Bob Herbert.
On days like these what's obvious is who wants to protect the troops, and who wants to use them.
Bring them home.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Know Your Travel Rights
My friend just called me because his flight was cancelled, and he didn't know his rights.
You need to have Rule 240 on hand.
Trust me, I've used it, and it can save your ass.
Safe Travels for all.
You need to have Rule 240 on hand.
Trust me, I've used it, and it can save your ass.
Safe Travels for all.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
It Continues
Does the strong dollar policy:
BERLIN (AP) -- The U.S. dollar hit an all-time low in thin pre-holiday trading Thursday against the euro, which breached the $1.35 mark after a mixed economic report from the U.S. Commerce Department.You do have a mandate to fix the economy, so how about working on that?
Rules, Laws, Whatever
See, you can't just change a law, but you can change the rules under which the law operates:
Cheers to all those who tell me "politicians, they're all the same..."
The Bush administration issued comprehensive new rules yesterday for managing the national forests, jettisoning some environmental protections that date to Ronald Reagan's administration and putting in place the biggest change in forest-use policies in nearly three decades.They change rules all the time. It's their backhanded way to ignore the policies they don't like.
The regulations affect recreation, endangered-species protections and livestock grazing, among other things, on all 192 million acres of the country's 155 national forests. Sally Collins, associate chief of the U.S. Forest Service, said the changes will replace a bureaucratic planning process with a more corporate management approach that will allow officials to respond to changing ecological and social conditions.
The new rules give economic activity equal priority with preserving the ecological health of the forests in making management decisions and in potentially liberalizing caps on how much timber can be taken from a forest. Forest Service officials estimated the changes will cut its planning costs by 30 percent and will allow managers to finish what amount to zoning requirements for forest users in two to three years, instead of the nine or 10 years they sometimes take now.
The government will no longer require that its managers prepare an environmental impact analysis with each forest's management plan, or use numerical counts to ensure there are "viable populations" of fish and wildlife. The changes will reduce the number of required scientific reports and ask federal officials to focus on a forest's overall health, rather than the fate of individual species, when evaluating how best to protect local plants and animals...
Just before leaving office, Clinton finalized a set of regulations that emphasized ecosystem health and wildlife protection over commercial exploitation; President Bush reversed those rules just before Thanksgiving 2002. The final regulations issued yesterday, which will take effect when they are published in the Federal Register next week, are nearly identical to a proposal the administration outlined two years ago.
Cheers to all those who tell me "politicians, they're all the same..."
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Reduced
Jermaine O'Neal gets a reduced suspension from the NBA arbitrator, from 25 to 15.
Is it me, or should Stephen Jackson have gotten AT LEAST as many games as Ron Artest, if not more?
Is it me, or should Stephen Jackson have gotten AT LEAST as many games as Ron Artest, if not more?
Lets Play a Game
It's called, "How Can I Convince Myself That Bush Did the Right Thing When I Know He Didn't, But He Did Give Me a Tax Cut."
I know, it's a crazy title, and an even crazier game, but you'd be amazed at how many people are playing this game, especially since Nov 2!
Americans believe "finishing the job" is the only option, according to this article, but what doest that entail? I read the comments by these people ask myself, "Who are these people, and now dumb are they?"
I once thought "finishing the job" was the only option too, but that's way before I realized there's no real job that's going to be finished.
At the heart of a conservative is a little voice telling each one of them the same thing about every person who is not like them, and it's saying, "Well, we did what we could for those people, now fend for yourselves..." There's no chance Iraq is ever going to be a democracy. I really wonder whether in 4 years Bush will still be saying this over and over, that democracy will exist in Iraq. Will he then hand it off to someone else who's going to say the same crap? Or, will we have turned the corner before then and have a Bush who says, "At some point these people need to take the reigns..."?
It's impossible to finish a job that has no chance of being finished. This isn't a construction site, folks, this is reality! This is history! This is a disaster, and when we refer to it as "a job" we simplify the reality of the situation. It's not a job that's eve being finished.
Do Americans support endless financial support of Iraq and the military to see this thing through? Be serious.
Conservatives have failed in this War on Terror, and Iraq is the baby that will never sleep, and never mature. Over the next few years you will hear every excuse in the book about what went wrong. Conservatives will blame Iraqis, saying they had a chance at freedom. But they will never look in the mirror and blame themselves for attempting to foist their ideals/set of governance on a place that wasn't ready for such a thing.
Of course, if Iraq breaks up into different countries they will say, "Well, it was an unnatural alliance that the British created, so this was meant to be...," again, never looking in the mirror.
It becomes more obvious every day this is a disaster that will never hold. Excuses will be made over and over and over. The personal responsibility people will never bare any, that's for damn sure.
Now I support leaving Iraq after January 30th because like John Kerry said, "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?" You don't. You move on. You realize your blunder, and you move on.
Republicans believe in fighting these wars to make change, and Democrats have believed more in economics to enact change. Both have their flaws, but to think that changing Iraq and the Middle East was going to work through war will prove to be so wrong. SO WRONG.
Vietnam made Americans and their leaders wary of using the military. Success stories years later, and a burning desire by these hawks to reestablish military might has led them into a bottomless pit. In the long run they will have set us back again because of this failure, but unlike Vietnam, they will never admit to any sort of mistake, but rather, they will blame the people whose country we invaded.
Fighting is not the only option. Reassessing our policy is the option.
Digressing, so many people wonder how the Democrats are going to rise up again after this electoral loss. The answer: Just let these jackasses work their magic, and things will work themselves out, rather unfortunately.
I know, it's a crazy title, and an even crazier game, but you'd be amazed at how many people are playing this game, especially since Nov 2!
Carolyn Jolly, 50, a civilian employee of the Army in Fort Lee, Va., said the attack did not change her opinion that American forces should be in Iraq. But she is equally firm in her belief that they should get out as soon as possible. And she is worried.Hmmm, when did you figure out they the may not have known "the whole picture?"
"I think we should stay through the elections," Ms. Jolly said. "I support the president's plan up to there. But if we're going to focus on Iraq without support of other nations, I see the violence increasing. I can't see a democratic Iraq. So what are we doing there?"
And while some said the attack reinforced their belief that the Bush administration had failed in its goals, others found it hard to place blame.
Stan Joynes, a real estate lawyer and developer in Richmond, Va., said the administration was not upfront about what would be required in Iraq. But maybe, he added, the administration did not know either.
"We know now we weren't getting the whole picture," he said. "I don't think they knew the whole picture."
Americans believe "finishing the job" is the only option, according to this article, but what doest that entail? I read the comments by these people ask myself, "Who are these people, and now dumb are they?"
I once thought "finishing the job" was the only option too, but that's way before I realized there's no real job that's going to be finished.
At the heart of a conservative is a little voice telling each one of them the same thing about every person who is not like them, and it's saying, "Well, we did what we could for those people, now fend for yourselves..." There's no chance Iraq is ever going to be a democracy. I really wonder whether in 4 years Bush will still be saying this over and over, that democracy will exist in Iraq. Will he then hand it off to someone else who's going to say the same crap? Or, will we have turned the corner before then and have a Bush who says, "At some point these people need to take the reigns..."?
It's impossible to finish a job that has no chance of being finished. This isn't a construction site, folks, this is reality! This is history! This is a disaster, and when we refer to it as "a job" we simplify the reality of the situation. It's not a job that's eve being finished.
Do Americans support endless financial support of Iraq and the military to see this thing through? Be serious.
Conservatives have failed in this War on Terror, and Iraq is the baby that will never sleep, and never mature. Over the next few years you will hear every excuse in the book about what went wrong. Conservatives will blame Iraqis, saying they had a chance at freedom. But they will never look in the mirror and blame themselves for attempting to foist their ideals/set of governance on a place that wasn't ready for such a thing.
Of course, if Iraq breaks up into different countries they will say, "Well, it was an unnatural alliance that the British created, so this was meant to be...," again, never looking in the mirror.
It becomes more obvious every day this is a disaster that will never hold. Excuses will be made over and over and over. The personal responsibility people will never bare any, that's for damn sure.
Now I support leaving Iraq after January 30th because like John Kerry said, "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?" You don't. You move on. You realize your blunder, and you move on.
Republicans believe in fighting these wars to make change, and Democrats have believed more in economics to enact change. Both have their flaws, but to think that changing Iraq and the Middle East was going to work through war will prove to be so wrong. SO WRONG.
Vietnam made Americans and their leaders wary of using the military. Success stories years later, and a burning desire by these hawks to reestablish military might has led them into a bottomless pit. In the long run they will have set us back again because of this failure, but unlike Vietnam, they will never admit to any sort of mistake, but rather, they will blame the people whose country we invaded.
Fighting is not the only option. Reassessing our policy is the option.
Digressing, so many people wonder how the Democrats are going to rise up again after this electoral loss. The answer: Just let these jackasses work their magic, and things will work themselves out, rather unfortunately.
The S.S. Bullshit
Is sailing through Washington!
That's right, the Social Security CRISIS is moving right along, into the "liberal" media right towards your living room via the extremely liberal FOX NEWS!
Ok, lets pretend for, oh, I don't know, for as long as it takes you to read this, that there is an actual crisis. Don't scream at work because then you'll have to explain yourself, and admitting that you're worried about the S.S. crisis will make you look retarded to anyone with skin.
According to honest analysis Social Security is good to go for anyone about 30 years of age and up. So what they're saying is Bush is taking hold of a crisis situation to fix Social Security for all people under 30! Thank goodness because I know for a fact that people under 30 are worried sick about Social Security payments.
Okay, so you want details? Well, that's not gonna happen.
Social Security may have problems, the biggest problem being the one Bush caused that I like to call "GIVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS AWAY AS A TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY", but since that's over and done with we can hope that realists in Congress call Bush out on this.
Bush has no plan. He wants Congress to come up with some plans. Then he wants to take some ideas from those plans, and craft a plan that takes parts of all the other plans so he can get a whole bunch of people on board. People who now think Bush is using their plan. That's the plan!
That's right, the Social Security CRISIS is moving right along, into the "liberal" media right towards your living room via the extremely liberal FOX NEWS!
Ok, lets pretend for, oh, I don't know, for as long as it takes you to read this, that there is an actual crisis. Don't scream at work because then you'll have to explain yourself, and admitting that you're worried about the S.S. crisis will make you look retarded to anyone with skin.
According to honest analysis Social Security is good to go for anyone about 30 years of age and up. So what they're saying is Bush is taking hold of a crisis situation to fix Social Security for all people under 30! Thank goodness because I know for a fact that people under 30 are worried sick about Social Security payments.
Okay, so you want details? Well, that's not gonna happen.
Social Security may have problems, the biggest problem being the one Bush caused that I like to call "GIVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS AWAY AS A TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY", but since that's over and done with we can hope that realists in Congress call Bush out on this.
Bush has no plan. He wants Congress to come up with some plans. Then he wants to take some ideas from those plans, and craft a plan that takes parts of all the other plans so he can get a whole bunch of people on board. People who now think Bush is using their plan. That's the plan!
Hmmm? I Wonder...
Robert Reich:
The White House says the Food and Drug administration is doing a "spectacular" job. Really? The FDA didn't respond to warning signs that block-buster painkillers like Celebrex and Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks. Worse yet, its own drug-safety officer says the agency suppressed his research showing the apparent dangers of Vioxx. Belatedly, the FDA is now looking into the potential risks of Naproxin, an ingredient in many over-the-counter pain relievers. The FDA also failed to warn the public that antidepressants increase the risk of suicide among children who take them.That's a really good question.
"Spectacular?" I don't think so. In fact, one might conclude that the Food and Drug Administration is failing in its core mission to protect consumers from harm. It's a toothless tiger.
Meanwhile, new legislation is winding its way through Congress that would prevent people who are hurt by drugs approved by the FDA from winning large damage awards against companies that made them. FDA approval would shield drug makers from having to pay anything more than $250,000 even when it's proven that they negligently caused someone more than $250,000 of harm. Congressional sponsors understand this cap on damages will end lawsuits against drug companies because personal-injury lawyers won't want to take on the risks and costs of such cases. If this bill passes, companies like Pfizer and Merck, now facing a flood of lawsuits because of Celebrex and Vioxx, won't have to worry.
So we've got an FDA that's not protecting consumers from harm, and pending legislation that makes it almost impossible for people who are hurt by drugs approved by the FDA to sue for damages. The question must be asked: How is the public going to be protected if the FDA remains weak and if private lawsuits are cut off?
Our Yahoo
Yahoo:
The sea change is not surprising at all. The Bush voters, in particular, who may have went from supporting the war to being against it the last few weeks are no different than those in Congress, or pundits like William Kristol, who are more than willing to shout after November 2nd.
Live I've always said, "winning is all that matters" and since they've now won certain people are more than willing to act like they are taking a stance on an issue, in this case the Mistake in Iraq.
...
Btw, I don't support Rummy getting axed.
President Bush heads into his second term amid deep and growing public skepticism about the Iraq war, with a solid majority saying for the first time that the war was a mistake and most people believing that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should lose his job, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.I'd love to ask these people specific questions like, "How has it contributed to our long-term security?" for starters.
While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion.
The sea change is not surprising at all. The Bush voters, in particular, who may have went from supporting the war to being against it the last few weeks are no different than those in Congress, or pundits like William Kristol, who are more than willing to shout after November 2nd.
Live I've always said, "winning is all that matters" and since they've now won certain people are more than willing to act like they are taking a stance on an issue, in this case the Mistake in Iraq.
...
Btw, I don't support Rummy getting axed.
That's the Spirit!
I mean, what would Christmas be without great stories like this!
In one of the first signs of the effects of the ever tightening federal budget, in the past two months the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.Is this the compassionate part of conservativism or what?
With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.
As a result, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and other charities have suspended or eliminated programs that were intended to help the poor feed themselves through improvements in farming, education and health.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
What Bothers Me Most About Juice
Not the fact that he killed his wife and got away with it...Wait, wrong juice.
The steroid thing in sports, particularly in baseball, really bugs me. I know sports are relatively unimportant, but there are many factors, some financial, being overlooked in this whole thing that affect many different peoples.
First off, the history of the game itself. I cannot tell you how I annoyed I was that Major League Baseball cared so little about its own history when it tacitly allowed these players to jack up, and break heralded records. The fact is Roger Maris is no longer important to the next wave of fans, but for YEARS he mattered to every baseball fan. His record is not only gone, but it has been erased by people unworthy of holding his bat. Ruth, Mantle, and Aaron will live on, but many others will certainly fade. Baseball cards of those players have certainly lost value, so there's a simple financial fact, but hardly what I'm getting at. For spots, the historical issue here is tremendous. When it comes to sports baseball is history.
Baseball was willing to do anything post-strike to put fans in their seats, so they allowed McGwire and Sosa to do their thing: take steroids, use corked bats, etc. I'm a Cubs fan, so I certainly rooted for Sosa. As for the bat incident, he generally didn't use the bat that splintered and caused trouble. But it was widely accepted that corked bats were being used during the homerun derby during All Star Weekend. It's not as if people thought the bats were not available, or possibly in the clubhouses. They knew they existed, but didn't care! Why did they exist at all?!?!?
Baseball sold expensive products that were made more valuable because of all these cheaters. I'm not sure who is throwing out the Bonds jersey, but it has certainly lost its value. I know I wouldn't be caught wearing it, or that of Sosa/any juicer. That's another financial point, but again, not what I'm getting at.
The real financial issue hits the players directly. I do not shed many tears for baseball players, or other athletes in general, but there are a lot of players who have made a lot less money because of the cheats. Take a player like Carlos Lee of the White Sox who hit around 30 HRs this year and had close to 100 RBIs. In the 80s he's a machine! In fact in the early 90s those numbers are damn good. Now I don't know if Lee juices or not, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't. If he does, he really does suck! Anyway, point being, those numbers are not that great anymore because of these enormous numbers put up by many of the cheats. Lee is getting ROBBED by these guys!
For the guys that do not cheat and have enormous numbers they too get robbed. They would be the highest paid players in an open market of their choosing. Now they have to sign quick and find a "good situation" so the market doesn't close on them. If Giambi doesn't cheat the Yankees end up with a different player, maybe one who doesn't cheat, who can actually play, and eventually gets more commercial dollars, etc. The fans, who also pay more to see Giambi, get a player who is worth paying to see. There's a lot of robbery going on here.
And what about the minor leaguers? I've read they have much tougher testing, hence why so few of them are HUGE when they get to the Majors. Because of the light enforcement of testing in MLB many minor league players may never get up as players prolong their careers, and less talented players who do come up juice up, keeping guys in the minors even longer. Maybe forever! The life of a minor leaguer is not a fun one for many, and it's made worse by the cheaters.
This is why I'm baffled by the MLB Players Union. Don't they want an honest playing field? Shouldn't the Union reps who are against testing be tested? Derek Jeter is a great example. He plays very hard, leads his team, and comes through in the clutch. It seems to me he's probably not juicing. Now he certainly gets paid a boatload of cash, but he'd make even more money if not for the monster numbers out there. I'm not sure if Miguel Tejada does steroids, but his value would be beyond belief if not for the Sheffields, Giambis and others.
It also seems to me juiced players leave their initial smaller cities for the big cities, and leave the smaller cities with lesser talent. Who on the Twins is juicing? They don't have a player on their team that hits 40 HRs! If they did, he'd be playing in New York! Yet the Twins have lost to the Yankees in the playoffs, a team with at least two of the main culprits. That's not good for the bottom line of the Minnesota Twins, nor is it good for their local advertisers, sales reps, and a host of other people who sell merchandise for the Twins. It seems like a stretch, but it's really not. The cheating pervades many aspects of the sport! If the Twins make the World Series, or even win it, there are a lot of people in Minnesota with a lot more cash in their collective pockets, including the owners, who don't have to worry as much about losing the franchise.
Lastly, while the Olympics/Int'l Sports seem to be filled with dopers all the time, when they do get caught athletes are stripped of their medals and records. But not AMERICA'S PASTTIME!!! NOOOOOO! In America's Pasttime you get to keep your records without even an asterik to denote *You're a Fucking Cheat!
Like I said, sports is rather secondary to me, but something really should be done about the cheaters, and it should involve some sort of public shame/ridicule. At the very least, take away the last two seasons of HRs hit by players like Barry Bonds.
Do something! Two weeks ago I heard a reporter say, "And the owners plan on discussing the steroid problem at the winter meetings..." Really? REALLY!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? How nice of you.
The steroid thing in sports, particularly in baseball, really bugs me. I know sports are relatively unimportant, but there are many factors, some financial, being overlooked in this whole thing that affect many different peoples.
First off, the history of the game itself. I cannot tell you how I annoyed I was that Major League Baseball cared so little about its own history when it tacitly allowed these players to jack up, and break heralded records. The fact is Roger Maris is no longer important to the next wave of fans, but for YEARS he mattered to every baseball fan. His record is not only gone, but it has been erased by people unworthy of holding his bat. Ruth, Mantle, and Aaron will live on, but many others will certainly fade. Baseball cards of those players have certainly lost value, so there's a simple financial fact, but hardly what I'm getting at. For spots, the historical issue here is tremendous. When it comes to sports baseball is history.
Baseball was willing to do anything post-strike to put fans in their seats, so they allowed McGwire and Sosa to do their thing: take steroids, use corked bats, etc. I'm a Cubs fan, so I certainly rooted for Sosa. As for the bat incident, he generally didn't use the bat that splintered and caused trouble. But it was widely accepted that corked bats were being used during the homerun derby during All Star Weekend. It's not as if people thought the bats were not available, or possibly in the clubhouses. They knew they existed, but didn't care! Why did they exist at all?!?!?
Baseball sold expensive products that were made more valuable because of all these cheaters. I'm not sure who is throwing out the Bonds jersey, but it has certainly lost its value. I know I wouldn't be caught wearing it, or that of Sosa/any juicer. That's another financial point, but again, not what I'm getting at.
The real financial issue hits the players directly. I do not shed many tears for baseball players, or other athletes in general, but there are a lot of players who have made a lot less money because of the cheats. Take a player like Carlos Lee of the White Sox who hit around 30 HRs this year and had close to 100 RBIs. In the 80s he's a machine! In fact in the early 90s those numbers are damn good. Now I don't know if Lee juices or not, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't. If he does, he really does suck! Anyway, point being, those numbers are not that great anymore because of these enormous numbers put up by many of the cheats. Lee is getting ROBBED by these guys!
For the guys that do not cheat and have enormous numbers they too get robbed. They would be the highest paid players in an open market of their choosing. Now they have to sign quick and find a "good situation" so the market doesn't close on them. If Giambi doesn't cheat the Yankees end up with a different player, maybe one who doesn't cheat, who can actually play, and eventually gets more commercial dollars, etc. The fans, who also pay more to see Giambi, get a player who is worth paying to see. There's a lot of robbery going on here.
And what about the minor leaguers? I've read they have much tougher testing, hence why so few of them are HUGE when they get to the Majors. Because of the light enforcement of testing in MLB many minor league players may never get up as players prolong their careers, and less talented players who do come up juice up, keeping guys in the minors even longer. Maybe forever! The life of a minor leaguer is not a fun one for many, and it's made worse by the cheaters.
This is why I'm baffled by the MLB Players Union. Don't they want an honest playing field? Shouldn't the Union reps who are against testing be tested? Derek Jeter is a great example. He plays very hard, leads his team, and comes through in the clutch. It seems to me he's probably not juicing. Now he certainly gets paid a boatload of cash, but he'd make even more money if not for the monster numbers out there. I'm not sure if Miguel Tejada does steroids, but his value would be beyond belief if not for the Sheffields, Giambis and others.
It also seems to me juiced players leave their initial smaller cities for the big cities, and leave the smaller cities with lesser talent. Who on the Twins is juicing? They don't have a player on their team that hits 40 HRs! If they did, he'd be playing in New York! Yet the Twins have lost to the Yankees in the playoffs, a team with at least two of the main culprits. That's not good for the bottom line of the Minnesota Twins, nor is it good for their local advertisers, sales reps, and a host of other people who sell merchandise for the Twins. It seems like a stretch, but it's really not. The cheating pervades many aspects of the sport! If the Twins make the World Series, or even win it, there are a lot of people in Minnesota with a lot more cash in their collective pockets, including the owners, who don't have to worry as much about losing the franchise.
Lastly, while the Olympics/Int'l Sports seem to be filled with dopers all the time, when they do get caught athletes are stripped of their medals and records. But not AMERICA'S PASTTIME!!! NOOOOOO! In America's Pasttime you get to keep your records without even an asterik to denote *You're a Fucking Cheat!
Like I said, sports is rather secondary to me, but something really should be done about the cheaters, and it should involve some sort of public shame/ridicule. At the very least, take away the last two seasons of HRs hit by players like Barry Bonds.
Do something! Two weeks ago I heard a reporter say, "And the owners plan on discussing the steroid problem at the winter meetings..." Really? REALLY!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? How nice of you.
Sorry
For those that come to this site for info and it's not posted. Especially the tools that hate me, but keep coming back!!!
It's actually been a busy couple of days. Will be back in full swing tomorrow.
I did hear the President say today "there will be a democracy in Iraq" but like everything else he says no details followed...except 19 dead soldiers.
It's actually been a busy couple of days. Will be back in full swing tomorrow.
I did hear the President say today "there will be a democracy in Iraq" but like everything else he says no details followed...except 19 dead soldiers.
Monday, December 20, 2004
SHOCKER!
NYTIMES:
As President Bush prepares to disclose the details of his plan to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars of future Social Security funds into privately held investment accounts, Wall Street has begun a muted lobbying campaign, chastened by bolder forays that failed in years past.They're doing it not for the fees, but because Wall St historically has been concerned with the average person.
So far, the chief executives of most financial firms have refused to take a public stand in support of private accounts, wary of being seen as too eager to embrace a potential new revenue stream.
At last week's White House economic meeting in Washington, they were conspicuous in their absence from the Social Security panel. Even in direct meetings with President Bush, who actively campaigned on the issue of Social Security, executives have shied away.
There are signs, however, that the industry is becoming a little more aggressive in pushing for private accounts, through a loose assemblage of trade associations, business coalitions and conservative research centers. These groups have lately begun trying to raise money from business interests and to marshal support on Capitol Hill, while also seeking to deflect criticism that Wall Street is behind the move simply to reap rich rewards for administering the accounts.
More of the Same
I must be seeing the future since I wrote the piece on "wondering" before the WaPo printed this.
President Bush's second-term plans to reshape Social Security, immigration laws and other domestic programs are facing a stiff challenge from a group that was reliably accommodating in the president's first four years: congressional Republicans.It's pretty absurd that the best thing to happen to House/Senate conservatives was 9/11.
After essentially rubber-stamping much of Bush's first-term agenda, many House and Senate Republicans plan to assert themselves more forcefully to put their mark on domestic policy in the new year, according to several lawmakers.
More Lights!!!
Again, it must be me, since I didn't know Christmas has been vanishing! CNN was having listeners call in response to whether Christmas needed to be "more prominent" and whether or not we're letting it be "overshadowed." I'm scratching my head wondering where all this is coming from!
Maybe it's because we in the Northeast celebrate it so fully that I didn't realize we were somehow skipping out!
Seriously, what a joke it is that this is being discussed. That the evil secular phrase "Happy Holidays" is taking over for "Merry Christmas." The NYTIMES even gets involved with a frontpage story in the "Week in Review."
I think more important than this ridiculous story is THIS STORY! A story about how high end stores are doing great, but the low end stores, not so great. That's a story!
Maybe it's because we in the Northeast celebrate it so fully that I didn't realize we were somehow skipping out!
Seriously, what a joke it is that this is being discussed. That the evil secular phrase "Happy Holidays" is taking over for "Merry Christmas." The NYTIMES even gets involved with a frontpage story in the "Week in Review."
I think more important than this ridiculous story is THIS STORY! A story about how high end stores are doing great, but the low end stores, not so great. That's a story!
(CBS) It's a Charles Dickens Christmas -- a Tale of Two Economies.Merry Christmas, you poor ass bitches!
High-end retailers such as Neiman Marcus and Tiffany are thriving, while discount chains such as Wal-Mart are suffering, reports CBS News Correspondent Trish Regan.
Recent sales figures from the nation's largest retailers underscore the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Wal-Mart missed its November sales numbers, posting a meager seven-tenths-of-a-percent gain over November, 2003. The company had expected 3 to 4 percent sales growth. City saw a 3 percent decline in sales last month, and K-Mart's sales are likely to drop 10 percent.
"You have wealthy consumers spending in unprecedented proportions and the cash and credit starved consumers are suffering," says retail analyst Burt Fleckinger of the Strategic Resource Group.
More Wondering
Republicans have never had the power they have now to guide the country in a new direction. I'm wondering if they actually have the guts to do it.
It's one thing to point fingers, shout, and make claims about the opposition party, but it's another thing to enact legislation with your signature on it. When it comes to Social Security the ball is in their court. Do they have the guts to abolish it, and create a new program? Do Americans want that? Do they even know what it is they're proposing?
This isn't just for SS, but it's also for malpractice reform, more money to religious institutions, etc., etc. I don't think swing voters are going to be so happy if the conservatives get their way. It's the conservatives that run the party, not the moderates. Years ago one would have thought if Republicans were going to control all the branches of government it'd probably be the moderates doing it, since this country is supposed to be balanced, but that's not the case.
I really wonder if these people have the guts to do the things they claim to want to do. I mean, if they try to outlaw abortion, or end stem cell research, crush social security, take away a person's right to sue for damages, and on, and on, and on, they will find themselves in the minority again. So we'll see.
Considering they're all such chickenhawks on the war, I can't see them being too much different domestically in the long run.
It's one thing to point fingers, shout, and make claims about the opposition party, but it's another thing to enact legislation with your signature on it. When it comes to Social Security the ball is in their court. Do they have the guts to abolish it, and create a new program? Do Americans want that? Do they even know what it is they're proposing?
This isn't just for SS, but it's also for malpractice reform, more money to religious institutions, etc., etc. I don't think swing voters are going to be so happy if the conservatives get their way. It's the conservatives that run the party, not the moderates. Years ago one would have thought if Republicans were going to control all the branches of government it'd probably be the moderates doing it, since this country is supposed to be balanced, but that's not the case.
I really wonder if these people have the guts to do the things they claim to want to do. I mean, if they try to outlaw abortion, or end stem cell research, crush social security, take away a person's right to sue for damages, and on, and on, and on, they will find themselves in the minority again. So we'll see.
Considering they're all such chickenhawks on the war, I can't see them being too much different domestically in the long run.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
One Less Thing to Read
Time Magazine named Bush its 'Person of the Year' for "for reframing reality to match his design..."
Pffff.
Pffff.
Curious
So campaign season in Iraq has started with a bang! I was just wondering, January 30th comes, January 30th goes, and then what? We never heard an exit strategy when the war began, and obviously they didn't have one, but what happens after this set date?
Are we obligated to keep fighting a war once a newly elected government is in place? What's our role? Will Americans care to fight it? I'm betting the Americans that put these clowns into office will not want to pay for this war too much longer.
Are we obligated to keep fighting a war once a newly elected government is in place? What's our role? Will Americans care to fight it? I'm betting the Americans that put these clowns into office will not want to pay for this war too much longer.
C'mon, Now
I'm trying to be cool about this, but you're making it very hard:
Rumsfeld, who agreed to Bush's request this month to stay in the Cabinet during the president's second term, won a vote of confidence from the White House on Sunday.Can you imagine what he'd say if Rumsfeld was doing a half-way decent job?
"Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job," the president's chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC's "This Week."
"The president has provided good direction for our military, and Secretary Rumsfeld is transforming our military to meet the threats of the 21st century," Card said.
Weed
Weed:
Nearly three-fourths of Americans middle age and older support legalizing marijuana for medical use, according to a poll taken for AARP.Weed.
More than half of those questioned said they believed marijuana has medical benefits, while a larger majority agreed the drug is addictive.
AARP, whose 35 million members are all at least 50 years old, says it has no political position on medical marijuana and that its local branches have not chosen sides in the scores of state ballot initiatives on the issue in recent elections.
But with medical marijuana at the center of a Supreme Court case to be decided next year, and nearly a dozen states with medical marijuana laws on their books, AARP said, it decided to study the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
