Thursday, August 19, 2004
Diary of a beer tasting festival reads like "Flowers for Algernon".
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
"Hey, stand-peeing is not allowed here and will be punished with fines, soNow why go to all this trouble? Well apparently it goes something like this: Save millions of women from cleaning up in the bathroom after them and standing leads to much marital strife. First off where can one find these women who constantly clean up after men? The last woman to do that for me was my mom and that's because I was a baby and I crapped myself (also did my laundry up till about middle school, after which I'd do my own most of the time).
if you don't want any trouble, you'd best sit down."
"Don't you go wetting this floor cowboy, you never know who's behind you.
So sit down, get your water pistol in the bowl where it belongs. Ha, ha,
But this is just perfect for the Euro nanny-state navel gazing equality above everything mind set. Men urinate standing, women do not, that is equal so it must stop. What a bunch of girly-men, aren't there more pressing issues in the world, like say ummm terrorists trying to kill us?
And you wonder why Europe is in a downward spiral.
Japan, Germany and many other large industrialized countries face long-term population slowdowns or declines as more young adults have fewer children or delay child-rearing.Now what do the industrialized countries with declining populations have in common?
Japan's population is expected to decline by 20%
Russia's population is expected to decline by 17 %
Germany's population is expected to decline by 9 %
The United States' population is expected to rise by 43%
They all have liberal-leftist-socialist policies. See a connection yet?
Here are a few more note from the article about causes of the population decline:
Can you spot the liberal policies? Come on, give it a shot, I'm sure you can find them.
"Modernization" — the way today's economies are built on a more educated work force — is causing more young adults to think twice about having large families. They must consider direct costs, like sending a child to college, and indirect costs, such as a parent having to take time off from a career to raise a child, before staring a family.
In Japan, more educated younger women are choosing to delay marriage or childbirth — or to forgo them entirely — as an expression of independence that previous generations of Japanese women didn't have.
More people are graduating from college, and more of today's children expect to get a higher education than previous generations did. That means young families concerned about college costs may choose to have fewer kids.
The cost of raising a child may especially hinder young adults from having large families in countries facing economic hardships, such as in eastern Europe.
In Italy, many young men live at home with parents until their late 20s because it is less acceptable to live with someone and raise a family out of wedlock. As a result, many young Italians either don't get married or may leave the country entirely, he said.
1. World sheep shortage good news for Wales, bad news for rubber boot manufacturers.
2. The Brits are complaining about college putting them in debt. Wow, that's something new, but then again they are pretty much a nanny state. But the kicker of the article was complaining about beer prices as part of the problem.
Spare a thought for university students. Not only has their average debt doubled since Labour came to power, but facilities are becoming increasingly stretched as more school leavers go to university. And in a final blow, the price of a pint of beer has leapt by 60 per cent since 1997, according to a new guide to campus life. The rising cost of getting a degree was revealed yesterday as a quarter of a million A-level pupils waited for their exam results. Students graduate owing an average of £11,830, up from £5,792 when Labour came to power...Boo Hoo take a loan, get over it.
3. This is my kind of bear:
When state Fish and Wildlife agents recently found a black bear passed out on the lawn of Baker Lake Resort, there were some clues scattered nearby -- dozens of empty cans of Rainier Beer ... "He drank the Rainier and wouldn't drink the Busch beer," ... "He didn't like that (Busch) and consumed, as near as we can tell, about 36 cans of Rainier." ... Agents finally herded the bear away, but it returned the next morning ...Yup even bears are smart enough to know that Busch tastes like crap.
4. Environmentalists, protesting overfishing, catch 11,000 fish, pile them near a major tourist attraction and put up signs saying, "Don't waste life"
5. Interesting article on using the oceans as a carbon sink, must research this more.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
In the largest military realignment in years, Washington plans to withdraw 70,000 troops plus 100,000 family members and support personnel from overseas US bases. That means, for the most part, from Europe.The question is, how long will Europe last?
This will undoubtedly be welcome news to the likes of Goran Persson, the Swedish prime minister, who famously declared that the purpose of the European Union is that "it's one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to US world domination". It must surely be awfully embarrassing to be the first superpower in history to be permanently garrisoned by your principal rival superpower.
* Happy is the wrong word. I agree.(although happiness can definatly be bought) The current poverty does not allow people to live a humane, satisfy-ing and healthy life. (that means not all three of them. people can live satisfied but in dreadful conditions) More than 'some correlation'. Love alone doesn't cut it. Love doesn't pay the bills.. I don't call Cobain the typicalMany exceptions can be found here, I know quite a few divorced people and children of divorced parents along with people below the poverty line who are quite happy. The problem arises when you depend on someone or something else to make you happy. Happiness is a choice you make, it begins with you. It would be worth checking out the book "Happiness is a serious Problem," which addresses the issue very well and spends quite a bit of time discussing how there is little correlation between the circumstances of people's lives and how happy they are. For every Cobain who was born in a difficult situation and was never happy you can find a Zell Miller who did not let his situation hold him back. If you are talking about poverty in Africa, then the lack of a humane, satisfying, and healthy life is perfectly valid, but also is a function of the despotic/socialist rulers that populate that area. However, more so the case here (yes there are exceptions) that the biggest obstacle is to a humane, healthy, and satisfying life is ones self and liberal policies. Life is as satisfying as one makes it, no matter how much money I make or don't make I still gain enjoyment from classical music and playing rugby. Living healthy is a choice to in regards to how one takes care of themselves. Being humane starts with how you conduct yourself and treat others. Unfortunately there are bad apples in the bunch and they need to be dealt with, if they are criminals deal with them. But the liberal policies like making it harder for police to do their job and makes it harder to keep criminals off the street. The truth about happiness is it starts with a personal choice, a personal effort to the hard work of being happy (no ever said it was easy, because it is much easier to be unhappy). The easiest way to ensure you will never be happy is to depend on others to give it to you, depend on material goods, depend on substances, or even worse depend on the government to make you happy.
American but his youth wasn't unusual at that moment. You're correct. Cobain used drugs because of unhappiness/interest before he became a star (not much though. usually pot and some medications with drugs in it). But that's all explained by his youth. First 7 years of his live were very happy. Then he started to use ritalin. Which made him less active. When he was 9 his parents divorced and nobody could really take care of him. He became depressed. Poverty -> divorce -> unhappiness. The reason why he started using heroin (when he was famous. before he turned famous he was actually scared of needles. He never used heroine before he became famous) was physical. He had problems with his
stomach. the doctors couldn't solve it. And drugs where the only thing that could soothe the pain. That way he got addicted to heroine. And that addiction got him back to unhappiness. Not the other way around..
* First, if res 1441 would have been passed a war could have been prevented. America has killed a lot of people, people are still dying but Saddam is gone. The UN would have stopped WMD if they would have been there and they would not have brought the pax americana. I know what I'd choose. That was just sarcasm. You're acting like saints. You're saving the worl. Why would the pope want to live in Rome when he could live with the American heroes...in Brooklyn for instance..1441 was passed. Yes people are still dying, mostly at the hands of insurgents who are backed by al-Zarqawi (al-Qeada operative) and al-Sadr (backed by the Mullahs of Iran) who put the elimination of any chance of freedom and democracy above the lives of other Iraqis. Of course it would be hard to match Saddam's rate of putting people in the ground (aka mass graves). The UN would of stopped WMDs, was that the sarcasm? They sure did a good job of finding them and preventing smuggling while Iraq was under sanctions. Of course if it wasn't for Israel in 1981, Saddam would have nuclear weapons courtesy of France. How would the UN of stopped Saddam with out the US (or as you like to say pax americana), considering how corrupt the UN run oil-for-food program (also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here) was? Of course that's why the US is turning over power with the goal of free elections, kind of like the ones that are beginning to occur in Afghanistan. Of course further back you can look at West Germany, which also did not become East Rhode Island. Does America do everything right, no, but we try to do the right thing. When a mistake is made the effort is made to fix it and not sit and navel-gaze. Of course the UN is home of Saintly Acts.
* http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html "Israel doesn't support terrorism and has not desire to give their WMD program to support the mass murder of civilians." "No WMDs are to kill innocent people." Quite contradicting. No need to tell me about what bad things happens to Israel. I know. WMD are out of order though. And if Bush would be consequent he'd attack Israel for them. You say that they are smart enough to work with a plan behindIts not contradicting, if I had added the comma and word in the right spot. "No, WMDs are to kill innocent people too" Being that European Media is extremely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian (as is the SF Bay Guardian which is a leftist/socialist/communist rag), you probably don't know the whole story. It needs to be stated that Israel does not use WMDs on Palestinians. Last time I check Isreal wasn't threating to nuke the Middle East, in fact its Iran & North Korea threatening to nuke the 'west' and/or Israel. Israel isn't threating the world and isn't giving aid and comfort to terrorists.
their operation yet they are too stupid to see that a nuclear war would destroy the world?
* Who has them now? Libya. Or more likely North Korea. Guess it's time to attrack them as well, right? No, you can use the chemicals and POSSIBLE intentions in your advantage. But the intentions cannot be proven..Actually Libya has WMDs and Gadaffi decided ending up in a hole in the ground wasn't worth keeping them. North Korea has a fully developed system which makes for a very difficult situation especially with a leader who is deranged enough to test them on his own people. Unfortunately with North Korea you can't preempt something they already have once again you can't count on the UN here either. Intentions can be proven that's what intelligence agencies are for. Its how they have caught terror cells in the States. In fact intentions can be proven in court through evidence to the fact.
* Is it strange to say that it's better to stick to Kyoto for a healthy environment than to research at the cost of Kyoto with unclear results? Besides. I still think that Kyoto and research does not rule eachother our the slightest bit..Is it not also strange to cripple the economies of the world on a proposal that can't be proven to have any effect. Then base the whole system on regulations where the most common outcome is no change at all? Also a program that supposedly the EU implementing and has yet to make progress on, although socialist policies have a good chance at crippling the economy and reducing emissions. In fact the only country to really reduce emissions was Russia and that was due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the total ruin the economy fell into. Of course the research required to develop and implement require capital which is generated in a growing economy, shrinking economies will not be able to generate the required cash to develop and implement technological improvements and as a result nothing will change.
* In capitalism we convince people it is the best good thatthey can buy. And that is poluting the society.'The olympic dream is brought to you by Coca cola...if you know what i mean.. I know that not everybody works jobs they don't want to buy shit they don't need. Said that patially out of love for the movie fight club and partially because it's a sentacne that draws attention. Ofcourse it's not exact.. No surprise but what I'm saying is that with our higher taxes we give more money to unemployed/poor people (by taxes not by charity) than you do by charity.What's wrong with Coke sponsoring the Olympics? Or anyone else for that fact. It brings in cash to run the even and in fact reduces the burden on the citizens of the country to pay for it. Its no different than when I played little league. All the teams were sponsored by local businesses and there company logo would be on the uniforms (pirvate support for a public good). It wasn't all uncommon for the business to put up team photos of the kids in their stores either. As a result it helped to cover the cost of using the fields, paying umpires, & purchasing equipment. It kept the cost to play low, so that even lower income familites could let their kids play baseball, but I guess it just a case of 'evil' capitalism again. Here people take income and do many things with it, you may spend it on recreation, which generates income to maintain the are and to pay staff to work there. Or to purchase goods so you need people to make the goods and people to work at the stores to sell it. Or people invest their money in businesses which generate jobs (also you would want to note that the most common way in America that people move from the lower class to the middle class is by starting their own business). The focus isn't on supporting people through welfare all their life, but in creating jobs so they can support themselves. As far as helping those who need help, the private charities are far more effective than the government at doing that. In the government more money is wasted and spent on higher salaries and benefits (thanks to unions) than private charities where you find people who will be paid less (or even work for virtually nothing) to get more money to people in need. The difference arises in that here many people see it as a personal responsibly to take care of ones self and to help take care of other people. Where as the socialist ideal is that its not my responsibility the government will do it, which was perfectly illustrated in France when 15,000 died in a heat wave because they were dumped off at a nursing home as to not interfere with one's vacation even the doctor's vacation. To put things in perspective the 'heat wave' in France was cooler than the typical summer day in the Southwest US and there 15,000 people don't die from the heat that streches over a few months. Although if the depended on the government they might of.
* Taxes aren't a punishment. They're a necessary evil. Excises 'instead of' taxes is positive for the richand negative for the poor. Since their tax decrease could very well be lower than the extra costs caused by the excises. It results in bigger differences between rich and poor. And that's bad.. Income taxes decrease the prices because people have less to spend. As aIncome taxes are a punishment the more or harder you work, the more the government takes. The system should be set up to reward someone for hard work not punish. A consumption tax, is only paid when people spend their money, in fact in most recent version of consumption tax, (income or) spending up to the poverty line is tax free. So it does not effect the effective tax on those below the poverty line. Who cares about the differences between rich and poor? How many poor people have created jobs. Jobs are created when people spend money for a good or service, which needs to be made or sold by someone. Rich people employ people because the can afford to, poor people do not. Its why lowering income tax created the recent economic growth in the country (also did the same under RR and JFK) people had money to spend which creates a demand. Raising taxes in no way lowers the price of a product (unless the government sets price caps) it increases it. Say you own a company that makes widgets, what determines the price you charge for the widgets? First off you need the cost of raw materials, which is controlled by the market and you have to pay to get the raw materials to get to your factory. Then you have to pay someone to make it, you have to pay for a place for it to be made, you have to pay for the gas, water, & electricity to make it, you have to pay for the insurance for the place and the workers, you have to pay for the worker's benefits, you have to pay taxes paid for employing those workers, and you have to pay to deliver those Widgets. All of those (and some I probably missed) plus profit determine the cost you charge for your widget. So if income taxes rise, the cost to employ your worker goes up, the employer won't eat that cost, they pass it on to the consumer, also included is the cost the raw material supplier has goes up because they pay people to deliver the materials. Those supplier increases are passed on to the factory owner who then turns around and passes the cost onto the consumer. So then the cost of the product goes up and the amount of take home income goes down, so the consumer can buy less which creates less demand as a result the factory doesn't have to make as many Widgets, so they fire employees to keep costs down. Now there are more people unemployed and if they get welfare it has to be paid for somehow, say hello to another tax increase. Lower taxes help keep the overhead cost of a product down, while giving people more take home income. You can also look at when the taxes were lowered consumer spending increased, because they had more take home income. But if high taxes are the promised land why do the high tax nations have almost 0 population growth, negligible economic growth, and unemployment higher than the US? The unions on both sides of the pond make it harder to fire workers who don't produce. In nations like France they have shortened the work week and increased vacation time, while maintaining the same salary (less is produced at the same cost) and decreasing productivity.
result the prices drop.. You claim that income is harder hidden when taxed by excises. Don't agree with that. It is likely that with very high excises people get to buy from eachother or for instance straight from the farmer.. They do not have more monetary freedom. People have needs. They buy things to satisfy their needs. And unless they get more money in a RELATIVE way they won't buy anything other than they do now.. Your unions are completely different from ours. Yours do everything to get people as rich as possible. Ours do everything to get people as rich as possible as long as it isn't harming the country (too much).
Of course socialists don't like low taxes because why should people have any freedom in how they spend their money. Why work hard when you get virtually nothing for it. Why have children in a system that makes it a extreme burden to raise them. The great folly with socialism is it tries to even out the results, expecting people to work hard for nothing. It goes completely against human nature and as shown by the lack of any kind of success in the great experiments in the theory (see former Soviet Union and China beginning of free markets). Of course many will not learn from the lessons.
Monday, August 16, 2004
“We address this message to all crusader countries plotting against the Muslims, and which are sending forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, especially Italy and the Netherlands,” organisation al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad said on an website on Sunday.I hope that these threats will be stopped before innocent people die and that the people of the nations will realize that the Islamo-fascist-Terrorists want to eradicate them from the face of the earth too.
Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad is said to be group connected to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the reputed leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
“Expect a hell that will turn your nights into bloodbaths,” warned the statement posted on an Islamic website and addressed “to the European countries.... to the Dutch government and people.”
The group warned the Netherlands that the statement was “a final message that we are sending to you, and it is a simple message, namely the pullout of Dutch forces from Iraq.”
“Or else, your fate will be similar to the fate of Italy and other states,” which have been the target of deadly terror attacks, it said.
“You will be surprised by the Islamic earthquake that will shake your country. You did not learn from the lesson of Spain and other countries. You only understand the language of blood and car bombs,” the statement warned.
Yes those are Americans and Iraqis smiling, laughing, and embracing both as free people. Four years ago this would of been impossible and it is good to see the change. In fact there are two new free countries and soon to be democracies in the games this year, can you name them?
Yes that would be Iraq and Afghanistan and who helped make those people free? Who led the way? Who didn't care?
Of course somethings have not changed,
Like Joooo hatred, of course this could change to. But I wouldn't bet on Kerry doing it. Keep in mind when you go to the ballot box, who will stand up for America and who has actually worked to free people from tyranny, instead of advocating letting tyranny win at the expense of our allies.