Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Rugby
This link to This Modern World was brought to my attention by QandO.
Well Bob should take a little more time to learn about rugby and the nature of rugby at college.
First off. Virtually every rugby team in college is a 'club team', one of the few exceptions being UC Berkeley where it is a school sponsored 'varsity sport'. Of course if one has ever played club rugby (also note that most rugby teams have the word 'club' in its name ie. Los Angeles Rugby Club, Santa Monica Rugby Club) its just like playing for a varsity team (without the gpa requirements or restrictions on alcohol usage). When I played college rugby we were a club team (thanks to title 9 & a cheap school), but the only difference between varsity sports was what club teams couldn't do or facility use that was prohibited. Most common occurrences were not being able to use the field (many times because it had been rented out for high school soccer) , no financial support to travel to away games, no access to athletic department gym, no access to school trainers (had to pool money to rent a trainer) or training room, no scheduling preference, and so on. But making a big deal when a rugby player doesn't specify the difference between a varsity sport and a club sport, its time to get some help.
Then Bob goes into the 'fouls' Bush is committing.
I important note that needs to be made, many rules in rugby no longer apply when you are either offsides or on the ground. Those are two places where you are pretty much fair game and if you are on the ground and offsides, may god have mercy on your soul.
Now back to Bob on the rules. The following is taken from the IRB rule book (in green) with my comments.
10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Penalty: Penalty Kick
This one is kind of obvious, however there are exceptions. Inadvertent actions that do not injure or lead to a unfair advantage are let go. Also if a player is engaged in acts like not releasing the ball, playing the ball offside, or playing the ball while on the ground one can use various bodily appendages to encourage the release of the ball and discourage the player from continuing that behavior.
(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Like the above there are exceptions or cases where it was let go. One time I was watching a Super 12 match where on tv was heard saying, "you're not allowed to step on him until you see the ball," of course the player the ref was referring to was offsides, on the ground, and holding on to the ball. He hit the no-no trifecta.
(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Accidental will usually be let go otherwise its one of the full-tim no-nos.
(d) Tripping. A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Same as Above
(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
A "stiff-arm tackle" is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle
when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
The referee decides whether or not a tackle is dangerous. The referee takes into account the circumstances, such as the apparent intentions of the tackler, or the nature of the tackle, or the defenseless position of the player being tackled or knocked over. Any of these may result in serious injury. All forms of dangerous tackling must be punished severely. A player who
commits this type of foul must be sent-off. Advantage may be played, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Here is where Bob has issues. The legality of a tackle is left up to the digression of the referee. If the ref says its dangerous its dangerous or vise versa. Another VERY important thing to note the original rule regarding the method of tackling was ONLY "Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously," and the rest of the rule was added added in the 90's and 00's (when I took the refing course in '99 there was no specific rule written about tackling above the shoulders, just on dangerous tackling). If you want to call into question the 'legality' of a tackle you'd have to find the ref from that game.
(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, or push, or charge into, or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
No comment here.
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
This is semi-applicable to Bush, but the photo shows he is trying to wrap him up.
(h) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a line-out or in open play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Sorry Bob, it doesn't say the tackler can't leave his feet, it says you cannot tackle the ball carrier when he is off the ground. However if you have the ball and jump when a guy a tries to tackle you you get what you deserve.
Bob may watch a lot of pro or international rugby, heck so do I and you see people getting punched (more so if you know what to look for and when) even like that photo. Although the photo really doesn't show anything to the intent, basically it is what ever intent you want it to be. If Bob watches a lot of college rugby you would see tackles like that all the time (even some times in the pro-level too) examples of various tackles can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here. To say Bush was out of fair play because of the tackle he was performing is wrong, because one rule referenced doesn't exist and the no above the shoulders rule wasn't around back then in the form it is in now. Even in today's college rugby (and most rugby) the ref will correct a non-hazardous rule infraction and give the player the opportunity to correct his action before calling a penalty. If it is a case of dangerous play the ref will make a correction, even stopping play to reprimand a player for it, but will not sin-bin or send-off a player for first time inadvertent offenses.
I guess its a weird left disease applying rules of today to the past (where they didn't exist in current form) or even making up rules just because they need something. I will admit that if that occurred today the majority of refs would call him for a dangerous tackle and award a penalty kick ad far as the alleged 'punch' you'd have to see the whole event. But an important thing to note about rugby, the game ends when the clock stops and you cross the touchline. Then you go out and drink beer, in fact odds are Bush probably bought the guy he 'punched' a beer.
Well Bob should take a little more time to learn about rugby and the nature of rugby at college.
First off. Virtually every rugby team in college is a 'club team', one of the few exceptions being UC Berkeley where it is a school sponsored 'varsity sport'. Of course if one has ever played club rugby (also note that most rugby teams have the word 'club' in its name ie. Los Angeles Rugby Club, Santa Monica Rugby Club) its just like playing for a varsity team (without the gpa requirements or restrictions on alcohol usage). When I played college rugby we were a club team (thanks to title 9 & a cheap school), but the only difference between varsity sports was what club teams couldn't do or facility use that was prohibited. Most common occurrences were not being able to use the field (many times because it had been rented out for high school soccer) , no financial support to travel to away games, no access to athletic department gym, no access to school trainers (had to pool money to rent a trainer) or training room, no scheduling preference, and so on. But making a big deal when a rugby player doesn't specify the difference between a varsity sport and a club sport, its time to get some help.
Then Bob goes into the 'fouls' Bush is committing.
Incidentally, while rugby is a contact sport, every player knows that tackling above the shoulders is a foul. So is leaving your feet during a tackle. Either of these is serious enough that the other team is immediately awarded a penalty kick, often directly resulting in points for the other team. So even without throwing a punch, Bush is already well outside fair play. Grasping an opponent by the back of the head and punching him in the face is beyond the pale -- I've watched rugby avidly for years, and I've never seen it during an open-field tackle like this, honest -- and will typically result in a player being immediately sent off.Bob needs to make sure he is actually watching rugby and by chance, purchase a rule book.
I important note that needs to be made, many rules in rugby no longer apply when you are either offsides or on the ground. Those are two places where you are pretty much fair game and if you are on the ground and offsides, may god have mercy on your soul.
Now back to Bob on the rules. The following is taken from the IRB rule book (in green) with my comments.
10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Penalty: Penalty Kick
This one is kind of obvious, however there are exceptions. Inadvertent actions that do not injure or lead to a unfair advantage are let go. Also if a player is engaged in acts like not releasing the ball, playing the ball offside, or playing the ball while on the ground one can use various bodily appendages to encourage the release of the ball and discourage the player from continuing that behavior.
(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Like the above there are exceptions or cases where it was let go. One time I was watching a Super 12 match where on tv was heard saying, "you're not allowed to step on him until you see the ball," of course the player the ref was referring to was offsides, on the ground, and holding on to the ball. He hit the no-no trifecta.
(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Accidental will usually be let go otherwise its one of the full-tim no-nos.
(d) Tripping. A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Same as Above
(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
A "stiff-arm tackle" is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle
when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
The referee decides whether or not a tackle is dangerous. The referee takes into account the circumstances, such as the apparent intentions of the tackler, or the nature of the tackle, or the defenseless position of the player being tackled or knocked over. Any of these may result in serious injury. All forms of dangerous tackling must be punished severely. A player who
commits this type of foul must be sent-off. Advantage may be played, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Here is where Bob has issues. The legality of a tackle is left up to the digression of the referee. If the ref says its dangerous its dangerous or vise versa. Another VERY important thing to note the original rule regarding the method of tackling was ONLY "Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously," and the rest of the rule was added added in the 90's and 00's (when I took the refing course in '99 there was no specific rule written about tackling above the shoulders, just on dangerous tackling). If you want to call into question the 'legality' of a tackle you'd have to find the ref from that game.
(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, or push, or charge into, or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
No comment here.
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
This is semi-applicable to Bush, but the photo shows he is trying to wrap him up.
(h) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a line-out or in open play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Sorry Bob, it doesn't say the tackler can't leave his feet, it says you cannot tackle the ball carrier when he is off the ground. However if you have the ball and jump when a guy a tries to tackle you you get what you deserve.
Bob may watch a lot of pro or international rugby, heck so do I and you see people getting punched (more so if you know what to look for and when) even like that photo. Although the photo really doesn't show anything to the intent, basically it is what ever intent you want it to be. If Bob watches a lot of college rugby you would see tackles like that all the time (even some times in the pro-level too) examples of various tackles can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here. To say Bush was out of fair play because of the tackle he was performing is wrong, because one rule referenced doesn't exist and the no above the shoulders rule wasn't around back then in the form it is in now. Even in today's college rugby (and most rugby) the ref will correct a non-hazardous rule infraction and give the player the opportunity to correct his action before calling a penalty. If it is a case of dangerous play the ref will make a correction, even stopping play to reprimand a player for it, but will not sin-bin or send-off a player for first time inadvertent offenses.
I guess its a weird left disease applying rules of today to the past (where they didn't exist in current form) or even making up rules just because they need something. I will admit that if that occurred today the majority of refs would call him for a dangerous tackle and award a penalty kick ad far as the alleged 'punch' you'd have to see the whole event. But an important thing to note about rugby, the game ends when the clock stops and you cross the touchline. Then you go out and drink beer, in fact odds are Bush probably bought the guy he 'punched' a beer.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
More Oddities
Caption Contest & Iraq
Make your own Caption for this:
"Kerry finds the only position he hasn't taken yet"
"Its a hard days work walking the double speak track, is that the Bush train coming?"
Of course now Kerry says he would of gone into Iraq, even knowing what we know now. Gee trying to sound like Bush now isn't he? Of course Bush didn't miss this gem from Kerry.
"Kerry finds the only position he hasn't taken yet"
"Its a hard days work walking the double speak track, is that the Bush train coming?"
Of course now Kerry says he would of gone into Iraq, even knowing what we know now. Gee trying to sound like Bush now isn't he? Of course Bush didn't miss this gem from Kerry.
Can't Muster a International Coalition
From the oddly enough news, UN can't muster UN members to form a UN security force to protect UN mission in Iraq. And Kerry still says he will get more of a 'international coalition' to help in a Iraq? Once again a Kerry statement doesn't pass the smell test.
The grass is not greener
Great article on the difference between the US and European Economies (or lack there of). A brief quote from the article:
A new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the United StatesTake a look and post an opinion.
with real gross domestic product per person in 2003 of $34,960 (in 1999
dollars). This is well above every European country. The most productive
European country, Norway, has a per capita GDP of just $30,882 (converted using
purchasing power parity exchange rates). The major countries of Europe are even
further behind: United Kingdom ($26,039), France ($25,578), Italy ($24,894) and
Germany ($24,813). In other words, Europeans produce no more per year than
Americans did 20 years ago. And they are not catching up.
Barry Bonds, Major League Wussie
What is Barry Bonds deal?
Now Bonds is on for $18 Million (average) for the next two seasons, it breaks down to about $110,000 a game and approximately $37,000 an hour. Hey Barry quite complaining there are people who spend far more than 3 hours a day on their feet and work for 1/3700 of that amount. Then he expects those same people to spend their money to buy Barry Bonds apparel and come to the game to see Barry play, but only if Barry isn't too tired from having to stand 3 hours and god forbid walk from the dugout all the way to left field. Maybe they can let him sit in the bullpen so he has a shorter walk or they could drive him out in a golf cart. Why stop there, drive him around the bases too.
Of course we can't forget Bonds idiot comments about Boston being too racist and they never build anything for blacks. Well how the heck does Bonds get to Pac Bell Park and not walk past the Willie Mays Statue, or notice that the park is on McCovey Point next to McCovey Cove. Last time I checked they were black. And about Boston being to racist, yeah that really explains the popularity of Mo Vaughn (when he was there), David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Nomar Garciaparra(up till a few weeks ago), & Pedro Martinez.
This just adds to reasons why I can never like Barry Bonds he whines, he complains, he says stupid things, and his head keeps getting bigger. I think I'll go home tonight and watch my 2002 World Series DVD and laugh at Bonds coming oh-so-close and having it taken away (by the better team).
Walking is harder than hitting because you're on your feet all day. I
never sit down. I'd go on the bases, stand up, go to get my glove and
stand out there, except for a few minutes, go and hit, grab my glove, run a
base, score, whatever, grab my glove, go out there. That's hard. That's
not easy. Let somebody do that and see how it feels.
Now Bonds is on for $18 Million (average) for the next two seasons, it breaks down to about $110,000 a game and approximately $37,000 an hour. Hey Barry quite complaining there are people who spend far more than 3 hours a day on their feet and work for 1/3700 of that amount. Then he expects those same people to spend their money to buy Barry Bonds apparel and come to the game to see Barry play, but only if Barry isn't too tired from having to stand 3 hours and god forbid walk from the dugout all the way to left field. Maybe they can let him sit in the bullpen so he has a shorter walk or they could drive him out in a golf cart. Why stop there, drive him around the bases too.
Of course we can't forget Bonds idiot comments about Boston being too racist and they never build anything for blacks. Well how the heck does Bonds get to Pac Bell Park and not walk past the Willie Mays Statue, or notice that the park is on McCovey Point next to McCovey Cove. Last time I checked they were black. And about Boston being to racist, yeah that really explains the popularity of Mo Vaughn (when he was there), David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Nomar Garciaparra(up till a few weeks ago), & Pedro Martinez.
This just adds to reasons why I can never like Barry Bonds he whines, he complains, he says stupid things, and his head keeps getting bigger. I think I'll go home tonight and watch my 2002 World Series DVD and laugh at Bonds coming oh-so-close and having it taken away (by the better team).
Shape Up or Get Used to the Name 'Girlfriend'
A Winnipeg judge warned two violent young offenders Monday that they face bleak futures - which could include being raped in federal prison - if they don't turn their troubled lives around. And yes the judge in Canadia actually said this:
You know thats kind of funny, I wonder if it will work. Only time will tell.
"I don't know whether you're prepared to consider yourself the girlfriend of
some guy in there. But that's what awaits you. An 18-year-old fresh face comes
in and it's fair game. Think about that."
You know thats kind of funny, I wonder if it will work. Only time will tell.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Viet Cong Vets for Kerry
Response to Dutch
Response to this post here.
* True, but it doesn't mean that they have the possibility's to have a very happy life etc. They might have some 'former luxuries' but what they lack is money to keep their homes etc.
In the eighties there was an economic down period as well. People had 'luxuries' at that time as well. But they had trouble making enough money because of the high unemployment. Leading to divorces, leading to drug use, leading to abnormal suicide rates. Read the first 100/150 pages of the Kurt Cobain biography heavier than heaven and you know what I'm talking about. (the drug use and suicide stuff can better be found in another nirvana biography: Come as U are)
Well, it depends on how you think on becomes happy. Sure for few money may make you happier however, most often money only makes you more of what you already are. Happiness is hard to have but it relies heavily on the person it takes a choice to be happy. Of course its hard work to be happy, its much easier to be down in the dumps. As far as former "luxury items" their cost came down because the cost to produce those items became less. Also cutting taxes makes those products more affordable. When payroll taxes are high, those high taxes are passed on to the consumer by building in the cost the company pays in taxes (also add in insurance, legal settlements, benefits programs, etc which also add to the item's cost) into the product. These institutionalized costs can make up inexcess of 25% of the cost of a product. This also is hurting US exports because those built in costs follow the product overseas, where the VAT is dropped when it crosses a border. In the early 80's unemployment was high (up to 9.7%) but as the decade moved on the unemployment rate dropped, as did the inflation rate and tax rate. By the end of the 80's the nation was flirting with full employment, with some increases int he early 90's we then returned to full employment and over-employment, then the downturn that began in 2000 increase unemployment, but it is in a recent decline as the economy grows. There would be some correlation between divorce and unemployment, but making divorce easier played a larger part in that increase. I would hardly call Cobain the "typical" American in the late 80's and 90's. Also Cobain had many of his unhappiness issues that led to heavy drug use and eventual suicide long before he became rich and famous and not surprisingly fame and money didn't solve his problems, it only made them worse. The 80's boom carried through the 90's and was ended by the burst of the "tech bubble" which is a major factor the economic downturn in the us from 2000-2002. Here is a brief reference to Euro unemployment.
* ok
No comment required here.
* France and Russia probably would have agreed with a resolution which would allow military action if Iraq wouldn't fully co-operate.
The two examples you give can be easily answered...
O yeah, Sudan...haha...you really have things going on now. I mean, you really are saints. You're saving the world aren't you. What the hell is the pope doing in Rome when he could just as easily get a place in America...in Brooklyn for instance...
They did agree to a UN Resolution to allow military action, 1441. They just never intended to follow through, ever. Shown by the debate of what "serious consequences" meant and then when resolution specifically said "military action" they threatened a to veto it. Of course riding while riding the oil-for-food scam gravy train why would you support a regime change?
What would those answers be?
Lets compare results, the US got involved in Iraq and Saddam is no longer filling mass graves. The UN is attempting to get involved in Sudan and people are still dying. Or Haiti, the UN won't even go to Haiti. Of course in the Hague the World Court says its wrong for Israel to build a fence to protect its citizens from being blown up because its a inconvenience to the Palestinians.
No clue why a Pope reference was brought in.
* Hmm, you first use the fact that Blix has a feeling that Iraq has had WMD as an argument yet a reply later you state he clearly wasn't capable of doing his job.
And if it looks like they were old weapons, does it not show that he wasn't good at finding the weapons America supplied?
Time to wake up. "Israel doesn't support terrorism and has not desire to give their WMD program to support the mass murder of civilians." WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Destruction of what. According to you not of people. Of what then? Flowers? Ever heard about the cold war. How world war three came very close at some point? I believe it was Einstein who said something like: "I don't know with what type of weapons WW3 will be fought. I only know that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"
It was to illustrate why the UN inspections didn't work, the head inspector had his own agenda behind what he reported. In court to change your testimony to differ from what you know/believe to achieve a given goal is purgery. Being that the US supplied only about 1% (along with Egypt, Romania, Denmark, & Lybia) of Saddam's arms, far behind Russia's 57%, France's 13%, China's 12%, Czechoslovakica's 7%, Poland's 4%, & Brazil's 2%. See it here. No WMDs are to kill innocent people. Israel does not condone or encourage the killing of innocent civilians on say buses or in restaurants, neither to they fill UN ambulances up with gunmen go to a scene burst out and gun down anyone around. However, the PA condones these actions. Yes I do know about the cold war, my parents did fallout drills in school and on my way to elementary school I would walk past a building marked "fallout shelter". In fact in some places you can still find old PA systems for public address in a emergency. Yes war came close many times, but neither side was ready and willing to make the first move that could destroy the world. Unfortunately the Islamo-Fascists that are killing westerners now (yes that includes you) don't care about that so long as they kill westerners/non-Muslims (in fact they don't really care if they kill Muslims either). Even if Israel and the US ceased to exist, they would still be out there and all of the sudden you would be at the top of the list, although in all likelyhood you already are on the "to be sacrificed" list.
* When have they found those? After Saddam was captured? Wow, that gave Bush some justification. How convenient when people ask about the deaths there. You know. Perhaps I'm, just bitter but I'm not surprised if Osama gets caught in a little less than 3 months. On the first of November to be precise. I hope understand what I'm implying.
What I was trying to say with the white spirit example is that chemicals will be found. That's logical. But the intention can't be proven.
They were shipped out before and during the war and found after. Also they have found some delivery systems and chemical weapons since the invasion. Iraq is a large country and you can't search everywhere quickly, especially when there are Multiple weapons dumps the size of Manhattan and everything is unmarked. So they still may be out there. More importantly is where are they now, everyone knows he had them, but where are they now, who has them and what are they going to do with them? Yes all the left pundits are saying that too. In fact everytime they issue a terror warning or catch a terrorist they fling out the accusation that they are playing politics.
Yes that is an example of what can be found, but intention can be determined. Even more so with Al Qaida. They spend years preparing an attack doing surveillance, research, testing, & planning. The goal is to find them when they are still planning. So far every Al Qaida plan is in the works for years before implemented 9-11 was in planning for years, the bombing on the USS Cole was planned for at least 3 years, and the planning for bombings in Madrid began before 9-11 (partially in anger over the Moors being kicked out).
* What you're trying to say is: If we follow Kyoto and similar regulations we can't develop new methods. Priorities. Keyword. Priorities. You have three places to put a plug in. You have a TV, a telephone, a sewing machine and a lamp. You decide to build in another place for a plug so you can have all four plugged in at the same time. That it costs extra doesn't matter.
I'm not saying you can't develop new methods if Kyoto is around, I'm saying Kyoto is the wrong approach. Here in California, the regulation based system has been a huge failure. Regulators don't care about developing new methods they just care about the regulation and the bases for enforcement makes the goals unobtainable and nothing gets done. Finally there is talk of reforming the system where you can implement new ideas to achieve a overall benefit and actually make the solution feasible and affordable. The problem with Kyoto is there is a huge cost associated with it, it cripples economies which will lead to high unemployment and will make products expensive. With Kyoto you could still build the extra outlet, but you won't be allowed to generate the power to run it.
* But capitalism also means a commercialised world. Globalization. Here's diet coke, here's britney...Buy buy buy...get the goods...get the goods...buy buy buy.
Besides, you're implying that people who don't have a job don't do what they can to find a job. To get to work. Here in Holland people who don't have a job and who are able to work get money so they can live a decent life. But at the same time they get forced to find a job because otherwise their income gets cut. In your country people are depending on charity. Yeah sure, they perhaps give a lot and yeah, charities handle money better than a government but I think that still, per capita, we give more money to the poor than America.
In capitalism you want people to buy your good so you have to make it better, cheaper and/or convince people it is the best that can buy. Here is a brief article on Globalization and Free-Markets. The competition helps the consumer making items more affordable allowing the consumer to stretch the money they make to fulfill what ever (legal) need they may have. Actually some people don't try and find jobs for various reasons and some are unable to find work. Another issue is people won't do some work because it is "below them", which is shown by the amount of illegal immigration and the number of jobs illegally filled by illegal immigrants. Here are links on US Generosity by State and here too. The US Government gives the most money to international aid and per capita Americans give more to charity as shown here. It is broke down in Euros per capita where the US is at 278 and the next closest is Spain at 122 (Holland is at 110). Then here is a article comparing the US and Canada along with charitable donations vs. tax rates.
* excises (that's the word my dictionary gave me, forgive me if it's not the correct word) aren't always justified. I agree with that. I think that they are justified on stuff like tobacco and liquor but apart from 'pleasurement goods' I don't agree with it indeed.
"it expects people to work for next to nothing [why]" After WW2 we had to rebuild our country. How to do that? Keeping inflation low. How to do that? Low wages/high taxes. Why do we agree? First of all. Over here workers are united in unions. Those unions discuss terms with the government. Not the workers. Those unions know (knew) what's good for the country. They don't try to get as much as possible for the workers on short term. But as much as possible on the long term.
Back to taxes. Low demand (because of high taxes) means low prices. You don't notice it within the country itself. Only when you go abroad.
Divorce. America has a different religious history than Europe. No comparison possible. period.
Excise is the correct word. I like the idea of a consumption/sales tax, where you pay when you purchase a good or service and is a far better system than income tax. The income tax (& payroll taxes) punishes one for working and the cost of the tax is passed on to the consumer by building in that cost to the price of the good or service. So when income taxes rise the cost of a good or service rises. Also in the income tax system is is easier to hide income from being taxed (much more so if you have the money to spend on a good accountant), where as the sales tax is much hard to cheat and will require less government oversight. In the recent plans it also includes refunds up to the poverty line, where the poor will not pay taxes on any amount of income spent up to that point. Another benefit is it puts more money in the pockets of those doing the work and gives them more monetary freedom to support themselves. The other benefit is you can drop that tax when you ship goods overseas (along with taking out the built in costs) making your product more competitive for overseas buyers.
We have unions here to, however the nature of unions has changed. Now the majority of union membership is government employees, a fact exploited by the democrats to get union support because they are the big government party. They have led to long term gains for works at the cost of federal/state/local budgets and ultimately the tax payers. In Los Angeles it is actually cheaper to make firemen work overtime than hire a new firefighters. So if you pay a fireman $100 it will cost the city $150 to have that fireman work overtime, but when you hire a new fireman and pay them $100 it cost $160 in additional benefits, retirement, etc. Often working for a government agency for 20 years insures you will receive a pension of 90% of your final salary until you die. The wonders of the unions have also made it virtually impossible to fire anyone regardless of performance on the job. In many cases when the work load for a agency increases they cannot subcontract (who can do the work cheaper) out the extra work, so they have to hire more employees, which they cannot get rid of even if they have no work for them and the burden on the tax payers. These factors balloon government spending and hurt the ability to spend tax payer money on infrastructure and services that actually help.
Yes Europe and America do have different religious history, which is a major factor in American Jews voting Democratic because more practicing Christians are Republican and the treatment of European Jews at the hands of European Christians still sits in the minds of many Jews.
* True, but it doesn't mean that they have the possibility's to have a very happy life etc. They might have some 'former luxuries' but what they lack is money to keep their homes etc.
In the eighties there was an economic down period as well. People had 'luxuries' at that time as well. But they had trouble making enough money because of the high unemployment. Leading to divorces, leading to drug use, leading to abnormal suicide rates. Read the first 100/150 pages of the Kurt Cobain biography heavier than heaven and you know what I'm talking about. (the drug use and suicide stuff can better be found in another nirvana biography: Come as U are)
Well, it depends on how you think on becomes happy. Sure for few money may make you happier however, most often money only makes you more of what you already are. Happiness is hard to have but it relies heavily on the person it takes a choice to be happy. Of course its hard work to be happy, its much easier to be down in the dumps. As far as former "luxury items" their cost came down because the cost to produce those items became less. Also cutting taxes makes those products more affordable. When payroll taxes are high, those high taxes are passed on to the consumer by building in the cost the company pays in taxes (also add in insurance, legal settlements, benefits programs, etc which also add to the item's cost) into the product. These institutionalized costs can make up inexcess of 25% of the cost of a product. This also is hurting US exports because those built in costs follow the product overseas, where the VAT is dropped when it crosses a border. In the early 80's unemployment was high (up to 9.7%) but as the decade moved on the unemployment rate dropped, as did the inflation rate and tax rate. By the end of the 80's the nation was flirting with full employment, with some increases int he early 90's we then returned to full employment and over-employment, then the downturn that began in 2000 increase unemployment, but it is in a recent decline as the economy grows. There would be some correlation between divorce and unemployment, but making divorce easier played a larger part in that increase. I would hardly call Cobain the "typical" American in the late 80's and 90's. Also Cobain had many of his unhappiness issues that led to heavy drug use and eventual suicide long before he became rich and famous and not surprisingly fame and money didn't solve his problems, it only made them worse. The 80's boom carried through the 90's and was ended by the burst of the "tech bubble" which is a major factor the economic downturn in the us from 2000-2002. Here is a brief reference to Euro unemployment.
* ok
No comment required here.
* France and Russia probably would have agreed with a resolution which would allow military action if Iraq wouldn't fully co-operate.
The two examples you give can be easily answered...
O yeah, Sudan...haha...you really have things going on now. I mean, you really are saints. You're saving the world aren't you. What the hell is the pope doing in Rome when he could just as easily get a place in America...in Brooklyn for instance...
They did agree to a UN Resolution to allow military action, 1441. They just never intended to follow through, ever. Shown by the debate of what "serious consequences" meant and then when resolution specifically said "military action" they threatened a to veto it. Of course riding while riding the oil-for-food scam gravy train why would you support a regime change?
What would those answers be?
Lets compare results, the US got involved in Iraq and Saddam is no longer filling mass graves. The UN is attempting to get involved in Sudan and people are still dying. Or Haiti, the UN won't even go to Haiti. Of course in the Hague the World Court says its wrong for Israel to build a fence to protect its citizens from being blown up because its a inconvenience to the Palestinians.
No clue why a Pope reference was brought in.
* Hmm, you first use the fact that Blix has a feeling that Iraq has had WMD as an argument yet a reply later you state he clearly wasn't capable of doing his job.
And if it looks like they were old weapons, does it not show that he wasn't good at finding the weapons America supplied?
Time to wake up. "Israel doesn't support terrorism and has not desire to give their WMD program to support the mass murder of civilians." WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Destruction of what. According to you not of people. Of what then? Flowers? Ever heard about the cold war. How world war three came very close at some point? I believe it was Einstein who said something like: "I don't know with what type of weapons WW3 will be fought. I only know that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"
It was to illustrate why the UN inspections didn't work, the head inspector had his own agenda behind what he reported. In court to change your testimony to differ from what you know/believe to achieve a given goal is purgery. Being that the US supplied only about 1% (along with Egypt, Romania, Denmark, & Lybia) of Saddam's arms, far behind Russia's 57%, France's 13%, China's 12%, Czechoslovakica's 7%, Poland's 4%, & Brazil's 2%. See it here. No WMDs are to kill innocent people. Israel does not condone or encourage the killing of innocent civilians on say buses or in restaurants, neither to they fill UN ambulances up with gunmen go to a scene burst out and gun down anyone around. However, the PA condones these actions. Yes I do know about the cold war, my parents did fallout drills in school and on my way to elementary school I would walk past a building marked "fallout shelter". In fact in some places you can still find old PA systems for public address in a emergency. Yes war came close many times, but neither side was ready and willing to make the first move that could destroy the world. Unfortunately the Islamo-Fascists that are killing westerners now (yes that includes you) don't care about that so long as they kill westerners/non-Muslims (in fact they don't really care if they kill Muslims either). Even if Israel and the US ceased to exist, they would still be out there and all of the sudden you would be at the top of the list, although in all likelyhood you already are on the "to be sacrificed" list.
* When have they found those? After Saddam was captured? Wow, that gave Bush some justification. How convenient when people ask about the deaths there. You know. Perhaps I'm, just bitter but I'm not surprised if Osama gets caught in a little less than 3 months. On the first of November to be precise. I hope understand what I'm implying.
What I was trying to say with the white spirit example is that chemicals will be found. That's logical. But the intention can't be proven.
They were shipped out before and during the war and found after. Also they have found some delivery systems and chemical weapons since the invasion. Iraq is a large country and you can't search everywhere quickly, especially when there are Multiple weapons dumps the size of Manhattan and everything is unmarked. So they still may be out there. More importantly is where are they now, everyone knows he had them, but where are they now, who has them and what are they going to do with them? Yes all the left pundits are saying that too. In fact everytime they issue a terror warning or catch a terrorist they fling out the accusation that they are playing politics.
Yes that is an example of what can be found, but intention can be determined. Even more so with Al Qaida. They spend years preparing an attack doing surveillance, research, testing, & planning. The goal is to find them when they are still planning. So far every Al Qaida plan is in the works for years before implemented 9-11 was in planning for years, the bombing on the USS Cole was planned for at least 3 years, and the planning for bombings in Madrid began before 9-11 (partially in anger over the Moors being kicked out).
* What you're trying to say is: If we follow Kyoto and similar regulations we can't develop new methods. Priorities. Keyword. Priorities. You have three places to put a plug in. You have a TV, a telephone, a sewing machine and a lamp. You decide to build in another place for a plug so you can have all four plugged in at the same time. That it costs extra doesn't matter.
I'm not saying you can't develop new methods if Kyoto is around, I'm saying Kyoto is the wrong approach. Here in California, the regulation based system has been a huge failure. Regulators don't care about developing new methods they just care about the regulation and the bases for enforcement makes the goals unobtainable and nothing gets done. Finally there is talk of reforming the system where you can implement new ideas to achieve a overall benefit and actually make the solution feasible and affordable. The problem with Kyoto is there is a huge cost associated with it, it cripples economies which will lead to high unemployment and will make products expensive. With Kyoto you could still build the extra outlet, but you won't be allowed to generate the power to run it.
* But capitalism also means a commercialised world. Globalization. Here's diet coke, here's britney...Buy buy buy...get the goods...get the goods...buy buy buy.
Besides, you're implying that people who don't have a job don't do what they can to find a job. To get to work. Here in Holland people who don't have a job and who are able to work get money so they can live a decent life. But at the same time they get forced to find a job because otherwise their income gets cut. In your country people are depending on charity. Yeah sure, they perhaps give a lot and yeah, charities handle money better than a government but I think that still, per capita, we give more money to the poor than America.
In capitalism you want people to buy your good so you have to make it better, cheaper and/or convince people it is the best that can buy. Here is a brief article on Globalization and Free-Markets. The competition helps the consumer making items more affordable allowing the consumer to stretch the money they make to fulfill what ever (legal) need they may have. Actually some people don't try and find jobs for various reasons and some are unable to find work. Another issue is people won't do some work because it is "below them", which is shown by the amount of illegal immigration and the number of jobs illegally filled by illegal immigrants. Here are links on US Generosity by State and here too. The US Government gives the most money to international aid and per capita Americans give more to charity as shown here. It is broke down in Euros per capita where the US is at 278 and the next closest is Spain at 122 (Holland is at 110). Then here is a article comparing the US and Canada along with charitable donations vs. tax rates.
* excises (that's the word my dictionary gave me, forgive me if it's not the correct word) aren't always justified. I agree with that. I think that they are justified on stuff like tobacco and liquor but apart from 'pleasurement goods' I don't agree with it indeed.
"it expects people to work for next to nothing [why]" After WW2 we had to rebuild our country. How to do that? Keeping inflation low. How to do that? Low wages/high taxes. Why do we agree? First of all. Over here workers are united in unions. Those unions discuss terms with the government. Not the workers. Those unions know (knew) what's good for the country. They don't try to get as much as possible for the workers on short term. But as much as possible on the long term.
Back to taxes. Low demand (because of high taxes) means low prices. You don't notice it within the country itself. Only when you go abroad.
Divorce. America has a different religious history than Europe. No comparison possible. period.
Excise is the correct word. I like the idea of a consumption/sales tax, where you pay when you purchase a good or service and is a far better system than income tax. The income tax (& payroll taxes) punishes one for working and the cost of the tax is passed on to the consumer by building in that cost to the price of the good or service. So when income taxes rise the cost of a good or service rises. Also in the income tax system is is easier to hide income from being taxed (much more so if you have the money to spend on a good accountant), where as the sales tax is much hard to cheat and will require less government oversight. In the recent plans it also includes refunds up to the poverty line, where the poor will not pay taxes on any amount of income spent up to that point. Another benefit is it puts more money in the pockets of those doing the work and gives them more monetary freedom to support themselves. The other benefit is you can drop that tax when you ship goods overseas (along with taking out the built in costs) making your product more competitive for overseas buyers.
We have unions here to, however the nature of unions has changed. Now the majority of union membership is government employees, a fact exploited by the democrats to get union support because they are the big government party. They have led to long term gains for works at the cost of federal/state/local budgets and ultimately the tax payers. In Los Angeles it is actually cheaper to make firemen work overtime than hire a new firefighters. So if you pay a fireman $100 it will cost the city $150 to have that fireman work overtime, but when you hire a new fireman and pay them $100 it cost $160 in additional benefits, retirement, etc. Often working for a government agency for 20 years insures you will receive a pension of 90% of your final salary until you die. The wonders of the unions have also made it virtually impossible to fire anyone regardless of performance on the job. In many cases when the work load for a agency increases they cannot subcontract (who can do the work cheaper) out the extra work, so they have to hire more employees, which they cannot get rid of even if they have no work for them and the burden on the tax payers. These factors balloon government spending and hurt the ability to spend tax payer money on infrastructure and services that actually help.
Yes Europe and America do have different religious history, which is a major factor in American Jews voting Democratic because more practicing Christians are Republican and the treatment of European Jews at the hands of European Christians still sits in the minds of many Jews.
