Rex Kickass

The drinking and gambling age in Ontario is 19, one year higher than the rest of Canada. You do not need a passport to cross the border, but it does make things easier. They are only 70 dollars and I believe there is a passport agency in Chicago where you can get it made same day. I know nothing about London, Ontario except that you may be able to get some Cleveland stations on your FM dial. They have a good rock station, I seem to recall from a weekend off the Lake Erie shore. But that was 5 years ago. Your miles may vary. I think the standard rules of travel apply here: Smile, be polite, envision the best vacation ever - and you'll probably have it. Have a blast, man!

So we're talking about 65 billion dollars a year extra to maintain a safe, low to no risk social security net for American seniors who need this money in retirement. The Bush administration is proposing transitioning one third of the payroll tax to private investment. And this week admitted that the government would have to borrow an additional trillion dollars to make that happen. Over ten years. Last time I checked, that's 100 billion a year over ten years. More than what Krugman estimates it would take to maintain SSI in perpetuity according to what you've said. Then you have to calculate the interest on the borrowing that the US would have to do. Assuming that this interest yield would be somewhere along the lines of an average savings bond, you are looking at about 3.5% interest per year on the One Trillion dollars. That's by my calculations - about 35 billion more per year. If the bonds issued to pay for SSI are 20 year notes, we are talking about a cost of 1.3-1.6 trillion (I'm no good at figuring out compound interest). All I know is if my low end figure is correct, that averages out to a per year total of 65 billion. That's if the transition costs to SSI stay around a trillion dollars, and that's a big if. That's also if the interest rates stay low when these bonds are issued. Again a big if. All that money to save the system like it is, which can not go bankrupt - by the way - being a government expenditure - unless the gov't itself goes bankrupt. Or to convert it into a new system that puts your retirement savings at risk. Directly opposed to the original goals of the program to begin with.

I found this on a left wing partisan website (the links to the two stories). If this had been a dem saying it, I probably never would have come across it or posted it - true. But I'm sure there are a few other folks here who would have. The main reason I posted it: I love seeing arrogant assholes like this minister get their come-uppance. It cracks my s*** up every time. Is this a knock on Bush? Not really. There's a whack-job fan for every major politician. I don't blame George Bush for this guy. Is this a knock on the so-called "values voter"? Absodamnlutely. I'm pretty sure the values this guy has aren't shared by 99% of the country. In fact, I'm pretty confident that the average "values voter" doesn't even understand what that really means (because I don't think they were all white evangelicals like the press says.) But it sounds nice, and they may not have liked the Dem anyway - so why not call themselves a values voter? They vote their conscience. It's just always so disappointed that their conscience is partially formed by assclowns like this guy.

Sorry, its a slow day at work. I find things.

Story from the AP yesterday Today:

No, I think what Krugman was saying is that because money from the payroll tax is pumping itself into Social Security, that it is perpetuating itself - you know, like its designed to.

Yas: I see your point too. If this didn't point to something kinda shabby about the way we present the fight in this war - I'd agree with you that the story is needless, a non-story. But it seems, too often, that the government is willing to put a sunnier face on the war than it deserves or it demands. War is tough and I think sugarcoating reality with lies is an insult to the people our elected officials are supposed to represent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?hp

Being on the east coast, the only reports I got were from CNN, they didn't differentiate - but I got the feeling - nobody critical.

37 were hurt, no dead though - which is a good thing. They say that high rise fire deaths are extremely rare - The Cook County office disaster is an anomaly.

yas: If it weren't for Tillman's mom saying basically that she was lied to over the circumstances of his death, I'd agree with you. But, being ever conscious of public perception - it seems like the Pentagon tries to make things look better than it is sometimes. Unfortunately, the military is not good at that kind of P.R. And it shows.

Sorry, I did make a leap of faith I guess. But maybe its because I don't think he's being used in this story. Quite the contrary, by exposing the truth over what really might have happened, I feel he's being honored further. He fought for this country, he died for this country. He deserves to have his story told, even if it doesn't make us look the best.

I saw this today and thought it was interesting. Teen pregnancy rates as per the CDC in 2002, broken down by state.

How? It bothers you that the media is reporting that the Army allegedly tried to cover up a friendly fire death in Afghanistan? Why doesn't it bother you that the Army may have tried to cover up a friendly fire death in Afghanistan instead?

Who is using his death here?

The good news is, no detanator. The bad news is: why were they doing this kind of training in an airport to begin with?

It's funny cause its true. Part of why I like Germany better, the soap.

You think we aren't making under the table deals all the time? ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil are also implicated in the Oil for Food scandal. Maybe I'm being naive, but I think our allies would stand behind us in a true moment of crisis. And a billion here or there wouldn't be of any importance whatsoever. And you think the paltry millions that France got out of Oil-For-Food would be reason enough to prevent that war? There are billions to be made in Iraq and France certainly knew that opposing the US position would put them at a cost economically in that region, our government so much as said that. You know what I love about political discussions? When reality changes to disprove someone's argument, they try to throw a fig leaf over the gaping hole in it. The US used Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify an invasion and change of regime in Iraq. France said, we don't believe there is enough evidence to justify an invasion. It turns out France was right - but not because they were clear headed, or listened to their foreign policy advisors or the chorus of American political scientists - both conservative and liberal - who thought a war with Iraq would be a mistake. Rather than admit that the party you disagreed with originally was at least partially right, you find something else to throw against a wall - to see if it sticks. To say that the sole reason for France to avoid war is because some folks tied to Chirac benefitted is as loony as saying the entire motivation for the war was control of the oil reserves because the US can't account for 8.8 billion dollars in oil revenue since May of 2003 during the reign of the CPA.

I hated Anna Karennina. Fires in the Mirror by Anna Devere Smith. My college Freshman common book. Everyone had to read it. She didn't actually write anything. She recorded a bunch of people talking about bulls*** and she transcribed it. Then she said she was an author. Without a tape recorder, she'd still just be the talentless hack actress she is today. My Century by Gunter Grass, no good - and I love Gunter Grass. Also I'd stay away from "The Sorrows of Young Werther" by Goethe. As disappointing in the original German as it is in English.

I'm sorry - are you privy to some sort of French government communiquee that I'm not seeing? France considered contributing 15,000 troops to the war effort as early as 2002 - which would have made them the third largest country in the coalition. France met with the US to consult over war plans in 2002. They only moved to the other side when it became apparent to them that the Bush administration cared less about making sure a cogent air-tight justification for the necessity of war was there, then getting the party started so to speak. Sorry Charlie, that's not anti-Americanism. In my book, that's responsible statesmanship. I'm not a fan of Jacques Chirac by any means, but they aren't accomodationist either. They've got their own battles with the mess in Algeria to deal with. France does have an inferiority complex, and they are a little afraid of global cultural domination by Hollywood, oddly enough sharing similar concerns that the right claims to have about Hollywood. But don't sit there and act like you know about French culture when you very obviously don't. I lived in France, half of my family is French. Every rational French person I have spoken to has been able to make a differentiation between government policy and the people in that government. If you could look past your rhetoric and into reality - you might actually see that you're fudging timelines and omitting facts to prove your point. Oh yeah, one other thing - France is in the lead in trying to resolve the issues with Iran. They have a policy of engagement with the state and is trying to prevent or at least delay the creation of Iranian nuclear weaponry. Instead the Bush administration responds with bluster it appears to have no plan to back up. Bash France if you want, but it appears in the next war on terror - they've got our back and we haven't even asked for it yet.

Of course if Bush was an honorable man, by your logic, he'd invite the Senator over to the White House for a meeting of the minds about how to resolve the problem. But that, of course, assumes that the President recognizes there's a problem to begin with.

I'm not gonna start that argument, instead I'll say ETA bombings have a long history - longer than the career of former President Jose Maria Aznar and Al Qaeda's existence. This bombing had nothing to do with the other.

Good news, no injuries or killings at this time.

George Bush has still never gone to a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.