Sacrifice for me, but not for thee, Ms Obama? Now how about it?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Article: US walks out as Iran delivers anti-US speech
The link: http://news.yahoo.com/us-walks-iran-delivers-anti-us-speech-172115419.html
" Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for history of slavery, causing two world wars, using a nuclear bomb against "defenseless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations. "
And, as it turns out, gets some history wrong in the process.
But let's start at the beginning, shall we?
Mammy (my first name for him, since I disprespect him) said that he blamed us for a history of slavery. But what does Wikipedia have to say about slavery (*)?
" Conditions that can be considered slavery include debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, adoption in which children are effectively forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[2]
" Slavery predates written records and has existed in many cultures.[3] The number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history,[4] remaining as high as 12 million[5] to 27 million,[6][7][8] though this is probably the smallest proportion of the world's population in history.[9] Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations.[10] Human trafficking is primarily for prostituting women and children into sex industries.[11] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact. Emphasis added.)
Now it's true that the United States has had its own sad history of slavery (**). I can't, and won't deny that. But to blame us for all slavery? Come on, Mammy. "Forced marriage?" It's happened in the U.S as well, but it also happens in some Muslim countries to this very day, doesn't it? It also happens in some Asian countries where human trafficers arrange "marriages" to an American to get somebody into the country.
But there's also this: (and this was before the U.S. existed as a country, Mammy!) " The first English colony in North America, Virginia, acquired its first Africans in 1619, after a ship arrived, unsolicited, carrying a cargo of about 20 Africans.[2][3] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
In fact, hasn't bride raiding (Kidnapping (***)) been an accepted practice in the past in some countries? And isn't it true that it still happens today? How about it, Mammy? Nothing to say?
And according to Mammy, the U.S. caused both World Wars. I don't think I need to go into too much detail here, but: WWI was caused by the assasination of an Austrian Arch-Duke by a Serbian, Mammy!!! (*4)
World War II was caused, it's generally accepted, by the conditions imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles (*5). In fact, let's quote from the Wikipedia article, shall we?
" Germany was not pacified or conciliated, nor permanently weakened. This would prove to be a factor leading to later conflicts, notably and directly World War II.[7] (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact. Emphasis added.)
As for the Atomic bombings (*6), I'll let Wikipedia say it best: " The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them, as well as their strategic importance, is still debated.[10][11] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
So in everything he's said so far, he's been wrong.
Shame on you, Mammy.
NOTES:
(*) - Slavery - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
(**) - Slavery in the U.S. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
(***) - Bride Raiding (Kidnapping) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
(*4) - WW1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW1
(*5) - Treaty of Versailles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
(*6) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
" Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for history of slavery, causing two world wars, using a nuclear bomb against "defenseless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations. "
And, as it turns out, gets some history wrong in the process.
But let's start at the beginning, shall we?
Mammy (my first name for him, since I disprespect him) said that he blamed us for a history of slavery. But what does Wikipedia have to say about slavery (*)?
" Conditions that can be considered slavery include debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, adoption in which children are effectively forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[2]
" Slavery predates written records and has existed in many cultures.[3] The number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history,[4] remaining as high as 12 million[5] to 27 million,[6][7][8] though this is probably the smallest proportion of the world's population in history.[9] Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations.[10] Human trafficking is primarily for prostituting women and children into sex industries.[11] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact. Emphasis added.)
Now it's true that the United States has had its own sad history of slavery (**). I can't, and won't deny that. But to blame us for all slavery? Come on, Mammy. "Forced marriage?" It's happened in the U.S as well, but it also happens in some Muslim countries to this very day, doesn't it? It also happens in some Asian countries where human trafficers arrange "marriages" to an American to get somebody into the country.
But there's also this: (and this was before the U.S. existed as a country, Mammy!) " The first English colony in North America, Virginia, acquired its first Africans in 1619, after a ship arrived, unsolicited, carrying a cargo of about 20 Africans.[2][3] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
In fact, hasn't bride raiding (Kidnapping (***)) been an accepted practice in the past in some countries? And isn't it true that it still happens today? How about it, Mammy? Nothing to say?
And according to Mammy, the U.S. caused both World Wars. I don't think I need to go into too much detail here, but: WWI was caused by the assasination of an Austrian Arch-Duke by a Serbian, Mammy!!! (*4)
World War II was caused, it's generally accepted, by the conditions imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles (*5). In fact, let's quote from the Wikipedia article, shall we?
" Germany was not pacified or conciliated, nor permanently weakened. This would prove to be a factor leading to later conflicts, notably and directly World War II.[7] (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact. Emphasis added.)
As for the Atomic bombings (*6), I'll let Wikipedia say it best: " The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them, as well as their strategic importance, is still debated.[10][11] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)
So in everything he's said so far, he's been wrong.
Shame on you, Mammy.
NOTES:
(*) - Slavery - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
(**) - Slavery in the U.S. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
(***) - Bride Raiding (Kidnapping) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
(*4) - WW1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW1
(*5) - Treaty of Versailles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
(*6) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Something I HATE (SCREENSHOT)
I need to apologize for how small the image is, but if you look at it, you'll see that IE blocked a popup ad. This is the bar at the top of the screen.
But then we come to right above the START button (lower left-hand corner) There we see that the site I was on added a toolbar at the bottom AND an advert above that.
Granted, if I were on a faster computer, these wouldn't slow my system down too much. And when my PIV 3.7G system was still "alive" it wasn't an issue.
But that computer bit the dust (died with a series of POST (Power On Self Test) beeps) and was good for only a doorstop. So I removed what I could save, but the motherboard and CPU were toast.
So now I'm using a PIV 1.7G machine with only 512mb of RAM. Yes, I know it sucks. But it also happens to be all I have (unless I count my laptop, which I use on the road.)
A popup at top, a toolbar on the bottom and an advert. As I said, on a fast machine it really doesn't make a difference.
But think of those like me who are using older machines with slow CPUs and not much RAM. Granted, I COULD buy a better one ... if I had the money.
This isn't a 'feel sorry for me post' rather, it's a post that means that many web sites really don't care about the number of popups, ads, toolbars, etc that they force on you.
For my laptop, not a problem. It's a quad core machine with 4G of DDR RAM and a HUGE hard drive. It runs circles around this machine.
For THIS machine (the one I use to surf the web due to security issues) a MAJOR problem. Yes, call me anal when I mention security issues. Yet my system has YET to be infected by a virus, trojan, or adware. (Knocking on wood. I typed in YET for a reason. Just because I've been 'anal' doesn't mean I can't or won't be infected in the future.) My now ex-wife had her machine hijacked once. And I'm willing to bet that at least somebody reading this has had their wireless laptops hijacked?
Call me anal, please! This is one label I'll HAPPILY accept. I'm anal about computer security.
But SHAME on these sites for all the toolbars, ads, and popups. SHAME.
Article: "Obama: I'd like to work my way around Congress"
The link: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-id-work-my-way-around-congress
" Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, "I'd like to work my way around Congress."
"As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own," Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress." "
Unfortunately for you Mr Obama (and thank God from where I sit) that's not what our "pesky" Constitution says.
YOU MUST GO THROUGH CONGRESS, MR OBAMA. You, as it appears to me, are the EXACT REASON that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the way they did.
" Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, "I'd like to work my way around Congress."
"As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own," Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress." "
Unfortunately for you Mr Obama (and thank God from where I sit) that's not what our "pesky" Constitution says.
YOU MUST GO THROUGH CONGRESS, MR OBAMA. You, as it appears to me, are the EXACT REASON that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the way they did.
Article: 3-year-olds branded "racist" "homophobic"
The link: http://www.infowars.com/3-year-olds-branded-racist-homophobic-put-in-government-database/
NOTE: This is Alex Jones’ site. Yes, that Alex Jones. But given the frequency with which things he’s said have happened … perhaps he’s not ‘just a conspiracy theorist?’
“Over 30,000 British schoolchildren, some as young as three, have had their names registered on a government database and branded “racist” or “homophobic” for using playground insults, infractions that could impact their future careers. “ (emphasis added)
This should scare the hell out of you. We all know that 3 year olds aren’t exactly reserved in what they say … or in how they say it. If you were to ask a 3 year old what he or she thought, they’d tell you. (Granted, unless he or she had been coached.) If you were to ask an adult that same question (and phrased in the exact same way) they’d probably pause for a moment and think about how to phrase their reply so that they wouldn’t offend you.
The simple fact is that at some point you’re going to offend somebody whether you had intended to or not. It’s already happened to me. While at work one day I passed a co-worker in the hallway and offered a cheery “Good morning!”
TRUE STORY: She went to the Human Resources (they used to be called Personnel Managers) Manager and filed a complaint because she was offended. True story.
After getting both sides of the story (and pulling the tape from the corridor security camera) the “complaint” was rejected (ie: ruled as being without merit.) But the facts remain: FIRST, I was accused of an offense I did not commit and SECOND that the complaint was ruled as being without merit. Yet they remain on my record. (And since I've written about it before, it's also in the public record.)
But they also should serve as proof that even if you don’t intend to give offense, somebody somewhere will be offended. You simply can’t get around that one. Somebody somewhere will take offense at something. PERIOD.
To get back to the story, one of the children in the story was added to the database after telling his or her teacher “this is gay” while referring to the work that had been assigned. In this context, it obviously wasn’t a hate crime. And yet that child was still added to the database.
The article goes on to note that such a report would follow a student from school to school and could be used by future employers.
I’m now going to leave you by quoting the last two paragraphs of the story … but with this important caveat. Again, this is Mr Jones’ site. (Yes, that Mr Jones.) But since he and others have been warning about this … is it still ‘just a conspiracy theory?’
“This is a clear example of how hate crime laws have brazenly been hijacked by the state to get children institutionalized on criminal databases at an early age. This is about the state dictating what your child can think and say – it’s the thought police on steroids.
“Orwell talked about the state reducing language via Newspeak in his book 1984. By eliminating the very words that come out of children’s mouths and punishing them for thinking certain thoughts, all critical thinking is ultimately abolished, and Big Brother assumes the supreme power to dictate reality – a dictatorship over our very minds.”
NOTE: This is Alex Jones’ site. Yes, that Alex Jones. But given the frequency with which things he’s said have happened … perhaps he’s not ‘just a conspiracy theorist?’
“Over 30,000 British schoolchildren, some as young as three, have had their names registered on a government database and branded “racist” or “homophobic” for using playground insults, infractions that could impact their future careers. “ (emphasis added)
This should scare the hell out of you. We all know that 3 year olds aren’t exactly reserved in what they say … or in how they say it. If you were to ask a 3 year old what he or she thought, they’d tell you. (Granted, unless he or she had been coached.) If you were to ask an adult that same question (and phrased in the exact same way) they’d probably pause for a moment and think about how to phrase their reply so that they wouldn’t offend you.
The simple fact is that at some point you’re going to offend somebody whether you had intended to or not. It’s already happened to me. While at work one day I passed a co-worker in the hallway and offered a cheery “Good morning!”
TRUE STORY: She went to the Human Resources (they used to be called Personnel Managers) Manager and filed a complaint because she was offended. True story.
After getting both sides of the story (and pulling the tape from the corridor security camera) the “complaint” was rejected (ie: ruled as being without merit.) But the facts remain: FIRST, I was accused of an offense I did not commit and SECOND that the complaint was ruled as being without merit. Yet they remain on my record. (And since I've written about it before, it's also in the public record.)
But they also should serve as proof that even if you don’t intend to give offense, somebody somewhere will be offended. You simply can’t get around that one. Somebody somewhere will take offense at something. PERIOD.
To get back to the story, one of the children in the story was added to the database after telling his or her teacher “this is gay” while referring to the work that had been assigned. In this context, it obviously wasn’t a hate crime. And yet that child was still added to the database.
The article goes on to note that such a report would follow a student from school to school and could be used by future employers.
I’m now going to leave you by quoting the last two paragraphs of the story … but with this important caveat. Again, this is Mr Jones’ site. (Yes, that Mr Jones.) But since he and others have been warning about this … is it still ‘just a conspiracy theory?’
“This is a clear example of how hate crime laws have brazenly been hijacked by the state to get children institutionalized on criminal databases at an early age. This is about the state dictating what your child can think and say – it’s the thought police on steroids.
“Orwell talked about the state reducing language via Newspeak in his book 1984. By eliminating the very words that come out of children’s mouths and punishing them for thinking certain thoughts, all critical thinking is ultimately abolished, and Big Brother assumes the supreme power to dictate reality – a dictatorship over our very minds.”
Obama: " If you love me..."
The link: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/181507-obama-if-you-love-me-youve-got-to-help-me-pass-this-bill
“On Wednesday he [Mr Obama] added, "But if you love me you've got to help me pass this bill."
Did I read that correctly?!? If we love him we have to pass another stimulus bill?!?
News flash Mr Obama: It isn’t about you, this is what’s best for the United States.
And from where I sit, Mr Obama, it isn’t you. Two years into your term and all you’ve done is make things worse.
Yes, you did inherit two wars. And yes, you did inherit a major deficit. I’ve never stated otherwise. Yes, things were bad when you took office. In face, I’ve stated on and for the record that things were indeed bad when you became President. But if you look Mr Obama, President Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in his EIGHT years in office.
In TWO years, you’ve added $4 trillion; despite your and Ms Pelosi’s claims that you’d cut the deficit by half.
And now, just like you did when you shoved the “health-care ‘reform’” bill down the Nation’s throat … we have to pass it to see what’s in it?!?
Well, the LAST time you did that I found out that I’d have to pay to help fund abortions … something I’m against.
Think of it this way, Mr Obama. Let’s say you were a woman and walked into your doctor’s office and told him that you wanted an abortion. Period.
How would you feel if you were told that under the health-care reform bill, you either had to give birth to the child OR face jail time and/or pay a fine. You wouldn’t like it, would you? The truth?
The last time you did that somebody threw in a provision that if I don’t buy your insurance, I can face a fine or face a jail term. According to your own CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the GAO (General Accounting Office), all your health-care reform bill did is hike premiums. In face, people are dropping health insurance altogether rather than face your ‘reform’ bill. All these facts are also part of the public record, Mr Obama.
But what got me is that “if you love me … “ That sounds rather like a manipulative statement to me. Sounds to me like you’re trying to manipulate your drooling sycophants.
“On Wednesday he [Mr Obama] added, "But if you love me you've got to help me pass this bill."
Did I read that correctly?!? If we love him we have to pass another stimulus bill?!?
News flash Mr Obama: It isn’t about you, this is what’s best for the United States.
And from where I sit, Mr Obama, it isn’t you. Two years into your term and all you’ve done is make things worse.
Yes, you did inherit two wars. And yes, you did inherit a major deficit. I’ve never stated otherwise. Yes, things were bad when you took office. In face, I’ve stated on and for the record that things were indeed bad when you became President. But if you look Mr Obama, President Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in his EIGHT years in office.
In TWO years, you’ve added $4 trillion; despite your and Ms Pelosi’s claims that you’d cut the deficit by half.
And now, just like you did when you shoved the “health-care ‘reform’” bill down the Nation’s throat … we have to pass it to see what’s in it?!?
Well, the LAST time you did that I found out that I’d have to pay to help fund abortions … something I’m against.
Think of it this way, Mr Obama. Let’s say you were a woman and walked into your doctor’s office and told him that you wanted an abortion. Period.
How would you feel if you were told that under the health-care reform bill, you either had to give birth to the child OR face jail time and/or pay a fine. You wouldn’t like it, would you? The truth?
The last time you did that somebody threw in a provision that if I don’t buy your insurance, I can face a fine or face a jail term. According to your own CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the GAO (General Accounting Office), all your health-care reform bill did is hike premiums. In face, people are dropping health insurance altogether rather than face your ‘reform’ bill. All these facts are also part of the public record, Mr Obama.
But what got me is that “if you love me … “ That sounds rather like a manipulative statement to me. Sounds to me like you’re trying to manipulate your drooling sycophants.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Article: "US drops to 5th place"
The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44423519/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-falls-th-global-competitiveness-survey-shows/?GT1=43001
" GENEVA — The U.S. has tumbled further down a global ranking of the world's most competitive economies, landing at fifth place because of its huge deficits and declining public faith in government, a global economic group said Wednesday. " (Link is msnbc.com's and is left intact. Emphasis added.)
I've added the emphasis due to something Mr Obama would like to forget. If you remember, he (rightly!) took President Bush to task for adding 4 trillion dollars to our debt during his eight years in office. I say rightly because you simply can't add more to the deficit. You just can't. When you do that, you leave it to your children (and possibly their children too) to pay back.
So Mr Obama rightly took President Bush to task. But how much debt did Mr Obama add in his TWO years?
4 trillion dollars.
Honestly.
Another link: http://www.cnsnews.com/node/72404
" Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data "
Telling, isn't it?
Consider this also. The link: http://www.conservativecommune.com/2011/08/4-trillion-in-debt-added-under-obama/
" Deficit spending has risen faster under Barack Obama than any other president in history. That’s not to say other presidents weren’t in the red during their administrations, but in the case of Obama, its over 4 trillion dollars in less than a single term. " (Link is Conservativecommune.com's and is left intact. Emphasis added.)
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-spending-not-entitlements-created-deficits
Truer words were (almost) never spoken.
Probably the only thing more true is this: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
" GENEVA — The U.S. has tumbled further down a global ranking of the world's most competitive economies, landing at fifth place because of its huge deficits and declining public faith in government, a global economic group said Wednesday. " (Link is msnbc.com's and is left intact. Emphasis added.)
I've added the emphasis due to something Mr Obama would like to forget. If you remember, he (rightly!) took President Bush to task for adding 4 trillion dollars to our debt during his eight years in office. I say rightly because you simply can't add more to the deficit. You just can't. When you do that, you leave it to your children (and possibly their children too) to pay back.
So Mr Obama rightly took President Bush to task. But how much debt did Mr Obama add in his TWO years?
4 trillion dollars.
Honestly.
Another link: http://www.cnsnews.com/node/72404
" Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data "
Telling, isn't it?
Consider this also. The link: http://www.conservativecommune.com/2011/08/4-trillion-in-debt-added-under-obama/
" Deficit spending has risen faster under Barack Obama than any other president in history. That’s not to say other presidents weren’t in the red during their administrations, but in the case of Obama, its over 4 trillion dollars in less than a single term. " (Link is Conservativecommune.com's and is left intact. Emphasis added.)
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-spending-not-entitlements-created-deficits
Truer words were (almost) never spoken.
Probably the only thing more true is this: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Article: "No Paper Or Plastic?"
The link: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/09/07/no-paper-or-plastic-la-shoppers-wary-of-proposed-nightmare-ban/
" LOS ANGELES (CBS) — An effort to allow only reusable bags at Los Angeles grocery stores may sound like a political long-shot, but one city councilman thinks the public will eventually warm up to the initiative. "
I'm of two minds about this. First, I honestly don't think an outright ban is a good idea. I honestly don't think it'll fly.
Secondly, there is another way to achieve the same results.
What they're trying to do, obviously, is to reduce (and/or eliminate) the number of plastic and paper bags that make it into the landfill, as quite a bit of trash that makes it there are those bags.
Wal-Mart does things a different way. They have a receptacle inside (in my local store) it's near the Customer Service Desk where you can leave their plastic bags. These bags are then recycled and don't make it to the landfill.
Perhaps LA could try something like that, with some sort of incentive? Something like a percentage discount applied to your next shopping purchase?
The scenario would go something like this:
You save the plastic bags from your shopping trips and then, when you have enough of them, you take them to the store to be recycled. The associate at the Service Desk would then give you a receipt for your bags where the amount of the rebate would depend on the number of bags you'd brought back. (Obviously, you wouldn't want to count the things, so they could be weighed.)
You do your shopping as usual and at the checkout, you present the receipt you'd gotten earlier to the associate at the checkout who then deducts the amount on the receipt from the bill.
Obviously, there would be bugs and snafus to be worked out. But in theory, it could work.
In order that I don't have to type the entire thing out again, here's what I wrote about it some time back: (well, the link to it anyway) http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-think-im-going-to-shock-somebody.html
If you think that this doesn't affect you, you might wish to consider this: " These toxin-containing plastic pieces are also eaten by jellyfish, which are then eaten by larger fish. Many of these fish are then consumed by humans, resulting in their ingestion of toxic chemicals.[32] Marine plastics also facilitate the spread of invasive species that attach to floating plastic in one region and drift long distances to colonize other ecosystems.[15] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact. Emphasis added.)
" LOS ANGELES (CBS) — An effort to allow only reusable bags at Los Angeles grocery stores may sound like a political long-shot, but one city councilman thinks the public will eventually warm up to the initiative. "
I'm of two minds about this. First, I honestly don't think an outright ban is a good idea. I honestly don't think it'll fly.
Secondly, there is another way to achieve the same results.
What they're trying to do, obviously, is to reduce (and/or eliminate) the number of plastic and paper bags that make it into the landfill, as quite a bit of trash that makes it there are those bags.
Wal-Mart does things a different way. They have a receptacle inside (in my local store) it's near the Customer Service Desk where you can leave their plastic bags. These bags are then recycled and don't make it to the landfill.
Perhaps LA could try something like that, with some sort of incentive? Something like a percentage discount applied to your next shopping purchase?
The scenario would go something like this:
You save the plastic bags from your shopping trips and then, when you have enough of them, you take them to the store to be recycled. The associate at the Service Desk would then give you a receipt for your bags where the amount of the rebate would depend on the number of bags you'd brought back. (Obviously, you wouldn't want to count the things, so they could be weighed.)
You do your shopping as usual and at the checkout, you present the receipt you'd gotten earlier to the associate at the checkout who then deducts the amount on the receipt from the bill.
Obviously, there would be bugs and snafus to be worked out. But in theory, it could work.
In order that I don't have to type the entire thing out again, here's what I wrote about it some time back: (well, the link to it anyway) http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-think-im-going-to-shock-somebody.html
If you think that this doesn't affect you, you might wish to consider this: " These toxin-containing plastic pieces are also eaten by jellyfish, which are then eaten by larger fish. Many of these fish are then consumed by humans, resulting in their ingestion of toxic chemicals.[32] Marine plastics also facilitate the spread of invasive species that attach to floating plastic in one region and drift long distances to colonize other ecosystems.[15] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact. Emphasis added.)
Open Letter to Mr Obama
Mr Obama;
For reference, this is one of the articles I’ll be discussing: http://www.wmal.com/article.asp?id=2279665&SPID=28718
“ WASHINGTON -- A top aide to President Obama says Americans must decide for themselves how to be civil with each other -- a rather sharp departure from comments that Obama has himself made in the past. “
There is a word for that, Mr Obama. And the word, straight from dictionary.com is “hypocrisy.” After all, didn’t you yourself tell me that I had to be civil? I have been civil. But for you and your party it appears, you don’t need to be? “Civility for thee, but not for me?” Is that what you’re saying Mr Obama? Now how about it? I honestly want to hear from you.
BUT, you’ll do it WITHOUT reaching for one of the following cards:
The RAAAAAAAAACIST card;
The stupid or uninformed card,
The sexist card,
The belittling card,
The name-calling card.
For reference, here is the article where I take all of the Liberals favourite cards off the table: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2010/06/dissecting-5-facts-about-anti-reform.html
And http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/08/article-let-them-eat-cake-democrats.html
ALL FIVE OF YOUR FAVOURITE CARDS ARE NOW OFF THE TABLE, Mr Obama.
And yet I know that you’ll reach for at least two of those cards. In fact, I’ll be willing to bet that you’ll reach for at least one of those cards THREE TIMES.
But I want to hear from you, Mr Obama. You’ve called on me to be civil. I have been. Yet we have Mr Etheridge grabbing a young man by his neck, we have Rep. Kanjorski LYING, we have a Democrat running as a member of the Tea Party, and YOU have the audacity to tell ME to be civil?!? Now how about it?
I’ll be civil, Mr Obama. But you can bet that I’ll DEMAND the same from you.
Now how about it?
I now leave you as I quote from Jack Webb as he played Det. Sgt. Joe Friday on Dragnet:
“That isn’t what you told the investigating officers at the scene, fella.”
“Well, I had to protect myself. You understand, don’tcha?"
“I understand that either you lied to the investigating officers or you’re lying to us now. Now how about it?”
“You want the truth, don’t you? Well you’re getting it. The least you could do is try to believe it.”
“You make it kind of hard to buy.”
And:
“ I’ve told you. The whole story.”
“No, there’s one thing you left out.”
“What’s that?”
“The truth.”
For reference, this is one of the articles I’ll be discussing: http://www.wmal.com/article.asp?id=2279665&SPID=28718
“ WASHINGTON -- A top aide to President Obama says Americans must decide for themselves how to be civil with each other -- a rather sharp departure from comments that Obama has himself made in the past. “
There is a word for that, Mr Obama. And the word, straight from dictionary.com is “hypocrisy.” After all, didn’t you yourself tell me that I had to be civil? I have been civil. But for you and your party it appears, you don’t need to be? “Civility for thee, but not for me?” Is that what you’re saying Mr Obama? Now how about it? I honestly want to hear from you.
BUT, you’ll do it WITHOUT reaching for one of the following cards:
The RAAAAAAAAACIST card;
The stupid or uninformed card,
The sexist card,
The belittling card,
The name-calling card.
For reference, here is the article where I take all of the Liberals favourite cards off the table: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2010/06/dissecting-5-facts-about-anti-reform.html
And http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/08/article-let-them-eat-cake-democrats.html
ALL FIVE OF YOUR FAVOURITE CARDS ARE NOW OFF THE TABLE, Mr Obama.
And yet I know that you’ll reach for at least two of those cards. In fact, I’ll be willing to bet that you’ll reach for at least one of those cards THREE TIMES.
But I want to hear from you, Mr Obama. You’ve called on me to be civil. I have been. Yet we have Mr Etheridge grabbing a young man by his neck, we have Rep. Kanjorski LYING, we have a Democrat running as a member of the Tea Party, and YOU have the audacity to tell ME to be civil?!? Now how about it?
I’ll be civil, Mr Obama. But you can bet that I’ll DEMAND the same from you.
Now how about it?
I now leave you as I quote from Jack Webb as he played Det. Sgt. Joe Friday on Dragnet:
“That isn’t what you told the investigating officers at the scene, fella.”
“Well, I had to protect myself. You understand, don’tcha?"
“I understand that either you lied to the investigating officers or you’re lying to us now. Now how about it?”
“You want the truth, don’t you? Well you’re getting it. The least you could do is try to believe it.”
“You make it kind of hard to buy.”
And:
“ I’ve told you. The whole story.”
“No, there’s one thing you left out.”
“What’s that?”
“The truth.”
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Name change for Mr Obama - "President Hypocrite."
The link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/obama_says_he_is_proud_of_hoffa.html
" When he took the stage, President Obama said he was "proud" of Jimmy Hoffa and other labor leaders.
" Prior to Obama's appearance Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa told the crowd, speaking about Republicans, that we need to "take these son of bitches out." "
President Hypocrite, please change your stationary immediately or as soon as possible. Your two choices are:
The Ass at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, "ass in this context referring to a donkey or a burro"
OR
President Hypocrite at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
SHAME on you President Hypocrite. SHAME.
You called on me to be civil. I have been. But if you don't have to be civil, then explain to me why I must be.
I want to hear your explanation.
BUT YOU'LL DO IT WITHOUT the
name-calling card
the belittling card,
the RAAAAAAAACIST card
the stupid or uniformed card.
Do you think you can do that President Hypocrite? Because if you follow the other Demcrat's pattern, you'll reach for at least one of those cards. In fact, you'll reach for one of those cards at least TWICE.
SHAME on you, President Hypocrite.
CIVILITY FOR YOU TOO. Otherwise, you can stick it up your nether regions.
Now for the Department of Hussein's Sycophants; that is not a threat against Mr Obama. I'm telling him that if HIS OWN PARTY CANNOT be civil, well ... it must go both ways.
Do YOU DHS agent, think YOU can do that without reaching for one of the above-mentioned cards?
I didn't think so.
" When he took the stage, President Obama said he was "proud" of Jimmy Hoffa and other labor leaders.
" Prior to Obama's appearance Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa told the crowd, speaking about Republicans, that we need to "take these son of bitches out." "
President Hypocrite, please change your stationary immediately or as soon as possible. Your two choices are:
The Ass at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, "ass in this context referring to a donkey or a burro"
OR
President Hypocrite at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
SHAME on you President Hypocrite. SHAME.
You called on me to be civil. I have been. But if you don't have to be civil, then explain to me why I must be.
I want to hear your explanation.
BUT YOU'LL DO IT WITHOUT the
name-calling card
the belittling card,
the RAAAAAAAACIST card
the stupid or uniformed card.
Do you think you can do that President Hypocrite? Because if you follow the other Demcrat's pattern, you'll reach for at least one of those cards. In fact, you'll reach for one of those cards at least TWICE.
SHAME on you, President Hypocrite.
CIVILITY FOR YOU TOO. Otherwise, you can stick it up your nether regions.
Now for the Department of Hussein's Sycophants; that is not a threat against Mr Obama. I'm telling him that if HIS OWN PARTY CANNOT be civil, well ... it must go both ways.
Do YOU DHS agent, think YOU can do that without reaching for one of the above-mentioned cards?
I didn't think so.
More from the "Civility Police" "...take these son of bitches out."
The link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html
" "President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added. "
First, this should be "sons" since he is, I assume, talking about not just one person ... but the plural?
Second, this isn't a "war" on workers. I was once part of the Communications Workers of America, part of the AFL-CIO, and was covered by a union. I've agreed that unions can be good things. But then we come to the strong-arm bullying. Shame on you.
THIRD: Didn't Mr Obama himself call for civility? And now we face the hypocrisy. SHAME on you, Sir. SHAME. If you want me to be civil, that's great. But I'm going to DEMAND the same from you. And if you don't ... you can take your civility and shove it up your ass.
" "President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added. "
First, this should be "sons" since he is, I assume, talking about not just one person ... but the plural?
Second, this isn't a "war" on workers. I was once part of the Communications Workers of America, part of the AFL-CIO, and was covered by a union. I've agreed that unions can be good things. But then we come to the strong-arm bullying. Shame on you.
THIRD: Didn't Mr Obama himself call for civility? And now we face the hypocrisy. SHAME on you, Sir. SHAME. If you want me to be civil, that's great. But I'm going to DEMAND the same from you. And if you don't ... you can take your civility and shove it up your ass.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
NYT OpEd: "One and Done?"
The link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?_r=2&ref=maureendowd
You KNOW you're in trouble when Ms Dowd writes this!!
I really don't know what to say about this article, except that I was literally shocked to read it. At first, I couldn't believe it was Ms Dowd writing it. After I read her name again, however...
But the article deserves comment:
" ONE day during the 2008 campaign, as Barack Obama read the foreboding news of the mounting economic and military catastrophes that W. was bequeathing his successor, he dryly remarked to aides: “Maybe I should throw the game.” "
Now it is true that Mr Obama did inherit a bad economy. I've never said otherwise. And it's true he inherited two wars. But come on now. How far are we into Mr Obama's term?
" On the razor’s edge of another recession; blocked at every turn by Republicans determined to slice him up at any cost; starting an unexpectedly daunting re-election bid; and puzzling over how to make a prime-time speech about infrastructure and payroll taxes soar, maybe President Obama is wishing that he had thrown the game. "
But this is where I take exception. "...Republicans determined to slice him up at any cost" What about during the first two years of Mr Obama's term when the Democrats had a super-majority and control of BOTH houses of Congress? He could've done so much more than what he did ... as Ms Dowd herself noted.
You KNOW you're in trouble when Ms Dowd writes this!!
I really don't know what to say about this article, except that I was literally shocked to read it. At first, I couldn't believe it was Ms Dowd writing it. After I read her name again, however...
But the article deserves comment:
" ONE day during the 2008 campaign, as Barack Obama read the foreboding news of the mounting economic and military catastrophes that W. was bequeathing his successor, he dryly remarked to aides: “Maybe I should throw the game.” "
Now it is true that Mr Obama did inherit a bad economy. I've never said otherwise. And it's true he inherited two wars. But come on now. How far are we into Mr Obama's term?
" On the razor’s edge of another recession; blocked at every turn by Republicans determined to slice him up at any cost; starting an unexpectedly daunting re-election bid; and puzzling over how to make a prime-time speech about infrastructure and payroll taxes soar, maybe President Obama is wishing that he had thrown the game. "
But this is where I take exception. "...Republicans determined to slice him up at any cost" What about during the first two years of Mr Obama's term when the Democrats had a super-majority and control of BOTH houses of Congress? He could've done so much more than what he did ... as Ms Dowd herself noted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
