Controlled Chaos

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 06:01 AM) Oh, there's no secret there, my family-in-law know they are redneck dupes. There are plenty of exceptions, certainly. My wife is one. But that doesn't mean you can't throw a Bud can around here without hitting somebody who gets screwed by the GOP year after year and keeps voting for them anyway. :headshake Ya means like me?? I'm a big ol Mooron. Iz keep votings for the GOP and they keeps screwings me too. Thanks for clearing all this stuff up fer me mister. I can'ts believe how stoopid I iz.

First off I'd say...go with your beliefs and vote for who most represents those beliefs. Screw the labels, but if you want to know...Id' say you're a moderate republican. You don't need money to be a republican....that's an old crock of s***

On a side note...I can't believe I am reading, writing, or even discussing fricken wal-mart. If you would have asked me last year what I thought about them...I'd be like..."ughh...it's a discount store???" I had no idea they were considered evil and to be honest I wouldn't even care, but when something makes perfect sense to me and not to other people...it intrigues me to learn more about it. Hard Line State Big Labor's war on Wal-Mart claims casualties among poor Marylanders. BY STEVE H. HANKE AND STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST BALTIMORE--In Big Labor's war against Wal-Mart, "collateral damage"--in the form of lost jobs and income for the poor--is starting to add up. Of course, since the unions and their legislative allies claim that their motive is to liberate people from exploitation by Wal-Mart, these unintended effects are often ignored. Here in Maryland, however, that's getting hard to do. The consequences of our Legislature's override of Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of their "Fair Share Health Care Act" on Jan. 12 will be tragic for some of the state's neediest residents. The law will force companies that employ over 10,000 to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care or kick any shortfall into a special state fund. Wal-Mart would be the only employer in the state to be affected. Almost surely, therefore, the company will pull the plug on plans to build a distribution center that would have employed 800 in Somerset County, on Maryland's picturesque Eastern Shore. As a Wal-Mart spokesman has put it, "you have to take a step back and call into question how business-friendly is a state like Maryland when they pass a bill that . . . takes a swipe at one company that provides 15,000 jobs." Unfortunately, in Somerset, the new law looks more like a body blow than a "swipe." The rural county is Maryland's poorest, with per capita personal income 46% below the state average and a poverty rate 130% above it. Somerset's enduring problem is weak labor demand that greatly limits its 25,250 residents' economic opportunities. There are just 0.8 jobs per household in Somerset, barely half the 1.5 figure that applies to the rest of the state. Somerset's top 10 list of employers features sectors like food services (average annual compensation per employee: $9,637), poultry and egg production ($14,320) and seafood preparation and packaging ($19,190). It is hard to exaggerate how much the planned distribution center might have meant to Somerset's economy. Using an input-output model, we forecast the "ripple effects" of the new income and spending that could have emanated from Wal-Mart's facility as follows: • The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%. • Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%. • Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%. • State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes. Those losses, though dramatic, probably understate the full extent of the damage in this case. They do not include forgone employment and income from construction of the facility and related infrastructure improvements. What is more, Wal-Mart's tentative plans for a second distribution center in Garrett County, in mountainous western Maryland, also appear dead. Garrett, with a poverty rate that is 70% above the state's, is only slightly better off than Somerset. How could our legislators turn a blind eye to such areas? Partly, of course, they are simply eager for Big Labor's votes and money and therefore subservient to its interests. The Service Employees International Union actually helped draft what became known as the "Wal-Mart bill." Unable--so far--to organize workers at the company, the union's immediate national strategy is to limit Wal-Mart's competitive reach by raising its costs. Maryland was a shrewdly chosen place to kick off this campaign. Some estimate that as much as a third of the state's economic activity stems from federal employment and purchases. Over 150,000 Marylanders--six times the population of tiny Somerset--are on the federal (nonmilitary) payroll; they are concentrated in central Maryland, near the nation's capital. Nearly 268,000 more Marylanders draw checks from state and local government. With so many workers in a sector where revenues appear to arrive automatically and inefficiency never leads to bankruptcy, our state's resulting political culture is quite predictable. Many Marylanders are simply unmindful of the necessities of survival in the private sector: pleasing customers, controlling costs and satisfying shareholders. Thanks to the federal tax dollars collected from the rest of the country and spent in Maryland, the prevailing view of economic reality is inverted: The public sector is seen as the engine of prosperity, with the private one along for the ride. Reflecting this culture, our legislators often behave as if business is a problem to be solved. On Jan. 17, they also overrode a gubernatorial veto of a $1-an-hour increase in the state's minimum wage. Like the health-care mandate, the hike is a job killer--though not in affluent areas of the state, where strong labor demand long ago pushed the going wage above the minimum. In those areas, the law is largely symbolic and enables well-meaning voters and legislators to conclude that they are "doing something for working families." Safely out of their view, however, at Maryland's impoverished margins, already weak labor demand will be further diminished. What remains to be seen is whether Maryland will be a leading political indicator or an anomaly, for Wal-Mart bills have been drafted in 33 other states. Emboldened by success here, lawmakers in some states have set the threshold for companies to be hit with mandated health benefits as low as 1,000 workers. In these upcoming battles, legislators should be mindful that companies like Wal-Mart are not the enemy but rather frontline soldiers in a real war on poverty. The profit motive leads them to seek out areas where there is much idle labor and put it to work. Where they are prevented or discouraged from doing so, the alternative job prospect is rarely a cushy spot in the bureaucracy. Rather, it is continued idleness and hardship. Mr. Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, served as a member of the Governor's Council of Economic Advisers in Maryland (1976-77). Mr. Walters is a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

AN ACE IS SOMEONE WHO HAS PROVEN OVER A LONG TIME, THAT HE IS ONE OF THE BEST PITCHERS IN THE GAME. SHORT SPANS OF A COUPLE YEARS DO NOT QUALIFY. I think an ACE is someone who has proven over a long time that he is one of the best pitchers in the game and is a pillar of consistency. When you throw this guy on the mound 9.95 times out of 10 you know what you are going to get. I think that's the best definition. I think there are degrees of aces... You have those that are just flat out dominating and those that just flat out get the job done. I would never say Buehrle has better stuff than Santana, but I would say they both bring consistency to their team. You're gonna get 7,8,9 innings and you're gonna get a low scoring game you should win. I think that's what a team looks for in their ace and I think while aces can be totally different types of pitchers, they will consistently deliver the same result.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) Two things made me think about this: 1) That stupid "sweet 16" show on MTV followed this Cuban girl from Miami and her accent was SO exaggerated it was sad. Obviously TV changes people, but that's even more the point. The girl was 15 and was born in the US. 2) I saw this obese guy at school yesterday decked out in all camoflage and an Al Quida beard..you know the "I really shouldn't have a beard because my facial hair doesn't really grow in like an Amish guy's does" I just thought to myself, "I wonder what the factors are that makes this guy dress and present himself in this way?" Attention? People around him dress this way? It's all very fascinating. 1) Miami - Cuba...is there really a difference? I can understand why she would have a thick accent living there. Now if you told me she was born in Idaho...then maybe you 'd have a case of over exagerrating. 2) It seems that most people that look different or feel eccentric like to exagerrate other things to disguise those traits. I don't particlularly know why. Maybe if you're overweight or not particularly attractive you do other things for people to look at. Like grow a weird beard and dress in camoflauge. Maybe it kind of gives people something else to focus on besides your weight. Or if you're not the most attractive girl...you dye your hair orange, get piercings all over, wear ripped tights, combat boots and goth makeup. So now when someone looks at you, they don't say..."dam that chick is kind of unpleasent to look at" they say "Yeah, she's kind of a weirdo" This is purely a guess on my part....I have no idea really. Is it better to be looked at as a weirdo than an unattractive or overweight person??? I mean, I have also seen some girls that would be pretty dam hot if they didn't dress all crazy and stuff. So what drives them to do it?? I don't know, but I'm sure they all have their reasons...

Chicagoans flock to Wal-Mart jobs January 26, 2006 BY LESLIE BALDACCI Staff Reporter Advertisement Eighteen months after the Chicago City Council torpedoed a South Side Wal-Mart, 24,500 Chicagoans applied for 325 jobs at a Wal-Mart opening Friday in south suburban Evergreen Park, one block outside the city limits. The new Wal-Mart at 2500 W. 95th is one block west of Western Avenue, the city boundary. Of 25,000 job applicants, all but 500 listed Chicago addresses, said John Bisio, regional manager of public affairs for Wal-Mart. "In our typical hiring process, you're pretty successful if you have 3,000 applicants," he said. "They were really crowing about 11,000 in Oakland, Calif., last year. So to get 25,000-plus applications and counting, I think is astonishing." Assistant manager Rachael Fierro, who was still interviewing prospects Wednesday, said "we saw a little bit of everything -- people who hadn't worked for a long time, people who saw an opportunity to do something with themselves. That's the information I got from applicants." The 141,000-square-foot store has 36 departments, a "tire and lube express," vision center, Subway restaurant, pharmacy, garden center and drugstore. It will sell some groceries but no fresh produce or meats and no liquor. It is expected to generate $1 million in sales and property tax in the first year -- a windfall in a village that collects about $3 million a year in sales taxes, said Evergreen Park Mayor James J. Sexton. Evergreen Plaza, with 100 stores, generates about $2 million. Anticipating the usual protests over wages, benefits and anti-union practices, the Evergreen Park store was union-built. A protest over minority set-asides was defused in one day. Wal-Mart also came bearing gifts -- Tuesday night, the corporation donated $35,000 to the village library, local hospital, churches and other village institutions, Sexton said. 'We can't beat them' The Chicago alderman who tried to bring a Wal-Mart to the Chatham neighborhood was left gnashing his teeth. "I always tell people I'm not for Wal-Mart, but I am for that project coming into the city and to my ward. We can't beat them," said Ald. Howard Brookins Jr. (21st). "The same things they talk about Wal-Mart doing to Small Town U.S.A when they build on the outskirts of town is the same thing they have done to the City of Chicago without fanfare. Nobody distinguishes that if I cross Western Avenue at 95th Street, I am no longer in Chicago. For all practical purposes, Wal-Mart is in the city of Chicago without us receiving any benefit. You're going to see the parking lot filled with cars with Chicago city stickers." Eighteen months ago, Brookins negotiated with Wal-Mart for a store at 83rd and Stewart, former site of the Ryerson steel plant. His plan fell apart when other South Side aldermen failed to support his request for a zoning change. The week before, aldermen gave the go-ahead for a Wal-Mart in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side. The vote came after a contentious 2-1/2-hour debate. Brookins said he planned to visit the new Wal-Mart himself this weekend "to see for myself" if the parking lot is filled with cars registered to Chicago residents. The Beverly neighborhood, long a hotbed for disputes over cul-de-sacs and one-way streets, now faces the prospect of increased traffic from Wal-Mart shoppers. No road improvements "Because of the single-family character of our community, we want to avoid cut-through traffic, whether it's our own residents or people coming from trains or highways," said Ald. Virginia A. Rugai (19th), whose ward borders Evergreen Park. "It is our No. 1 quality-of-life issue, traffic. I don't think anyone can predict what traffic will be like. We're not going to know until the opening." There have been no road improvements in anticipation of increased traffic on that stretch of 95th Street, which will have Wal-Mart directly across from Evergreen Plaza. "We will monitor the situation and see if additional lanes or turning lanes are appropriate," Sexton said. Rugai said a few small hardware stores expressed concern about competition from Wal-Mart, but other businesses in the area anticipate a bump from new customers driving to and from Wal-Mart, especially along 95th Street, which has gone upscale in recent years with a Borders bookstore and a Chipotle Grill. A complex planned for the southeast corner of 95th Street and Western Avenue includes Potbelly, Starbucks, Jamba Juice and a FedEx/Kinko's store. "I think most development projects [in Beverly] are not going to include goods or services that you're going to find at Wal-Mart," Rugai said. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So my same post below from earlier in this thread still applies.....Seems a lot of people were interested in those jobs that good old Jesse and the unions took away from them. QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:50 AM) I didn't know much about this whole walmart thing when they were first pushing for stores in those areas...so when I started reading articles that people didn't want them I was like...huh?? It will create a ton of jobs in a community that needs work. People can buy their essentials at discount prices. It will create tax revenue for the city. I just didn't get the whole wal mart is bad thing. All entry level jobs are minimum wage. Then I saw these comments and I didn't have to wonder anymore where the people were getting their ideas from. With leaders and role models like this, it's no wonder the area is still the way it is.... "I think we have to get away from the mentality that we're just glad to get a job," said St. Sabina's pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger. "We've got to stop accepting crumbs as if it's the only thing we're meant to eat. A slave job is a slave job." "I'm for jobs in this community, but I have an insult level," said state Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago). "People need a livable wage. As an African-American woman, I once worked for $1 an hour. I'm not talking about what I don't know." Glad to get a job, isn't a bad mentality it's a good one...a positive one. You are developing a skill...you can eventually move forward with that skill. If you want to talk about being insulted...take it as an insult to be sitting on your ass at home collecting welfare. That's insulting!! It isn't insulting to be working. If you're making minimum wage and also getting help from the government, that's what its there for, but if you want to really feel insulted then just stay home and collect welfare. Do you think the areas in Chicago are better off now? Hundereds of jobs that would have been created are gone!! Is it better to sit home and collect welfare than to work for your own money on a job, where you can possibly move up and maybe get off of government assistance for good?

I hope someone comes home from Iraq and gives this piece of s*** what he's asking for. January 24, 2006 Joel Stein: Warriors and wusses I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on. I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas. And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of. But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward. Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake. Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach." The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that. I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful. After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood. But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives. I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel. But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam. And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany. I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book. I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Damn, I am 1-7. Guess I am very much the minority, according to her stats. I'm a minority too. I wonder where those numbers are from???

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and their liberal counterparts (none here so I can't name names), have a greater impact on people's opinions than the 10:00 news. And opinions and the subsequent voting is what counts in the political arena. The GOP wants to steer people away from news accounts and towards conservative talk shows that push the party agenda. That is good business for them. Neither party wants people to make up their own opinions when they have prepackaged opinions there for the asking. They want us to just listen to them (dem or rep), agree that the the media lies, and they (the parties and politicians) will tell us the truth. I here way more people talk about Rush's show than the newscast. That is influence. A person has to listen to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly for their views to impact their opinions. So who are their listeners?? The average joe's?? I don't think so. The people that listen to them are already aligned with their ideals. Just as the people that listen to Air America are already aligned with their ideals. I don't think the average joes are listening to political radio or watching political commentary on tv. They don't care that much about politics. Of course the GOP wants to steer people towards conservative talk shows and the Dems want to steer people towards the liberal talk shows. FINE. Have fun with your campaign. What I want is the MSM to be fair. To tell both sides. If something good is happening report it. If something bad is happening report it. If the economy is doing good...report it that way. If it's doing bad...report it that way. The conservatives can listen to their conservative commentators spew their commentary and the liberals can listen to their liberal commentators spew their commentary and the people in the middle, the average joes, the ones that are truely influenced in who they vote for can get unbiased coverage from the media. It's not that much to ask for.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:36 AM) He said money isn't being cut out of the program. It is. The article YOU cited to counter the ThinkProgress article states that "overall, the student loan program would endure the largest cut in its history, and most of the money would not be pumped back into education." That's bad. Most of the savings is due to that interest rate hike. So, students pay more, government pays less. That's not 'improving efficiency', that's just transferring money from students to the government (and from there, to tax cuts...). It's not that banks will merely profit less -- the profit will just be paid directly by students. Thanks to our education president! I wasn't commenting on whether I agree or disagree with the cuts. I wasn't quoting the article to back up whether I agree or disagree with the cuts. In fact, the only thing I personally wrote about was him anserwing the question. I was just saying he wasn't stumped. He knew what she was referring to and others that voted for the cuts explained it simlarliy. I know he didn't explain it like a good debater should or even how a good speaker would, but that's not what I'm arguing...I was just pointing out he wasn't stumped on the question like the article would have you believe.

I don't think he did that bad of a job anserwing the question. She wasn't that clear in her question. She didn't explain that the money she was talking about was from the student loan cuts. She just said you cut it from education. Once he clarified and got that she was talking about the student loan cuts, he explained it the same way most other Republicans have. I don't think he was stumped. He isn't the best speaker in the world, but he explained it adequately. Here's some excerpts from a USA Today article on how some others saw it. I know it doesn't flow with the article you posted from "Think Progress" cause they have their own agenda and want to make Bush look like a complete moron. It does however, show Bush's explaination was pretty well along the lines with the others that supported the cuts. Within higher education, the single biggest cut appears to be in the profits of lenders. Under current law, banks get to keep the excess money when the amounts that students pay in interest exceed the rate of return that the government has guaranteed. That would end. Lenders would have to refund the difference to the government, meaning billions of dollars. "We were able to reduce spending through changes in the way lenders operate," said Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the chairman of the Senate education committee. "But at the same time, we shielded the direct impact to students, and actually increased student opportunities." Meanwhile, the interest on students loans would also move to a fixed rate of 6.8% in July, up from its current variable rate of 4.7%. But that change was already set to happen under law, and the deficit-reduction bill does not alter that plan. Student groups tend to support a fixed rate as a protection against unstable, rising interest rates. Loan limits would increase from $2,625 to $3,500 for first-year students, and from $3,500 to $4,500 for second-year students. The total borrowing limit allowed for undergraduates would remain at $23,000. Lawmakers aimed for a compromise of letting students borrow more at the start of college, reflecting current needs, without sanctioning a bigger overall debt. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House education committee, said the bill "offers significant new benefits to students pursuing a college education."

For those of you that debated, I thought you would find this interesting. Should government provide funding for the arts? Endeavors asked Michael Munger, associate professor of political science, and Jim Hirschfield, associate professor of art, to respond to some often-heard questions about funding and the arts. Interview by Angela Spivey Can the government afford to fund the arts? Munger: No, it cannot. The argument that federal arts funding doesn't cost much is a foolish one. Most programs don't cost much on their own. But when we add up all the costs, the budget (and the deficit) is enormous. The argument is sometimes made that "cultural" funding is good for cities and towns. If so, the cities and towns should decide that they will pay for it. The basic conservative principle is that benefits and funding should be as closely matched as possible, provided that those receiving the benefits have the financial wherewithal to pay. If the benefits are going to the downtown developers and restaurants, then these entities should be willing to pay for the subsidies. If the benefits are for the poor, we are better off giving the money, not the art, to those in poverty. Hirschfield: The question should almost be, "can the government afford not to fund the arts?" This is a "question of values," what we as a society value. I believe that the federal and state governments have a stake in funding the arts, just as they have a stake in funding education and exploration, social justice, and protecting citizens. Art is not a frill. It has always been an important cultural endeavor. We study and admire all cultures through their literature, visual art, and music. Art not only enriches our lives, it's a record of who we are and what we believe. Public arts funding is not a waste of tax dollars. It is a relatively small investment with a consistently high return. Money for the arts benefits a variety of businesses. In 1990, for example, I received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). I used this money to print an exhibition catalog, and the money reentered the local economy through a North Carolina printer. Government art budgets are so small that if we did away with them, it wouldn't make a dent in the federal budget deficit. It's amazing how much exposure and controversy such a small amount of money creates-it shows how powerful and important art can be. Does public arts funding make art more accessible? Munger: The idea that public funding makes art available to everyone is nonsense. Public funding doesn't reduce ticket prices; it doesn't affect them at all. Ticket prices are calculated to maximize the revenues of the organization. Lump-sum subsidies don't change the revenue-maximizing, or profit-maximizing price of tickets. Public funding does affect the viability of dance, opera, or theater companies and spaces for exhibitions. Suppose that it is true that without public funding many arts organizations might cease to exist. That would surely be sad. But many such "shows" exist just for the wealthy, and exist only because of public subsidy. The only people who can go to the opera now are the wealthy. Middle-class people don't value the opera, and cannot attend anyway because the ticket prices are too high. The subsidies offered out of the public purse are classic political transfers from the middle class to the wealthy. The "public access" argument has it exactly backwards. Hirschfield: The argument that arts funding simply lowers ticket prices so the wealthy can attend performances is troublesome. This is elitist; it suggests that if you're not wealthy you don't value the art experience. Before the creation of the NEA, art was extremely elitist. Un-less you lived in a major metropolitan area you had little chance to experience the arts, regardless of your income level. Public funding has placed art in public buildings, parks, and schools so that anyone, at no cost, can experience art. In 1989, I created a sculptural installation within a 48-foot moving van. I exhibited the work, entitled "Urban Chapel," in Seattle, Washington. The artwork brought a few moments of quiet contemplation to those who entered the installation. Since the work existed within a tractor trailer, I was able to move the art to other sites in and around Seattle. "Urban Chapel" existed for two months, and more than 5,000 people experienced the piece at no cost to them. A number of public and private agencies funded the project. With a small amount of money, I reached a wide and varied audience. The work wouldn't have been possible without public art funding. If public arts funding ceased to exist, would the money come from another source? Munger: I believe that if public funding were cut off, there would be an outpouring of new contributions and energy from arts supporters. For example, listener donations to WUNC radio increased when its funds were cut. But suppose that public funds would not be replaced by private donations; that means that there are not enough people who care about the arts to want to pay the costs of artistic performances and shows. If this is true, it means that a legitimate threat to the existence of opera, theater, or dance companies, and to the viability of spaces for shows of visual arts, won't bring new contributions. This has to make you wonder if arts funding is a business that the federal government should be in! Remember, taxes are funds taken by threat of force from some people, and then translated into a wide variety of services and transfers, many of which go back to the people who paid the taxes. Wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, and they wield a lot of political power. The problem with the arts is that a small group of wealthy, educated people want the rest of the public to pay for their enjoyment. This is an enormous amount of money, per performance, which would be better spent on highways, mass transit, school children, the poor, the sick, or the aged. But none of these other programs are directly enjoyed by the wealthy "patrons" of the arts, so arts funding has a privileged status. Hirschfield: We've already seen the effects of cutbacks in government spending for the arts. Budgets for social programs are also being cut, and corporations are tending to give more to socially geared charitable organizations. Arts organizations are finding that additional funding from corporations does not exist. Furthermore, a company's decision to fund an arts organization will often hinge on endorsements from regional, state, and federal donors. Private corporations have specific priorities. Even if we could rely on the corporations, their money has strings attached; it can't provide artists the freedom that the NEA or state art councils can offer. Corporations have an image to maintain, and they're going to fund certain types of projects. If public funding for the arts were cut, would serious art survive in the open market? Munger: I am always confused by the argument that we need public arts funding to encourage great art. It seems to me there are three kinds of art: Great art (which is great), popular art (some of which is great, and some of which is only good), and politically acceptable art (which is awful). Now, I don't know how you create great art. I know that popular art will take care of itself, because that is how you make money. I also know how you create awful, but politically acceptable, art: you have public funding whose allocation is supervised by "judges" or critics. If you want to say critics have more taste about what is "good" art, I may agree with you. But critics are notorious in their inability to recognize "great" art. Juries of critics who enforce standards of taste, fad, or political correctness are actually the bane of great art. Artists who consciously try to win public funding are selling out to the forces of political faddism. Artists should be terrified of enforced "public" taste, whether that taste belongs to the political left, the right, or the dreary center. Great art of the late 20th century is the art that will make people laugh, cry, or get mad 50 or 100 years from now. I am absolutely confident that I don't know (and today's "juries" don't know) what that great art will be. Those who favor public funding want to argue that there are great artists whose works are lost, or never attempted, because the market failed them. I want to know how many great works of art have been lost because artists have tried to pursue creatively dead, but politically correct, themes in the pursuit of public funding. Public funding, by its very nature, creates new art that is either inert and lifeless, or shocking, but superficial. Unfortunately, neither the market nor the public can ensure "great" art. Hirschfield: Public funding gives artists access to the marketplace; it says to them, "it doesn't matter who you are or whom you know, your product is what's important." It gives artists a chance to set aside time to create work and then go to a publisher, museum, or art gallery with an endorsed product. I believe that there's great art, literature, and poetry out there that is extremely valuable but that won't ever get a chance in the marketplace. It's an overly used example, but Van Gogh sold few paintings in his lifetime, and now his paintings are so valuable even museums can't buy them anymore. Serious art will survive cuts in public funding. However, opportunities for and access to many programs will decline. All government programs have achievements and failures. The space program, for example, has had its share of successes and tragedies, yet the benefits to our society are innumerable. The same can be said of government funding for the arts. On the whole the NEA and the state arts councils have impeccable track records that few government agencies can equal. It would be a tragedy to lose them.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:52 AM) I don't know what newspaper coverage you get but The Monitor and Valley Morning Star had a AP story on their front page almost every day regarding the swifties. They found every angle possible. And the GOP radio network isn't mainstream? We must have different definitions of mainstream. BTW, it seems that during the GRN shows, they also run news stories. Of course you have a different definition of mainstream. That has been your argument for ever. You compare Bill O'Rilley and Rush Limbaugh to MSM....which is totally ridiculous. The GOP radio network isn't mainstream. It isn't even close to mainstream. It is listened to by other GOPers. As is Rush, Hannity, etc... CBS, NBC, ABC are mainstream. The Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, LA Times, Associate Press are mainstream. Thats what everyday people read and watch. The guy who has no real party affiliation and isn't really "into" politics isn't flipping to Fox News or listening to Rush. He is watching one of the national news shows at 5:30 or reading the paper and he is getting fed with the lefts view of things instead of a moderate view.

Great Job PA!!!!!!!!! Glad it all worked out. Way to put forth the effort. I'm sure she will remember the night forever. Good luck!! Best wishes!!

Cheating the children Jan 11, 2006 by John Stossel ( bio | archive ) Last week, Florida's supreme court ruled that public money can't be spent on private schools because the state constitution commands the funding of only "uniform . . . high-quality" schools. How absurd. As if government schools are uniformly high quality. Or even mostly decent. Apparently competition, which made even the Postal Service improve, is unconstitutional when it comes to public education in Florida. Remember when the Postal Service said it couldn't get it there overnight? Then companies like FedEx were allowed to compete. Private enterprise got it there absolutely, positively overnight. Now even the Post Office guarantees overnight delivery sometimes. Competition works. Why can't education work the same way? If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. My tiny brain can't begin to imagine the possibilities, but even I can guess there soon would be technology schools, cheap Wal-Mart-like schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows? If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom. This already happens overseas, and the results are good. For "Stupid in America," a special report ABC will air Friday, we gave identical tests to high school students in New Jersey and Belgium. The Belgians trounced the Americans. We didn't pick smart kids in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey kids' test scores are above average for America. "It has to be something with the school," said a New Jersey student, "'cause I don't think we're stupider." She was right: It's the schools. At age 10, students from 25 countries take the same test, and American kids place eighth, well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th, well below the international average. In other words, the longer American kids stay in American schools, the worse they do. They do worse than kids from much poorer countries, like Korea and Poland. This should come as no surprise since public education in the USA is a government monopoly. If you don't like your public school? Tough. If the school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it's good or bad. Government monopolies routinely fail their customers. Kaat Vandensavel runs a Belgian government school, but in Belgium, school funding follows students, even to private schools. So Vandensavel has to work hard to impress the parents. "If we don't offer them what they want for their child, they won't come to our school." That pressure makes a world of difference, she says. It forces Belgian schools to innovate in order to appeal to parents and students. Vandensavel's school offers extra sports programs and classes in hairdressing, car mechanics, cooking, and furniture building. She told us, "We have to work hard day after day. Otherwise you just [go] out of business." "That's normal in Western Europe," Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby told me. "If schools don't perform well, a parent would never be trapped in that school in the same way you could be trapped in the U.S." Vandensavel adds, "America seems like a medieval country . . . a Communist country on the educational level, because there's no freedom of choice -- not for parents, not for pupils." In kindergarten through 12th grade, that is. Colleges compete, so the United States has many of the most prestigious in the world -- eight of the top 10 universities, on a Chinese list of the world's top 500. (The other two are Cambridge and Oxford.) Accountability is why universities and private schools perform better. Every day they are held accountable by parents and students, and if they fail the kids, school administrators lose their jobs. Public school officials almost never lose jobs. Government schools are accountable only to their fellow politicians, and that kind of accountability is virtually no accountability. The public schools are cheating the children. Myth: Schools don't have enough money Jan 18, 2006 by John Stossel ( bio | archive ) "Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue." The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do. Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools." The NEA says public schools need more money. That's the refrain heard in politicians' speeches, ballot initiatives and maybe even in your child's own classroom. At a union demonstration, teachers carried signs that said schools will only improve "when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." Not enough money for education? It's a myth. The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student. Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money. America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money. In 1985, some of them got their wish. Kansas City, Mo., judge Russell Clark said the city's predominately black schools were not "halfway decent," and he ordered the government to spend billions more. Did the billions improve test scores? Did they hire better teachers, provide better books? Did the students learn anything? Well, they learned how to waste lots of money. The bureaucrats renovated school buildings, adding enormous gyms, an Olympic swimming pool, a robotics lab, TV studios, a zoo, a planetarium, and a wildlife sanctuary. They added intense instruction in foreign languages. They spent so much money that when they decided to bring more white kids to the city's schools, they didn't have to resort to busing. Instead, they paid for 120 taxis. Taxis! What did spending billions more accomplish? The schools got worse. In 2000, five years and $2 billion later, the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district's history. A study by two professors at the Hoover Institution a few years ago compared public and Catholic schools in three of New York City's five boroughs. Parochial education outperformed the nation's largest school system "in every instance," they found -- and it did it at less than half the cost per student. "Everyone has been conned -- you can give public schools all the money in America, and it will not be enough," says Ben Chavis, a former public school principal who now runs the American Indian Charter School in Oakland, Calif. His school spends thousands less per student than Oakland's government-run schools spend. Chavis saves money by having students help clean the grounds and set up for lunch. "We don't have a full-time janitor," he told me. "We don't have security guards. We don't have computers. We don't have a cafeteria staff." Since Chavis took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst middle schools in Oakland to the one where the kids get the best test scores. "I see my school as a business," he said. "And my students are the shareholders. And the families are the shareholders. I have to provide them with something."

QUOTE(THEWOOD @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 03:24 PM) Is that supposed to be in green? Man I have seen them a couple time playing at the bars and they are so bad. Also that chick from Catfight I am pretty sure got turned down. opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. I hardly think they are bad. They are a cover band...they play the music, they hit the notes, they put their own spin on some things and they have a good time doing it. I have seen them probably 4 or 5 times and I have never heard of or seen anyone at the bar not having a good time. They also happen to be playing when my friend had his bachelor party at Balmoral. Carmen and Silvy were having a party there that same night. We invited them up to our suite and had a few drinks and shot the s***. They were all pretty cool. So I'm rooting for her. If you heard her in her audition...she had a pretty good voice.

My cousin was in a play The Cubicle. It was a musical based on Office Space. It was a must for lovers of the movie. I think it's over now...we saw it before xmas. I think it was at the new millenium theatre in Chicago.

Mind if I join your threesome?

This isn't really a joke, but this is a sign in Park Ridge now.... Stop means Stop

Robbing Wal-Mart Jan 19, 2006 by George Will ( bio | archive | contact ) Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A WASHINGTON -- In 1786 the Annapolis Convention, requested by Virginia and attended by only four other states, called for a second gathering to revise the Articles of Confederation in order to strengthen the federal government. Some revision: The second meeting became the Constitutional Convention. It scrapped the Articles, partly because the Founders were alarmed by states legislating relief of debtors at the expense of creditors, often in ways not easily distinguished from theft. Something not easily distinguished from theft recently occurred in Annapolis. In legislation ostensibly concerned with any company with 10,000 employees but pertaining only to one, Maryland has said Wal-Mart must spend 8 percent of its payroll on health care, or must give the difference to the state. The Constitution's foremost framer, James Madison, understood the perils of democracy at the state rather than the national level of an "extensive republic'': State legislatures have fewer factions competing for favors than compete for Congress' favors. States, being smaller than the nation, have legislatures more easily captured by overbearing majorities. Madison would have understood what Maryland has done. Organized labor, having mightily tried and miserably failed to unionize even one of Wal-Mart's 3,250 American stores, has turned to organizing state legislators. Maryland was a natural place to begin because it has lopsided Democratic majorities in both houses of its legislature. Labor's allies include the "progressives'' who have made Wal-Mart the left's devil du jour. Wal-Mart's supposed sin is this: One way it holds down prices (when it enters a market, retail prices decline 5 percent to 8 percent; nationally, it saves consumers $16 billion annually) is by not being a welfare state. That is, by not offering higher wages and benefits than the labor market requires. Labor's other allies are Wal-Mart's unionized competitors, such as, in Maryland, Giant Food, a grocery chain. These allies are engaging in what economists call rent-seeking -- using government to impose disadvantages on competitors with whom they are competing and losing. Wal-Mart's enemies say Maryland is justified in expropriating some of the company's revenues because the company's pay and medical benefits are insufficient to prevent some employees from being eligible for Medicaid. Well. Eighty-six percent of Wal-Mart employees have health insurance, more than half through the company, which offers 18 plans, one with $11 monthly premiums and another with $3 co-payments. Wal-Mart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers, who hire many entry-level and part-time workers. In the last 12 months, Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the nation and in 25 states, estimates it has paid its 1.3 million employees $4.7 billion in benefits. That sum is almost half as large as the company's profits, which last fiscal year were $10.3 billion -- just 3.6 percent -- on revenues of $285 billion. Wal-Mart earns just $6,000 per employee, one-third below the national average. Anyway, Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are sufficient to attract hordes of job applicants whenever it opens a new American store, which it does once every three days. Maryland's new law is, The Washington Post says, "a legislative mugging masquerading as an act of benevolent social engineering.'' And the mugging of profitable businesses may be just beginning. The threshold of 10,000 employees can be lowered by knocking off a zero. Then two. The 8 percent requirement can be raised. It might be raised in Maryland, if, as is possible, Wal-Mart's current policies almost reach it. This is part of the tawdry drama of state politics as governments grasp for novel sources of money. Forty-eight states are to varying degrees dependent on revenues from gambling. Forty-six states are addicted to their cut, to be paid out over decades, from the $246 billion coerced from the tobacco industry by using the specious argument that smoking costs their governments huge sums. As a result, 46 states have a stake in the long-term profitability of tobacco companies. Maryland's grasping for Wal-Mart's revenues opens a new chapter in the degeneracy of state governments that are eager to spend more money than they have the nerve to collect straightforwardly in taxes. Fortunately, as labor unions and allied rent-seekers in 30 or so other states contemplate mimicking Maryland, Wal-Mart can contemplate an advantage of federalism. States engage in "entrepreneurial federalism,'' competing to be especially attractive to businesses. A Wal-Mart distribution center, creating at least 800 jobs, that has been planned for Maryland could be located instead in more hospitable Delaware. Meanwhile, people who are disgusted -- and properly so -- about corruption inside Washington's Beltway should ask themselves this: Is it really worse than the kind of rent-seeking, and theft tarted up as compassion, just witnessed 20 miles east of the Beltway, in Annapolis?

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 08:13 AM) Here's a hypothetical offered up for discussion: You're a woman, and you have just been date raped. In court, the man who raped you claims the sex was consensual and he is found not guilty. In the meantime, you find out you are pregnant(the morning-after pill didnt work for whatever reason). Let's assume that the court case is finished within 3 months of the rape. Not only does the idea of this jackass's spawn growing inside you make you sick, but you have reason to believe that if this guy found out you were pregnant, he might even try and fight you for custody. What do you do? There are other ways to get justice outside of the court. As far as the woman's situation, I can't comment.

Glad to see the chick from Catfight made it through. They are a pretty kick ass all girl band that plays at the bars. http://www.catfightband.com/frame_index.html

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 05:58 PM) I will be at the games March 1st and 2nd. Can't wait. I will be ther March 14th. If anyone else is going that week....holla!!

How about this?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 11:52 AM) I think the members are, same with the GOP. What is coordinated is the platform and some of the talking points. And Republicans can't dance And democrats can't make love http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News/story?id=180291