What the White House doesn’t want you to google
October 29, 2003
http://www.democrats.org/blog/display/00010130.html
“someone at the White House added virtually all of the directories with “Iraq” in them to its robots.txt file, meaning that search engines would no longer list those pages in results or archive them.
[. . .]
“It’s easy enough to understand the reasoning if you look at past White House actions. Earlier this year, the White House revised pages on its website claiming that “combat” was over in Iraq, changing them to say “major combat.”
One of the reasons some alert readers noticed the change — and were able to prove it — was that Google had archived the pages before the change occurred. Now that all of the White House pages about Iraq are no longer archived by Google, such historical revisionism will be harder to catch.”
You can make the argument that the above is just democrat propaganda (it is their website after all), but here is the actual robots.txt at the official whitehouse site. You can see for yourself what’s been disallowed:
No kids? Die in a ditch, peasant.
October 25, 2003
A while ago at work (the drug store) a woman with no kids came in to get a prescription filled. She was sick after having had a miscarriage. The insurance (Title XIX, or “welfare” in a matter of speaking) wasn’t going through. We call up Title XIX, and they tell us she’s no longer covered because she’s not pregnant. So we have to tell this woman, who’s just had a miscarriage and is sick, that the government basically doesn’t give a damn about her getting health care if she isn’t pregnant and doesn’t have any kids at home. And some people complain about “those damn welfare mothers.”
Another reason not to outsource jobs
October 23, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/22/MNGCO2FN8G1.DTL
“A woman in Pakistan doing cut-rate clerical work for UCSF Medical Center threatened to post patients’ confidential files on the Internet unless she was paid more money. To show she was serious, the woman sent UCSF an e-mail earlier this month with actual patients’ records attached. The violation of medical privacy – apparently the first of its kind – highlights the danger of ‘offshoring’ work that involves sensitive materials, an increasing trend among budget-conscious U.S. companies and institutions
We have HIPAA laws in this country, but how about countries that private information is outsourced to?
How it begins
October 22, 2003
[I didn't write this]
Start with a cage containing five monkeys,
inside the cage, hang a banana on a string
and place a set of stairs under it.
Before long, a monkey will start to climb towards the banana,
as soon as he touches the stairs,
spray all the other monkeys with cold water.
After a while, another monkey makes an attempt
with the same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.
Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the
other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put away the cold water, Remove one monkey
from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the
banana and wants to climb the stairs.
To his surprise and horror, all the other monkeys attack him.
After another attempt and attack, he knows that if
he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys
and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is
attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment
with enthusiasm.
Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a
new one, then the fourth, then the fifth.
Everytime the newest monkey takes to the stairs,
he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no
idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are
participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
After replacing all the original monkeys, none of
the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.
Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for
the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know, that’s the way
its always been done around here.
And that, my friends, is how religion begins.
[Feel free to insert "tradition," "politics," or whatever else in place of the word "religion"]
Jack Chick wishes us a Happy Halloween
October 18, 2003
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0032/0032_01.asp
This man is truly insane. Or hilarious. I can never tell.
I especially love it when he lists a bible passage with ellipsis and added interpretations in parenthesis. And yea I say onto ye: “God is . . . (a black private dick who’s a sex machine with all the chicks)” Thus spake THE LORD.
“Oh, I just try to ignore it.”
October 15, 2003
I was at work earlier today (at a drugstore) counting pills in a hurry because it was rush hour and several people were waiting. And there’s this awful, unceasing whistling noise, but I can’t see anyone over the counter where the whistling is coming from and I’m too busy to go look for the source. Several people (employees and customers both) are getting the “ouch, my ears” look on their faces, and glancing at each other sympathetically. After about 5 minutes (yes, five minutes) of this obnoxious whistling, I find out where it’s coming from when the whistling noise moves toward the cash register. Next to the lady checking out is her (I would guess) seven year old daughter, who is whistling as she exhales, then whistling some more as she inhales. An older gentleman standing near the register steps closer and says “I see she learned how to whistle.”
The lady waves her hand and says in that oh-poor-me-I’m-a-martyr voice, “Oh, I just try to ignore it.” So the kid does this rude crap all the time? And you let her do it in public all the time? How about you try, just for once, to tell the kid, “Stop that. It’s rude.” I bet your daughter would be so happy you’re finally paying attention to her that she’ll actually stop that infernal whistling.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard a bad parent ignore rude behavior with an, “Oh, I just try to ignore it” I’d be rolling naked in twenties right now.
Bill Maher on Rush Limbaugh
October 12, 2003
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/blog/archives/000101.html
Rush has the chance to change America for the better here. But it must involve his admitting the fundamental truths about drugs:
A: Almost all Americans do them, legal or otherwise; B: It’s wrong to inconsistently treat fact A.And Rush, if you don’t see it that way yet, let me put it like this: When you’re furtively meeting people in parking lots and exchanging ANYTHING in cigar boxes through car windows – OK, that’s a drug addict. Issues of personal responsibility is where I often walked with Rush, and this is a classic. A true test of the man. If he comes out of rehab and says, ‘I was wrong about our approach to drugs,’ he could single handedly change the way America looks at this problem.
“Tightwad” doesn’t mean that.
October 11, 2003
This ticks me off.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Loveandmoney/P61922.asp
When the check arrives, does your date disappear? Is there a lone dollar on the table after your four-star meal? Does your companion pitch a hissy over the sushi until the restaurant eats your bill?
Guard your wallet. You might be dating a tightwad
NO, you’re dating a jackass, not a tightwad. These aren’t the same thing, despite what spendthrifts would have you believe.
Why do so many people have such a hard time deliniating between spending considerately (thrift) and behaving inconsiderately towards others in money matters (jackass)? My theory is, people who know their own financial health isn’t what it could easily be have to cut others down to feel better. “Oh, well, those people may have an emergency fund and a nice 401(k), but I bet nobody likes them. I bet they don’t tip and they sponge off their friends and they kill puppies and stuff.”
Another line from the article:
So you’ve discovered you’re mixed up with a penny pincher. Is there hope for cheapskates?
Yes, there is. A different spouse, for the penny pincher I mean. One who doesn’t view being a “penny pincher” as something you get “mixed up with” and have to find “hope for.” They make it sound like:
So you’ve discovered you’re mixed up with a drug addict. Is there hope for crackheads?
So you’ve discovered you’re mixed up with a serial killer. Is there hope for sociopaths?
Not sure if your significant other is a certified cheapskate? Go out to dinner; it’s the perfect opportunity to see if someone falls into one of these 10 tightwad categories.
No, it’s the perfect opportunity to waste money on an immature “test”. Not sure if your significant other is a certified cheapskate? Passive-aggressively observe their behavior while doing something that could be financially irresponsible in your current situation! You’re on the road to mental health now!
P.S. the “10 tightwad categories” are not tightwad behaviors. They’re jackass behaviors. HUGE difference.
Who’s really paying more in taxes?
October 10, 2003
I sometimes hear people citing statistics about how much the top 50% income earners pay in taxes, but the people who bash the poor this way never point out that they’re only talking about income taxes, (they never cherry-pick regressive forms of taxation), and they never compare it to the proportion of the money they take home. (How can the bottom 50% pay 50% of the income taxes as their “fair share” if they only get 13.2% of the adjusted gross income?)
According to Wall Street Journal 1/22/02, the 1999 tax info from the IRS released by the Congress’s Joint Economic Committee States the following:
By Adjusted Gross Income (AGI):
Top 1% earners by AGI paid 36.2% of income tax to the Feds.
Top 5% earners by AGI paid 55.5% of income tax to the Feds.
Top 10% earners by AGI paid 66.5% of income taxes.
Top 25% earners by AGI paid 83.5% of income taxes.
Top 50% earners by AGI paid 96.0% of income taxes.
Bottom 50% earners by AGI paid 4.0% of income taxes.
(this DOES NOT include payroll, sales tax, estate tax, excise taxes, etc.)
————————————————-
There’s also this, more data from that WSJ article cited above:
The top 1% earn 19.5% of the AGI and pay 36.2% of the taxes
The top 5% earn 34.0% of the AGI and pay 55.5% of the taxes
The top 10% earn 44.9% of the AGI and pay 66.5% of the taxes
The top 25% earn 66.5% of the AGI and pay 83.5% of the taxes
The top 50% earn 86.8% of the AGI and pay 96.0% of the taxes
The bottom 50% earn 13.2% of the AGI and pay 4.0% of the taxes
So, yes, there is a disproportion there.
But wait, that figure above does not include payroll taxes. Here’s that statistic. Values are rounded to the nearest full percentage on this one.
The top 1% made 19% of AGI and paid 9% of PT
The next 4% made 15% of AGI and paid 13% of PT
The next 5% made 11% of AGI and paid 11% of PT
The next 15% made 22% of AGI and paid 24% of PT
The next 25% made 20% of AGI and paid 25% of PT
and the bottom 50% made 13% of AGI and paid 18% of PT
Ain’t it just inconvenient when the disproportions go both ways and you have to actually look at both sides of the issue?
So, using the 60/40 breakdown in fed receipts between FIT and PT the combined totals would look like this:
The top 1% made 20% of AGI and paid 25% of these taxes
The next 4% made 15% of AGI and paid 17% of these taxes
The next 5% made 11% of AGI and paid 11% of these taxes
The next 15% made 22% of AGI and paid 20% of these taxes
The next 25% made 20% of AGI and paid 18% of these taxes
and the bottom 50% made 13% of AGI and paid 9% of these taxes
Funny how this disproportion drops when we don’t conveniently ignore payroll taxes. But there is still some disproportion. I wonder what would happen if we dropped those at or below the poverty line out of the statistic, since they can’t theoretically pay anything and therefore skew the numbers. Would the disproportion disappear? Would the bottom 50% minus poverty liners be actually paying more than their share? And what if we included sales taxes and fees (car tags, drivers’ licenses, etc), which are all regressive forms of taxation? Then who’s paying a larger proportion? I don’t know, to be honest, but it’s something to consider before we start claiming that the rich have got it oh so hard.
