Woman to Woman

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

I watched “The Incredibles” last night and there is a great line in that movie:

“If we are all Super Heros then no one is super.” I am special, I am special means nothing if everyone is special. When the kids were in school, i saw the kids doing things like that and I always thought of it as having the same motivation as the mother of a tiny beauty queen. The teacher had obviously never felt special so they didn’t want their kids to feel as worthless as they do.

And where is Andea getting the “perfect body” garbage? Has she been out of the house in the last twenty years? Modern teens face an obesity epidemic. Teens don’t look like the smiling, perfect teens in the Old Navy commercial.

I remember reading a description of teens when I was a teen. It described the 60s-70s era teen to a tee. Of course i found out that it was written 1,000 years before Christ. Kids don’t change much. There are always the “Big men On Campus” that date the head cheerleader. There are the nerds, the jocks, the angry guys that always get in fights, there are the skinny, pretty flute players in the band that are shy and sweet that somehow always manage to come back from summer vacation between their Junior and Senior Year and all of the sudden, they have become a stunning beauty that outshines all the popular girls. (I loved those girls).

Adolescents is a hell of a bad time. Teens use overconfidence to compensate for the fact that they are scared out of their wits at the prospect of facing the nasty and unfair world that we have left them. And nowadays, they are more poorly educated and less physically active than any other generation. If they can pull a little overconfidence out of that, they should go for it. It won’t be long before they will have the confidence blown full of holes, so like most everything that a young person has: enjoy it while you can.

This is a strange topic to say the least, so I’m sure someone will come up with a real topic before the end of the week.

The problems in India are scary, but I must say that Obama is starting to sound a lot like his Republican predecessor in his strong vocal condemnation to the threat of terrorism. Hey, maybe it will begin to be “cool” to recognize that many in the world really do want to kill us all. Could the Republicans have been right all along? Could it possibly be that they were not just trying to scare the bjesus out of us all? Say it ain’t so.

By USinUK

November 28, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

I’m with Andy on this one - although I understand Shaunti’s point that we should applaud effort to encourage achievement.

However, when we tell kids they can be anything they want to be, it’s that surplus of confidence that gives us our best creative minds, our best inventions/discoveries and our greatest achievements.

If you’ve ever heard of Eddie Izzard (brilliant English comic and “executive transvestite”), he does a bit on how the British system pretty much kills kids’ ambitions:

The careers advisor used to come to school. He’d tell the kids, “I advise you to get a career, what can I say?”

He took me aside and said, “Tell me your dreams.” “I want to be an astronaut, discover new things.”

He said, “Look, you’re British, so scale it down a bit.” “All right, I want to work in a shoe shop, then. Discover shoes that no one’s ever discovered in the back of the shop.”

“Look, you’re British, so scale it down a bit.”

while we do need to prepare our kids for the realities of the working world, what’s wrong with empowering them, making them feel special and telling them to grow up and be whatever they want to be???

By USinUK

November 28, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

hey buddy!! not out at getting mall-ed??? (gah!)

I am special means nothing if everyone is special.

“you’re unique … just like everyone else … “

The problems in India are scary, but I must say that Obama is starting to sound a lot like his Republican predecessor in his strong vocal condemnation to the threat of terrorism.

as opposed to what? terrorists went into hotels and restaurants and killed people. what do you think ANYone would say, dem or GOP??? criminey, no one is FOR terrorism, regardless of what Rush has been telling you for the last 8 years.

Hey, maybe it will begin to be “cool” to recognize that many in the world really do want to kill us all. Could the Republicans have been right all along? Could it possibly be that they were not just trying to scare the bjesus out of us all? Say it ain’t so.

well done. a new topic that has nothing to do with partisan us vs. them and you manage to start a partisan battle. sheesh.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

USinUK

No. I Christmas shop on Christmas eve, the way Jesus did it. Did Jesus run out the day after Thanksgiving to buy Mary and Joe a new GPS for their SUV? I don’t think so. I am not a fan of malls.

And these commercials this year are sickening. There is an Old Navy spot that a girl sings : I want a guy that tough but sweet, as they show a dainty little skinny guy skipping along with two grinning models. They may know a guy that’s tough, but it ain’t that guy. LOL!!

And yea, I’m looking for a fight. Prepare to defend yourself, semi-limy.

But seriously, I had to have a talk with my buddy about Obama. He just hit the roof that Sean Hannity was calling this the Obama recession. I told him if he didn’t start to understand that 47% of the people in the country do not believe Obama is the second coming, he will have a heart attack by the end of his term.

Since 9-11, I’ve seen many progressives go further and further away from the facts that surrounded 9-11. I’ve seen them accuse the Republicans of fear mongering and that includes many on here. It has been a subject for comics for 7 years. Personally, I think the Islamic nutjobs were afraid of that cowboy mentality that Bush has been attacked for. A cowboy will shoot your brains out. Are they afraid of a lawyer? I don’t think they are afraid of a subpoena.

I’m glad Obama reacted like he did. I hope the terrorist end up fearing him as much as they feared the cowboy. They are not about to respect us, so fear is as good as we are going to do with those idiots. That’s important for all of us. But you have to admit that the term “Republican Fear Mongering” has been a constant mantra for the past 7 years.

By USinUK

November 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

Did Jesus run out the day after Thanksgiving to buy Mary and Joe a new GPS for their SUV? I don’t think so. I am not a fan of malls.

hahaha … but he could have parted the crowds to get straight to the head of the line!!! (and, yes, I know that was Moses, not Jesus, but it makes for a funny mental image)

There is an Old Navy spot that a girl sings : I want a guy that tough but sweet, as they show a dainty little skinny guy skipping along with two grinning models. They may know a guy that’s tough, but it ain’t that guy. LOL!!

hey! the return of BowWowWow!! woohoo!!! (oh, yeah, I’m so digging that the 1980s are back in!!!) do you guys have the Jean Paul Gautier commercial of the half-dozen or so male models preening in the men’s room, dousing themselves in cologne??? let’s just say, they’re well-waxed and all seem to have fuller lips than Angelina Jolie. it ain’t natural. that’s all I’m sayin’.

I told him if he didn’t start to understand that 47% of the people in the country do not believe Obama is the second coming, he will have a heart attack by the end of his term.

there’s a world of difference between not voting for someone and blaming a recession that started at the beginning of the year on someone who STILL hasn’t taken office. although, I’m not surprised that Sean Hack-ity is trying to deflect it all onto Obama and away from Dear Leader.

I’ve seen them accuse the Republicans of fear mongering and that includes many on here.

ahem: CODE YELLOW! CODE ORANGE! CODE BURNT UMBER! then, it was PLASTIC SHEETING AND DUCT TAPE! AND ENOUGH WATER FOR A WEEK! then, it was “CITIBANK IS GOING TO BE BOMBED … so we’ll send the first lady there to welcome everyone to work” … then, it was “THEY’RE PLANNING AN ATTACK RIGHT AROUND THE SUPERBOWL/2004 ELECTION/BOISE ICE CAPADES!!” …

listen, we all remember 9/11 (some of us were only a mile or so away from the Pentagon when it was hit) … but, there was a ludicrous amount of fear-mongering that did nothing but play on the insecurities of Americans - and that was done by the White House and the DHS.

and, if anyone dared say “um. guys. can you tone it down a bit?”, then were accused of having a “9/10 mindset” … and I will say here and now, I don’t remember ANY democrat making that accusation of ANY republican. if you can find me a quote that says otherwise, I’m happy to be corrected …

It has been a subject for comics for 7 years. Personally, I think the Islamic nutjobs were afraid of that cowboy mentality that Bush has been attacked for. A cowboy will shoot your brains out. Are they afraid of a lawyer? I don’t think they are afraid of a subpoena.

afraid??? is that why terrorist attacks have increased since the war started (according to the State Department). and “lawyers armed with subpoenas” aren’t planning on suing the terrorist organizations - but they can work arm-in-arm with intel agencies to shut down funding and imprison people - without creating new martyrs to the cause - which is what bombing does.

By Sunshine

November 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

afraid??? is that why terrorist attacks have increased since the war started (according to the State Department). and “lawyers armed with subpoenas” aren’t planning on suing the terrorist organizations - but they can work arm-in-arm with intel agencies to shut down funding and imprison people - without creating new martyrs to the cause - which is what bombing does.—VERY WELL SAID USIN!! I second that!

By Bruno

November 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

I read a study once which suggested that there is an inverse relationship between “self-esteem” and actual achievement. Briefly, the schoolchildren in North and South Dakota traditionally score the lowest on self-esteem tests, yet are the highest achievers academically. At the opposite end of the scales are the students from Washington, D.C. who, despite being at the bottom of the heap academically, score the highest in self-esteem testing. If you think about it, it kind of makes sense. If you are repeatedly praised for basically doing nothing, then esteem and achievement become permanently divorced.

Along the same lines, I’ve always been suspicious of Jesse Jackson’s exhortations to his crowds to chant “I am SOMEBODY”. IME, when a truth is self-evident, there is no special motivation to forcefuly shout about it. The louder the shouts, the more convinced I become that someone is trying to sell me some major BS. Which is why, as a young child, I questioned and ultimately rejected the fairy tales being taught to me at church.

Quoting the Traffic song “House For Everyone”:

I sailed away for fifteen days, it never once got dark

And came upon two large houses set out in a park.

On the door of one was truth, on the other door was lies.

Which one should I enter thru? I really must decide

The door of lies had lots of flowers growing round outside

But looking close I noticed it was crumbling inside

The door of truth was very plain, but stood up very strong,

And when I entered thru its door I knew I wasn’t wrong.

By Bruno

November 28, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

Obama is starting to sound a lot like his Republican predecessor in his strong vocal condemnation to the threat of terrorism. Hey, maybe it will begin to be “cool” to recognize that many in the world really do want to kill us all. Could the Republicans have been right all along? Could it possibly be that they were not just trying to scare the bjesus out of us all? Say it ain’t so.

Honestly, TOJ, I was thinking the same thing while watching the news of the most recent Muslim terror attacks in India. If only Jesse Jackson had gotten those young Muslims to chant “I am SOMEBODY”, I’m sure the whole thing could have been avoided.

By Bruno

November 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Quick trivia question for the posters today—try to answer it without googling for extra “self-esteem” credit.

With part of the profits from the album “Dark Side of the Moon”, Pink Floyd financed which movie?

By USinUK

November 28, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

Briefly, the schoolchildren in North and South Dakota traditionally score the lowest on self-esteem tests, yet are the highest achievers academically. At the opposite end of the scales are the students from Washington, D.C. who, despite being at the bottom of the heap academically, score the highest in self-esteem testing.

I’m googling like a mad woman and can’t find ANYthing even remotely like this … care to cite??? cuz, I gotta say … highest achievers nationally are found in North and South Dakota??? maybe on a per capita basis … but, I’m having a hard time swallowing that one …

If you are repeatedly praised for basically doing nothing, then esteem and achievement become permanently divorced.

then, what do you think about Shaunti’s assertion that you should praise effort … ??

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I just heard that some store employee up north was trampled to death when he opened the store doors this morning. Now THAT’s what Christmas is all about! I would be afraid to let Jesus walk into a mall. Remember what he did to the money changers in the temple. Talk about a guy that’s tough but sweet!

I’m tellin ya. I buy the specific items that I know people want at different times, but 90% of the gifts will be bought on Christmas Eve. I find fantastic deals and when I am looking for toys, I have bought $200 toys for less than $20, especially it the toys take up a lot of shelve space.

This feminizing of men is getting old. Target and Old Navy are the worst. Skipping little pretty boys who are prettier than the girls on their arms definitely ain’t natural. I have noticed that Brad Pitt now puckers his lips when he is in the presence of the Press. MAN UP Brad!!! Your lips will never be what your wife’s lips are!!

Yes, the color codes got to the point of silliness, but how many liberals attacked Bush for not heeding the warnings? The attacks may have increased in other countries, but not here.

*but they can work arm-in-arm with intel agencies to shut down funding and imprison people *

Hmmm. Let’s see. Somewhere, I have heard that the Republicans did exactly that after 9-11. Cutting the money of the millionaires that are the kings of the nuts only scares the kings and they set on their old lard butts while directing the masses to kill. The masses just want to kill Americans, Brits and Jews. Sorry, but when someone has the stones to strap on a bomb belt, they probably won’t fear setting in a comfortable prison cell, getting three squares a day. It would probably be the best they have had in their entire lives.

I hope Obama scares the crap out of these people. I am encouraged that many around the world were deeply offended that Al Quida called Obama a “House N———-“. they weren’t offended by the fact that 2,500 people died in New York and Washington, but calling Obama a name: now that’s a serious offense. I say whatever it takes.

I think Obama understands that it will take more than a threat of legal action against these people. I hope he does.

By Bruno

November 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

We all already pay for “poor people’s” health care services in the form of County/City Health Departments and in the County run hospitals and for mentally unstable criminals. WE pay for it everyday in our taxes. Pay for it in our insurance premiums when people come to the Hospitals for critical care b/c they have had no preventative care. There is not a question if a citizen will age and need more health services at some point, it is only a matter of when, and unfortunately (as the insurance companies have already figured out and have therefor charged the “ovary tax”) woman of childbearing age need frequent preventative health services to help PREVENT more costly problems down the road. These are not IF’s. It is not only catastrophic things. What about family planning services? Chronic diseases? Birth defects and/or genetic disorders? Is it really ‘buck up, every man for himself’ extreme survival of the fittest?

Sunshine—I’m not sure why you think that paying for your own health care needs qualifies as some sort of “extreme survival of the fittest”. Yes, society as a whole does share the health care costs of the elderly, the incarcerated, and the mentally incapacitated, which is understandable. However, I don’t feel any special obligation to subsidize the health care needs of other working adults, no more than I feel any special need to buy food for other working adults.

The biggest problem I see with our “hybrid” health care system is the b******* of insurance. Once again, the only valid purpose of insurance is to provide a hedge against rare, catastrophic losses. Ordinary, fixed expenses such as food and basic medical care are simply not insurable events because they are a certainty. Whether these costs should be shared by all of society is a separate question. As a supporter of individualism and free-market enterprise, I believe the most honest way is for everyone to pay their own way in life.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Bruno

I’m thinking this Obama thing is a good deal. Let Al Quida call him names and watch the world beat their silly butts to a pulp.

Biden was right. It’s coming here to test Obama. He already knows so much more about the very real threats than he ever did and I guarantee that he has been horrified. It’s been very cool to be very cool about blaming the hate for America on Bush. Liberals are about to learn that it had nothing to do with Bush.

By Sunshine

November 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

Question for you TOJ—Do you think that GW has improved US Foreign Relations durring his term? Do you think he has done well in the things he has attempted to accomplish? (and Why?)

By Sunshine

November 28, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Here is something for you Right wing boys to chew on (I still have visions of Turkey dancing in my head :-P) From the Washington Post:

Obama’s Bush Doctrine-In electing Barack Obama, the country traded the foreign policy of the second President Bush for the foreign policy of the first President Bush….What’s most striking about Obama’s approach to foreign policy is that he is less an idealist than a realist who would advance American interests by diplomacy, by working to improve the country’s image abroad, and by using military force prudently and cautiously.

This sounds a lot like the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush, and it makes perfect sense that Obama has had conversations with the senior Bush’s closest foreign policy adviser, Brent Scowcroft…..The truth about Obama’s worldview was hidden in plain sight in his most politically consequential foreign policy speech. Antiwar Democrats cheered Obama for addressing a rally against the Iraq war in Chicago’s Federal Plaza on Oct. 2, 2002….

Not once but five times did Obama declare, “I don’t oppose all wars.” The first several paragraphs of the speech were devoted to the wars that Obama thought were justified: the Civil War, World War II — in which, he said, “that arsenal of democracy … triumphed over evil” — and the battle against terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11. “I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again,” he said.

The thrust of his argument against the Iraq invasion was a classic realist’s critique of a war he denounced as “ideological.” It would, he said, “require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” It also would “fan the flames of the Middle East” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”…

Obama’s national security choices are already causing grumbling from parts of the antiwar left, even if Obama made clear six years ago that while he was with them on Iraq, he was not one of them.

Ironically, Obama is likely to show more fidelity to George H.W. Bush’s approach to foreign affairs than did the former president’s own son.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Sunshine

Foreign Relations with who? But is that the important question?

It isn’t other countries that we fear an attack from. Did he improve relations with the people that had attacked us over and over during the 90s? Absolutely not. He killed everyone he could find. For that they were scared to death of him. There is a huge psychological burden to anyone that has a very real fear of dieing in the very next second, every moment of their lives. Bush is the head of the military and that is exactly what they have done for the last 7 years. No sound, no warning, just absolute obliteration of everything. For that he did great.

Am I going to subject myself to the punishment for daring to suggest that he just might have done anything worthwhile while he was in office? I have my own opinions, but I won’t share them here. I might as well try to point out that he graduated from Yale at age 22 as a sign that he just might not be a complete idiot, but after 8 years of Jon Scott making jokes about what an idiot he must be, I understand my limitations.

By Sunshine

November 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

TOJ-Foreign Relations with who? But is that the important question?—Every other world country, every foreign country.

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Sunshine

Considering that Bush I was in office nine full years before the very real Al Quida attack on US soil, Obama adopting his policies aren’t very comforting. The world has changed tremendously since 1992.

By Sunshine

November 28, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Am I going to subject myself to the punishment for daring to suggest that he just might have done anything worthwhile while he was in office? I have my own opinions, but I won’t share them here.—TOJ, I asked a very sincere and straightforward question, thought I could learn a bit about your side of the argument. You would certainly win some good will here by telling us what you think in a nice kind manor, with facts to back up your POV. (You have been really civil for the last few days, and I for one have enjoyed reading your posts much more!) It wasn’t an unfair question, and I did want to hear your opinion.

By Sunshine

November 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Bruno—I’m not sure why you think that paying for your own health care needs qualifies as some sort of “extreme survival of the fittest”.—Maybe I wasn’t clear, children who are born with chronic diseases, and adults who have genetic disorders/birth defects, do you think these people should die if they or their family can not pay the Hundreds of Thousands of $’s in health services cost? As they would have to in a pay-as-you-go system. You have been blessed with good health apparently, there are many people that are born with a very different set of circumstances,through no fault of their own, for these people is it really ‘buck up, every man for himself’ extreme survival of the fittest?

By Sunshine

November 28, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

oh, well, no responses :-( Off to the second job, enjoy the left overs everyone!

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

Sunshine

I appreciate your sentiment and I really appreciate your civility, but I am not prepared to defend GW Bush on this forum. I do think that you might accept my reasons, but you are not the only person that hangs out here.

I think he has proven to several of our allies that he will be there for them, in spite of the Euro-libbies screaming in the streets. Our media shows us a lot of protesters where ever he goes, but they rarely show us any good will he might have fostered with the actual leaders. He couldn’t win, no matter what he did. Every decision he made was attcaked by the media so anything I say, someone would be able to produce some news story saying what a disaster it actually was (at least to them). I just don’t want to get into that.

I know that you probably don’t see the bias, but a really funny example of anti-GOP media just happened when Sarah Palin pardoned a holiday turkey. If you are really intereseted, google the event.

While she was being interviewed, behind her, a man appeared and started to drain the blood from the neck of a decapitated turkey. ABC News claimed that she was laughing at the turkey being killed. She didn’t even know it was going on. She was criticized for “showing” us the killing of a turkey, and of course, she was certanly not the producer or the videographer. They have done the same thing to Bush since 2001, when he took office.

I’ve played that game before. I state a fact. Several produce news report after news report that says the opposite. I point out the sources are part of a very liberal media that stops at nothing (Including network anchors losing their jobs because of such an obvious bias) to destroy Bush and then I am attacked for criticizing the media.

Been there, done that. But thanks for the kind words.

By GOB

November 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Yes, society as a whole does share the health care costs of the elderly, the incarcerated, and the mentally incapacitated, which is understandable. However, I don’t feel any special obligation to subsidize the health care needs of other working adults, no more than I feel any special need to buy food for other working adults.

Bruno - Having a healthy population benefits all of us. Right now we are in a major economic crisis, but still half of bankruptcies are caused by healthcare expenses. Anytime someone files for bankruptcy, someone else is not getting paid, which hurts the economy even more.

I think this is an incredibly selfish way to justify national healthcare, but it may be a way to help convince those “I’m gonna get mine, and everyone else can suck it” types.

Also, the idea that all working adults are able to provide for themselves and their families, particularly healthcare, is a ludicrous assertion. Even someone making $40K a year would be hard pressed to pay their medical bills in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. The alternative is for them to file for bankruptcy or do without medical care.

Outside of the idea that you dont want to pay for something that you dont use (which has already been debunked - roads, schools, police, fire departments…lord, even cable forces you to pay for channels you dont watch), is there another truly valid reason why so many people are actively fighting to keep others from receiving healthcare?

By The Other Jack

November 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

Has anyone noticed that the US Chamber of Commerce is running ads supporting Saxby Chamblis? Not exactly a far right organization. I couldn’t imagine any group more concerned about the economy than the US Chamber of Commerce and the definately do not want a 60/40 majority in the Senate.

By k

November 28, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

I’m still going with the “You can do/be anything you want if you work for it and prepare” angle of parenting. So far so good! Success in school, sports, and extra-curricular leadership activities. Solid resumes for college apps in the making. I also encourage kids (not just my own) to TRY many different things in order to find out what they like and have an aptitude for. So the music lessons fizzled. Now we know to explore something else. Kids who are taught that how they treat others is of the utmost importance don’t, like some, think the world owes them something because they have a pretty face. (I also teach them not to be intimdated or let others push them around. Standing up for yourself is a must-have skill in this world, athough others will try to strip it from you.) “Overconfidence?” I agree with Andrea. They’re going to need a “yes we can” attitude to brave the challenges we’re leaving them with.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

k - you’re right on the $$$ with your 4:15

GOB - Also, the idea that all working adults are able to provide for themselves and their families, particularly healthcare, is a ludicrous assertion. Even someone making $40K a year would be hard pressed to pay their medical bills in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident. The alternative is for them to file for bankruptcy or do without medical care.

well said! 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs … and, of those, a majority of the filers actually HAD health care - so even insurance isn’t a guarantee that you won’t get buried in bills.

TOJ - Sorry, but when someone has the stones to strap on a bomb belt, they probably won’t fear setting in a comfortable prison cell, getting three squares a day. It would probably be the best they have had in their entire lives.

but, if they can’t get funding for training, for travel, then that limits the damage they can wreak. India is a perfect case in point - what they did - training in Pakistan, coordinating travel to Mumbai and the cost of their arms - all that cost a lot of money. limit that - and you limit their damage.

most important - INTEL, INTEL, INTEL. something that STILL isn’t where it should be:

The flaws we found in the Intelligence Community’s Iraq performance are still all too common. Across the board, the Intelligence Community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world’s most dangerous actors. In some cases, it knows less now than it did five or ten years ago. As for biological weapons, despite years of Presidential concern, the Intelligence Community has struggled to address this threat.

To be sure, the Intelligence Community is full of talented, dedicated people. But they seem to be working harder and harder just to maintain a status quo that is increasingly irrelevant to the new challenges presented by weapons of mass destruction. Our collection agencies are often unable to gather intelligence on the very things we care the most about. Too often, analysts simply accept these gaps; they do little to help collectors identify new opportunities, and they do not always tell decisionmakers just how limited their knowledge really is.

http://www. wmd.gov/ report/report.html#overview

and this is after 9/11 … after the anthrax attacks … after July 20 … not to mention, after a full term of a Republican president with a fully compliant Republican House and Senate. Why is the us Intel community still weak??

Not exactly a far right organization.

while the US Chambers isn’t a “far” right organization, per se, they are more to the right than to the left and endorse more GOP than DEM (and that goes for issues, as well)

While she was being interviewed, behind her, a man appeared and started to drain the blood from the neck of a decapitated turkey. ABC News claimed that she was laughing at the turkey being killed. She didn’t even know it was going on. She was criticized for “showing” us the killing of a turkey, and of course, she was certanly not the producer or the videographer.

you really gotta let go of the “mean liberal media” whine … it doesn’t hold water. she knew where she was - criminey, she was there to pardon a turkey, what do you think she was pardoning the turkey FROM??

and she also knew what was going on in the background. BEFORE the interview started, the reporters asked her if she wanted to change the backdrop - she said it was fine. And, if the governor’s office wants to say that the slaughter began after she started the interview, they obviously want you to completely ignore the fact that the trough was already full of blood - (it wasn’t Benjamin Moore “Lipstick Red” exterior gloss).

let it go, TOJ - it isn’t bias - the girl is a bucket-load of STOOOOPID.

By The Other Jack

December 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK

We haven’t been touched since 9-11. Where do you get that our intel is weak? Carter and Clinton both cut funding to the intel community. Bush has given it massive amounts of money and judging from the fact that we have busted cell after cell and NOTHING has happened here, his approach has worked perfectly. It has not been the US intel’s job to protect the world, just us, and that they have done flawlessly.

The US Chanber of Commerce has the horrible, un-Union agenda of promoting job creation in the United States. They do appear to mostly support GOP causes. Does that tell you ANYTHING?

When Palin’s interview started, there was no one standing behind her. As soon as it started, a man walked in with a decapitated turkey. What was she supposed to do? See out of the back of her head and then stop the interview? ABC completely misrepresented the situation. They said that she was laughing at a turkey being slaughtered. She was not. They lied.

You may revel in ignoring and even endorsing and definitely defending a very liberal leaning, unfair media. I do not. I would not have supported anyone telling a such a blatant lie as a headline, even if the interviewee was a Democrat. I am interested in truth, unlike you who are only interested in a media supporting your preconceived notions that any woman who would dare not walk the goose step of the liberal movement is a bucket of Stupid.

The biased news worked. The propaganda worked. You won because of not only a NAZI-like control of the media but people like you who do not see a problem with this kind of criminal behavior on the part of the media.

By Gale

December 1, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Shaunti’s assertion that you should praise effort I am in favor of giving kids confidence. I am also in favor if trying to instill some sense of reality. Praising effort can be seriously overdone. I watch parents exhuberatly paising children for a swing and miss in little league or a gutter ball in bowling. That is not reality. Children need to learn what a learning curve is. Skills take time to learn. They don’t magically excel at everything. I find it odd to measure confidence in adolescence when children are trying desparately to be like everyone else.

By Frustrated

December 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

Gale-

I totally agree. This is one of those, not everyone wins situations. It seems as though the children who do excel seem to get a back seat sometimes because these days “Everyone is a winner”….no one wants to hurt the losing team’s feelings, so everyone gets a trophy. I had a parent tell me that their 9 year old son’s baseball team doesn’t keep score, because they don’t want anyone to feel left out.

I can understand playing sports is about your child doing something they enjoy, but it is also for competition. And I blame the parents…..if your child loses a game, you pat them on the back, tell them they played their best and maybe they will get it next time. Not give them a trophy for losing…what does that accomplish?

Kids need to understand that while possibilities of what they can do or achieve are endless, they are not going to win at everything… Yes, tears will flow when they lose, but that is just being a kid…they tend to work harder when they really want something.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 1, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Give thanks to GT and scorn them DAWGS for being 1st [Dum BASSES!]and 2nd, over confident!

By Lyrazel

December 1, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Are today’s young people suffering from overconfidence?

Please! Someone educate this old lady as to WHO young people are in reference here! Do they mean Boomers (who are about as narcissistic, overconfident and irresponsible a generation as America has EVER had). Do they mean those precious (now 40 years old) kids like Moon Unit Zappa who gave us Valley Girl ethics still prevalent today? Do they mean the grandchildren of the Boomers, or the great grand children of the Depression Era generation. Enlighten me as to who these young people are because I can tell you from experience the older you get the more each successive generation seems spoiled, dumb and indolent as well as overconfident as to their ability to get what their parents had but better.

So whom do they mean? Do they look in mirrors at their own spoiled temper tantrum throwing generation (I believe they were Valley Girls both of them). How many outfits did they whine and complain to get, how precious were their feathered mullet haircuts? How many homes did their overextended credit allow for and how many granite top kitchen remodels did they HAVE TO HAVE? All generations have different status goods—btw.

So who is more spoiled than whom? I would say if born in America you are spoiled on excesses since the time you were born. My grandfather said we were the laziest kids he ever knew (I am Golden)…he died before Boomers

By The Other Jack

December 1, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Gale

• I had a parent tell me that their 9 year old son’s baseball team doesn’t keep score, because they don’t want anyone to feel left out.*

I could see that with little kids, like 4-5 years old, but 9 year old kids? They need to start learning that the real world keeps score. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

We haven’t been touched since 9-11.

there’s a word that starts with A and rhymes with “spamthrax”. not touched since 9/11? not quite. and, let’s not forget WHO was touched - congress and the NYT (and the people who were killed at the US Post Office)

Where do you get that our intel is weak?

from the report I cited above. and that wasn’t me, that was a federal assessment.

Carter and Clinton both cut funding to the intel community.

wrong and wrong. Clinton actually INCREASED anti-terrorism funding - which Bush CUT in his FY 2003 budget.

the only intel that Carter cut was allowing the CIA to do domestic spying without proper authority.

nice try, though.

They said that she was laughing at a turkey being slaughtered. She was not. They lied.

sorry, bub, you need to provide the transcript - I’ve seen loads of the network and cable stations’ commentaries about GobbleGate, but haven’t seen ANY of them assert that she was laughing about the turkeys.

When Palin’s interview started, there was no one standing behind her. As soon as it started, a man walked in with a decapitated turkey. What was she supposed to do? See out of the back of her head and then stop the interview?

wrong. go watch the video again - he was standing back there the entire time.

I am interested in truth, unlike you who are only interested in a media supporting your preconceived notions that any woman who would dare not walk the goose step of the liberal movement is a bucket of Stupid.

TOJ - no, you’re interested in whining about “bias-bias-bias” and how meaaaannnnnn they all are. truth has nothing to do with it.

and, actually, there are GOP wimmen that I actually think are pretty great (Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, to name a couple)

and, if you really want me to respect your opinion, TOJ, you might want to think about dropping the Nazi allusions - first, they make you sound desperate. second, comparing the turkey video to the Holocaust is really offensive.

off to a meeting … back in an hour-ish …

By The Other Jack

December 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

That quote is believed to come from Socrates who lived 400 years before Christ.

it didn’t start with the baby boomers.

By GOB

December 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

On the weeks topic:

I am a teacher, so I am surrounded by high school kids all day. I dont think they are any more overconfident than we were at that age, but because they are exposed to so much more through the various technologies that now exist, they are much more mature (generalizing here, of course).

Kids are overconfident but as TOJ points out with his Socrates qoute, that is simply the nature of being young. Most kids havent been beaten down or had to deal with the issues and failures that life brings, so of course they feel like they are invincible. We were all there at some point in our lives, and to think today’s kids are any different is just you turning into the old people that you didnt like when you were a kid.

As an aside, a lot of people claim that kids today are also horribly behaved and have no respect (I thought that too before becoming a teacher), but the reality is that most kids are good, respectful people. The bad kids are just the ones that get the attention. There are rarely news stories about the kid who did their homework and turned it on time all semester.

By Gale

December 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Frustrated and TOJ, the real world keeps score Right on TOJ! Frustrated, you and I bot have this frustration. Let the kid cry when they lose. At some point they need to learn that some win and some lose. Try harder next time. What did some great coach say? “Winning is not everything, but losing is nothing.” I love that one. I am not sure that rewarding winners and losers alike is leading to the cited “overconfidence”. But it certainly leads to kids that think they should be rewarded for everything they do so that they feel let done when someone fails to notice they completed what is merely expected.

Lyrazel, your 9:51 points out that each generation of adolecence has its own issues, at least that was what I got from it. TOJ’s referred quote make the point as well.

By Gale

December 1, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

GOB, thanks for the comment from the field. I am a mere casual observer and I rarely actually come into contact with the study subjects. It is good to know that most kids are not worse than the group I went to high school with.

I clearly remember how much I wanted a house like my parents’ when I bought my first house, and my disappointment with what I could actually afford. Still, I had been taught the reality that better things were within my grasp if I worked for them. The people who have problems are the ones that did not learn that.

By The Other Jack

December 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

USinUK

The Anthrax attacks were traced to a domestic source. A house up the street was burglarized during Thanksgiving. Will you also blame that on Bush?

The Exact quote was “Palin laughs during turkey slaughter.”

The story was a “reader” where the anchor reads copy over the first few seconds of the piece, then the interview is “sound up”. At -1:58, RT the story starts with B-Roll, sound under. At 1:40, RT, the interview starts. There is no one in the background at that point. There is also nothing to tell us that the unedited interview started at exactly at that moment and 29 years of shooting and producing television interviews tells me that there is no way that is the first frame of that interview. You being a journalism major must have been taught that any videographer worth his salt sets the shot and starts the tape. He allows a full ten seconds of tape to roll before saying “speed” which is telling the interviewer that the tape is up to full speed and he is in focus and framing and sound are both good. At that point, the reporter slates the interview (“Governor Palin pardons turkey.interview”, date, location) and asks the question. There is nothing that tells us that her first words shown were the response to the first question of the interview. So chances are that she was standing there for at least a full minute before the man walks in. Undoubtedly, she was standing there for 15 seconds.

The field producer should have stopped the interview. It is their job to see that they do nothing to make an interviewee look bad or specifically good. That’s the person being interviewed’s job. it was a horrible piece of biased journalism and you insist that she is stupid because of it. It was impossible to see blood in the receptacle from the camera and if the man had stayed away, no one, including Gov. Palin would have even known what was in the receptacle. Yes, it is turkey gate because of the overtly biased nature of the story. i.e. it ain’t just me.

Let’s see. I’m supposed to call an unborn baby an unhuman thing and now I am supposed to ignore the fact that the NAZI party used the German media to convert the most educated and cultured country in the world into goose stepping fascists.

I won’t change my historical perspective on the parallels between the control of the German media during the 30s and the control of the US media by the democratic Party just to satisfy you. But if you believe I was comparing this specific abuse to the killing of 6 million souls, that tells me that the only thing you know about the NAZIs and their control of the German media is what they did in the last three years of their reign. If that is the case, I would rather not have your respect for my opinion.

History teaches valuable lessons to those among us who are smart enough to learn.

By Frustrated

December 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

I am not sure that rewarding winners and losers alike is leading to the cited “overconfidence”.

I don’t think so either…but is it “overconfidence” or just the fact that most teenagers think they are invincible?

I know when I was that age, I didn’t think anything could stop me…

By Gale

December 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Isn’t it strange that teens are the most invincible and most confident and yet the most self-conscious of people at the same time? I always felt I could do everything and knew I was special, and yet I was always worried about seeming like everyone else. It was important to be noticed, and yet not stand out. On the subject of the survey, isn’t it likely that like their adult counterparts, teens lie to the survey? I doubt this generation is more or less over-confident than any before them.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

The Anthrax attacks were traced to a domestic source. A house up the street was burglarized during Thanksgiving. Will you also blame that on Bush?

yeah. convenient that they named the guy right after he offed himself (and disregarding the timeline of when he was in the lab and when the letters would have been mailed). they looked for an easy open/shut case. and before that, Ashcroft demonized another scientist, SURE that HE was the guy.

http://www. nytimes.com/ 2008/08/10/ opinion/10andrews.html?_r=1

lastly, even if he was the guy (which is doubtful) - whether the attack was domestic or foreign - we were still attacked.

believe it or not, no, I won’t blame the house being burgled on Bush. however, when the Bush Admin’s first act taking office was to ignore Richard Clark’s warnings about terrorism - DESPITE the fact that the USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers only a few months before Bush took office - yes, I do hold him accountable for ignoring warnings of terrorism and moving to cut the terrorism intel budget.

and, yes, I do hold him and his administration accountable for the color code warnings/plastic sheet & duct tape alarms/possible Superbowl terrorism scare tactics, per earlier discussions.

The Exact quote was “Palin laughs during turkey slaughter.”

again … link, please.

You being a journalism major must have been taught that any videographer worth his salt sets the shot and starts the tape. He allows a full ten seconds of tape to roll before saying “speed” which is telling the interviewer that the tape is up to full speed and he is in focus and framing and sound are both good.

again. look at the tape. the guy was there the whole time. and there was blood in the trough from the start, so for the gov’s office to say “the slaughter started after the interview began” is an out-and-out untruth.

I won’t change my historical perspective on the parallels between the control of the German media during the 30s and the control of the US media by the democratic Party just to satisfy you. But if you believe I was comparing this specific abuse to the killing of 6 million souls, that tells me that the only thing you know about the NAZIs and their control of the German media is what they did in the last three years of their reign. If that is the case, I would rather not have your respect for my opinion.

let’s see, you want to compare the fact that the Third Reich owned and controlled ALL forms of media with: Disney Corp owning ABC, GE owning NBC/MSNBC, Westinghouse owning CBS, Time Warner owning CNN, and Rupert Murdoch owning FOX??? and that’s just TV news - add to that the owners of radio stations … and newspapers … sorry - but there is no central control of the media - not by the Dems, not by the Gov, not even by Rupert Murdoch (although, dog knows he tries)

Third Reich = government. Disney/GE/Westinghouse/Time Warner = corporate. Rupert Murdoch = individual/corporate.

seriously. the Nazi comparisons really are ludicrous on their face and offensive when you apply it to this situation.

History teaches valuable lessons to those among us who are smart enough to learn.

yeah. good luck with that.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Frustrated -

but is it “overconfidence” or just the fact that most teenagers think they are invincible?

… or that they can change the world/make a difference, or that they can have some control over their lives …

I guess I don’t see what’s so wrong with that.

particularly when so many problems that kids have (getting into abusive relationships, getting involved with drugs, getting involved in a sexual relationship before they’re ready, etc) are rooted in feeling insecure …???

By Archie

December 1, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

In some ways yes young people are overconfident but reality will hit them soon enough so I agree with Andrea on this topic.

To K, I just read some of your comments from last week and I agree with them.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

heading home … later taters.

By The Other Jack

December 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

USinUK

ABC is the network that did this. Apparently, that is the source that you haven’t checked

Go to Yahoo. In the search engine, type in “Palin Laughs Turkey” No quotes.

The second result is ABC News Politics Index. click there.

That will take you to “ABC News, start here”.

if you scroll down, just past halfway down the page, you will see: “WATCH: Palin laughs during turkey slaughter”

click on that

You will see exactly what I have said and you have questioned. THERE WAS NO MAN IN THE FRAME WHEN SHE STARTS SPEAKING.

Don’t go to your biased blogs to disprove the FACTS. go to the source.: ABC friicken’ News.

NAZIS: Who owned the media outlets means nothing. What they do and the results of what they do mean everything. They just installed their own candidate in the White House. The amount of bias and propaganda was criminal. Same tactics, same results. I don’t think they installed a second Hitler. It is glaring that they will be the deciding factor from now on. I thought this was a Representative Republic, not a media controlled dictatorship.

By Bruno

December 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

I’m googling like a mad woman and can’t find ANYthing even remotely like this … care to cite??? cuz, I gotta say … highest achievers nationally are found in North and South Dakota??? maybe on a per capita basis … but, I’m having a hard time swallowing that one …

Actually, USinUK, the article I saw debunking the value of the “self-esteem” movement appeared in the Reader’s Digest several years ago. It is possible that the rankings have changed somewhat, but the general concept remains true. Here’s a link to a Washington Post article which compares US students to those in Korea:

www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701298.html (delete space).

Here’s the most recent state by state breakdown of academic performance according to the US Chamber of Commerce:

www. uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default (delete space)

I couldn’t find a link rating the self-esteem of students from various states, but here’s a link which shows state spending per pupil, showing that Washington DC spends the most per pupil:

www .epodunk.com/top10/per_pupil/index.html (delete space)

By lozen

December 1, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

Hello blog people, Hi to all, the oldtimers and the new opinions too. USInUK, you continue to impress me over and over with your knowledge, your sense of humor, and your patience with some less knowledgeable, opionated people. Just saw the press conference announcing the top three picks for Obama’s defense team. Did any past prez introduce his top team to the people of America this way? I don’t remember this happening before. I am truly impressed by this man and his vision. He knows the law and government. He understands communication and he’s including us, all of us, in this new vision of 21st century America. (Where is George Bush. Does anybody remember a George Bush?) In Obama’s fifth press conference since the election, he emphasized living up to our ideals, truly being a leader of nations in the future, and repairing the damage to our international reputation. I believe my chances of being safe in the US until I die just increased a 100 fold. I’m still trying to get my head around how the people of this country could have elected George Bush twice in the past eight years only to turn around now and elect a man so very different. Are we suffering from mass schizophrenia as a country?

For the first time in a long time, I’m feeling proud of my country. I believe this man is a true leader at a time when we so much need a great leader. I even feel like I’m a part of this American dream again! Many spiritual friends and groups are experiencing great concern for Obama’s safety. Great good seems to draw great evil - examples are many: Lincoln, JFK, MLK, Robert Kennedy. Perhaps the Gods still demand sacrifices… I’m imagining him surrounded by a strong circle of protection and good secret service guys! And to see this happen in my lifetime - 40 years - from Jim Crow and segregation and citizens disinfranchised to an African American president! Fan me Scarlett deah, this is so excitin’!

By Mara

December 1, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

A house up the street was burglarized during Thanksgiving. Will you also blame that on Bush?

well, he isn’t NOT to blame. He DID defund the COPS program and shortchange law enforcement funding overall. Here’s some actual numbers for your consideration.

In 1994, faced with a national crime crisis, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Crime Bill), which provided federal funds to allow state and local law enforcement to hire additional police officers. The results were dramatic: between 1994 and 2001, violent crime dropped by 29 percent, the most sustained decline in 40 years.

Since 2001, however, the President and the Republican-controlled Congress have cut more than $2 billion in funding for state and local law enforcement. And the results have been equally dramatic: violent crime is on the rise again. In 2005, violent crime increased at the fastest rate in fifteen years.*

[snip]

In 1994, Congress passed the Crime Bill, which created the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. This program, administered through the Department of Justice (DOJ), revolutionized state and local law enforcement, enabling police officials to deploy new crime-fighting technologies, develop innovative policing methods, and hire new officers. COPS placed nearly 100,000 officers on the street in more than 13,000 communities across the country.

In October 2005, Congress’s independent watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), credited COPS with reducing crime. GAO found that for every dollar spent in COPS hiring per resident, crime fell by almost 30 incidents per 100,000 residents.

Republicans have slashed funding for necessary state and local law enforcement programs. Despite the success of COPS, President Bush attempted to gut funding for its hiring program beginning with his first budget proposal. In 1997 and 1998, approximately $1.2 billion dollars were spent each year by the federal government to hire new police officers under COPS. After steady decreases over the last five years, that number has fallen to $0.

Bush didn’t actually rob the house himself any more than he himself actually tortured innocent “detainees” in Gitmo or spoke the lies that led us into Iraq. No, Bush didn’t rob the house, he just made it easier.

By Monica

December 1, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

I don’t think that overconfidence is necessarily a bad thing, and it is certainly not exclusive to this generation. I had a professor who discussed the threee “I’s” of being a teen: they think that they are immortal, invincible, and infertile, which is a common trait of being a teenage in any generation.

Entitlement, on the other hand, is a problem that I see (I did the assignment and wrote the 5 page paper. How come I didn’t get an A on it? I deserve an A because I worked hard on it, or I want to change classes because I don’t like that teacher). Of course, this sense of entitlement does not perpetuate itself; rather, it’s a learned behavior. Gale, you made a good point when you mentioned buying your first house. My husband and I experienced the same feeling. The difference is that many of today’s generation would complain about having to buy a less than adequate house, and then daddy would cave and make the 20% down payment for them so that they can afford it.

I may be contributing to the overconfidence with my parenting styles as I see no harm in everyone on the team receiving a trophy. And frequently I make my boys repeat the following mantra: “I’m a good boy, I’m a smart boy, I’m a sweet boy, and my mama loves me!” Cheesy I know, but they are 7 and 5, and I want them to know that they are capable of achieving what they want.

What I do believe is harmful is instilling a false sense of confidence in an area where a child does not excel. If a child can’t hit a ball to save his life by the age of 9, then maybe the parent should encourage the child to look at other activities and not get him pumped for a career in MLB.

By Mara

December 1, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

speaking of St. Sarah and the Republicans…how, oh how, their song has changed. The GOP has been beating the drum of the “Unitary Executive” who is constrained by nothing and no one. That The President is above everyone and should be deferred to in all things…be it judicial appointments, legal constraints or even Congressional oversight. And now here’s St. Sarah speaking at a Chambliss event extolling the necessity of “checks and balances” -

“We need Saxby because we need checks and balances in Washington and we will not have that if Saxby is not reelected,” she said.

Not that I disagree, even for a Democratic president, but it is pretty funny listening to her spout what was considered only a few months ago to be traitorous, anti-American, far-left rhetoric. LOL! We need checks and balances? Imagine that! HA!!

“We need Saxby because we need checks and balances in Washington and we will not have that if Saxby is not reelected,” she said.

By Gale

December 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Mara, the kids that might have expected Daddy to come up with the downpayment or even the private college tuition may be in for a rude awakening in today’s economy. Daddy is likely looking at his 401k and starting to worry about ever retiring. College dreams might become a painful deferred dream for many. Will this be the first dose of reality for some over-confident kid? If the kid has already learned a bit of pragmatism, he/she will know that two years in community college will be the choice for many in their generation.

By Monica

December 1, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Gale, it depends on how long HOPE will be around. We might see many more students applying at state colleges.

By Gale

December 1, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Monica, that was your comment about the mortgage. I attributed that to Mara by mistake.

By Gale

December 1, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Even with HOPE, college expenses are steep. It is actually good financial sense to do the first year or two at a community college, assuming transferable credits. A student can check off a lot of general courses while keeping costs down. No, it is not a glamorous as living on campus.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Lozen -

Hi to all, the oldtimers and the new opinions too. USInUK, you continue to impress me over and over with your knowledge, your sense of humor, and your patience with some less knowledgeable, opionated people.

aw. shucks. thanks, Lozen - you are very kind!

Mad, MAD props to Mara for the COPS program recall - WELL DONE!

Just saw the press conference announcing the top three picks for Obama’s defense team. Did any past prez introduce his top team to the people of America this way?

well, we all know that Clinton didn’t. actually, the first president to make a big deal over his transition team (and the first, I think, to use the expression) was Carter in an effort to show a clean break from Nixon/Ford. Now, if he had all his peeps in place, I don’t know, but he was the first to use the term …

Time for Coronation Street … see you at 8

By Gale

December 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Since we are seeing more of the Obama team, does anyone have any strong reactions? So far, I am liking the picks. I had to read up on Susan Rice, the UN pick. She sounded young to have been a Clinton staffer. But the article I read made her sound like another high achiever. She is apparently strong on African issues.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

rather than relying on snippets of the interview - here’s the whole thing:

http://www. youtube.com/ watch?v=eYxn2vlhtWo

(the turkey slaughter starts around 3:35)

and yes. the guy was there right from the get-go (even had a bird in the Cone of Death).

NAZIS: Who owned the media outlets means nothing. What they do and the results of what they do mean everything.

baaaaaaaaahahahahaha … oh, yeah. that GE sure does capitulate to the Dems … same with Westinghouse … right there, in the Dems’ back pocket (next to the condoms and the bus pass) … the exact same thing as the Third Reich running the media.

as for the CEOs of said corporations (going by donations): Steve Tritch/Westinghouse - Republican. Jeffrey Immelt/GE - Republican. Robert Iger/Disney - Democrat. Rupert Murdoch/FOX - you gotta ask? Time Warner CEO plays it down the middle with contributions.

So there’s your bias - 3 media owners are GOP-leaning, 1 leans DEM, 1 plays down the middle.

so. really. on behalf of all my Jewish friends (all of whom lost family in the Holocaust) - stop. seriously. stop with your asinine comparisons to Nazis. because it’s really insulting and offensive.

By USinUK

December 1, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

thanks for the Chamber link - WHAT a cool study!! I am really digging the way they broke it all down, too (workforce readiness, achievements of low-income learners) - well done in finding this!

so, the question is: what are those green states doing right and what are the red states doing wrong? is it classroom size (which I still think has a LOAD to do with it) … is it magnet schools which allow students to pursue interests (VA has some amazing magnet schools that cater to kids who want to be in anything from technology to construction)?

would love to hear what our resident teachers think … (dog knows, I couldn’t do what they do all day … at least not without copious amounts of prozac)

and, bringing it all back to the topic at hand - do their grades and the efficacy of that state’s education have eff-all to do with how “confident” they are???

By Gandalf, the White!

December 1, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

Gale I think her degree is in African Studies…

By Gale

December 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Given there are a number of hot spots in Africa, Rice seems like a good choice. I haven’t heard anything about her before this. I guess we will before the confirmation hearings are completed. I would think congress will have plenty fo time to look things over so the hearings will be over soon.

By GoodOne

December 1, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Susan Rice sure beats throw-a-tantrum-we-own-the-world frat boy Bolton.

By USinUK

December 2, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

GoodOne -

throw-a-tantrum-we-own-the-world frat boy Bolton

I believe you forgot one:

throw-a-tantrum-we-own-the-world-carpet-doesn’t-match-the-drapes frat boy Bolton.

;-)

By The Other Jack

December 2, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

USinUK

This was the original statement that I made that you have now been complaining incessantly about for days:

ABC News claimed that she was laughing at the turkey being killed. She didn’t even know it was going on. She was criticized for “showing” us the killing of a turkey, and of course, she was certainly not the producer or the videographer.

I have proven my point. That is exactly what they did. You whined and complained and insisted that I provide a link to prove what I said, which is exactly what I did, Even though you chose to (say it ain’t so) ignore the proof and continue with your mindless blathering and providing links to the most biased news agency on the planet to attempt to prove your lame point.

rather than relying on snippets of the interview - here’s the whole thing:

You know how I am always saying that biased news is not usually about blatant lies? In this case it is and the lie would be apparent to anyone who knows anything about the way television, or life, for that matter works. The anchor at MSNBC announced the interview as being complete, start to finish, and of course, since it was told to you by the mouthpiece of your own agenda, you became once again the bobble head doll in the back window that you always are.

If that is the complete interview, from front to back as he claimed and you agreed with, then why does the interview start with her ANSWERING A QUESTION? You have no idea how long she had been standing there with her back to the area where the man began killing the turkey. You have no idea whether or not the man was already back there when she was put into position. You have no idea how long the original slating or the first question took to be asked, all things that would have happened since she was positioned with her back to the killing of anything. It was not the complete interview start to finish as you were told. Just because you let them lie to you, don’t expect me to do the same.

What you have done is once again proven two things: The first is that MSNBC and ABC is indeed very biased and in the case of this story, both have indeed lied to the public in a way that does intentionally make Palin look bad and you have also proven the actual worth of a degree in journalism.

baaaaaaaaahahahahaha … oh, yeah. that GE sure does capitulate to the Dems … same with Westinghouse … right there, in the Dems’ back pocket (next to the condoms and the bus pass) … the exact same thing as the Third Reich running the media.

This is the kind of riveting, intelligent debate that you have offered for some time now. (I hope you caught the sarcasm)

CEOs come and go. They are hired because of their ability to lead companies, not make the editorial decisions concerning a long entrenched network news bias. GE owns the company that owns NBC that owns NBC News that owns MSNBC. Yea, I can definitely see why you would think that the head of GE is right there making editorial decisions because he is the CEO of a company that owns another company that owns another company that owns another company.. You don’t think things through very well, do you?

You can keep screaming, you can keep stomping your feet, you can keep attacking anyone who has not suffered the level of your indoctrination, but you continue to prove nothing except how little you really do know about what you are being fed by an extremely biased media.

And girl, if I was the only person saying this, it would be different, but I am not. I would point out the astronomical rise in FOXNews as an obvious sign that most Americans do believe the media is extremely liberally biased, but I’m sure you would start posting links to stories done by MSNBC on why they are not really biased at all and then I would need to embarrass you yet again by pointing out how clueless and indoctrinated that you really are.

And BTW, when you stop augmenting your rants by slinging your little personal insults, I will do the same.

By Gale

December 2, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Bolton certainly was a sneer to the rest of the diplomatic world, wsn’t he? Much as I didn’t want Obama to win the election, I really wish he could take over now instead of in January; same with the new seats in Congress. This is a poor time for government to be in a wait mode. They are not exactly doing nothing. But they don’t appear to be doing as much as they might be doing.

By USinUK

December 2, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this

oh, dear … what will Sean Hack-ity do now that the recession has been dated as starting in December 2007 … how on earth will he manage to blame it all on Obama, now?? (I’m sure he’ll still try)

The U.S. economy entered a recession a year ago this month, the panel that dates American business cycles said today, making this contraction already the longest since 1982.

The declaration was made by a committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private, nonprofit group of economists based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The last time the U.S. was in a recession was from March through November 2001, according to NBER.

(snip)

Separate reports today showed the recession has deepened. U.S. manufacturing contracted in November at the fastest rate in 26 years, according to the Institute for Supply Management, based in Tempe, Arizona. The Commerce Department said construction spending fell more than forecast in October as a slump in homebuilding spread to non-residential projects.

Stocks worldwide tumbled and yields on U.S. Treasury securities fell to the lowest ever on concern a lack of financing will stunt consumer and business spending.

(snip)

The loss of 1.2 million jobs so far this year was the biggest factor in determining the starting point of the U.S. recession, the NBER said. By that measure, the contraction probably deepened last month.

Payroll employment probably fell by 325,000 in November, the most since the last recession, according to the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News ahead of a Labor Department report due Dec. 5. The jobless rate is projected to increase to 6.8 percent, the highest level since 1993.

At 12 months, the current contraction is already the longest since the 16-month slump that ended in November 1982, and exceeds the postwar average of 10 months.

The contraction is the second under President George W. Bush’s watch, making him the first U.S. leader since Richard Nixon to preside over two recessions.

http://www. bloomberg.com/ apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=al4iyIoRhvao&refer=home

By The Other Jack

December 2, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

USinUK

so. really. on behalf of all my Jewish friends (all of whom lost family in the Holocaust) - stop. seriously. stop with your asinine comparisons to Nazis. because it’s really insulting and offensive.

I’m insulted and offended every time I watch the mainstream media.

One more time:

The NAZIs were able to do what they did because of their control of the German media. If you can disprove that, then do it. If not then deal with it, because I will bring it up any damn time I feel the need.

By Mara

December 2, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

I believe you both forgot one -

throw-a-tantrum-we-own-the-world-carpet-doesn’t-match-the-drapes-yes-this-IS-my-real-hair-color frat boy Bolton.

LOL!

By Gale

December 2, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

It is odd to me that the stock markets fell so much after this announcement. Didn’t most of the world already know we were in a global recession? We really didn’t need that announcement to tell us.

By Gale

December 2, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

Troll. I’m just saying.

By USinUK

December 2, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

WATCH: Palin laughs during turkey slaughter vs. ABC News claimed that she was laughing at the turkey being killed

please learn the difference between “during” and “at”. and, yes, if you watch the interview to the end, she did laugh about being there. and, again - if you look at the blood in the trough from the beginning of the interview, it’s plain to see that the slaughter didn’t “just start”.

This is the kind of riveting, intelligent debate that you have offered for some time now. (I hope you caught the sarcasm)

I prefer your sarcasm to your hysteria … it’s at least more intelligent.

The NAZIs were able to do what they did because of their control of the German media. If you can disprove that, then do it

of course they controlled the media - I’ve never disputed that. what I DO disagree with is your assertion that Third Reich control of the media = Disney + GE + Westinhouse + Rupert Murdoch + Time Warner. (and, again - that’s just TV - that doesn’t include the myriad owners of radio and newspaper … are they ALL under Democratic control???)

I mean, that’s beyond stupid. That’s entering tin-foil-hat territory.

oh, and when everyone is a Nazi, then NO ONE is a Nazi - including the Nazis, themselves. everytime you compare the multiple corporate ownership of media to government controlled media, you actually diminish the horror of 1930s Germany and the atrocities the Third Reich did.

You can keep screaming, you can keep stomping your feet, you can keep attacking anyone who has not suffered the level of your indoctrination

ahem …. POT.

I would point out the astronomical rise in FOXNews as an obvious sign that most Americans do believe the media is extremely liberally biased

ah, I don’t think so, bub. and the decline started in 2006 and has since remained level

http://www. stateofthenewsmedia. org/2007/narrativecabletvaudience.asp?cat=2&media=6

of course, now that Obama is about to be inaugurated, I fully expect the rabid right to cling to their Robert Ailes version of the world … where Obama the Muslim is knocking on their door, demanding their guns and their paychecks (in full) to give directly to terrorists, both domestic and foreign. Then, he’s going to make everyone face Mecca and get gay married. Followed by abortions for everyone (male, female … doesn’t matter) and a ceremonial burning of the flag …

And BTW, when you stop augmenting your rants by slinging your little personal insults, I will do the same.

geez-o-pete. would you learn what an insult actually IS, for once??? that’s your favorite little whinge, that we’re all so mean and insulting. whinge-winge-whinge … I haven’t insulted YOU at all … your asinine comparisons with Nazis, however, I’ll insult all day long - that’s the least they deserve.

By USinUK

December 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

Gale -

It is odd to me that the stock markets fell so much after this announcement.

I think it had more to do with the fact that they’re expecting the recession to last into 2010.

By Mara

December 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

most Americans do believe the media is extremely liberally biased

How often have we pointed out the difference between “belief” and “fact”?

This issue, and the conservative insistance that most Americans think the MSM is “extrememly” liberal (as opposed to simply being ‘liberal’), just proves Goebbels was right when he said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

and -

“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”.

By USinUK

December 2, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Mara -

“we have always been at war with EastAsia”

;-)

By Jeff Gannon

December 2, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

My real name is Jim Guckert. Do you know who I am? How much media coverage did I get?

Anyone?

By The Other Jack

December 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

USinUK

lease learn the difference between “during” and “at”. and, yes, if you watch the interview to the end, she did laugh about being there. and, again - if you look at the blood in the trough from the beginning of the interview, it’s plain to see that the slaughter didn’t “just start”.

No. It is a processing facility. They slaughter Turkeys there every day. The question was whether the turkeys were being slaughtered when the interview started. You don’t know. You have never been shown. But you were lied to and MSNBC was NOT showing the entire interview. But you won’t even admit that, after I have pointed out the very simple fact that the clip started with her answering a question, not being asked a question. My point is proven. And it was once again, proven by you. You were wrong I was right.

of course they controlled the media - I’ve never disputed that. what I DO disagree with is your assertion that Third Reich control of the media = Disney + GE + Westinhouse + Rupert Murdoch + Time Warner. (and, again - that’s just TV - that doesn’t include the myriad owners of radio and newspaper … are they ALL under Democratic control???)

The vast majority of Newspapers are incredibly liberally biased. Remember the Gwinnett Daily News? I say remember because they were a conservative leaning newspaper that was bought by the very liberal NYT and shut down. People fired, doors closed. That is how open minded your mantra is toward opposing views. Now we have a very few talk radio stations that are coming under the attack of the Democrats in Congress. That bothers me. I just wonder why it doesn’t bother you.

oh, and when everyone is a Nazi, then NO ONE is a Nazi - including the Nazis, themselves. everytime you compare the multiple corporate ownership of media to government controlled media, you actually diminish the horror of 1930s Germany and the atrocities the Third Reich did.

Please learn the difference between cause and effect, I am comparing the cause of the take over of the German Government by the control of the German media with the cause of the take over of the American government because of the control of the American media. Your insistance that i am comparing the effects is noted and dismissed as emotional nonsense.

ah, I don’t think so, bub. and the decline started in 2006 and has since remained level

Yes, journalism major. That’s called market saturation. There are only so many people in the United States that are insulted by the take over of the media by liberal fascist. So you have no idea about how a basic on-screen interview works and you don’t understand market saturation. So exactly what is required to earn a journalism degree?

of course, now that Obama is about to be inaugurated, I fully expect the rabid right to cling to their Robert Ailes version of the world … where Obama the Muslim is knocking on their door, demanding their guns and their paychecks (in full) to give directly to terrorists, both domestic and foreign. Then, he’s going to make everyone face Mecca and get gay married. Followed by abortions for everyone (male, female … doesn’t matter) and a ceremonial burning of the flag …

And yet another hysterical rant. When have I said that Obama was a Muslim? When did i say that he was going to take our guns? He will undoubtedly make it possible for a 12 year old girl to have a serious surgical procedure without the consent of her parents. THAT is exactly the sort of thing that the NAZIs did. State control of the well being of children OVER the wishes of the parents. But I suppose that is OK and any mention of it just insults your Jewish friends.

I haven’t insulted YOU at all … your asinine comparisons with Nazis, however, I’ll insult all day long - that’s the least they deserve.

When I see a reason to compare the two, such as the use of overt media bias and propaganda to install a government or the taking away of basic parental rights for the sake of a pro abortion mantra, expect it. And the more you try to suppress it, the less respect i will have forr your opinion of me or what I say.

By DowFactoid

December 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

The Dow is goin’ down faster than Sarah Moron’s daughter in the back seat with a 16 year old.

By The Other Jack

December 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Mara

You have obviously noticed the discussion. Instead of just a knee jerk agreement with what your party tells you, you may want to go to the clip that USinUK had offered by MSNBC. The anchor states that he is introducing the entire interview, but the clip starts with Palin answering a question. An entire interview is all the questions and all the answers. So, there is no question that he is lying. So why do you think he is lying, Mara? His point is proven by telling that lie. But yet you claim that the media bias is a lie. Goebbels was right about a lot of things and most of those things are displayed here every day.

By Sunshine

December 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Hello All!

Nice job USinUK, and Mara! Love the 1984 reference! This is what I still don’t understand, why is liberal such a bad thing? I might have posted it here before but this is what JFK said:

If by a “liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “liberal.” ~ John F. Kennedy

Shouldn’t the media be liberal? (according the above definition?) Because according to the Miriam Webster Dictionary conservatism is defined as “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions” Isn’t news, NEWS? News “1 a: a report of recent events b: previously unknown information ” It seems by definition to be sharing of NEW ideas and NEW information.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 2, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Sunshine! STFU! Every time you quote someone you look more stupid than before! Hopefully some of the Illegals you hire to watch your parasite once it hatches will show the good sense to teach it some values. Your mom and dad spoilt you, you … you … you …{{DUM BASS!]} JFK! what a loser! HE DID ZIP, NADDA, ZERO for this country except look pretty. All the K’s are scum!

By Gandalf, the White!

December 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

McCain is liberal, Barry is a “RADICAL SOCIALIST”

By Jim Guckert

December 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Do you know who I am? Or do you have to google me? If the liberal media were doing it’s job, you wouldn’t have to google me. HINT: I’m soooooooo much more interesting than the Lewinsky woman.

By Mara

December 2, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Gale - Since we are seeing more of the Obama team, does anyone have any strong reactions?

I’m relatively pleased to see so few ideologues, but a bit concerned about the number of legacies from the Clinton administration. Some people I have more trouble with than others. Mostly I’ll hold my judgment until I see how they fulfill the duties of their respective offices. But here’re my opinions so far…

Robert Gates – I understand why Obama kept him…but…from everything I’ve read, and from watching him deal with Bush, I’m concerned about how he’ll reconcile implementation of policies he may not agree with. His reputation is that of a scholarly professional who believes that policy makers need timely guidance on potential crises and trouble spots, which tracks with Obama’s course of choosing scholars and pragmatists. But he is also known as a man who has not been afraid to use his analytical skills to promote his own policy views, which might be a problem if Obama’s policies are opposite of his. I have to wonder if he’ll “spin” the intel…

Janet Napolitano – Bothers me because of her permissive view on illegal immigration. She opposes the border wall. She opposes e-verify. She opposes the 287g program. And she pulled funding for Sheriff Joe down in Maricopa County. On the other hand, she DID declare that Arizona was in a “State of Emergency” and deployed the National Guard onto her section of the border (limited though their assistance was, at least it was something). She does NOT support a blanket amnesty for illegal aliens. And she DID sign The Fair and Legal Employment Act. All in all, a little good, a little bad…we’ll see how she goes forward.

Eric Holder – only two words…Marc Rich. I’m concerned about what his role in the whole pardon thing says about his diligence and honesty. But…he opposes the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay detention facility, NSA wiretaps, and torture.

Hillary Clinton – not enough room to list the concerns OR the positives. Fairly pleased. Will wait to see how she works with others.

Tim Geithner - don’t really know enough about him to opine. Probably a good pick, since I’m not hearing a lot of howls of outrage from either side of the aisle.

Bill Richardson – as Ambassador to almost anywhere, sure. He’s got the chops for that. But for Commerce Secretary? I don’t know what qualifications he brings to the table, other than his governorship. No business experience, per se, though Forbes did say some nice things about him bringing business to New Mexico.

Tom Daschle – good man for HHS.

Pete Orszag – I’m pretty darn pleased with this one, despite his connection to the Brookings Inst. I think he’s got the education, experience, and temperament to do well at the OMB.

Larry Summers – Okay, I’m biased. Still offended about his “maybe girls can’t do higher math” comment.

Did I miss anyone? I hope not because this’s a long enough post as it is!

By Mara

December 2, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Gannon/Guckart - yes, we still remember the gay “escort” that Rove ordered up and infiltrated into the WH press corp. Most likely to shill for the president…but who really knows HOW you got the through the security checks…what with your sordid little “escort” biz and all.

and no…I didn’t need to google you.

By Gale

December 2, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Napolitano - I oopose the “wall” too, so I don’t hold that against her.

Clinton - could be a disaster or a win-win-win.

Richardson - isn’t he a second choice because his Chicago business woman did not want to face the scruitiny?

Summers - I am with you on that one.

By Sunshine

December 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Interesting article from non other than Fox News!
Obama Dazzles Dems and GOP with Cabinet Picks President-elect Barack Obama has named half of his Cabinet members at record speed and earned positive reviews from both sides of the political aisle.

(www.foxnews .com/politics/2008/12/01/obama-dales-cabinet-picks/)

Should we send Satan a pair of Ice skates for Christmas?

By Monica

December 2, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

USinUk and Bruno, GREAT LINKS!! Thanks for the data. GOB, you can also use the state report card to compare performance of teacher-union states vs. non-teacher union: http://www. uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/e6vj565iidmycznvk4ikm3mryxo5nslm7iq2uyrta5vrqdxsagjvkxafz6r3buzaopo4uxv4o4ep4nvhmc3ppc7drjd/USChamberLeadersandLaggards.pdf (delete space)

To answer your question, USinUK, I have a politically incorrect view. First of all, perhaps we should examine IQ according to ethnicity; we might find that the Asian population has a higher IQ than the rest of us. Not a popular theory! OR, test the IQ of the parents of students in high achieving states, and compare that with the IQ of parents in low-achieving states. Again, not a popular theory!

I would also like to see if the states who fared well on the report card use a heterogeneous or homogeneous approach to teaching their children. Georiga uses a homogeneous approach, with the exception of honors/gifted classes. Tracking students according to ability is another unpopular pedagogy in modern education.

What do I think it really boils down to? Whether or not parents value education. Perhaps parents who live in Florida value an education more than parents in Georgia - GENERALLY speaking, of course.

By Monica

December 2, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

Let me add to my previous post: it would be interesting to look at the general teacher population of high-achieving and low-achieving states to see if they are natives of the area or if they hail from some other region of the US.

We teachers have to acknowledge that we do play a role in our students’ success, which is also an unpopular idea. :)

By USinUK

December 2, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

grrrrrrrrrrrr … 2+ hours working with our IT team to test a new app … only to find out it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.

and that’s after spending an hour this morning database testing - and it doesn’t do what it’s meant to do either.

technology is NOT our friend, no matter how it may try to seduce us by telling us otherwise.

okay. very unproductive afternoon. I’m heading home - will try to pop back in later …

By Mara

December 2, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Sunshine - speaking of H-ll freezing over…did you see where Limbaugh actually said that Hillary was ‘a brilliant stroke’ for SoS?

TOJ - The anchor states that he is introducing the entire interview, but the clip starts with Palin answering a question. An entire interview is all the questions and all the answers. So, there is no question that he is lying. So why do you think he is lying, Mara?

actually, I watched the whole thing…which began with her in the shed picking out which Tom to pardon. That was the “beginning” then there’s a break for the anchor to advise people about the graphic nature of the next segment, then back to the interview. If you add both parts together, it’s possible that they did air all that was recorded. I don’t know that of course, because KTUU hasn’t made the raw footage available, but it’s distinctly possible that the anchor didn’t “lie” when he said that.

I did check out what Mudflats had to say about it. She spoke with the camera guy and HE indicated that the Governor and her handlers were advised about the background but chose not to do anything about it. As a camera guy yourself, you should be aware that interviews can be cut and restarted at any point. Her advisors/handlers were right there beside the cameras. They could see exactly what the camera showed, yet they made no objections and allowed the interview to continue. That, more than any pundit commentary, told me that Governor Palin simply didn’t care what was happening around her.

By Mara

December 2, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Monica - What do I think it really boils down to? Whether or not parents value education.

Hear, hear!!! Couldn’t agree more.

By Monica

December 2, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

did you see where Limbaugh actually said that Hillary was ‘a brilliant stroke’ for SoS?

Well, she does have 8 years’ experience of running the White House… :)

By Gandalf, the White!

December 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Hey (DumBASS!) Satan is a goalie and has skates! JEEZ! you are so stupid! SUNSHINE ON MY SHOULDER ALMOST ALWAYS MAKES ME CRY!

By Jeff Gannon

December 2, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

The videos Jack shot of me are some of the best-selling in my entire collection. He is incredibly talented. Beautiful bright smile too. Don’t be a stranger!

By Mara

December 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Monica - Well, she does have 8 years’ experience of running the White House… :)

LOL! and we will get a package deal with her and Bill, who is still beloved where e’er he goes…internationally speaking, of course. :^)

By Mara

December 2, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

USinUK - 2+ hours working with our IT team to test a new app … only to find out it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.- and that’s after spending an hour this morning database testing - and it doesn’t do what it’s meant to do either.

sounds like an ID ten T error (get it? ID 10 T? LOL! A little tech humor there…) I’m continually greatful that MY company writes our own software, so we can adapt and tailor it to do what we need it to do without worrying about pesky copyright issues. It also ensures that all programs are compatable with our operating system and hardware.

By chuck

December 2, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Good morning, just a little time to pop in today. So Sunshine, I can go ahead and tell you…that is NOT what we mean when we say Liberal. Here is what we DO MEAN when we use that term:

Liberal:

Someone who is adamantly pro-abortion.

Someone who thinks the Constitution is a “living document”, open to interpretaion BASED ON CHANGING SOCIAL MORES and not what it actually SAYS.

Someone who is against the 2nd amemndment rights of the PEOPLE

Someone who would tie the hands of Law Enforcement with “technicalities” never intended by the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments (all of which I agree with in a strict sense without all of the extra “interpretation”).

Someone in favor of legalizing drugs

Someone who is so “Anti-War” that they would not EFFECTIVELY retaliate when we are attacked.

Someone who believes that GOVERNMENT is the solution and not the problem.

Someone who believes in personal freedom BUT NOT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Someone who puts priority on endangered species OVER human beings.

I’ll add some to the list later, but let me put my 2 cents worth in on what a conservative is, and to paraphrase JFK, I’ll gladly wear the label of conservative.

Conservative:

Someone who believes that the life of an innocent unborn baby is precious and that it has the same NATURAL RIGHTS as the “born”.

Someone who believes that the Constitution says what it means and should be interpreted based on what it says NOT what some judge WANTS IT TO SAY.

Someone who believes that the right to bear arms is given to the PEOPLE and not to some militia.

Someone who believes that the government should be limited in scope and power and that it should get OUT OF THE WAY and let the people run their own lives and live with their own mistakes and BENEFIT from their successes.

Someone who believes that what he makes is his and that he should be able to “redistribute” it any way he chooses.

Someone who believes that a new factory that will create hundreds of jobs is more important than a snail darter or a red-headed woodpecker.

Someone who actually UNDERSTANDS the “General Welfare Clause” of the Constitution.

Someone who believes that we have a military for a reason and that SOMETIMES, you may actually have to send them to kill people.

I’ll add more later, but you get my drift.

By Gale

December 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

USinUK, not to defend your IT department because I don’t know them, but that ususally happens here because the user didn’t make time to completely define what they wanted, didn’t make time to read the requirements and design when it was presented, didn’t make time to review the prototype, etc. The data validation is as important as everything else and only the user can do that… when they make time. I’m jsut say’n.

Mara, yep, the Clintons are a apackage deal, just like every other talented and high power couple.

Monica, I likeyour unpopulare education metrics thoughts.

By Jeff Gannon, Conservative Top

December 2, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

I’m a conservative. You may have seen my work in the ultra-conservative Talon News. I love George W. Bush, and appreciate qualities about him that you liberals will just never know. I visited him dozens of times in the White House, and went both in and out through the back door. (Yes that’s what I said.) Secret service logs recorded me going in many times on days in which there was no press briefing, but often the log is empty in the adjoining space where vistors’ departures are recorded.

Stop maligning my good friends/competitors in the media as “liberal!” A few of them tried to blow my cover (yes that’s what I said), like those dorks on Comedy Central and MSNBC, but ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and all the major newspapers in the country gave it no more than a passing note. No follow up, no digging for stained clothing, no slamming of Tim Russert’s fist on the desk demanding to know what I was doing there night after night, or what the definition of “Top” is.

God bless the free market, where I can ply my real trade under the guise of a fake trade, using a fake name, to give America’s REAL CONSERVATIVES what they need, in the privacy of their taxpayer funded public residences. NO. QUESTIONS. ANSWERED. Thank you.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 2, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

EXPAT: Unless the IT department suck donkey danglers, it’s that ID 10 T that made the specs that screwed the pony in your little rodeo. Blame them as Gale states. Sunshiner: Read the thing Chuck wrote, spend the next week being remorseful for your silly ways, repent, go to church on Sunday. Until then STFU!

By Gandalf, the White!

December 2, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

EXPAT: Unless the IT department suck donkey danglers, it’s that ID 10 T that made the specs that screwed the pony in your little rodeo. Blame them as Gale states. Sunshiner: Read the thing Chuck wrote, spend the next week being remorseful for your silly ways, repent, go to church on Sunday. Until then STFU!

By Sunshine

December 2, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck, with all due respect, you may view a liberal as that but it is not the definition of the word. I do not mean to be so literal, I understand what you are saying but my point is that “liberal” is some how a dirty word. As you show with your associations to the word above, what it really means is:

lib⋅er⋅al –adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. 6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. 8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. 9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor. 10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation. 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule. 12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts. 13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

Words have meanings, and they have them for a reason. When you use a word incorrectly over and over and over you do not change the mean, it just shows that the user does not correctly understand the word.

By Mara

December 2, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

LOL! Chuck, if those are your definitions of “liberal” and “conservative”, then there’s very, very few of either. I was going to do a rebuttal but halfway through I realized it was useless, since your definitions are so far out there that any attempt to correct them would end up sounding condescending and insulting. So, as my mother used to advise me to do, since I had nothing good to say, I said nothing.

By Gale

December 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Mara, our mothers went to the same Mom school.

By chuck

December 2, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

USUK, not to get involved in your tiff with TOJ, but you said:

wrong. go watch the video again - he was standing back there the entire time.

I did watch the tape. The man with the turkey walked into the frame 5 seconds into the interview. Her back was turned when he came in and at no point did she turn and actually look at what was going on. It was clear in the interview that she was talking about being there to “PARDON” the turkey and not to watch them be slaughtered.

HOWEVER, who cares? TOJ, I don’t understand why you think that what they did made her look bad. CERTAINLY THEY TRIED to make her look bad by showing the slaughter in the background, but after all, isn’t that what they do at a turkey processing plant? To me it didn’t make me think one way or the other about her. Those lefties in the media may have made her look bad to a few PETA members, but I think the rest of us are mature enough to KNOW WHERE OUR FOOD COMES FROM.

USUK, I don’t understand why you think that the framing of the shot was unintentional. Certainly it was done that way on purpose. In fact, if you look closely, it appears that the man was DIRECTED into the shot by someone off camera. It would be interesting to me to see if he was spoken to by the ABC people BEFORE the interview started and told to do that. They probably framed it by saying they wanted to show the great work they were doing there or some such nonsense. I would not be surprised if the slaughter was manipulated by the producer.

BUT, AGAIN, outside of a few activists, who cares?

By Mara

December 2, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Sunshine - Words have meanings, and they have them for a reason. When you use a word incorrectly over and over and over you do not change the mean[ing]

please see my 9:38 post.

Republicans have been attempting to demonize the word “liberal” since the sexual revolution and the Vietnam War. It doesn’t matter that what they mean when they say ‘liberal’ is some made-up, spooky-boogity-boogity cartoon of an actual liberal. Why do you think so many people began calling themselves “progressives”? Because they didn’t recognize themselves as the “liberal” caricature trotted out by conservatives so they didn’t identify as “liberal”.

The same holds true for “feminist”. I know very few people who believe that women as a whole aren’t equal in ability, in determination, in intelligence, in potential etc to men as a whole. Since “feminism” is simply the belief in the political, social, and economic equality of women, pretty much everybody is a feminist now, regardless of the boogie-woman caricature that conservative have of hairy, man-hating, bra-burners.

By chuck

December 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

So Sunshine, Mara…which ones of those things that I listed do you NOT believe?

By Mara

December 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Gale - Mara, our mothers went to the same Mom school

It seems like we DO have a lot in common regarding our upbringing. If it’s not intrusive, may I ask in what area of the country you were raised?

By Blesser

December 2, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

So, as my mother used to advise me to do, since I had nothing good to say, I said nothing.

But bless his heart anyway.

By Gale

December 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

North Ohio, Mara.
Blesser, that is a phrase I never heard until I moved to GA. It is one of my favorites. It can mean so many things.

By chuck

December 2, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Hold on there a minute Mara. You are right that words HAVE MEANING. That is certainly true, but you are WRONG when you say that those meanings don’t change over time. Here is a website for you that proves my point. As usual, remove the spaces:

http://www . write101.com/W.Tips261.htm

As for the rest of the things you said, you got it backwards. What really happened is that people CALLED THEMSELVES LIBERAL. THEN you ask them what their positions are on the issues and you get that list that I wrote for you. Is it any wonder that we associate the term liberal with those positions?

By Gale

December 2, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I read your list a second time after your last post. I suspect many people are like myself and find themselves in the grey area of your lists; not completely agreeing with either set. I suspect many people are also tired of the attempts to categorize them into one or the other group. I am both, and neither. It is a tiresome argument. Who is right and wrong, conservative or liberal; left or right? Very few people care. Each issue has its own merits.

By k

December 2, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Hello. I agree with Gale at 4:16. Why the need to slap labels on people, Chuck? It seems to me that you have a list, kind of like Santa’s “bad vs. good”, and this eliminates the need to discuss, think, or otherwise get to know someone’s mind, opinions, or what their perspective might contribute to a solution. “Quick, grab a buzzword, scan the list, and slap them on there!” Is that really all you need to know?

Issues are rarely black and white, no matter how hard you try to cram them into your non-color scheme. God created colors, shades of gray, minds that think, and hearts that seek to understand. So sad that some people put a list ahead of all that’s truly possible. You’re missing out, IMO.

By Frustrated

December 2, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

Snail Darter…..what in the world…

I’ll be back, I must google this.

By Frustrated

December 2, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

Ok, so I am not up to date with my endangered species…. Chuck, did you google endangered species or is that seriously the first one that popped in your head?

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this

chuck - chuck - CHUCK -

so glad you popped in this week … was wondering if you had a chance to check out the Chamber of Commerce site Bruno referenced above - would love to hear your (teacher’s) perspective on their rating system and what you think makes the difference in the top states vs. the bottom.

(see also - Monica’s response above) -

… speaking of … Monica -

why the IQ tests? would love to hear the rationale (do you think they should be treated as a tool? statistical measure? what?). also, I agree with you - I would like to know the difference by state in their approaches to learning.

and, back to chuck -

BUT, AGAIN, outside of a few activists, who cares?

I agree - but, then, you have folkses like TOJ who see it as proof (PROOF, I tell you!!!) that the mean MSM is out to “get” the GOP.

one last word to augment what Mara said about the gov’s handlers being there … lest we forget, she was also a J-school major - she should know as well as anyone else present that day the importance of framing a shot. she could have stood outside the pen where she gave the pardon. she could have stood any number of places that WEREN’T where the cones of death and drainage would be the backdrop.

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

To my IT peeps -

fortunately, the afternoon was an off-the-shelf package that we were testing (the biggest problem was getting it working in the virtual environment the IT guys set up)

the database stuff is coming along … fortunately, I’m just part of the committee that helps test it, not part of the design/spec committee (although we do get to weigh in).

Mr. USinUK is Captain IT in our house - and that’s perfectly fine with me! :-)

By Gale

December 3, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

I’ve had to implement a few ‘off the shelf’ products that don’t meet expectations. Those are hard. They are never what was promised. I’m the one working in IT, but my other half is the home geek. I do software and the big machines. She is research central and rules the home PC and network world.

IQ by state (parentally and government wise) would be interesting to view next to student achievement. It might say something about school policies. Unless we find a way to zap it from people by satelite surveilence, I don’t guess we will ever see that. I would also like to see measurement as urban vs rural districts. My partner’s sister teaches grade school and found a great big difference between suburban schools; one close to the city in an established and quite diverse neighborhood, and one in an outer fast growing (dare I say it? No, I’ll call it…) escapist neighborhood. The suburb far from the city is much less concerned with educational standards and has much less parental involvement.

On the turkey topic: Staging is something Obama has down pat and Palin needs to learn. I doubt very much Obama would have allowed himself in the cursed frame.

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Gale -

sounds like you and your partner are a good team!! :-)

Mr. USinUK and I are much more macro: he’s IT/gadgetary needs, paying bills and put things together projects … I’m more the day-to-day stuff (cooking, laundry, daily life maintenance, etc). He doesn’t go into my kitchen … I don’t mess with the computers.

but, you’re right - off the shelf/black-box NEVER does everything that you think it will/should. I was hoping that the Bloomberg data stream would be more like a self-refreshing RSS feed … evidently, not.

The suburb far from the city is much less concerned with educational standards and has much less parental involvement

now, that’s interesting … you’d think it would be the opposite. I see what you’re saying, tracking average IQ with student achievement - that would be illuminating. Same goes with rural vs. urban …

lastly - we can’t forget who was the ne plus ultra of staging: Uncle Ronnie!! talk about the King of stars and stripes - he knew how to frame a shot!

and I still say Palin is about as smart as a box of hammers.

By Sunshine

December 3, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

USinUK-one last word to augment what Mara said about the gov’s handlers being there … laest we forget, she was also a J-school major - she should know as well as anyone else present that day the importance of framing a shot. she could have stood outside the pen where she gave the pardon. she could have stood any number of places that WEREN’T where the cones of death and drainage would be the backdrop.—This is what I was thinking the whole argument with TOJ, can you imagine Mr. Obama allowing himself to be seen in this way? The job of being a politician is in part controlling your image. She does not always do this very well, and if you are a politician you MUST do this, and you MUST KNOW you have to do this. There were handlers of SOME SORT there, she isn’t just out and about all by herself. Someone in her camp could have said SOMETHING. But she didn’t mind (or her handlers didn’t), maybe she didn’t think the image merited any concern, who knows, but that is a different level of precision marketing/ image control/ message control than the Obama Team had, and it shows her ‘greenness’. It doesn’t mean she is a horrible person necessarily but it does mean she doesn’t fully understand the full ramifications of her ‘image’.

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Sunshine -

It doesn’t mean she is a horrible person necessarily but it does mean she doesn’t fully understand the full ramifications of her ‘image’

horrible person, no.

horrible handlers, yes.

not the brightest porch light on the block … definitely.

meanwhile … how are you holding up these days, Mrs. I-Laugh-in-the-Face-of-Two-Jobs??? how is the little guy doing??? How is the husbandly one doing as the date of impending fatherhood draws nigh?

By Gale

December 3, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Our home team does have lots of crossover. Part of the difference may be the tasks guys lean to. I think women tend to fill gaps where they find them. I did a lot of the same things when I was married, so I don’t think task choice is especially a gender thing. I always did the yardwork, painting, stuff like that. My repair credentials are limited. That is where I miss my handyman ex. Cooking seems to be split by recipe. For some reason, she doesn’t like to cook potatos, eggs or pasta, and I am in charge of the grill, oh, and all the cleanup. Other than that, she is a fantastic cook. My mid-western tastes got a whole new world.

By Gale

December 3, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

she didn’t think the image merited any concern

I agree Sunshine. Consider the attitudes of an Alaskan, where everyone hunts and fishes. Why would they consider pardoning a turkey to be anything but publicity silliness. That someone buys their T-day meal instead of putting something they themselves bagged on the table may be the joke to her.

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Gale -

I’m with you on the yardwork and painting - I actually like both chores and am still in charge of them, now. When I was single, I was handy with a level/hammer/nails/drill - no problem with Ikea stuff. But, hey, if my partner likes to do those “power tool” tasks more than I do, I say, fine! take it off my plate.

the mister makes a mean curry and vindaloo, but, frankly, the kitchen always looks like the aftermath of a major “incident” - food everywhere, sauce on the walls, every pot/pan/utensil used … I’d rather do the cooking and keep the kitchen somewhat under control.

By Sunshine

December 3, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

USin-(USin, ISin, We all Sin for Ice Cream! Sorry Feeling a little punch this morning!)

meanwhile … how are you holding up these days, Mrs. I-Laugh-in-the-Face-of-Two-Jobs??? how is the little guy doing??? How is the husbandly one doing as the date of impending fatherhood draws nigh?—Oh Shucks, thanks for askin! I am doing well all things considered! The reg job is getting worse by the day, no end in sight to the slow down, everyone’s moral is in the toilet, and no one is getting along (which I think has a lot to do with all the stress everyone is under!), on a brighter note, at the second job I landed a $200,000 job for the company! And I make a 5% commission on it which should arrive the first week of (not one damn dollar paid) Maternity Leave (THANK GOODNESS!). I also have another pending account that could be another big fish, so it could be GREAT! I am surprised (and so is the new boss) with the success I have had so early, lets hope it isn’t just beginners luck! Hubby is doing great, really being quite wonderful, he finished painting the nursery, and while his is currently distracted by building his Christmas light extravaganza, we are making progress every weekend in there, this weeks project is constructing the Cornice Boards for the windows! Little guy is great, VERY ACTIVE, but hopefully that means a strong healthy baby is on the way!

By Sunshine

December 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Gale-I agree Sunshine. Consider the attitudes of an Alaskan, where everyone hunts and fishes. Why would they consider pardoning a turkey to be anything but publicity silliness.—Which if you are the Governor of a State (and several states particularly, up north, out west, ect) is fine, but I think she has been very clear that she has a “National Agenda” as seen in her campaigning in GA this week. If she wants to be elected by a larger majority of our VERY diverse country, she needs to be a LOT more polished, in my humble opinion.

By Sunshine

December 3, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Sorry Feeling a little punchY this morning!

By Gale

December 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

Sunshine, Gosh, wouldn’t it be too bad if the second job turned out better than the first?

By Gale

December 3, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

You won’t get me to disagree there, Sunshine. Palin is not ready for prime time on the national stage, much less the global stage.

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Sunshine -

WELL DONE YOU on bringing in the big bucks for the company and the tidy sums for YOU!!! sorry Job #1 is a pain - is it due to busy-ness/too much work-not enough peeps, or due to impending layoffs (or the fear of impending layoffs?)

side note #1: in the UK, women are entitled to a minimum 6 months paid maternity - many companies offer a year. men get 2 weeks paid paternity leave. every British woman I know is shocked that the best you can hope to get in the US is 3 months paid leave.

and it sounds like the hubster is doing his bit of nesting, too! not much longer now, is it? aren’t you due in early Feb or something like that???

side note #2: there’s a funny series of commercials for a UK sausage company - the tag line is “we only include the 2 best bits” and all the ads feature that theme. one of the ads features a couple with the day they bring their baby home and the day the now-grown-up kid moves out as “the 2 best bits”.

take care of yourself, Ms. Punchy - you’re heading into the home stretch and need to get all the rest you can … before a certain someone won’t let you.

By Sunshine

December 3, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Gosh, wouldn’t it be too bad if the second job turned out better than the first?—LOL! Yeah, I have been thinking that too, things are really crummy around here, it almost seems like a blessing in disguise, or maybe a needed push in a new direction! Now, if I can get hubby to feel that push too we could have a lot less stress in our lives! (that is before all the new baby stress starts, ha!)

By Monica

December 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Hi USinUK! Gale said what I was going to about IQ. Fact of the matter is that some people are smarter than others (gasp!), and it would just be interesting to see if there is any correlation with ethnicity or region to student IQ and their achievement. For example, Ivy League schools definitely have higher standards for entrance than most public universities (not bashing ANY university here). It would be interesting to see how many graduates of Ivy League schools settle in the nearby areas. Genetics tells us that smart parents typically have smart children. Perhaps some states’ proficiency scores exceed the national average simply because the kids in that area are smarter than the national average (Check out the report card data for Massachusettes). HOWEVER, I am not atrributing success solely to IQ, just reflecting that it does play a part in student achievement.

With regard to Georgia’s graduation rate: I live in an “urbal” area - we have the best of both rural and suburban. When we moved here a few years ago, I was quite shocked at just how rural some of my student population is. I had kids who were late to school because their job was to slop the pigs, and if a pig gets loose, reigning it in takes precedence over arriving to school on time! Chicken farming is abundant. I dare say no one would accuse farm kids of being lazy (they certainly work harder at home than my kids), but their priority is not education. They don’t see the value of a high school diploma because they can work in the family business and have a comfortable life without one. Again, look at the states with low graduation rates and see which areas of the United States we are talking about.

Not excusing, just explaining.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

6 months paid maternity leave? Socialism pure and simple! GO SAXBY! GO SARAH, SHE PARDONED 1 TURKEY NOT THE WHOLE SPECIES! YEAH!

By Gale

December 3, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

I love that word, urbal, Monica! I wonder if the school system has tried any kind of partnering with some of the notable agribusiness colleges to encourage scholastic effort? There is nothing wrong with wanting to work the family farm business. But what could they do with more than OJT?

By Gale

December 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Love it, Gandalf.

By Sunshine

December 3, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

USin-is it due to busy-ness/too much work-not enough peeps, or due to impending layoffs (or the fear of impending layoffs?)—It really is just all of it, its kinda of like the wolf pack turning on itself, everyone is ticked about the salary cut, and if someone is seen not working or not doing what people think they should be doing, they get told on, which tick’s of management, which are already is a bad mood ALL THE TIME b/c of the books, ect, ect, ect. And yes, there are some people that are almost on a week-to-week thing b/c they don’t know if we will have enough work to keep them, so everyone is not on edge, but over it! It Sucks! And it is just really stressful with the pregnancy, I am the only female that works here and I am trying hard not to pull the sympathy card, but the stress EVERYDAY starts to really get to me. Not to mention that it’s X-mas time and everyone is starting to worry about where $ is going to come from for the holidays when it looks like there might be MORE cuts!

Yep, I am due first week in Feb! (Good Memory!)

And not to go on a rant, but the Maternity leave thing in the US is CRAZY! We are exempt from FMLA, because we have less than 50 employees, and there is NO maternity policy at all in place, basically I was told they will hold my job for 6 weeks and if I could work from home a bit that would be great. I only have 5 paid days off a year, and I have already taken three this year. IT IS BS if you ask me. Every other civilized country in the world has some sort of paid leave, except for like 3 third world countries!

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Monica -

I can understand looking at IQ by region - but, I think you’re going to get a lot of push-back if you start talking about an IQ/ethnicity link … eeeeep. that’s a road I sure as heck wouldn’t want to walk down. (think of all the grief Summers got for his “chicks don’t dig science” comment)

I think it would definitely be interesting to look at average IQ in the state in relation to the school performance - then, of course, break up the state by urban/suburban/rural - see how all that matches up. Basically, I’m thinking about VA, which did well on the Chamber of Commerce site - while the greater DC area holds a large number of students, you can compare it to a huge rural area and a much different “semi-urban” population around UVA and Richmond.

As I mentioned earlier, VA has also made a tremendous effort in the development of magnet schools - in the greater DC area, they have received national recognition for schools that focus on technology and construction. And, how great is it that you have a high school that’s devoted to teaching kids the construction trade - and in a way that isn’t a “you’re a vo-tech loser” way (the kids actually help build a house during the school year - if I remember correctly, it’s funded by the school with the profits going back to the program)

As far as rural areas, my sister’s first teaching gig out of UGA was in Madison - she said planting and harvest season, the school didn’t really count tardies because the kids were out working a couple of hours before school started.

By Monica

December 3, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Gale, that’s why I oppose NCLB, one diploma type, and kids-in-a-box education. We do have a coprporation that has partnered with the school system and allows a select number of students to receive high school credit while working with their coprporation. It’s been quite successful!

By Gale

December 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

whisper to the little drop of Sunshine: The 9th is a real good day for a birthday.

By Gale

December 3, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

I wonder what Obama and Michelle with their Ivy League educations think about vo-ed? That would be a retro change that could be done better that it was before.

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Gale -

I wonder what Obama and Michelle with their Ivy League educations think about vo-ed? That would be a retro change that could be done better that it was before.

I don’t know about them, but I’ll be the first to stand on a box and say “the world needs good plumbers!!! and good electricians, plasterers, wood workers, mechanics, bakers and farmers!! lawyers - we’ve got enough, thankyewverymuch”

Sunshine -

I only have 5 paid days off a year, and I have already taken three this year. IT IS BS if you ask me. Every other civilized country in the world has some sort of paid leave, except for like 3 third world countries!

the whole “no more sick days” thing just stuns me - that you have 5-10 days off and they are to include the days you are sick??? honey, THAT’S going to kill the US workforce - literally. people need time off, they need to recharge, they need to NOT think about work for a week so that they can be better employees when they return.

UK minimum time off is 22 days (doesn’t include sick days) - I have 26 days … the mister has 28 with his job. When you add them up, we have probably the same number of “federal days off”, as well (it’s just that most of ours are front-loaded - 2 bank holidays in May, 2 days off for Easter, then 2 days off for Christmas and another bank holiday right around Labor Day.)

By USinUK

December 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Sunshine (and Gale)

The 9th is a real good day for a birthday

May is a real good month for a birthday - but you probably shouldn’t hold out for it!!! ;-)

By Monica

December 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

I can understand looking at IQ by region - but, I think you’re going to get a lot of push-back if you start talking about an IQ/ethnicity link … eeeeep

That’s why I prefaced my original comments with the phrase “politically incorrect!” And I might be surprised at the results as well. But our essential question (buzz word in education) remains, “What do Asian countries do with education that we don’t?”

By Nobody

December 3, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

What would you do if you were constantly being ridiculed for being too moody or too dumb? What if you were too confident or you were a “Smarty-Pants”? I would feel a little down, wouldn’t you? It is easy to forget that many teens do not have much confidence. This is mostly because of the stereotypes and generalizations that people toss around like it’s no big deal. They do not realize that they are only making things worse by saying “Teens are always like that. Get used to it.” and “Teens have WAY too much ambition and confidence.” Many teens do not fit in the shoes that represent these stereotypes. I wish I could say that I was confident, but I am constantly put down by the rude remarks that many people tend to make about pre-teens and teens in general. They say that we are overconfident. Pee-shaw, I say. Many children have lots of confidence. They want to be astronauts, doctors, and police. They are not ridiculed for their confidence. We have even less confidence, so why should we be? I must admit that some teens do have lots of ambition, but this is what keeps them going. Indeed, 50% of high school students plan to get a degree in college, and only 10% actually do. If we were to get a confidence boost, then maybe, just maybe, that percentage would rise! If people were to listen to the presently miniscule voices of the teen population, and stop creating stereotypes for them to live by, we would soon have people with good jobs and college degrees. So, stop for a minute, and think about the teens who dare to be different: the ones that speak out against stereotypes, the ones who have no fear of being put down, and the ones that simply despise being the slaves of generalizations. Speak out for them yourself, and get your mind out of that box. Jump to the side of the line of “Normal Thinking” and shout “Hey, I’m right here, and I’m daring to be different!”

By Gale

December 3, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Nobody, Yes, teens do get categorized. Guess what? We all do. Some poeple try to see a whole person and some people prefer the categories. It is unfortunate that often the teen trying to be heard is drowned out by the loud music often surrounding teens, or even the loud marketing aimed at teens because they are the only ones who seem to have money to spend. We do know there are teens that rise above the rest.

I for one, am less concerned that we increase the percentage of college degrees than that we increase the percentage of high school graduates. Imagine the impact of 10% more high school graduates in GA? Wow, about 60%. Still awful, but better. Imagine programs that engage students with lots of confidence and ambition, but no interest in another 4 years of sitting in a class. Imagine those students with technical careers in plumbing, electrical work, construction. We need these young people engaged, nut simply brimming with confidence going nowhere.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

they are using torture on the terrorist in INDIA! TRUTH SERUM is banned in most democracies!

By Gale

December 3, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

Why is that, Gandalf? Why should we ban truth serum? Is there something about it that harms a person? Does it leave after effects? The object is to get them to tell us something they don’t want to say. That seems like a humane method. What is it I don’t understand?

By chuck

December 3, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

Frustrated

The Snail Darter was the first thought that came to my head for endangered species. There was a big case near the beginning of the 1980’s in Tennessee. They wanted to build a dam but the EPA wouldn’t let them because of the snail darter. Sorry, I just have a long memory about some things I guess.

USUK, I read both of the articles linked by Brudog. That has been fairly common knowledge among educators for a number of years. As to the cause, nobody really knows for sure. If you look at census bureau data, you’ll see that all of those states near the top except for South Dakota, have the smallest percentage of people living below the poverty level. The outlier is S. Dakota which has the 16th highest poverty rate. The rest are in the 10 lowest.

On the other end of the spectrum, those with failing grades in the article were all in the 10 highest poverty level group.

If I had to pin it on just ONE THING, that would be it. An interesting side note is that even the top states were all only a few points above the U.S. average in test scores. It’s not like any one state is completely blowing the others out of the water.

Kimberly,

I didn’t start putting labels out there. I was responding to Sunshine’s post. Labels are very useful when you think about it. They save a lot of time. Why do you think there are “STEREOTYPES”…it’s because there is a large amount of truth there. Few people fit perfectly into any group, but I gaurantee you that the list that I posted is about 95% accurate for people who identify themselves as one or the other.

By Mara

December 3, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

chuck - I gaurantee you that the list that I posted is about 95% accurate for people who identify themselves as one or the other.

and what recompense does that “guarantee” provide for you being wrong? I ask simply because of this item regarding “conservative”, “Someone who believes that the government should be limited in scope and power and that it should get OUT OF THE WAY and let the people run their own lives and live with their own mistakes and BENEFIT from their successes.”

now, if this were actually true instead of just what you all tell yourselves, you would have to be FOR decriminalizing drugs, FOR healthcare privacy (up to and including abortion and euthanasia), FOR marriage equality, AGAINST Bush’s Unitary Executive model, AGAINST the Shiavo legislation, and AGAINST the Patriot Act. All these issues are examples of the government either expanding its scope of power, or using that power to intrude upon the private lives of we citizens.

By k

December 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I have to disagree with your 2:38. I don’t think there is a “large amount of truth” to most stereotypes. I think people like YOU call attention to anything that matches your stereotypes and remain silent about anyone or anything that fails to conform. And yes, they’re YOURS because YOU are perpetuating them, lending even more credence to what I said yesterday that some people prefer their labels to having to think, discuss, or attempt to listen to other perspectives.

Just as kids behaving badly get more attention than ones handing in their homework (as was so aptly stated earlier in this discussion), you never mention anything that does not conform to your pre-defined mantra that you, uniquely, understand everything. YOUR FILTER seeks validation of your stereotypes, but the majority of your fellow Americans are moving forward, supplanting old prejudices with enlightened thought and circumspection. Frankly, IMO, YOU DON’T KNOW US AT ALL.

By Gale

December 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

Brava, Mara!

By Mara

December 3, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

Gale, thanks! LOL! You have no idea how much it’s annoyed me to NOT post about his list. :^)

By chuck

December 3, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

Mara, Mara, Mara

This statement is not true at all:

now, if this were actually true instead of just what you all tell yourselves, you would have to be FOR decriminalizing drugs, FOR healthcare privacy (up to and including abortion and euthanasia), FOR marriage equality, AGAINST Bush’s Unitary Executive model, AGAINST the Shiavo legislation, and AGAINST the Patriot Act. All these issues are examples of the government either expanding its scope of power, or using that power to intrude upon the private lives of we citizens.

As conservatives we understand that our RIGHTS end, when they begin to affect another or society as a whole. There is no discrepancy here. When we degrade life (abortion, euthanasia), we begin a downward spiral as a NATION. The only REAL role for government is to protect the innocent. Terry Schiavo could not speak for herself so the government should have stepped in to protect her. I would feel differently about it if she had requested to never be put on machines in writing, but she didn’t. As a matter of fact I am for marriage EQUALITY. Any man can marry any woman who will have him. What you want is SPECIAL RIGHTS. I’m against THAT.

By Equality!!

December 3, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Homosexuality is a capital offense in Iran. Please move there since you favor theocracy over freedom. If you’re a good little hater, they might even let you execute people for doing something that is none of your business. Now wouldn’t THAT put a smile on your un-Christ-like, hate-soaked face… watching the offender twitch and lose continence while death and judgment triumph. Have fun at church tonight, Hater.

By Frustrated

December 3, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

Equality-

Wow…PMSing lately?

By Equality!!

December 3, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

DANG! Yes, how could you tell? Shoveling the chocolate…

But seriously folks…. I could go down to my local watering hole tonight and hook up with a middle-aged, thrice divorced alcholic man with three or four kids he rarely, if ever, supports, who has trouble keeping a steady job — (in fact those kind go for me since I have a house, job, and beer in the ‘fridge!) — and the State of Georgia would give us a marriage license NEXT WEEK, and all the accompanying, built-in RIGHTS to property, inheritence, medical decisions, and so forth. Would this be a “good idea?” Heck no, and I wouldn’t do it. (BTW, the state would also grant us another DIVORCE, even though the church supposedly allegedly condemns that too.)

But Vern and Randy, who have been together in a monogamous, loving, supportive relationship for 15 years, cannot receive any such SPECIAL RIGHTS from the State of Georgia. Regardless of how you feel about the “natural” or “unnatural” nature of another couple’s love, THIS IS UN-AMERICAN. Give state-sanctioned marriage rights to ALL couples of consenting age, or give them to NO ONE, and let straight couples marry in churches and pay lawyers out the wazoo to secure property and inheritance rights with the state.

We are not free until we’re ALL free, and that means EQUAL rights under the law, regardless of how uncomfortable that might make some busybodies.

There, is that better? Seriously, this is not over. We’re just getting ramped up, and I believe in an America where freedom will eventually triumph over ignorance and hate.

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

2 things …

honey, if it’s the same right you have, it ain’t special.

U.A.W. Makes Concessions in Bid to Help Automakers

WASHINGTON — The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that it would make major concessions in its contracts with the three Detroit auto companies to help them lobby Congress for $34 billion in federal aid.

The surprising move by the U.A.W. could be a critical factor in the automakers’ bid not only to get government assistance, but also to become competitive with the cost structure of nonunion plants operated by foreign automakers in the United States.

At a news conference in Detroit, the U.A.W.’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said that his members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care to keep the two most troubled car companies of the Big Three, General Motors and Chrysler, out of bankruptcy.

“Concessions, I used to cringe at that word,” Mr. Gettelfinger said. “But now, why hide it? That’s what we did.”

Labor experts said the ground given by the union underscored the precarious condition of the Detroit companies, as the U.A.W.’s own prospects for survival are also in doubt. “It is an historic and awfully difficult moment for the U.A.W.,” said Harley Shaiken, professor of labor studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

The union’s willingness to modify its 2007 contract came a day after G.M., Chrysler and the Ford Motor Company submitted business plans to Congress in support of their loan requests.

http://www. nytimes.com/ 2008/12/04/ business/04auto.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

USin-I read that article last night and thought of you! Now how are they going to blame EVERYTHING on the UAW?

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Sunshine …

I meant to tell you, I liked your “we all sin for ice cream!” yesterday (that made me seriously laugh out loud)

Now how are they going to blame EVERYTHING on the UAW?

gah. the same way you have Sean Hack-ity blaming the current recession on Obama (despite the fact that he is still weeks away from taking office). you’ll always have ninnies that will blame it all on the unions.

although, one does have to give credit to the folks who also blame the half-a*******ed decision-making and planning at the top (at least they acknowledge that there’s more than enough blame to go around)

the interesting thing is, I’m seeing more and more of a clarion call for the manufacturing industry to stand up and demand single-payer health care to help them be competitive with Europe and Asia (I’ve been wondering for the last 2 years why NAM and GMA aren’t front and center on this issue … )

By Gale

December 4, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

Equality, thanks for making the first message I read this morning one that reminds people that equality is not a special right. Separate but equal is never equal.

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this

… if anyone is thinking of giving CDs for Cmas … here’s a Times of London recommendation list:

http:// entertainment. timesonline.co.uk/ tol/artsandentertainment/ music/article5252334.ece

(it’s a Britney-free zone - so if you’re looking for something a little different, their list may help)

By chuck

December 4, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this

Good Morning,

USUK, it is NOT the same right that I have. As a man, I have the right to marry a WOMAN. ALL MEN have that SAME RIGHT. What homosexual men want is the right to marry ANOTHER MAN. That is NOT THE SAME RIGHT that I have. They want a SPECIAL RIGHT that applies JUST TO THEM. That makes it a SPECIAL RIGHT.

BUT…unless somebody says something really stupid, I am done with this topic for this week. We have beaten it to death and nobody here is going to change their minds about it, so I just don’t see the point of kicking it around any more. I just don’t see it as being overly productive.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Oh no, Chuck. You should also have the right to marry a man. I would never think it was right to deny you the right to marry the person you love. Um, you are capable of loving, right?

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

chuck -

hey! I can play this game, too!!! “then they want the same right as I have - they want the right to marry a man.”

but what we’re really talking about is the right to marry. the right to legally live your life with someone else, to have them inherit your estate, to have them be consulted if you are incapacitated in the hospital, to be seen as the equals of a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the law.

equality, baby … it’s what’s for dinner.

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship…. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the “Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain [and] USA Govt.” The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and “All News Media.”

TOJ—Have you been out suing people lately? (Just a joke!)

This article made me laugh, but you know, anything can happen when the Supreme Court gets involved in Presidential Elections!

By Monica

December 4, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Speaking of entertainers, did anyone happen to catch the Rockefeller Center Chrismas special last night? Tony Bennett still has it! Of course, Harry Connick, Jr. ain’t so bad either. Please excuse me while I swoon!

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

YEAH CHUCK!!!—BUT…unless somebody says something really stupid, I am done with this topic for this week. We have beaten it to death and nobody here is going to change their minds about it, so I just don’t see the point of kicking it around any more. I just don’t see it as being overly productive.—Well said, I don’t think you want the Tiara, how about you get a nice pair of cuff links for the day! ;-)

By Mara

December 4, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

Hey, folks. Got an issue that I hope one of you smart people can help me with. I’m working on a spreadsheet and I need to find the length of each leg of a triangle. The only info I have is the base measurement and the rise/run. I’ve been googling for a while now, but all I can find is advice on calculating rafter length or trimming a gable roof! Argh. NOT what I need.

can ya help a buddy out here? Anybody?

Here’s an example: Triangle has a 36” base and an 8/12 pitch. How do I find the length of the two sides?

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Monica -

Tony Bennett still has it!

Tony Bennett did the Glastonbury festival a year or so ago (the Sunday morning slot is always for a crooner/big band-type singer) - he knocked the crowd DEAD! They absolutely loved him … I think even he was surprised by his reception …

on a side note: Shirley Bassey did Glasto 2 years ago and - MAN! - that woman can STILL belt like no one’s business (for those who may not remember, she did Diamonds are Forever and a couple other Bond theme songs).

As for Harry Connick, Jr - I saw him a few years ago for my birthday - all I can say is, if you have the opportunity to see him live, RUN, do not walk to get tickets!! he puts on one helluva show!

By Gale

December 4, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Mara, try this site. http://www.geo cities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/5218/trig6.html (drop the space) From what you gave us, Determined angle C = 163 degrees. Figured out side a = 18.1999103015531. Figured out side b = 18.1999103015531.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

I’m not a fan of male crooners. But K D Lang fits in there. Shirley Bassey has a terrific voice. Did everyone notice the passing of Odetta, while we are talking singers? There was another great voice.

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Gale -

But K D Lang fits in there.

I’ve loved KD since Absolute Torch and Twang (and I don’t even like c/w music, but that CD kicks butt!) … do you like the CD she did with Tony Bennett??

Did everyone notice the passing of Odetta, while we are talking singers?

I did, but I’m ashamed to say, I don’t know her music …

one of my favorite musicians who died WAY too young is Eva Cassidy … talk about a tragedy …

By Mara

December 4, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

Gale, how did you do that? What measurements did you plug into the calculator? They ask for sides a, b, c and/or angles A, B, or C. The only measurement I have is for “side b”. I don’t know any of the angle measurements nor any of the other side measurements.

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

Equality-

HAHA, PMSing in December….it is a chocolate celebration all month long!!!!! Shovel away!!!

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

I would never think it was right to deny you the right to marry the person you love.

Ok, I know, beat me now for continuing the conversation, but I just have to say this……

Here is my take on the whole right to “Marry the person you love”….there are people out there that love their sister/brother, should they get married? There are teachers out there that love their underage students, should they be allowed to marry? Should parents really have to agree on a minor’s decision to marry underage the person that they “love”….I mean, afterall, if they say no, they are denying those people the “right” to marry the person they love….

I mean, seriously people…..There is NO WAY ON EARTH that everyone can get the EXACT SAME equality when it comes to marriage. I think many fear that if gay couples were allowed to get married, we are going to have people coming out of the woodoworks with different scenarios. Siblings screaming for the same rights to marry each other, creepos wanting to marry kids, blah blah blah blah..

Where does it end? If people had the open book on marrying who/whatever they wanted, we would have goats married to hillbillies and pet lovers marrying their pets…sisters married to brothers with weird looking kids..and you can’t tell me that those kinds of people are not out there….they are!!!

So everyone who is in favor of gay marriage (civil union, equal rights for EVERYONE), please, tell me….at what point are YOU willing to go until you say “Hey, um no, that is WRONG”

Equality——-pass the shovel. eeks!

By chuck

December 4, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Mara, I hate to disagree with Gale, because I’m sure she knows more about math than I do, but I don’t think you can determine the length of 2 sides of a triangle unless you have BOTH angles at the base. For instance, in the 8/12 pitch you gave, the rise is 8 inches of height for every inch of length. The length of the base is 36 inches so at that point (right angle) the length of the sides are 24 inches and 43.2 inches. If the angle is between 90 and 180 degrees however, the length of both sides will change based on the angle. I don’t know if that helps, but I do know that it is accurate.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Mara, Chuck apparently knows more about pitch than I do. I decided that pitch must be the same as degrees of angle (apparently not), and for whatever reason, I was thinking of a roof, not something like a road. For a roof, the sides would be equal and therefore the angles equal. For road or some sloped access, it is probably a right triangle (one angle is 90 degrees) and you are trying to calculate the hypotenuse. I guess you just need to know what an 8 1/2 pitch converts to in degrees.

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Ok, deep breath, Frustrated, dear, let me try and simply answer your question—please, tell me….at what point are YOU willing to go until you say “Hey, um no, that is WRONG”—

It is very simple really. Anyone of legally consenting age, can marry anyone else of legally consenting age that they are not directly related to. Period. End. of. Argument.

All this mumbo-jumbo about people marrying goats is a red herring. We have laws about sister/brothers/cousins now, that would not be changed by allowing same sex marriage. Nor would it change the age limit on marriage, nor would it allow animal/people marriage. (I mean come on, if what you are saying has any merit, than you could marry a BOY goat NOW?!?!?!) Again, separate but equal is NOT EVER equal, we have already outlawed it. How could someone else’s right to marry another consenting adult have any impact on the validity of your marriage? Why oppose it?

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Frustrated …

Here is my take on the whole right to “Marry the person you love”….there are people out there that love their sister/brother, should they get married? There are teachers out there that love their underage students, should they be allowed to marry? Should parents really have to agree on a minor’s decision to marry underage the person that they “love”….I mean, afterall, if they say no, they are denying those people the “right” to marry the person they love….

okay. I’ll bite.

brother/sister - it’s incest and will result in weakened DNA/children with birth defects. fercryingoutloud - just look at the royal family! helloooooooo hemophilia and just a touch of wackiness (see: King George III)!!

underage persons (whether we’re talking teacher/student or otherwise) - that falls under the same category of why ALL minors are exempt from the same rights as adults - because they are deemed to not have the mental capacity to make that kind of life decision. it’s why we have an age of consent.

as for parental rights/responsibilities - again, that carries across the board. parents are required to attend to their children’s education, health and welfare, etc, because the children are not recognized as adults capable of taking care of themselves.

would you say that prohibiting a child of 7 from voting is denying them their civil liberties? after all, they have just as much at stake with elections as the rest of us - however, they are deemed too young to make that kind of important decision.

so, I hope that answers your question: So everyone who is in favor of gay marriage (civil union, equal rights for EVERYONE), please, tell me….at what point are YOU willing to go until you say “Hey, um no, that is WRONG”

although, I am willing to accept a compromise …

the State offers Civil Unions for EVERYONE over the age of consent … if you want to be “married” in a religious ceremony, you are entitled to go to the religious institution of your choice - if they recognize your union and are willing to perform the ceremony, then have a ball.

leave the State out of it.

By k

December 4, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Hater doesn’t want to talk about it. Color me shocked!

Sorry, but it’s NOT going away. Gay is the new black. Rosie is the new Rosa Parks. The Puritans who came to the new world “to escape religious persecution” held witch trials ending in brutal executions, when illness struck their community. They murdered for no good reason in the name of protecting the sanctity of their community from an imagined evil. They had no problem with THEOCRACY as long as it was their particular brand. Civil rights did not exist.

American “Christians” used the bible to rationalize slavery, segregation, and the prohibition of interracial marriage. Thankfully, as a nation, we grew out of it. If Bob & Steve, or Gale & Sweetie want to get married, THAT’S THEIR BUSINESS! Chuck’s deep pile of moose sh— about rights ending where others begin DOES NOT APPLY to gay marriage, since legalizing it would in no way affect HIS marriage.

The election is over. Those of us who enjoy taking up causes are grabbing this one with both hands: EQUALITY!! No, this topic is not going away until it’s achieved. We’re in your face now, America! Deal. (Get your spirit wear at HRD dot org!)

By Gale

December 4, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Mara, try here for pitch to degrees conversion. 8.5 pitch = 33.5 degrees. www.mayco industries.com/pdf_files/Flashing.pdf (drop space). So, depending on regular or right triangle, you will have one side and two angles for the formula.

Neat bit of diversion, Mara. Fun stuff.

By k

December 4, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Sorry, that’s HRC dot org!

By Monica

December 4, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

USinUK, I saw Harry a few years ago at Chastain. WOW!

Mara, if it’s not a right triangle, I have no idea how to find the sides’ lengths! I remember the Pythagorean Theorem, but that’s about it. I assume that pitch is the same as angle, but I don’t know. Geometry was such a long time ago…

By Gale

December 4, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Sweetie?

By Gale

December 4, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Back to crooners. I don’t like c/w either, and I don’t buy much music. But if KD chances on to my radio station, I hit the volume. I like the sound of her voice.

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Anyone of legally consenting age, can marry anyone else of legally consenting age that they are not directly related to. Period. End. of. Argument.

Sunshine- Nothing is simple……

All you need are middle/high school aged kids going through puberty to march to Washington and try to defend that they really ARE capable of making decisions…..so we have a “Let’s lower the age of consent” rally…just so they can be treated “equally” among the world..

And why can’t brothers and sisters get married if they don’t want kids? Obviously gay couples can’t have kids “naturally”, so why can’t siblings get their tubes tides/the big V and head to the justice of the peace? Is that the argument, that the kids come out all wacky? Sure, I am totally against it, but once the next bunch of people get the “Equality” everyone is screaming for, you are going to get the next bunch who want to come out about their unfair situation…whatever that might be…

By Mara

December 4, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

Thanks, y’all, for helping as much as you could. I finally just got frustrated on trying to figure the mathematics, so I just pulled out a ruler and drew ‘em onto graph paper. LOL!

yuk. Lemme finish up this spreadsheet and I’ll try to get back later this afternoon. Hugs, y’all.

By Monica

December 4, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

Ok Mara, don’t keep us in suspense! What are the lengths of the sides? :)

By chuck

December 4, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

I wasn’t going to do this, but I guess I have to.

brother/sister - it’s incest and will result in weakened DNA/children with birth defects. fercryingoutloud - just look at the royal family! helloooooooo hemophilia and just a touch of wackiness (see: King George III)!!

Since when does the POSSIBILITY of a future calamity enter in to YOUR argument of liberty? It doesn’t apply when you are talking about Iraq, or tax increases on the “wealthy” or anything ELSE that fits the liberal agenda.

My argument would be that opening up marriage to homosexuals would lead to a DECREASE in reproduction which would weaken the gene pool to at least the same degree of incest which obviously would not be as prevalent as homosexuality. In addition, you are actually making the same argument as OUR SIDE. We are saying that homosexual marriage damages society as a whole. Your “gene pool” argument is essentially the same.

Kimberly, if you want to debate HATE, I would put my posts up against yours any day. You say many more hateful things on this blog than I do. I’m not innocent in that regard, but I pale in comparison to your diatribes against Christians.

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

Frustrated -

All you need are middle/high school aged kids going through puberty to march to Washington and try to defend that they really ARE capable of making decisions…..so we have a “Let’s lower the age of consent” rally…just so they can be treated “equally” among the world..

considering that, time and again, the Supremes have ruled that minors don’t have the same rights as adults, what your raising is really a non-issue.

And why can’t brothers and sisters get married if they don’t want kids? Obviously gay couples can’t have kids “naturally”, so why can’t siblings get their tubes tides/the big V and head to the justice of the peace?

because incest is considered a form of abuse.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Frustrated, “Let’s lower the age of consent”

Wasn’t there a movie about something like that some years back? Given we have children going along with random searches in schools, I don’t think they will make that demand anytime soon. The difficult thing for that issue is, they cannot vote. Adult gays can vote. They are legally able to make contracts.

I was not going to address the sibling issue, but here it is. I don’t care if siblings marry. It does not effect me or my relationship, and I don’t care if their children are funny looking or weak. I think it would be more likely to be a marriage of convenience than a marriage in the clssical sense.

By chuck

December 4, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Frustrated, Well said in your 11:07. My students are a lot better informed on political issues than a lot of the liberal adults I know. I still don’t advocate a blanket decision allowing them to vote, but they would have a good case if they pushed it.

Mara, that sounds like you know the angles for another side. The 8/12 pitch is 40 degrees. If you know either of the other angles, the math becomes easy. The calculator that Gale linked will work fine. The total of the 3 angles is 180 degrees so if you know 2 of the angles you can figure out the 3rd and that will enable you to get the length of the sides.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 4, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Sunshine and K! STFU! you two are dumber than a box of hammers! Why shouldn’t sister marry brother? Have a law requiring them to aftificailly inseminate or adapt if they want children! What is wrong with that? And why not lower the age of consent to 16? Why not have a man lay down with a goat! Goats don’t talk back! MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN ONE WOMAN. You are to stupid to understand that. It’s sole purpose as a social institution is for the protection of children. Any one who has children out of wedlock is a slut and a (w*******).

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

Sorry for the long post, and the civics lesson BUT…(From www. america.gov/)

Majority Rule, Minority Rights

(The following one-pager is taken from the U.S. Department of State publication, Principles of Democracy.)

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country’s democratic institutions.

• Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

• There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved – only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

How can you argue against the principles of democracy to deny people marriage rights?

By LaughoftheWeek

December 4, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

*Ok Mara, don’t keep us in suspense! What are the lengths of the sides? *

Good one, Monica.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Chuck, not that many homosexuals have children now. How would allowing homosexuals the right to marry result in a decrease in reproduction? That does not make sense. And, there are still a number of homosexuals who married and had families BEFORE they accepted their sexuality came out of the closet (or may still be closeted). I don’t think your argument holds water. Besides, you don’t like homosexuals (apparently), so why would you want them in the gene pool. If they don’t reproduce, wouldn’t that gene die out? (apparently not).

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

chuck -

Since when does the POSSIBILITY of a future calamity enter in to YOUR argument of liberty? It doesn’t apply when you are talking about Iraq, or tax increases on the “wealthy” or anything ELSE that fits the liberal agenda.

hey - I’m just saying why there are laws against brother/sister/cousins marrying … the question was asked. I answered.

as for your response - I don’t even pretend to understand your comparison to Iraq and tax increases.

My argument would be that opening up marriage to homosexuals would lead to a DECREASE in reproduction which would weaken the gene pool to at least the same degree of incest which obviously would not be as prevalent as homosexuality.

okay. so. statistically, 1 in 10 people are homosexual. The other 9 are not and are free to reproduce until their eyes pop.

and you’re worried the gene pool is going to get shallower because 10% of the population want to marry??? and, of course, we’re talking 10% of a global population of 6,741,232,401 … (http://www. census.gov/ main/www/ popclock.html)

yep … there would only be 6,067,109,161 people left to reproduce … practically down to Adam and Eve, I tell ya!!!

that’s actually funny - thanks for the chuckle, chuck.

By Mara

December 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Monica - Ok Mara, don’t keep us in suspense! What are the lengths of the sides?

a triangle with a 48” base and an 8/12 pitch has legs of 28 and fractions. Since I had to scale it down (1”=1’), the fractions of an inch weren’t readily apparent, so I rounded up to 29” for each leg, with an over-all height of 16” (-ish). sigh

Gandalf - And why not lower the age of consent to 16?

I’m assuming you’re talking about “consent to marry” so no lowering of age is required in most states. In many states, if you’re parents are okay with it, you can marry as young as 14.

I find it kinda odd that two sixteen-year-olds of opposite gender can get married anywhere without much problem, but not two 50-something gay guys who’ve been together for twenty years.

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

heading home - will check in later

By Gale

December 4, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Mara, you know, I wonder if comparisons like the 16 year old straights and the 50 year old gays were presented, if some of the anti-gay marriage folk would open their eyes a bit. Probably not. I think they somehow see marriage as different for gays than straights. The only difference I have ever been able to figure is the ability to make children. And since we don’t restrict marriage to people who can make children, that should not be a problem.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 4, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

No, by consent I mean the right to vote, marry camels, have sex with men or woman of thier choice, etc!

By chuck

December 4, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

so why would you want them in the gene pool. If they don’t reproduce, wouldn’t that gene die out? (apparently not).

No, it wouldn’t die out because homosexuality in not genetic, it is choice. We don’t give special rights for BEHAVIORS.

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck, not that I agree with your statement because homosexuality in not genetic, it is choice. We don’t give special rights for BEHAVIORS (I strongly disagree BUT..) If you read the post above from the U.S. Department of State, um we do protect “behaviors”:

Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief (A Choice/Behavior), geographic location (A Choice/Behavior), income level (A Choice/Behavior), or simply as the losers in elections

government will protect their rights and self-identity.

Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief* (AGAIN Choice/Behavior);

By Gandalf, the White!

December 4, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

it’s foolishness to protect the rights of minorities.

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

it’s foolishness to protect the rights of minorities.—Your right, we should just do away with democracy!

(Snark! Ok no more feeding the trolls)

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Correction: You’re Right (Hate when I do that!)

By Gale

December 4, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

So, I read this morning that Sweden’s (I think it was Sweden) big mistake in dealing with a financial crisis was the brilliance of their economists. The opinionist asks, Is Obama wrong to surround himself with brilliant economists? Not being anywhere close to being brilliant in economics, I personally hope not. I do worry when they do not agree on causes and corrections. (My troll has been tossed a bone and I hope she will stay quiet.)

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

considering that, time and again, the Supremes have ruled that minors don’t have the same rights as adults, what your raising is really a non-issue.

US—-

Well, obviously, at some point….. They ruled against gay marriage too….So what is your point? Why can’t the underage kids “try” to change everyone’s mind????? Why do people treat them at if they have no brain…I know some extremely smart teenagers…why are they being punished for a stereotype of they do not have the mind capacity to make good decisions?? Hmmmm. Oh, but wait…if it went to a ballot vote, they wouldn’t be able to voice their opinion(THEY CAN’T VOTE!!)….so they are pretty much screwed huh? A little unfair?

because incest is considered a form of abuse.

How is it abuse if they both consent to it??? Because of the unborn child’s possibility of being deformed??? But wait, according to the pro-choicers…they are just fetuses…not humans, it doesn’t matter what they think/feel/hear until they take the first breathe of fresh air…It’s whatever the mother wants…

So who is being abused?

By Gale

December 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

Ah, Frustrated. You are indeed feeling frustrated today. True, some teens are very smart and mature. Some teens are not. We, as a society, set an age at which we allow individuals to be considered adult and allow them to cast a vote that contributes to the direction of the society in which they live. I thought it was unfair when I was a teen. I especially thought it was unfair when friends were drafted and killed in war when they were not old enough to vote or even buy a beer. No, not fair.

I am reminded of something I heard recently. Something like this: Any 20 year old who is not a communist at heart, is a fool. Any 40 year old who is still a communist, is a fool.

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Gale-

So, what you are saying is that it is unfair and should be changed? Or unfair-“sorry about your luck”….

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Frustrated, I know that we usually disagree with our politics but I really like you, and your love of Tim Gunn ;-), but you must know the history of the questions you are posing?

if it went to a ballot vote, they wouldn’t be able to voice their opinion(THEY CAN’T VOTE!!)….so they are pretty much screwed huh? A little unfair? There have been SEVERAL groups of people in this country who didn’t have the right to vote at some point and the majority thought this was fine. It is a process to get the law of the land changed, and it can happen as we saw with the voting age already being lowered.

The point is declaring that someone must wait till a certain age to do something does not bar them from EVER doing it.

It is like a handgun waiting period, you can do this, you just must wait. (And in the case of some marriages I know personally, a forced waiting period might have been good for both partners in the long run!)

Denying a mentally capable consenting adult from EVER entering into a “union” that affords him/her the rights of another mentally capable consenting adult’s union is discrimination of a minority group. We have been down this road as a country, have we learned nothing? (Examples: Slaves being counted at 3/5ths of a human, the rights of women, segregation, laws against inter racial marriage, The precedent has been set, it IS NOT LEGAL to discriminate, as much as someone may not like the other group) The basis of our Democracy guards against. B/c as has been discussed here before what stops the voting majority from eliminating rights all over the place if it is only decided on a vote? You could vote to take away 2nd amendment rights, or vote to outlaw the practice of your religion? It can’t just come down to a vote. There has to be checks and balances, and as much as the courts have been demonized, they are there to protect the rights of the minority.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Sunshine. You said it much better than I. I think I am too close to the issue to think clearly. As you say, we have lowered the voting age. Change does happen.

Should we lower the voting age more? I would vote no, personally. In the big picture, it would take a movement as big as gaining the vote for women, probably; as big as the civil rights movement, maybe. I don’t know if there is a ground swell that favors lowering the voting age more. I think there is a matter of a few years between a teen becoming politically observant and getting the right to vote. It seems like a lot of work for a situation that can be resolved in a year or two.

So, Frustrated, I am saying it is unfair for the few who are ready and mature enough, and no, it should not be changed. As they have for all of their short lives, they will have to wait until they have the right to vote. Until then, they have the right to demonstrate and petition as much as they want. They certainly have the right to try to change the minds of people who can vote and legislators who can present Bills.

I am not entirely sure how we transitioned here because voting rights don’t seem on par with the right to marry.

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Frustrated -

Well, obviously, at some point….. They ruled against gay marriage too….So what is your point? Why can’t the underage kids “try” to change everyone’s mind????? Why do people treat them at if they have no brain…I know some extremely smart teenagers…why are they being punished for a stereotype of they do not have the mind capacity to make good decisions?? Hmmmm. Oh, but wait…if it went to a ballot vote, they wouldn’t be able to voice their opinion(THEY CAN’T VOTE!!)….so they are pretty much screwed huh? A little unfair?

if I could make a suggestion: read the recent (within the last 4 years) studies of what’s going on in teen’s brains. basically, with the surge of hormones and with the last major growth surge, teenagers’ brains are just this side of psychosis (not an exaggeration)

yes, there are lots of kids who are good kids - but, because of a lack of experience and a lack of psychological development, they don’t always understand the implications of their actions.

that’s why the age of consent is a minimum of 14 … although, do you really think a 14-year old girl or boy understands what they’re agreeing to when/if they sleep with someone?

as I mentioned earlier, the Supremes have ruled time and again against teenagers having the same rights as adults - they don’t have the same rights to freedom of expression or the same rights of privacy (just the two I can think of off the top of my head) … and, as we all remember from Justice Roberts’ confirmation, there comes a point where there’s a “super-precedent” - where a particular judicial tenet is affirmed and reaffirmed to the point where it won’t be overturned.

How is it abuse if they both consent to it??? Because of the unborn child’s possibility of being deformed??? But wait, according to the pro-choicers…they are just fetuses…not humans, it doesn’t matter what they think/feel/hear until they take the first breathe of fresh air…It’s whatever the mother wants…

first of all … really … don’t fall into the TOJ/chuck “rhetoric” (using that term very loosely) of saying “you liberals don’t think it’s a human, anyway, so what do you care” … it’s an asinine argument and you’re better than that.

secondly, as far as abuse - most states consider cases of incest as abuse because there usually is a power issue going on where one sibling is manipulating the other, nullifying the “consent.” obviously, when a parent is involved, there is definitely a power issue and an abuse of the child they are supposed to protect.

lastly, as far as the genetic issues, do you really want to argue that more people born with severe genetic problems would be a good thing??? cuz, I don’t think that you do.

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

Denying a mentally capable consenting adult from EVER entering into a “union” that affords him/her the rights of another mentally capable consenting adult’s union is discrimination of a minority group. We have been down this road as a country, have we learned nothing?

So you are for siblings marrying too? For fathers marrying their daughters if they are of the age of consent? Their marriage wouldn’t physically hurt you….but good luck keeping a straight face when they move in next door. Or not telling your kids to come inside when their grossly deformed kids are outside…

While we are at it, if there are a group of 6 consenting adults, why not marrying all of them….why is that unfair? 5 wives for one husband…why not? We can all sit around and drink purple koolaid..maybe we will get lucky and all the step-kids will marry each other and it can stay in the family…

HA, let’s just do away with marriage all together and love one another equally…I’ll stay with Joe Blow tonight, then we can switch tomorrow…. We can kill two birds with one stone…no marriage, no adultery.. But God bless the kids who can’t find their fathers…wait, maybe they did…they slept with him the night before.

Am I the only one that sees the dominoes falling???? Anyone???

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

And just some random factoids I found during this discussion:

Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician’s certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

North Carolina- First cousin marriage is legal. Double cousin marriage is prohibited (Anyone know what a “double cousin” is?)

(from: www. ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm)

A panoply of state laws say cousin marriages are taboo. But a new report in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, described in the New York Times last week, might send state lawmakers back to work revising their incest laws.

The report concludes that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a “normal” couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Accordingly, the report potentially undermines the primary justification for laws that prevent first cousins from marrying or engaging in sexual relations with one another.

Will the new data — which strongly suggest, for cousins, that the genetic justification does not hold water — mean that state prohibitions on cousin-marriages are vulnerable to constitutional attack? Certainly, the new data dramatically strengthen the basis for such an attack.

The Supreme Court, in a long line of due process cases establishing the right to make important decisions about family life, has treated the right to marry as fundamental. State laws that significantly interfere with the right to marry have, therefore, been subjected to heightened scrutiny. In other words, states must show that they have a compelling reason for restricting the right to marriage, and that they have chosen means that are closely related to their stated goals.

What will the states assert as the “compelling interests” that justify banning cousin marriage? One might be the desire to discourage reproduction when the children are likely to have significant birth defects. Another might be the desire to preserve intrafamily harmony. (The desire to replicate Levitical law would, of course, not be a legitimate interest for a state, given the Constitution’s ban on state establishment of religion). These ends are probably sufficiently compelling under a constitutional analysis.

Again sorry so long (from: archives. cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/)

Seems that the old reasoning is eroding, just as it has for so many others. I personally believe this will also happen with Gay Marriage. Especially since it has been demonstrated in many studies there is no harm done to the children of these partnerships.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Somebody tell me, is the age of censent the same thing as the age required to enter into a legal contract. I think things are getting a bit slippy-slidey here. And what is so hard about the concept of two legally consenting adults. Why must we always return to the foolishness.

By Gandalf, the White!

December 4, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Sunshine, at least you now realize I am right, thank GOD! Oh and what Democracy do you live in? We live in a Republic! Ever heard of that before? Not a Democracy! BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC, NOT BATTLE HYMN OF THE DEMOCRACY…. You don’t vote for the President, the electoral college does. You are so stupid most of the time! STFU go get a 3rd job to afford smarter illegals to raise the parasite inside you that isn’t a human. That baby inside you wouldn’t have voted for Barry, as it’s right to live isn’t even a question until it hatches. I bet your lazy {Dum BASS} didn’t even vote for Jim Martin HAHAHAHA Slave being counted as 3/5 a person is part of what allowed us to get rid of that vile institution. Silly you! Don’t you understand your history? Duh…Dum….{DIMLIT LIGHTBULB!}

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

Sorry guys for all the ranting earlier… Equality never passed the shovel, so I had to go find my own stinking chocolate.:)

Us- Ok, so tie their tubes….no more genetic mutated children from incest….Would you be ok with it then? You could happily attend your great great grandchildren’s wedding….to each other?

It gives me a sick stomach thinking about it…or maybe that is the brownie.. HAHA

By USinUK

December 4, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Gale -

Somebody tell me, is the age of censent the same thing as the age required to enter into a legal contract

age of consent refers to the age at which a child/young person is considered mentally/emptionally capable of consenting to a sexual relationship - for most states, that seems to be 16-18

By Gale

December 4, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Good research, Sunshine. I can understand why cousins might fall in love and want to marry. Families often do not raise cousins in close proximity. When they do get together, cousins usually mingle without a lot of adult supervision. The cousins may not even consider the family relationship.

Siblings, on the other hand, are usually raised in close proximity. It makes no sense that siblings would develop a relationship that would inspire them to marry. I realize as I write this that to some, this relationship is as unlikely to me as a gay relationship may be to them. Because of that alone, I am not automatically opposed to sibling marriage.

(Sorry, my troll will not stay in her cave with the bone when this tastey thing is out here. I tried to change the subject. I really did. Tomorrow Andrea and Shaunti will give us something tastier, I hope.)

By Gale

December 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

age of censent Thanks USinUK, that’s what I thought.

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

Frustrated, why do you believe that the passing of equal marriage rights automatically invalidates another law?

Incest laws are on the books, period. They are there to protect a child from an adult’s sexual advances. Usually, even if they are of consenting age it is still unlikely that no relationship formed until they were of consenting age. This is a very usually situation, and has been heard by the courts on a case by case basis.

On Polygamy the answer seems simple-property, tax and divorce laws become much more complex with more than two people involved. Same-sex marriage would follow the exact same property, tax and divorce rules as opposite-sex marriage — gender is not an issue for anything but the license itself, since all of the laws are already gender neutral and structured for two adults.

Their marriage wouldn’t physically hurt you….but good luck keeping a straight face when they move in next door.—That’s what people argued who wanted to keep inter-racial marriages illegal.

HA, let’s just do away with marriage all together and love one another equally…I’ll stay with Joe Blow tonight, then we can switch tomorrow…. We can kill two birds with one stone…no marriage, no adultery.—In all truth, all of the above behavior IS legal. Just don’t get married, you are legally able to sleep with who ever, and have kids with who ever, this really is just a silly argument. We are talking about a legally binding union that affords people specific rights. It’s not about all this other non-sense.

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

age of consent refers to the age at which a child/young person is considered mentally/emptionally capable of consenting to a sexual relationship - for most states, that seems to be 16-18

Is there anything in there that says something about mentally handicapped people? Does the law consider that some people will never have that kind of mental capability? Or does it just generalize society as a whole as being able to make that deicision by 16-18 years of age?

Reminds me of that movie….”The Other Sister”

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

Gale-me too I tried to change the subject. I really did. mine apparently is out and about also!

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Here is your answer Sunshine—-from Wikipedia

Double first cousins arise when two siblings reproduce with another set of siblings and the resulting children are related to each other through both parents’ families. Double first cousins share both sets of grandparents in common and have double the degree of consanguinity than ordinary first cousins. Genetically they are as related as half-siblings, sharing 25% of their DNA (a coefficient of relationship of 1/4). Their coefficient of coancestry is 1/8th or 0.125. While double first cousins have the same coefficient of coancestry (1/8) as half-siblings, they do have higher chances of sharing both alleles (1/16 vs 0) and lower chances of sharing one allele (3/8 vs 1/2) with each other than half-siblings.

When identical twins reproduce with identical twins the resulting children are genetically indistinguishable from full siblings, although they are legally double first cousins. When identical twins reproduce with siblings the resulting children are more related than half-siblings but less related than full siblings, although they are also legally double first cousins. When identical twins reproduce with the same person, the resulting children are likewise genetically indistinguishable from full siblings, although they are legally half-siblings and first cousins. When two siblings who are not identical twins marry the same person, the resulting children are likewise more related than half-siblings but less related than full siblings.

Children of double first cousins are double second cousins to each other.

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

a triangle with a 48” base and an 8/12 pitch has legs of 28 and fractions. Since I had to scale it down (1”=1’), the fractions of an inch weren’t readily apparent, so I rounded up to 29” for each leg, with an over-all height of 16” (-ish). sigh

Mara—In order to solve “triangle” problems, you generally need a minimum of 3 measurements (e.g. the lengths of two sides and their included angle). If you know that the triangle in question is a right triangle (e.g. a ramp), or is an isosceles triangle (such as a gabled roof), the base measurement and a side angle is sufficient info to solve.

Here, the “midway” point of the 48” base = 24”, which is where the “peak” of the roof is located by symmetry. Multiplying this midpoint length by the stated pitch of 8/12 gives a height of exactly 16” (24 x 8/12). To find the lengths of the two rooflines, you can then use the Pythagorean formula whereby r^2 = 24^2 + 16^2.

SOrry I was too late to help you earlier.

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

As per the topic du jour, marriage “rights”, I would first like to point out that, technically speaking, getting married isn’t a right at all simply because it’s not enforceable. For example, if I wished to marry k because she has beer in the frig, how would I go about enforcing my right to marry her?? More accurately speaking, marriage is a voluntary contract which two people enter into which then affords both parties legal benefits conferred by the state.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Apparently many states do have laws on the books about retardation and marriage. For example, as an acceptable reason for annulment. Also apparently, the laws are pretty much ignored. Retarded adults do marry, but at a lower rate that adults without mental retardation. I am using ‘retardation’ because the studies I looked at use that word. Personally, I see no reason why a mentally challenged individual who is competent to hold a job and live alone should not marry.

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

why do you believe that the passing of equal marriage rights automatically invalidates another law?

I don’t think it automatically invalidates it… I just think you are going to see more and more people coming out of the woodworks to get their “Equal” right piece of the pie.

The argument is about consenting adults. Sure, incest is on the books…but if two men can love each other and get married, why can’t grandpa and great uncle joe? So they march off to Washington…..

Once family can marry, people are going to ask…well why do we have to pick just one…. Why can’t we marry ALL our siblings. So you have a household of ten going to Washington…..

Then you have a bunch of 18 year old horn dogs thinking it would be cool to marry the cheerleading squad… So off to Washington they go…weewees pointing the way..

And on and on and on….

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

Good job Gandolf, you know the meaning of some words!!! And you are right we are a Republic, you get a gold star! But the definition of Repulic is:

a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution—adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment—with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. (which was my point.)

There is a difference with the double meaning of Democracy—a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government. Which one are we Gandolf? Show us all how much you (I mean Rush) knows about our country!!

By Gale

December 4, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

Bruno, bless you. isosceles I knew the word and could not remember how to spell it to google it.

By AGF

December 4, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Mara,

The calculations are simple, but I need to know what you mean by base. Is the triangle an isosceles (like a roof on a house where the two diagonals are the same length and the base is the part at the bottom that runs from one diagonal to the other)? If so the base length is 36, the height is 12, and the length of both diagonals is 21.63.

If the triangle is a right triangle where you have the two legs meeting at 90 degrees, then the base leg is 36, the leg that makes the height is 24, and the diagonal is 43.27. Let me know which is right and I can show you how to do the calculations.

By Gale

December 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

marriage is a voluntary contract Exactly so! So why is one group of people excluded from this particular contract?

I’m off to play in traffic in hopes of a good topic tomorrow.

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

because homosexuality in not genetic, it is choice. We don’t give special rights for BEHAVIORS

One constant that I have found in discussing gay marriage with “fundamentalist Christians” is their belief that being gay is strictly a “choice” rather than being determined genetically. I believe that research has already revealed some genetic differences between gay and straight people, though I don’t know that there is one specific “gay” gene.

Due my own personal experience, having both a gay sister and several close gay friends over the years, I strongly believe that sexual orientation is genetic, and not behavioral. When viewed strictly as a behavioral choice, it is easy to justify discriminating against gay people, as chuck does. Once you believe that being gay is genetic, however, it isn’t so easy to discriminate. The bottom line is that we’re all God’s children, one way or another.

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Frustrated—Did you and your hubby make it out to the Grapes show?? I saw a balding man sitting near us, and almost asked him if his wife was “Frustrated”. ; > }

Deep Blue Sun put on a heck of a show as usual. They actually included a Grateful Dead cover in their set (Cryptical Envelopment) along with a rippin’ Beatle’s cover (I am the Walrus).

By AGF

December 4, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Mara - BTW the height of 12 from my first example is a calculated number, not to be confused with the 12 in the 8/12 pitch.

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

One other study I saw which supports the idea that sexual orientation is biologically determined rather than being a “choice” involved flashing nude images of both men and women up on a screen, then determining the physiological responses of the male and female participants (e.g. dilation of the pupils). Because the reaction times are so fast, I have to believe that there is no way that we can “choose” which images get us excited and which turn us off.

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Hi Bruno!

When viewed strictly as a behavioral choice, it is easy to justify discriminating against gay people, as chuck does. I said it above, (I have had a lot of experience, unfortunately, with this argument!) There is a simple way to turn that arguments on its head. We protect freedom of Religion, which is a choice, you are free to practice any religion you would like. Why are gays not allowed freedom of sexual orientation? (Other than the Christians think it’s icky!)

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

AGF—Don’t forget that every finite, non-zero inner product space has an orthonormal basis.

By Sunshine

December 4, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

Bruno, there was another study, I read that showed that strait male brain waves and lesbian women’s brain waves responded in the exact say way to images of women, and the same was true with Gay men/Strait woman when shown pictures of men. How they could choose that I am unsure!

By Frustrated

December 4, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

Frustrated—Did you and your hubby make it out to the Grapes show?? I saw a balding man sitting near us, and almost asked him if his wife was “Frustrated”. ; > }

HAHAHAHAHA, no we didn’t make it…he had to work… But wouldn’t that have been hilarious if you asked someone that!! Until you got your teeth knocked out of course….that’s not so funny..

I told him about it (Once I saw I couldn’t surprise him) and he said he wanted to check them out…So maybe we will see you at something in the future..

I have a friend who is in an Ozzy tribute band that I want to go see…not an Ozzy fan, but I am dying to see him dressed up!!!!

I should change my name to the sugar plum fairy…..with how bad my horomones have taken over my sweet tooth today…goodness gracious.

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

strait male brain waves and lesbian women’s brain waves responded in the exact say way to images of women, and the same was true with Gay men/Strait woman when shown pictures of men. How they could choose that I am unsure!

Thinking about your pregnant belly gets me hot, Sunshine. What does that make me??

By AGF

December 4, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this

Bruno: AGF—Don’t forget that every finite, non-zero inner product space has an orthonormal basis.

Only if we are talking about vectors:)

By Bruno

December 4, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this

Only if we are talking about vectors:)

One of my very favorite math books is a slim volume entitled “About Vectors” by Banesh Hoffman. In it, he attempts to reveal the somewhat mysterious nature of vectors and corrects many mistaken notions about vectors which are commonly taught in the classroom. Here’s a link to Amazon.com if you wish to order it:

www .amazon.com/About-Vectors-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486604896 (delete space).

By USinUK

December 5, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

AGF and Bruno -

Only if we are talking about vectors

am I the only person who immediately thought of the line from Airplane, “What’s the vector, Victor?” … “Roger, Roger” …

happy Friday, all!!!

By Gale

December 5, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

Ah math. I used to wonder if I really have it in me to do the esoteric stuff. I almost flunked 2nd year Algebra because I was in the advanced section, but my schedule had placed me with the really smart kids. About 4 of us really could not keep up. Not doing well in that class had ongoing repercussions. However, it was that my folks lacked the money and the will to send me to college that postponed college. It is entirely possible that decision kept me alive. The shootings at Kent State happened in what would have been my freshman year and I have little doubt that I would have been in the middle of the protests.

Anyway, I want to respond the the gay gene issue. I am not sure there is a gay gene adn if there is, I hope it does not make itself known. Genetic testing on unborn fetuses has some ethical problems. There are identified physical differences between gay and straight people. To ask a straight person to choose to be gay would be like asking the left handed person to change to right handed. It has been done; usually with some damage to the individual psyche.

By USinUK

December 5, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

holy frickin crap …

today’s non-farm payrolls - more than half a million people lost their jobs last month … a 34-year record … (533K in all) - 200K more than estimated …

unemployment rate: 6.7%

that’s a whole buncha people to keep in our thoughts this holiday season.

By Gale

December 5, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Grim, isn’t it? I wonder how many companies chose this method in the effort to make their year end numbers look better? I hope not. In this economy, a losing quarter should not be viewed that badly by investors, or shame by management.

By USinUK

December 5, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

Gale -

I wonder how many companies chose this method in the effort to make their year end numbers look better? I hope not. In this economy, a losing quarter should not be viewed that badly by investors, or shame by management.

sadly, I don’t think this is an effort to pump up their profits - I think this is an effort to keep from going under.

the breakdown: 533,000 in November

Revisions added another 199,000 to September and October

Total number of jobs lost year-to-date: 1.91 million

Factory payrolls down 85,000 (104K in October)

Construction lost 82,000 jobs (64K in October)

Financial firms lost 32,000 jobs (31K in October)

Retailers lost 91,300 jobs (62,200 in October)

Service industry overall lost 370K workers …

Additionally, the average work week shortened to 33.5 hours, the lowest on record since 1964.

Already, the recession is at 12 months, the longest slump since 1982 … and, per the NBER, should continue into 2010.

is it the Great Depression? nope … but it’s definitely going to be a VERY close second.

By k

December 5, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I’m sorry if bringing up the history of what “Christians” have done in the name of their purported religion offends you. History does not single out Christianity, though. All manner of horrors have been committed by humans against each other in the name of many religions. Hence, my skeptcism about organized religions. CHRIST AND HIS WORDS ARE BEAUTIFUL in any language. It’s how the “followers” pervert the message for their own political agenda that often becomes obscene.

I don’t believe Christ wanted us to hate gay people. And yes, when you deny them the same rights as other American citizens have, you are HATING on them, as in the active verb: TO HATE with the object: those people you think are icky. That you pretend to be offended at the idea of killing them is an empty gesture. Bigotry is a thingly-veiled attempt to kill them on the inside, and I don’t personally feel inclined to excuse you for it.

Equality!!!

By Gale

December 5, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

I know, I know! Lets provide low interest mortgages so people can buy houses, and bail out the housing industry so we can put construction workers back to work so they can buy houses and pickups. Then the automakers would have money and we wouldn’t need to bail them out and those workers could keep churning out pickups and SUVs. Oh wait, that sorta how we got here, right?

By USinUK

December 5, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

see you guys in the new topic.

By Gale

December 5, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

If ajc ever opens it. I wonder what time zone the webmaster starts work in? Since this is an eastern time zone paper, I would expect things to happen on and EST clock.

By USinUK

December 5, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

Gale -

If ajc ever opens it. I wonder what time zone the webmaster starts work in? Since this is an eastern time zone paper, I would expect things to happen on and EST clock.

cereal.

why is this so difficult?? new topic = new discussion board.

By JustaJew

December 5, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Hello all, been lurking but haven’t had time to post lately. Anybody have any thoughts on the MASSIVE transformation the Big Three CEO’s have undergone in the last 2 weeks? As I understand it, they all DROVE, DROVE I TELL YA! to Washington for the new round of hearings. In hybrid vehicles no less. Hehe. and they all say they’d be willing to get by on a $1.00 paycheck for the sake of an extra $34 billion in the coffers. Merely window dressing or have they really changed their stripes?

By USinUK

December 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

hey JustaJew!!

we’ve missed your input lately!!

As I understand it, they all DROVE, DROVE I TELL YA! to Washington for the new round of hearings. In hybrid vehicles no less. Hehe. and they all say they’d be willing to get by on a $1.00 paycheck for the sake of an extra $34 billion in the coffers. Merely window dressing or have they really changed their stripes?

well, criminey, I should hope so. if they didn’t make those changes, that would take “hubris” to all new levels!!

as far as their $1 paycheck … they’ve made concessions … the UAW has made concessions …

I think some of the TARP $$$ is going to go to the auto industry … but that’s just my gut feeling …