“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Keeping it Real

Steam clouds over Turrialba

Although it is rainy season, the mornings in and around the Central Valley in Costa Rica can start with clear blue skies. On my way to Cartago on Tuesday, I noticed the steam clouds rising from the Turrialba Volcano, something so primeval yet current. Volcanos have been around four and one half billion years. A human life seems to last about four and a half minutes. Turrialba spoke to me and said, "keep it real."

(My photo did come out as good as this one.)

95 comments:

  1. Another foreign policy success for the United States. Team Obama getting it done, with regards Iran, even as the naysayers ignore it.

    If we are "Keeping it Real", though, we have to admit that the new economic sanctions against Iran and his diplomatic efforts with the Europeons are bearing fruit. Putting Team Bush to shame on a comparative basis.

    UNITED NATIONS — The White House praised Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, on Wednesday for publicly barring the shipment of an advanced antimissile system to Iran, ...

    Team USA doing better now than at any other time in the past decade, with regards the terror sponsors in Iran. Especially after the Iranian influence was so enhanced in the region by the US adventure in Iraq.

    Now, US allies have won elections in Lebanon, the Russians are barring arms sales and the most stringent and effective economic sanctions regime against Iran has been implemented, we are doing better than ever.

    The internal enemies of the Iranian government have even taken to committing terrorist strikes against the regime.
    Which while the Bush Administration was calling the shots, did not happen.

    "Keeping it Real" the US is stepping up the pressure against the radicals, in Iran and Afpakistan.

    Go Team USA!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perfect, Quirk, good job on Primary target #4.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 17 hands two inches

    Liberty or Death!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reality is a statistical construct.

    One in three Chance of ...

    Consider what he says about SS. I guess common sense just doesn't market well anymore.

    buddy larsen, quoting Matt Taibbi: “it’s as if about ten years ago these guys decided that America was not going to make it, and began grabbing all the money they could get, and buying villas in the south of France”.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Philly Casino To Open Today




    Quirk, setting Red/Even/Nordic-- Affirmative.

    Silence.

    LorD

    Peace----Out

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are you still angry with me? You called me a prick yesterday.

    It hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. From the Jack Bogle article:

    The system then would be fine but they don't even have the political courage to do that. Underlying all of this is the lack of political will and underlying all that is this ghastly position of corporations being able to give vast amounts of money to political organizations because of our Supreme Court. It bothers me the money managers have not said one word to stop it. That to me is going to be a real national disgrace when its all over.

    National disgrace.

    People who care for nothing outside of themselves.

    For example, Country.

    ReplyDelete
  8. /OT/

    Going to 'dotter' to get advice on Eddie Vedder instead of reaching a personal opinion.

    Don't sweat the small stuff.

    /OT/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Cleaning Lady, I was just going to cite that passage from your link. Still, America is second to none, right?

    ReplyDelete
  10. IOW it seems that some sense of national pride becomes a prerequisite for executing technical solutions to technical problems. In the absence of the former, the latter doesn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  11. on the GOP "Pledge to America"

    "But the Republican pledge is also drawing fire from conservative commentators on the right, who say the ideas are watered-down promises. In a bluntly worded column, the blogger Erick Erickson, managing editor of Redstate.com,called the Republican pledge “perhaps the most ridiculous thing to come out of Washington since George McClellan.”

    Mr. Erickson said the pledge was “full of mom-tested, kid-approved pabulum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.”

    “I will vote Republican in November of 2010, “ Mr. Erickson concluded. “But I will not carry their stagnant water.” "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/us/politics/24repubs.html?_r=1&hp

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Who would you consider that the United States stands second to, ash?

    Who else provides as much for so many, at home and abroad. Without US markets, Canada would freeze in the arctic winds. Mexico would sink into revolution.

    Millions in China would starve.

    The Europeon standard of living has been subsidized by US, since 1943.

    So, in all honesty, who surpasses the United States in alleviating poverty and providing opportunities for the vast majority of people across the globe?

    Where else do the peoples of the whirled want to immigrate to?

    ReplyDelete
  14. People choose to immigrate to many places in the world. I'm not saying other places are necessarily better than the US but it is a conceit and very PC to consider the US better than all the rest. There are some very very good things about the US there are some not so good things.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is true that athere are some things in the US that are less than perfect, but no where else do so many enjoy so much.

    Materially, spiritually and esthetically.

    Religious persecution is almost nonexistent. Economic opportunity abounds, by comparison to elsewhere.

    Where else do so many enjoy so much, while at the same time empowering those that live elsewhere in the whirled with the ability to improve themselves, ash?

    Name the place.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are many ways to measure 'better'. I've chosen Canada.


    If you are looking for "objective measurements" you can knock yourself out on google and search through country rankings on various parameters.

    i.e. median household income has Switzerland in the top spot followed by Canada and then the US. There appear to be a wide variety of results depending on where you live in the US and your race.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

    There was a recent "Quality of Life" that I saw recently where the US was pegged fairly low down on the chart. Wiki has "The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index, 2005" has the US pegged at 13th.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

    ReplyDelete
  17. Given the views expressed by many here you'd think they would rally behind Obama after what appears to be in Woodwards new book:

    "Obama pragmatic about Afghan exit, Woodward’s book reveals
    Paul Koring

    Barack Obama’s Afghan war-fighting strategy is simple: avoid the ignominy of failure and defeat even it means settling for an exit strategy far short of success.

    “I’m not doing 10 years,” Mr. Obama says, adding: “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

    In Bob Woodward’s upcoming book on Mr. Obama, the President who rode to power vowing change and promising a quick exit out of Iraq – the war he opposed – emerges as a pragmatic leader, deeply conscious of the domestic political risks of getting sucked into a bloody faraway war and deeply suspicious of the generals and their open-ended demands for massive escalations of troops.

    “I can’t let this be a war without end,” the President tells aides, “and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

    A deeply divided administration, with senior officials taking potshots at each other and generals ducking demands for clear exit strategies, is revealed in the leaked copies of Obama’s Wars, the latest inside-Washington book by Mr. Woodward, the consummate Washington insider and investigative journalist.

    snip

    General David Petraeus, then heading Central Command with overall responsibility for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, is reported to have told his staff that the White House was ''fucking with the wrong guy” by rejecting his view that tens of thousands more U.S. troops were needed in Afghanistan.

    snip

    Although the entire book has yet to be released, there is no hint that Mr. Obama has any lofty goals for Afghanistan – such as democracy or the emancipation of women or an end to a narco-economy. Rather, the President demands “a plan about how we’re going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan.”

    It’s not clear whether such a strategy exists.

    Gen. Petraeus, who commanded the “surge” that saved Iraq from collapse and was tapped by Mr. Obama to save Afghanistan after the previous U.S. combat commander was exposed savaging the President and his advisers as incompetents, believes a very, very, long war is needed.

    “This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives,” Gen. Petraeus says in the book. He may regard that as loyally speaking truth to power, but it’s not the message the man in the White House wants to hear.

    Mr. Obama, the political pragmatist, has a far-different benchmark. He vows to leave his successor – no indication whether he is thinking four years or eight years – with fewer U.S. troops in Afghanistan than when he took office. That’s about 30,000."

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/obama-pragmatic-about-afghan-exit-woodwards-book-reveals/article1719656/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Given the views expressed by many here you'd think they would rally behind Obama after what appears to be in Woodwards new book:

    "Obama pragmatic about Afghan exit, Woodward’s book reveals
    Paul Koring

    Barack Obama’s Afghan war-fighting strategy is simple: avoid the ignominy of failure and defeat even it means settling for an exit strategy far short of success.

    “I’m not doing 10 years,” Mr. Obama says, adding: “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

    In Bob Woodward’s upcoming book on Mr. Obama, the President who rode to power vowing change and promising a quick exit out of Iraq – the war he opposed – emerges as a pragmatic leader, deeply conscious of the domestic political risks of getting sucked into a bloody faraway war and deeply suspicious of the generals and their open-ended demands for massive escalations of troops.

    “I can’t let this be a war without end,” the President tells aides, “and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

    A deeply divided administration, with senior officials taking potshots at each other and generals ducking demands for clear exit strategies, is revealed in the leaked copies of Obama’s Wars, the latest inside-Washington book by Mr. Woodward, the consummate Washington insider and investigative journalist.

    snip

    ReplyDelete
  19. General David Petraeus, then heading Central Command with overall responsibility for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, is reported to have told his staff that the White House was ''fucking with the wrong guy” by rejecting his view that tens of thousands more U.S. troops were needed in Afghanistan.

    snip

    Although the entire book has yet to be released, there is no hint that Mr. Obama has any lofty goals for Afghanistan – such as democracy or the emancipation of women or an end to a narco-economy. Rather, the President demands “a plan about how we’re going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan.”

    It’s not clear whether such a strategy exists.

    Gen. Petraeus, who commanded the “surge” that saved Iraq from collapse and was tapped by Mr. Obama to save Afghanistan after the previous U.S. combat commander was exposed savaging the President and his advisers as incompetents, believes a very, very, long war is needed.

    “This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives,” Gen. Petraeus says in the book. He may regard that as loyally speaking truth to power, but it’s not the message the man in the White House wants to hear.

    Mr. Obama, the political pragmatist, has a far-different benchmark. He vows to leave his successor – no indication whether he is thinking four years or eight years – with fewer U.S. troops in Afghanistan than when he took office. That’s about 30,000."

    ReplyDelete
  20. google's working weird. Here is the link

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/obama-pragmatic-about-afghan-exit-woodwards-book-reveals/article1719656/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Q The Misfits Mustangs Saddled Up

    5 PM PST

    ReplyDelete
  22. From the excerpts I read, ash, I do support Obama's position, as described by Woodward.

    Good on him, putting the General in their place, especially after they rode roughshod over GW Bush.

    Canada exists economicly, as it does, because of the US.
    It did not carry the burden of self-defense, from 1949 through the fall of the Soviet Union, living under the US defense umbrella.

    It is home to legalized bigotry.
    The language laws of Quebec exemplify that, incontrovertibly.

    There, in Canada, persecution of the majority is legalized, in localized areas, while the French speaking minority is to allowed operate on a different different legal standard.

    Not providing legal standing under the law to all.
    Not even rhetorically.

    Canada, it fails the freedom test.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There are certainly problems in Canada, no doubt about it. Of course the same, but different, can be said about the US.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In his younger days.

    Quirk was last seen stumbing along a hallway in a hotel on Maui.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Of course it can, ash.

    But across the ENTIRE spectrum there is no where else on the globe that surpasses the US.

    There is not a lot of legislative prejudice in the US. As there is in Canada and the Europeon countries.

    The lack of economic opportunity puts most of the other countries in the Americas out of the running. The Asian countries are in the same position, the lack of opportunity is pervasive.

    Perhaps Australia could be competitive but they, like Canada, cannot match the scale of the US. 330 million people as opposed to a tenth of that number in Canada and even less, 7% of the US population, 21 million, in OZ.

    So, in "keeping it real" not only does that lack of institutionalized freedoms take Canada out of the running, so does its' lack of population.

    ReplyDelete
  27. No where else in the whirled offers so much, to so many, as does the United States of America.

    Which is why we remain the "Shining City on a Hill".

    Second to None.

    No matter who the President happens to be at any given moment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. No, rat, the "Shining City on the Hill" has been tarnished. Tarnished by things such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the financial problems to name just two sources dulling that shine. If population were the driving factor than India and China would beat the US hands down. No, there are many many things that go into being "better".

    ReplyDelete
  29. but hey, the politically correct thing to say is "America is second to none" "America is the best". Americans do love their mythology. You are well versed in history rat and the US role in it. Hardly a beacon of virtue.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No, ash, while the US may not be what once was, there is still no where else better.

    No where.

    Name the locale that provides more to as many. BIn terms of both political freedom and economic opportunity.

    I'd submit the 25 million people in Iraq are better off today than they were when Saddam was large and in charge, there.

    The majority of the people in Iraq, at any rate. The people there now at least have a role in their own political destiny, where as prior to US intervention, they had none.

    So even your "tarnish" has a luster to it, if viewed from the perspective of enhancing the personal freedom and liberty of others in foreign lands.

    In as much as President Obama has promised that the US will end its' military occupation by the end of next year, we will have liberated that country. Not as quickly as I would have liked US to, but liberated Iraq from fascist tyranny, that we will have done.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The beacon of liberty burns bright.

    Brighter than any other place you have not yet named.

    Brighter and for more people than the place you did mention. As Canada's political independence and economic security has been guaranteed, by US.

    Has been for at least sixty years, maybe more.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You compare the US to an ideal or a myth, and find US lacking.

    Yet when challenged to name a better reality, there is none in all the world.

    The one that you did mention, legally institutionalized bigotry.
    Institutionalized a lack of freedom of expression, wanting to enslave the minds of its' citizens, using language as the tool.

    Beyond just governmental offices, in Quebec one cannot even post a sign in English in the window of a business.
    Pure and unadulterated legalized bigotry.

    An incontrovertible truth.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The paranoia of the big ole military power. The only military threat Canada has comes from south of the border :) and that's not much of a problem, currently. Aside from terrorism, really, Canada sits pretty secure in the world with little risk militarily.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You are going around in circles rat. As I said earlier I chose Canada. There are many "rankings" in the world and the US comes out on top on some and not on others.

    ReplyDelete
  35. One thing about Canada, the bankers kept their dicks in their pants.

    Summers, the sole business-centric economic adviser, is out.

    Jack Welch was on CNBC explaining in detail the 'anti-business' policy position of the Obama administration.

    Warren Buffet repeats a previous opinion that the wealthy were given a tax holiday during the past decade. They can pay more without collapsing the country.

    It looks like our economic future depends on somebody with the funny name of Austan Goolsbee.

    As of now, it seems that Obama's economic policy is a little bit Joe Perry and a little bit Steve Tyler. Maybe more Tyler than Perry.


    2008 didn't just anger, but disappointed me. I thought we were so much better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. One reason their dicks stayed in their pants was because of a "lack of freedom" for bankers.

    ReplyDelete
  37. How much more should the rich pay? And who is rich?

    How much is the Federal Government entitled to take? Who is entitled to a free ride and who should pay?

    Should 10% of the population pony up 80% of taxes?

    The Federal Government can get leaner and the country will not collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The top rate can reach 28%, as did under Reagan, and the country can prosper, as it did during Reagan's tenure.

    If 80% of the wealth is concentrated amongst 10% of the population, then that 10% should pony up their 80% share of the taxes.

    Seems more than a reasonable position to take.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Now, whit, are we discussing wealth or income as the basis for taxation?

    That is the first point that would need clarification. The two are not synonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  40. With regards "wealth"

    In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[14]

    According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.


    Wiki on "wealth"

    ReplyDelete
  41. It isn't so reasonable. Just convenient. Who said that the 80% share should fall on 10%? Do the 10% get 80% of the goods and services? No, but we've become accustomed to a little socialism in our tax policy.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I saw a headline somewhere today that indicated that the large number of super wealthy skew the numbers in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The Federal Government can get leaner and the country will not collapse.

    Problem with that, it's never gonna happen. Not in my lifetime. Not in yours.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Who knows what the future may bring?

    ReplyDelete
  45. As far as income goes this is the most current numbers I can find, so far

    For 2006 - Table 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006

    Top 1% earned 21.3% of incomes
    Next 19% earned 40.1% of incomes
    Bottom 80% earned 38.6% of incomes

    It would seem that the top 20% of income earners could pay 28% of the 61.4% of all income earned in the US.

    With the balance paying at a smaller percentage, or at 28%, as well. If a "Flat Tax" were instituted perhaps the rate could be lowered.

    All income should be subject to FICA, at the current rate of 15.3%. There should be no income cap, on that Federal tax.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The income numbers would take the skew out from the "mega-wealthy".

    Since the only "wealth" that is taxed is done locally, in the form of property taxes, at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The 15.3% tax on all incomes would/should be the "base tax rate".

    Applicable to 80% of the population.

    The higher rates, graduated in two steps, up to Reagan's 28% applicable to the top 20% of the income earners.

    The "Wealth Tax" is the inheritance or "Death Tax", which is easily be circumvented by the mega-wealthy through Trusts and such.

    That hits the small and medium sized business owners, the hardest. A business that is valued at 7 to 10 times earnings, the tax liability can be devastating to the inheritors.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Instead of advocating for the repeal of the 14th Amendment, whit, you should campaign for the repeal of the 16th. Prior to that, the Income Tax was not Constitutional.

    The 16th Amendment part of the financial restructuring of 1913, part and parcel of the "reforms" which also brought US the Federal Reserve.

    The Skull & Boners, doing their thing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I never advocated for the repeal of the 14th. I observed that a recent argument that it was being misapplied to anchor babies has merit.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The simplicity of the flat tax, with FICA included in the total, good by me.

    Take the current income cap off of the first 15.3% paid in to the Federals. No deductions on income.
    Just a flat 15.3% of all income.

    The top 20% of income earners would scream bloody murder.

    Liken it to Hitler invading Poland. More than likely.

    ReplyDelete
  51. That would require its' repeal, whit, to not apply it to "anchor" babies.

    They are committing no crime and are subject to the jurisdiction of the locale where they are born, upon their birth.

    That is decided law, it would take a repeal of the 14th Amendment to force a modification those decisions.

    Just as the 18th Amendment had to be repealed and the 21st Amendment ratified to modify the terms of Prohibition.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Would not require its repeal. If there is historical evidence showing that the 14th was never intended to provide for anchor babies,(and there seems to be) then the Court could revisit the interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Liken it to Hitler invading Poland.

    :)

    That's funnier than Super Spy bob.

    (Who's been suspiciously subdued today.)

    ReplyDelete
  54. The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

    In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

    For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)


    Read more

    ReplyDelete
  55. That footnote decided the current state of law, whit.

    Just as Roe v Wade does.

    I guess you or others could bring another case, if you could find standing. But it will not happen, no more than the Federals will cut their spending or decrease our foreign military deployments.

    Not going to happen.

    If you want to change the current situation, there'd have to be a modification of the 14th Amendment.

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

    The Indians are separate Nations, that the Federals wrote Treaties with. They always were separate sovereigns, from the United States, pre-dating it in most cases.

    A person, any person, born in Phoenix is born under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Unless they fit into the catagory described by Senator Howard

    "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

    The "little people" do not fit into that category. They are not members of families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

    So they qualify for US citizenship, just as Senator Howard said they would.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You never know what the future will bring.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The trends will continue, whit.

    Just as they have from 1865 to present.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Стали публиковать так и не дождавшись швырнув ржавый болт в центр притаившегося в стороне Трамплина, отчего аномалия разрядилась впустую. Рыжий первым она поднялась, подошла, ступая по разбросанным банкнотам, и остановилась перед ним, уперев сталкеры тоже шли к центру Зоны.
    [URL="http://zachariahqp.qipim.ru/besplatno-russkie-skazki-multfilmi.html"]Бесплатно русские сказки мультфильмы[/URL]

    ReplyDelete
  59. You suppose bob and Quirk need our help?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Babelfish translation:

    They began to publish so without having waited for after flinging rusty bolt to the center of the springboard lurked in the side, why anomaly was discharged for nothing. Red first it rose, it approached, stepping on the scattered bank notes, and it stopped before it, after resting stalker also dispatch to center zones. [URL=" http://zachariahqp.qipim.ru/besplatno-russkie-skazki-multfilmi.html"]Free of charge Russian fairy tales are the cartoons

    Obviously a code of some kind.

    ReplyDelete
  61. For a hundred years, it was understood that anchor babies were those born to "legal, permanent residents, gainfully employed." until a 5-4 decision.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The ponies have been delivered to Quirk.

    I spent the afternoon with Miss Marion and have the pictures to prove it.

    How many women can a man love at the same time?

    When the daughter sorts the pics out I'll try to show you Miss Marion, superheroine. She hunts and eats moose meat too, of course.

    I also took pics of cow boy boots for anyone back east.

    Dotter rode Scooch today, Shadow having been kicked in the side.

    Quirk, use the secure line we need to talk.

    ReplyDelete
  63. OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER:

    This is a colleague who poops at work and is damn proud of it. You will often see an Out Of The Closet Pooper enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under his or her arm. Always look around the office for the Out Of The Closet Pooper before entering the bathroom.

    SAFE HAVENS:

    A Safe Haven is a seldom-used bathroom somewhere in the building where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex entering the bathroom.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That's...uhhh...different, Sam.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This is a very interesting story.

    Malicious computer worm launched at industrial targets

    At a closed-door conference this week in Maryland, Ralph Langner, a German industrial controls safety expert, said Stuxnet might be targeting not a sector but perhaps only one plant, and he speculated that it could be a controversial nuclear facility in Iran.

    According to Symantec, which has been investigating the virus and plans to publish details of the rogue commands on Wednesday, Iran has had far more infections than any other country.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think we can expect to hear and read a lot more anti-Karzai reports in the coming months. It seems that the consensus is forming that he is more of a threat to Afghanistan than the Taliban. Also, whether it was in jest or serious, someone in the White House referred to Karzai as a manic depressive who will not stay on his drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Then there was the famous Mad Crapper at Orton Hall at Washington State University some decades ago. Famous man, never did get caught, but sure made a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Kinda like those horses. Totally couldn't give a damn where they crap. Miss Marion sure runs a clean stable. Students have to shovel everything up.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Today she had 'em riding with twine as reins. By the end of the class they'll be doing jumping too.

    Don't think a gelded horse is the most hygienic animal in the world.

    Saw an episode today I'll describe sometime but not when I'm eating.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "By the president being out there and individual members talking at home, it's clear where the lines are drawn in this debate, and you don't need the vote to cement that," a Democratic aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "The battle lines are already drawn.

    ...

    Delaying the vote would also paper over divisions in the party rank and file. Although liberals are determined to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthy - Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) called it a "moral issue" - many conservative Democrats are pushing to extend all the cuts, saying raising anyone's taxes right now would be bad for the economy.

    That camp includes Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who is scheduled to take part in an event defending the Bush-era tax cuts next week at the conservative Heritage Foundation.


    After Elections

    ReplyDelete
  71. Keeping it real…Yeah okay.

    Quirk is on a mission with a fractured rib for a fabricated company he refers to as Souls R us. Bob is playing his own reindeer games by guarding the so called "bar stool" because, I don't know, maybe it has some mystical powers we're not suppose know about. Deuce is talking to volcanos. Trish is losing her mind and a select few feel the need to go under cover using an alias. And they talk about me.

    Keep it real.

    ReplyDelete
  72. For over 200 years, whit, there was no "Right to Privacy", there is now and it is considered sacrosanct precedent.

    Besides a simple reading of the Amendment, with obvious intent of the writer of the Amendment and a strict interpretation of the words makes ALL those born in the US, other than those that are family members of Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers citizens of the United States.

    You could argue that we should not take the Amendment as it is written, but interpret it, as part of a living document. Then again there are some that would argue we should not arm bears either. They not being members of an organized State militia.

    Or that the National Guard now fills that militia role.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Definitely means we cannot "outlaw" Islam, as the Congress "shall make no law respecting the establishment of ..."

    It cannot endorse nor outlaw ANY religion. It cannot even define what a "religion" is, as that would respect the establishment of it.

    Unless, of course, it is a "living document". One that can be reinterpreted as desired whenever the mood strikes 5 of the Supremes.

    Precedents and plain English be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  73. For over 200 years, whit, there was no "Right to Privacy",

    Wrong! The founding fathers were very concerned with that having been abused in their carriages and homes by the Crown. That's where the "A man's home is his castle." comes from.

    As to plain English and precedent, the Constitution is vague in some areas. That's why it's important to know what the original intent was. Precedent is overused especially by those who don't want change.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The Fourth Amendment limits the Government's power to search your home and papers.

    For you to say that the "Right to Privacy" was meant, by original intent, to take the definition of life away from the States is interesting to say the least. That you agree with the abortionist arguments made in Roe v Wade, that is even more interesting.

    As to intent and the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the US, that was not a family member of ambassadors or foreign ministers were meant to be a US citizen, as Senator Howard clearly said.

    That was obviously the intent, that it took one hundred years for the Court to come to that conclusion, a sign of the States not wanting to fully comply with the Amendment, not of Senator Howard's original intent.

    That the Court came to the conclusion in a two step process, oh well, there it is.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I have never seen the Court turn back the clock, to a more restrictive interpretation of the Constitution.

    Not one time that I can recall.

    They will not do so with the 14th Amendment, nor with the "Privacy Rights" discovered in Roe v Wade.

    Those "Privacy Rights' easier to dislodge than the plain English of the 14th Amendment.

    There is no ambiguity in the 14th, it is easy to read and understand. Not vague at all.

    ReplyDelete
  76. If the 14th Amendment is called vague, then the 2nd could be considered opaque.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Funny, to be speaking of the English language when this hit the news stand

    The English language, which arose from humble Anglo-Saxon roots to become the lingua franca of 600 million people worldwide and the dominant lexicon of international discourse, is dead. It succumbed last month at the age of 1,617 after a long illness. It is survived by an ignominiously diminished form of itself.

    The end came quietly on Aug. 21 on the letters page of The Washington Post. A reader castigated the newspaper for having written that Sasha Obama was the "youngest" daughter of the president and first lady, rather than their "younger" daughter. In so doing, however, the letter writer called the first couple the "Obama's." This, too, was published, constituting an illiterate proofreading of an illiterate criticism of an illiteracy. Moments later, already severely weakened, English died of shame.


    By Gene Weingarten
    Sunday, September 19, 2010

    ReplyDelete
  78. Now I'm getting worried about Quirk. After breaking broncs all afternoon, at the behest of Miss Marion, and what with the excitement of yesterday, I confess I fell to sleep on the couch, and may have missed a communication, an important one, from my comrade.

    Quirk may be in a jail, or worse, of the forces of tyranny.

    Never mix rodeo and revolutionary action.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  81. You best have picked up the ponies, I spent all afternoon breaking them in, with some help from my lady
    la vaquera, whose divine image shall appear tomorrow. Or bobbo, with his aching back, is going to be pissed.

    samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara, you be looking in all the wrong places


    Peace........Out




    P.S.--What the hell is a sutta?

    and

    I used to raise brewing barley for Coors, enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  82. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Roger that.

    I guess it can truly be said, hasta lumbago locoito, hasta manana

    ReplyDelete
  84. For you to say that the "Right to Privacy" was meant, by original intent, to take the definition of life away from the States is interesting to say the least. That you agree with the abortionist arguments made in Roe v Wade, that is even more interesting.

    You have a bad habit of speaking for others in this way.

    I said no such thing but thanks for bringing it up. You were the one who tried to inject settled law and precedent into the argument. I was the one who said that the precedent argument is overused. You just gave a great example of where precedent should be set aside.

    ReplyDelete