As much as I dislike the direction my country has, and is taking, I have just one question; what does the United States Declaration of Indepence have to do with the present state of this country. As much as I half jokingly refer to George Bush as King George II of Texas, I have to ask; what in the hell does Bush have to do with King George III of Britain?

You have put me in the disgusting positon (if I'm reading you right) of having to stand up for the President. As far as 1984 is concerned, that is a matter for debate, because the last time I looked, we still had most of our basic rights intact. No one person has the power to take those rights away, and the only way we will lose them, is if we give them away ourselves. The fact that none of us has had a knock on the door, least of all myself, and been removed in the middle of the night, at least for the time being, is more than enough proof that you are FOS.

---

Account frozen...

The Bill of Rights

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

---

Account frozen...

check out this news post about levees around N.O. tree huggers beware

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp

The national Sierra Club was one of several environmental groups who sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees.


The lawsuit was settled in 1997 with the Corps agreeing to hold off on some work while doing an additional two-year environmental impact study. Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain.

The group American Rivers, which leads coalitions of eco-groups on river policy, has for years actually called its campaign, “Rivers Unplugged.”


and i wounder why this story never made it to CNN on why the levees failed

---

Just because I like animals doesn't mean I support PETA, quite the opposite. Both the left and the right have their lunatic fringes. BTW, the Sierra Club got their noses into the widening of a three miles strech of US 95 in the heart of Las Vegas, Nevada (the area has been built up for years). When they do crap like that they lose alot of their support.

---

Account frozen...

Just because I like animals doesn't mean I support PETA....

Oh I do. I'm a member. I am a member of People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. I have Personally Eaten Thousands of Animals. As a child, I Patiently Eviscerated and Tortured Animals. As an adult, I Personally Experimented and Trained Animals.

The first one isn't mine, but I thought the other three were pretty good for spur of the moment... 8^]

When will animals have human rights? Never, they aren't human. When will they have animal rights? When they stand up and claim them.

Republican Senators Reject Minimum Wage Hike

U.S. senators -- who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of
perks -- have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for
workers. Can you believe it? The minimum wage was last raised in 1997. Since
that time the senators have raised their own salaries by $28,000.

The proposed increase was turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against
the boost and 49 in favor. Under a Senate agreement, it needed 60 votes to pass.

All of the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All of the no votes were cast by Republicans.

============================================================================

It doesn't affect us in any way but this really does suck. How the hell are
people expected to live even somewhat decently. Then people wonder why I
dislike certain politicians and their party platforms. These people have no
clue what the average American, who they alledgedly represent, goes through
every day of their lives. We should CUT their salaries by $100,000 and they'd
bitch that they can't live on that little $62,100.

When will the public wake up and stop putting the same jerks in there over
and over?

I'll shut up now,
-Mrs. anon

It doesn't affect us in any way but this really does suck. How the hell are
people expected to live even somewhat decently. Then people wonder why I
dislike certain politicians and their party platforms. These people have no
clue what the average American, who they alledgedly represent, goes through
every day of their lives. We should CUT their salaries by $100,000 and they'd
bitch that they can't live on that little $62,100.

When will the public wake up and stop putting the same jerks in there over
and over?

I'll shut up now,
-Mrs. anon

The minimum wage was never designed to be a "living wage." It is there to prevent sweatshops (and it doesn't even do that flawlessly). The reality is that there are people who work full-time schedules at minimum wage, but raising the minimum wage to 1/40 of a weekly living wage would put a lot of marginal employees completely out of work.

The typical employer argument that it causes a ripple effect in everyone's wages is not supported by the facts, but raising the minimum makes unskilled labor more expensive (and businesses that rely upon it less profitable) and has a direct impact on the number of jobs available at this level.

There is no simple solution to this problem... so long as there is one minimum wage for all (non-farm and non-tip-earning) workers, a one-size-fits-all pay level will never work out for everyone.

This would complicate things, but just an idea:

The first ten hours in a given week at $5.25 (or whatever is decided)
The next ten hours in a given week at $5.75
The third ten hours in a given week at $6.25
The fourth ten hours in a given week at $6.75
Overtime is at 1.5 times $6.75 ($10.125)

This would allow the six-hour-a-week 16-year-old burger flipper to remain competitive with completely automating the kitchen, while allowing the heroic immigrant suffering in an unfair factory to put food on the table.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

---

Account frozen...

Republican Senators Reject Minimum Wage Hike

U.S. senators -- who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of
perks -- have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for
workers. Can you believe it? The minimum wage was last raised in 1997. Since
that time the senators have raised their own salaries by $28,000.

The proposed increase was turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against
the boost and 49 in favor. Under a Senate agreement, it needed 60 votes to pass.

All of the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All of the no votes were cast by Republicans.

============================================================================

It doesn't affect us in any way but this really does suck. How the hell are
people expected to live even somewhat decently. Then people wonder why I
dislike certain politicians and their party platforms. These people have no
clue what the average American, who they alledgedly represent, goes through
every day of their lives. We should CUT their salaries by $100,000 and they'd
bitch that they can't live on that little $62,100.

When will the public wake up and stop putting the same jerks in there over
and over?

I'll shut up now,
-Mrs. anon

well lets look at if form a differant view

now each sit to have something to buy will go up $1.10

lets look at fied egg breakfast (4.25)

the person who makes the feed
the person who drives the feed to the feed store
the person who sells the feed
the person who transport the feed to the farm
the person who feeds the chickens (auto feeds need to be loaded)
the person who checks the eggs (auto droper takes there)
the person who loads the truck
the truck driver
the prep cook
the short order cook
the waitress
the buss boy

that is ten steps that have to be paid for.. (when min wages goes up the other wages go up also.. that school has to be paid for) if every step goes up .20 to .30
the fied egg breakfast (4.25) is now 6.25 to 7.25) not counting tip

---

Republican Senators Reject Minimum Wage Hike

U.S. senators -- who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of
perks -- have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for
workers. Can you believe it? The minimum wage was last raised in 1997. Since
that time the senators have raised their own salaries by $28,000.

The proposed increase was turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against
the boost and 49 in favor. Under a Senate agreement, it needed 60 votes to pass.

All of the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All of the no votes were cast by Republicans.

============================================================================

It doesn't affect us in any way but this really does suck. How the hell are
people expected to live even somewhat decently. Then people wonder why I
dislike certain politicians and their party platforms. These people have no
clue what the average American, who they alledgedly represent, goes through
every day of their lives. We should CUT their salaries by $100,000 and they'd
bitch that they can't live on that little $62,100.

When will the public wake up and stop putting the same jerks in there over
and over?

I'll shut up now,
-Mrs. anon

well lets look at if form a differant view

now each sit to have something to buy will go up $1.10

lets look at fied egg breakfast (4.25)

the person who makes the feed
the person who drives the feed to the feed store
the person who sells the feed
the person who transport the feed to the farm
the person who feeds the chickens (auto feeds need to be loaded)
the person who checks the eggs (auto droper takes there)
the person who loads the truck
the truck driver
the prep cook
the short order cook
the waitress
the buss boy

that is ten steps that have to be paid for.. (when min wages goes up the other wages go up also.. that school has to be paid for) if every step goes up .20 to .30
the fied egg breakfast (4.25) is now 6.25 to 7.25) not counting tip

---

It doesn't affect us in any way but this really does suck.

You pay them more. Nothing is stopping you.

How the hell are people expected to live even somewhat decently.

Minimum wage jobs aren't designed to support people's lives, they're simply entry-level menial positions. People are expected to gain experience and education and move on from those positions.

Hell, Wal-Mart's CEO has said they would lobby Congress to raise the minimum wage a buck. Why? Because Wal-Mart's average wage is nearly $10.00 an hour, so a minimum wage hike will cost them nearly nothing. However, Wal-Mart is also aware who a 20% increase in the minimum wage will hurt the most--the little mom and pop operations. An increase will drive their labor costs up significantly, resulting in more of them going out of business, those people losing their jobs, and hence less competition for Wal-Mart.

Then people wonder why I dislike certain politicians and their party platforms. These people have no clue what the average American, who they alledgedly represent, goes through every day of their lives. We should CUT their salaries by $100,000 and they'd bitch that they can't live on that little $62,100. When will the public wake up and stop putting the same jerks in there over and over?

They won't. A) They think that wages and taxes are paid by corporations and that simply isn't true. B) They think that gov't meddling is a good thing, as long as they agree with it. The person who thinks it's OK to use gov't force to impose a minimum wage never seems to understand that that is the same gov't force imposing war on Iraq. They just disagree on how to use force.

Besides, you could take the entire salaries of say Wal-Mart or GM (pick one) executives, divide them equally among all the workers. What happens then? They all get a couple of extry bucks in their paychecks. Swell. Except that the company has now been destroyed and they are now all out of a job.

Thanks for your thoughts guys. This is why I hate political BS. I'll talk to the -Mr. about this later on. I want to hear what he thinks too. Some of what you've said kinda makes sense but not completely, to me anyways. I'll think on it a bit and see if I come up with something. So...

-Mrs. anon

---

Your right.

The corporation haters don't realize that the corporations are the ones doing the job creation.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

I posted this to Rocky's *Laughter is the best medicine* thread, was advised this might be a better place to put it (Thanx Cap'n Avatar):

A colleague of mine sent me this by e-mail, and when i read it, i thought that it was probably the most politically-incorrect, stereotyping, insensitive, bad-taste thing i have read for some time, especially that we have just had a memorial service today for the people who died in the London bombings in July this year.

But I still laughed at parts of it... Its terrible i know, but i did... especially the bits about the tea supplies running out in 1940 (i am a Brit) I think whoever wrote this sums up the British attitude perfectly (I can't speak for the other nations *stereotyped* in this *joke*).

I think about all the people who died in the Blitz (some of my relatives, even), 9/11, 7/7, and i think, i shouldnt find this funny... and i feel very guilty...

Does anyone else feel the same way?
Here is the email in full - I take no responsibility for the content:

****************************************************************
The British are feeling the pinch in relation to recent bombings, the
level has just been raised from 'miffed' to "peeved'! Soon though,
the levels may be raised yet again to "irritated' or even "a bit cross"!!

Londoners have not been a "bit cross" since the blitz in 1940 when
tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from
"tiresome" to "a bloody nuisance", the last time a "bloody nuisance"
warning level was issued was during the great fire in 1666.

Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it has
raised its terror alert level from RUN to HIDE. The only two higher levels
in France are SURRENDER and COLLABORATE. The rise was precipitated by a
recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively
paralysing their military capability.

It's not only the French that are on a heightened level of alert, the
Italians have increased their alert level from "shout loudly and
excitedly" to "elaborate military posturing". Two more levels remain,
"ineffective combat operations" and "change sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state from "disdainful
arrogance" to "dress in uniform and sing marching songs". They have two higher levels, "invade a neighbour" and "lose".

Seeing this reaction in continental Europe the Americans have gone
from "isolationism" to "find another oil-rich nation in the middle east
ripe for regime change". Their remaining higher alert states are "attack the
world" and "beg the British for help".

Finally here in GB we've gone from "pretend nothing's happening" to
make another cup of tea". Our higher levels are "remain resolutely
cheerful" and "win".
*************************************************************

see what i mean?

---

Have you ever heard of sardonic wit?

---

Account frozen...

Finally here in GB we've gone from "pretend nothing's happening" to
"make another cup of tea". Our higher levels are "remain resolutely
cheerful" and "win".

Iran had shifted its domestic security status from "stage a rigged election" to "divert attention by blaming the US." Its foreign security status continues to alternate between "publicly denounce the US" and "publicaly denounce Isreal."

Intelligence sources indicate that al Qaeda has risen its alert level from its second-lowest, "jihad," to the next higher, "jihad." There are three higher levels of alert, "jihad," "jihad," and "boy who cried wolf."

In response to al Qaeda's hightened alert, Spain, which only recently changed its own alert stats from "stalwart ally" to "neutral party" has changed it again from "neutral party" to "proponent of appeasement."

After a scathing report detailing corruption within the UN, the Secretary General declared that his policy of re-arranging the Titanic's deck chairs would be replaced by a more forceful policy of insisting that the Titanic's band continue playing soothing music during the emergency.

The Isreali Defense Forces lowered their tactical posture today from "eye for an eye" to "eye for an eye with early payment discount." This follows last month's shift down from the higher "eye for an eye with stiff interest," which is one step below the highest posture of "144,000 eyes for an eye."

Reacting to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the United States legislative branch's internal security status has been changed from "blistering rhetoric" to its highest level, "armageddon." The last time this level was reached was when Puerto Rican seperatists opened fire within the Capitol building in 1954, although the Sergeant at Arms reportedly had his finger on the status board button during the McCarthy hearings.

In an unrelated development, the United States armed forces Defence Condition moved today from "5" to "Fatal Exception 0E" in an apparent Windows operating system malfunction. This error created orders for six hundred National Guard and Army Reservists to invade Idaho with unarmored Humvees. US House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi decried the lack of armor as a failing of the Bush White House and demanded an investigation.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

ROFLMFAO!!! Good reply.

---

Account frozen...

well lets look at if form a differant view

now each sit to have something to buy will go up $1.10

lets look at fied egg breakfast (4.25)

the person who makes the feed
the person who drives the feed to the feed store
the person who sells the feed
the person who transport the feed to the farm
the person who feeds the chickens (auto feeds need to be loaded)
the person who checks the eggs (auto droper takes there)
the person who loads the truck
the truck driver
the prep cook
the short order cook
the waitress
the buss boy

that is ten steps that have to be paid for.. (when min wages goes up the other wages go up also.. that school has to be paid for) if every step goes up .20 to .30
the fied egg breakfast (4.25) is now 6.25 to 7.25) not counting tip

I'd agree if it was that simple but it's not. Everyone up and down the line won't be getting a 20% pay increase. Even if they were, going by your example, the cost of the breakfast should only increase by 20% too. So 20% of $4.25 is about $.85. With a normally sane restauranteur I'd say the price might go to $4.99 not those ridiculous $6.25-$7.25 estimates you made.

Oh my poor little uneducated female brain just hurts. I'm so glad I just didn't pay any attention in Economics or Math or Marketing when I sat through those boring hours in college. Jeez, you're not talking to an idiot here.

-Mrs. anon

Hell, Wal-Mart's CEO has said they would lobby Congress to raise the minimum wage a buck. Why? Because Wal-Mart's average wage is nearly $10.00 an hour, so a minimum wage hike will cost them nearly nothing. However, Wal-Mart is also aware who a 20% increase in the minimum wage will hurt the most--the little mom and pop operations. An increase will drive their labor costs up significantly, resulting in more of them going out of business, those people losing their jobs, and hence less competition for Wal-Mart.

Despite the fact that contemporary economic research casts a long shadow of doubt on the contention that moderate minimum wage increases cause job losses, opponents still lead with this argument. This so-called "disemployment" argument is particularly difficult to maintain given two relatively recent developments in the history of minimum wages. First, the quality of empirical minimum wage research rose steeply over the last decade, due largely to economists' ability to conduct pseudo-experiments. Such experiments, rare in empirical economics, typically utilize the fact that numerous states (12 as of today) have raised their minimum wage above that of the federal level. This variation between states gives researchers a chance to isolate the impact of the wage change and test its impact on employment and other relevant outcomes. These studies reveal employment elasticities that hover about zero, i.e., they solidly reject the conventional hypothesis that any increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses among affected workers.

Second, following the most recent increase legislated in 1996, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. The fact that the employment and earnings opportunities of low-wage workers grew so quickly following that increase continues to pose a daunting challenge to those who still maintain that minimum wage increases hurt their intended beneficiaries.

Recently, the Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) released a study of the impact of higher minimum wages on small businesses. Their analysis focuses on various outcomes for businesses with less than 50 employees, comparing these outcomes between states with minimum wages above the Federal level and those at the Federal level. If the theory that higher minimum wages hurt small businesses is correct, then we would expect there to be less growth in such enterprises in states with higher minimum wages. In fact the opposite is the case.

* Between 1998 and 2001, the number of small business establishments grew twice as quickly in states with higher minimum wages (3.1% vs. 1.6%).
* Employment grew 1.5% more quickly in high minimum wage states.
* Annual and average payroll growth was also faster in higher minimum wage states.

FPI presents similar results for small businesses in the retail sector.

In related research, Waltman, et al. (1998) examine the relationship between business failures and minimum wage increases. Here again, claims by business-community opponents of the minimum wage suggest that business failures should increase along with minimum wage increases. But in examining this relationship over more than 30 years, Waltman et al conclude that:

"...there seems to be no discernible correlation between minimum wage increases and a rise in business failures, either in the year the increase occurred or in the following year. If anything, the evidence leans the other way"

============================================================================

Damn! Doing research still sucks as bad as it did back in college.

-Mrs. anon