|
| DOES IT MAKE SENSE? |
| Monday, January 31, 2005 |
| Repeadedly professors have engaged in rhetoric (no, the recent University of Colorado incident isn't the first) that said that the 9/11 victims were not innocent and deserving of the incineration, dismemberment or long fall out of the Twin Towers. So far, none of them have gotten so much as a slap on the hand.
Now a college student gets expelled for making a case for a kid being spanked in school?
I don't get it?
|
posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 06:49:00 PM   |
|
|
|
| NEW POLL |
|
| Please chime in on the new poll. I have no idea if people are coming here because they want to, or are having their arms twisted by Jack, or if they are just trying to humor him.
Oh, Jack voted, as you can tell... |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 06:40:00 PM |
|
|
|
| News Snipet 'Blog: LIBERALS WITH GUTS! |
|
| Whenever a friend of mine, Johnnypain, chimes in its worth listening to. Johnny made the following comment
News Snipet 'Blog: LIBERALS WITH GUTS!: "Jack,
Nice to read your posts again. I do find it ironic that you who convinced me to stop labeling people with rather outdated terms like liberal and conservative, are still using these terms. In this time, devisiveness is the last thing we need. Here you say that liberals 'feel' instead of 'think.' Well, as someone you would call a 'liberal,' please tell me how I got straight a's in college without thinking? Lefties say this same thing about righties. I think all the various ways of thinking that are unscientific are the problem, and everyone is guilty. We live in a post modern time when all the usual ties that bind civilizations are going away, and we need new laws that are more in line with the best science available, not more name calling... love your blog." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 06:30:00 PM |
|
|
|
| IRAQI ELECTIONS CONTINUED... |
|
| From a friend and brother in Iraq.
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:10 PM
Subject: The End of a Remarkable and Historic Day
Today was truly remarkable. We're hearing some amazing stories of bravery from today. We saw truth winning over lies. We witnessed life winning over death. We watched people who have been yearning to have the freedom of a choice make that choice. We experienced good victorious over evil. We witnessed answers to many prayers and God's hand in control. The day did not go without incident mind you. There were mortars, bombs, machine gun fire and suicide bombers to deal with. Can you imagine going to vote and having mortars reign down on you?Unbelievable courage was abundant today. The people of Mahmudiyah and the Iraqi Army soldiers were seen waving Iraqi flags and shouting, "We won! We won!" Tears flooded up in the local Iraqi commander's eyes as I talked with him tonight and congratulated him and his soldiers on their bravery and courage to stand up to the terrorists over the last 6 months. They made this happen just as much as the Marines did.
When we first arrived in country we couldn't get these guys out the front gate of their base. For the past 2 months they have been conducting operations along side of Marines and independently. They have lost over 35 soldiers and over 130 have been wounded. They have certainly paid the price for all Iraqis to have the choice of freedom.
Nearly 15,000 people turned out to vote from the 3 small towns we were responsible for. The polls opened at 7:00am and the first to arrive was a man in his 60's who arrived at 7:01am and said that he couldn't sleep last night because of the chance to vote. The percentage of eligible Iraqis to vote was astonishing - 72%! We all predicted that it would be more than the US. It's both humbling and amazing.
Not a single Marine in the Battalion was injured. A few Iraqi soldiers were injured when a mortar landed in the courtyard of a school that was serving as a polling center. One Iraqi election official was injured when glass broke as a result of the explosion of the rounds. The corpsman insisted that he should go to the hospital to get stiched up. However, this gentlemen insisted that he carry out his duties and stayed throughout.
His will and resolve would not be broken. He said that he would not let the terrorists win by him going to the hospital.
This day is so satisfying for the Marines of the Battalion. We're ony 2/3 of the way done though. We have to get the election workers home safely and clean up the polling sites. Tomorrow will be as dangerous if not more than today as vehicle traffic will be back in full swing. With that brings the cars that are loaded with explosives looking for a convoy or patrol. Our job is not done here. There are many tasks that remain for us to finish.
There are plenty of terrorists and insurgents that lurk in the shadows seeking a time and place to strike.
I want to thank each and every one of you who prayed for the efforts, safety and vigilance of the Marines today. Thank you for asking God to protect us -He did. Thank you for supporting us with your will and resolve. The enemy knows that as soon as the American public starts pressuring its politicians to bring home the military, he has won. The enemy's target is your will and resolve and his battlefield is the media. Thanks for standing with us and making us stronger. I look forward to shaking your hands and thanking you in person for the outstanding support throughout this time. We go on the offensive this next week. We will not let the terrorists and insurgents rest. Pray that we find them and deal with them swiftly.
Semper Fidelis,
Major W (Name withheld by Snipet)
Psalm 18:29-42
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 02:01:00 PM |
|
|
|
| RANDOM THOUGHTS ABOUT IRAQI ELECTIONS |
|
| From: Ralph Bristol
I think it was about noon Sunday when I started hearing a voice in my head. It sounded exactly like President George W. Bush, and it kept repeating, “Nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaa.”
At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper. . . . Gilbert Keith Chesterton
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 11:32:00 AM |
|
|
|
| LIBERALS WITH GUTS! |
|
There are a couple of "left-leaning" blogger-buds that I have that visit my site and comment. They are not too typical of many "left-leaners" because they tend to THINK (not just feel)! In addition, they don't mind looking in places for info that they might not particularly agree with.
I like to award the "Libs with Guts" award to fellow-bloggers Schrenk Wrap and Religious Lefty.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 10:21:00 AM |
|
|
|
| FAR RIGHT |
|
| NBC's Matt Lauer kept describing the majority in the Republican Party as the "far right," employing the term five times between plugging an interview with Christine Todd Whitman and in a subsequent session with her to promote her new book, It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America. (Source: MRC.org)
Would like to know what you think. If you agree, then please do more than Matt and provide reasons.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 08:32:00 AM |
|
|
|
| IRAQI ELECTIONS |
|
| I heard an interesting comment by Bill O'Reilly two days before the Iraqi elections. He mentioned that whatever happened during the elections the Left would say they were a failure and the Right would say they were a success. Lets see how this plays out...
Relativity applies to physics, not ethics. Albert Einstein
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/31/2005 08:25:00 AM |
|
|
|
| HILARIOUS |
| Sunday, January 30, 2005 |
During the 2004 Presidential campaign you would have thought that all Democrats (except for Bill & Hillary) thought John Kerry was god incarnate. Every criticism leveled at him was almost violently denied, and Democrats across the country were willing to throw themselves on the sword in defence of this political opportunist.
Kerry lost, and now the grumbling starts.
GEORGE SOROS BEGINS TO GET GRUMPY
Are many Democrats just situational liars?. You decide
Their feet through faithless leather met the dirt, And oftener chang'd their principles than shirt. Edward Young
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/30/2005 06:36:00 PM |
|
|
|
| WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY! |
| Saturday, January 29, 2005 |
The Snipet is a staunch advocate of the women's liberation movement.
It firmly believes that women can do anything men can.
Hat Tip: Robin (The Vicar)
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat. -Rebecca West.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/29/2005 01:07:00 PM |
|
|
|
| HI, JOHN. THANKS FOR THE LETTER. |
|
John Cleese is credited with the following letter. Although it is not confirmed that he wrote it, the Snipet just wanted to respond to the sentiment. The Snipet's responses are in RED
Letter to America by John Cleese
To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.
First, John, you never GAVE us our independence, we whipped your lousy butts and took it. You can't "revoke" something you didn't give in the first place. Look it up in the dictionary (reference to below--while you may be able to enunciate well, you sure don't understand English!)
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
From reading your UK Guardian it hardly seems that the Right and Honourable Tony Blair has control of his own parliament, much less try to run one over here.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise." You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.
Again, John, you need to look up "revocation". Aparently you don't know what it means either. But that's like a Pom, all style-no substance. Aluminum is the original Greek designation for the metal, and it was later modified just to fit the "ium" endings of most elements. Of course, if you had spend a little more time studying chemistry in college and less time chasing skirts, John, you would know this. Oh, and we'll also go back to spelling check--"cheque". That makes a heck of lot of sense phonetically too, doesn't it. Hey, lets not end it there, John. You English have screwed up your own language to. Lets go back to using v v for w, adding an "e" at the end of words like "pass". Shouldn't son be spelled "sonne"? And you never use v right. Over should be spelled Ouer, not oVer. You have raped your own language, its rather hypocritical of you John for pointing out our disrespect for it.
Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary."
Again, plenty of style, no substance. I guess your vocabulary is exemplary over in grand old England. "Cobber", "Placky", and "Wafty crank" are excellent examples of the King's English, I'm sure.Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed." There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.
Look up "Wafty Crank", John.
2. There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize."
There is, John. You've lived over here long enough to know it. You don't seem to mind it that much as you have taken a lot of our "US MONEY" to watch your marginal acting. (Let me see, how many different parts have you played? Hmm...let me count them...OH, just one, an arrogant but blundering Englishman who talks well, but is easy to laugh at!)
3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.
I guess the only English we have come over here for us to hear are the cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian; are there any other kind? No, John, we shouldn't have to distinguish anything. It’s your responsibility to learn how to communicate with US if you come over here. (Just like a Pom--anywhere he goes he thinks the culture should change for him...). The only shire we appreciate is the one in the Lord of the Rings.
4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.
Ever heard of James Bond, John? He's an English good guy. His competent side-kick and support man, Q, died (played by a fabulous actor Desmond Llewelyn) was recently replaced by some bumbling English actor...hmmm...I can't think right off who he was, but his last performance in Bond 20 was frightful. You know, come to think of it, one of the best Bond good guys actually had to be played by a Scot.
Also, most Americans find British humor difficult to understand--between the accents, colloquialism and obscure references, (that you no doubt find funny), we would rather make it a little better. (Although the two you mention are so bad, it’s difficult to make them better).
5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
Save her from what? What does it mean for God to save the Queen? You know, I never understood why she needed saving in the first place.
6. You should stop playing American "football." There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2005.
I looked up “nancies” in the Oxford Dictionary but couldn’t find it.
American "football" generates about $4 billion in revenues each year, which is about 3 times the size of the English economy. American "football" players had sense enough to put pads and helmets on when they play so they don't end up with frequent deaths and permanent vegatative symptoms for the rest of their lives. The rest of the world may not have the sense to protect themselves, or have the money to do it, but over here, we try to apply a little common sense and safety to anything we do. It’s called "self-preservation" (which is probably not in the Oxford Dictionary) over here. Could just as easily insert "stupid" with "brave" in your sentence. I know--I grew up playing Rugby Union and Aussie Rules.
You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.
Or, we could play cricket, a game that has two players run back and forth between wickets that can last for days.
7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
We are free roaming people here in the United States, with the emphasis on "free". We don't have a parliament or Queen telling us that we have to get permission before we brush our teeth. We don't have checkpoints, and secret police on the street asking us for our papers. And, most of our vegetables over here that require peeling are already peeled for us. We are a rich nation, and usually don't have to do that sort of thing for ourselves.
8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day."
Is "Indecisive Day" named in honoUr of your HonoUrable Tony Blair?
9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
John, I live in South Carolina. Every new BMW for the last five years has been designed AND produced here in this backward state, by American and German engineers. Come to think of it, does Britian produce any kind of car worth driving? (They're not big sellers over here). But Ic an understand why you think our cars are crap--most of them wouldn't fit on your tiny streets.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.
Pinpointing where the first "chip" was fried is kind of difficult, John. It’s like someone saying they were the first to taste an apple. Most of us are unaware of Belgium because...well, frankly, who cares? What has Belgium ever contributed toward the world other than waffles? Warm and flat beer? Then why make it fizzy to begin with? Just urinate in a cup and drink it if you want warm and flat.
11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.
We dumped your tea in the ocean long ago. It's loaded with salt.
12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Knat's Urine," with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.
Is Knat's urine fizzy? (What is a Knat, by the way?)
13. From November 10th the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline," as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon get used to it).
We like "gasoline" over here, because it is about 3 dollars less per gallon than your "petrol". You can keep your "petrol" and its name.
14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
Agreed. (Keep in mind, though, it would be more proper English to say “Adults should only handle guns”). Come to think of it, is that why Brits are not allowed to own guns? You don't have any adults over there?
15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.
Is it really that important to you guys? How about a trade--did the Royals kill Diana?
16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).
Not advisable. We'll do the same thing we did with them in 1776. Remember, over here we have guns.
Thank you for your co-operation.
No, thank YOU, John. Please impress us in Bond 21...we really miss Desmond!
The original letter was posted on the "Light" blog. Pay them a visit by going here
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/28/2005 09:52:00 AM |
|
|
|
| ON THE EVE OF IRAQI ELECTIONS |
|
| "Seven years ago, when the last referendum took place, Saddam Hussein won 99.96 percent of the vote. Of course, it is impossible to say whether that's a true measure of the Iraqi people's feelings." David Wright. ABC News October 15, 2002.
"All 11,440,638 eligible voters went to the polls with one thought: Yes to Saddam Hussein! The government proclaimed it a victory of light over darkness, good over evil. It seemed more like a political miracle." Keith Miller, NBC 10/16/2002
Diane Sawyer: "I read this morning that he's [Saddam Hussein] also said the love that the Iraqis have for him is so much greater than anything Americans feel for their President because he's been loved for 35 years, he says, the whole 35 years."
Dan Harris in Baghdad: "He is one to point out quite frequently that he is part of a historical trend in this country of restoring Iraq to its greatness, its historical greatness. He points out frequently that he was elected with a 100 percent margin recently." ABC 3/7/2003
"You would be foolish not to -- a U.N. human rights report said 500 people were jailed in the last referendum after casting a negative ballot." Tom Fenton CBS News.
WHAT? CBS NEWS?
MRC.org
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/27/2005 04:51:00 PM |
|
|
|
| LIBERAL THINK TANKS |
|
| THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Ask the average informed individual if they can identify a conservative think tank, and many recognize the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution and Family Research Council, among others.
Ask them if they can identify any liberal think tanks and it leaves them scratching their heads.
The reason being is that liberals don't have think tanks, they have FEEL tanks.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/27/2005 10:58:00 AM |
|
|
|
| KATIE COURIC WITH A CANVAS SHOPPING BAG? |
|
| GET REAL!
Instead of seeing San Francisco's plan to enact a 17 cents per grocery bag fee as a ridiculous example of do-gooder government trying to impose a backdoor tax in order to promote liberal social engineering, the Today crew of Katie Couric, Matt Lauer and Ann Curry admired the goal of eliminating the use of grocery bags.
Couric saw Europeans as the model to follow since in Europe people use "canvas bags or those big sort of net bags." Curry chimed in with how "in New York you see a lot of people driving little wheeled, you know, sort of carts" and suggested "really maybe we should think about that again." Couric put her finger to her cheek and uttered a "hmm" as Lauer, sitting beside her, enunciated their thinking: "Something to ponder."
MRC.ORG
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/27/2005 10:05:00 AM |
|
|
|
| LANGUAGE GAME |
|
| Alright everyone! Would like to play THE LANGUAGE GAME
I'll get it started, and you can add yours in the comment section below.
__________________________________________________
How come when a liberal disagrees with someone it's called diversity of thought
When a conservative disagrees with someone its called intolerance
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/26/2005 01:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
| THIRTEEN RACISTS! |
|
| SENATE VOTES 85-13 TO CONFIRM CONDOLEEZZA RICE AS SECRETARY OF STATE.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/26/2005 01:29:00 PM |
|
|
|
| I JUST THINK THEY'RE RACIST |
|
| Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy and other Democrats disparage Condileeza Rice.
Click here
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/26/2005 08:47:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SOCIAL SECURITY DEBATE ... |
| Sunday, January 23, 2005 |
| ...PUT TO REST
A simple challenge:
Would invite ANYONE to debate or refute this article about Social Security.
Social Insecurity
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/23/2005 08:47:00 PM |
|
|
|
| CRITICAL "THOUGHT" |
|
My assistant sorts the incoming mail into various categories, such as "critical mail," "fan mail," etc. But the so-called critical mail is seldom critical. It may be bombastic or vituperative or full of pop psychology, but it seldom presents a critical argument based on facts or logic. Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin. You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.
Article continued
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/23/2005 08:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
| DUMB AMERICA |
|
| The "dumbness" of America continues to be illustrated in the latest Neilson ratings.
From 2001 CNN inauguration coverage viewers dropped by 63%
MSNBC dropped 68%
Fox News was up 57%
Dumb Americans...
(Strictly speaking from a left point of view) |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/23/2005 08:25:00 PM |
|
|
|
| SUPERBOWL POST BELOW |
| Friday, January 21, 2005 |
| Just for those of you who might not get the Snipet's unique attempt at humor...
The post below was poking fun at the AP and media outlets who made a big deal of the inaugural expenditures.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/21/2005 04:55:00 PM |
|
|
|
| PJ O'ROARKE |
|
| I wonder how many of the people who profess to believe in the leveling ideas of collectivism and egalitarianism really just believe that they themselves are good for nothing. I mean, how many leftists are animated by a quite reasonable self-loathing? In their hearts they know that they are not going to become scholars or inventors or industrialists or even ordinary good kind people. So they need a way to achieve that smugness for which the left is so justifiably famous. They need a way to achieve self-esteem without merit. Well, there is politics. In an egalitarian world everything will be controlled by politics, and politics requires no merit.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/21/2005 02:08:00 PM |
|
|
|
| SUPER BOWL |
|
| This year a 30 second spot to advertise on the Super Bowl will be $2.4 million dollars.
Wouldn't that money be better spent being sent to the Tsunami victims or making a down payment on the national debt?
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/21/2005 10:26:00 AM |
|
|
|
| DOUBLE STANDARDS... |
| Thursday, January 20, 2005 |
| Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant. The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."
But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.
According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.
Full story
Hat tip: Stanley Trulove
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/20/2005 03:05:00 PM |
|
|
|
| NEW WORLD ORDER |
|
| "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion. The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
George Bush 1/20/04 - Inaugural Speech
If there is a Bush Doctrine, that sentence may best describe it. President Bush has either come to believe, or has always believed, that he has been chosen, by the American people and maybe even by God, to make the world a more peaceful place. And, he believes, the avenue to peace is paved with freedom in places where such things have never before existed.
Few Americans would argue with the proposition that freedom is an admirable goal and a uniquely good trait for a government to practice. More would disagree with the argument that freedom is a prerequisite to security. In fact, even in this country, politicians - dare I say including President Bush -- have attempted to improve security by limiting freedom.
Still more Americans would disagree with the proposition that the security of the United States can and will be enhanced by U.S. attempts to export freedom to other countries. For reasons that are not especially illogical, some governments and people don't want the United States attempting to manipulate their internal affairs, despite our good intentions. Such attempts may even have the opposite effect that the President desires. They may escalate existing distrust or dislike for the United States, create enemies where none existed before, and degrade our security, rather than upgrade it.
I find myself in that group of skeptical Americans. I suspect that the most effective way to diminish the threat of foreign aggression against the United States is to take advantage of every opportunity to mind our own business.
I am not an isolationist. I believe in being a good citizen of the world. That means helping people devastated by natural disasters, such as the South Asia tsunami. It means trading goods and services with other countries. It means allowing and encouraging world travel and immigration. It also, on occasion, means helping friends repel enemies who threaten their sovereignty, such as when we helped Kuwait repel an invasion by Iraq.
My fear is that the Bush doctrine might include the seeking of opportunities to solve problems where U.S. intervention has no strategic security value for us, and is done purely for the demonstration of superior moral authority.
Contrary to the President's heartfelt proclamation, common sense does not lead us to conclude that the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. Throughout history, the unwelcome exportation of any country's ideals to other countries has been viewed as an aggressive -- not a friendly -- move that fosters neither peace nor security for the exporting country.
The Bush Doctrine, I fear, is not only flawed in its reasoning, but may even result in less freedom in the United States in order to secure us from the hostile reaction by other nations and people.
Ralph Bristol
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/20/2005 01:21:00 PM |
|
|
|
| MORE ON ABORTION |
|
| It is amazing that the pro-abortion group will go to any lengths, will even lie to promote their agenda. What fundamentalist extremism drives this thought? Muslim extremist terrorists have nothing on this crowd.
Oh, for those of you who doubt the veracity of WND on this story, please let me know and I'll provide you with about a dozen other stories.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/19/2005 06:47:00 AM |
|
|
|
| BLACK AND LIBERAL |
| Tuesday, January 18, 2005 |
...
In their view, liberalism is coded into black DNA. It is a genetic impossibility for a black to actually believe that government should be limited and that every person, regardless of circumstance, must take personal responsibility for his or her own life. A black espousing such views, according to liberal thinking, commits an act against nature and betrays heritage and family. The only possible explanation for any black talking like a conservative is that the person is being paid to do it. What is worse, to continue with this line of thinking, only whites can really be conservatives. So, black conservatives outrage black liberals not just because they are supposedly sellouts, but also because they are selling out to whites.
For the full article go here
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 08:03:00 PM |
|
|
|
| I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING... |
|
| "I personally believe that your loyalty to the mission you were given to sell this policy overwhelmed your respect for the truth,... You sent them in there because of weapons of mass destruction. Later the mission changed when there were none," Boxer told Rice. "Let's not rewrite history, it's too soon to do that."
"That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts,"
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) accusing Condi Rice 1/18/04
_______________________________________________________________
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."
Barbara Boxer
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME?
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 05:15:00 PM |
|
|
|
| CHALLENGE |
|
| For 15 years I have engaged in debate about the abortion issue, and I have yet to have an pro-abortion advocate answer this question directly?
Is a human fetus human life?
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 04:31:00 PM |
|
|
|
| MY LIBERAL FRIENDS (Most of them-not all) |
|
| Finally, I reluctantly report that liberal friends basically reject give-and-take political discussion. Their positions are typically posed in the language of feelings or the language of rights. Either way, there is nothing much to debate--feelings are personal and rights are beyond the reach of argument and majority decision making. My liberal friends are polite and tolerant, but their opinions reflect a body of remarkably settled thought that leaves little room for dissent or new ideas. To their token conservative friends (that's me), they seem ever more isolated from the thoughts and concerns of their fellow Americans.
John Leo |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 03:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
| FAIRNESS |
|
| The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes.
The top 5% pays 51.4%.
The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%.
The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes.
Facts.
FAIR? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 03:06:00 PM |
|
|
|
| MASS APPEAL |
|
| Every once in a while there is born a 'blog post that is just too insightful, too good to not pass on. I pick up many of these from my fellow blogger, Lightning Bug, (P.S. This blog is not for everyone). Here's one from a new blogger I have just discovered:
Relevant to the culture |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 02:13:00 PM |
|
|
|
| INAUGURATION COSTS |
|
| It truly disgusts me that $40 Million is going to be spent on the inauguration of President Bush.
It truly disgusts most of the mainstream media too.
However, where were they when Clinton was being inaugurated? And...where was their disgust? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 08:50:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SOCIAL SECURITY SHELL GAME 2 |
|
| Democrats DO have a Social Security plan
I misspoke last week when I said neither President Bush nor his Democratic opponents in Congress have a specific plan to reform Social Security and keep it solvent, but at least the President has an idea that forms the basis of a plan. In fact, Democrats do have a plan. I revealed it several years ago, and it's time for a reminder. They just have no intention of disclosing their plan in the midst of today's debate over Social Security reform.
To lay the groundwork for understanding the Democratic plan, imagine this hypothetical questioning of a Democratic leader (DL) who is unable to either lie or evade questions - kind of like Jim Carry in the movie "Liar, Liar."
Q: Do you doubt the Social Security administration's projection that the payroll tax won't be able to meet Social Security payment obligations in 2018?
DL: No, I don't doubt that?
Q: Then, of course, Social Security will begin to access its trust fund - that is, the treasury will begin to pay back the money it borrowed from Social Security. Those repayments will serve as a temporary, additional funding source for Social Security. SSA projects that source will be tapped out by 2042. Do you reject any of that?
DL: The 2042 date is not certain. CBO projects it to be 2052, but I concede that it is only temporary.
Q: SSA further projects that once the trust fund is dried up, the payroll tax will be able to fund only about 70 percent of today's level of benefits. Do you accept that projection?
DL: Yes, I do. That's not in question.
Q: At that point, whenever it is - 2042 or 2052 or some other year - would you agree that the Democratic Party would oppose a 30 percent reduction in Social Security retirement benefits?
DL: I think it's pretty safe to say we would.
Q: Would you also say that you would oppose a payroll tax increase on all workers, large enough to bridge the gap - keeping in mind that the payroll tax is already the biggest tax paid by the bottom 70 percent of American income earners.
DL: I suspect it would be politically hazardous, if not political suicide, to support such a tax increase.
Q: Some have suggested that we extend the life of Social Security by raising or eliminating the income ceiling on which the payroll tax is assessed. Is that acceptable to you?
DL: Of course.
Q: The President's spokesman, Dan Bartlett, says such a plan would only extend the solvency of Social Security by four years. What is your response to that?
DL: I don't trust the President, but I will concede that raising the ceiling is probably not a permanent solution.
Q: During the period that the treasury if paying back the Social Security trust fund, we will in effect be subsidizing Social Security with other taxes, most notably the income tax. Is that a fair statement?
DL: Yes, although the subsidy is actually the repayment of a debt. So, at that point I wouldn't call it a subsidy.
Q: Fair enough. After the debt is repaid, would you agree that it would be unacceptable to continue to subsidize Social Security with the income tax?
DL: No, I would not agree with that at all. It would be completely acceptable to me.
There you have it. That is the plan. There can be no other. Once you have eliminated all other options, the only thing left is to permanently subsidize Social Security with the income tax. There is no question in my mind that this is the Democratic Party's long-term plan for Social Security. The game plan is as follows:
1. Stop any meaningful reform until well after 2018.
2. Let the people get accustomed to the "temporary" subsidy while the trust fund is being depleted - a period of 24 to 34 years.
3. After the trust fund is dry, argue that continuing the subsidy is the most logical thing to do - after all, it has worked for 24 years. Why change now?
If the strategy works, and the odds are better than 50-50 that it will, not only will the Democratic Party maintain a system whereby millions of people are primarily dependent on the government for a big portion of their retirement income, but much of that income will be generated by progressive taxes. That will constitute a major political victory for the party whose ideological core is the use of government to redistribute wealth.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Democrat's plan to "save Social Security."
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 08:40:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SOCIAL SECURITY SHELL GAME |
|
| Social Security Ads: Risk or Protection?
Pro-Bush group's first TV ad states the problem correctly. But the AARP uses a misleading photo
Summary
A pro-Bush TV ad gets the central fact right about Social Security: by the time today's young workers retire there are projected to be only two workers paying Social Security taxes for every one person receiving Social Security Benefits. Today there are 3.3 workers per beneficiary.
But a different ad opposed to Bush's efforts uses a misleading photograph. It shows wild trading in commodities like cocoa futures to depict the risk that workers could face with private Social Security accounts. Actually, what's being proposed is not investment commodities, but in far less risky stock and bond mutual funds, which would be broadly diversified.
FactCheck.org |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 08:31:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SOME OBSERVATIONS ON TOLERANCE |
|
| Little known fact 1: One must object to something in order to tolerate it. You do not have to tolerate something that you do accept or affirm
Since the above is true, this makes most conservative Christians the most tolerant people in the world because they object to a lot!
Little known fact 2: The least tolerant person is the one who accepts everything.
Want to test this? Ask a liberal what they think of Jesse Helms or Kenneth Starr.
There is a difference between healthy tolerance and a diseased moral passivity or indifference.
Note to Lefty: I'm working on finding a less general term than "liberal" :) |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/16/2005 12:25:00 AM |
|
|
|
| HOMOSEXUALITY |
|
| When there isn’t much in the news, (war, high profile murder cases, etc.), the media falls back on old familiar favorites. One of those favorites is the homosexual/lesbian (hereinafter referred to as homosexual) agenda.
It’s hard to understand what ‘rights’ this self-defined “minority” group want.
*by “self-defined” i mean, that anyone can be their own minority based on preferences—for example, i could easily be a member of the mismatched socks minority, we could call ourselves happies, and lobby the government to adopt kids…*
According to the ACLU the following are desired targets of legislation by the homosexual (and transgendered) community:
1. discrimination
2. family and relationships, including marriage
3. lesbian and gay teens and young adults
4. laws which criminalize sexual intimacy, expression and association.
Discrimination –
We are approaching a world where a business, the government or even individuals will be prohibited from making choices based on subjective criteria. There are people that hate to wear a suit and tie; however, that person is passed up time and again for employment. The refusal to hire someone based on WHATEVER criteria the employer wants to exercise should be the RIGHT and LIBERTY of the employer—whether their criteria is moral or not. It is interesting that the ACLU wants to remove one American’s liberty to replace it with moral easement.
Family & Relationships, Including Marriage –
As the RELATIONSHIP between a homosexual couples is usually defined in how they carry on their PHYSICAL relationship, it is hardly surprising that many shy away from the notion of affording rights based on a particular sexual appetite. The problem with adopting a social identity based on a sexual taste, is that laws affecting you have to be defined within that narrowly focused scope. If we go down this road, the could open man-animal, man-object, man-child, or a variety of other constructs that just do not make sense.
Generally societal “norms” are what determine marriage and currently in the United States, by the most liberal of polls, only 39% of Americans support homosexual marriages. One of Webster’s definitions of marriage is: the institution whereby two are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. “Founding” in this case would be difficult, and “maintaining” may be an issue.
Lesbian and Gay Teens and Young Adults -
Unwilling to condone violence of any kind in a school environment, it has often been puzzling why the ACLU would champion homosexual children and not christian children. Anti-christian sentiment has been on the rise among teachers and school administrators with serious consequences to our children. There are many instances of violence or intolerant acts against christian youth as a result of their belief system; yet the instance that makes the media coverage is the homosexual youth that endures a beating. Not advocating EITHER act, it is; however, interesting the inequity in such cases.
Additionally, forcing or indoctrinating a child to accept another’s behavioral tendencies or even belief system that is contrary to their own is not the role of educational institutions. Our halls of academia are ill equipped to define morality, much less teach it.
Laws which Criminalize Sexual Intimacy, Expression and Association-
What happens legally and in private between two consenting adults is not the business of society. When those actions affect others, there is definitely a problem. A fault of the homosexual community is in its defining itself based on its sexual tendencies. This often gives all of the ammo needed for any governing body to find differences and deviations objectionable. *While I do believe that the government has NO business in the bedroom, I also believe that the bedroom has NO business in society.*
I have noticed over the years that homosexuals compare themselves to minorities like African Americans and women. While there should be no laws governing what color or gender someone is born, we do have a country of laws that govern our actions, and the exercise of our sexuality is action based on choice. The “rights” afforded a homosexual should be no more or no less that of any American. The problems result when one tries to fit one concept (such as marriage) into a completely unrelated concept (sexual preference). This is akin to giving a person a job because they eat spinach.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/16/2005 12:14:00 AM |
|
|
|
| BIASED - NOT BIASED - BIASED (Part 1 of 2) |
|
| Remember the old joke: When is a door not a door?
Its fascinating when faced with the truth, the ADMITTEDLY liberal biased media tries to engage in word games and obfuscation to justify the bias, or call it something that it isn't.
Joe Scarborough on MSNBC asked Hugh Downs this question:
"Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?"
To which Hugh replied:
"Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word liberal came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn't want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what's happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what's happening."
(Emphasis added by Snipet)
Not only does Hugh admit bias(which is a borderline propensity toward deception--lying), but he bestows sainthood on journalists for it. In Hugh's world, Dan Rather's presentation of false information (which he STILL maintains is "accurate in content") would have been justified because he is MORE IN TOUCH with what President Bush did 30 years ago than the rest of us. Dan's "liberated" thought; therefore, must give him creative license to assign any value, meaning or context to a story, which in the end you can "call bias" if you want to.
IT DOESN'T END HERE, THOUGH, FOLKS!
James Taranto highlighted the Downs comment in his "Best of the Web" column Thursday for OpinionJournal.com ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/best )
"So you see, it's not that journalists are biased, it's just that they know more than everyone else and thus are 'more liberated in their thought'! Don't you feel silly for thinking they were arrogant elitists?"
Taranto, evidently is soft in the head or can't understand English.
Conservatives generally see through this and dismiss it; however, if I were a liberal I would be THOROUGHLY OUTRAGED at the liberal media, its bias and failure to report the factual truth.
MY QUESTION FOR LIBERALS WOULD BE: DO YOU ENJOY BEING MANIPULATED AND LIED TO, EVEN WHEN IT FITS YOUR PARADIGM?
So, when is a door not a door? The truth is that it's always a door, even when its ajar.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/14/2005 02:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
| AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING LIBERAL... |
| Thursday, January 13, 2005 |
I somewhat agree with this BBC article.
We are living in a nation now that has place PERSONAL SECURITY over PERSONAL FREEDOM.
I am an AMERICAN - LIVE FREE OR DIE!
"Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/13/2005 08:51:00 PM |
|
|
|
| death and TAXES |
|
| No Taxation Witout Representation was a battle cry prior to our American Revolution in the 18th century. Now look what we have with representation. Truly amazing how politicians can come up with ways to separate us from our money. And we being a nation of sheep allow it to continue.
TAXES
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines
(indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
(FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
(42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense
(tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges
(tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties
(tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes
(Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax
(SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines
(indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Just to name a few...
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and most homes had a parent staying at home to raise the kids.
We've come a long way, Baby!
Hat tip: Robin |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/13/2005 08:48:00 AM |
|
|
|
| ELEMENTARY -- YES, REALLY |
| Wednesday, January 12, 2005 |
Since I have traveled the web I have met many people. I find that many people talk about things they know nothing about--repeating what they hear others say, without giving much thought or study to it themselves. I have been guilty of this on the occasion myself.
Several years back when the Snipet began, its job was to provoke thought and at times, educate. There were several instructional issues of the Snipet that were repeatedly requested after their publication, and over the next couple of weeks, the Snipet will try to republish some "Snipet Classics". As some of these are long, they will be posted on the main website; however a link will be provided here on the blog.
The first classic is to educate the general public on the term "Budget Surplus". The object of all Snipet articles was to simplify what others try to obfuscate and complicate. If you benefit from the Snipet Classics, please let me know, and I will continue to post them.
P.S. I LOVE ALL feedback. Not just agreement (although I like this too). Lefty, don't hesitate to take on anything on this site--its all fair game, and the Snipet is ALWAYS willing to learn.
http://www.newssnipet.com/budgets.html
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 03:47:00 PM |
|
|
|
| FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE, LIBERTY |
|
| WHEN MEN WERE MEN
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent
in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives
boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun
therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson
WHEN MEN ARE NOT
"Firearms should be classified as WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction)" Gov.
Gary Locke D-WA
In medieval times the lords were the only ones with arms. That way the peasantry could be more easily controlled.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 03:24:00 PM |
|
|
|
| WHOS THE BIGGER FOOL |
|
| To all you ideologues out there:
We are TRULY living in a kakistocracy.
But the question is:
Who's the bigger fool?
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 03:21:00 PM |
|
|
|
| FOR THOSE WHO TRUST GOVERNMENT |
|
| One failure of individuals who have blind faith and trust in the government is their failure to recognize that government is made up of people--often fallible people.
For example, if you knew your personal information could be stolen and sold to people who could use it against you would you offer it up so freely? We do so to the government without thought, and blindly trust it to keep it safe. Not only that, but we ENCOURAGE and support the government in this. How naive can we be?
Before you put your faith and trust in something as corrupt as our government, consider this. I have a chronically ill friend who has had his prescription drugs stolen(twice) from his luggage on airline flights. It was undoubtedly stolen by a government employee...Just like in this article:
http://www.kxly.com/common/getstory_41690.asp
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 03:10:00 PM |
|
|
|
| INCONSISTENCIES - A SNIPET CLASSIC |
|
Not long ago a liberal friend of mine had new carpet and flooring installed in his home.
1. He shopped six different places before he settled on the individual he felt qualified to put his flooring in.
2. He refused to make a down payment or ANY kind of payment to the individual until the job was done and the results PERFECT.
3. After the job was completed, he made the guy who put it in come back TWO times to fix things that I couldn't even detect were wrong.
4. He also got more out of the guy than he paid for--wood transitions (which cost the carpet guy extra) instead of brass or aluminum.
It lead into a GREAT discussion about education which made me ask the following questions:
1. Sam, did you go with the guy who was the most expensive? Was the best deal the most expensive one? No? You went with who you thought would do the best job for the money, huh.
2. Don't you think that there should be just one carpet supplier and installer? (The most expensive one...) because if you give money to one of the small guys, it takes money away from the big guys so they can't do as good a job.
3. Why did you refuse to pay until the job was done? You always seem to be more interested in paying for processes rather than results? Doesn't spending more money always bring better results? Why not pay and just accept what you get?
4. If the carpet and flooring was in, why did you make the guy come back over and over again to get it perfect? Why not pay him more money to come back and fix it?
You get the gist...
Sam is interested in choice (competition) and performance (outcomes) when it comes to his own money, but loses that concern when it comes to spending other peoples' money. Or is there some other motivation? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 02:34:00 PM |
|
|
|
| RHETORIC |
|
| " At a Manhattan holiday party last week, hosted by a friend with Wesleyan ties, I overheard my daughter explaining that no real debate takes place on campus. This was a major frustration, since she is feisty and brilliant and loves to argue ideas. She is politically liberal but wonders how Democrats of her generation will be able to speak convincingly to the middle of the political spectrum when so many of them shun the complexity of arguments and simply spout the party line."
For the full article go to:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050103.shtml
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 11:27:00 AM |
|
|
|
| I HAVE A DREAM |
|
| I too have a dream
I have a dream - that one day, people who can afford their own prescription drugs will buy them without robbing their neighbor's piggy bank.
I have a dream - that one day all my brothers and sisters will have the foresight to save for their own retirement, and that Ponzi schemes like Social Security will no longer be wanted or needed.
I have a dream - that the phrase "government entitlement" will be nothing more than a relic on the wall of a museum - The Museum of Discarded Government Ideas.
I have a dream. Unfortunately, I always wake up and have to live in the real world where our beloved government employees (Congress and the President) are arguing over solutions to problems they created in the first place.
A couple of years ago, President Bush and Congress "fixed" Medicare by adding a feature that makes it even more expensive. That feature - prescription drug coverage - purportedly solved the problem of senior citizens not being able to afford their life-sustaining pharmaceuticals.
As it turns out - and it was pointed out well before the vote was taken - this is not actually a problem. It is for a few people, but not for the senior population as a whole. Retired Americans spend about three percent of their income for prescription drugs. That's less then they spend for entertainment. Let's have the ayes and nays for an "entertainment entitlement" for senior citizens.
As a result of our government employees' "fix," both conservative and liberal economists are writing today that the insolvency of Medicare is much more imminent than the insolvency of Social Security, which is next on the list of problems to be fixed.
Social Security would also not need to be fixed if our government employees had not made the same mistake with it as they did with Medicare. What mistake is that? Thanks for asking. The mistake was in making the programs "entitlements," triggered by living long enough to collect the benefits, rather than making them welfare programs designed to sustain life when no other means were available.
Had Medicare and Social Security been designed as welfare programs, only a small fraction of the retired population would be covered. The cost would be minimal and most people would plan for their retirement needs by saving, rather than paying taxes to support others who didn't plan for their retirement.
I have a dream my friends - that somehow, someday, someone will have the vision, opportunity and skill to transform government generosity from something that covers everyone at extraordinarily high costs to something that covers only the truly needy at a much lower cost, and leaves most of our taxpayers' money in their own pockets to provide for the own future needs.
I have a dream.
http://www.ralphbristol.com
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 10:53:00 AM |
|
|
|
| THE SNIPET LIBERAL FUND |
| Tuesday, January 11, 2005 |
For those who think we do not pay enough taxes...
For the 49 Senators (46 Democrat and *2 Republican Chafee, Snowe) who voted against the Bush tax cut, as well as the myriad of Congressmen who whittled it from pitifully low down to ineffective, and also for every liberal pro-spending individual who thinks that our current tax burden is not enough, the Snipet Corporation will be setting up a fund so that voluntary contributions can be made to the government.
Administration of the fund by the budding Snipet Corporation will guarantee that **98% of the proceeds will be given directly to the Federal, State and/or Local governments for the additional revenues that they are so desperately needed. The Snipet Corporation would like to provide an opportunity for every one out there who feel that tax cuts are a detriment and who would like to contribute to the dwindling coffers of the government.
The Snipet Corporation will make sure that your money goes directly to funds already existing programs within the government such as:
-Research on Africanized killer bees in Texas (they only received $500,000, but need more to finish the study)
-Building of the Vulcan statue in Alabama (its already built, and the received $1,500,000 to do it, but somehow they ended up in the red and need more funds)
-Research to reduce swine manure odor in Iowa ($500,000 so far)
-A tattoo removal program in San Luis Obispo County, California ($50,000)
-An effort to combat goth culture in Blue Springs, Missouri ($270,000)
These are just a few, and we haven't begun to mention those submitted and approved for Sen. Robert Byrd and the wonderful state of Left Virginia.
Your funds are needed and greatly appreciated. CONTRIBUTE TODAY!
*actually there were 3 Republicans who voted against the bill. The third was John McCain. His reason he said was that there was too much pork (wasteful spending) attached to the bill.
**2% will be withheld for administration costs of the fund this is a MUCH lower percentage than organizations like the United Way and the Internal Revenue Service operate.
LETS NOT CRITICIZE
When our fiscally responsible Congress was unfairly criticized for its funding of approximately $15 billion of needful projects, House Appropriations Committee Chairman C. W. Young (R-FL) was quick to point out that "The power of the purse resides solely with Congress. Unless the Constitution is amended, Congress will continue to exercise its discretion over federal funds for purposes we deem appropriate."
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/11/2005 01:54:00 PM |
|
|
|
| EXLUSIVE RIGHTS |
|
| The United States no longer has exclusive rights to being called the "land of the offended" or "PC-USA".
"TOWNSHIP" - Now an offensive word.
Read all about it at:
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/141/141905_word_ban_by_police_branded_madness.html
Dedicated to my friend Religiouslefty who enjoys a love for the purity of language like I do. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/06/2005 10:43:00 AM |
|
|
|
| ACTIVIST JUDGES |
|
I have heard more "conservative" talk show hosts lauding the decision of New York judge to restrict a drug addicted woman from having anymore children until she can support the seven she already has.
On the surface this sounds like a good idea and something that should rightfully take place; however, if one were to just think for 2.5 seconds they will realize that this is a breach in our form of government once again.
Our Constitution expressly forbids our Judicial Branch (our judges) from making any new laws. That is the function of Congress.
Once again we have an activist judge who circumvents the Constitution of the United States to create new law. So much for the seperation of powers...and shame on "conservatives" for not recognizing the difference.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/06/2005 10:21:00 AM |
|
|
|
| KINDA LIKE THE MANY PEOPLE HE TORTURED... |
| Wednesday, January 05, 2005 |
| "One year after his capture, Saddam Hussein's trial for war
crimes, considered the most important since Nuremburg, has yet to
hear a single world of testimony....Critics point to several
failures: that Saddam has not yet been allowed to meet with a
lawyer; that the trial will permit testimony obtained under
torture; and that much of the evidence from mass grave sites was
not properly preserved or recorded....Saddam waits in his cell,
without charge or legal counsel."
-- Jim Sciutto. ABC World News Tonight. 12/12/04 |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/05/2005 03:01:00 PM |
|
|
|
| EVIL VIDEO GAMES |
|
Grand Theft Auto III allowed game players to solicit prostitutes and blow the heads off cops. Leisure Suit Larry was all about seducing women. There's a new game coming out with the objective of assassinating a pixilated John F. Kennedy.
What is the world coming to?!
With soccer moms petitioning congress to do something, and Joe Leiberman and Tipper Gore leading the censorship charge, is there anything that can be done about the whole "mature" video game question?
The answer to the first question is that the world has ALWAYS been here, and nothing new is happening in the world of media, except maybe a higher degree of interactivity.
The Snipet will give you a hint about what is NOT the answer, and will await your comments on what YOU think the solution should be.
THE "BAN" WAGON
BAN everything? We see what happened in Nazi Germany when books were burned--everything ended up on a "banned" list -- even the Bible. If we step on this slippery slope, striking everything from the list that's harmful to minors, then we can add to the long list junk food, rap music, and a host of other things. Last I checked, it was MY responsibility as a parent to make sure my child had a balanced diet, was playing with the right friends, and not being unduly influenced by the improper things.
But let's go down the "ban" trail and see the problems:
WHO gets to control the ban list? Are their values going to reflect mine or even society's? In two hundred years, our law books have never decreased in size, so the ban list will only grow more and more until, by virtue of its size, it tramples our Constitutional rights as individuals. The bans not only affect minors, but adults too. If its a question of adult content being available for minors then we need to look at banning alcohol, cigarettes, many over the counter drugs, many behind the counter drugs, bleaches and cleaners, glues, insecticides, chemicals, cosmetics...I think you get my point.
Banning or censoring video games is not the answer.
Can you tell me what is?
Click on "post comment" below. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/04/2005 01:59:00 PM |
|
|
|
| ASIAN TSUNAMI GIVING |
| Monday, January 03, 2005 |
Liberals (the friends of the French) were quick to criticize the United States and its government for giving to little to aid in the Asian Tsunami crisis.
France pledged $100,000 dollars (yes, that's thousand), which is $900,000 less than Sandra Bullock gave to relief efforts.
The French immediately buckled under criticism and Chirac said that they have pledged additional aid in the form of some nice red wine, a baguette and a little cheese.
Hat tip: Pam
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/03/2005 03:55:00 PM |
|
|
|
| RELIGIOUS HUMANISM |
|
| If one has the chance, browse
http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html
The Snipet has decided to take on the Humanist Manifesto I-III.
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Cause and effect is the foundation of scientific study. This is where the "religious" humanism part comes in. It takes faith to believe the first tenet of religious humanism because it is unscientific.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
Its funny, the use of "process" in this tenet is contradictory of the first.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
By traditional dualism, they are saying that cognition is simple reaction to stimuli, therefore we are nothing more than animals with higher reasoning power.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
This is true in some instances, but is unscientific in its approach. To completely attribute the whole topic of religion and the supernatural to cultural belief and reaction to external stimuli limits the scope of scientific inquiry. This is additional faith based belief.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
If this remained constant then there would be no order to the universe. Everything from eliptical orbits to dna organization recognize a prediliction toward a "value system". The universe is built and guided on laws and laws are often what values are established upon.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
Again, without sufficient scientific investigation.
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation -- all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
To say that religion is nothing but self gratification is saying that its religious humanism in a different form. But relistically, how can one scientifically explain, for example, self-sacrifice?
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
So inherently selfish reward today is the driving passion of the humanist.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
For what purpose does one promote social well-being? What emotion is it based on? Does one promote social well-being simply for its reciprocity? Keep in mind, that if this is so, and a humanist ever does something for you, its for him, not you. Get it?
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
Again, it limits science while invoking it.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
Two parents placed their three year old child in an oven and turned it on. The child died a horrible death. How "natural and probable" is this event, as humanism claims thier action as not being evil, but the simple result of cultural stimuli and natural cause.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
Some of the greatest advances in science have come from the religious mind. The above statement assumes that the religious are unproductive, and sit by in life letting it go by. Statistically proven are several things: 1. Religious people are more charitable--giving more to others, their communities, those less fortunate, than secularists. 2. Industry and technology have been the result of largely religious inititiative and work ethic. It is evident that the humanist is focused on their own pleasure rather the enrichment of those around them.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
Who gives any one or any structure the right to TRANSFORM or CONTROL institutions or associations. Also, what gives humans the right to manipulate and elevate themselves above any lifeform. The thirteenth tenet strongly suggests, "We are the Borg, you must be assimulated". Hitler was a wonderful example of a religious humanist.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
The only way some in society will work is if they are enslaved and forced to. The only way to curb graft and excessive self gratification is for people to realize their are things more important them themselves--something humanism preaches against. In order to establish "controls" one has to be in charge, this is nothing but the "acquisitive and profit-motivated" society but without the industry. Sharing is a higher function of existence--it can't be demanded as it is a function of cognition based on the giver, not the givee.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
(a) therefore we support abortion and euthanisia, (b) by limiting people's choices for the greater good and (c) by simply taking from those who produce to give to those who won't, or by enslaving those who won't to produce what is wanted by all.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/03/2005 03:25:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Next,
That this doesn't make the news--not like President Bush's National Gaurd Service, not like his use of drugs as a young man, not like...
Ponderings from the Lightning Bug
