|
| DUH |
| Friday, June 30, 2006 |
| LiveScience.com - Study: Money Does Not Buy Much Happiness: "Study: Money Does Not Buy Much Happiness
By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 29 June 2006
02:00 pm ET
Your next raise might buy you a more lavish vacation, a better car, or a few extra bedrooms, but it's not likely to buy you much happiness.
Measuring the quality of people's daily lives via surveys, the results of a study published in the June 30 issue of journal Science reveals that income plays a rather insignificant role in day-to-day happiness. " |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/30/2006 11:08:00 AM   |
|
|
|
| Argue substance, not slogans |
| Thursday, June 29, 2006 |
| The laziest and weakest argument in the illegal immigration debate is "What part of illegal don’t you understand?" There’s nothing about the word illegal that anyone doesn't understand, but the question is the refuge of slackers who are ill-prepared to argue the substantive issues: economics; culture; security and more.
Consider three separate debates:
Speeding; marijuana and illegal immigrants.
In Texas, the highway department found that 85 percent of the people on an open stretch of Interstate highway acted illegally by traveling an average of 76 miles an hour, instead of the posted speed limit – 70. They decided to raise the speed limit to 80. In most states, on most Interstate highways, the majority of people violate the law. Some argue that the law is too restrictive. Others reason that the law should be obeyed and enforced to save lives. Those who like to argue but have no point simply say that enforcement should be increased because too many people are violating the law. How profound!
An estimated 70 million Americans illegally possess and smoke marijuana. In the ongoing debate over decriminalization, some folks argue that marijuana is no worse than other intoxicating substances like beer, wine and liquor, and should not be illegal. Others counter that marijuana should remain illegal and violators should be arrested because the only purpose of marijuana is to become intoxicated, that its use generally leads to more dangerous drugs, and that illegal drug use propagates violent crime. The intellectually challenged insist that marijuana laws should be strictly enforced because it’s illegal to smoke marijuana. The debate, of course, is whether marijuana SHOULD be illegal, not whether it IS illegal.
Now comes the big national argument about illegal immigrants. Most everyone agrees there are some 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, and that poses a problem. But there's a lack of agreement on the nature of the problem. President Bush, Sen. Lindsey Graham and I believe that while the law breaking and problems should be addressed, the illegal immigrants are, by and large, making a contribution to our economy and we need to find a way to preserve the contribution, even as we deal with the lawbreaking and other problems. Others argue either that the illegal immigrants are harming the economy by driving down wages and taking jobs from Americans, or that any contribution they make is eclipsed by the problems they create -- over-taxing social services and/or corrupting a common American culture. The lazy among us just repeat, "What part of illegal don’t you understand."
Unfortunately, that third voice frequently drowns out (or shouts down) the more substantive debate. "What part of illegal don’t you understand?" is a stupid question that doesn’t deserve an answer, but I'll answer it anyway. Many things that were once illegal are now legal because we came to believe that the prohibition was not serving us well.
Violating a law is rarely if ever a serious problem, in and of itself. The action, which is against the law, is the problem. It is against the law because it's a problem. It’s not a problem because it's against the law. If reasonable people decide something is not a problem, they change the law, as the legislators did in Texas with regard to the speed limit.
In order to facilitate continued economic growth, the United States must have immigrant workers. We will likely need even more in the future. We simply don't have enough indigenous population growth to sustain a growing economy. Today, too many of those immigrant workers are here illegally. It does not violate a general respect for the law to simultaneously change the immigration law and allow some people to make a transition from violator to legal worker, providing there is a reasonable consequence for the original violation.
There is an important, substantive disagreement about whether the workers are needed, and if so, what is the best way to accommodate the need. There is also a legitimate concern about whether contemporary immigrants, mostly from Mexico, will live up to the legacy of those who came before them; a legacy that produced one nation with different backgrounds but common loyalties and values. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/29/2006 09:17:00 AM |
|
|
|
| KISS YOUR ANIMALS GOODBYE |
| Monday, June 26, 2006 |
The following is an email from a dear friend. If you are concerned about private property, (and all who visit here are), then please check out her concerns at:
http://henwhisperer.blogspot.com/
Jack! Glad you emailed. I emailed you back, but just like normal, it flew around and then was undeliverable.
Anyway, I am surprised to see that you have not mentioned National Animal Identification System (NAIS) here. This is the worst of programs and will kill an entire segment of our economy. Farmers will be driven out of business by USDA, Inc. Ownership of private property is being put to the test. Who owns my hens? Me or the gov't? If I house them, feed them, pay for them, but don't own them, does that make me a serf?
Mark of the Beast is knocking at the barn door. How much time until they want to put RFID chips in our kids and us?
Nonais.org -> check it out. Scary and real.
Bwakk
Hen
Good to hear from you as always, Hen!
-Jack |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/26/2006 07:21:00 AM |
|
|
|
| WMD? Yes and No |
| Thursday, June 22, 2006 |
| As it turns out, we actually did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – chemical weapons. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania yesterday disclosed a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, that confirmed the recovery of “approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.” The report said more such weapons are “assessed to still exist.”
This being true, “Why,” I asked myself, “did the White House not produce this information long ago to blunt the barrage of claims that it ‘lied’ about WMD in order to justify the war with Iraq.”
There is only one possible answer. Not, two, three or more. The only possible answer is that the White House was not sufficiently impressed with the find to consider it a convincing rebuttal.
Why?
Well, I suppose it’s because the weapons are old enough (pre 1991), so they are not an indication of an ongoing WMD program at the time we went to war.
So what. It still proves Iraq had WMD?
Yes, but it doesn’t prove that Iraq had an “active” WMD program that would present either an imminent or a “growing” threat, which is the word I believe the President used.
Why does it take an active program to present a threat?
It doesn’t. It takes an active program to present a “growing” threat.
Yes, but the declassified report says the weapons could be sold on the black market, that their use outside Iraq could not be ruled out, and that “while agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.” I thought the central argument concerning WMD was that Iraq had weapons that they could sell to terrorists to use against the U.S. Doesn’t this support that claim?
Well, yes, I suppose it does.
So, why would the White House not release that report without someone having to drag it out of them?
I’m sorry. I don’t know the answer to that.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/22/2006 11:00:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - WHEN CONVENIENT |
| Monday, June 19, 2006 |
| Chron.com | Clinton Praises Evangelical Christians: "NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton praised evangelical Christians on Thursday for their recent efforts on global warming and debt relief for poor nations and said he sees growing understanding between people of different faiths." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/19/2006 03:25:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Life in a bubble not good |
|
| Life in a bubble not good
Here’s more evidence of my pet theory – that facing adversity, rather than avoiding it, makes people stronger and better. This particular evidence involves rats, not humans, but that’s a minor detail.
Two new studies, published in Scandinavia, show that rats and mice living in sewers and farms have healthier immune systems than their squeaky clean cousins that frolic in cushy antiseptic labs. The lesson for humans: Clean living may make us sick. You can either use this as an excuse not to clean your home, or you can take the larger lesson. Adversity makes you stronger.
Baby Boomer parents and the people we elect – architects of the wussification of America -- need to give more serious thought to the theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, that has been kicking around academic circles for 17 years. As the theory goes, people's immune systems aren't being challenged by disease and dirt early in life, so the body's natural defenses overreact to such small irritants as pollen.
It’s not just the body’s immune system that can grow weaker by over-protection. It’s the entire body, mind, and human spirit. We need adversity. We need problems to solve. We need a certain level of stress, pain and suffering to learn how to cope. So-called “helicopter parents” who are over-involved and protective of their children, including college age children, are doing their kids no favor by running interference for them every step of the way.
Nanny-state legislators, who rush to pass a new law in the wake of every tragic death, are doing their constituents no favor by taking the responsibility for our safety and well being out of our hands and transferring it to the government.
Knowing where to draw the line is not easy. Good parenting and good lawmaking takes intelligence and uncommon sense. My generation, the baby boomer generation, has unfortunately not known enough adversity to understand the benefits thereof. As a result, we are over-protecting, over-feeding, and over-nursing our children. If future generations survive our smothering love, it will be by the grace of God, not by our protective hand.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/19/2006 10:18:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Sorry refugees, I misjudged you |
|
| I would like to personally thank the Hurricane Katrina refugees for showing remarkable restraint in the face of overwhelming temptation. You apparently spent only $1.4 billion (about 16%) of your free money on sex, drugs and rock and roll instead of food and shelter.
While most of the country is condemning you today, I want to congratulate you. I expected worse. Many of you did everything wrong, right up to the time the government gave you a bunch of my money. I expected you to blow it all – or most of it anyway. You only blew one dollar in six. Not bad.
I had low expectations of you because – well, if you had been responsible, you wouldn’t have needed the money in the first place. You would have known that you live in the path of a hurricane. You would have made plans to evacuate, including saving some money for such an emergency. Had all of you done that, it would not have been necessary for the government to give you nine billion of your fellow citizen’s dollars on which to survive while Katrina occupied your homes.
To be sure, we still would have opened our homes and hearts to you. We would have provided you with emergency supplies and shelter, but in short order, you would have taken control of your own situation, and you would not have needed those taxpayer funded ATM cards with which some of you had so much fun.
If you are not aware of some of your fellow refugees adventures, they used the money to buy divorces, Caribbean vacations, season tickets to New Orleans Saints, “Girls Gone Wild” videos, and Dom Perignon champagne, just to name a few.
I’m ashamed to admit that I expected at least half of the money to be misspent, but the GAO audit cannot confirm more than about $1.4 billion in abuse – about 16% of the total assistance. So I offer my sincere apology for misjudging you. Apparently most of you actually used the money for the purposes for which it was intended.
That doesn’t mean that I support the spending, mind you. I don’t think you should have received it. I think charity and self-reliance should have sufficed, but our government never wants to be left out of any charitable endeavor.
Just because I apparently misjudged you, I’m not going to abandon my view that people should, and largely can, care for themselves, and that they are ultimately better off for doing so. But I will admit (because I always admit when I’m wrong) that abusing only one in six of the dollars you got from the kindness of strangers is better than I expected of you.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/14/2006 09:48:00 AM |
|
|
|
| MAN OVERESTIMATES HIS IMPORTANCE... |
| Tuesday, June 13, 2006 |
| Subtitled: Let's do the math
Okay, let’s do the math. The government released its annual greenhouse gas report early this week and we’re all going to burn alive from global warming. The new government index says the effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth's atmosphere has increased 20 percent since 1990.
According to the report by the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, CO, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere as a result of industrial and other processes. They can help trap solar heat, somewhat like a greenhouse, resulting in a gradual warming of the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth's average temperature increased about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th century.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that continuing increases could have serious effects on crops, glaciers, the spread of disease, rising sea levels and other changes. This is the purported reason that environmentalists want the United States to significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels and the release of carbon dioxide into the air via industrial processes.
There are many different greenhouse gases, but the three main ones are water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone.
Carbon dioxide, the one created by burning fossil fuels, constitutes between 9 and 26 percent of the greenhouse gases.
Human activity is responsible for approximately 14% of the carbon dioxide that has collected in the atmosphere since 1850.
With simple multiplication, we then learn that human activity, through burning fossil fuels, is responsible for 1.25% to 3.64% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – the accumulation of which has allegedly resulted in a one-degree increase in the Earth’s average temperature in the last century.
Therefore, the worldwide burning of fossil fuels is responsible for increasing the Earth’s temperature by somewhere between about one hundredth or four hundredths of one degree in the past century.
The U.S. is responsible for about one-fourth of that, so we can blame ourselves for a maximum of one hundredth of one degree Fahrenheit of the earth’s warming in the last century.
Bottom line: It might – just might – be a big waste of money to spend hundreds of billions of dollars retooling the U.S. Industrial process to significantly reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Someone want to tell, Al? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/13/2006 03:18:00 PM |
|
|
|
| The monster under your bed |
| Monday, June 12, 2006 |
| If you have any young wage earners in the audience, I suggest you either shield their ears or turn up the radio, depending on their ability to handle scary stuff. I’m not talking about stuff like thrill rides, nightmares, slasher movies or imaginary monsters under their bed. I’m talking about the really scary stuff – liberal ideas about health care.
Congress, in order to legitimize its intended raid on your future earnings, appointed a committee, the Citizens' Health Care Working Group. The committee, in order to legitimize its intended recommendations, reportedly went to 50 communities and talked with 23,000 people about health care and the proper way to finance it.
It came back with the recommendation (and this is the scary part) that “Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility.”
That will mean that no matter how diligent you are about preserving your health, you and the beer-guzzling, cigarette-smoking, couch potato who never saw a Twinkie he didn’t like, nor an exercise he did, are equally responsible for each other’s health care bills.
Actually, your bill will be higher than his, because you will be more affluent than he, and the collective healthcare bill, like most other government bills, will be divided by ability to pay.
Personal health is not completely controllable, but neither are other things for which we have insurance. We insure our cars to pay for accidents, but we pay out of pocket for the maintenance. We insure our homes in case there’s a fire, but we pay out of pocket for a new roof to keep out the rain that could cause a lot more damage.
The only way to control health care costs is to treat health care like other essential needs: food, transportation, shelter, clothing, gas, electricity, phone service. I am absolutely convinced that the reason the price of healthcare is as high as it is today is that we have a long established disconnect between the consumer and the payer. About half of all health care today is already funded by taxpayers. Of the other half, some 70 to 80 percent is paid for by private insurance.
As a result, there is no incentive to use the “insurance” wisely, or to practice healthy living. Can you imagine how irresponsible and wasteful we would be if we all received “free” health care, no matter how much or little we use? The only way to control costs would be for the government to ration health care.
This argument may, more than any other, determine whether the United States of America continues to be the leader of the free world, or just another one-time giant drowning in a sea of wealth-stifling government spending. There is a monster under the bed. He’s not an imaginary monster. He’s real. He’s dangerous, and he can defeat the most power force on earth – the United States of America – if he’s unleashed. His name is Universal Health Care.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/12/2006 08:37:00 AM |
|
|
|
| BULL'S EYE |
| Friday, June 09, 2006 |
| "Conservative" bomb-thrower Ann Coulter has a way of getting our attention that most people just won’t employ. She takes political incorrectness to the extreme. It makes some people uncomfortable, and it enrages others, but it gets stuff out in the open that needs to be discussed. Never has that been more true than now.
It’s just one line in her new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” but it has drawn more blood than all of the other intentionally offensive things she has said or written in the past. The line is, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”
She is speaking specifically of four 9/11 widows who have gained fame, wealth and power from the 9/11 attacks that killed their husbands. She has dubbed the four New Jersey women “The Witches of East Brunswick,” after the town where two of them live.
The four-woman cabal has spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks blaming President Bush for 9/11 and supporting his political opponents, including the failed 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Kerry.
Coulter’s point, which she makes after getting the mules attention with a 2X4, is that liberals have employed “untouchable” sympathetic figures to do their dirty work for them and shield themselves from criticism. The four New Jersey widows are not actually enjoying their husbands’ deaths, but they certainly have not forsworn the fame, fortune and political influence that it has brought them. They are taking advantage of their sympathetic status to attack and judge, and they seem to expect impunity.
Coulter doesn’t respect the widow’s expectation of impunity and neither should the rest of us. In a debate that is important to the entire country, perhaps the whole world, no one should be given a shield from criticism. No one has more standing than anyone else who has a stake in the outcome of the debate. Being a victim of terrorism may earn the widows more sympathy than you or me, but it does not earn them any more standing to criticize. The point is, sympathy does not engender impunity, at least not in politics or public policy. The outcome of the debate is too important to let sympathy skew it. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/09/2006 10:10:00 AM |
|
|
|
| ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION |
| Thursday, June 08, 2006 |
| Email forwarded to The Snipet. Comments?
"Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country
protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of
illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own
borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay
indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these
protests.
Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in
your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and
washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all
the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I
broke into your house)."
According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me
to your family's insurance plan and provide other benefits to me and to my
family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working
and honest, except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who
will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm
just trying to better myself.
I'm hard-working and honest ... um, except for ... well, you
know.
And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a
fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it
without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being anti-housebreaker. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/08/2006 08:02:00 AM |
|
|
|
| DETESTABLE WHITE ELITISM |
| Tuesday, June 06, 2006 |
| New York Daily News - Home - Treat me like I'm black, sez Teddy's son: "Fresh from rehab, Rep. Patrick Kennedy said yesterday he wants to be treated like an African-American from Washington if and when he gets charged for crashing his car on Capitol Hill.
Denying that he was drunk and or that he asked the Capitol Police for preferential treatment, Kennedy, a Rhode Island congressman, said he's prepared 'in terms of bookings, in terms of mug shots, fingerprints, whatever they might have me do.'
"It's what anyone else would have done to them if they were an African-American in Anacostia," Kennedy said in a shaky voice, referring to the mostly minority neighborhood in southeastern Washington." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/06/2006 07:40:00 PM |
|
|
|
| MOTIVATE THE BASE MONTH |
|
| This week is “motivate the base month” in the United States Senate. Republican voters are not exactly brimming with enthusiasm for their party leaders these days, so, with elections lurking in the shadows, the Republican leadership in the Senate has scheduled debates and votes this week and next on three “base” issues, gay marriage, the estate tax and flag-burning.
Gay marriage is first, and it has no chance of passing, but it will create a contemporary record that voters might remember when they go to the polls. And, it could inspire some largely uninspired voters to vote when they otherwise might not. At least that’s what the party leaders hope – that a push for conservative issues will overcome growing antipathy, and some hostility, among usual Republican voters.
Next week, the Senate will take up a permanent repeal of the estate tax. That too won’t pass, but some congress watchers think it might produce a compromise that will permanently increase the exemption. Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, who wants to be president, is proposing an $8 million exemption that would be indexed so it rises with inflation.
The Senate has failed to pass the flag-burning amendment many times, and won’t pass it this time either.
The cynics among us think less, not more, of the Republican leaders for using the Senate chambers as a “get out the vote” forum. Conservative activist Richard Viguerie, says the votes won’t make up for what he considers a pattern of wayward behavior. “No conservative is going to take this as a change of heart or as a newfound belief in conservative principles.”
Bear in mind that Virguerie is a persistently grumpy conservative, who is never satisfied. He wasn’t even happy with Ronald Reagan. There are some Republican voters who, even though they are unhappy with today’s party leaders for bloated spending, and are growing weary of the Iraq war, immigration problems and gas prices, have core religious, patriotic, and economic beliefs that caused them to identify with the Republican Party.
In politics, it’s often not what you accomplish, but what you stand for that counts |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/06/2006 08:33:00 AM |
|
|
|
| CRAZY FRED |
| Friday, June 02, 2006 |
| After slipping just a little bit with that proposal to rescind the gas tax, my confidence is fully restored that Gov. Mark Sanford makes decisions with absolutely no regard to their political consequences. Sanford is the “anti-populist” governor.
He proved it this week by vetoing the “Crazy Fred” law. That’s not the actual name of the law. It’s the name I gave it a few months ago when I urged the South Carolina legislature not to follow the lead of other states by passing a law to ban Crazy Fred’s funeral protests. Like clockwork, they ignored me and took the opposite course.
If you are a crazed zealot, what could be better for you than to have legislatures all over the country determine that you are such a nuisance, they need laws that target you and you alone?
Crazy Fred, once so marginalized that only a few sensationalist media folks covered his antics, is now deemed such a threat that dozens of states have passed laws to ban his favorite pastime – protesting at soldiers’ funerals.
Sadly, South Carolina followed suit because our lawmakers cannot resist the temptation to exploit emotions for political gain. There is no more sympathetic victim that the grieving family of a fallen hero. Any lawmaker who stands with that family earns easy brownie points. His biggest risk is that he might pull a muscle patting himself on the back. Any politician who fails to go along is the subject of scorn.
The politician who volunteered for the latter role is, of course, Governor Sanford. Sanford vetoed the “Crazy Fred” bill, saying, in part that laws should not trample freedoms. He added, “That includes freedoms that cause me or you to say, ‘I disagree and disagree very, very strongly.’”
I don’t just disagree with Crazy Fred. I think he’s a genuine loon. I simultaneously despise and pity him. With their actions, legislatures have given him what he craves more than anything and otherwise would never have – legitimacy.
Now, lawmakers are castigating Sanford for refusing to go along with their pandering ways. Democrats and Republicans alike blasted the veto as insensitive to military families. I don’t expect grieving families to be able to think clearly enough to grasp the fact that the legislature’s actions give power to Crazy Fred, but I do expect the lawmakers to know it.
In fact, I think they do know it. They aren’t stupid. Well, some are, but most are just shameless panderers. They exploit other people’s emotions for their own political benefit. It is an almost irresistible force that beckons all politicians Few can resist it. Sanford remains one of the few.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/02/2006 08:38:00 AM |
|
|
|
| GLOBAL WARMING |
| Thursday, June 01, 2006 |
The Snipet has always maintained a rather neutral position on the whole global warming issue, understanding that the debate is more political than it is scientific.
For the socialists in the world, the issue presents an opportunity to increase control and oversight, fueled by Marxism and Fabian Socialism (beware those who always promote their platform through fear or supposed "crisis"). For the unconscionable capitalist/opportunist the issue leans toward the accumulation of wealth at any costs without regard to future generations (beware those who frame their arguments in dismissive terms).
Contributing toward the debate are two types of science--fuzzy and hard. Many on the left would maintain that the science that supports their position is hard and anything to the contrary is fuzzy. The right will do the same.
Because of this, the common folk rarely pay attention to reality, choosing rather to engage in the accumulation of information that "feels" right or fits their politics.
Interesting article:
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past - New York Times: "The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/01/2006 03:43:00 PM |
|
|
|
| AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS A MAN THING... |
|
| USATODAY.com: "Men are more likely than women to prefer marriage over lifelong singlehood and in many ways are as interested in serious family relationships as women, according to a new study that provides the government's first comprehensive glimpse into the male psyche." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/01/2006 10:42:00 AM |
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
