The Man Who new Too Much, G.K. Chesterton.
"Back in 1635, a major hurricane hit the northeast. It's estimated that it hit Long Island as a category 4 hurricane, and then hit between Plymouth and Boston as a category 3. Landfall pressure is estimated to have been 938mb, the strongest ever for a storm that far north.
One day, that's going to happen again (or the 1938 Long Island Express will happen again, or the 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane will happen again...), and it will be far worse than Sandy. And that doesn't even take into account the thought that one day, a hurricane similar to the 1938 Long Island Express will go directly into Lower Manhattan and leave JFK Airport under 20 feet of water.
I'd really love to see the claims that would come out of THAT kind of storm."
Sandy has brought out all the statists. The NYT (which should be rebranced NYBOAPT - New York Bend Over And Assume The Position Times) wrote how "A big storm requires a big government." It's all very blah, blah and the sheep that make up the Times readership made sure to back up the article.
Personally, I find it howlingly hilarious that a top-down approach to local disasters is seen as good.
It's plain illogical. The first responders are the locals. They know the surroundings - geopgraphy, topograhpy, people etc. - better than anyone. Let them run the show first. Big government may have the cash but it doesn't necessarily have the resources to efficiently respond in a timely manner.
The way I see it you have a storm. Locals (including government officials) get together to plot how to deal with it. Would you like it if some people from Washington came and took over the operation? Makes no sense. Smaller is leaner, meaner and more agile.
Bah. Making the case for big government is nothing new for the lost left.
What irritates more is listening to the 'diasters are great for the economy' Vaudville routine some academics espouse.
Peter Morici from the School of Business at the University of Maryland thinks Sandy is a business opportunity.
I'm just going with my gut logic here. When you shut down an economy the money lost is LOST forever. It can't be regained or quantified as he points out - thankfully. We saw this first hand in Montreal when the boob students went on strike and cost local businesses hundreds of millions of dollars all lost. No 'rebuilding there. Just a bunch of small businesses finding it harder to make payroll and pay rent for nothing. Strike One.
So businesses begin in a hole x-amount for lost business. Next comes actual damages caused by Sandy estimated to be at $25-$50 billion. Morici claims reconstruction (by federal authorities of course) will generate something in the neighborhood of $27-$36 billion. Excuse my math, but where's the gain?
Ma get outta here!
He concludes this question this way:
"All of this is not to discount the direct costs to individuals by temporary, and in some cases permanent, disruption to lives and communities, much of which cannot be quantified. However, when government authorities facilitate rebuilding quickly and effectively, the process of economic renewal, in many tangible ways, can leave communities better off than before.
Factoring in the multiplier effect of $15-$20 billion spent rebuilding yields an economic benefit from reconstruction of about $27-$36 billion. Add to that the gains from more a more modern and productive capital stock-likely in the range of $10 billion -- and consumer and business spending that is only delayed but not permanently lost, likely in the range of $12 billion -- and the total effects of natural disasters of the scale of Sandy are not as devastating two years down the road."
In other words, taxpayers will pay for all this Insurance will increase. It's growth by other means only it's not growth. It's just shifting money from one side to the other.
Then there's the whole logic problem. Why not flatten things to the ground every few years? Fuck, knock out the country! Nuke it!
No one disputes you can put up fancier bathrooms but the cost of destruction is far, far, greater than the benefits of construction. Start with the psychological trauma and move from there. Then there's all the messy unintended consequences issue.
It's the "Broken Window Fallacy" and it stinks.
Speaking of fallacies, isn't that Krugman roaming the streets yelling, 'StiMULUS! YES!"
Yes. Because their reputation is sparkling. Here. Take more money to piss away.
Call a spade a spade. They act like immoral bandits.
Why don't you go get it back from the crooks who stole it, Tremblay?
It's from Salon.
Thank you SE for the article.
As I've clumsily said all along on this blog: He's a poser.
A guy who can snap fingers but not much else.
Moreover, this Benghazi thing is major. Conservatives argue that for liberals Watergate is a symbol of the wretchedness of conservative politics, but Benghazi is a shocking political and even moral breakdown of leadership.
Will it come to define liberalism for decades to come?
Anyway, the article is brutally honest and Matt Stoller deserves credit because if he's a Democrat he cares about his party. He's no cultist.
He challenges all the "inherited a mess" strawman employed by liberals. A lot of it is of Obama's on doing.
These past four years have been terrible for the United States. While Obama spent some time blaming others, ultimately it'll be his name next to these four years. He owned it and ain't nothing he can say about it.
Just a small excerpt:
"...Under Bush, economic inequality was bad, as 65 cents of every dollar of income growth went to the top 1 percent. Under Obama, however, that number is 93 cents out of every dollar. That’s right, under Barack Obama there is more economic inequality than under George W. Bush..."
"..Many will claim that Obama was stymied by a Republican Congress. But the primary policy framework Obama put in place – the bailouts, took place during the transition and the immediate months after the election, when Obama had enormous leverage over the Bush administration and then a dominant Democratic Party in Congress. In fact, during the transition itself, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered a deal to Barney Frank, to force banks to write down mortgages and stem foreclosures if Barney would speed up the release of TARP money. Paulson demanded, as a condition of the deal, that Obama sign off on it. Barney said fine, but to his surprise, the incoming president vetoed the deal. Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis..."
It's not just Obama who has to be tossed. People like Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts as well. There's too much hypocrisy there. Too much incompetence. Too many bad people in the wrong places. Too much cluelessness. Too many terrible videos appealing to emotions. Is it really that hard to see past Big Bird?
If you vote for people like this then you get the governance you deserve.
They argue this using academic research that concludes ethnic tribalism in American politics is actually on the wane.
Let the debate begin.
But don't include MSM who already know that if Obama loses it will be because of race. No, ifs, whats or buts about it (you're sleeping with Fred Garvin; male prostitute).
Once it's established you're not racist by fact, they will turn around and assert, "Oh you're racist alright. You just don't know it." I heard this line in university all the time. It was as if I was in a bad episode of The Classroom (spin off show I invented from The Office).
This race-card thing is one-way these days. In the previous post, a couple of guys thought the T-Wolves were too "white" but they don't care if a team is too "black." In politics, we're concerned about whether or not whites are racist but don't seem too concerned that blacks close ranks with Obama.
Here in Canada, we shouldn't get cocky. For a country that over praises itself for its multicultualism, I don't see non-white guys not getting elected in the near future. We have a long way to go too. Women or black candidates are rare and while minorities like Italians do get elected as well as Catholics, the list is thin. Quebec's political cultural make-up is thinner still.
Comment from the thread:
"Ethnic tribalism continues to wane"? In a country where students were sent home for wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo? In a country where we were told that George Zimmerman was a neo-Nazi skinhead who murdered poor Trayvon because he's a racist? In a country in which not not being ardently Zionist is "proof" of anti-Semitism? In a country in which any criticism of the black president is deemed racist? In a country in which flash mobs of "teens" and "youths" attack innocent bystanders? In a country in which the federal government forbids the states from enacting laws against illegal immigrants?"
Here in Canada we must show ID.
Heck, we have to show ID for so many things in North America.
The questions are really for Americans (Social Security and Medicare for example), but it's possible for outsiders to have an opinion on American foreign policy since many of their decisions impact nations. Moreover, for cases like health I just apply my experiences with the Canadian system to what I "know" of American health. I used the system twice in my life.
In any event, it's more for the heck of it. I'm not surprised by the result.
Here are my results.
I agree with Gary Johnson 97%.
Which basically means I'm Libertarian/Republican.
Hm. 16% too much with that communist.
My Dale Gribble coffee mug is on the way.
I clicked around results by state. Interestingly, Texas, Florida and North Carolina are pretty much divided equally among all four candidates. Vermont and Massachusetts, not surprisingly, are 60% statist-Obama. But I do find Romney's low 29% in Massachusetts is interesting given he was governor there. Johnson seems to outperform Romney in most states.
I didn't click on all states but the ones I did (maybe 15), Obama and Johnson were ahead. Romney was in the middle of things in states that are divided.
Civil rights leaders are wondering if the Minnesota Timberwolves are racist. What, with only five brothers on a 15-man roster and all.
I wonder what they would say if someone turned this utter rubbish around and asked if the Boston Celtics were too black.
Or Team USA.
Fucking incredible. I see garbage like this all the time with people who count how many French-Canadian players are on the Montreal Canadiens never once examining why that might be. Right away a nefarious racial conspiracy theory is at play. That's right, the Habs want to restrict French players. Get over yourselves.
From what I read, Minnesota is one of the most liberal places on the continent. If I'm Minnesotan, I'm a tad insulted by the charge. I doubt it's a strategy to sell tickets. The weakest of all the arguments used by such people.
I didn't realize basketball had some unwritten code where the majority of players had to be black. Can't a team field a team without two cents from the peanut gallery while being compared to 1955 anymore? Are these bozos suggesting only blacks can play the game? I seem to recall when the T-Wolves stank the NBA out with a mostly black team led by one Kevin Garnett.
They'd better get used to it because more and more players are coming from Europe. And European players are predominantly white. Russia, Lithuania, Germany, Italy, Spain, Croatia, France,Brazil, Argentina etc. all produce NBA caliber players now. Minnesota is merely developing its options and system via this opportunity. I think that's pretty obvious to a layman like me.
Sometimes I wonder who the real racists are.
Tyrone Terrell is just another race baiting huckster who have done too much damage to African-Americans for too long.
As for Israel, he said (he works in the military in Syria or something), Israel never behaves this way towards Arabs as Assad has. It's an atrocity of the highest order.
Food for the thought.
It makes for great theater - everyone loves watching and reading stuff about the mob - but the truth is corruption in construction in Quebec predates the Italians and the mob. They've been at it waaaayyyy longer. And they were French-Canadian.
You can't make mob movies about the Swedish mafia (as one producer once said).
What an awful story. The thing is, IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. Politics and your job should never mix. Ever.
I've grown tired of the Ontario comparison. I'm pretty sure they don't have the same chip on their shoulders like we have here about language.
Bottom line is this is Quebec and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard not because of what others think but because we want to.
This guy doesn't get it:
"Ce que tu dis est ridicule, mais bon... Montréal a une meilleure réputation que Toronto sur la scène internationale, on est dans le top 10 de pleins de palmares de ''10 best city for''. C'est complètement nul de dire n'importe quoi juste pour les ''Like''.
Les employés des transport en communs te parlent en français en Ontario? Non, alors ils n'ont pas à parler anglais ici."
Stop over rating yourself. Montreal isn't that respected. And that last line misses the point entirely. At worst, this boob is advocating two wrongs make a right.
But I don't know of any cases in Ontario where public servants accost people for speaking another language other than English. There are tourists who use the STM for the love of God.
Its myopic bull shit on his part. He's setting up strawmen to implicitly justify this insane behavior.
This guy gets it:
J'ai honte d'être Québécois parfois. La question linguistique est importante mais jamais au détriment de notre société, voyons donc! This is repugnant, pure and simple. Behaviour like this forced me out of Quebec, I left - I live in Ontario now. And while it's no picnic here either, at least I'm not ashamed to live here (well, aside from the Leafs...). I don't think language was the only factor here, race certainly played a role - as it often does with linguistic issues unfortunately. How can frontline employees NOT be bilingual, they deal with tourists day in and day out! This is why Montréal has such a crappy reputation on the world stage... we badger and hate our own citizens, nevermind what we do to tourists!
This is the Quebec I know - or want to know.
Obama - surprise - thinks so.
This is indoctrinization of the worst kind. Just like the morons on the far right and their religious creationist armageddon bull should be ignored, the people who made this video can suck my...toe.
Fucking hero-worship of politicians annoy me to no end. Couple that with lyrics that seemed to have been written by cynical teenagers with a one-dimensional dimwitted view on things and it becomes hideous in a hurry.
Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea
We don’t have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you
We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying
They did their best we know
You can’t cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it’s welfare dough
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you
Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair
It’s a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term’s kind of a drag
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we’re blaming you
You did your best
You failed the test
Mom and Dad
We’re blaming you!
And exit liberalism.
"...This reeks of hypocrisy of the greatest magnitude! They are using kids to get votes? They are playing the poor little kids futures sympathy card? Excuse me are these not the same insane people who are throwing fits and foaming at the mouth about abortion? Abortion on demand? Late term abortion? They are the craziest people on the planet, let's save the whales and polar bears, let's save serial killers and child killers from death row, let's save the effing rain forest and lizards and frogs and effing spiders, but hey let's kill as many unborn babies with arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes and a beating heart as possible because it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body! Only there is another body here, a BABY"S body! Go ahead, show this crap on tv, the outrage in this country would guarantee a Romney win! I thought I lived in America not effing North Korea you freaking communists!"
Doctors at an international conference were discussing their medical cases
A doctor from Germany says ``We had a patient who had lost his testicles in an accident and we transplanted him with both testicles. Six weeks later he was looking for work”
Another doctor from the U.S. says ``We did better than that, we had a patient who had a severe heart condition so we gave him a new heart and four weeks later he was looking for work”
A doctor from Russia says ``We had a patient with a very sick brain, did a transplant and two weeks later he was looking for work”
The Quebec doctor says ``We picked a woman who had no heart, no brain and ``no balls”, made her Premier and a year from now all Quebecers will be looking for work”
One of my favorite commenters, Paul,
pointed out during one of my rants that while the PQ received 31% of the plurality nearly 60% of Quebecers rejected them.
This is true.
But isn't this a common feature in all Parliamentary democracies? Very Western governments get elected with a 51% plurality. Even in the USA (which is a non-Parliamentary Republic) the country is basically divided in two.
The bottom line is 30% is sometimes enough to form a majority government the way things are set up. It so happens it thankfully gave the PQ a minority.
I heard this rationale with Harper when he got his majority. All of a sudden it mattered that 66% of the people didn't vote for him. Yeah, because 66% of the people couldn't accept the democratic fate of having a Conservative majority government.
60% of the population always generally don't vote for the other party. Majority government are formed by the number of seats; not plurality. When the Liberals were winning this didn't matter apparently.
Look it up. Historically, no party wins 50% + 1.
Appropriate enough given the showed Asbury Park getting pummeled on CNN.
Seven straight to close out the post-season for the Giants. Solid performance. So many players - Scutaro, Nomo, Posey, Zito and eventual MVP Sandoval - played to the best of their abilities. Strong pitching and relentless clutch hitting proved to be the key to victory.
I finally watched Moneyball the other day. It came years after having read the book.
The Oakland A's are indeed good at finding talent but it hasn't landed them a championship yet.
The Oakland/Philadelphia A's franchise, for the record, is actually one of the most successful in MLB having won 9 titles (third behind the Yankees (27) and St. Louis Cardinals (11)) and 14 appearances (5th overall behind the Yankees (40), Giants (19), Cardinals (18), and Dodgers (18) - Hope I got that right since it's all off the top of my head).
The last time Oakland sniffed a championship up its nose was in 1989.
So. I wondered how have they done in the Moneyball era? Going back to 2000 (which I think is a decent sample size in the modern era) to 2012, here are the average number of wins per season for select clubs:
1) Yankees 96.3 (duh)
2) Cardinals 90.9 (timeless and under rated)
3) Red Sox 89.8 (no surprise)
4) Braves 89.6 (still a solid organization after the golden age of the 1990s)
5) Angels 88.8 (L.A. team not named Dodgers?)
6) Oakland A'S 87.6 (a winning record for Beane and the boys)
7) Phillies 87 (a small surprise)
8) Giants 86.6 (two titles in three years. What if Posey didn't get hurt?)
9) Dodgers 85 (not good enough given its cache and money)
10) White Sox 85.3 (can they keep it up?)
11) Twins 83.5 (usually in the mix - until they play the Yankees)
12) Cubs 80 (sub .500 club. Epstein will bring Moneyball strategies - only he has cash)
13-16) Marlins 79.7, Astros 78, Tigers 76.3, Rays 74.6 round out the list all below .500.
So the A's stack up well over an arduous 162 game schedule. Real well.
What about the playoffs?
Here's the list of top playoff clubs and their records (not double-checked) ranked by games played:
1) Yankees 52-46
2) Cardinals 50-43
3) Red Sox 34-23
4) Giants 33-22
5) Phillies 27-19
6) Angels 21-24
7) Tigers 20-17 (only team with losing record above to be here)
8) Braves 12-23
9) Oakland A'S 13-19
Rays, Diamond Backs, Twins, Marlins, Cubs, White Sox, Dodgers round out the list with 25 to 15 games played from first to last.
So. The A's are 6th and 9th respectively in regular season and the post season out of 30 teams in Major League Baseball with consistently one of the smallest pay rolls.
Here's a list of teams and their payroll in 2011. The Yankees were first with $202 million and the Royals last with $36 million. The A's were 21st at $66 million. 12 team were over $100 million.
We've been conditioned through years of sci-fi flicks to assume aliens are superior beings but what if this is not true?
What if the aliens are dumb as fucks?
Speaking of earth and its place in the universe. The earth is about 13.7 billion years old. Take a second to digest that. The biosphere formed 4 billion years ago. Non-human life began hundreds of millions of years ago. Dinosaurs came and went. Man emerged several million years ago.
The sun, the medium sized star that gives us life, is 4 billion years old and is expected to live to about 10 billion years.
That gives man a long time to perfect itself.
Which made me think about all this climate change fears. My wife asked me about the melting polar caps and the polar bears and what I thought about that. I told her I'm too ignorant to offer an intelligent answer but my instincts tell me, given what I do know about man and earth, this is all part of the game. Species come and go. Continents collide. Mudslides occur. Fires devastate. Volcanoes erupt. And so on.
If we can just expand our time horizon, perhaps we could see that the earth is merely reconfiguring itself. It probably - heck, likely - has little regard for us. The extinction of polar bears would be sad but it's not life altering. I don't know what the positive consequence of this would be. Several species disappear everyday but we don't seem to lament those.
By taking this path, think of the unrealized possibilities of our abilities! Imagine what we could achieve. Mind you, that might be difficult given the sheer size of a billion years. Who knows what can happen! We see with our stock portfolios what one year can do for the love of Planet 9!
Taking this real big picture posture, it makes you realize how small the Al Gorians are. They're just fear mongering folks who have a short-term time horizon. The "do something now" crowd should usually be ignored if you ask me. If Al Gore was around during the dinosaurs what would he have done?
Would earth have given two shits?
Just enjoy the ride my fellow evolving chimps.
I have a feeling we'll be around for a long, long, long time.
I thought it was a joke that the Obama campaign was using "Forward" as its slogan.
Why would you even want to remotely come anywhere near anything with a communist connotation?
'Forward' - specifically the Great Leap Forward - was the great calling for Mao's communist China and Lenin's Russia. You know the rest...or should know. GLP translated into millions of murders.
And don't tell me the Obama people don't know what they're doing here.
Reports and records indicate they were aware. This was unfolding over a six or seven hour period.
I don't get it. Your embassy is screaming for help and they play "basic principle" politics?
Something is not adding up.
They didn't want to put trained elite soldiers in harm's way but it was ok to let those people be killed?
Something is not adding up.
NYT, erm, Obama. Predictably. They haven't endorsed a Republican candidate since 1956.
Meanwhile, 12 000 show up in Ohio to hear Mitt speak.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of what "filing for bankruptcy" means. I don't know the details of GM, but filing doesn't mean the business shuts down. All it does is gives a "reprieve" through restructuring while keeping a company in operation. While it's a little more complicated and obviously depends on cases, that's the main crux of it.
Could GM have "filed" and succeed? I don't know but I suspect the bail out wasn't a long-term solution.
Madonna jumped the shark a long time ago but there's something so unsexy in a grown woman talking like a latchkey-kid.
Personally, I go to concerts to be entertained. I pay for the artist and their music. Not to hear their two cents on politics or be given a vapid lecture. I went to University. I heard my share of lectures. Most of them didn't so why would I care? Unless of course they posit a valid theory or have something of substance to say. Then I'm all ears.
This shit about vote for Obama "'cuz he's a good guy" and "likes gay people" is beyond stupid. Give compelling reasons to vote for the guy.
Bruce Springsteen does that. What bothers me about that is plenty of his fans don't share his views.
So why do it?
Let your music do the talking.
Will be hitting that up soon.
I enjoy Lebanese (Middle-Eastern) cuisine.
Best case scenario as far as I can tell so far for the administration: Incompetence.
This whole denied protection angle after several requests is especially troublesome and worrisome.
Anyway...ties in nicely with that creepy Dunham ad.
See for yourself.
The lyrics are depressingly hilarious.
If Romney winning means sparing us of all these horrible, despicable videos, then all I have to say is "go get 'em Mitt!"
"...This all is not to say that there was nothing good to be found in a redistributive welfare state. In the social realm it allowed us for a limited period a life without much internal tension; a kind of "Peace for our time". Yet eventually the additional engineered layers of construction meant that the assumed social roles were only affordable through increasing indebtedness. This means that we merely transfer the costs of redistribution onto the future generation. And that is anything but sustainable, anything but social-friendly..."
They'd (rightly) be ridiculed and chastised out of a job. That's what. Maybe any of the Times in NY or LA pick up the story hence starting one of those famous American debates on race. Hey, at least they discuss the matter.
Now let's change the setting to Quebec. Someone yells, "you can't speak English!" to a fellow worker.
Just another day in the parochial world of Quebec.
***That was a true story by the way.
Shout it with me! Come on!
Anyone with the responsible thought of realizing we need to reform our pension plans and curb spending is up against an emotional wall of resistance that lacks any logic.
Enter Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell when he claimed that if pension benefit reform happens his colleagues will head for a life of crime.
Using these gems:
“All of our MPs are above reproach, but the pressures of not making enough money can become an issue and that is why [take-home salary] needs to be maintained at a certain level,” Mitchell said.”We could talk about brown paper bags with cash in it, because there is pressure all the time. That is why pay needs to be absolutely adequate.”
Wow. This is Senator material these days I reckon. So much for "serving the public." Is he insinuating he can be bought if he doesn't get more? Millions of people across this continent struggle to make the cut but don't turn to crime. You know?
“Adequate,” of course, is a matter of opinion. Members of Parliament start at a base salary of $157,731, while senators make $132,300 plus allowances (and don’t have to worry about re-election every four years either). It’s worth noting that a new senator or MP doesn’t have to climb a compensation ladder based on their skill or experience: they get full pay on Day One."
CANADIANS PAY $24 for every dollar (that's $1 fucking dollar) MP's kick in for their pension. You try and explain to me how this is remotely fair? And these are the yahoos who keep talking about "we're in this together" bull shit.
Remember. He said "the pressures of not making enough money." What's the median income in Canada? $49 000? I'd say $157 000 a year gig is more than sufficient for the light workload.
These are the people who "fight" for the middle-class?
How about this. CUT TAXES and stop feeding people with fear-mongering bull shit that if we don't spend on the welfare monster we're all going to die. Try it for a change.
He continues according to the article:
"If one gets here and has that mortgage and a couple of kids in university, or one ends up getting a chance to go to Harvard that one had not anticipated, the furnace blows up, the car breaks down, a new one must be bought, one cannot opt out. One cannot stop paying that 25 per cent of one’s pay because we are all locked in, period,” the Liberal senator said."Could you believe this guy? You can't go to Harvard? Boo-hoo-hoo. Sorry, that's not our problem. I don't know what your mortgage is. For all I know you took on one that was too big for your shoes or head. I can go on and on but it's sickening to read this from a politician. It points directly to the ailing mindset in the West.
For me, Quebec is very lucky to be a part of Canada because if it wasn't, it would be a jurisdiction on par with the deep south - which it is pretty much as it stands. From its parochialism to its corruption to its poor business models.
To Quebecers, this is "Quebec bashing." To the rest of us removed from the insular world of political life in Quebec, it's reality.
The linquistic problem in Quebec is not normal. You just don't see or hear the stories told - and someone really should begin to collect them and make an essay or even a book of it - in other places.
I know this because I have friends and family in many countries and states. Whenever we talk about stories like this one about urgence sante, people just nod and say, "it's not right. It's not like that where we come from. We do our best to accommodate. Not to insult and upset."
Health and safety knows no language.
That's normal behavior.
"Not requiring" to speak English on its own is a vapid, evasive term on par with "we're not required to speak Spanish" in the United States. No one is "required" to do anything. But few would not attempt to accommodate out of decency and common courtesy. Hence, in the U.S., chances are a Mexican will somehow find a willing person to help them out in a hospital free of the language baggage we have here.
Once again, we miss the point.
I truly feel bad - even embarrassed - by this province.
It's unconscionable at how we play politics with issues like health. It's a disgrace. It has no honor.
Worse, I have to pay taxes to public servants who could tell me to "parle en francais?"
Fuck them. And fuck urgence sante for their cowardly "not required" crap.
I say this also aware that French-language radio shows and pundits are spinning things saying "Anglos are becoming aggressive" which is pure bull shit.
And I really don't give a shit about what Lisee has to say on this issue because he and his cohorts have set this childish tone in this province. The narrative is laid down by the rhetoric of political buffoons.
It's not an Anglo thing. It's a basic human thing.
It's one thing to not be able to speak English and convey it in a respectful manner and quite another to speak as though some social law is broken. People are not animals and will understand. But when you're in distress and the person in front of you is being an asshole about it (and I would have slugged him), it's not acceptable.
Quebecers always try to hurl a strawman by saying "we wouldn't be served in French" in Ontario or Idaho!" Perhaps, but I would bet my last penny folks in other places would do their best to take care of you . Most places would make an effort, I presume and from I've learned over time, to find someone to help with the language barrier.
I've been in situations in Quebec hospitals where the nurses are so callous they'll huff if someone can't speak English and I had to help the patient out.
It's retarded that it even happens whether it's one or one hundred people.
Until non-francophones actually manage to get a sniff at meaningful jobs with power in the public service, the situation will not improve. I don't see any enlightened or empathetic minds running the show. How can Quebec improve when so little of us are represented?
My wife and I have made our decision. My daughter isn't staying here. I don't want her ever being told "parle moi en francais" as if she's second class as I've experienced. Let me tell you. It's not pleasant and that shit sticks with you.
We hope to follow her down the yellow brick road.
If this is Quebec, I want no part of it.
My tax dollars will go elsewhere.
If I'm the CEO of an American company, I'd watch the QLF closely. If Americans were more aware at the fact they may be targets of this pathetic organization, maybe we'd have more political will to put a stop to the SS-type of behavior. American corporations are notorious for their 'equal rights' commitments and I'm sure they would not be too pleased to see how their language is treated here.
Quebec nationalists have an issue with English but have no problem shopping in America or working for American companies.
Sears may want to investigate their stores a little closer.
I may use this blog more and more to expose this stuff. Let's drag Quebec into the 21st century.
I never liked the "guy" who take "charge" in a group. Usually they're the sort of folk who do it to just add something on their resume.
I always hated "voting" for a person I know jack shit about. No wonder I don't consider anyone my "leader." Especially when they pimp out coercive stuff I care not for.
It's outrageous and criminal how they (politicians) steal, steal and steal (with generous pension benefits) and people don't seem to care. They'd rather direct their attention to nonsense like Big Bird and Binders. Personally, it bothers me to no end that when men and women want to restore fiscal sanity are chastised and targeted by an unsavory collection of statists, leftists and unions who depend and rely on other people's money to exist.
Not sure what to think of this. There's no way the party that claims to defend women would sink so low even trilobites would think it's too deep would post such vapid idiocy.
Am I the only one seeing the creepy cynicism here? This is what passes off as intelligent methods to mobilize the base? What kind of base is this? And keep my daughter away from it.
T.C.: "Run, Veronica, run!"
Ronnie: They're gaining on us, daddy!"
T.C.: Keep running. I'll stop them...keep....run....ning. I lov...."
Ronnie: Daaaa----deeeeeeee! Damn you, women's lib! Damn....you!!! I'll get my revenge. Oh, I will...
This is what they're going with? He's a fucking "great guy?" Is Obama that desperate with women? Why am I getting the picture of Obama during his hey-day lying his ass off to get women in the sack?
I was listening the other day about a guy with a "Save Big Bird" bumper sticker. Out of all the major issues that confront the United States, this is the storyline they're going with.
It's an emotional hit piece passing off as rational progressive thinking. Ironically, it makes women look like a bunch of bimbos. Sure. This is not your mother's 1984. Surrrre.
I've known plenty of "great guys" who really were assholes. Just saying.
Girl-chick into male hero worship (eating pumpkin seeds):
"I don't understand! (whimper,whimper). He told me he loved me as he slipped it in! He was so cool and all. I mean. He took me for beer and talked about the plight of women in remote Siberia. I felt, like, a connection. You know? Then he told me he'd buy me a big pillow with unicorns on it so that we can sleep together and share our dreams. It was so romantic! He also said everyone has a right to a good job and that even though I was studying 14th century Papuan tattoo art, I could be president and CEO of any company he'd take over. Then he took it out and he never called me again...yadda, yadda, yadda...that was my first time. Come to think of it, I wonder what a sinful Mormon would be like in the sack....hm...."
All this to say, looks like Obama stole this shtick from Putin. It all makes sense. See here at FP.
Funny. It wasn't on the Scholastic calendar on my wall nor was it reported nor did my employees mention it...
But whoa nelly...when it's National EMPLOYEES Day...Headlines! And everyone makes sure you know it because bosses are a-hole 364 days a year!
Endorsements from Chavez, Castro's niece, Putin and the Communist Party.
Americans should be proud.
I want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas, but also the energy sources of the future. Yes, I want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending that we don't need, but also by asking the wealthy to do a little bit more so that we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st century economy."
Painful. Hurts my eyes.
Which was reworked by a commenter:
I put forward a plan to make sure that we're bringing
I want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas(but not too much), but also
Now that's business!
It's a stock I would strongly consider.
As I read this in the Washington Post, it occured to me that maybe Romney deliberately (wisely to some) chose to ignore Benghazi. Let the news deal with it. The mishandling of it is there for anyone who cares to see.
The irony of him using the word "peace" 12 times when the Nobel peace winner at the table didn't utter it once is too much. It's obviously a tactic but we'll see if it resonates.
"...He got his best shot at Barack Obama when he quoted the president’s comments during what Romney characterized as an “apology” tour in 2009, in which Obama conceded that the United States has at times “dictated” to other nations and been “dismissive” and “derisive.”
“We don’t dictate to nations,” Romney said. “We free nations from dictators.”
Obama seized on Romney’s use of the word “apology” and noted that every fact-checker and reporter who had looked into it said it wasn’t true...."
I don't get the last line. Why does Obama need a fact checker to fact check his own words? His own intentions? Only he can answer that. Very strange - and cynical.
"...Obama may have chosen this phrase to make up for past statements that were less than ringing endorsements of this country’s special place in defense of human liberty. When asked once whether he thought the United States was exceptional, he said he supposed it was in the same way other countries think they’re exceptional..."
The "new norm" angle.Or the White Goodman "I'm ok that you're ok with yourself 'cuz we're the same" doctrine.
"...Rather than correct Romney’s figures, Obama treated him like a child.
“Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”
The president got some laughs but probably no new votes. Snark is a winning trait on Twitter but not so much in the Oval Office. The higher road belonged to Romney, who succeeded in his mission, which was to remind Americans that their nation is more than indispensable. It is exceptional — and they need a president who believes it.
I don't know if this is attributed to his own cockiness or to the GOP's game plan exploiting this flaw. Maybe both. If they knew before hand, then kudos to them for executing it.
The goal post of him being a movie director and documentarian kept moving.
On this, movie reviews were generally favorable. Heck, he won awards.
I fucking hate awards of any kind. All bull shit.
Yet, all of a suddent, a conservative comes out with a movie about Obama and its pasted for its factual errors and logical inconsitincies.
I was on Rotten Tomatoes and stumbled on D'Souza's "2016: Obama's America." I haven't seen it and I'm not sure I plan to but reading the reviews it occured to me all of the negative press could have easily been applied to the sophist Moore.
Doesn't surprise me one bit.
The fact is Obama actually is, however amateurish, conducting foreign policy and naturally would have a debate edge. Only a complete, dithering fool wouldn't be able to use this advantage. Romney would have to have possessed special international credentials or been some sort of expert in order to really punch out Obama in the debate.
Obama also had a this weird stare-down thing going. It's almost as if he was trying to control Romney's mind with eye lasers or something. "Kneel before me, Mitt"
I guess if there's anything Obama felt he had an edge it was with foreign policy hence what appeared to be a more confident demeanor.
It was hilarious watching the two try to out Bush themselves for their foreign policy rhetoric is basically the extension of Bush II. Had Gary Johnson been allowed to debate I'm sure it would have made things more interesting. In fact, if anything, all this (ironically) seemed to do was vindicate Bush!
For the record, while Obama "got" bin Laden, I wouldn't push it too far either. The Democrats were extremely unhelpful and pessimistic (recall Reid's "it's lost" quip) during the Bush campaign to get bin Laden. So much so I did quip that they'd be the first to claim credit if they got him under their watch and/or if Iraq succeeded. The fact is the killing of the guy was a foreign policy continuum left over from the Bush doctrine. Obama didn't end it and let it go. It was bound to happen and he's lucky it fell under his watch is all. It's one of those "even a monkey" could have done it things.
The drone strikes are especially controversial. For a party that espouses "we only make more terrorists by our actions" philosophy, it's remarkable this is not applied to drone strikes that have been known to kill innocents. Both candidates support the strikes.
Egypt is increasingly unstable. Under Obama's watch, the people of Egypt voted the Muslim Brotherhood in. True when a government is uprooted people tend to vote for the nationalists to fill the void and this may very well be "a bump"but in the meantime they're starting to make noise about wanting nuclear weapons.
Romney should have pulverized Obama on Benghazi. That shit is not acceptable. They messed up and need to explain why. I guess Mitt was snake bit and didn't have the confidence to do it.
Whatever. Of the two, Obama was the one skating most because it's clear he's unclear.
Cocky and unclear is not a way to go through life let alone trying to be a leader.
All this to say, as I've pointed out for the last couple of years, Obama's foreign policy is less than impressive and seems incoherent. And there's that whole not attending over 50% of intelligence briefings problem.
Alas, someone in the "in" confirms the suspicion as Rosa Brooks does in FP.
Couple of excerpts:
"...If President Obama lacks a clear strategic foreign policy vision, it's partly because the strategic planning shops within the White House's National Security Staff (NSS) and the State Department have been marginalized and disempowered. Within the NSS, the Strategic Planning Directorate has been reduced to a speech-writing shop, without the clout to bring senior officials to the table for longer-term strategy discussions. At the State Department, thePolicy Planning office -- once run by such legendary figures as George Kennan and Paul Nitze -- was handed off, after Anne-Marie Slaughter's departure, to a young lawyer whose credentials include ample brains and a stint as a Clinton campaign aide, but no prior foreign policy experience..."
"...President Obama promised to ensure transparency and competence in government, but too often, nepotism trumps merit. Young and untried campaign aides are handed vital substantive portfolios (I could name names, but will charitably refrain, unless you buy me a drink), while those with deep expertise often find themselves sidelined.
Cronyism also reigns supreme when it comes to determining who should attend White House meetings: increasingly, insiders say, meetings called by top NSS officials involve by-name requests for attendance, with no substitutions or "plus ones" permitted. As a result, dissenting voices are shut out, along with the voices of specialists who could provide valuable information and insights. The result? Shallow discussions and poor decisions..."
"Getting out of his bubble may not come naturally for Obama. As Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, put it in an unguarded moment, "The truth is, Obama doesn't call anyone, and he's not close to almost anyone. It's stunning that he's in politics, because he really doesn't like people." [Ed. note: Tanden later clarified her words, tweeting "I was trying to say how President Obama, who I admire greatly, is a private person, but I deeply regret how I said it. I apologize.]
Line of the night came by way of the President (which happened to be the most tweeted moment):
It was Obama's comeback to Romney's attack about the decreasing size of the U.S. military. "We also have fewer horses and bayonets," was the reply.
Update: I heard the rest of this. Obama later went on to say something to the effect "we have these battleships" which came across as condescending. That hurts the zing-o-meter.
Obama is America's Stephane Dion. Remember him? The former ineffective Liberal leader who was a professor? Dion didn't have leadership skills. He had academic skills. Big difference.
Obama is not a natural leader. Even the way Romney sat at the table showed that.
Overall what's the verdict over the three debates? Since I'm lazy at the moment, I will call it a draw. But Romney's knock out in the first debate may yet prove the decider. Like in sports you have to always be "on" or you lose, Obama couldn't afford that luxury anymore a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher could.
Man, the Giants made St. Louis pitchers their bitches.
Pussy Riots head off to prison camp for, erm, freedom of speech.
A punk band. Imagine that.
I don't consider them a G8 country anyway. I remember listening to one of their diplomats go on tv and act like an idiot trying to spin the idea that democracy and freedom is seen differently in Russia.
I wanted to text 'go suck on a lemon, lemming.'
I don't plan to live in Russia so...when in Rome I suppose...
Speaking of Russia.
Nice women her (Polina Telyuk) and her daughter.
While it's a clear case of fraud, the man has to be smarter than this.
Still, change the rules already to make it harder for scammers to get in.
Ghastly. Embarrassing. Haunting.
For shame, Italia. Home of my ancestors.
Cicero, Dante, Da Vinci, Galileo, Vico et al hang their heads in shame.
Shame on the prosecutors for falling into a Dark Age witch hunt in search of scape goats.
Who's next? Politicians who lie to the point of criminal? Investment advisors who recommend stocks based on their best judgments only to drop for reasons beyond their control? Doctors who misdiagnose a patient?
The thing is, and this is just me and how I compute things, if you're gonna try and smuggle stuff past the Israeli's (however good the intentions), be ready for the consequences if caught. Israel doesn't fuck around. The entire world knows Israel will defend itself at all cost.
You can't go in there with just good-intentions. You need a serious dose of reality and pragmatism.
Personally these clowns are in contact with the murderous Hamas so I don't have much sympathy.
I love this line by former NDPer Jim Manly's son whose father was taken in by the Israelis:
"...While he is in good health for his age, he is not as resilient as he was in his youth and has medication he needs to take daily. I hope that the Israeli Defence Forces respect his human rights and legal rights and treat him with the respect and dignity he deserves,” said Paul Manly..."
Let's break this down.
Implicit of course, is the possiblility Israel will mistreat his father.
While he is in good health for his age, he is not as resilient as he was in his youth and has medication he needs to take daily
That's his problem. Not to sound uncaring and all, but no one asked him to take such a risk.
I hope that the Israeli Defence Forces respect his human rights and legal rights and treat him with the respect and dignity he deserves
Oh. You mean like he set out to respect Israel's legal rights with the dignity it feels it deserves?
Old man gives Khadr $700.
That's right, Jack. The Taliban kill 'gay atheists" like you.
Read in a Moldovan, Hispanic, Welsh accent:
"I'm a political science student and I'm worried about my job prospects. What will (or can) you do to get me a job?"
It's a fucking lame ass question.
And it deserves a meek, incoherent response - which it usually does.
Moderator: Mr. President you won the coin toss, so you go first. Each candidate will have 1 minute to respond. By that, I mean 3 minutes for the President and 45 seconds for the governor.
President: Thank you, it pays to sleep with the moderator...so to speak. Heh. Congratulations on being a student. Students are our precious, if not increasingly over rated, precious commodity. Rising cost of tuition is straddling students with crushing debt. My plan will include bringing costs down. It's not right that you have to pay such high tuition while the grandma and her binders are parading around the country making money off Big Bird. OK? Good. Make the rich guy next to you pay. Go ahead. Take him out for coffee and ask him why he doesn't love you or your girlfriend.
Now here's what I'm going to do, if elected President, I'm going to invest in more, not less, green energy. Sure it's been a miserable failure, but it's not money if you don't see it, right? Besides, the electric car is too important an issue to ignore. If I do this, you can get a job on an assembly line. You can talk von Clausewitz with Bubba on the line. You have to do your part in educating the working class. We're all in this together. Maybe you can take your fancy degree and figure out how we're going to power Mack trucks with a battery.
Another thing we'll do is invest in infrastructure. This is the key to any economy. We need to stimulate the economy. Getting people back to work building bridges and repairing roads is the only way to get the large mass of uselessness back to work. Why not? Lance Armstrong won all those bike trophies stimulating himself, am I right? Stimulus works the same way. A nice hard shot of steroids. It's good in the short-term but weakens your muscles in the long run. But I ain'ts gonna be here in the long-run and by that time I can make up any excuse for or against any of my short-term policies.
All this to say, once you come out, there will be construction jobs for you. If not, there's always work at McDonald's. For now. There may not be if Mayor Bloomberg and New England liberal nanny-staters have their way. Before you know it, burgers will be tofu served on a Kamut bun. Mustard will be banned soon enough.
If that's not enough, my secret kill list is expanding. We can always use some bodies operating those fantastic drones. It's better than Playstation.
What are you studying, Koefilla is your name? Am I pronouncing it right?
Student: No you're not. It's Todd. And I'm studying Comparative Women's feminist-democratic doctrine in the Amazon.
Governor: Can I interject?
Moderator: Ha, ha.
President: Stop politicizing this. See? That's what Republicans do. They interject, hurl strawman, rough up, eat babies, steal Halloween candy, and lie, lie, lie.
Govenor: We do not!
Moderator: He's right. You do. Proceed, Barry...erm, Mr. President.
Presdient: I think I'm done.
Moderator: Great, moving along...
Governor: I didn't get a chance to answer young Timmy.
President: Shut your face, kid. (looks to governor) That's because you don't care.
Moderator: On to the plight of the African Bee...
A friend forwarded an article from The Tennessean endorsing Mitt Romney. They're not the only one. The Orlando Sentinel is doing the same.
The conversation in the thread is most interesting.
Fearless prediction: Romney is going to win.
If that happens you will have a Romney-Harper right-leaning alliance in North America.
Of the two, Harper is more conservative.
Interesting article in McClatchy and Benghazi.
Look. All I know is how it was reported and the administration chose the narrative that the video was at fault. Even the transcript from the Rose Garden sets up as such despite mentioning "act of terror" later on.
The bad part of all this was the denial of extra security despite repeated requests.
Could you imagine being ignored by your own government in time of need? Fellow citizens?
"In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business," he wrotein 1992. "I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day." In more recent years, citing the same experience, he campaigned against new labor regulations."
Truer words could not be spoken.
Just the other day I was in conversation with a client of mine and we discusses this exact issue only it was in a Quebec context.
Quebec (Canada in general), does a horrendous job at cultivating innovation and entrepreneurship and seeing how the buffoons in the PQ behave it's not hard to see why.
Man, there isn't a party I detest more and respect less than the Parti Quebecois.
I mentioned to him what I've proposed here in the past. I see value in having courses in entrepreneurship for young students. The whole lesson or term or whatever would be dedicated to opening a business. I would even talk about the philosophy of entrepreneurial endeavors.
It's only when people go through the process can they really appreciate what it takes to launch and operate a business. Only then would they see how a piece of legislation may look good to the person with nothing at stake but has serious consequences for the wealth creators.
McGovern's comment is a telling one and one in which needs to be sorely discussed. Too many people making the decisions don't know - heck perhaps even care - what the fuck they are doing.
It's as if they start a fire and simply walk away. Why not? It's so easy to not be accountable in politics.
Above all, away from the the business side of the post here, I like this:
"[M]ost Americans see the establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love," McGovern asserted in one of the great unknown campaign speeches in American history. "It is the establishment center that has led us into the stupidest and cruelest war in all history. That war is a moral and political disaster—a terrible cancer eating away the soul of the nation....It was not the American worker who designed the Vietnam war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center. As Walter Lippmann once observed, 'There is nothing worse than a belligerent professor.'"
Four decades later, America's president is a law prof with a kill list. I'd take McGovern over Obama any day.
McGovern sounds like he was Goldwater's twin in that they seemed like honorable men.
I guess secret kill lists, drone strikes, non-Congressional attacks on Libya, crony capitalism, spending wastes, internet crackdowns, divsive class warfare rhetoric, high unemployment and mishandled events like Fast & Furious and Benghazi don't quite make the artistic protesters cut.
I guess it's true what they say. It's ok to be someone's fool so long as they talk your game. Or was it me that said that? I forget.
It's funny. Artists are said to seek the truth. Yet, often they seem nothing but naive sheep.
Which explains why so many of them fell in love with communism.
Dude was counting points off his fingers for cripes sake.
Needless to say all the networks and supporters dying for a sterling Obama performance were going to score this 115-113 in favor of the President. In their eyes, this was as good as it gets and they were going to give the unanimous decision to to Obama. Binders, blunders and Big Birds is all they got to blast Romney back to wherever Mormons live.
Fuck the networks and supporters. You want real insight and I'm gonna give it to you.
What you saw was a guy who did what he shoulda done in the first place and merely put in an adequate performance. He went from abysmal to mediocre. He will get a chance to go over the top in the foreign policy debate on Monday. If he can't do it there, he's hopeless because Romney is rather weak on that front. I mean, what's with all this China bashing?
Anyway. Bottom line is he didn't defend his record and hardly shook the foundation as to why he should be re-elected.
Consider this response to a - I presume - a voter:
"QUESTION: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.
OBAMA: Well, we've gone through a tough four years. There's no doubt about it. But four years ago, I told the American people and I told you I would cut taxes for middle class families. And I did. I told you I'd cut taxes for small businesses, and I have.
I said that I'd end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we'd refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after Al Qaeda's leadership like never before and Osama bin Laden is dead."
First off, little loose on the taxes bit like Rod Stewart on a chick in a Scottish soccer stadium.
Small business corporate taxes are the same.
I've seen a lot of incentives and tax credits and stuff but not tax cuts.
And even if middle-class taxes were cut, and I'm not sure how it plays with the Bush tax cuts, he wiped that out with Obamacare which SCOTUS, in its judgment on the AHCA, agreed was a "tax."
Mind you, Romney didn't exactly answer a woman in the audience who asked about his positions on various tax deductions; the mortgage deduction, the child tax credit and the education tax credit.
He said he would simplify the tax code and lower taxes for the middle class while limiting deductions and exemptions for the wealthy and permitting taxpayers to claim up to $25,000 in deductions. Romney also claims middle-class taxpayers won't pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Good stuff but didn't answer the question.
More importantly, what the fuck does killing bin Laden got to do with the guys concerns about making ends meet? Does killing that idiot drop the price of corn that's leading to food inflation?
- As I wrote, much better for Obama but Romney still leads even though Obama seemed to have some support from the moderator.
-Weird moment in the debate about Benghazi. While it's true the administration was hesitant in its response and proceeded to go the "it was the video" route, they did play with words and Romney could have handled it better.
Everyone - I'm guessing of course - understands that the President didn't mean what he claims he meant to have said with "acts of terror." Acts of terror is not the same as "coordinated terrorist attack." It's actually outrageous really they would try and lie about this. But hey...he used the word terror.
That is not to say Obama won't bring the perpetrators to justice if he can. Of course he would.
-And how this chick Crowley is permitted to offer a rebuttal against Romney about this is beyond me. Most people would get fired for such a thing.
Transcript of what was said in the Rose Garden here.
Regardless, I don't think anyone can argue the administration as a whole mismanaged this one.
-Obama says oil drilling on Federal lands is up. Not true. At least according to the link. This one thinks it's more like half-wrong.
But apparently, Obama won on "points."
Please. That was no "decisive" victory. The numbers don't seem to be as giddy.
-Best line of the last month remains with Eleanore Clift when she said Obama is not comfortable with all the "politicking" in Washington. That's like saying a safety in football doesn't like tackling. If you don't like it, then why play the position, right?
- I was disappointed Obama didn't rush and tackle Romney Dr. Evil style.
Good thing about youtube. Once upon a time cops could abuse their power. Now, with arrival of modern social media, there are guardians watching the guards...finally.
Police chief Marc Parent apologizes to Montrealers here. I'm satisfied with how this was handled.
What triggered her to put a man in a choke hold and put in a distress call causing 20 cop cars to show up?
A beer can.
In liberal, hedonistic Quebec a beer can in public is the least offensive act here.
Subsidized daycare and the massive government involvement is not only wasteful, but patently unfair to private daycare owners and parents. This foolish, undeclared war on private business is rhetoric that has to be stamped out across the continent. It's pointless.
Free enterprise and free choice. This is the path to real prosperity here.
Not promising "free" things to all.
I give it the big T.C. A-Okay!
My first encounter with the story is not with the novel but the 1925 silent movie starring Lon Chaney. Gothic and scary. Like the novel intended.
It was awesome; although it didn't go exactly as the novel did. If memory serves me correct, Erik is killed by an angry mob in the film whereas he dies of a "broken heart" in the novel.
Interestingly, it's not the novel that captivated people as sales of the book remained poor. It was Broadway.
The Florida Board of Education came up with a diabolically racially driven standard formula that should outrage sensible minds.
The comments are encouraging. Their seems to be a backlash - as there should be.
I like this one:
"...We have had 40 years of WHITE LIBERAL racial tinkering in the education process. And this is where we are. It is clearly a cultural deficiency. Liberalism had destroyed black families, taken the men out of the homes and married the women to the government. Until minorities drop the hyphenated nationalism (African-American), they will not move further. Minorities have a self inflicted apartheid, they refuse to encourage excellence in their children, in dress, speech, education, not wanting to RISK looking too White. The culture of minorities must change from within or no amount of "norming" will ever work...."
The wrong people are leading the way...
Of all the lending strategies out there the mortgage to buy a home is the most familiar one to investors. Over time, after years of diligently paying it down, you own a home. It's a "debt asset" people have come to accept as a part of life if one wants to own a home.
Yet, if you were to suggest taking out a line of credit on your commercial asset, home or on your income to buy property for revenue streams, the concept seems too risky.
Everything has risk to be sure, but if you can secure a line of credit, it's a great "bridge" to future financial security. You just have to be ready for it and make sure you have a plan in place.
You don't want to sink $30 000 borrowed off a credit line in a fly by night scheme. Logically, you invest in tried and tested investments - say Blue Chip stocks, if you're into that sort of thing - like an apartment building or duplex.
In order to get a credit line, you need to show income or assets for banks to secure their loan off. There's no real secret as to how to go about getting one: Just work. You should be eligible for even a $25 000 line of credit.
The beauty of a line of credit is that you don't have to pay down the principal like a mortgage. As long as you cover the interest, the money "saved" can be used for other things in the meantime. The theory is once you amass a stable income flow to provide for a lifestyle you set, you can begin to pay it down. In other words, it's flexible...so long as the bank doesn't call it in. Which is rare.
Next, you need to determine what you want to buy as dictated by what you can afford.
There are many factors to consider and the best thing to do is exhaustively research things. Talk to real estate agents. Bankers. People you may know who are familiar with this sort of stuff. You'd be surprised what you can learn.
Gathering information is one thing. Acting on it is quite another.
Here's a link to using leveraging to buy rental properties for the first time.
Fucking hubris is dangerous.
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now..."
I've always felt that leaders described as "visionaries" in history books usually had the benefit of a lot of luck to reach whatever it was they were trying to do. And I'm gonna go on a limb here and assume he ain't gonna be no visionary.
"provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless..."
What exactly did he have in mind when he said "good jobs?"
Good piece in The Daily Beast about Biden.
"...I watched the proceedings on a big screen together with 250 listeners from the Seattle flagship station for my radio show. In the discussion afterward, one of the women present said that Biden made her cringe by reminding her precisely of her abusive ex-husband. Another 23-year-old came up to me afterward and emphatically agreed, saying she had just left her own abusive relationship and that watching Biden’s antics gave her the creeps in the same way that her former boyfriend’s dismissive snickering always made her feel inadequate...."
No kidding his facial expressions were infantile. It's been said Biden won on "substance" but to me he was trying to manipulate the room and voter. We've all met people who do things like that. How does it make YOU feel? I know what I do. Once the urge to slug them is past, I ignore them.
Let's look at it this way, if you have children and you're teaching them all the civil cues we expect from one another, who would you point to to further your point, Ryan or Biden?
That wasn't a strategy, it was satire unhinged.
It was more like a hack hockey team with no talent going out and playing old time hockey by not actually playing but smashing people into the ice.
Now you get the picture why his behavior was bad? You don't have to be from any party to conclude it was rude - interrupting someone 82 times is annoying.
Plus. And this is a BIG plus, he's the acting VP. A leader of a nation of America's stature simply shouldn't be acting that way.
Did anyone catch Biden takes swipes at the intelligence community with Benghazi and then use their reports to cite the state of Iran's nuclear capabilities when it suited him?
I don't know about the people who thought Biden won, but where I come from that's poor debating when you contradict yourself.
Indeed, there's plenty of lying going around. The only trouble for the Democrats is that their in power and they're lying counts more.
In the end it all came off as...
It's almost as if they're not even trying anymore.
Thor: Who do we give the award to this year Ingrid?
Ingrid: How should I know? I'm busy marinating the reindeer. Look in the "Last resort" bin.
Thor: Hm. OWS? Charles Taylor? Fuck it. What about the EU? Sure, Greece is simmering with violence but what do you think? It's the intention that matters.
Ingrid: Whatever you say. Can you come help prepare the Lutefisk?