You wonder why Americans are the most over weight people in the world, and companies like this in Cookeville make you realize it in a heartbeat.
Food of Your Mood, "We go so you don't have to."
You tell these people what carry-out you want from what restaurant, and they will call the restaurant, order it, then pick it up and bring it to you, for a charge of around $3-$5 extra. It's for the local Cookeville Area where I go to school.
Now I can see how this would be a benefit for people who either do not have a car, or are unable to drive because of other reasons. But seriously, how lazy do you have to be to have some one else order the food, then pick it up and bring it to you. Can you not take the effort to drive there and get it yourself?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
What Is Carbon Offset?
Aside from a scam? Nothing more than buying a tree in return for your ability to still emit massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Read this "Carbon Exchange" sale on Ebay.
Yes, this is just one (of many) scam for a person in California to attempt to make an easy bit of money off of ignorant wealthy environmentalists. Granted it's better than threatening to burn a tree unless a $10 ransom is paid, but there is still a flaw in the idea of "Carbon Offsets."
As Christopher Horner stated on Fox News last night, "Buying carbon offsets is like a glutton telling an average person to starve in order to offset his gluttony. The fact is still that the glutton is still a glutton." Not to mention the fact that in a tree's lifetime of 80 years, it will remove about 1100kg of CO2 from the air, replacing it with Oxygen. That's a lot. Per year, that's about 11 kg of CO2. That's not so much, considering that the average person emits over 19,800 kg CO2 per year. That's 1800 trees to be "Carbon neutral" if you actually use the average consumption, and not 20 times the average person. Those 18oo trees spaced 30 feet apart takes up 1.62 million square feet, or 37 acres, per person. Oh and did I mention at $25 per tree per year that's $45,000 per year?
So you're spending $45,000 per year to offset being a glutton? Why not just change your lifestyle to reduce emissions?
CARBON EXCHANGE (Carbon Offsett) - Help stop global warming, we have a 200+ acre property on the pacific coast north of San Francisco California. For every customer who sends $50 we will plant a baby redwood tree in their name. Each year you send an additional $50 to assure that the tree grows and is taken care off properly, we have been planting redwood trees for many years.
We will continue to maintain the property and preserve it for future generations to assure the health and longevity of our children, and our childrens children for many generations to come.
The earth is our gift but it does not come without a price. We could develope our property into a Discount super store, or a Lumber mill but we choose to take the option of environmental preservation and offer to our fellow Americans the opportunity to give something back to the land which has given so much to us. Each year you will recieve a newsletter (Written on recycled paper) explaining the state of our venture and how you can continue your support. Let's do something positive for our children and stop the destruction of our enviorment today. Together we can make this country the world leader in enviormental preservation.
In addition to the the planting of new trees we have set aside a small portion of our property to be developed into an Eco-Friendly Resort with Cabins, RV sites, and other outdoor amenities. We would like to have each donor visit us and participate in one of the most amazing places to visit on the planet. Black sand beaches, Horse back rides, hikes to the Worlds Tallest Tree, and excellent eating establishments are just a few of the things to do in this area. In addition our property is home to one of North Americas largest Rosevelt Elk herds, an Ancient Indian commerce site, as well as a historical Little Red School House which houses our Native American Artifact collection.
The black and white pics below show the damage our previous generations inflicted on much of the northwest, presumebly they did not know the future effects of clear cutting our forest lands, but now we have a chance. Let us fix the mistakes of the past and build a positive future where trees are allowed to grow and provide clean air forever. Help us reverse the mistakes of the past today.
We extend a invitation to each of our donors to come and visit us and see their trees first hand, imagine the joy you can experience bringing the grandparents and the kids to see your trees growing and producing the clean air we so desperately need. You have seen the news, and no matter what the political arguments planting trees can only be a positive thing. We have made a commitment to use a valuable property for the purpose of a better world, please join us and become a contributer today.
Yes, this is just one (of many) scam for a person in California to attempt to make an easy bit of money off of ignorant wealthy environmentalists. Granted it's better than threatening to burn a tree unless a $10 ransom is paid, but there is still a flaw in the idea of "Carbon Offsets."
As Christopher Horner stated on Fox News last night, "Buying carbon offsets is like a glutton telling an average person to starve in order to offset his gluttony. The fact is still that the glutton is still a glutton." Not to mention the fact that in a tree's lifetime of 80 years, it will remove about 1100kg of CO2 from the air, replacing it with Oxygen. That's a lot. Per year, that's about 11 kg of CO2. That's not so much, considering that the average person emits over 19,800 kg CO2 per year. That's 1800 trees to be "Carbon neutral" if you actually use the average consumption, and not 20 times the average person. Those 18oo trees spaced 30 feet apart takes up 1.62 million square feet, or 37 acres, per person. Oh and did I mention at $25 per tree per year that's $45,000 per year?
So you're spending $45,000 per year to offset being a glutton? Why not just change your lifestyle to reduce emissions?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Why I Love Dave Ramsey
I told you about Dave Ramsey on GOPAC and the blessing that Magotteaux gave me and all the other employees who took the class, with Financial Peace University. Well, here's a preview of some of the information in the class. Watch this video, or if you have dial-up, I'll give you a synopsis:
Ben saves 2,000 per year from the time he is 19, until he is 26 years old in a mutual fund that gives a modest 12% annual return, and then stops. Arthur begins saving at 27 and never stops until he retires. At the age of 65, Ben has retired with $2,288,990 off of a mere $16,000 of earned income. Arthur retires with $1,532,160 after saving $78,000, and he will NEVER catch up.
In the words of Dave:
"The point of this chart is not that you should have started, it's that YOU'D BETTER START!"
Monday, March 19, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Global Warming Alarmists Defend The Sun
It's the object that determines the temperature of the Earth, and when scientists notice that Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune's moon Triton are warming up along with the Earth, Global Warming Alarmists are the first to say it's NOT the sun's fault. It's those damn carbon emissions!!!
Brian Macdonald has a good explanation of how man is responsible for the warming on Mars:
Brian Macdonald has a good explanation of how man is responsible for the warming on Mars:
Data received from the Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions have disclosed that both ice caps on the Martian poles have been shrinking for at least three consecutive years. A report from National Geographic states "simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause." Hmmm, that brings up some questions.Not only that, but Live Science has some misleading information on "affects of global warming," citing the number one affect being an increased risk of forest fires. They claim that global warming has caused an increase of fires in the past decade. However, the actual cause to that is environmental regulations which excessively prevented forests from being logged, allowing a build-up of dead trees waiting to be burnt.
It's claimed that global warming is caused by human-induced pollution, especially exhaust from automobiles. But planet Earth is much closer to the sun, so how do we, er, scientists and other assorted global warming advocates explain the shrinking ice caps on Mars?
Well, there's two vehicles on Mars right now, a pair of diabolical NASA SUVs that are spewing more carbons out of their tailpipes than Al Gore spends to cover up his home heating bills. I bet there's a redneck at the wheel of each, just tossing beer cans out on that lovely Martian dirt while listening to Toby Keith albums.
And the sun is not involved in any of this, or so Gore and company want you to believe.
Stupid 9/11 Truthers...
I originally posted this at GOPAC, but figured it could do some good here as well.
I occasionally go to the page Lies.com due to graphical analysis of the Iraq War with Vietnam. The Iraq War has now entered the same part of the graph where Vietnam gets ugly, and yet, Iraq is still at a stable number roughly about 100 per month. Is 100 soldiers per month upsetting, yes. Everyone would love to see 0 per month, but in the words of Bush, "It's not the fight we wanted, but it's the fight we're in."
But what caught my eyes was the comment of some idiot truther, who after seeing the smoke and mirrors of Dylan Avery took it hook line and sinker. Here's the post:
And of course, I HAVE to give my rebuttal:
People hearing blasts below their feet - Truthers base this mostly on seismic data which shows large spikes when the buildings hit the ground, but htey mostly ignore the increasing magnitude of the spikes before hand, caused by the fact that an increasing portion of the building is falling on itself as time goes, until finally hitting the ground. As for the people, when you are in a building, when a large vibration shakes the building it litterally shakes the WHOLE building, including the floor. If you are in the building, those vibrations actually travel down the supports of the building faster than the sound actually travels through the air. Therefore the sound of the crash actually sounds like it is from within the building before the sound outside the building reaches your ears. The difference is very great. The speed of sound in air is approximately 760 MPH, but it is over 12,200 MPH through the steel. So over 1000 feet, what you can feel shaking the building, and hear from those vibrations is almost instantly, then you hear the actual BOOM approximately 1 second later, giving the impression that something exploded below you. GOPAC - 1, Truther - 0
Buildings fall at freefall - I'm not even going to talk about this crap. Look here, and notice that the building has not caught up to the FREE-FALLING debris next to the building. GOPAC - 2 Truther - 0
The only steel structure to fall due to fire - OK, here's the scoop. There's a MAJOR structural difference between the WTC and normal sky scrapers. Normal scrapers are built like the Empire State building. They are a massive set of steel beams stacked in a slab shape one on top of each other in dimensions of say, 30' wide, by 30' long by 11 feet tall. The World Trade center was VERY different. ALL of the main, load bearing beams were on the OUTSIDE frame of the building, leaving the inside of the building very open for office space. The inside floors were nothing more than 1 1/2 inch steel tubing arranged in a triangular truss shape. It is a light-weight and strong configuration...when it's not heated. Steel loses over half of it's strength at only 1100 F, and has only 10% of its strength by the time it gets to 1800 F. The jet fuel was estimated at burning between 800 and 1500 F. Think about this for a second, a 757 crashes into the building and takes out a 3 floor section of the main load bearing beams, then sets a fire to those floors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. USA Today has a VERY nice flash animation of the explination. GOPAC -3, Truther - 0
Why did WTC7 collapse of fire? - Umm...I don't know...maybe burning debris? GOPAC - 4 Truther - 0
What about the engines at the pentagon? - Notice there are multiple holes in this picture. There's one about 2/3 to the top on the left side, the next is 1/3 of the way from the bottom a little farther right, then the last is at the bottom, about 1/4 of the way over to the right. I wonder. Could those be the fuselage and engines? Truther-boy claims that the engines are a full 60 feet apart, however a look at the boeing page shows that based on the wheel base, the dimension is actually more about 48 feet apart. On top of that the body of the plane is 12' 4" wide, so that leaves all of 18 feet from the edge of the fuselage to the center of the engine, not including the width of the engines closing the gap further. There aren't many usable images in this contradiction, but not many is better than none. And this picture clearly shows where the left engine impacted away from the collapse. GOPAC - 5, Truther - 0
How does a plane melt into nothing? - Umm...genius, you answered your own question when you talked about the engines hitting at 550 miles per hour. Let's see, an aluminum framed plane hits a concrete and steel building at 550 miles per hour. Who's gonna win that battle? Evidence of the plane is all over the place, but I guess they just missed it. GOPAC - 6, Truther - 0
Looks like you've been beat.
I occasionally go to the page Lies.com due to graphical analysis of the Iraq War with Vietnam. The Iraq War has now entered the same part of the graph where Vietnam gets ugly, and yet, Iraq is still at a stable number roughly about 100 per month. Is 100 soldiers per month upsetting, yes. Everyone would love to see 0 per month, but in the words of Bush, "It's not the fight we wanted, but it's the fight we're in."
But what caught my eyes was the comment of some idiot truther, who after seeing the smoke and mirrors of Dylan Avery took it hook line and sinker. Here's the post:
Iraq is far worse than Vietnam..because Iraq is the start of a global positioning in the world by this administration.
I am sick and tired of all these idiots that swallow the rhetoric passed out by the leashed mass media with their cute keywords ,spat out every five seconds so brain dead flag waving morons can reiterate them with an assumed air of authority …”cut and run” “fight them over there so we dont fight them over here ” “war on terror”…Its like training chimps.
Look into the events of 911..read ..listen ..and question ..most of all question…
Why when every major media outlet going stuck a mic under someones face when they were covered in dust and interviewed them and they said “I heard an explosion below me on the 7th floor ” or I heard a large explosion in the basement ” or a fire chief says I saw huge explosion damage in the basement with the marble wall blown off…were these interviews buried ..never to be shown again by the likes of cnn or fox or abc??? why were over 500 radio messages between firefighters or police or emts and their control stations held by the government under national security ???and when some were released recently under great pressure they too contained NUMEROUS reports of explosions going off that had nothing to do with the planes?
Why did the buildings fall at freefall speed ( scientifically proven ) when it would be scientifically impossible to do so if it encountered resistance at every level on the way down ( science proves the only way is if the base and key points all the way up were demolished in unison)??
Why is this the only steel structure in history to fall as a result of fire?despite the fact that a firefighter having got to the floor where the plane hit , called his control and said it was managable?
Why did WT7 fall when it wasnt even hit by a plane?
Why has traces of thermite been found on supporting beams at the base?
The numerous helicoter footage from news crews show a 15-20 ft hole initially at the Pentagon ( before firefighters pulled the facade down later )
A Boeing 757 has a 112 ft wingsan with two 6 ton engines made of titanium and steel 60 feet apart from each other .
How does two 6 ton engines 60 feet apart hit a building at 500mph and not make a dent on the wall or windows yet somehow slip into a 20 ft hole?????
How does a whole plane melt into nothing ( the official government suggestion) when steel and titanium will melt at 2600f and a carbon based fire could only reach 1300f maximum under ideal circumstances ( not this one either)..These are scientifically proven facts.
This is not fantasy ladies and gents …This is what your government wants you to believe unquestioningly.
The threat to this country was manufactured by a government who wanted a conflict with the middle east for oil and global expansion .This war will expand .
Your government has been complicit in the worst mass murder this country has ever witnessed and you sit back and argue the pros and cons of a war strategy.
History will condemn this time as one of the all time shameful episodes in human endeavours second only to the holocaust.
Read and question…smoke and mirrors
And of course, I HAVE to give my rebuttal:
People hearing blasts below their feet - Truthers base this mostly on seismic data which shows large spikes when the buildings hit the ground, but htey mostly ignore the increasing magnitude of the spikes before hand, caused by the fact that an increasing portion of the building is falling on itself as time goes, until finally hitting the ground. As for the people, when you are in a building, when a large vibration shakes the building it litterally shakes the WHOLE building, including the floor. If you are in the building, those vibrations actually travel down the supports of the building faster than the sound actually travels through the air. Therefore the sound of the crash actually sounds like it is from within the building before the sound outside the building reaches your ears. The difference is very great. The speed of sound in air is approximately 760 MPH, but it is over 12,200 MPH through the steel. So over 1000 feet, what you can feel shaking the building, and hear from those vibrations is almost instantly, then you hear the actual BOOM approximately 1 second later, giving the impression that something exploded below you. GOPAC - 1, Truther - 0
Buildings fall at freefall - I'm not even going to talk about this crap. Look here, and notice that the building has not caught up to the FREE-FALLING debris next to the building. GOPAC - 2 Truther - 0
The only steel structure to fall due to fire - OK, here's the scoop. There's a MAJOR structural difference between the WTC and normal sky scrapers. Normal scrapers are built like the Empire State building. They are a massive set of steel beams stacked in a slab shape one on top of each other in dimensions of say, 30' wide, by 30' long by 11 feet tall. The World Trade center was VERY different. ALL of the main, load bearing beams were on the OUTSIDE frame of the building, leaving the inside of the building very open for office space. The inside floors were nothing more than 1 1/2 inch steel tubing arranged in a triangular truss shape. It is a light-weight and strong configuration...when it's not heated. Steel loses over half of it's strength at only 1100 F, and has only 10% of its strength by the time it gets to 1800 F. The jet fuel was estimated at burning between 800 and 1500 F. Think about this for a second, a 757 crashes into the building and takes out a 3 floor section of the main load bearing beams, then sets a fire to those floors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. USA Today has a VERY nice flash animation of the explination. GOPAC -3, Truther - 0
Why did WTC7 collapse of fire? - Umm...I don't know...maybe burning debris? GOPAC - 4 Truther - 0
What about the engines at the pentagon? - Notice there are multiple holes in this picture. There's one about 2/3 to the top on the left side, the next is 1/3 of the way from the bottom a little farther right, then the last is at the bottom, about 1/4 of the way over to the right. I wonder. Could those be the fuselage and engines? Truther-boy claims that the engines are a full 60 feet apart, however a look at the boeing page shows that based on the wheel base, the dimension is actually more about 48 feet apart. On top of that the body of the plane is 12' 4" wide, so that leaves all of 18 feet from the edge of the fuselage to the center of the engine, not including the width of the engines closing the gap further. There aren't many usable images in this contradiction, but not many is better than none. And this picture clearly shows where the left engine impacted away from the collapse. GOPAC - 5, Truther - 0
How does a plane melt into nothing? - Umm...genius, you answered your own question when you talked about the engines hitting at 550 miles per hour. Let's see, an aluminum framed plane hits a concrete and steel building at 550 miles per hour. Who's gonna win that battle? Evidence of the plane is all over the place, but I guess they just missed it. GOPAC - 6, Truther - 0
Looks like you've been beat.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Caption Contest: An Inconvenient Oscar Edition
Leave your captions in the comments. Photoshops are also accepted. Winners will be announced eventually.Don't forget to mosey on over to Conservathink if you get the chance.
Funny stuff there soon!
******************************
UPDATE 3/2/07:
Hi, gang! Mr. Right here. Hope you are enjoying Damian G's caption contests in my prolonged absence. Be certain to check out another caption contest while you are at it, hosted by The Right Place's GOP And College at his own blog, featuring "W" and a ball that wouldn't bounce! I shall return someday when my internet connection does not take 1/2 hour to load a page! Meanwhile, God bless you all.
p.s., Remember what we all learned from Sesame Street: Oscar loves trash and belongs in a garbage can!
Caption Contest: Not A Negative Nancy Edition - WINNERS
First off, sorry about my weird rule about submitting to both this blog and mine. The contest was originally supposed to be just on my blog, but Mr. Right gave me the okay to do one on his. All entries, regardless of where they submitted, were considered.And so, without further Apu...
Here are the Honourable Mentions!
"The Portrait of Nancy Pelosi."
"Remind me to switch plastic surgeons...I feel like my face is going to split." - Pam
"Nancy experiences a huge headrush while thinking about all the money and guns she is going to take from her subjects..." - jimmyb
"Terrorism? Ha! I don't see any terrorism!" - Uber
"After getting plenty of fiber in her diet, Nancy Pelosi drops a load at the feet of House Republican Whip Roy Blunt."
"Try as she might, Nancy Pelosi is always unable to imagine herself as being liked by all." - Carl
Here are the top five winners:
#5: "Suddenly Nancy rips off a world class and noxious gas bomb yelling, "THAT'S TERRORISM"!" - Stew
#4: "As seen in this photo, Nancy Pelosi experiences an orgasm each and every time the word "redeployment" is mentioned." - Carl
#3: "When singing to the troops, Nancy Pelosi's attempt to hit that high note in the song "Loving you" made even a deaf dog howl in pain." - GOP and College
#2:
- Cowboy BlobAnd now, drum roll please... The number one entry!!!
#1: "Nancy Pelosi auditions for the part of Mrs. Ida Lowry in the remake of the 1985 movie Brazil." - Pam
Brava! Brava!
Encore! Encore!
I will have up a new contest soon, only at In the Right Place!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Caption Contest: Not A Negative Nancy Edition
Leave your captions in the comments. Photoshops are also accepted. Winners will be announced eventually.Please also leave captions on my blog. It's a reciprocal contest of sorts.
Mr. Right told me via e-mail that once he gets a non-craptastic computer and ditches dial-up, he will do the contests again. Until then, y'all are stuck with me, so choke on that!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Some Great Posts From Around The Sphere!
While it is true that I have been very lax in my blogging of late, there is still some great stuff out there to be read!
If you have missed any of this, be certain to check it out...
Our own GOP and College, who has been busy giving us a great lesson in economics here of late, has a provocative idea in a post at his own blog about how to win in Iraq that is a must read:
The Real Problem In Iraq
Aaron at Lifelike Pundits updates everyone on the latest Democrat dirty trick which features Alcee Hastings in a prominent role:
Democrats Give Sex Slaves the Finger in Quest to Attack America
And just for laughs, check out Islamic Rage Boy of The Nose On Your Face fame in a brand new video:
Islamic Rage Boy Plays The Tel Aviv Sheraton
If you have missed any of this, be certain to check it out...
Our own GOP and College, who has been busy giving us a great lesson in economics here of late, has a provocative idea in a post at his own blog about how to win in Iraq that is a must read:
The Real Problem In Iraq
Aaron at Lifelike Pundits updates everyone on the latest Democrat dirty trick which features Alcee Hastings in a prominent role:
Democrats Give Sex Slaves the Finger in Quest to Attack America
And just for laughs, check out Islamic Rage Boy of The Nose On Your Face fame in a brand new video:
Islamic Rage Boy Plays The Tel Aviv Sheraton
Thursday, February 08, 2007
More Economic Reporting By GOPAC
It's very funny to see the people like John Kerry and other liberals trying to state that an economy with high taxes and intrusive government is a good thing. They use Europe as a model of excellence saying that it is the way to go. But do we really want to do that? The Swedish company Timbro did a study that compared the United states to the entire European Union, and the results are not what Euro loving economists would like you to see.
Big point #1 - The lowest 25% of income earners in United States are FAR wealthier than the average European.
The study shows that 73% of Americans who made below $25,000 in 1999 owned their own car. 97% owned a color TV, with 55% owning more than one. Take for example housing; 46% owned their own home. You might say that the house is probably pretty small, but the average house for those 46% of people making $25,000 or less is 1,200 square feet. Compare that to the entire European average of 975 square feet. There is actually only one country that can beat the average "poor American's" home, Luxembourg. Their average home size is about 1,350 square feet. However that is still a far cry from the 1,800 square foot average for the overall average American home.
Big point #2 - European Countries will likely NEVER catch the United States unless something dramatic is done.
The study shows that even if the United States economy remained absolutely stagnant, it would take most European countries over 10 years to catch up to the United States if their growth remained the same. There was only one country that would have caught up to the United States in less than 8 years, but more on that later.
Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the United States has nearly doubled their economy per person in the past 30 years. Only Germany has kept a reasonable pace, but they are still about 5% below the United States per person GDP.
Big Point #3 - A person in the United States buy more than a person in Europe.
In fact the average American spends about 77% more than the average European. The only country who comes close is again Luxembourg However this is misleading since it takes into affect per person GDP. Luxembourg has a very high GDP per person since most of their work force comes from people who live outside the country. Even with the skewed scale, Americans are able to spend almost $5,000 more per year than them, and almost $10,000 more than in any other European country.
Why is this? - The United states has a more free market than the European Markets.
European countries have policies which have high taxation, and strict laws preventing companies from firing unproductive workers. This makes companies more reluctant to hire people, as well as make it difficult for people to become entrepreneurs. Companies are very difficult to start up, and no one wants to deal with it.
Not only that but taxes for the American income earner are the lowest of all people surveyed. Americans have much more money left after the government takes it away in taxes. This allowed for more consumption spending, which helps the businesses that sell the products.
Big Point #4 - There is one exception to the European Mire
There is one country who is defying the European lackluster performance, and I'm betting you would have never thought of it if you didn't know: Ireland. Yes, the Irish have taken notes from America and discovered the key to long term economic gains; Economic Freedom. Ireland was listed in 2004 as being the 4th most free market in the world, and their economic growth has shown. In 1987 Ireland had the lowest per capita GDP of all the EU countries. However in the following years Ireland's government sliced taxes, and opened up the market to more freedoms. Growth flowed from the economy at a fire hydrant rate. From 1990 to 1995 the economy grew at a rate of over 5% per year, and from 1995 to 2000, the economy averaged over 9% growth per year! The key to this is exponential growth. It's calculated the same way as interest in an account. You start off with 100, the next year you have 109, the next you have 119, the next 130, then 141, and so on. From the year 1990 to 2000 the economy grew 96%.
Lower taxes, and less government intrusion left the people more options, and made it easier to succeed. People were starting new businesses everyday, and the economy skyrocketed from being worst to first.
Need further proof that big government is bad for the economy? Compare this map of the 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, to the rank of world economies. Note that every one of the most free economies are among the top per capita economies (5th, 8th, 13th and 17th, again, note Luxembourg's $80k/C is heavily skewed). Of the countries who are 70-80% free, they hold 12 of the remaining 16 spots in the top 20. Only Qatar, France, Germany, and Italy were among the 60-70% free class to break the top 20, and they ranked 7th, 18th 19th and 20th. Qatar was the 7th, but like Luxembourg, their numbers may have been skewed to the high range due to workers living outside the country.
As far as I could see, the highest ranked 50-60% country is Poland at $7,946/C. Compare that to the United State's $42,000/C, and it only goes downhill from there.
They make it seem like Europe is such a great model, but in actuality,
"It is better being poor in a rich country than in a poor one."
Economic Freedom: The key to economic success.
Cross Posted At: GOP and College
Previous:
Another Reason To Not Raise Minimum Wage, Continued
Another Reason To Not Raise Minimum Wage
Big point #1 - The lowest 25% of income earners in United States are FAR wealthier than the average European.
The study shows that 73% of Americans who made below $25,000 in 1999 owned their own car. 97% owned a color TV, with 55% owning more than one. Take for example housing; 46% owned their own home. You might say that the house is probably pretty small, but the average house for those 46% of people making $25,000 or less is 1,200 square feet. Compare that to the entire European average of 975 square feet. There is actually only one country that can beat the average "poor American's" home, Luxembourg. Their average home size is about 1,350 square feet. However that is still a far cry from the 1,800 square foot average for the overall average American home.
Big point #2 - European Countries will likely NEVER catch the United States unless something dramatic is done.
The study shows that even if the United States economy remained absolutely stagnant, it would take most European countries over 10 years to catch up to the United States if their growth remained the same. There was only one country that would have caught up to the United States in less than 8 years, but more on that later.
Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the United States has nearly doubled their economy per person in the past 30 years. Only Germany has kept a reasonable pace, but they are still about 5% below the United States per person GDP.
Big Point #3 - A person in the United States buy more than a person in Europe.
In fact the average American spends about 77% more than the average European. The only country who comes close is again Luxembourg However this is misleading since it takes into affect per person GDP. Luxembourg has a very high GDP per person since most of their work force comes from people who live outside the country. Even with the skewed scale, Americans are able to spend almost $5,000 more per year than them, and almost $10,000 more than in any other European country.
Why is this? - The United states has a more free market than the European Markets.
European countries have policies which have high taxation, and strict laws preventing companies from firing unproductive workers. This makes companies more reluctant to hire people, as well as make it difficult for people to become entrepreneurs. Companies are very difficult to start up, and no one wants to deal with it.
Not only that but taxes for the American income earner are the lowest of all people surveyed. Americans have much more money left after the government takes it away in taxes. This allowed for more consumption spending, which helps the businesses that sell the products.
Big Point #4 - There is one exception to the European Mire
There is one country who is defying the European lackluster performance, and I'm betting you would have never thought of it if you didn't know: Ireland. Yes, the Irish have taken notes from America and discovered the key to long term economic gains; Economic Freedom. Ireland was listed in 2004 as being the 4th most free market in the world, and their economic growth has shown. In 1987 Ireland had the lowest per capita GDP of all the EU countries. However in the following years Ireland's government sliced taxes, and opened up the market to more freedoms. Growth flowed from the economy at a fire hydrant rate. From 1990 to 1995 the economy grew at a rate of over 5% per year, and from 1995 to 2000, the economy averaged over 9% growth per year! The key to this is exponential growth. It's calculated the same way as interest in an account. You start off with 100, the next year you have 109, the next you have 119, the next 130, then 141, and so on. From the year 1990 to 2000 the economy grew 96%.
Lower taxes, and less government intrusion left the people more options, and made it easier to succeed. People were starting new businesses everyday, and the economy skyrocketed from being worst to first.Ireland's recent economic storywould be one which emphasises the role of low taxation in promoting economic activity. Low corperate taxes are vital if a region is to encourage foreign direct investment. Aside from the 10% corperation tax rate there have been substantial reductions in tax rates between 1985 and 1998. The top rate of income tax has come down from 65% to 46%, capital gains tax has been reduced from 60% to 20% and capital aquisitions tax from 55% to 40%. Well targeted tax breaks can generate worthwhile employment generating activity. - European University InstituteRecently Ireland's growth has declined, reason; the government has decided that they want more regulation. This has begun to peak the "Celtic Tiger."
Need further proof that big government is bad for the economy? Compare this map of the 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, to the rank of world economies. Note that every one of the most free economies are among the top per capita economies (5th, 8th, 13th and 17th, again, note Luxembourg's $80k/C is heavily skewed). Of the countries who are 70-80% free, they hold 12 of the remaining 16 spots in the top 20. Only Qatar, France, Germany, and Italy were among the 60-70% free class to break the top 20, and they ranked 7th, 18th 19th and 20th. Qatar was the 7th, but like Luxembourg, their numbers may have been skewed to the high range due to workers living outside the country.
As far as I could see, the highest ranked 50-60% country is Poland at $7,946/C. Compare that to the United State's $42,000/C, and it only goes downhill from there.
They make it seem like Europe is such a great model, but in actuality,
"It is better being poor in a rich country than in a poor one."
Economic Freedom: The key to economic success.
Cross Posted At: GOP and College
Previous:
Another Reason To Not Raise Minimum Wage, Continued
Another Reason To Not Raise Minimum Wage
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The First Annual Jimmah Awards!
Our good friend Pam over at Blogmeister USA has launched THE FIRST ANNUAL JIMMAH AWARDS in honor of our favorite worst ex-President ever!She is taking nominations through Friday, February 23rd in the following categories:
1. Worst anti-Semite
2. Worst American anti-American
3. Worst Foreign anti-American
4. Biggest Hypocrite
5. Most Willing to Ignore Reality
6. Most Willing to Embrace Dhimmitude
7. Lifetime Achievement in Moonbattery
So, click on over and join in the fun!
Monday, February 05, 2007
"Rex Grossman Deserves To Be The MVP"
"After All, he was the best player for the Colts" - My RoommateI almost feel bad for the guy. He only had 165 yards passing, was picked off twice, fumbled the snap twice, with one being turned over to the Colts, and was sacked "once." I say "once" because the play after he was really sacked, he fumbled the snap, then fell on the ball 11 yards back. The play was counted as a 0 yard run with a fumble, recovered by Grossman 11 yards back.
The Bears were just like the Ohio State Buckeyes in the fact that they ran the opening kickoff back for a touchdown, but then after that, they played a lack-luster game, and lost. The only difference between the Gators and the Colts was the fact that the Gators ripped 44 points into the Buckeyes, and the Colts managed 29.
Here's a good analysis of the two teams I saw:
"Nice friggin' D! When two teams combine to score 30 points at the half in a wind-swept downpour, there's something seriously wrong. Only my underwear has more holes than these two combined defenses." - Wyatt
Also something that was pointed out to me was the fact that after he threw his interception, Manning added a noticeable "umph" to his passes. Rex however did not adapt, and hence hung up a floater for the key 4th quarter pick that sealed the game.
So, Mr. Right might kill me for this, but...Looks like Chicago choked again.
Congrats to Tony Dungy, Peyton Manning, Joseph Addai, and all of the Colts on winning Super Bowl XLI
Pay Attention Jihadi's
If you want to learn how to be a real martyr, listen to Michael Yon.
Martyr: One who suffers for the sake of principle
Sacrificing your life to save the lives other people is true martyrdom.
H/T: FreeSpeech.com
He was dressed as a woman as he walked down the alley toward the mosque full of worshippers. It was Friday, just before Ashura, and the air was chilled.
The bomb strapped to his body was studded with ball-bearings so that he could kill more villagers as they gathered for prayer. The detonation would eviscerate and dismember those closest, shattering bones into fragments, but the ball-bearings would ensure lethality beyond the percussive edge of the blast wave, ripping through the flesh of people who might not have been knocked down by the explosion.
There were no soldiers in his path to stop him; no police to alert to the man in women’s clothes. There were only villagers. The man dressed as a woman was to be the agent of their deaths. He kept walking down the alley toward the mosque where more than one hundred people were praying, a mass murderer masquerading in a woman’s garb.
...The closer a counterfeit comes to the genuine article, the more obvious the deceit. As the murderer dressed in women’s clothes walked purposefully toward his target, there was a village man ahead. But under the guise of a simple villager was a true Martyr, and he, too, had his target in sight. The Martyr had seen through the disguise, but he had no gun. No bomb. No rocket. No stone. No time.
The Martyr walked up to the murderer and lunged into a bear hug, on the spot where we were now standing.
The blast ripped the Martyr to pieces which fell along with pieces of the enemy. Ball-bearings shot through the alley and wounded two children, but the people in the mosque were saved. The man lay in pieces on the ground, his own children having seen how his last embrace saved the people of the village.
Martyr: One who suffers for the sake of principle
Sacrificing your life to save the lives other people is true martyrdom.
H/T: FreeSpeech.com
Monday, January 29, 2007
Another Reason To Not Raise Minimum Wage, Continued
I recently posted about one of the less reported consequences from increasing minimum wage, outsourcing. I am taking Macroeconomics this semester, taught by Dr. Steven Isbell The class got into a discussion about the minimum wage, and its affects on the economy. During the discussion I asked the professor if he felt that outsourcing would increase if the minimum wage were raised. He said he didn't feel that it would increase it much, but it was a possibility.
The discussion sparked my interest, and after the class I asked if he would be willing to be interviewed. He agreed to an e-mail interview (which I was content to since my voice recorder vanished a week or two after I got to speak with Phil Valentine). The questions varied from the minimum wage to Social Security and taxes. I didn't discuss Iraq or foreign policy since it did not pertain to the economics discussion. Here's what I asked.
First, I asked him how many people in the united states make minimum wage. He replied that only about 2% of people make the current minimum wage, a statistic that can be verified directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I followed up asking how many people currently make at or below the higher minimum wage of $7.25. I was amazed to hear, "Currently, approximately 10% of the labor force earns $7.25 or less (again, statistics from the BLS). If, as proposed, the minimum wage is increased to $7.25, I expect that the proportion of the workforce making minimum wage to be slightly less than 10%."
I asked what his thoughts would be on the affects for people making $6 per hour, and also the people who would be making just over minimum wage. He feels that there could be a slight increase in unemployment for the people making less than the proposed minimum wage, and the people making slightly over minimum wage would hardly feel a change, but "The biggest economic effects will be market distortions that are not immediately recognized as being caused by the increase in the minimum wage. For example, the biggest impact will be on firms employing a large number of low-skill workers. These employers will adjust to this government-imposed increase in the cost of low-skill labor by raising prices and substituting capital inputs (machines) and/or high-skilled labor for low-skill workers."
I then mentioned that some people feel the wage increase is justified by the fact that CEO's make an average of 400 times the average employee. He said, "This not only a moot point, it is silly. If the minimum wage is increased to $7.25 per hour, the average wage for all workers will not change much at all. So CEOs will still be making 400 times average."
I will admit that there are some ethical benefits to people making below the poverty line, so I asked what other benefits/consequences there would be to the increase. He replied, "There will be lots of unintended consequences. They are too numerous to list; indeed, we do not even know what they all will be."
In class he had mentioned that he felt the unemployment rate would be adversely affected by the rate increase, so I asked him what he felt it would do in the short term, and if that trend would continue into a long term affect. He said, "Unemployment rates will be higher for low-skilled workers than they would be otherwise, plus the misallocative effects mentioned above."
I asked, if the wage passed, if he felt companies should get tax breaks in an attempt to offset the wage increases. He responded, "No. Trying to somehow compensate firms affected by the minimum wage will introduce other market distortions. This is the inevitable (albeit unintended) consequence of any government intervention in markets."
I then asked what he felt the affects would be on the Nominal (monetary) GDP and Real (Production) GDP. He said he feels that both will be below what they could potentially be, but will not be decreased by a disastrous amount. I was actually a bit surprised, thinking that Nominal would go up slightly with the increase in lower end wages, but Real GDP would reduce with reduction in the work force, leading to higher inflation.
I have long thought that minimum wage increases are more a tool for political pandering, and I asked him if he felt the same way. He replied "I do not pretend to understand politics, nor do I really like to impugn the motives of others. However, it does seem odd that if you really believed the minimum wage to be a beneficial institution, then you should support a bill to index the minimum wage to a price index. This way, the minimum wage increases with inflation, and there is never a need to bother with legislation mandating another minimum wage increase. I am not aware of anyone in Congress making such a proposal."
Then the big question. If he were in Washington, would he pass the wage increase and why or why not? He stated, "No. My choice would be to abolish the minimum wage. Minimum wage increases are very ineffective ways of alleviating poverty. If you wish to increase the incomes of poor households, then do something that directly increases those incomes (currently, the most logical choice would be to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit). Attempting to somehow manage labor markets to achieve some preconceived desirable outcome will never work (or will work poorly)."
After those questions I asked him about Social Security, government pork and the tax system. Here was the discussion. The first thing I asked was his opinion of government pork. His reply was simple and to the point saying, "The problem is determining what is “excess”. Or what is “pork”. I think the major problem is that the government is simply too big. Start reducing the size of government, and the pork and other excesses will be taken care of in short order."
I then asked his opinion on Social Security. Again he was quick and to the point saying, "Social Security, MediCare, and MedicAid are the three worst things that the Federal government has ever enacted."
During class he pointed out that in his youth, there was one worker for every 2 people on social security, and that when my generation begins to reach our 30's or so, each of us will be supporting 4 people on Social Security. Hearing that, I asked if he felt that the Social Security system was reaching a critical point. He said, "A decision concerning changes should be made very soon (in the next 3-4 years). The longer we put off a change, the worse the problem will become."
I asked if he felt Social Security reform in the way of government "Personalized Savings Accounts" would be a good solution to the growing problem. He said that it depends on what you view as the problem. He explained, "If you consider the problem as one of restricting individual freedoms (as I do), then abolish the program(s). If you merely want to continue the program with no undue burden on future workers, then there are some modest changes that will work. I would recommend that the program(s) be abolished. Issue a bond, to each individual under age 60 (or some other suitable age), valued at twice the amount of what that individual has “contributed” to Social Security (what the individual has contributed, and what the employer has contributed). Then declare the Social Security program to be over.
Of course, that will be politically unacceptable. To reduce the burden on future workers, and to keep the program(s) viable, I would (1) raise the age at which benefits can be claimed, (2) index benefit increases to the overall price index, not the wage index. When Social Security was introduced in the 1930s, a worker retiring at age 65 could expect to receive benefits for 10 years or so. Now, a worker retiring at age 65 can expect benefits for 25 years or more. I don’t think it is too much to ask for an increase in the retirement age to 70 or so (and I’ve seen actuarial studies showing this would “fix” Social Security). Also, benefit increases currently rise faster than inflation (since overall wages rise faster than inflation). I think it only fair that a retiree accept benefit increases adjusted for inflation."
The last subject was something everyone hates, but is as certain as the fact that you cannot live forever, Taxes. I noted that the top 5% of income earners in the country pay 54% of the government's tax revenue. I asked if he felt that the upper class is being disproportionally taxed, and he stated, "Not necessarily. It is much better than it was in the 1970s when the top marginal tax rate was over 70%. This is not an issue so much of allocative inefficiencies (like the minimum wage, or “capping” salaries of CEOs). At least, I believe this is not a problem at current tax rates."
The last question was about the "Fair Tax" concept that Neal Boortz has suggested. A tax system that would essentially get rid of the IRS. It is a 23% sales tax which includes everyone, but low income families would either be exempt, or would receive reimbursement for the taxes they payed. He said, "This tax proposal is better than the current tax system, but I don’t think it is ideal. I am very much in favor of new ideas, and I think that debating/arguing over them is extremely healthy."
I am looking forward to the rest of the semester, and the class discussions that will result from it. One thought that I felt amusing, when the minimum wage discussion began, I would estimate about 50-60% of the class felt that a wage increase would be a great benefit, and would be an easy way to increase the GDP of the country. After the discussion, and learning the adverse affects, I would be surprised if more than 10% of the class still believes that a wage increase is a good idea.
*Just as a side note, the ideas expressed by Dr. Isbell are not necessarily the opinions of TTU, and it's faculty as a whole*
The discussion sparked my interest, and after the class I asked if he would be willing to be interviewed. He agreed to an e-mail interview (which I was content to since my voice recorder vanished a week or two after I got to speak with Phil Valentine). The questions varied from the minimum wage to Social Security and taxes. I didn't discuss Iraq or foreign policy since it did not pertain to the economics discussion. Here's what I asked.
First, I asked him how many people in the united states make minimum wage. He replied that only about 2% of people make the current minimum wage, a statistic that can be verified directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I followed up asking how many people currently make at or below the higher minimum wage of $7.25. I was amazed to hear, "Currently, approximately 10% of the labor force earns $7.25 or less (again, statistics from the BLS). If, as proposed, the minimum wage is increased to $7.25, I expect that the proportion of the workforce making minimum wage to be slightly less than 10%."
I asked what his thoughts would be on the affects for people making $6 per hour, and also the people who would be making just over minimum wage. He feels that there could be a slight increase in unemployment for the people making less than the proposed minimum wage, and the people making slightly over minimum wage would hardly feel a change, but "The biggest economic effects will be market distortions that are not immediately recognized as being caused by the increase in the minimum wage. For example, the biggest impact will be on firms employing a large number of low-skill workers. These employers will adjust to this government-imposed increase in the cost of low-skill labor by raising prices and substituting capital inputs (machines) and/or high-skilled labor for low-skill workers."
I then mentioned that some people feel the wage increase is justified by the fact that CEO's make an average of 400 times the average employee. He said, "This not only a moot point, it is silly. If the minimum wage is increased to $7.25 per hour, the average wage for all workers will not change much at all. So CEOs will still be making 400 times average."
I will admit that there are some ethical benefits to people making below the poverty line, so I asked what other benefits/consequences there would be to the increase. He replied, "There will be lots of unintended consequences. They are too numerous to list; indeed, we do not even know what they all will be."
In class he had mentioned that he felt the unemployment rate would be adversely affected by the rate increase, so I asked him what he felt it would do in the short term, and if that trend would continue into a long term affect. He said, "Unemployment rates will be higher for low-skilled workers than they would be otherwise, plus the misallocative effects mentioned above."
I asked, if the wage passed, if he felt companies should get tax breaks in an attempt to offset the wage increases. He responded, "No. Trying to somehow compensate firms affected by the minimum wage will introduce other market distortions. This is the inevitable (albeit unintended) consequence of any government intervention in markets."
I then asked what he felt the affects would be on the Nominal (monetary) GDP and Real (Production) GDP. He said he feels that both will be below what they could potentially be, but will not be decreased by a disastrous amount. I was actually a bit surprised, thinking that Nominal would go up slightly with the increase in lower end wages, but Real GDP would reduce with reduction in the work force, leading to higher inflation.
I have long thought that minimum wage increases are more a tool for political pandering, and I asked him if he felt the same way. He replied "I do not pretend to understand politics, nor do I really like to impugn the motives of others. However, it does seem odd that if you really believed the minimum wage to be a beneficial institution, then you should support a bill to index the minimum wage to a price index. This way, the minimum wage increases with inflation, and there is never a need to bother with legislation mandating another minimum wage increase. I am not aware of anyone in Congress making such a proposal."
Then the big question. If he were in Washington, would he pass the wage increase and why or why not? He stated, "No. My choice would be to abolish the minimum wage. Minimum wage increases are very ineffective ways of alleviating poverty. If you wish to increase the incomes of poor households, then do something that directly increases those incomes (currently, the most logical choice would be to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit). Attempting to somehow manage labor markets to achieve some preconceived desirable outcome will never work (or will work poorly)."
After those questions I asked him about Social Security, government pork and the tax system. Here was the discussion. The first thing I asked was his opinion of government pork. His reply was simple and to the point saying, "The problem is determining what is “excess”. Or what is “pork”. I think the major problem is that the government is simply too big. Start reducing the size of government, and the pork and other excesses will be taken care of in short order."
I then asked his opinion on Social Security. Again he was quick and to the point saying, "Social Security, MediCare, and MedicAid are the three worst things that the Federal government has ever enacted."
During class he pointed out that in his youth, there was one worker for every 2 people on social security, and that when my generation begins to reach our 30's or so, each of us will be supporting 4 people on Social Security. Hearing that, I asked if he felt that the Social Security system was reaching a critical point. He said, "A decision concerning changes should be made very soon (in the next 3-4 years). The longer we put off a change, the worse the problem will become."
I asked if he felt Social Security reform in the way of government "Personalized Savings Accounts" would be a good solution to the growing problem. He said that it depends on what you view as the problem. He explained, "If you consider the problem as one of restricting individual freedoms (as I do), then abolish the program(s). If you merely want to continue the program with no undue burden on future workers, then there are some modest changes that will work. I would recommend that the program(s) be abolished. Issue a bond, to each individual under age 60 (or some other suitable age), valued at twice the amount of what that individual has “contributed” to Social Security (what the individual has contributed, and what the employer has contributed). Then declare the Social Security program to be over.
Of course, that will be politically unacceptable. To reduce the burden on future workers, and to keep the program(s) viable, I would (1) raise the age at which benefits can be claimed, (2) index benefit increases to the overall price index, not the wage index. When Social Security was introduced in the 1930s, a worker retiring at age 65 could expect to receive benefits for 10 years or so. Now, a worker retiring at age 65 can expect benefits for 25 years or more. I don’t think it is too much to ask for an increase in the retirement age to 70 or so (and I’ve seen actuarial studies showing this would “fix” Social Security). Also, benefit increases currently rise faster than inflation (since overall wages rise faster than inflation). I think it only fair that a retiree accept benefit increases adjusted for inflation."
The last subject was something everyone hates, but is as certain as the fact that you cannot live forever, Taxes. I noted that the top 5% of income earners in the country pay 54% of the government's tax revenue. I asked if he felt that the upper class is being disproportionally taxed, and he stated, "Not necessarily. It is much better than it was in the 1970s when the top marginal tax rate was over 70%. This is not an issue so much of allocative inefficiencies (like the minimum wage, or “capping” salaries of CEOs). At least, I believe this is not a problem at current tax rates."
The last question was about the "Fair Tax" concept that Neal Boortz has suggested. A tax system that would essentially get rid of the IRS. It is a 23% sales tax which includes everyone, but low income families would either be exempt, or would receive reimbursement for the taxes they payed. He said, "This tax proposal is better than the current tax system, but I don’t think it is ideal. I am very much in favor of new ideas, and I think that debating/arguing over them is extremely healthy."
I am looking forward to the rest of the semester, and the class discussions that will result from it. One thought that I felt amusing, when the minimum wage discussion began, I would estimate about 50-60% of the class felt that a wage increase would be a great benefit, and would be an easy way to increase the GDP of the country. After the discussion, and learning the adverse affects, I would be surprised if more than 10% of the class still believes that a wage increase is a good idea.
*Just as a side note, the ideas expressed by Dr. Isbell are not necessarily the opinions of TTU, and it's faculty as a whole*
Friday, January 26, 2007
OH...MY...GOD!!!!
What the hell kind of a news agency hires this man? After watching Hot Air's video of Jon Snow sympathizing with Iraqi insurgents and death squads, I had to find the video that they described in this post where Snow dismisses a YEAR worth of rocket attacks from Palestine AFTER Isreal removed their troops from the Gaza Strip.. I could not believe my ears!!!! Watch it for yourself and try not to just scream out "OH MY GOD!!"
Some lines from the video:
Snow: This is collective punishment; You've cut off the water. You've cut off the petrol. You've cut off the water, and you're starving the hospitals out.
Ravner: This is not, ah, collective punishment. And this is not just about the soldier. It's the culmination of about one year long since we've withdrawn full to the 67 line from Gaza, and since then what we've gotten was a day in and day out, even today when we are talking, uh, rockets being fired into Israel. And then came the ah, killing of the, ah, murdering of the youngster in the West Bank earlier this week. And now the Hamas government has to decide what are they exactly. Are they a terrorist organization as we susspect, or are they a government. If they are a government, there is a very simple and clear-cut resolution to the conflict strait away. Let them release our soldier. Let them stop the firing of rockets, and there will be no problem.
Snow: Well, ah, rockets are pretty pathetic things really, nobody gets injured, they are homemade, and you well know they have nothing much stronger than an AK-47. No RPG's, and you're delivering some of the most sophisticated bombardment that ever been subjected to a defenseless people.
Targets hit by the Qassam Rockets; A nursery school, A soccer field, A school yard, HaVegev College, a kindergarten class. Sometimes there were more than 30 rockets fired IN ONE DAY. ALL targets were civilian areas.
The number of casualties from the "harmless" rockets, ALL CIVILIANS:
14 Dead
51 Wounded (With injuries as bad as one man losing BOTH legs)
8 People put into shock (including 4 children)
The number of people killed in the "attack on defenseless people"; 1. A member of a terrorist faction who was killed in his own home.
Cross Posted at GOP and College
Some lines from the video:
Snow: This is collective punishment; You've cut off the water. You've cut off the petrol. You've cut off the water, and you're starving the hospitals out.
Ravner: This is not, ah, collective punishment. And this is not just about the soldier. It's the culmination of about one year long since we've withdrawn full to the 67 line from Gaza, and since then what we've gotten was a day in and day out, even today when we are talking, uh, rockets being fired into Israel. And then came the ah, killing of the, ah, murdering of the youngster in the West Bank earlier this week. And now the Hamas government has to decide what are they exactly. Are they a terrorist organization as we susspect, or are they a government. If they are a government, there is a very simple and clear-cut resolution to the conflict strait away. Let them release our soldier. Let them stop the firing of rockets, and there will be no problem.
Snow: Well, ah, rockets are pretty pathetic things really, nobody gets injured, they are homemade, and you well know they have nothing much stronger than an AK-47. No RPG's, and you're delivering some of the most sophisticated bombardment that ever been subjected to a defenseless people.
Targets hit by the Qassam Rockets; A nursery school, A soccer field, A school yard, HaVegev College, a kindergarten class. Sometimes there were more than 30 rockets fired IN ONE DAY. ALL targets were civilian areas.
The number of casualties from the "harmless" rockets, ALL CIVILIANS:
14 Dead
51 Wounded (With injuries as bad as one man losing BOTH legs)
8 People put into shock (including 4 children)
The number of people killed in the "attack on defenseless people"; 1. A member of a terrorist faction who was killed in his own home.
Cross Posted at GOP and College
Sunday, January 21, 2007
THE SUPER BOWL SHUFFLE, REPRISE!!!
Click and play.Don't anybody pinch me, I'm too afraid I'll wake up!
I have tried very hard not to turn this into a sports blog, blogging only about baseball a few times as my beloved White Sox finally broke an 88 year championship drought in 2005, but once again, I need to gloat a little!
Da Bears are in Da Super Bowl for only the second time EVER, and the first time in 21 years!!!
Way to go, guys!
Now, on to Miami!
To celebrate, how about we cue up an old Chicago favorite in the jukebox for a chorus or two?
We are the Bears Shufflin' Crew
Shufflin' on down, doin' it for you.
We're so bad we know we're good.
Blowin' your mind like we knew we would.
You know we're just struttin' for fun
Struttin' our stuff for everyone.
We're not here to start no trouble.
We're just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle.
Shufflin' on down, doin' it for you.
We're so bad we know we're good.
Blowin' your mind like we knew we would.
You know we're just struttin' for fun
Struttin' our stuff for everyone.
We're not here to start no trouble.
We're just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle.
Somewhere up in Heaven, Sweetness must be smiling...
Monday, January 15, 2007
Gore Raises Global Warming Alarm Again, Cites New Scientific Evidence
Former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. called a press conference earlier today to call people's attention to what he called an "urgent new development" on the global warming front. The former Vice President and inventor of the Internet once again showed uncanny timing in raising the global warming alert level in the wake of the worst ice storm in years across much of the U.S. and subsequent sub-zero temperatures sweeping across the nation's mid-section.
"It has recently come to my attention that there is now irrefutable scientific data that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth's northern hemisphere has been steadily increasing in the last few weeks," Mr. Gore told a packed auditorium filled with media from all over the world. "Teams of crack climatologists have been checking and double-checking the data, and there is just no question that this is indeed the case. Furthermore, the effect is increasing incrementally... that is to say, that with each passing day, more and more sunlight is reaching the northern half of the earth's surface. There is also little doubt that the reason for this phenomenon is quite obviously the continued use of automobiles and other pollutants in the heavily populated and industrialized countries north of the equator, and in the United States in particular."
World-wide bedlam quickly ensued as a breathless media reported the story verbatim, using such headlines as "Worst Fears Confirmed: Earth Doomed!" and "Oh, God! It's Fry Day!" as they interviewed countless experts about the deleterious effects of ever-incrementally increasing sunlight on life on our "fragile" planet.
"Unless something is done immediately, we will all be dead within, at most, a few years," stated Dr. Stew N. Majuces, noted Global Warming Expert from the Progressive American National Institute of Climatology. "This is a disaster of unprecedented scope, and the fault clearly lies squarely with President Bush, who has steadfastly refused to deal with this issue throughout his shameful Presidency, despite repeated warnings from all of us here at P.A.N.I.C.! The imminent death of all life on this planet is on his head --- and his head alone!"
Some media outlets began to delve further into the study, which also reportedly reveals a decrease in sunlight across earth's southern hemisphere over the same period of time.
"Clearly, the greedy and over-industrialized north is stealing sunlight from those of us in the less-fortunate, underdeveloped south," reported one Brazilian television network. "In the process, they have doomed us all!"
In a joint appearance on nationwide television hours later, newly crowned Shrieker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and newly minted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Illegal Land Deals) called for immediate legislative action, beginning with, but not limited to, ratification of the controversial Kyoto Accords Treaty.
"There is no time to waste on extravagances such as blue-ribbon panels, committees or even floor debates, we need to take action NOW," stressed a visibly angry Pelosi. "Anyone suggesting we need to take the time to study the evidence is only trying to get our children and grandchildren all killed, like the White House is trying to do to our soldiers in its useless war in Iraq, which we have clearly already lost. It's time for everyone on earth to wake up to the real threat, which is global warming, not global terrorism, which never really existed except in the feeble minds of the President and his political lackeys!"
White House spokesman Tony Snow could hardly contain his laughter as he issued a call for calm minutes later from the White House Press Room. "This is nothing more than grandstanding on the part of Mr. Gore and his ilk," Snow chortled. "We have had our own scientists at NASA and NOAA as well as the NWS check this so-called data, and it turns out all Mr. Gore's 'experts' have discovered is that the earth is continuing to rotate normally around the sun in its proper orbit, causing a gradual increase in the amount of sunlight seen each day in the northern hemisphere and a corresponding decrease in the southern hemisphere, following the winter solstice, as happens every year... and has happened every year for the past 5 billion or so years! God willing, this cycle will continue unabated for the foreseeable future."
Curiously, most news services across the globe chose to quote only the final sentence of Mr. Snow's statement, causing more anger and panic and calls for President Bush's immediate resignation.
Developing...
If you enjoyed this work of satire, you may also enjoy some of the following...
Mr. Right's Greatest Hits:
More Political Satire:
The Hill-Orgy of Errors:
And a Filthy Lie:
Or feel free to check out our Main Page. Thank you for visiting The Right Place!
******************************
Thanks for the links!
Pam at Blogmeister USA
Maggie at The Bullwinkle Blog
Howie at The Jawa Report
"It has recently come to my attention that there is now irrefutable scientific data that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth's northern hemisphere has been steadily increasing in the last few weeks," Mr. Gore told a packed auditorium filled with media from all over the world. "Teams of crack climatologists have been checking and double-checking the data, and there is just no question that this is indeed the case. Furthermore, the effect is increasing incrementally... that is to say, that with each passing day, more and more sunlight is reaching the northern half of the earth's surface. There is also little doubt that the reason for this phenomenon is quite obviously the continued use of automobiles and other pollutants in the heavily populated and industrialized countries north of the equator, and in the United States in particular."
World-wide bedlam quickly ensued as a breathless media reported the story verbatim, using such headlines as "Worst Fears Confirmed: Earth Doomed!" and "Oh, God! It's Fry Day!" as they interviewed countless experts about the deleterious effects of ever-incrementally increasing sunlight on life on our "fragile" planet.
"Unless something is done immediately, we will all be dead within, at most, a few years," stated Dr. Stew N. Majuces, noted Global Warming Expert from the Progressive American National Institute of Climatology. "This is a disaster of unprecedented scope, and the fault clearly lies squarely with President Bush, who has steadfastly refused to deal with this issue throughout his shameful Presidency, despite repeated warnings from all of us here at P.A.N.I.C.! The imminent death of all life on this planet is on his head --- and his head alone!"
Some media outlets began to delve further into the study, which also reportedly reveals a decrease in sunlight across earth's southern hemisphere over the same period of time.
"Clearly, the greedy and over-industrialized north is stealing sunlight from those of us in the less-fortunate, underdeveloped south," reported one Brazilian television network. "In the process, they have doomed us all!"
In a joint appearance on nationwide television hours later, newly crowned Shrieker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and newly minted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Illegal Land Deals) called for immediate legislative action, beginning with, but not limited to, ratification of the controversial Kyoto Accords Treaty.
"There is no time to waste on extravagances such as blue-ribbon panels, committees or even floor debates, we need to take action NOW," stressed a visibly angry Pelosi. "Anyone suggesting we need to take the time to study the evidence is only trying to get our children and grandchildren all killed, like the White House is trying to do to our soldiers in its useless war in Iraq, which we have clearly already lost. It's time for everyone on earth to wake up to the real threat, which is global warming, not global terrorism, which never really existed except in the feeble minds of the President and his political lackeys!"
White House spokesman Tony Snow could hardly contain his laughter as he issued a call for calm minutes later from the White House Press Room. "This is nothing more than grandstanding on the part of Mr. Gore and his ilk," Snow chortled. "We have had our own scientists at NASA and NOAA as well as the NWS check this so-called data, and it turns out all Mr. Gore's 'experts' have discovered is that the earth is continuing to rotate normally around the sun in its proper orbit, causing a gradual increase in the amount of sunlight seen each day in the northern hemisphere and a corresponding decrease in the southern hemisphere, following the winter solstice, as happens every year... and has happened every year for the past 5 billion or so years! God willing, this cycle will continue unabated for the foreseeable future."
Curiously, most news services across the globe chose to quote only the final sentence of Mr. Snow's statement, causing more anger and panic and calls for President Bush's immediate resignation.
Developing...
If you enjoyed this work of satire, you may also enjoy some of the following...
Mr. Right's Greatest Hits:
- Ms. American Spy
- Results of New In-Depth Study Revealed: Bush May Actually Be Hitler!
- Angry Protesters Demand "U.S. Out of U.S. Now!"
- The Proper Care and Feeding of Moonbats
- George W. Bush and the Holy Grail
- The Democrat Family Album... a Tribute!
- New Orleans Rhapsody
More Political Satire:
- And Now: A Public Service Announcement...
- Long Feared "Bush Purge" Reportedly Now Underway, "Reality Based Community" Crying Out for Action
- Sunspot Activity Causes Brief Interruption of Karl Rove's "Mind-Ray" - Democrats Claim Rare Moment of Sanity
- College Journalism Exam with Answer Key!
- ACLU Seeks Ban on Christmas "Propaganda" from the Public Airwaves
- Presenting: The DNC's "Sounds of the Season"
- Democrats Fire Back, File Lawsuit to Stop Bush, Republicans from Using Their Own Words Against Them!
- The Latest Mainstream Media "Poll" - Exposed!
- Halloween Cavalcade of Horrors!
- Ronnie Earle Indicts Much of Texas on Conspiracy Charges
- U.S. Declares War on Smurfs, Hundreds Dead in "Shock and Awe" Style Carpet-Bombing Campaign
- Cindy Sheehan Files Suit Against God; President Bush, Israel Named as "Co-Conspirators"
- The U.S. Constitution - A Liberal Interpretation
- The 9/11 Commission, Part 2 - Electric Boogaloo
- Democrats Give up on Winning, Push for More "Spectacular" Losses
- We Now Join the "Save Air America Radio" Telethon, Already in Progress...
- Top Secret Democrat Party Strategy Meeting - Exposed!
- The Far-Left's Favorite Soap Opera: Get Bush!
- You Just Might Be a Moonbat...
- Selections from the "Donktionary"
- The Moonbat Song
The Hill-Orgy of Errors:
- Hillary Clinton's Secret Love Affair Exposed!
- Bigfoot Takes His Own Life!
- The Right Place Stands By Its Story!
And a Filthy Lie:
Or feel free to check out our Main Page. Thank you for visiting The Right Place!
******************************
Thanks for the links!
Pam at Blogmeister USA
Maggie at The Bullwinkle Blog
Howie at The Jawa Report
Sunday, January 14, 2007
President to request surge of 21,500 restroom attendants in wake of Athens embassy bombing.
Speaking of dropping bombs...President George W. Bush is expected to announce a massive increase in toilet scrubbers, towel holders and arse wipers after a rocket-propelled grenade was shot into the toilets of the U.S. embassy in Athens, sources say.
Mr. Bush told the Nation in his Wednesday address: "Our restroom attendants will have a well-defined mission: to help Grecians clear and secure stalls, to help them protect the local population and to help ensure that the Grecian forces left behind are capable of providing the paper towels that Athens needs."
Congressional Democrats, along with some Republicans, are united against the plan, however, and are threatening to cut off funds to what they call an escalation.
"In ordering more restroom attendants to Greece, the President is ignoring the strong advice of most of his own top generals. General John Abizaid -- until recently, the commanding general in Iraq and Afghanistan -- said, and I quote, 'More American forces prevent the Greeks from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future,' end of quote," Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin said in the Democratic response.
Polls show that 55 per cent of Americans support withdrawing some or all U.S. restroom attendants from Greece, with support for no change in attendant levels or an increase in the number of attendants at just 21 and 17 per cent, respectively.
Local yokel Cletus McCoy supports sending more attendants: "Well, considerin' them Greeks er responsible fer nan-unlehvun, I thank we shud go in an' nuke the whole Balkan peninsula."
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan paused from between sips of Jamba Juice to rant, "NO WAR! No more children must die for George Bush's illegal war for hummus!"
It is possible that Congress may vote to cut off funds to American peace-keeping efforts in restrooms throughout the Mediterranean, to which White House Press Secretary Tony Snow retorted, "Democrats are pussies," and proceeded to bitch-slap Helen Thomas with his microphone whilst screaming, "That'll teach you to grow old, you hag!"
Major props to my AP Economics teacher, Mr. Cordina, for the idea for this blog post. I gotta give credit where it's due!
Mr. Bush told the Nation in his Wednesday address: "Our restroom attendants will have a well-defined mission: to help Grecians clear and secure stalls, to help them protect the local population and to help ensure that the Grecian forces left behind are capable of providing the paper towels that Athens needs."
Congressional Democrats, along with some Republicans, are united against the plan, however, and are threatening to cut off funds to what they call an escalation.
"In ordering more restroom attendants to Greece, the President is ignoring the strong advice of most of his own top generals. General John Abizaid -- until recently, the commanding general in Iraq and Afghanistan -- said, and I quote, 'More American forces prevent the Greeks from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future,' end of quote," Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin said in the Democratic response.
Polls show that 55 per cent of Americans support withdrawing some or all U.S. restroom attendants from Greece, with support for no change in attendant levels or an increase in the number of attendants at just 21 and 17 per cent, respectively.
Local yokel Cletus McCoy supports sending more attendants: "Well, considerin' them Greeks er responsible fer nan-unlehvun, I thank we shud go in an' nuke the whole Balkan peninsula."
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan paused from between sips of Jamba Juice to rant, "NO WAR! No more children must die for George Bush's illegal war for hummus!"
It is possible that Congress may vote to cut off funds to American peace-keeping efforts in restrooms throughout the Mediterranean, to which White House Press Secretary Tony Snow retorted, "Democrats are pussies," and proceeded to bitch-slap Helen Thomas with his microphone whilst screaming, "That'll teach you to grow old, you hag!"
Major props to my AP Economics teacher, Mr. Cordina, for the idea for this blog post. I gotta give credit where it's due!
Happy Fun Blog Media Bias Example
The Wordsmith from Nantucket posted hilarity worthy of the aforementioned Happy Fun Blog
MEDIA BIAS?
The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac...sailing on the presidential yacht.
They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."
Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence. The next morning, the Washington Post carries a story, with front page photos, of the event. The banner headline is:
Click the headline to read the punchline.
MEDIA BIAS?
The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac...sailing on the presidential yacht.
They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."
Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence. The next morning, the Washington Post carries a story, with front page photos, of the event. The banner headline is:
Click the headline to read the punchline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)