8/31/2005
Pay attention to the second paragraph
Why do people not realize that the man can still perform his duties, no matter where he is? That's what all this wonderful new communication technology is for, folks. It's what allows me to post to this blog from wherever I can find a computer--a different scale, obviously, but on a different budget too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9132021/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9132021/
What the heck does this psycho expect?
She and her followers camp outside the man's home, blaming him for the deaths of American soldiers, men and women who volunteered for the service, and she's heartbroken that he won't meet with her? Puh-lease. Get a grip.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9137815/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9137815/
8/30/2005
She sure does look berieved, doesn't she?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9075811/
This is the mother that is mentioned in my brief piece entitled "My sympathies evaporated pretty quickly."
This is the mother that is mentioned in my brief piece entitled "My sympathies evaporated pretty quickly."
Finally! News that something is NOT bad for us
All you techno-phobes out there have one less excuse now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9131704/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9131704/
8/29/2005
In addition to my earlier piece on Social Security
First of all, in two separate Supreme Court rulings, it was held that the funds that one has payed toward Social Security are not one's property. Under privatized Social Security, the opposite would be true. This means that these funds can be passed on to loved ones upon death, and more importantly, that the money is yours, and you decide what to do with it.
By the way, not all of the money that we pay into Social Security even goes to Social Security. So don't think that it's still like it's your money. No, the Social Security funds taken from our paychecks at the moment more than cover the Social Security program. So where does it all go? Well, what's left over goes to other government programs. What does that mean? It means that in truth, it's really just another method of taxing us, in disguise. And this is why so many government officials don't want to privatize it. That would take away alot of their funds. Privatization would mean that a smaller amount could be taken from your paycheck, and the money would still be yours, and you'd end up getting more back.
Also, take notice, the amount taken out of our paychecks has been increased six times since the creation of Social Security. Why? Because the worker-to-retiree ratio has gone down so much. And as mentioned in my earlier piece, this trend is worsening. The retirement age has also been increased to support this need.
I mentioned that other countries have privatized Social Security, most notably Chile. But there are sixteen others, and more are joining the ranks all the time. Not to mention the three counties in Texas that did so--to immense success--through an old, and now closed, loophole in the original law. And government employees here in the U.S. are allowed to opt out as well, and they have in droves.
But the two greatest benefits of all are the greater returns from the private programs (which also mean higher consumption and production, and lower unemployment), and the economic improvement resulting from the investment of the money put into the private plans--which, for those of you who don't know, is how the amount of money in an account is able to increase over time.
By the way, not all of the money that we pay into Social Security even goes to Social Security. So don't think that it's still like it's your money. No, the Social Security funds taken from our paychecks at the moment more than cover the Social Security program. So where does it all go? Well, what's left over goes to other government programs. What does that mean? It means that in truth, it's really just another method of taxing us, in disguise. And this is why so many government officials don't want to privatize it. That would take away alot of their funds. Privatization would mean that a smaller amount could be taken from your paycheck, and the money would still be yours, and you'd end up getting more back.
Also, take notice, the amount taken out of our paychecks has been increased six times since the creation of Social Security. Why? Because the worker-to-retiree ratio has gone down so much. And as mentioned in my earlier piece, this trend is worsening. The retirement age has also been increased to support this need.
I mentioned that other countries have privatized Social Security, most notably Chile. But there are sixteen others, and more are joining the ranks all the time. Not to mention the three counties in Texas that did so--to immense success--through an old, and now closed, loophole in the original law. And government employees here in the U.S. are allowed to opt out as well, and they have in droves.
But the two greatest benefits of all are the greater returns from the private programs (which also mean higher consumption and production, and lower unemployment), and the economic improvement resulting from the investment of the money put into the private plans--which, for those of you who don't know, is how the amount of money in an account is able to increase over time.
Get out there and give
Folks, as I'm sure many of you know, the Red Cross is going to have an immense need over the next several days. I would encourage everyone out there to find a donation center or a blood drive and do what you can to give. They now have the ability to take two units of blood from you at once, a Double Red Donation, without causing you any problems. It takes a little bit longer, but they're gonna need it. They're also going to need people to volunteer their time, down in the gulf, and wherever the nearest blood drive to you might be. And finally, yes, money. They need money to run their operations, and the folks down south are gonna need some money too.
I've found my nearest blood drive, and you can expect me to be there, bright and early Wednesday morning.
I've found my nearest blood drive, and you can expect me to be there, bright and early Wednesday morning.
8/25/2005
Can't we all just get along?
I understand these people's pride in their famous ancestor, but why should this legacy, and the enjoyment of being in the presence of something so precious, belong only to them? Mr. Grissom's acheivement was one to be shared with the nation, or even the world. And that's what it's doing now--on display in a museum.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9064274/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9064274/
My sympathies evaporated pretty quickly....
I'm very sorry for this mother's loss, but it seems to me that mourning the loss of a loved one should be a personal, private matter, not a means to an end. I honestly think that this woman is capitalizing on her son's death to further a cause, or more likely, (and more disgustingly), for attention. Check it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9075811/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9075811/
