a concrete association. We do the same thing but more on a subconscious level. The guy who I see walking around the office is a cypher until I have an interaction of note.
Seeing how Connor puts the world together gives me glimpses into the human brain and condition that I am grateful for.
Bloomberg lays out exactly how a socialist healthcare portion of the massive spending will further screw up healthcare:
Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions.
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time”
This tells me the President Obama does not have a basic understanding of the Constitution of the United States .
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in , that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290
Key words protects an individual right!
Does the first amendment grant us free speech? No.. it does not GRANT us free speech.
Connor, being who he is, can come up with some pretty funny responses. One of the many little games he enjoys is the age old favorite "I got your nose". It is a tad different then the early childhood version.
The other day Trevor did the obligitory nose snatch to which Connor replied. "I am soo poorly constructed!"
Well, I got $80.00 back from the government to buy a converter box for my Televison. It was so nice of them to give me back my $80.00...
So it is a cheapie thing in ugly packaging. Functional. Made in China.
I still had the antenna feed in the wall so it was a simple matter to hook it up. The stations look pretty good (both stations). It was nice seeing local commercials again.
What wasnt easy was removing the Old VCR (non-functional). The Tivo (un-subscribed) and the Dish network (un-subscribed). Now the coolist part was being able to watch CBS shows. Our Dish Network ran into negotiation problems.
Thanks to the internet, I can watch any missed programs. So it is all good.
Sometime around the year 1929, my Grandpa had a pretty good payday. He worked as a plumber during this time. He and his wife talked about what to do with the money. My Grandmother had a feeling and told Grandpa to go pay off the note on the house. This was days before the wall street crash, and banks calling all notes due. Which is a fancy way of saying, any loans you had the bank wanted re payed NOW!
As the great depression moved across the land my Grandpa found that his various handyman skills was a commodity. He could fix the pumps that the Farmer needed to water his livestock, the farmer just couldn't pay in money. So Grandpa would get some chickens or eggs for the next few months in lieu of payment.
Exactly how many jobs? I know holding a politician to his word is difficult at best. With all his bloviating on the campaign trail and garnering so much support, I was in hopes that President Obama would be different.
Nov. 22, 2008 His plan would create 2.5 million Jobs.
Jan. 31, 2009 The number was 4 million jobs.
Feb. 1st. (the next day) It was 3 million.
Kind of reminds me of who his tax increases were aimed at. That dollar figure kept. going down...
However, what good will the above do, if Nancy Pelosi's claims are true -- "Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs."
James Hansen is the single-most influential scientist promoting man made global warming.
Whenever I get into discussions I am always directed to look at NASA "who should know". His former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John S. Theon, now publicly disagrees with Hansen's work. Even more interesting is the number of scientist who leave NASA only to become skeptics.
None of the above revelations will convince those who follow the cult of Al-Gore though. Even MSNBC's Rachael Maddow touted man made global warming was the reason that for the second time in "recorded history" Snow fell in Dubai.
Let's not have trillions of tax dollars going towards this debacle.
There have been quite a string of liberal bias films that someone in hollywood thought would be a good idea. Film after film has died in the box office. It is as if the population of the US does not resonate with those on the left coast.
"Che" did so poorly it was rushed into pay per view. Oliver Stone's "W" is a good tax write-off. "Redacted" likewise, "Rendition" another looser, "The Good Shepard" got flocked (sorry couldnt resist), and so on.
Escapism fare is what people are going to see in a downturn economy.
The image on the left shows another man who "Forgot" to pay his taxes. During his campaign President Obama was all about ethics. He was going to bar lobbyists from his administration and user in a "new era of responsibility"
So far his "exceptions" are telling. Change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual. We the people have a good reason to remain skeptical. To me this goes back to lack of experience.
His first major bill, the spending being spun as stimulus is the proverbial "lipstick on a pig" the senate knows it and without some major changes it is going to never come to pass. In my mind this is a good thing for the country, I mean Bush and the congress pushed through that bail out and it has been a disaster.
Maybe, a defeat is what President Obama needs to reflect. I dunno, looking for silver linings here.
I just hope the Senate can hold to fiscal responsibility.
There are some fights you just can't win. A force can be so overwhelming that no tactical approach in a fight is going to lead to a victory worth having. When you can't win in a fight, sometimes you have to settle for making sure that if you lose, everyone loses. It works for nuclear weapons; it works for me.
Most people think distracting a group of guys is best done by a beautiful woman. The problem with beautiful women is people want them to stick around, which can cause a lot of problems. Obnoxious guys, they just want to get rid of.