Britain is the worst place in Europe to live despite offering the biggest salaries, a study revealed today. High incomes in the UK are cancelled out by long working hours, poor annual leave, rising food and fuel bills and a lack of sunshine.
Researchers weighed up official data for ten European countries, including France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland.
#4
Now the fine print: most Europeans get benefits of 8 weeks of annual vacation. In the UK, it is 4. UK realism on affordability, reveals why the country yields higher productivity rates. I get by nicely with 4 weeks.
#5
That's how I read it too, Snineting Tojo7266. Worst place to live by the standards of people who believe the goal in life is not to work. But for people who actually like to accomplish things, Britain is probably heaven on earth compared to the ideal of this journalist. Mr. Wife was very frustrated by the limitations the German system wanted to impose.
By Leo McKinstry
BRITAIN continues its descent into a socia1ist hell, devoid of any justice or morality. We now live in a sub-Marxist world where the ultra-politicised institutions of the State wield arbitrary power, bullying the decent members of the public while dangerous criminals walk free.
The legal system is fast becoming an instrument of oppression rather than a bulwark of civilisation. Such is the grip of Left-wing thinking on our so-called law enforcers that they are no longer willing to protect society from violence and thuggery.
Instead, they prefer to hound ordinary citizens over offences such as thought crimes or breaches of their myriad environmental regulations. Similarly, infringements of traffic rules are pursued with far more authoritarian zeal than is ever applied to burglary, assault, theft, drug abuse or vandalism. in this process of politicisation, common sense has disappeared and basic freedoms have been destroyed.
In the Big Brother culture created by Labour, full of vast databases, surveillance cameras, state- employed spies and intrusive questionnaires, all of us are now treated as potential criminal suspects for being insufficiently enthusiastic about cultural diversity or the fashionable green agenda.
Yet the real enemies of our society, like crack-addicted thieves, drunken yobs, benefit swindlers or islamic terrorists, have little to fear from our enfeebled courts, which wallow in leniency and excuse-making. the only people whose human rights count are those of offenders, not their victims.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is so obvious. "When government does not protect the public from criminals, or worse, when government sides with criminals against the public, vigilantism results."
One small squad of determined individuals could turn their entire nation around with public acts of vigilantism. The only question left is like the one asked of Lot:
#2
The funny thing is that the POLICE are VIGILANTES
Read "Peels Nine Principles of Policing".
Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles
* The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
* The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
* Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
* The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
* Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
* Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
* Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
* Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
* The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
b) you develop a passive and cowardly attitude towards armed men. And if you don't develop it the bad guys will kill you thus ensuring natural selection
c) the governemnat will do its utmost to encourage cowardice: in order "not to anger the thugs". In the UK it is telling the citizens to cooperate with burglars and point them to the place where youn hold your money. It is not a long way from recommending to help the burglmars in restraining your wife or daughter if they want to have some fun.
d) It voids the right to insurrection ie the tool to keep governemnts honest.
A Republican senator says she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, breaking with her party on President Barack Obama's top legislative item.
She did.
Sen. Olympia Snowe kept virtually all of Washington guessing how she would vote until she announced it late in the Senate Finance Committee debate Tuesday. Until then, she told reporters, she had not even let Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, in on her secret.
She told her colleagues: "When history calls, history calls" even though she had some criticism of the bill.
Democrats, aware that Snowe could be the only Republican in Congress to vote for their health care overhaul, have spent months addressing her concerns about making health care affordable and how to pay for it.
"Ours is a balanced plan that can pass the Senate," declared Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., earlier in the hearing.
Health care legislation is expected to be on the Senate floor the week after next, said a spokesman for Reid, who must combine the Finance version with a more liberal proposal from the health committee.
The expected approval by Baucus' committee would push a remake of the U.S. health care system closer to reality than it has been in decades. Four other congressional committees finished their work before August and for months all eyes have been on the Finance panel, the one whose moderate makeup most closely resembles the Senate as a whole.
The committee's centrist legislation is also seen as the best building block for a compromise plan that could find favor on the Senate floor.
Baucus' 10-year, $829-billion plan would, for the first time, require most Americans to purchase insurance and it also aims to hold down spiraling medical costs over the long term. But questions persist about whether it would truly provide access to affordable coverage, particularly for self employed people with solid middle class incomes.
Much work would lie ahead before a bill could arrive on Obama's desk, but action by the Finance Committee would mark a significant advance, capping numerous delays as Baucus held marathon negotiating sessions -- ultimately unsuccessful -- aimed at producing a bipartisan bill.
With Democrats holding a 13-10 majority on the committee, the outcome of Tuesday's vote, expected after several hours of discussion by senators, was not in doubt. The legislation that passed the other House and Senate committees did so without a single Republican vote.
The Finance Committee's top Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, gave voice to the GOP's concerns about the bill, saying it was "moving on a slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."
"There's a lot in this bill that's just a consensus that needs to be done, but there are other provisions of this bill that raise a lot of questions," Grassley said, contending the legislation would mean higher costs for Americans.
One of the biggest unanswered questions is whether the legislation would slow punishing increases in the nation's health care costs, particularly for the majority who now have coverage through employers. The insurance industry insists it would shift new costs onto those who have coverage.
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, under questioning by Republican senators, acknowledged that the bill's total impact on the nation's health care costs is still unknown. The CBO has been able to establish that the legislation would reduce federal government deficits, but Elmendorf said his staff has not had time to evaluate its effects on privately insured people. Government programs pay about half the nation's annual $2.5 trillion health care tab.
Expanding coverage to the uninsured is likely to lead to more health care spending, Elmendorf said. But other provisions, such as a tax on high-premium health care plans, could push spending down. "We simply have not done the analysis to net that out," he said.
One Democrat expressed misgivings about the legislation. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said the bill doesn't do enough to promote consumer choice and guarantee affordability. "We clearly have more to do," Wyden said, without revealing how he'll vote.
Once the Finance Committee has acted, the dealmaking can begin in earnest with Reid, working with White House staff, Baucus and others to blend the Finance bill with a more liberal version passed by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Baucus' bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take all comers, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.
Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.
Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.
Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement, not enough people would get insured and premiums would jump for everyone else.
A major question mark for Reid's negotiations is whether he will include some version of a so-called public plan in the merged bill. Across the Capitol, House Democratic leaders are working to finalize their bill, which does contain a public plan, and floor action is expected in both chambers in coming weeks. If passed, the legislation would then go to a conference committee to reconcile differences.
Question is, will she sign up for what she wants to foist off on the rest of us? /rhetorical question.
'fing crap-weasel.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/13/2009 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Snowe might as well be a Demoncrat for all practical purposes; RINO. What I have seen and heard of this plan it is going to cost us more money. Taxes will have to go up regardless of what the govmint says to spin it.
The financial crisis has blown a hole in the rosy forecasts of pension funds that cover teachers, police officers and other government employees, casting into doubt as never before whether these public systems will be able to keep their promises. This has been foreseeable from the time the pension plans were devised, where a promise was made to pay out for a lifetime from future earnings, while both the length of life and the amount of future earnings is unknowable.
Before the crisis, many public pension funds had experimented with risky trading methods. When these melted down, pension funds got burned. "The amount that needs to be made up is enormous," said Peter Austin, executive director of BNY Mellon Pension Services. "Frankly, they are forced to continue their allocation in these high-return asset classes because that's their only hope."
Some pension experts say the funding gap has become so great that no investment strategy can close it and that taxpayers will have to cover the massive bill.
In 2006, Virginia's pension officials suggested scaling back benefits or requiring current employees to begin paying into the pension fund. The state's lawmakers took no action. Then the crisis hit. Virginia lost 21 percent of the value of its portfolio. The legislature again asleep at the wheel.
During the last fiscal year, Ohio's fund lost 31 percent. Its most recent annual report detailed how long it would now take for its investments to put the fund back on track. Officials simply said: "Infinity." and beyond!
It's also the price paid for permitting public employee unions which distort the political system at the expense of the governed. A union which is a subset of the population can not be equal to a sovereign government which represents the population as a whole.
#2
Spot on PK2. The unions were for BO's health care also as long as they thought the rest of us were paying for it. Now they realize they are going to take a hit as well [as everyone else]. I will get sinktrapped if I really express myself.
A New York Times article by Nick Bunkley on Friday targeted for print on Saturday about the status of contract talks between Ford Motor Company and the United Auto Workers piqued my interest in a previously neglected but important matter.
Ford and the UAW are apparently close to an agreement. In describing what Ford workers are being asked to give up, Bunkley wrote the following (bolds are mine throughout this post):
Ford executives have said the company needs more concessions to keep G.M. and Chrysler from having an advantage.
.... The deal that U.A.W. workers at Ford approved in March got rid of cost-of-living pay increases and performance bonuses through 2010 and eliminated the jobs bank program, which allows laid-off workers to continue receiving most of their pay. In addition to those concessions, G.M. and Chrysler workers agreed to work-rule changes and a provision that bars them from striking.
What? From press coverage at the time, you would have thought that unionized GM and Chrysler workers made ginormous, humungous, unprecedented sacrifices to enable their companies to get through bankruptcy and to emerge as lean, mean vehicle-making machines.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama's best buds (after the bandits at Government Sachs) are his loyal troops at UAW and SEIU. Rattner and the kid strong-armed the Chrysler creditors into accepting a cramdown that valued the UAW's stake at s.t. like 10x the pre-deal valuation of their stake.
And in California, when Ahnuld wanted state employees to accept a modest furlough of a couple days per month w/o pay-- IOW, less than what many of the state's private sector workforce has endured for going on a year now-- Obama slapped him down and told him he wouldn't get any stimulus funds if he didn't treat the SEIU thugs with kid gloves.
Results? GM and Chrysler are well on their way to bankruptcy. California's reporting yet more multi-billion dollar deficits.
Nice work, Barry. But, hey, Dems won't have any problems manning the phone banks next November.
#2
Unions destroyed the domestic American automobile industry. I have NO sympathy for any of them. Of course, predatory big-business management is just as bad. A pox on both of their houses!
#3
Working at safeway as a bagger in my teens for $5 an hour, the scumbag union extorted $80 a month from me. Thats when I knew it was a useless racket.
#4
Of course, predatory big-business management is just as bad. A pox on both of their houses!
Actually a dysfunctional corporate culture in which managers were 'careerists', that is people who game the promotion and assignment position without regard to the overall health of the organization. Decisions where made upon their immediate short term personal position. Not much different than the management of banks and financial institutions that have collapsed as well. One of the common factors is the debasing of corporate stocks to such levels that no one had the ability or will to impose change. Instead institutional investors simply gamed the bottom line for the biggest short term profit they could get before moving on.
#6
Unions are well on their way to doing to the automotive industry what they've done to the Textile Industry and to a lesser extent the steel industry. And don't get me started on the Education Industry.
#7
Throw in the State-based unions such as the corrections unions that have a stranglehold on budgets and state government in California. Probably other states also.
I can't see where unions today are anything but part of a larger problem that is endemic to the country and to what used to be our government.
#8
Yah, the UAW is greedy. But...but...but lets not lose sight of the fact that it was reckless conduct in the Financial sector that left Industrials, Developers, etc without financial means for short term borrowing for payroll and inventory. As I write, the Big Four banks control 60% of US cash deposits, and use same without paying interest, for the most part. Further, in September, the Four set up a private "clearing house" (their phrase) for joint writing down of Derivatives, of which they hold 90%. While the trust collusion commenced last year, by December they will be in a position to write-down assets jointly, outside of market forces. Is that Capitalism?
The Industrials and Developers and Oil Sector would like nothing better than to be in position to employ people, given an increase in inventory and payroll borrowing. Of course, increased unemployment would increase consumer spending. But, given that the Four can make money under the current parasite scheme, there is no incentive to act with public purpose. Google "The Deal" to see a website that documents the ongoing Derivative circus. The big change since Sept. 16, 2008, has been the disproportionate power seized by the Big Four. I blame them for the nationalizations in the Auto sector.
The state of Michigan is reporting about 19,500 jobs have been saved or created because of the federal Recovery Act. "Gentlemen, we've got to save our phoney-baloney jobs!"
Nearly three-fourths of the jobs are related to education.
The report, obtained from the state Monday, is based on information Michigan was required to file with the federal government over the weekend.
The summary reflects nearly $3.7 billion state departments have received in stimulus dollars. It does not include all state-level Recovery Act grants or money sent directly to local governments and universities around the state.
The report doesn't show a breakdown between the number of jobs saved and the number created by the stimulus package. But it's likely Michigan's 15.2 percent unemployment rate would be worse if it weren't for the federal assistance.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Could you not have just paid teachers less, and used the money to employ more?
Sounds about par for government efforts. Government reformed [?] health care ought to be a costly nightmare. There is a welfare mentality that is created by the government in the people who receive this government-redistributed largesse for which others have worked.
#10
I don't know... some of you who've had the responsibility of administering payroll can confirm or deny, but I was under the impression that the actual cost per employee is on the order of double the actual salary, including benefits and overhead to the business. In that case, considering that some of these jobs should have been created, and all would have extra overhead to comply with whatever federal silliness was required for extra documentation, etc*, $190,000 per job doesn't sound terribly far off for complying with a new federal program.
*Where etc means hiring or transferring several employees to administer the additional requirements, with those additional costs spread across the new employees. This is why it's a bad idea to take Federal funds.
The dollar's position as the world's leading reserve currency faces increased pressure as the financial crisis allows emerging economies greater influence on the world stage, analysts said.
A report last week in The Independent claiming that China, Russia and Gulf States are among nations prepared to ditch the dollar for oil trades has heightened the uncertainty surrounding the US currency's future.
The dollar slumped against rivals last week in the wake of the British daily's controversial report.
"The US dollar is being hurt by the continued talk of a shift away from a dollar-centric world," said Kit Juckes, an analyst at currency traders ECU Group.
"Three conclusions stand out very clearly. Firstly, the shift in economic power away from the G7 economies is continuing. "Secondly, there is a growing acceptance amongst those winners that one consequence of this power shift will be to strengthen their currencies.
"And finally, as long as the US economy is not strong enough for any rise in interest rates to be conceivable for a long time, the dollar's underlying downtrend will remain in place," added Juckes.
The Independent, under the front-page headline "The Demise of the Dollar", reported last Tuesday that Gulf states, together with China, Russia, Japan and France, were considering replacing the dollar as the currency for oil deals.
"In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning -- along with China, Russia, Japan and France -- to end dollar dealings for oil," wrote The Independent's Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk.
They would switch "to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar," added Fisk, citing Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources.
The report was denied by a host of countries, including Kuwait, Qatar and Russia, while France dismissed it as "pure speculation."
Even so, the United Nations itself last week called for a new global reserve currency to end dollar supremacy, which had allowed the United States the "privilege" of building up a huge trade deficit.
UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Sha Zukang, said "important progress in managing imbalances can be made by reducing the (dollar) reserve currency country's 'privilege' to run external deficits in order to provide international liquidity."
Zukang was speaking at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, whose President Robert Zoellick recently warned that the United States should not "take for granted" the dollar's role as preeminent global reserve currency.
Meanwhile at a G20 summit in Pittsburgh last month, world leaders unveiled a new vision for economic governance, with bold plans to fix global imbalances and give more clout to emerging giants such as China and India.
Following the summit, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner repeated Washington's commitment to a strong dollar.
But last week the finance chief was left to watch as traders used The Independent's report as an opportunity to push lower the troubled US unit.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If you want to buck up the buck, then stop buying so much imported oil with it. The dollar's weakness is merely the flip side of oil and other commodity price spikes. Drill domestically, build nuclear power plants, tax gas (and cut the payroll tax), subsidize solar: all of the above. Full court press.
Otherwise, it's irrelevant what currency oil or any other goods trade in, as long as the currency is convertible.
What matters is currency flows and what currency reserves are held in.
Otherwise, with a declining USD, the US is selling treasures high and buying (redeeming) low. So who's the fool here?
Finally, the whole notion of reserve currencies is a bad thing because it allows trade inbalances to build up. Get rid of reserve currencies and the whole problem (of trade inbalances) self corrects.
#3
Except energy is fundamental to the cost of production and transportation. Why do we ban vertical monopolies because it give one party an economic edge over others. By becoming energy independent and cutting the flow of capital out, it provides the country with an economic edge over those who are dependent upon imported energy and the vagaries of the energy market, as witnessed in the speculation boom last year around this time.
#4
ION WMF > SHOCK: SECCESSIONIST CALLS FOR TEXAS INDEPENDENCE FROM WASHINGTON SPREADS TO OTHER US STATES: TEN US STATES AND RISING HAVE ACTIVE SECCESSIONIST ORGANIZATIONS [ e.g. Texas, vermont, North Carolina, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etal.].
Greatest threat to the US Constitutional Republic + Federalism since 1865 [raed, end of the US Civil War].
Last month, a jury in Prince George's County, Maryland awarded Kimberly Jones $260,000 in a civil rights suit. In 2006, sheriff's deputies from the county had forced their way into Jones' home, blasted her with pepper spray, beat her with batons, punched her in the face, then arrested her for assaulting a police officer. Though the charge resulted in Jones being fired from her job at a shelter for homeless children, it was later dropped. Reason? The cops had the wrong house.
In the ensuing civil case, the jury determined that the deputies were well within the protocols of the Prince George's County Sheriff's Department. It was the department's guidelines that the jury found unconstitutional.
Now the man who has overseen and implemented that policy for the last seven years, Prince George's County Sheriff Michael Jackson, wants a promotion to political office. He's running to become the chief executive for Prince George's County.
Police misconduct in Prince George's County has made national headlines for 25 years. The Washington Post reported back in 2006 that from 2000 to 2006 the county of about 800,000 residents paid out $16.3 million in police misconduct settlements and lawsuit awards. Jackson, who took office in 2002, can't be blamed for a legacy that extends back to the 1980s and also includes the troubled history of the county's separate police department. But Jackson hasn't done much to diminish the bad reputation, either.
A year after the wrong-door assault on Jones, Jackson's deputies conducted another botched raid, this time on Accokeek couple Pam and Frank Myers. The two were home watching TV when the deputies came into their home and held them at gunpoint. The police were looking for a man wanted on drugs and weapons charges. They had the wrong house. The correct house was clearly marked, two doors down. During the raid, one of the deputies went out into the Myers' backyard, despite warnings from the couple that their five-year-old boxer Pearl was outside. The raid team shot Pearl dead. According to the Myers', the deputies left without even an apology.
Jackson's department is also facing a lawsuit stemming from a May 2007 warrantless raid on the home of Upper Marlboro resident Amber James. They were looking for James' sister, who didn't live at the house. According to the lawsuit, the deputies told James they'd be back the next day, and when they returned, they'd kill her dog.
In 2008, Jackson's department made international news when deputies raided the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo. The police had intercepted a package of marijuana addressed to Calvo's home. When Calvo's mother-in-law brought the package into the house, Sheriff Jackson's SWAT team pounced, sending heavily-armed agents into Calvo's home, where they shot and killed his two black labs, then detained Calvo and his mother in law in handcuffs for several hours. Calvo and his family were later cleared of any wrongdoing. The package was part of a drug distribution scheme that included accomplices working for shipping companies.
As noted above, the mistaken raid on Calvo's home wasn't an isolated mistake. It was also completely avoidable. Jackson's deputies didn't bother contacting the local Berwyn Heights police chief, who would have notified them that they were about to raid the town's mayor--who, by the way, wasn't a drug dealer. They also failed to consult other police agencies in the area, who could have informed them of an ongoing investigation into a drug distribution scheme in which drug dealers' accomplices working for shipping companies intercepted drug packages before they were delivered to addresses picked at random.
In his dogged efforts to determine the extent to which these sorts of tactics are used, Mayor Calvo has since found that aggressive SWAT raids are the preferred method of serving warrants in Prince George's County, not a tactic of last resort. The killing of dogs in the course of these raids is nearly an unspoken policy. As Calvo wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed, "In the words of Prince George's County Sheriff Michael Jackson, whose deputies carried out the [raid on Calvo's home], 'the guys did what they were supposed to do'--acknowledging, almost as an afterthought, that terrorizing innocent citizens in Prince George's is standard fare." (Jackson's office did not return calls requesting an interview for this article.)
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When I lived in D.C. (and it's Metro 'burbs) from the mid/late 80's to 2000, PG county was considered to be the last place anyone would want to live. It's nice to see some things never change.
(CBS/AP) The Rev. Al Sharpton wants the National Football League to block conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh from bidding on the St. Louis Rams.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday. He said Limbaugh has been divisive and "anti-NFL" in some of his comments.
Limbaugh did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
Limbaugh said last week that he is teaming up with St. Louis Blues hockey team owner Dave Checketts in a bid to buy the Rams. He has declined to discuss details of the offer, citing a confidentiality agreement.
In 2003, Limbaugh worked briefly on ESPN's NFL pregame show. He resigned after saying Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.
Lat week, Limbaugh's bid caused a stir among commentators and invited parody online.
Dashiell Bennett of the often satirical sports blog Deadspin published a post entitled "Horrible Person Wants To Buy Horrible Team."
It read, "Professional blowhard Rush Limbaugh is aiming to become a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. I guess the team won't be drafting any black quarterbacks from now on. (But at least they'll play pain-free!) " - references to incendiary comments Limbaugh made about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb and Limbaugh's addiction to narcotic painkillers.
St. Louis' Riverfront Times ran a blog post entitled, "Think the Rams Couldn't Get Any More Despicable? Meet Their Possible New Owner."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As said before, the RAMS are becom the NFL's version of the perennial losing CHICAGO CUBS, albeit NOT AS BELOVED BY LA = NFL FANS, NOT EVEN ANY LONGER BY MANY ANGELENOS???
Not even the sexy slinky [anti-DALLAS]"EWES" CHEERLEADING SQUAD may be able to turn things around.
#5
That's one of those situations where even if conservatives win, they lose. I don't think, especially with the current regime, the US could afford to have UK-style libel-law-based free speech impingement.
#11
If O.K. with Rams, I don't see where it is anyone's business what Limbaugh does with his money. Why is it any different than Warren Buffet buying controlling interest in some company?
BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. - About 70 protesters let their voices be heard outside a school in New Jersey where students sang praise of President Barack Obama.
Members of anti-tax Tea Party groups and others joined outside B. Bernice Young School in Burlington Township Monday to denounce what they believe was political indoctrination of students.
The school began getting attention from conservative commentators last month after a video surfaced of a group of second-graders singing a song that praised Obama last school year.
Protesters sang patriotic anthems and chanted slogans such as "Free children, free minds" and called for the principal to be reassigned.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama's not sinister, he's merely comical.
The only groups on this planet who still rally behind him are afr-amers, Euro-nitwits and his union thugs at SEIU and UAW. The list of those who've dissed or ignored him includes King Fahd, Sarko, Gordon Brown, Putin, Ahmadinejad, Gen. McChrystal, Chavez, the partners of Government Sachs, and increasing numbers of his own party's pols, starting in Virginia and spreading as we get closer to Nov 2010.
In other words, no one who matters really cares, let alone respects, what he has to say any more. It's almost as if the more he talks, the less influence he has.
#3
About the best this group of protesters can achieve is to get rid of the principal. The teacher who was stupid enough to put on this Mao-like worship-like singing has already retired. If the principal is dumped by the school board, I see years of costly lawsuits school district's future; maybe Justice Dept involvement; a can of worms.
#4
I see years of costly lawsuits school district's future; maybe Justice Dept involvement; a can of worms
that's fine. When school boards and taxpayers have to start thinking about the risk factors these assholes they don't vet before hiring pose, they might lean away from the rabid
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2009 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
Former Gov. Jim Edgar Monday endorsed Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale in the crowded Republican primary field for governor.
Edgar said his former chief of staff has the experience to deal with the state's tough financial situation, a situation the state also faced when Edgar was elected in 1990.
"One party rule does not work," Edgar said, a reference to Democratic domination of the governor's office, House and Senate.
Edgar said he is not opposed to a state tax increase, but said it has to be preceded by budget cuts to convince the public the state is doing its best to be frugal. He said those cuts have to be significant.
"You could cut all of the waste and it won't make a dent," Edgar said. "You have to make people mad."
He also called it "foolish or irresponsible" for a candidate to announce opposition to a tax increase fromn the start.
Dillard said he would focus on cutting Medicaid costs which are now the state's largest expenditure.
In attendance at the announcement were Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, Rep. Raymond Poe, R-Springfield and Sangamon County Republican Party chairman Tony Libri. All three said they have not made a formal endorsement in the primary contest.
Other Republicans announced or considering a run include DuPage County Board chairman Bob Schillerstrom, activist Dan Proft, Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, former Republican state party chairman Andrew McKenna, businessman Adam Andrzejewski and former Attorney General Jim Ryan.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.
At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.
Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.
The drama threatened to overshadow Tuesday's scheduled vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.
The Baucus bill is still expected to win Finance Committee approval. The insurance industry is trying to influence what happens beyond the vote, when legislation goes to the floor of the House and Senate, and, if passed, to a conference committee that would reconcile differences in the bills.
It's at that final stage where many expect the real deal will be cut.
"We've got ourselves a real health care shooting war now," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned consultant. "The industry has come to the conclusion that the way things are going in Congress, we'll have a ... formula that will be disastrous for their business, so they can't stand on the sidelines any longer."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My brother in Taxachusetts called me this evening. I asked him how the state-wide insurance plan is working out. He didn't know. He has to pay the state $350 so that he doesn't have to join the plan. Next year his bill will double.
How much would you be willing to pay so that the government would leave you alone?
#5
At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.
Congresscritters slipped in an amendment:
One amendment adopted would weaken the individual coverage requirement by delaying and reducing penalties attached to the requirement. The maximum penalty for a family of four would start at $200 in 2014 and rise to $750 in 2017.
So with guaranteed issue why would you buy coverage before becoming ill? The donk way push irresponsibility.
#6
According to an article in the Globe yesterday, the regulators in Massachuetts want to move to a capitation plan, in which providers get paid a set (never enough) amount and then are required to take care of everyone in their plan.
This shifts responsibility onto the providers and away from the state pols, which is why the pols like it.
Capitation has failed everywhere it's been tried. You'd think someone would pay attention to such details.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2009 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
According to an article in the Globe yesterday, the regulators in Massachuetts want to move to a capitation plan
And If i'm not mistaken Steve this will require changing state law as Mass made capitation plans illegal 20 or so years ago.
In the wake of the scandal that derailed ex-Sen. John Edwards' political career, his home state of North Carolina is split between those willing to forgive him and those still angry.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A New York Times article by Nick Bunkley on Friday targeted for print on Saturday about the status of contract talks between Ford Motor Company and the United Auto Workers piqued my interest in a previously neglected but important matter. 
The dollar's position as the world's leading reserve currency faces increased pressure as the financial crisis allows emerging economies greater influence on the world stage, analysts said.
Last month, a jury in Prince George's County, Maryland awarded Kimberly Jones $260,000 in a civil rights suit. In 2006, sheriff's deputies from the county had forced their way into Jones' home, blasted her with pepper spray, beat her with batons, punched her in the face, then arrested her for assaulting a police officer. Though the charge resulted in Jones being fired from her job at a shelter for homeless children, it was later dropped. Reason? The cops had the wrong house. 
(CBS/AP) The Rev. Al Sharpton wants the National Football League to block conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh from bidding on the St. Louis Rams. 
BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. - About 70 protesters let their voices be heard outside a school in New Jersey where students sang praise of President Barack Obama.
In the wake of the scandal that derailed ex-Sen. John Edwards' political career, his home state of North Carolina is split between those willing to forgive him and those still angry.
