Question:

==You assume that Europe and western want-a-bes (sic) such as Canada                 Say what?  Canada isn’t a "wannabe" anything.                 Canada has historically been delighted in being                 favourably positioned between Europe and the                 retarded colossus to Canada’s south — a                 circumstance from which it has profited mightily.                 Whatever Canadians may "wannabe," American is                 definitely not it.  Canada has a quality of life worth                 living, and Canadians know it. == are ==superior to the USA in their approach to government and foreign ==affairs. I reject this categorically.                 That’s because you are an ignorant fool.  It                 is difficult, especially these days, to think of                 a country that is NOT superior to the United                 Snakes in its approach to government and                 foreign affairs.  To most of the world there                 is no mystery why the U.S. is the most                 hated, ridiculed and scorned nation on the                 planet.  Only Americans hold onto the quaint                 notion that it’s because the rest of the world                 is jealous of Americans’ toys. == You enunciate the typical ==message of a socialist bureaucratic tyranny that disregards everything ==except the opinion of the socialist oligarchy.                 Huh? == In your message this is ==tainted with the propaganda, hate, and lies characteristic of the US ==democrat party.                 Unfortunately for you, fool, there’s no such                 thing as the "US democrat party." == I have not detected any evidence of `friendly northern ==neighbors’ in the last 50 or 60 years,                 That’s because the United Snakes has,                 in the last 50 years, anyway, played the                 role of the biggest asshole on the planet,                 and Canadians find it increasingly                 difficult to feel friendly towards a country                 that behaves like a psychotic thug on steroids                 most of the time, as well as a thief and liar. == except in some of the western ==provinces where oil is a major economic factor.                 Oil seems to make people stupid, crazy and                 alcoholic.  Look at Ralph Klein.  Look at George                 Bush.  Drunken nutters, both of them. == Canada harbors muslim ==terrorists and sundry US criminals.                 The Sept. 11 terrorists, of course, had all                 entered the U.S. legally, and not from                 Canada.  Your fantasies about "terrorists"                 and "criminals" lurking just across the                 Canadian border, waitin’ to getcha, marks                 you as a clinical paranoid. == We are fighting a war on ==terrorism,                 Actually, you’re not.  The terrorists were in                 Afghanistan.  Your retarded president abandoned                 the fight against terrorism to shift attention to                 harmless, unarmed Iraq, so he could erase a                 perceived stain on the family name — and                 ended up making the stain worse.                 And as everyone can see, your stunningly ill-conceived                 war on Iraq has strengthened, increased and emboldened                 terrorists all over the world, while sapping America’s                 strength, economy, morale and international                 reputation.  Can you say, "thanks, George?"  I knew                 that you could. == Your antiUSA, anti Bush, and proterrorist remarks are ==unacceptable.                 "Unacceptable," are they?  Been reading the                 dictionary, have we?                 How about remarks like, George W. Bush is a                 retarded pansy bum-boy for Dick "Killer"                 Cheney and America is a pig-predator-                 torturer nation riding a greased slide towards                 well-deserved oblivion?                 Are remarks like that "acceptable?" ==  I would iterate, you are with us or you are against us.                 Here’s news, then:  Just about the entire world                 is against you. ==Ivan Gowitch is an antiAmerican pig.                 You mean like one of those piggies in George                 Orwell’s "1984"?                 Bwahahahaha! == I’m amazed at your own ==megalomania to set up and be a spokesman for all Canadians.                 This from a jumped-up moron who blusters that                 he finds someone’s remarks "unacceptable." ==I would ==prefer the opinion of elected representatives of the Canadian people.                 Would you now?  Unfortunately, our elected                 representatives are not in the habit of offering                 their opinions to ill-educated, phony propaganda-                 spouters from trailer parks somewhere in the                 Great American Wasteland.                 Which is why few of them care to talk to George                 W. Bush who, although not himself a trailer park                 resident, carries one in his head. ==All countries harbor small nests of discontents.                 As the United Snakes harbours huge nests of                 morons — some of whom believe George Orwell’s                 "1984" was all about power-hungry piggies. — The difference of opinion now comes from clever politicians, who as the pigs in the story… -Vonroach on Sat, 03 Jul 2004, claiming that George Orwell’s "1984" was all about pigs seeking power, thereby proving he’s never read either "1984" OR "Animal Farm," and that he’s dumber than a barnyard critter.

Response:

But it was in Burma, not Bangladesh.

Actually you ignorant pig, it was the Indian state of Bangladesh whilst the Raj still ruled.

Response:

== ==But it was in Burma, not Bangladesh. == ==Actually you ignorant pig, it was the Indian state of Bangladesh ==whilst the Raj still ruled.                 Bangladesh is Burma??!  You pathetic,                 lying phony.                 I invite anyone who wonders about the truth of                 the matter to check for themselves.  The answer                 is easily obtainable.                 Orwell in Bangladesh!  Bwahahahaha!

Response:

== ==Completely flummoxed by the mess it has ==              made in Iraq, the Bush League is now ==              seeking advice from the very people it ignored ==              when it should have been listening. ==Is that all you’ve got Ivan?  What a pathetic answer to any question ==put to you about your antiAmerican proWahabi muslim opinions. Frankly, ==you put me more in mind of a pig.  The Big Brother government of ==Canada seems to agree with you. I find a bit odd that a criminal such ==as yourself takes as his hero, a Bangladesh policeman such as the ==British bureaucrat Orwell. [snip]                 Roachie, you are an ignorant slug, and you                 remain an ignorant slug, even when you assay                 a quick-and-dirty Internet research exercise like                 this pathetic cut-and-paste George Orwell bio,                 your childish bid to persuade (who?) that you know                 something about him.                 But, unlike Big Brother’s minions in "1984,"  you                 can’t rewrite history to change the fact that you                 confused "1984" and "Animal Farm," because you                 hadn’t read either of them and were trying to                 pretend that you had.  That branded you with the                 mark of the poseur that’s never going to go away.                 Since you are now trying to pretend that you actually                 know something about Orwell, you should remember                 that Orwell did, indeed, serve as a British imperial                 policeman, as your quickie Google search indicated.                 But it was in Burma, not Bangladesh.                 Bangladesh didn’t come into existence until 1971.                 Orwell died in 1950.                 You are a joke. — The difference of opinion now comes from clever politicians, who as the pigs in the story… -Vonroach on Sat, 03 Jul 2004, claiming that George Orwell’s "1984" was all about pigs seeking power, thereby proving he’s never read either "1984" OR "Animal Farm," and that he’s dumber than a barnyard critter.

Response:

cyarmey You assume that Europe and western want-a-bes such as Canada are superior to the USA in their approach to government and foreign affairs. I reject this categorically. You enunciate the typical message of a socialist bureaucratic tyranny that disregards everything except the opinion of the socialist oligarchy. In your message this is tainted with the propaganda, hate, and lies characteristic of the US democrat party. I have not detected any evidence of `friendly northern neighbors’ in the last 50 or 60 years, except in some of the western provinces where oil is a major economic factor. Canada harbors muslim terrorists and sundry US criminals. We are fighting a war on terrorism, Your antiUSA, anti Bush, and proterrorist remarks are unacceptable.  I would iterate, you are with us or you are against us. Ivan Gowitch is an antiAmerican pig.  I’m amazed at your own megalomania to set up and be a spokesman for all Canadians. I would prefer the opinion of elected representatives of the Canadian people. All countries harbor small nests of discontents. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Von Roach You make it so easy to be become American hater.  Agree or disagree with Ivan Gowch, but by attacking his country of residence you simply make enemies of potential friends (Canadians).  Mind you as I read your rant, I see the stirrings of a Bush unilateralist thought process.  The unilateralist creed goes something like this, the US has no friends only ever changing coalitions of the willing.  This view of course is self-fulfilling.  If America refuse to see the offering of friendship, even friendship offered with some disagreement, but offered none the less, such as Europe’s military and non military support of America troops in Afghanistan.  This support frees up resources for other fights.  You may not get a second offer.  Rather the unilateralist rejection of friendship with a paraphrased "if you are not with us by doing exactly what I demand of you with out question or comment, then you are against us and our enemy" statement. will guarantee America will have no friends going forward.  She will find herself alone, and even if she is the most powerful military nation ever, "one is always the loneliest number", especially in asymmetric warfare (i.e. terrorism; where a stealth jet is trumped by a simply suicide car bomber willing to die for his cause) such as we in the West are facing and will likely continue to face for the foreseeable future.  In this type of warfare you need your friends to watch you flank because there are a lot of flanks to watch and no one, not even America can do it alone. Completely flummoxed by the mess it has made in Iraq, the Bush League is now seeking advice from the very people it ignored when it should have been listening. Is that all you’ve got Ivan?  What a pathetic answer to any question put to you about your antiAmerican proWahabi muslim opinions. Frankly, you put me more in mind of a pig.  The Big Brother government of Canada seems to agree with you. I find a bit odd that a criminal such as yourself takes as his hero, a Bangladesh policeman such as the British bureaucrat Orwell. His many writings which you have probably never seen are mostly attacks on fascists and bureaucracies after his experience as a bureaucratic policeman for the British Government that ruled India under a mercantile system worse than the one they foisted on America.  Those who chose freedom and liberty rebelled and started the USA. Those that did not stayed or fled to Canada. Some French-Canadians were exiled to southern Louisiana. Comparing the economy of Quebec today with that of the USA, we can see who made the better choice. Comparing the economy of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces today with that of Louisiana, it is easy to see how fortunate the exiles were !! About the only things that keeps Canada afloat today are American jobs, American discovered oil in western Canada, and agriculture in western Canada.  Turns out the fur trappers were misguided in their search for wealth, as much as most gold hunters in the Yukon. And after those misfortunes, they have to put up with anarchists and trash from the USA. A pity really, considering the weather is so abominable also. More plagiarizing of political lies.

Response:

Von Roach You make it so easy to be become American hater.   a. For the millionth time, America does NOT equal Bush.   b. His post didn’t even say anything hating Bush, he simply points out some significant facts that you’ll seldom if ever hear on the mainstream media.  Perhaps you’d be happier if they were completely suppressed, even on Usenet?

I am a loyal US citizen and President Bush is my president.. I agree with his ideas and intend to vote for him in the fall elections.  He does not agree with all my positions particularly with regards to Canada (at least publicly).

Response:

Von Roach You make it so easy to be become American hater.  

a. For the millionth time, America does NOT equal Bush.   b. His post didn’t even say anything hating Bush, he simply points out some significant facts that you’ll seldom if ever hear on the mainstream media.  Perhaps you’d be happier if they were completely suppressed, even on Usenet? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Agree or disagree with Ivan Gowch, but by attacking his country of residence you simply make enemies of potential friends (Canadians).  Mind you as I read your rant, I see the stirrings of a Bush unilateralist thought process.  The unilateralist creed goes something like this, the US has no friends only ever changing coalitions of the willing.  This view of course is self-fulfilling.  If America refuse to see the offering of friendship, even friendship offered with some disagreement, but offered none the less, such as Europe’s military and non military support of America troops in Afghanistan.  This support frees up resources for other fights.  You may not get a second offer.  Rather the unilateralist rejection of friendship with a paraphrased "if you are not with us by doing exactly what I demand of you with out question or comment, then you are against us and our enemy" statement. will guarantee America will have no friends going forward.  She will find herself alone, and even if she is the most powerful military nation ever, "one is always the loneliest number", especially in asymmetric warfare (i.e. terrorism; where a stealth jet is trumped by a simply suicide car bomber willing to die for his cause) such as we in the West are facing and will likely continue to face for the foreseeable future.  In this type of warfare you need your friends to watch you flank because there are a lot of flanks to watch and no one, not even America can do it alone. Completely flummoxed by the mess it has made in Iraq, the Bush League is now seeking advice from the very people it ignored when it should have been listening. Is that all you’ve got Ivan?  What a pathetic answer to any question put to you about your antiAmerican proWahabi muslim opinions. Frankly, you put me more in mind of a pig.  The Big Brother government of Canada seems to agree with you. I find a bit odd that a criminal such as yourself takes as his hero, a Bangladesh policeman such as the British bureaucrat Orwell. His many writings which you have probably never seen are mostly attacks on fascists and bureaucracies after his experience as a bureaucratic policeman for the British Government that ruled India under a mercantile system worse than the one they foisted on America.  Those who chose freedom and liberty rebelled and started the USA. Those that did not stayed or fled to Canada. Some French-Canadians were exiled to southern Louisiana. Comparing the economy of Quebec today with that of the USA, we can see who made the better choice. Comparing the economy of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces today with that of Louisiana, it is easy to see how fortunate the exiles were !! About the only things that keeps Canada afloat today are American jobs, American discovered oil in western Canada, and agriculture in western Canada.  Turns out the fur trappers were misguided in their search for wealth, as much as most gold hunters in the Yukon. And after those misfortunes, they have to put up with anarchists and trash from the USA. A pity really, considering the weather is so abominable also. More plagiarizing of political lies.

Response:

Von Roach You make it so easy to be become American hater.  Agree or disagree with Ivan Gowch, but by attacking his country of residence you simply make enemies of potential friends (Canadians).  Mind you as I read your rant, I see the stirrings of a Bush unilateralist thought process.  The unilateralist creed goes something like this, the US has no friends only ever changing coalitions of the willing.  This view of course is self-fulfilling.  If America refuse to see the offering of friendship, even friendship offered with some disagreement, but offered none the less, such as Europe’s military and non military support of America troops in Afghanistan.  This support frees up resources for other fights.  You may not get a second offer.  Rather the unilateralist rejection of friendship with a paraphrased "if you are not with us by doing exactly what I demand of you with out question or comment, then you are against us and our enemy" statement. will guarantee America will have no friends going forward.  She will find herself alone, and even if she is the most powerful military nation ever, "one is always the loneliest number", especially in asymmetric warfare (i.e. terrorism; where a stealth jet is trumped by a simply suicide car bomber willing to die for his cause) such as we in the West are facing and will likely continue to face for the foreseeable future.  In this type of warfare you need your friends to watch you flank because there are a lot of flanks to watch and no one, not even America can do it alone.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Completely flummoxed by the mess it has made in Iraq, the Bush League is now seeking advice from the very people it ignored when it should have been listening. Is that all you’ve got Ivan?  What a pathetic answer to any question put to you about your antiAmerican proWahabi muslim opinions. Frankly, you put me more in mind of a pig.  The Big Brother government of Canada seems to agree with you. I find a bit odd that a criminal such as yourself takes as his hero, a Bangladesh policeman such as the British bureaucrat Orwell. His many writings which you have probably never seen are mostly attacks on fascists and bureaucracies after his experience as a bureaucratic policeman for the British Government that ruled India under a mercantile system worse than the one they foisted on America.  Those who chose freedom and liberty rebelled and started the USA. Those that did not stayed or fled to Canada. Some French-Canadians were exiled to southern Louisiana. Comparing the economy of Quebec today with that of the USA, we can see who made the better choice. Comparing the economy of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces today with that of Louisiana, it is easy to see how fortunate the exiles were !! About the only things that keeps Canada afloat today are American jobs, American discovered oil in western Canada, and agriculture in western Canada.  Turns out the fur trappers were misguided in their search for wealth, as much as most gold hunters in the Yukon. And after those misfortunes, they have to put up with anarchists and trash from the USA. A pity really, considering the weather is so abominable also. More plagiarizing of political lies.

Response:

Completely flummoxed by the mess it has            made in Iraq, the Bush League is now            seeking advice from the very people it ignored            when it should have been listening.

Is that all you’ve got Ivan?  What a pathetic answer to any question put to you about your antiAmerican proWahabi muslim opinions. Frankly, you put me more in mind of a pig.  The Big Brother government of Canada seems to agree with you. I find a bit odd that a criminal such as yourself takes as his hero, a Bangladesh policeman such as the British bureaucrat Orwell. His many writings which you have probably never seen are mostly attacks on fascists and bureaucracies after his experience as a bureaucratic policeman for the British Government that ruled India under a mercantile system worse than the one they foisted on America.  Those who chose freedom and liberty rebelled and started the USA. Those that did not stayed or fled to Canada. Some French-Canadians were exiled to southern Louisiana. Comparing the economy of Quebec today with that of the USA, we can see who made the better choice. Comparing the economy of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces today with that of Louisiana, it is easy to see how fortunate the exiles were !! About the only things that keeps Canada afloat today are American jobs, American discovered oil in western Canada, and agriculture in western Canada.  Turns out the fur trappers were misguided in their search for wealth, as much as most gold hunters in the Yukon. And after those misfortunes, they have to put up with anarchists and trash from the USA. A pity really, considering the weather is so abominable also. More plagiarizing of political lies.

Response:

                Completely flummoxed by the mess it has                 made in Iraq, the Bush League is now                 seeking advice from the very people it ignored                 when it should have been listening.                 Meanwhile, U.S. pirate firms like Dick Cheney’s                 Halliburton are carting off billions of Iraqi                 dollars they have managed to steal via                 no-bid, no-work contracts arranged with their                 buddies heading the occupation authorities.                 Has an American administration ever been more                 incompetent AND venal at the same time?                 If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft don’t die                 in prison, American justice will never recover.                                 === The Iraq Reconstruction Fiasco New York Times editorial Published: August 9, 2004 Things have gone so obviously wrong with America’s approach to rebuilding Iraq that even the Bush administration is now willing to listen to some informed advice. Before the invasion, the White House and Pentagon contemptuously ignored post-invasion planning memos drafted by State Department experts knowledgeable about Iraq, the Arab world and the broader problems of nation-building. Now some of those same State Department experts are quietly being called back to try to repair the damage. Their re-emergence is welcome, but late in the game. Winning back the good will and trust of ordinary Iraqis will be, at best, an uphill fight. Almost a year after Congress approved an American contribution of more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, very little of this money has been spent. Very little has actually been built in Iraq, and most of what has been done has been paid for out of Iraq’s own revenues. This is more than an embarrassing case of dysfunctional aid management and shifty accounting. It helps explain why so many Iraqis have come to resent the American occupation even though it removed a hated dictator and ended 13 years of punishing economic sanctions. Even people who initially welcomed the invasion have had a hard time understanding or accepting why, 16 months after American troops took Baghdad, electricity and clean water are only intermittently available and nearly half of employable Iraqis are without work. Of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last fall, only about $600 million has actually been paid out. Billions more have been designated for giant projects still in the planning stage. Part of the blame rests with the Pentagon’s planning failures and the occupation authority’s reluctance to consult qualified Iraqis. Instead, the administration brought in American defense contractors who had little clue about what was most urgently needed or how to handle the unfamiliar and highly insecure climate. Occupation officials also felt free to tap into Iraqi revenues, which are subject to far less oversight and looser controls than Congressionally appropriated funds. Late last year, for example, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root was awarded a no-bid contract out of Iraqi revenues. At the time, Congress might have balked at further dealings with a company facing questions about the inflated prices it charged for importing gasoline into Iraq and about a no-bid contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers just before the invasion. Last week, The Washington Post reported that almost $2 billion in Iraqi revenues had been awarded to American companies. State Department experts now suggest a switch to smaller-scale projects that can produce visible results more quickly. They are also talking about deeper Iraqi involvement in the planning and carrying out of American-financed reconstruction projects. Greater Iraqi involvement would spread public awareness of these projects, provide new jobs for Iraqis and drastically reduce costs. Iraqi construction labor costs about one-tenth of what is typically paid to foreign contractors. Closer consultation with the Baghdad ministries and local councils would also add some plausibility to Washington’s claims that Iraqis now exercise sovereignty in their own country. Despite all it has gone through, Iraq remains one of the Arab world’s most advanced societies, with considerable professional expertise that should be put to better use. All of this should have been done a year ago. It still needs to be done now. Iraq’s reconstruction needs have only become more urgent and most of that huge appropriation is still unspent.                                 ===

Response:

Question:

My company issued dividend shares as a part of their most recent round of financing.  They are earned monthly, let’s say one dividend share per month for every 1,000 shares purchased  Their value is $2.45 per share. What is the proper way to account for these shares?  I know I would credit the equity account but what is the correct account to debit? Also, a lump sum of 5,000 shares from this same round was given in exchange to a current shareholder to guarantee a 2 year loan.  Should the total value of these shares be amortized over the term of the loan and handled the same way as the dividend shares? Please reply to this group.  Thanks.

Response:

My company issued dividend shares as a part of their most recent round of financing.  They are earned monthly, let’s say one dividend share per month for every 1,000 shares purchased  Their value is $2.45 per share.

The common stock account is credited for the par value   The paid in capital account is credited for the difference in par value and the fair market value. Retained Earnings is debited for the market value.   Also, a lump sum of 5,000 shares from this same round was given in exchange to a current shareholder to guarantee a 2 year loan.  Should the total value of these shares be amortized over the term of the loan and handled the same way as the dividend shares? Please reply to this group.  Thanks.

Are there any restrictions on that ownership of stock?  Does it vest over the term of the loan?

Response:

My company issued dividend shares as a part of their most recent round of financing.  They are earned monthly, let’s say one dividend share per month for every 1,000 shares purchased  Their value is $2.45 per share. The common stock account is credited for the par value The paid in capital account is credited for the difference in par value and the fair market value. Retained Earnings is debited for the market value.

So you are saying the debit goes directly to retained earnings without appearing on the P&L?  I didn’t know that was an option. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also, a lump sum of 5,000 shares from this same round was given in exchange to a current shareholder to guarantee a 2 year loan.  Should the total value of these shares be amortized over the term of the loan and handled the same way as the dividend shares? Please reply to this group.  Thanks. Are there any restrictions on that ownership of stock?  Does it vest over the term of the loan?

No restrictions, vests immediately.  We are amortizing it over the 2 year tem of the loan.  So could this be booked directly to retained earnings too? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My company issued dividend shares as a part of their most recent round of financing.  They are earned monthly, let’s say one dividend share per month for every 1,000 shares purchased  Their value is $2.45 per share. The common stock account is credited for the par value The paid in capital account is credited for the difference in par value and the fair market value. Retained Earnings is debited for the market value. So you are saying the debit goes directly to retained earnings without appearing on the P&L?  I didn’t know that was an option.

Dividends don’t affect the P & L.  What some people do is to have a "dividends" account which is in the equity section that closes to Retained Earnings.  A direct debit to RE gets you to the same place at the end. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

 So you are saying the debit goes directly to retained earnings without appearing on the P&L?  I didn’t know that was an option.

Yes.     No restrictions, vests immediately.  We are amortizing it over the 2 year tem of the loan.  So could this be booked directly to retained earnings too?

I think you should probably treat this like the stock dividend above and book it immediately.

Response:

So you are saying the debit goes directly to retained earnings without appearing on the P&L?  I didn’t know that was an option. Yes. No restrictions, vests immediately.  We are amortizing it over the 2 year tem of the loan.  So could this be booked directly to retained earnings too? I think you should probably treat this like the stock dividend above and book it immediately.

I would ask the CPA firm to verify this accounting treatment.  Ordinary stock dividends just expand the shares and usually have no effect but as part of a loan and financing package (is loan guarantor also a stockholder or employee?) it may require some additional accounting treatment!

Response:

Question:

It’s just like driver training Phil. 99% of those on the road think they are good drivers, but, virtually none have ever done any sort of defensive, or advanced training. 95% of the drivers that I see on the roads are in marginal control of their vehicle at best,

You must have ridden my bus at some time.

Response:

The point i was trying to make is a result of a much later FRIGHT in a 210 with a stoll kit without spin and basic aerobatic training feel sure that the fright may have been a bit more if not realising what the thing and the idiot flying (now typing)  had got themselves into. Sadly except same aircraft later bit a more experienced bloke and ruined a family and aircraft same strip same time same load same manoeuvre.

Betcha it was a strutless 210.

Response:

I was taught C172 stall spins and that was valuable in that it both taught me how to handle that and built my confidence level. The ASI will quickly tell you which is happening in regard to spirals vs spins. Recently been out in the dark doing instrument recoveries from spirals as part of my NVFR training. FUN, though a few years back it would be SCARY! I’ve been doing NVFR stuff for years. Better do the test this autumn eh. — Bernie Samms Kingston Beach Tasmania Aero Club of Southern Tasmania  www.acst.com.au Prologic Pty Ltd                          www.prologic.com.au Out Mail has been checked by Norton Anti Virus but no absolute guarantee is made that mail or attachment(s) are virus free. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reading the many lines in the twin or single thread. It occurs to me that  some of the answers  indicate that  if ever one gets way out of shape a few may not know how to recover , never had being taught to spin. Eg some mention of aileron and rudder BTW I am very much a pro spin teach advocate . So in the spirit of learning and benefit of others who have not  yet had the fright of  working out (in very quick time)  what the difference is between a spin and a spiral dive. Lets ask a Question. Ted JV JB and those in the know sand bag for a while please and lets see what evolves. Question. Which instrument will tell you whether your in a spin or a spiral dive ? Cheers Phil

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reading the many lines in the twin or single thread. It occurs to me that  some of the answers  indicate that  if ever one gets way out of shape a few may not know how to recover , never had being taught to spin. Eg some mention of aileron and rudder BTW I am very much a pro spin teach advocate . So in the spirit of learning and benefit of others who have not  yet had the fright of  working out (in very quick time)  what the difference is between a spin and a spiral dive. Lets ask a Question. Ted JV JB and those in the know sand bag for a while please and lets see what evolves. Question. Which instrument will tell you whether your in a spin or a spiral dive ? Cheers Phil Ears. Coop (Who fully supports full spin training and the occasional revision of stalls during BFR’s) (Inverted? no thanks, still shaking the dust out of the clothing from the last time…..)

That’s what ears are < Grin . Coop

Response:

<other stuff snipped so in spins off with power  full OPPOSITE Rudder (fed progressively but very quickly) and incremental forward and smooth movement of stick = hopeful unstall of wings!

I was always taught to move the stick forward all the way if necessary and keep it there *until the rotation stops*. Most a/c unstall (and the rotation stops then) as soon as the stick comes off the back stops. But that last bit is important in machines like Chipmunk where spin flattens quickly and rotation is fast. Have tried it a couple times (at 7,000′ I hasten to add, and with owner present and watching closely) and a turn or two before unstalling after bringing the stick forward is not uncommon. This could also happen in a more docile machine if it is incorrectly loaded (aft c of g). Even with the c of g behind the rear limit the machine may still recover but you will have to wait for it. If this happens and you are close to the ground, well, bugga! is all you can say…… Coop

Response:

Please don’t use the balance ball in spin situations. To quote from Bill Kershner’s book: "The ball in the turn and slip or turn coordinator should not be used to check for spin direction, because its reaction depends on the location of this instrument on the panel, or more technically, its position with respect to the airplane’s center of gravity. If the instrument is on the left (pilot’s) side, the ball will be on the left side of the race in both right and left spins for the Cessna 150 and 152 Aerobat, Cherokee 140B, Musketeer Aerobatic Sport III, and Tomahawk. Slip indicators installed on the right side of the panels in the Aerobat and Sport had the ball going to the right side of the instrument in spins in both directions ….." As for spirals: "The ball may be offset to the left for most U.S. single-engine airplanes becaus eof "torque" correction effects." Confirmation of the above is always on the agenda for students when I do spin training. Regarding inverted spins, be wary of the turn co-ordinator but the old rate of turn indicator will correctly show direction of yaw – as for me, even if I’ve got one I have it turned off anyway. Regards, Dave Pilkington http://www.ozaeros.com (do not reply to that yahoo email address) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Spin – low airspeed & balance ball at full deflection

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reading the many lines in the twin or single thread. It occurs to me that  some of the answers  indicate that  if ever one gets way out of shape a few may not know how to recover , never had being taught to spin. Eg some mention of aileron and rudder BTW I am very much a pro spin teach advocate . So in the spirit of learning and benefit of others who have not  yet had the fright of  working out (in very quick time)  what the difference is between a spin and a spiral dive. Lets ask a Question. Ted JV JB and those in the know sand bag for a while please and lets see what evolves. Question. Which instrument will tell you whether your in a spin or a spiral dive ? Cheers Phil Ears. Coop (Who fully supports full spin training and the occasional revision of stalls during BFR’s) (Inverted? no thanks, still shaking the dust out of the clothing from the last time…..)

Response:

  Isn’t the airspeed indicator the main instrument used to identify a spin? Low forward airspeed in a spin, high forward airspeed in a spiral.  In a spin, you apply opposite rudder to the spin( or whatever the POH states)and forward elevator.  In a spiral dive, close throttle, stop rotation with aileron, and a smooth pull with back aileron to level flight, smooth being the word!  Did I remember correctly?  Regards, Andrew.

Evening Andrew. My view is and its been years and years. 1 spins start early on I guess as a result of yaw 2 outward wings accelerate and inward wings will commence to fully stall then it starts to get interesting depending on type and far you have got into the roll 3AoA increases and you enter an autorotation ( not like in a chopper -that’s different altogether) 4 Drag goes up and centre of pressure  moves backwards as the wings complete their fight with the laws of physics. Nose should then pitch up& down  so all at once the math is  yaw+pitch+roll Robins behave nicely bloody aerobats  can get real nasty and Decathlons are great chippies make a lot of noise and clatter about . At this time the ASI gets involved as a check to what you have done to self and aeroplane ideally at about 6000 <G or above  If the ASI is reading ( had one that refused to in right-hand spins) a speed that is BELOW the stalling speed If the ASI shows a pretty brisk increase  then I believe its a spiral . For gods sake some one pull me up if I have got it wrong !! The reason I asked was a bloke in the scrub a keen ultralight  sort of bloke but wants to be a red baron type guy ( I fear for) as he explained it other way to what I recall I was taught. Now stall =spin and spiral  recovery techniques were taught to me as different beasts. i.e. RUDDER IS is relative and  positive at all times. in spins ailerons ( type dependent)  can not be a given to behave as in normal flight elevators are not much use to you in most types. so in spins off with power  full OPPOSITE Rudder (fed progressively but very quickly) and incremental forward and smooth movement of stick = hopeful unstall of wings! Used to be a belt on the knuckles if ailerons were not kept neutral as spin begins to stop centralise rudder  again all smooth until spin stops. One thing I was in was a beast and oscillated like a maggot on a chop and was abit scary until got it sorted. One aerobat really bit when  at the top of a stuffed up (by me)  Loop with intent to roll out at top ended up on its back with a bit of right boot in and it all turned to a can of worms . Not sure  now how I even recovered  but back stick at one point early on was used. I went to owner of aircraft and threw self on sword as was concerned as heck that had overstressed aircraft. Luckily he was watching from the box and after inspection ( at my cost) all was ok. The point i was trying to make is a result of a much later FRIGHT in a 210 with a stoll kit without spin and basic aerobatic training feel sure that the fright may have been a bit more if not realising what the thing and the idiot flying (now typing)  had got themselves into. Sadly except same aircraft later bit a more experienced bloke and ruined a family and aircraft same strip same time same load same manoeuvre. Disclaimer:  writer is currently unlicensed unsafe and lacks memory. over to the pro’s Cheers P

Response:

I would have to agree… Riding a bike has tought me alot about driving a car.  Like checking the lane NEXT to me before I move into it (mirrors only show you what’s behind you). My skills as a private pilot have improved (IMHO) since I started the Commercial theory.  As for spins, I think that they should be tought.  But I also think that drivers should be taught what a slide feels like and how to get out of it. As for the original question.. Spiral Dive     Airspeed increasing… Spin               Low constant Airspeed… Pete…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s just like driver training Phil. 99% of those on the road think they are good drivers, but, virtually none have ever done any sort of defensive, or advanced training. 95% of the drivers that I see on the roads are in marginal control of their vehicle at best, they just don’t know enough to know that (I’ll allow a few % for those who have some natural talent) In an ideal world, all drivers should be obliged to ride a motor bike for at least 2 years before stepping into a car.  The motor cycle survivors will be safe drivers. Pilots, unfortunately are exactly the same. The problem comes back to training costs (and probably relates to our other discussion about instructor experience and pay levels). And, of course, there is the ‘out’ for those that don’t want to go this route that ’spin training will cause accidents’. I doubt that being able to spin and a/c or otherwise will make a great difference to the overall accident rate, but I’m sure that it would help to give us pilots who are better able to handle their aircraft, even in normal situations. Being obliged to go into short-arsed one-way strips would help, too Ah, but inverted spinning…..now that’s fun. Never done it – curious about it, but…

Response:

Avon W series were the best road boots by far in my day.  Cost a mint, but worth it.  We used Dunlop M&S for the rally car though, better on get away with.

Response:

It’s just like driver training Phil. 99% of those on the road think they are good drivers, but, virtually none have ever done any sort of defensive, or advanced training. 95% of the drivers that I see on the roads are in marginal control of their vehicle at best, they just don’t know enough to know that (I’ll allow a few % for those who have some natural talent)

In an ideal world, all drivers should be obliged to ride a motor bike for at least 2 years before stepping into a car.  The motor cycle survivors will be safe drivers. Pilots, unfortunately are exactly the same. The problem comes back to training costs (and probably relates to our other discussion about instructor experience and pay levels). And, of course, there is the ‘out’ for those that don’t want to go this route that ’spin training will cause accidents’. I doubt that being able to spin and a/c or otherwise will make a great difference to the overall accident rate, but I’m sure that it would help to give us pilots who are better able to handle their aircraft, even in normal situations.

Being obliged to go into short-arsed one-way strips would help, too Ah, but inverted spinning…..now that’s fun.

Never done it – curious about it, but…

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reading the many lines in the twin or single thread. It occurs to me that  some of the answers  indicate that  if ever one gets way out of shape a few may not know how to recover , never had being taught to spin. Eg some mention of aileron and rudder BTW I am very much a pro spin teach advocate . So in the spirit of learning and benefit of others who have not  yet had the fright of  working out (in very quick time)  what the difference is between a spin and a spiral dive. Lets ask a Question. Ted JV JB and those in the know sand bag for a while please and lets see what evolves. Question. Which instrument will tell you whether your in a spin or a spiral dive ? Cheers Phil

Ears. Coop (Who fully supports full spin training and the occasional revision of stalls during BFR’s) (Inverted? no thanks, still shaking the dust out of the clothing from the last time…..)

Response:

That purile – and you know it.

Response:

  Isn’t the airspeed indicator the main instrument used to identify a spin? Low forward airspeed in a spin, high forward airspeed in a spiral.  In a spin, you apply opposite rudder to the spin( or whatever the POH states)and forward elevator.  In a spiral dive, close throttle, stop rotation with aileron, and a smooth pull with back aileron to level flight, smooth being the word!  Did I remember correctly?  Regards, Andrew. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So again which primary instrument tells one  that your gone from spin to spiral? If one correctly identifies the situation in a single  what sort of control inputs would you use to get out of the spiral and recover? Would you use aileron or not? Cheers P This is where I miss the old cowboy Don as he used to give wonderful and didactic answers < big grin

Response:

  Do you remember the Ford ad recently, where some woman was telling of how she rolled a Falcon, and how she had "oversteered" because she was not used to power steering?  I assume she meant she used excessive steering inputs, rather than having a larger slip angle on the rear tyres than the front!  I agree Phil, having just travelled to Lake MAcquarie and back six times in two weeks on the lovely F3 freeway(home of the moronic driver), the licensing system is at best pathetic.  I wish I had been given a lot more training in my early driving days, I sure as hell needed it.  I see people in huge 4wds, screaming down the freeway at 110km/h(was too fast for teh reflexes of the drivers of these cars, and the suspension, tyres and brakes), swerving in and out of lanes, the insides of the tread lifting off the road, and I wonder whether a; the car has ANY feedback to let them know that this is happening, or b; they just have no idea. I suspect b.  I always make the point of having excellent wet weather tyres on my cars, and to be doing the speed limit in a downpour( I love driving in the rain, has never bothered me), and have some idiot pass you in a two tonne plus piece of agricultural equipment, with tyres that are absolutely useless on roads, let alone in the rain, scares the crap out of me.  Don’t even start me on trailers, I believe there should be a seperate endorsement for towing anything, which should only be available after a set number of hours of professional training.  Regards, Andrew. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Returning to the car drivers you mentioned.  How many drivers know what understeer is, or oversteer ?  How many know how to recognize either developing ?  How many know how to recover from either condition.  Do any of them know that it is different in a front wheel V rear wheel drive ?  Do any have a clue what to do in either case if towing a trailer ?  Worse, how many even know how to regain control from a brake lockup on a wet road any more ?  ABS etc and generally good suburban roads and generally low speeds, does not prepare them for the once a year holiday trip belting along the expressway at 110 kph into a sudden downpour and subsequent aquaplaning etc.  Did you know that to get a NSW licence you don’t even have to be able to do a competent 3 point turn any more ?  Then on another tack,……. no….. don’t start me on navigation, yachties and gps. <<<< insert dummy – immediate

Response:

Watching the twin versus single thread  and concentrating on Rudder aileron remarks had a bit of a shudder.

Rudder VERSUS aileron did not enter into that thread anywhere, Phil. And when aileron  *was* mentioned, it was confined toi 4degrees angle of bank, as recommended in operating manuals. So you were shuddering at shadows, mate.

Response:

Watching the twin versus single thread  and concentrating on Rudder aileron remarks had a bit of a shudder. Rudder VERSUS aileron did not enter into that thread anywhere, Phil. And when aileron  *was* mentioned, it was confined toi 4degrees angle of bank, as recommended in operating manuals. So you were shuddering at shadows, mate.

(Turns down air conditioning) True Ted was mentally taking the scenario a bit further in that rather informative and "thought provoking thread" was all. My fault for not explaining that  at the time. Cheers

Response:

ASI – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reading the many lines in the twin or single thread. It occurs to me that  some of the answers  indicate that  if ever one gets way out of shape a few may not know how to recover , never had being taught to spin. Eg some mention of aileron and rudder BTW I am very much a pro spin teach advocate . So in the spirit of learning and benefit of others who have not  yet had the fright of  working out (in very quick time)  what the difference is between a spin and a spiral dive. Lets ask a Question. Ted JV JB and those in the know sand bag for a while please and lets see what evolves. Question. Which instrument will tell you whether your in a spin or a spiral dive ? Cheers Phil

Response:

Hello PC, well, when I was doing my ab initio training I specifically asked my instructor to do some extra spins, stalls, and limit turns as I had always felt varying degrees of dis-satisfaction with what I had learned during the normal training. So we went out and revisited those sequences. And I was glad I did too. I felt much happier afterwards having spent the extra effort to familiarise myslef and feel a lot more comfortable with those sequences. To answer your question: ASI and Turn & Bank indicator Spin – low airspeed & balance ball at full deflection Spiral Dive – high(er) airspeed & balance ball nuetral Inverted spins (eeuuughhh – shudder) Now that’s a whole new challenge for moi ! Ben Matthes. Canberra, Australia. Aircraft Manager, Canberra Aero Club. http://www.canberra-aeroclub.com.au/

Response:

<snip And, of course, there is the ‘out’ for those that don’t want to go this route that ’spin training will cause accidents’. I doubt that being able to spin and a/c or otherwise will make a great difference to the overall accident rate, ……. <snip I can’t agree with you there, sorry.  I am a confirmed and committed spin training advocate, and if I had the power, would make it MANDATORY.  Just thought I would make that clear. Consider this.  What is the subsequent risk of not having taken that particular training risk.  How many accidents are actually really caused by NOT having proper comprehensive training in full spins and all the areas of incipient departures, secondary effects, etc. Administrators, statisticians and accountants conveniently forget to factor into their wonderful lists of figures for accidents the fact that very often the primary cause of some of those accidents is identified as (usually attributed to a "human factor") some form of pilot failure concerning awareness of attitude height speed angle of attack incipient stall buffet wing drop or whatever, that was previously provided or reinforced by the now deleted spin training element. Removing spin training from the syllabus and making aircraft that supposedly will not spin leads firstly to a false complacency that it won’t / can’t happen in the pilot’s mind, and secondly, through his lack of experience of it, he has no actual practical knowledge, sensation or perception, call it gut feel if you like, of the development of a situation where it may happen (eg, low, slow turn in turbulent or wind sheer conditions when landing at a strange strip and otherwise preoccupied) and invariably, some poor bastard gets caught, not through his own fault really, but through the fault of the system that told him he knew all he needed to know.  The subsequent accident investigation, after examination of the wreckage, simply reads, stall during final turn. The old timers learnt the hard way.  Spin training is vital – period. An incompletely trained pilot is an inherently dangerous pilot – period. Perhaps some day, after a number of accidents with pilots with the new non spin trained profiles, someone might suss what has really happened, and produce the earth shattering revelation of a "training deficiency". It’s called reinventing the wheel. I am just waiting for it to happen. Deskilling in anything, and relying on "technology", as a policy, is idiotic – period. Returning to the car drivers you mentioned.  How many drivers know what understeer is, or oversteer ?  How many know how to recognize either developing ?  How many know how to recover from either condition.  Do any of them know that it is different in a front wheel V rear wheel drive ?  Do any have a clue what to do in either case if towing a trailer ?  Worse, how many even know how to regain control from a brake lockup on a wet road any more ?  ABS etc and generally good suburban roads and generally low speeds, does not prepare them for the once a year holiday trip belting along the expressway at 110 kph into a sudden downpour and subsequent aquaplaning etc.  Did you know that to get a NSW licence you don’t even have to be able to do a competent 3 point turn any more ?  Then on another tack,……. no….. don’t start me on navigation, yachties and gps. <<<< insert dummy – immediate

Response:

Maybe we should have ‘Crash’ training as well, and be forced to learn how to help the ailing aircraft manufacture industry….. Sheeeeez

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip And, of course, there is the ‘out’ for those that don’t want to go this route that ’spin training will cause accidents’. I doubt that being able to spin and a/c or otherwise will make a great difference to the overall accident rate, ……. <snip I can’t agree with you there, sorry.  I am a confirmed and committed spin training advocate, and if I had the power, would make it MANDATORY.  Just thought I would make that clear. Consider this.  What is the subsequent risk of not having taken that particular training risk.  How many accidents are actually really caused by NOT having proper comprehensive training in full spins and all the areas of incipient departures, secondary effects, etc. Administrators, statisticians and accountants conveniently forget to factor into their wonderful lists of figures for accidents the fact that very often the primary cause of some of those accidents is identified as (usually attributed to a "human factor") some form of pilot failure concerning awareness of attitude height speed angle of attack incipient stall buffet wing drop or whatever, that was previously provided or reinforced by the now deleted spin training element. Removing spin training from the syllabus and making aircraft that supposedly will not spin leads firstly to a false complacency that it won’t / can’t happen in the pilot’s mind, and secondly, through his lack of experience of it, he has no actual practical knowledge, sensation or perception, call it gut feel if you like, of the development of a situation where it may happen (eg, low, slow turn in turbulent or wind sheer conditions when landing at a strange strip and otherwise preoccupied) and invariably, some poor bastard gets caught, not through his own fault really, but through the fault of the system that told him he knew all he needed to know.  The subsequent accident investigation, after examination of the wreckage, simply reads, stall during final turn. The old timers learnt the hard way.  Spin training is vital – period. An incompletely trained pilot is an inherently dangerous pilot – period. Perhaps some day, after a number of accidents with pilots with the new non spin trained profiles, someone might suss what has really happened, and produce the earth shattering revelation of a "training deficiency". It’s called reinventing the wheel. I am just waiting for it to happen. Deskilling in anything, and relying on "technology", as a policy, is idiotic – period. Returning to the car drivers you mentioned.  How many drivers know what understeer is, or oversteer ?  How many know how to recognize either developing ?  How many know how to recover from either condition.  Do any of them know that it is different in a front wheel V rear wheel drive ?  Do any have a clue what to do in either case if towing a trailer ?  Worse, how many even know how to regain control from a brake lockup on a wet road any more ?  ABS etc and generally good suburban roads and generally low speeds, does not prepare them for the once a year holiday trip belting along the expressway at 110 kph into a sudden downpour and subsequent aquaplaning etc.  Did you know that to get a NSW licence you don’t even have to be able to do a competent 3 point turn any more ?  Then on another tack,……. no….. don’t start me on navigation, yachties and gps. <<<< insert dummy – immediate

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s just like driver training Phil. 99% of those on the road think they are good drivers, but, virtually none have ever done any sort of defensive, or advanced training. 95% of the drivers that I see on the roads are in marginal control of their vehicle at best, they just don’t know enough to know that (I’ll allow a few % for those who have some natural talent) Pilots, unfortunately are exactly the same. The problem comes back to training costs (and probably relates to our other discussion about instructor experience and pay levels). And, of course, there is the ‘out’ for those that don’t want to go this route that ’spin training will cause accidents’. I doubt that being able to spin and a/c or otherwise will make a great difference to the overall accident rate, but I’m sure that it would help to give us pilots who are better able to handle their aircraft, even in normal situations. Ah, but inverted spinning…..now that’s fun. JB

Reply: Valid points all. Another out is the often trotted out old hoary that modern aircraft have had all the nastiness ‘designed "out of them (choke cough splutter) One point of view that perhaps has some currency is that a little knowledge can become dangerous to those of the ‘ I am ten feet tall and bullet proof mindset" who equipped with a little bit of quasi aerobatic knowledge can get them selves into strife   pushing a perceived knowledge envelope. Bit like instrument training I suppose, in relation to pressing the weather Gods. I have yet to meet just one who went through military training streams  who is not an advocate for the subject at hand. That’s why I have no hesitation in pushing Noel Cruse and his instructors at Sydney aerobatic school as every graduate I recall also has a basic aero ability and endorsement before they go into the industry and commit aviation. I recall Chesty Bond up in QLd also uses similar syllabi. You mention Inverted spinning!!  EEK!   [Grin and dark blue stirring mode on] I don’t think you had done your course as when the Navy when using Macchis was in the time of proper aircraft {Winjeel} Sent a few instructors back to Nowra from Pearce  who got one into strife by teaching the students  spins INVERTED in macchis . Was a different method as taught to the crabs.(no offence in that word)  I recall they lost one but crew became members of caterpillar club Getting back  the ability to recover on instruments is a handy bit of knowledge and thinking on  the younger Kennedy prang of a few years ago in the states. is a text book example that may prove my contention. Watching the twin versus single thread  and concentrating on Rudder aileron remarks had a bit of a shudder. So again which primary instrument tells one  that your gone from spin to spiral? If one correctly identifies the situation in a single  what sort of control inputs would you use to get out of the spiral and recover? Would you use aileron or not? Cheers P This is where I miss the old cowboy Don as he used to give wonderful and didactic answers < big grin

Response:

It’s just like driver training Phil. 99% of those on the road think they are good drivers, but, virtually none have ever done any sort of defensive, or advanced training. 95% of the drivers that I see on the roads are in marginal control of their vehicle at best, they just don’t know enough to know that (I’ll allow a few % for those who have some natural talent) Pilots, unfortunately are exactly the same. The problem comes back to training costs (and probably relates to our other discussion about instructor experience and pay levels). And, of course, there is the ‘out’ for those that don’t want to go this route that ’spin training will cause accidents’. I doubt that being able to spin and a/c or otherwise will make a great difference to the overall accident rate, but I’m sure that it would help to give us pilots who are better able to handle their aircraft, even in normal situations. Ah, but inverted spinning…..now that’s fun. JB

Response:

trousers – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reading the many lines in the twin or single thread. It occurs to me that  some of the answers  indicate that  if ever one gets way out of shape a few may not know how to recover , never had being taught to spin. Eg some mention of aileron and rudder BTW I am very much a pro spin teach advocate . So in the spirit of learning and benefit of others who have not  yet had the fright of  working out (in very quick time)  what the difference is between a spin and a spiral dive. Lets ask a Question. Ted JV JB and those in the know sand bag for a while please and lets see what evolves. Question. Which instrument will tell you whether your in a spin or a spiral dive ? Cheers Phil

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Reading the many lines in the twin or single thread. It occurs to me that  some of the answers  indicate that  if ever one gets way out of shape a few may not know how to recover , never had being taught to spin. Eg some mention of aileron and rudder BTW I am very much a pro spin teach advocate . So in the spirit of learning and benefit of others who have not  yet had the fright of  working out (in very quick time)  what the difference is between a spin and a spiral dive. Lets ask a Question. Ted JV JB and those in the know sand bag for a while please and lets see what evolves. Question. Which instrument will tell you whether your in a spin or a spiral dive ? Cheers Phil

Response:

Question:

My, my, he _is_ manic again, isn’t he?

Anything to avoid the real issue, huh.

Response:

My, my, he _is_ manic again, isn’t he? Anything to avoid the real issue, huh.

Funny, we have been saying that exact same thing to YOU when YOU tried this same thing.  We don’t want to hear it.

Response:

Waah waah waah waah waah

Women obviously don’t mind….if they did, they’d speak up.

Response:

My, my, he _is_ manic again, isn’t he? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Men! As we all know, offices are loaded with eye-candy because, well, men like  to hire good-looking women whenever they have the chance.  Silly things like skills, merit, and who actually DESERVES the job are irrelevant.  So are those silly little discrimination laws, because as we know the EEOC won’t  do crap, and most people who are fired or not hired aren’t going to find an attorney, and even if they do, your legal insurance will settle the claim, or you can just tie them up in court for a decade or so while blackballing them if they speak up.  So don’t worry about that. What men SHOULD worry about is how to capitalize on the HUGE opportunity  for seductioin presented by the office: it’s like a stripclub, but only  better: the women may have more clothes, but someone else is paying their salary, and YOU ARE GETTING PAID while you are in proximity to them.  The problem  is that most men don’t realize that unless they are absolutely hideous, they should absolutely, POSITIVELY be getting laid at work.  Are they?  For the most part, no. Because men don’t see all of the ways to ensure that they get laid in the office, and because I’ve seen just about every trick in the book used, I have chosen to share my knowledge with men everywhere, to further help  them in their goal. Let’s start with lesson one: DO NOT PAY HER TOO MUCH. The reason you should not pay your office whore a lot of money is simple: the more money she has, the less she needs the job, and the less she needs YOU.  Don’t worry if an occasional whore up and leaves while calling you a cheap bastard, because there’s always another to take her place.  As I  will demonstrate in future lessons, whores are usually terrible with their finances, and there will always be one of them who will need whatever  meager salary you are willing to pay them.  The key isn’t to be a good employer,  or even a nice guy, but to GET LAID. Now there are some exceptions to this rule, and they are notable.  If you work for a wealthy law, accounting, or financial firm, or at an  educational institution, it’s not your money, and you can actually use OPM (other people’s money) to recruit your office whores and get you laid.  On the other hand, if you run a small business, you won’t want to go overboard on this because the money should stay in your pocket.  Still, the rule to  keep her as broke as possible and in need of men would apply.  This is a common practice among businessmen who know how to mix business with pleasure. Before any of you go off on me for lacking ethics, please realize that I  do not approve of this behavior.  I just know it is out there, and after telling women about it, the women said they didn’t really care about it, that this is "life," and that we should just "deal with it."  Since women have not stepped forward to put a stop to their being hired as eye-candy, there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving this advice. In the next installment, I’ll cover more strategic and tactical issues  which will help men to realize that the office lay is not as difficult to  execute as they think, as long as they make it their primary objective and stop worrying about silly things like productivity, efficiency, and fairness.

Response:

Waah waah waah waah waah – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Men! As we all know, offices are loaded with eye-candy because, well, men like to hire good-looking women whenever they have the chance.  Silly things like skills, merit, and who actually DESERVES the job are irrelevant.  So are those silly little discrimination laws, because as we know the EEOC won’t do crap, and most people who are fired or not hired aren’t going to find an attorney, and even if they do, your legal insurance will settle the claim, or you can just tie them up in court for a decade or so while blackballing them if they speak up.  So don’t worry about that. What men SHOULD worry about is how to capitalize on the HUGE opportunity for seductioin presented by the office: it’s like a stripclub, but only better: the women may have more clothes, but someone else is paying their salary, and YOU ARE GETTING PAID while you are in proximity to them.  The problem is that most men don’t realize that unless they are absolutely hideous, they should absolutely, POSITIVELY be getting laid at work.  Are they?  For the most part, no. Because men don’t see all of the ways to ensure that they get laid in the office, and because I’ve seen just about every trick in the book used, I have chosen to share my knowledge with men everywhere, to further help them in their goal. Let’s start with lesson one: DO NOT PAY HER TOO MUCH. The reason you should not pay your office whore a lot of money is simple: the more money she has, the less she needs the job, and the less she needs YOU.  Don’t worry if an occasional whore up and leaves while calling you a cheap bastard, because there’s always another to take her place.  As I will demonstrate in future lessons, whores are usually terrible with their finances, and there will always be one of them who will need whatever meager salary you are willing to pay them.  The key isn’t to be a good employer, or even a nice guy, but to GET LAID. Now there are some exceptions to this rule, and they are notable.  If you work for a wealthy law, accounting, or financial firm, or at an educational institution, it’s not your money, and you can actually use OPM (other people’s money) to recruit your office whores and get you laid.  On the other hand, if you run a small business, you won’t want to go overboard on this because the money should stay in your pocket.  Still, the rule to keep her as broke as possible and in need of men would apply.  This is a common practice among businessmen who know how to mix business with pleasure. Before any of you go off on me for lacking ethics, please realize that I do not approve of this behavior.  I just know it is out there, and after telling women about it, the women said they didn’t really care about it, that this is "life," and that we should just "deal with it."  Since women have not stepped forward to put a stop to their being hired as eye-candy, there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving this advice. In the next installment, I’ll cover more strategic and tactical issues which will help men to realize that the office lay is not as difficult to execute as they think, as long as they make it their primary objective and stop worrying about silly things like productivity, efficiency, and fairness.

Response:

Question:

 "Protecting" Albanians (by blowing up their homes) because Madam Albright happens to have ETHNIC TIES to those people is horseshit.

More happy horsecrap from Karl. It never ends. — Harry Krause I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children. -GW Bush

Response:

With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth. There was no question…either Saudi Arabia or the UAE was his next stop. His goal was control of all the middle east oil. Kuwait by itself may not have been worth going to war over, but stopping Saddam in his tracks was.

But we didn’t stop him.  We "punished" him, wrecked the environment over there for the next 30 years with all the oil we (and they) spilled, and drove him out of Kuwait – but, and here’s the point – we didn’t "stop" him. All we did was piss him off and give him the ability to build a coalition down the road.  I predicted at the time that Israel was the real issue, and that by merely taking the point off Saddam’s knife (instead of killing or capturing the bastard) we were going to INCITE a war over there eventually, instead of preventing one. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!) We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that.

Nonsense.  Viet Nam was an entirely different world.  They had a real army and real arms.  Saddam had neither.  That was no "war" by any traditional interpretation.  It was a "push button" blow up this and that campaign – you could pretty much count the number of American casualties on your fingers. The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory. It’s easy to play Wyatt Earp from an armchair…not so easy for those who know how the deck is stacked. But even the armchair critics knew that not all the Arab players wanted us there…and annexing any part of the middle east would NOT have been a politically OR economically smart move…remember, they control the oil.

I’m aware of that.  I’m not actually suggesting that we should have annexed the area – we should not have.  But I also argue that we have no interest whatsoever in trying to "protect" dictatorships from one another.  And like it or not, that’s what Kuwait is. We did it right–we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitees…then got the hell out before we could piss off anybody else. The only alternative would have been to invade and take over the whole middle east and annex it…and I don’t THINK we could have done that, ‘cuz somebody else would have gotten it into on their side, and that would have been the start of WW III–nuclear style this time. Peggie

We should have left it alone. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE want our help, they can damn well invite us in for a permanent military presence and provide the land for us to use as, for all intents and purposes, as US Government property (as have other countries who wanted that protection.)  Note that they haven’t – and don’t – because they don’t really want us there EITHER. There is an ueasy relationship with the US and those countries.  They like our oil money, but they hate our philosophy on life and how we live. We went over there and committed aggression against another nation because someone else was scared that they would get THEIR asses kicked.  There’s a problem with that kind of thing, and it should be obvious.  Quite frankly, the entire UN "shield" that we operated under belay the true interest – it wasn’t our oil flow we were protecting, it was the oil flow for Europe and the others in the UN and NATO that we were really flexing our muscles over. — — http://www.denninger.net    Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY!

Response:

Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign.

Yep…they never considered a clown like Clinton to be a serious threat to a sitting president who’d done a good job, and so the Bush campaign didn’t think it was necessary to run very hard against him. Peggie

Response:

Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign. Yep…they never considered a clown like Clinton to be a serious threat to a sitting president who’d done a good job, and so the Bush campaign didn’t think it was necessary to run very hard against him. Peggie

Heheheh. Funniest pair of posts in weeks. — Harry Krause Quotas are bad for America. It’s not the way America is all about. -GW Bush

Response:

But the truest posts. Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign. Yep…they never considered a clown like Clinton to be a serious threat to a sitting president who’d done a good job, and so the Bush campaign didn’t think it was necessary to run very hard against him. Peggie Heheheh. Funniest pair of posts in weeks. — Harry Krause Quotas are bad for America. It’s not the way America is all about. -GW

Bush

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth. There was no question…either Saudi Arabia or the UAE was his next stop. His goal was control of all the middle east oil. Kuwait by itself may not have been worth going to war over, but stopping Saddam in his tracks was. But we didn’t stop him.  We "punished" him, wrecked the environment over there for the next 30 years with all the oil we (and they) spilled, and drove him out of Kuwait – but, and here’s the point – we didn’t "stop" him. All we did was piss him off and give him the ability to build a coalition down the road.  I predicted at the time that Israel was the real issue, and that by merely taking the point off Saddam’s knife (instead of killing or capturing the bastard) we were going to INCITE a war over there eventually, instead of preventing one. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!) We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that. Nonsense.  Viet Nam was an entirely different world.  They had a real army and real arms.  Saddam had neither.  That was no "war" by any traditional interpretation.  It was a "push button" blow up this and that campaign – you could pretty much count the number of American casualties on your fingers. The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory. It’s easy to play Wyatt Earp from an armchair…not so easy for those who know how the deck is stacked. But even the armchair critics knew that not all the Arab players wanted us there…and annexing any part of the middle east would NOT have been a politically OR economically smart move…remember, they control the oil. I’m aware of that.  I’m not actually suggesting that we should have annexed the area – we should not have.  But I also argue that we have no interest whatsoever in trying to "protect" dictatorships from one another.  And like it or not, that’s what Kuwait is. We did it right–we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitees…then got the hell out before we could piss off anybody else. The only alternative would have been to invade and take over the whole middle east and annex it…and I don’t THINK we could have done that, ‘cuz somebody else would have gotten it into on their side, and that would have been the start of WW III–nuclear style this time. Peggie We should have left it alone. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE want our help, they can damn well invite us in for a permanent military presence and provide the land for us to use as, for all intents and purposes, as US Government property (as have other countries who wanted that protection.)  Note that they haven’t – and don’t – because they don’t really want us there EITHER. There is an ueasy relationship with the US and those countries.  They like our oil money, but they hate our philosophy on life and how we live. We went over there and committed aggression against another nation because someone else was scared that they would get THEIR asses kicked.  There’s a problem with that kind of thing, and it should be obvious.  Quite frankly, the entire UN "shield" that we operated under belay the true interest – it wasn’t our oil flow we were protecting, it was the oil flow for Europe and the others in the UN and NATO that we were really flexing our muscles over. — — http://www.denninger.net        Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY!

I can’t argue with Karl on this…Desert Storm was a fiasco. About all it did was enable us to test some advanced weaponry under slightly more severe than field test conditions. — Harry Krause Laura and I really don’t realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis. -GW Bush

Response:

All we did was piss him off and give him the ability to build a coalition down the road.  

Something he has yet to be able to do, and it’s been 10 years. We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that. Nonsense.  Viet Nam was an entirely different world.  They had a real army and real arms.  Saddam had neither.  That was no "war" by any traditional interpretation.  It was a "push button" blow up this and that campaign – you could pretty much count the number of American casualties on your fingers.

The "war" we fought WAS just that, but continuing it to march on Bagdhad and conquer Iraq would not have been. The Arab world didn’t want us there..Certainly the USSR would have jumped into it with support for Iraq–and they did have a real army and guns…and perhaps China (and btw, North Viet Nam wouldn’t have had an army or weapons without China’s support).  Iran has no love for Saddam, but it has even less for the US…and common enemies make new bedfellows.  Continuing on could have been a very long and protracted affair–something the country would not have supported–not after Viet Nam, and CERTAINLY not with cameras focused on every bomb target and a media with a definite anti-war attitude reporting it. We did the right thing.  But I also argue that we have no interest whatsoever in trying to "protect" dictatorships from one another.  And like it or not, that’s what Kuwait is.

They asked us–begged us to. We were only the lead nation of a UN force, at least on paper. We should have left it alone. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE want our help, they can damn well invite us in for a permanent military presence and provide the land for us to use as, for all intents and purposes, as US Government property (as have other countries who wanted that protection.)  Note that they haven’t – and don’t – because they don’t really want us there EITHER.

You just made MY point. We did what they asked us to do. There is an ueasy relationship with the US and those countries.  They like our oil money, but they hate our philosophy on life and how we live.

Well, duh, Karl. We like their cheap oil, but we’re not real fond of their philosophy and how they live either–especially when it comes to human rights and the way it treats women. We went over there and committed aggression against another nation because someone else was scared that they would get THEIR asses kicked.  There’s a problem with that kind of thing, and it should be obvious.

Refusing to support your allies would be a bigger problem. Again–they asked for help.  Quite frankly, the entire UN "shield" that we operated under belay the true interest – it wasn’t our oil flow we were protecting, it was the oil flow for Europe and the others in the UN and NATO that we were really flexing our muscles over.

Again…duh!  You’d rather we left ‘em hanging out to dry? Sheesh, Karl…the "100 hours war" did more for US prestige in the world–in fact, restored it in some places–than anything we’d done since WW II. More importantly, it restored our own national pride, especially in our military, who came home this time to brass bands and ticker tape. Or have you forgotten what they came home from Viet Nam to? We    could    not    risk    that happening again–or even an anti-war media spin.  We did what we were asked to do and got out–we set an objective, we accomplished it, they came home heroes. Take it from a career Army brat who lived through WWII, Korea and Viet Nam in the military–we did the right thing for that time and in that place. Peggie

Response:

Maybe…maybe not. It depends on what’s going on in country and/or the world at the time. Bush Sr’s popularity right after the Gulf War was so high that if it had just happened a year later–in election year–he’d have beaten Clinton–or any other candidate–with a landslide. It just happened a year too early. Peggie

Timing is everything. 123 days to go..

Response:

If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job.

I think you have the rose glasses on. Powell is the same brave leader who proposed that we only try economic sanctions on Iraq for Kuwait invasion — as if it has changed the actions of Cuba. Powell was a politician from his first days in the military — always trying to take the easy way out and never making a stand on a tough issue until he could see that his superiors were committed. With him as SecState we will drift (ob:boat) until a crisis is howling though the sewers of Washington, with the net effect that the US military or US Treasury (or both) will take a terrible beating.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job. I think you have the rose glasses on. Powell is the same brave leader who proposed that we only try economic sanctions on Iraq for Kuwait invasion — as if it has changed the actions of Cuba. Powell was a politician from his first days in the military — always trying to take the easy way out and never making a stand on a tough issue until he could see that his superiors were committed. With him as SecState we will drift (ob:boat) until a crisis is howling though the sewers of Washington, with the net effect that the US military or US Treasury (or both) will take a terrible beating.

Powell has absolutely no experience that would qualify him as Secretary of State. He may well be a retired General but he sure as hell ain’t Marshall. — Harry Krause Gov. Bush will not stand for the subsidation of failure. -GW Bush.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job. I think you have the rose glasses on. Powell is the same brave leader who proposed that we only try economic sanctions on Iraq for Kuwait invasion — as if it has changed the actions of Cuba. Powell was a politician from his first days in the military — always trying to take the easy way out and never making a stand on a tough issue until he could see that his superiors were committed. With him as SecState we will drift (ob:boat) until a crisis is howling though the sewers of Washington, with the net effect that the US military or US Treasury (or both) will take a terrible beating.

Oh please. With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!) The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory. Yeah, I know, we’re beholden to the almighty black gold.  And this is THEIR (the mid east nations) fault?  No, its ours.  We have alternatives available that we have refused to exercise, including biologically renewable fuels that will even burn in boat (and car) diesels, along with home heating and industrial plants (and which, by the way, are CO2 neutral due to their closed-cycle nature.)  We choose not to exploit them because its easier (and marginally cheaper at today’s prices) to swing our big dong around as the only remaining country with an army that can project power wherever and whenever we want. Powell was (and is) exactly right in his assessment. Unless there is a DIRECT threat to our nation we have no business doing anything military anywhere in the world.  "Protecting" Albanians (by blowing up their homes) because Madam Albright happens to have ETHNIC TIES to those people (rather than because there’s a legitimate reason to rain a few hundred million worth of cruise missles down on their cities) is horseshit.  In Rawanda, while we pissed and moaned about 3,000 Albanians who were brutally murdered (and ultimately went to war over it) there were a HALF MILLION people slaughtered under nearly identical circumstances WHILE WE SAT THERE AND LAUGHTED AT THEIR PLIGHT. That we have a representative republic does not give us license to FORCE that form of government on anyone else.  If you think we have that right, be aware that the sword of force cuts with two edges, and you are inviting others to try to undo what we have here. — — http://www.denninger.net    Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY! GO HOME SORE LOSERMAN AND TAKE YOUR SAD SOCK PUPPETS WITH YOU! Boies – most overrated liar (and worst prognosticator) on the planet.

Response:

Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign. bill

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe…maybe not. It depends on what’s going on in country and/or the world at the time. Bush Sr’s popularity right after the Gulf War was so high that if it had just happened a year later–in election year–he’d have beaten Clinton–or any other candidate–with a landslide. It just happened a year too early. Peggie Timing is everything. 123 days to go..

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve I understand about the electoral college, really I do. The "one vote per acre" crack was intended as a rebuttal to the statistics that somebody asembled here about how many "counties" Bush won vs. Gore. The number of states, and the number of counties, and the size of the cattle herds in Bush country are meaningless. What counts is the electoral vote, and the folks who wave the map of all the less populated states and try to establish that this creates a strong mandate for Bush are incorrect. Bush won, sort of, the electoral college, (by a 4 vote margin) and is our next president. He’s no worse than the other choice and he *will* be gone in four. The fact that a lot of states where almost nobody lives voted for him is just a footnote and doesn’t affect the score.

I’m not certain of that at all. I believe that the events of the next couple of years will determine this, and while this series of events will certainly not make anyone happy, its simply not going to be the determinant in 2004.  Both republican and democrat bases will be energized by this – which will leave the net effect at zero. If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job. The former is not under Bush’s control.  The economic cycle may nail him without mercy, as it did Carter – we shall see….. — — http://www.denninger.net    Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY! GO HOME SORE LOSERMAN AND TAKE YOUR SAD SOCK PUPPETS WITH YOU! Boies – most overrated liar (and worst prognosticator) on the planet.

Response:

With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth.

There was no question…either Saudi Arabia or the UAE was his next stop. His goal was control of all the middle east oil. Kuwait by itself may not have been worth going to war over, but stopping Saddam in his tracks was. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!)

We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that.   The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory.

It’s easy to play Wyatt Earp from an armchair…not so easy for those who know how the deck is stacked. But even the armchair critics knew that not all the Arab players wanted us there…and annexing any part of the middle east would NOT have been a politically OR economically smart move…remember, they control the oil. We did it right–we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitees…then got the hell out before we could piss off anybody else. The only alternative would have been to invade and take over the whole middle east and annex it…and I don’t THINK we could have done that, ‘cuz somebody else would have gotten it into on their side, and that would have been the start of WW III–nuclear style this time. Peggie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah, I know, we’re beholden to the almighty black gold.  And this is THEIR (the mid east nations) fault?  No, its ours.  We have alternatives available that we have refused to exercise, including biologically renewable fuels that will even burn in boat (and car) diesels, along with home heating and industrial plants (and which, by the way, are CO2 neutral due to their closed-cycle nature.)  We choose not to exploit them because its easier (and marginally cheaper at today’s prices) to swing our big dong around as the only remaining country with an army that can project power wherever and whenever we want. Powell was (and is) exactly right in his assessment. Unless there is a DIRECT threat to our nation we have no business doing anything military anywhere in the world.  "Protecting" Albanians (by blowing up their homes) because Madam Albright happens to have ETHNIC TIES to those people (rather than because there’s a legitimate reason to rain a few hundred million worth of cruise missles down on their cities) is horseshit.  In Rawanda, while we pissed and moaned about 3,000 Albanians who were brutally murdered (and ultimately went to war over it) there were a HALF MILLION people slaughtered under nearly identical circumstances WHILE WE SAT THERE AND LAUGHTED AT THEIR PLIGHT. That we have a representative republic does not give us license to FORCE that form of government on anyone else.  If you think we have that right, be aware that the sword of force cuts with two edges, and you are inviting others to try to undo what we have here. — — http://www.denninger.net        Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY! GO HOME SORE LOSERMAN AND TAKE YOUR SAD SOCK PUPPETS WITH YOU! Boies – most overrated liar (and worst prognosticator) on the planet.

Response:

the statistics that somebody asembled here about how many "counties" Bush won

vs. Gore.  The number of states, and the number of counties, and the size of the cattle herds in Bush country are meaningless.<< — Gould Right.  Irrelevant and immaterial.  Case dismissed.

Response:

Steve I understand about the electoral college, really I do. Bush won, sort of, the electoral college, (by a 4 vote margin) and is our next president.

I think you’d better add up the electoral votes again…he won by a *1* vote margin. He’s no worse than the other choice and he *will* be gone in four.

Maybe…maybe not. It depends on what’s going on in country and/or the world at the time. Bush Sr’s popularity right after the Gulf War was so high that if it had just happened a year later–in election year–he’d have beaten Clinton–or any other candidate–with a landslide. It just happened a year too early. Peggie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The fact that a lot of states where almost nobody lives voted for him is just a footnote and doesn’t affect the score. Last President to slide into office with such a small margin in the electoral college was Rutherford (aka Rutherfraud) Hayes. He greased through with a single electoral college vote. In reality this race might be as close, since there were fewer states when Hayes ran for (and was after a single term was run *from*) office. Last I checked, it seemed like the standard was one person, one vote. You checked wrong, at least for President.  It won’t be that way until the Electoral College is abolished. Not one vote per acre. That’s actually closer to the truth.  The votes of people in less densly populated states (the ones with more acres per person) count more than in other states. There are places in the desert and plains states where entire counties might not have much more population than a square block of Manhattan. If you want your vote to be weighted greater, move to those desert and plains states. So what? Everybody is just as equally American as the next guy. (or gal) Not when it comes to the Presidential election. Steve Chuck Gould Float and let float.

Response:

The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job.

The best joke I heard this morning on the radio… Bush, Cheney and Powell, following the yellow brick road to Washington, DC, to meet the wizard who can grant them what they need most: Bush            a brain Cheney          a heart Powell          courage — Harry Krause As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards. -GW Bush

Response:

Steve I understand about the electoral college, really I do. The "one vote per acre" crack was intended as a rebuttal to the statistics that somebody asembled here about how many "counties" Bush won vs. Gore. The number of states, and the number of counties, and the size of the cattle herds in Bush country are meaningless. What counts is the electoral vote, and the folks who wave the map of all the less populated states and try to establish that this creates a strong mandate for Bush are incorrect. Bush won, sort of, the electoral college, (by a 4 vote margin) and is our next president. He’s no worse than the other choice and he *will* be gone in four. The fact that a lot of states where almost nobody lives voted for him is just a footnote and doesn’t affect the score. Last President to slide into office with such a small margin in the electoral college was Rutherford (aka Rutherfraud) Hayes. He greased through with a single electoral college vote. In reality this race might be as close, since there were fewer states when Hayes ran for (and was after a single term was run *from*) office. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Last I checked, it seemed like the standard was one person, one vote. You checked wrong, at least for President.  It won’t be that way until the Electoral College is abolished. Not one vote per acre. That’s actually closer to the truth.  The votes of people in less densly populated states (the ones with more acres per person) count more than in other states. There are places in the desert and plains states where entire counties might not have much more population than a square block of Manhattan. If you want your vote to be weighted greater, move to those desert and plains states. So what? Everybody is just as equally American as the next guy. (or gal) Not when it comes to the Presidential election. Steve

Chuck Gould Float and let float.

Response:

Amusing is right. You’re not accounting for the suburbs which comprise the majority population of most large metropolitan areas.

Suburbs went mostly for Bush.  It was the major metropolitan CITIES that Gore carried.

Response:

Last I checked, it seemed like the standard was one person, one vote. Not one vote per acre. There are places in the desert and plains states where entire counties might not have much more population than a square block of Manhattan. So what? Everybody is just as equally American as the next guy. (or gal) Chuck Gould Float and let float.

Response:

Depends on which suburbs in which cities. In most–if not all–cities, the suburbs range from blue collar to very affluent. The very affluent ones have the smallest populations–fewer affluent people, larger lots, bigger houses. Upper middle class suburbs have larger populations, but the majority of the suburbs are blue collar, middle class, lower middle class…and some are predominantly black/ethnic. In the industrialized north, that means a large number of union members…most of whom voted for Gore. I happen to live a large county that spans the whole gamut…affluent and upper middle class at the north end of it, just the opposite in the entire south end of it…mostly academics in the middle of it. Guess who carried it…it wasn’t Bush. In fact, my congresswoman is a black democrat who hasn’t even had a close race in at least 6 elections. Peggie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amusing is right. You’re not accounting for the suburbs which comprise the majority population of most large metropolitan areas. Suburbs went mostly for Bush.  It was the major metropolitan CITIES that Gore carried.

Response:

Got this in e-mail: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677 Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 States won by Bush: 29 States won by Gore: 19 And now for the most remarkable finding…. Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2 The Federalist’s crack staff of researchers found one more interesting fact that might help explain these disparate murder rates. Gun ownership in the counties won by Mr. Bush is much higher than in the counties won by Mr. Gore! Considering the fact that the murder rate in "Gore Country" is 130 times higher than it is in "Bush Country," it comes as no surprise that the Miami Herald has found thus far, 445 votes from convicted felons in the Florida presidential election-almost all of them for Albert. (Undoubtedly, this is true for felons on death row….) Of note, the report only reviewed 8% of the state’s voting records. Project that finding on the total Florida vote and one might deduce that almost 5,000 felons illegally voted for Gore.

Response:

It makes for amusing reading, but all it really shows is that Gore carried the largest major cities–NY, Chicago, LA, Detroit, including the so-called "inner cities" where populations are the most dense and crime is the highest, and Bush carried the rest of the country. But that was kind of evident from the map showing which states went for which candidate. I like it though. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Got this in e-mail: Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677 Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 States won by Bush: 29 States won by Gore: 19 And now for the most remarkable finding…. Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2 The Federalist’s crack staff of researchers found one more interesting fact that might help explain these disparate murder rates. Gun ownership in the counties won by Mr. Bush is much higher than in the counties won by Mr. Gore! Considering the fact that the murder rate in "Gore Country" is 130 times higher than it is in "Bush Country," it comes as no surprise that the Miami Herald has found thus far, 445 votes from convicted felons in the Florida presidential election-almost all of them for Albert. (Undoubtedly, this is true for felons on death row….) Of note, the report only reviewed 8% of the state’s voting records. Project that finding on the total Florida vote and one might deduce that almost 5,000 felons illegally voted for Gore.

Response:

Got this in e-mail: Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677

Bush carried all the flyover zones. Harry Krause I understand small business growth. I was one. -GW Bush

Response:

Amusing is right. You’re not accounting for the suburbs which comprise the majority population of most large metropolitan areas. Perhaps you can enlighten us to the corollaries you’ve drawn? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It makes for amusing reading, but all it really shows is that Gore carried the largest major cities–NY, Chicago, LA, Detroit, including the so-called "inner cities" where populations are the most dense and crime is the highest, and Bush carried the rest of the country. But that was kind of evident from the map showing which states went for which candidate. I like it though. Got this in e-mail: Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677 Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 States won by Bush: 29 States won by Gore: 19 And now for the most remarkable finding…. Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2 The Federalist’s crack staff of researchers found one more interesting fact that might help explain these disparate murder rates. Gun ownership in the counties won by Mr. Bush is much higher than in the counties won by Mr. Gore! Considering the fact that the murder rate in "Gore Country" is 130 times higher than it is in "Bush Country," it comes as no surprise that the Miami Herald has found thus far, 445 votes from convicted felons in the Florida presidential election-almost all of them for Albert. (Undoubtedly, this is true for felons on death row….) Of note, the report only reviewed 8% of the state’s voting records. Project that finding on the total Florida vote and one might deduce that almost 5,000 felons illegally voted for Gore.

Response:

Question:

 I am trying to find some information on what I believe is an accounting/finance rule that describes the need to make a certain percentage of your revenue in the first quarter to be able to make your year end budget.  I believe it is called the "rule of 58s"?  Any information specifically where to learn more about this rule would be appreciated.  jb.

Response:

I am trying to find some information on what I believe is an accounting/finance rule that describes the need to make a certain percentage of your revenue in the first quarter to be able to make your year end budget.  I believe it is called the "rule of 58s"?  Any information specifically where to learn more about this rule would be appreciated.  jb.

Never heard of this.  I have heard of the Rule of 78 (which I always thought would be a fantastic name for a punk band… remember you heard it here first folks!).  That’s basically the Sum of Digits method, and is so called because 78 is 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12.  If you were depreciating over 12 months using SoDs you’d recognise 12/78 in the first month, 11/78 in the second month etc.  Don’t know if this is what you’re looking for. — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Question:

These are the top 5 accounting packages that we’ve seen clients using on the higher end.   Typically higher end means the software processes a greater number of transactions without slowing down and offers a greater number of features such as enhanced inventory and order entry. In no particular order – and with comments attached – these are the top 5 that we’ve encountered: ACCPAC – Older system. Best feature seems to be that it has lots of users. http://www.accpac.com Macola – A favorite of companies looking for canned manufacturing software. A little more difficult to use if you aren’t primarily looking to use the manufacturing modules. http://www.macola.com Great Plains – Perennial top choice for their excellent technical support.  Their Dynamics program is very flexible but may still have some stability concerns.  Success with this program seems very dependent on the reseller doing the installation. http://www.gps.com Solomon – A favorite for those looking to customize. Similar stability issues as Great Plains due to the fact that it was rewritten from the ground up. Market for this software tends to be larger companies with adequate budget to getting it up and going.  http://www.solomon.com MAS 90 – Over 90,000 users nationwide.  They didn’t rewrite from the ground up for their windows product and that allowed for a more feature rich and stable product. We have latest info on our site at http://www.s-consult.com or you can surf on over to the official MAS 90 site at http://www.sota.com Schulz Consulting http://www.s-consult.com MAS 90 accounting software consultants since 1986 860-295-9271 Keywords: MAS90 , Connecticut, CT, Accounting, Support

Response:

Just FYI: Accpac is not an older system, it’s pretty much current in all aspects of the accounting software development, including Windows versions of the product, Web integration, etc.  And usually lots of users do not appear overnight for no reason: there must be some other "best feature", don’t  you think . Regards, Serguei Popovski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These are the top 5 accounting packages that we’ve seen clients using on the higher end. Typically higher end means the software processes a greater number of transactions without slowing down and offers a greater number of features such as enhanced inventory and order entry. In no particular order – and with comments attached – these are the top 5 that we’ve encountered: ACCPAC – Older system. Best feature seems to be that it has lots of users. http://www.accpac.com Macola – A favorite of companies looking for canned manufacturing software. A little more difficult to use if you aren’t primarily looking to use the manufacturing modules. http://www.macola.com Great Plains – Perennial top choice for their excellent technical support.  Their Dynamics program is very flexible but may still have some stability concerns.  Success with this program seems very dependent on the reseller doing the installation. http://www.gps.com Solomon – A favorite for those looking to customize. Similar stability issues as Great Plains due to the fact that it was rewritten from the ground up. Market for this software tends to be larger companies with adequate budget to getting it up and going.  http://www.solomon.com MAS 90 – Over 90,000 users nationwide.  They didn’t rewrite from the ground up for their windows product and that allowed for a more feature rich and stable product. We have latest info on our site at http://www.s-consult.com or you can surf on over to the official MAS 90 site at http://www.sota.com Schulz Consulting http://www.s-consult.com MAS 90 accounting software consultants since 1986 860-295-9271 Keywords: MAS90 , Connecticut, CT, Accounting, Support

Response:

Do any of these have greater strengths for Wholesale Distribution companies? says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In no particular order – and with comments attached – these are the top 5 that we’ve encountered: ACCPAC – Older system. Best feature seems to be that it has lots of users. http://www.accpac.com Macola – A favorite of companies looking for canned manufacturing software. A little more difficult to use if you aren’t primarily looking to use the manufacturing modules. http://www.macola.com Great Plains – Perennial top choice for their excellent technical support.  Their Dynamics program is very flexible but may still have some stability concerns.  Success with this program seems very dependent on the reseller doing the installation. http://www.gps.com Solomon – A favorite for those looking to customize. Similar stability issues as Great Plains due to the fact that it was rewritten from the ground up. Market for this software tends to be larger companies with adequate budget to getting it up and going.  http://www.solomon.com MAS 90 – Over 90,000 users nationwide.  They didn’t rewrite from the ground up for their windows product and that allowed for a more feature rich and stable product. We have latest info on our site at http://www.s-consult.com or you can surf on over to the official MAS 90 site at http://www.sota.com

Response:

Question:

On 2-4-97 you wrote: >…snip…  I >am seriously thinking of retiring with "disability."  To do so, would be >a VERY mysterious step.  Can anyone who has send some advise as to what >I should expect, what I should be aware of.

Steve,      Sorry that things are not going well.  On the plus side, stopping work may make you feel better.      Are you employed by a private company or by the government?  I worked for the state of Ohio.  They have a seperate retirement program for their employees, so my disability retirement is through them.   Lyse    :-)  

Response:

Hi Steve.  When work got to be too much for me I applied for Social Security and took long term disability from my employer.  It all went fairly smoothly although I was a nervous wreck waiting to see if I would be accepted.  It involved filling out forms and medical exams.  I don’t know your particular situation but all you can to is try.  

Response:

Steve Smith <s19sm…@rochester.infi.net> wrote in article <32F813A8.2…@rochester.infi.net>… >..snip.. I > am seriously thinking of retiring with "disability."  To do so, would be > a VERY mysterious step.  Can anyone who has send some advise as to what > I should expect, what I should be aware of. > …snip.. >                    Steve

Steve, In 1989 I opted for disability retirement, feeling I was no longer "working for a living," but rather "living for a working."  I applied for SSDI and Long Term Disability retirement through my employer.  SSDI has a built in waiting period but I had no problems qualifying for it the first time I applied.  Best advice I can offer here is take and keep copies of all of the forms you have to fill out.  They can get lost in the mail or at SS offices.  You really don’t want to have to recreate them. As far as retirement itself, be prepared for the change.  If your sense of self-identity is tied up strongly in your occupation, it may take a while to get used to the change while you create a new self-identity.  I engaged myself in publishing a newsletter for about 4 years before I had to give it up.  (It too became a "job.") My other advice would be to talk to your family, friends, financial advisor, and your doctor(s) before taking this "mysterious" step.  They will undoubtedly have questions and/or advice to offer.  Remember though, only YOU will know when the timing is right for YOU to leave your job.  I would also not recommend reducing your hours or taking a lessor position (at reduced pay) as ultimately it will effect the amount you are able to collect under SSDI and/or LTD. Best of luck to you, Ted

Response:

Steve Smith <s19sm…@rochester.infi.net> wrote: >Hi people, >I’m looking for some advice.  Lately, work has been a struggle, I feel I >am always behind the eight-ball.  My walking (crutches) is labored.  I

Steve, Two years ago I was in the same situation.  I’m now working part-time and that seems to work fairly well.  I have time to take care of myself, but still get out and feel useful by working.  (I have the advantage of an LTD policy which allows me to work part time.) Best of luck, Z +————————————————————————+ + Carolyn C. Zimmer       | "I’ve been warped by the rain,               | + Duluth, GA              |  driven by the snow, I’m drunk and dirty,    | + cczim…@mindspring.com |  don’t you know, But I’m still…willin’"    | + STANDARD DISCLAIMER     |                               Lowell George  | +————————————————————————+

Response:

AMEN, Zimmer!  I took my disability retirement and then turned right around to go back to work half-time.  It all works out that my pension plan plus my (reduced) earnings do me very well, and I am happy because I’m still working for the same employer, with my same friends, and am able to concentrate much more energy and focus into my work because I only have half as much! Paul

Response:

Hi people, I’m looking for some advice.  Lately, work has been a struggle, I feel I am always behind the eight-ball.  My walking (crutches) is labored.  I am seriously thinking of retiring with "disability."  To do so, would be a VERY mysterious step.  Can anyone who has send some advise as to what I should expect, what I should be aware of. This forum is outstanding–people in the same boat, but all pulling together.                         Steve

Response:

dolores carmona <hfoao…@EMAIL.CSUN.EDU> wrote: >I am so sad!  My MS is getting worse.  I work eight hours a day and I can >not do it any more.  The fatigue is getting to me.  Although I have a sit >down job and basically just do computer work all day, I get very tired.

Dolores, I know where you are — I was in the same situation two years ago with work.  Being a type-A (which I think most pwms are), I was convinced that I could manage everything by just using a power chair.  BULL. The fatigue was still there and I almost went crazy with all the meds the docs were using to try to overcome it (they kept me awake, but didn’t do anything about the draining fatigue).  I am fortunate enough to have good LTD, and it lets me work part time.  My husband says that my general health, demeanor, and everything else is better now that I’m not tearing my hair out trying to keep up. Hugss — Z +————————————————————————+ + Carolyn C. Zimmer       | "I’ve been warped by the rain,               | + Duluth, GA              |  driven by the snow, I’m drunk and dirty,    | + cczim…@mindspring.com |  don’t you know, But I’m still…willin’"    | + STANDARD DISCLAIMER     |                               Lowell George  | +————————————————————————+

Response:

Hi Dolores, I sympathize with you. I, too, know what it’s like to give up on a dream. I was in university majoring in accounting when I had to quit. I was very young at the time and I thought my life was over…but it’s not. I’m 43 years old now and this group has helped me out immensely in coping. Just listening and understanding everybody’s problems lets me know that I’m not alone. I, also share the same problem as you with my bowel. Before I was completely incontinent and at least now I sometimes make it to the bathroom. I know right now things seem bleak, but give it time and I’m sure you’ll feel better about yourself. Hang in there. My thoughts are with you. Take care and all the best. Dawn ************************** – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I am so sad!  My MS is getting worse.  I work eight hours a day and I can >not do it any more.  The fatigue is getting to me.  Although I have a sit >down job and basically just do computer work all day, I get very tired. >I poop on my self every now and then because I can’t walk fast enough to >the restroom.  So I have to go home.  When I get to tired and can barely >hold my head up, I go home.  I think this year is my last year working. >I am going to see my neuro on Wednesday, I am going to let him know that >I can’t fake it anymore.  This is so weird for me because I am only 45, >and I will not be working anymore. >Thanks for listening, >Dolores >On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Paul Sweeney wrote: >> AMEN, Zimmer!  I took my disability retirement and then >> turned right around to go back to work half-time.  It all >> works out that my pension plan plus my (reduced) earnings do >> me very well, and I am happy because I’m still working for >> the same employer, with my same friends, and am able to >> concentrate much more energy and focus into my work because >> I only have half as much! >> Paul

Response:

hang in there dolores

Response:

Thank You Alix, I did go see my neuro the other day, and I went in with a list of new symptoms.  He was not moved at all by my concern, he just said that it was a part of the MS.  He started me on Amantidine.  I was feeling so tired at work I felt so weak.  Does anyone have any suggestions, precautions that I should be aware about with this drug?  I need to work at least 2 more years.  I would like to pay my bills off and then retire without worrying about my bills. Dolores – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Alix McCollum wrote: > Dear Dolores:  I know how you feel, but I have great news for you.  I too > had to quit work and > when I did I thought my life was over and in fact I vegetated for a year, > then, I went to a > support group and met people who showed me I was wrong.  Quitting work is a > problem only > with regard to income and SSDI helps with that.  However, being free of a > job brings a whole > new world, like sleeping in whenever you want to, watching TV, reading any > hour of the day or > night as you wish, attending things you couldn’t before because of work

Response:

In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.970308132749.16158A-100…@csun2.csun.edu>, dolores carmona  <hfoao…@EMAIL.CSUN.EDU> wrote: >Thank You Alix, >I did go see my neuro the other day, and I went in with a list of new >symptoms.  He was not moved at all by my concern, he just said that it >was a part of the MS.  He started me on Amantidine.  I was feeling so >tired at work I felt so weak.  Does anyone have any suggestions, >precautions that I should be aware about with this drug?  I need to work >at least 2 more years.  I would like to pay my bills off and then retire >without worrying about my bills.

If you are carefule speed ritilan and dexidrene will help the fatigue. Be careful you can hurt your self whith them. It workd for me It got me about 30 more months. They are not with out side effects. Gordon 624 Cheyenne Stillwater, OK 74075 405.624.2855 home

Response:

  He started me on Amantidine.  I was feeling so >tired at work I felt so weak.  Does anyone have any suggestions, >precautions that I should be aware about with this drug?

Hi Dolores: Amantadine has been around a very long time. Primarily used for Parkinson’s disease and an anti-viral drug. There are no known long term complications from it but your not suppose to drink alcohol while on it. It does work on fatigue with success in 50% of the people with MS. It has been a life saver for me. Before Amantadine I went to bed exhausted and woke up tired. After Amantadine while I do have to pace myself my energy level is nearly normal. If the Amantadine does not work on you there are some other drugs than can be tried for the fatigue so be sure and get back to your doctor. Take care and good luck.                                  Pam McHenry   Indianapolis, IN

Response:

I am so sad!  My MS is getting worse.  I work eight hours a day and I can not do it any more.  The fatigue is getting to me.  Although I have a sit down job and basically just do computer work all day, I get very tired. I poop on my self every now and then because I can’t walk fast enough to the restroom.  So I have to go home.  When I get to tired and can barely hold my head up, I go home.  I think this year is my last year working. I am going to see my neuro on Wednesday, I am going to let him know that I can’t fake it anymore.  This is so weird for me because I am only 45, and I will not be working anymore. Thanks for listening, Dolores – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Paul Sweeney wrote: > AMEN, Zimmer!  I took my disability retirement and then > turned right around to go back to work half-time.  It all > works out that my pension plan plus my (reduced) earnings do > me very well, and I am happy because I’m still working for > the same employer, with my same friends, and am able to > concentrate much more energy and focus into my work because > I only have half as much! > Paul

Response:

Dear Dolores:  I know how you feel, but I have great news for you.  I too had to quit work and when I did I thought my life was over and in fact I vegetated for a year, then, I went to a support group and met people who showed me I was wrong.  Quitting work is a problem only with regard to income and SSDI helps with that.  However, being free of a job brings a whole new world, like sleeping in whenever you want to, watching TV, reading any hour of the day or night as you wish, attending things you couldn’t before because of work hours, having time to indulge in crafts or whatever, travel.  Gosh just a whole myriad of good things out there including starting a home business if you want.  I know it’s hard, at first, but try to adopt the attitude "Gosh, I’ll be free to be me" and not working as in the past will seem like a godsend. Personally, I’m busier now than I ever was. Best wishes and good health to you, Hugs, Alix At 12:21 PM 3/3/97 -0800, you wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I am so sad!  My MS is getting worse.  I work eight hours a day and I can >not do it any more.  The fatigue is getting to me.  Although I have a sit >down job and basically just do computer work all day, I get very tired. >I poop on my self every now and then because I can’t walk fast enough to >the restroom.  So I have to go home.  When I get to tired and can barely >hold my head up, I go home.  I think this year is my last year working. >I am going to see my neuro on Wednesday, I am going to let him know that >I can’t fake it anymore.  This is so weird for me because I am only 45, >and I will not be working anymore. >Thanks for listening, >Dolores >On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Paul Sweeney wrote: >> AMEN, Zimmer!  I took my disability retirement and then >> turned right around to go back to work half-time.  It all >> works out that my pension plan plus my (reduced) earnings do >> me very well, and I am happy because I’m still working for >> the same employer, with my same friends, and am able to >> concentrate much more energy and focus into my work because >> I only have half as much! >> Paul

Response:

On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 14:49:23 -0700, Alix McCollum <amac…@XROADS.COM> wrote: >Dear Dolores:  I know how you feel, but I have great news for you.  I too >had to quit work and >when I did I thought my life was over and in fact I vegetated for a year, >then, I went to a >support group and met people who showed me I was wrong.

I agree.  When every bit of energy you can muster has to go into keeping your job going, there is little left over at the end of the day.  I often fell asleep as soon as I got home and dropped onto the sofa.  I slept most weekends. Retirement gave me time to do the things that meant a lot to me.   Kate M. For more information about MS, the following web sites will point the way: http://aspin.asu.edu/msnews http://www.helsinki.fi/~ahalko/ms.html http://www.infosci.org

Response:

Dolores,     As several people have pointed out recently retirement can be a very positive step.  In your case, though, it sounds as if you would rather continue working if you could do an honest job of it and avoid exhaustion. Have you discussed the use of drugs to combat fatigue with your doctor? Some have found that Amantadine has really turned their day around.  The bathroom issue may be relatively simple.  My company purchased a standard wheelchair for me to use when getting to meetings on time became an issue (the air conditioning in the building is not always adequate for me).  I use the chair to get to scheduled meetings and to get to the bathroom when time seems critical.    By all means consider retirement if that is the answer but you should explore other options if you have no done so already. David Reiss  On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, dolores carmona wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am so sad!  My MS is getting worse.  I work eight hours a day and I can > not do it any more.  The fatigue is getting to me.  Although I have a sit > down job and basically just do computer work all day, I get very tired. > I poop on my self every now and then because I can’t walk fast enough to > the restroom.  So I have to go home.  When I get to tired and can barely > hold my head up, I go home.  I think this year is my last year working. > I am going to see my neuro on Wednesday, I am going to let him know that > I can’t fake it anymore.  This is so weird for me because I am only 45, > and I will not be working anymore.

Response:

Question:

Perpetually Indignant Persons Syndrome? Find out if you have it? http://www.webcom.com/joe6pack

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All dismal failures. It is true that IQ’s have gone up (the Flynn effect) but it is not true that there has been shown to be a correlation between poverty and IQ. These issues have been discussed at length and shown to be of little merit. It is safe to say that with regards to IQ testing and evaluation it is better to restrict the data to the last 30 years when psychometrics was more mature. Hate to burst your bubble of hope. But you rely on an eclectic smattering of half truths and wishful thinking not founded on scientific evidence. You might try telling that to the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a press release stating that the science behind the Bell Curve was "fraudulent." By the way, I listed some very specific examples, including many within the last 30 years, and you simply dismissed them with the phrase "All dismal failures," without offering any evidence. I think if you check the literature on the subject, you will find a broad consensus among psychologists that intervention programs for the young do indeed raise IQs in children. If you have any evidence to the contrary, you should present it.

First, I would like to see the National Academy of Sciences press release or tell me where I can find it. Second, what is the science behind The Bell Curve? I haven’t seen a copy in about 18 months and I do not base my science on it, so what is the point? Also, you are right about the consensus that early childhood intervention raises a child’s IQ, just like early intervention in music lessons will increase there ability to play music later in life. The problem is, it has only a minimal effect on IQ that will last into adulthood. The most comprehensive series of articles I have come across have been in the April issue of Child Development. The whole issue addresses intervention, poverty, etc. and as far as I can tell all it shows is that there is no evidence of early intervention success outside of the Carolina Abecedarian Project, where the effects of early intervention were failing fast as the participants approached age 12. It will be interesting to see the results of another longitudinal study in 2 years when they are 16. It looks like most of the gains from a rigorous intervention from the age of a few months on will be mostly lost. But if we paid as much attention to all children as we did for this dismally small sample (statistically speaking) at an early age we would have yes a marginally smarter adult population but at what cost? It is far easier and cost effective to just breed smarter kids rather than try to make stupid kids smart. Especially since only very marginal improvements can be achieved by education. There again is no evidence that the IQ gap is narrowing, only that everyone’s IQ has increased due to unknown causes that we may never see again. You must have slept through the above paragraph. All the numbers above are for REDUCTIONS IN THE GAP between white and black IQs. This is independent of the Flynn Effect. By the way, the Flynn Effect is theorized to be the result of improving health care around the world, and a rise in the world’s absolute standard of living. That’s *another* example of how prosperity increases IQ growth.

I sorry but the evidence on a closing gap between white and black in IQ is just not there. There have been some scholastic gains, no doubt do to the dumbing down of education. But the standard deviation gap is still present and accounted for. Also, you do not seem to understand the difference between achievement tests and IQ tests. Though one can be reflective of the other they are not the same. With this statement, you prove to me that you know very little about the subject of IQ, and everything you know about the subject has come from the Bell Curve debate. (Have you even read this book? So many claim its arguments without even bothering to read it.)

Sorry, but I get most of my information from the journal Intelligence, from the book Will We Be Smart Enough by Earl Hunt, and numerous other journals and books. If you do not understand the difference between IQ and achievement you may want to check out many of the fine journals on educational development, especially those that talk about using IQ tests to determine if children are learning up to their abilities. The accepted criteria for determining if a child has a learning disability is to compare academic achievement against innate IQ through testing. If you cannot understand that this could not be done if they were the same then you have a poor understanding of psychometrics. Achievement tests are often used as a proxy for intelligence when given to large groups of students, but caution must be taken when using it for individuals. Various acheivement tests do indeed measure IQ — that is why MENSA accepts them for membership.

I think if you read any of the many books on this subject you will see how they are different but can be mutually useful. Your understanding of the two is very sophomoric. What is significant is that the 15 point IQ gap between blacks and whites has not been successfully reduced despite many programs that have been designed to reduce it. Any shrinkage or the gap re-emerges as the children grow up. Even Murray and Herrnstein admit to a large role of social factors in affecting IQ. IQ is like height — it runs in the family, but better childhood nutrition affects it too. That is why the Japanese, after adopting a Western diet after World War II, became as tall as Americans in a few short generations.

Many things in the environment impact growth and development. That is not disputed. What is disputed is whether intelligence is accounted for by genes as much as by environment. It is accepted that they are both important. What I contend is that given this, much of the gap between different groups, on average, is due to genetics rather than social disadvantage. Not all but most I contend is genetic. If it wasn’t we would have at least ONE definitive study showing intervention capable of eliminating the gap and having it last into adulthood. To date, no study has come even remotely close to this. But the Minnesota Twin Studies have been widely accepted by even Gould and Gardner of such robust proof of the genetic link between IQ and genes that is can no longer be ignored. I base my science on all of the available evidence. And the most parsimonious explanation so far is genetics for the large IQ gap between different groups averages. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No. It is easy to explain. Because of large social disruptions and migrations different states have different ethnic make-ups as well as opportunities. First, we can use the number of black people as a proxy for the average intelligence of a community, or the number of Jews. They are not evenly represented in all communities. Also, even within the same ethnic groups, the more intelligent may move out of a depressed area leaving the lower intelligence members behind. Just because the founding  immigrants may have been homogeneous (if in fact they were) does not mean different ecologies have not played a part in population migrations that have caused disparate intelligences between states or cities. This would be rather expected in a mobile population. Sorry to spoil your racist rationalizations, but the same correlation between poverty and IQ exists within racial groups as well. There is a large body of literature on this subject; avail yourself to it.

Of course there is. Smart Irish are well off and very dumb Irish will find themselves in poverty. Was this the point you were trying to make? Daaah! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t arbitrarily choose one over the other but base it on the wealth of data available. Differences in the IQ’s of people seems much more believable than the hypothesis that when people have a sense of inequality in incomes those on the bottom rungs somehow get sick more often, in spite of actual wealth or prosperity. That is a real reach and should be rejected based on the principle of parsimony. Strawman. Poverty causes higher mortality rates because poor people cannot afford better nutrition, health care, education, and less toxic work and living environments. The reason why inequality matters — as opposed to absolute standard of living — is because the costs of all the above things is relative too. For example, health care has greatly improved over the last 100 years. So have people’s life spans — including the poor. But costs have risen too. Doctors may develop a new surgical technique that can save lives — but it costs $50,000. In a more equal society, more people could afford it, but in an unequal society, the poor are denied it. And that is why inequality matters in spite of absolute standard of living.

This is a direct contradiction to what the original post contended. I do not take issue with the assumption that if you are in poverty you will fair poorly medically. It was the original article that took issue with this assumption. The original research stated that the poor felt like they were inequitably treated and that is why their health was poor. Some kind of hypochondria. I took issue with that statement and now you are agreeing with me!! Man you have a real problem staying focused. Go back and read the original post before arguing my point for me.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …The 1940s, 1950s and 1960s featured the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. Taxes were highly progressive and redistributive; the top rate was between 88 and 91 percent for most of that time. Only in the 80s was progressivity lost, as the top rate came down to 28 percent. And look at the difference between the two eras: We boomed in those periods because the rest of the world was still recovering from WWII, not because of sky-high taxes on the evil rich. Germany and the rest of Europe was in shambles, Japan was still being rebuilt (with the proceeds from those high tax rates) and the rest of Asia was not yet in a position to challenge us in the markets of the world.   Russia and China were too busy killing their own citizens to worry about expanding into world markets, and we were decades ahead of them in technology, anyway.  Of course our economy boomed through the roof – we had no competitors on the planet!!  To point to our sky-high tax rates and indicate that they, not a lack of competition, were to thank for the prosperity of those decades is simply ridiculous.  MH No serious economist believes that international "competition" exists on a global market, and I would challenge you to find one. A nation’s productivity depends almost solely on its domestic factors — period. Paul Krugman led a revolution in a trade theory in the last 5 years by these findings, and it appears he’s on the short list of Nobel prize winners because of it. He writes: "If you hear someone say something along the lines of ‘America needs higher productivity so that it can compete in today’s global economy,’ never mind who he is, or how plausible he sounds. He might as well be wearing a flashing neon sign that reads: ‘I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.’" Henry Kissinger got the most admired Nobel prize of them all the Nobel Peace prize.  And he had a great hand in converting a peaceful island of stability in Cambodia into killing fields.  He even had a hand in the continuing genocide in East Timor. An economist condemning ignorance is as laughable as a lawyer condemning lies. Actually I agree with the main part of Steve’s thesis but some of his analysis is suspect.  Tax rates up to 91% were paid by no one.  As

 Although Mr. Kangas can speak for his position himself, my take  on what you just wrote is that you missed the forest because  the trees got in your way. It’s true few, if any, paid at 91%.  But the question is why. The tax code contained incentives for the  wealthy to convert their income…and in profitable ways. By the  1980s tax loopholes had become so corrupt that racehorses and art  were better investments than plant and equipment.  Our problem today is that while those loopholes were erased so  were the tax incentives to invest in plant and equipment. Why should  a Monet be more lucrative an investment than a new assembly line  in a Ford plant? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -always the rich could employ accountants and lawyers to pay in fact whatever tax they wished to.  Politicians have always compliantly provided loopholes.  Who does Steve think elects these guys?  David Rockefeller once testified that he had never needed to pay any tax but always made a contribution.  The people caught by high tax rates were those far down the income scale. The real difference in taxes is the tax increase – declared to be no tax – in the the payroll tax.  There has been no greater shift of income from the poor to the wealthy than this incredibly regressive tax.  The fiction remains that it is for the benefit of the poor workers who are most burdened by it. <snip Best,    Terry "Positive – Being wrong at the top of one’s lungs"                                  - The Devil’s Dictionary

– rha

Response:

                        Y’all got this one backassward.                         Social problems breed inequality.                         Very little is done about the                         major social problems other than                         to bring them into some form of                         manageability, which in turn is                         a foundation for bureaucracy.                         DCI

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have you ignored every scintilla of historical evidence that shows us that massive government-mandated wealth redistribution schemes never achieve their alleged purpose?  But… I could be wrong. You are indeed very wrong. The 1940s, 1950s and 1960s featured the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. Taxes were highly progressive and redistributive; the top rate was between 88 and 91 percent for most of that time. Only in the 80s was progressivity lost, as the top rate came down to 28 percent. And look at the difference between the two eras: We boomed in those periods because the rest of the world was still recovering from WWII, not because of sky-high taxes on the evil rich. Germany and the rest of Europe was in shambles, Japan was still being rebuilt (with the proceeds from those high tax rates) and the rest of Asia was not yet in a position to challenge us in the markets of the world.   Russia and China were too busy killing their own citizens to worry about expanding into world markets, and we were decades ahead of them in technology, anyway.  Of course our economy boomed through the roof – we had no competitors on the planet!!  To point to our sky-high tax rates and indicate that they, not a lack of competition, were to thank for the prosperity of those decades is simply ridiculous.  MH No serious economist believes that international "competition" exists on a global market, and I would challenge you to find one. A nation’s productivity depends almost solely on its domestic factors — period. Tell this to GM and the other American automakers.  They made gas-guzzling behemoths with impunity till the Japanese bit them in the ass.  I drive a Honda and it beats the hell out of any American car I

  Please tell this to people who say the ruination of the American   auto industry was the fault of the union. NOPE, it was bad management   preferring cheap, but bad, engineering.   Those union assembly line workers could only assembly what they   were given. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -ever had.  Tell the hundreds of thousands of former American auto workers than foreign competition had no bearing on their jobs becoming nonexistent, and they’ll either laugh or punch you.  Tell IBM that Toshiba and Matshushita aren’t threats to their domestic market, and don’t need to be factored in.  I guess Sony is irrelevant, because no "serious" economist believes that there is any such thing as global competition.  Pray tell, what other explanation might you have for the economic upheaval we’ve been going through for twenty years?  Lack of government spending, perhaps? Paul Krugman led a revolution in a trade theory in the last 5 years by these findings, and it appears he’s on the short list of Nobel prize winners because of it. He writes: "If you hear someone say something along the lines of ‘America needs higher productivity so that it can compete in today’s global economy,’ never mind who he is, or how plausible he sounds. He might as well be wearing a flashing neon sign that reads: ‘I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.’" You might be interested to know that international trade was never more than 6 percent of the U.S. economy between World War II and 1960. I would challenge you to explain why you think such a small part of the economy would have such a major impact that it would fuel the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. You use terms like "simply ridiculous" to describe opposition to your beliefs, but I can already tell that you haven’t even studied the fundamentals of economics, and I reject your calumny until you can prove that you can post an informed argument. Well, it was American firms who rebuilt Japan and Europe, and it was American firms who armed us to the teeth to protect us from the red menace.  This was all done with American products.  Also, the fact that international trade was only 6% or less of our economy actually supports my view, not yours.  American firms had no viable challenge in our domestic markets, so everything that was bought was bought from American firms.  All of our money was spent on things that were made here at home, which obviously contributed to the booming of American business. We thrived in those periods because we were in an isolation chamber – there were no foreign firms offering products to Americans, so no American dollars went back overseas.  Contrast this with today, where most of the things on the store shelves originated somewhere overseas, at least in part. American firms are having to compete in a global market, with firms who are perhaps more efficient or at the very least get to benefit from paying thier workers a wage 1/10 of what we pay ours.   The poor didn’t get poorer in the sense that their standard of living fell.  To look at a pie chart and see that the rich got a bigger slice of the pie than before neglects the fact that the entire pie got bigger over the timeframe. Absolutely false, and completely uninformed. The following chart shows the falling weekly incomes of nonsupervisory workers, who form roughly four-fifths of the civilian workforce: Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry, 1982 dollars 1965  $290 1970   297 1973   315  (Peak) 1975   292 1976   297 1977   299 1978   301 1979   291 1980   274 1981   271 1982   267 1983   272 1984   274 1985   271 1986   271 1987   269 1988   266 1989   263 1990   259 1991   255 1992   255  (Nadir) The poor here have a higher standard of living that in Mexico, India, Bangladesh, most of Africa, and indeed in state-run economies anywhere in the world. Completely irrelevant. Widening disparities in U.S. income have nothing to do with poverty elsewhere. We’re talking about the justice of a nation who sees the GDP grow every year and the individual wages of the vast majority of its workforce fall each year. I was attempting to lend a little perspective to the debate.  It’s difficult to moan about how poor a person is when everyone around him makes him seem prosperous by comparison.  And, again, the wages have fallen to the extent that they have because a global workforce is now available, and is begging to do the job for less money than the American worker is demanding.  The higher the wage that we demand for American workers, the more attractive that foreign worker will be to business. They aren’t poor in the sense that they’re starving to death, only "poor" in the sense that they want more money but their labor isn’t worth it in the market. You are forgetting the findings of the Harvard and Berkeley studies. They found that absolute poverty doesn’t matter so much as relative poverty — that is, inequality. The U.S. has the highest AVERAGE standard of living in the world. But among rich nations, it doesn’t have the lowest death rates, crime rates, poverty rates, high school dropout rates, etc. It actually has the highest rates among rich nations, because it has the most inequality. Regardless of what Harvard or Berkely think, I can’t call someone poor who isn’t poor.  That alot of people are better off than you does not make you any worse off.  This is politics by envy – if you feel oppressed and exploited, than you probably are. This is absurd. They feel ripped off, but they’re suffering from the fact that about 80% of the world’s population is eager, is begging to work for the wage that the American worker considers to be disgracefully inadequate.  MH There is less inequality and less poverty in the other rich nations. Workers are treated far better in Europe… infinitely better. Regardless of how infinitely better they’re treated, their standard of living is lower, though to a lesser extent than it has been the rest of the century.  Your standard of what "poverty" should be related only to the standard of living of the person you’re concerned with, not in trying to estimate how far he is from the rich family across town. Business owners went into business to make money, and in doing so they provide jobs.  But wages are part of the expenses that business owners have to factor into the prices of their products, so they have an incentive to shop around for the lowest prices for labor.  That’s human nature. If American businnesses decide to pay twice the wage that represents the market norm (i.e. what their competitors are paying) then they will have to raise prices to stay in business.  They will get killed by their competitors who are charging lower prices because they paid the going rate for labor, not some inflated sense of a "just" wage.  When the American businesses hereby go bankrupt, the workers who you are championing will be out of work altogether.  MH Do you have any empirical evidence to support your assertions? I’d be much more compelled to consider your beliefs if you would stop making proclamations by faith and back them up with evidence, statistics, studies, etc. Geez.  History vindicates my views unequivocally.  Why do you think American firms are moving jobs overseas?  Why do you think foreign firms were able to undercut our prices on automobiles, computers, and any number of things? The competitive disadvantages you speak of cannot be international in form. A thorough study by Harvard economist

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – * * You are indeed very wrong. The 1940s, 1950s and 1960s featured the greatest * economic boom in U.S. history. Taxes were highly progressive and redistributive; * the top rate was between 88 and 91 percent for most of that time. Only in the * 80s was progressivity lost, as the top rate came down to 28 percent. And look * at the difference between the two eras: * * We boomed in those periods because the rest of the world was still * recovering from WWII, not because of sky-high taxes on the evil rich. * Germany and the rest of Europe was in shambles, Japan was still being * rebuilt (with the proceeds from those high tax rates) and the rest of * Asia was not yet in a position to challenge us in the markets of the * world.   Russia and China were too busy killing their own citizens to * worry about expanding into world markets, and we were decades ahead of * them in technology, anyway.  Of course our economy boomed through the * roof – we had no competitors on the planet!!  To point to our sky-high * tax rates and indicate that they, not a lack of competition, were to * thank for the prosperity of those decades is simply ridiculous.  MH yes but according to kind of "Limbaugh logic" that would have us all believeing that Supply side economics actually works, the higher taxes should have been a disincentive to invest and produce.  THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN.  Dispite the higher taxes, expantion and investment rolled right along. All the things you point out were true as far as the world market was concerned, but the high, almost scandelious rates (by todays standerds) did not slow down production or investments. Yes, we continued to boom despite the higher taxes.  But today we lack the luxury of being the only producers on the planet.  We lack the luxury of having no competition to kick us in our complacent ass.  Fine – have every American company double their wages.  They will have to raise their prices to pay for the increased cost of the products to produce, and then they will be killed by the foreign firms who haven’t been so politically correct.  When our firms are going bankrupt because the markets have been stolen from them like candy from a baby, what are you going to propose we do?  Let me guess – the government is then going to save us, with trade restrictions and the like.  Labor costs money, like anything else.  Businesses are going to shop around for the lowest rates in order to make the most money they can and charge a lower price than their competitors.  That you find this distateful is, I’m sorry, irrelevant.

The danger, one that is becoming more prevelant, is that in many of the developing countrys, incomes are rising. Danger you ask? Danger because the North/South divide (North:Consumer countries South:Producer Countries) is turning. "Sweat shops" are popping up all over england and europe for little Asian countries that have realised where the cheap labour is. Lowering your wages opens America up to this. (And indeed the same applys to Australia where I’m from BTW) Do you want that? You are correct on business shopping around, but here I suggest government intervention. It takes ONE (count it) piece of legislation to stop foreign investment, but somehow I doubt that is going to happen now? Somehow it wouldn’t be "self interest" But you can’t change the laws of economics to suit your vision of an "equitable" world. Neither can I, because I would love so see everyone make at least $10 an hour.  But if you mandate that our companies pay their employees a higher wage than their competitors have to pay, you’ll be killing our businesses – the ones who are providing the jobs you’re bitching about.

Answer: CREATE industrys. Business is one thing, but people on poverty wages is another. One must never forget that Business is simply an orginisation that tends to pander towards hegemonic(sp?) class disparity. The interests of Business must never be placed over the overwhelming mandate the state has to correct poverty. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – * Exploitation is also theft. Progressive taxes correct for exploitation. * * I disagree.  People are paid what their work is worth to the employer. * If you’re demanding a higher wage, but there is a long line of qualified * people waiting eagerly to take your job, then that’s a clue that your * "exploitation" may be a little imaginary.  Wages have shrunk in this * country more as a response to opening world markets and the grown * availability of even cheaper labor abroad than as a result of a * capitalist conspiracy.  The higher you demand that wages be here, the * more attractive it will be for companies to move that job overseas where * someone else is begging to work for the wage you consider beneath you. * People go into business to make money. Why should we lower ourselves to the standereds of a third world country to line the pockets of corp. chiefs?  In other words were saying that it’s ok to find a group of people in a third world country and pay them pauper wages, simply because it’s better then what they have now?  That is a textbook definition of exploitation. I’m not making a moral justification for the wages here, but an economic one.  I would love to see every American to make at least $10 an hour, but that doesn’t change the laws of economics.  I’m not saying that we have to turn into a third world country, only that the higher we insist wages be here, the more attractive it will be for a company to move those jobs overseas where people are begging for the wages that you consider beneath us. If you need someone to tune up your car, you aren’t going to willingly pay twice as much as you need to at one place when you know you can get the same job done more cheaply at another location.  You consider self-interest evil only when it’s  not your self-interest.

Self interest is evil when it overides the Self interest of a greater number of others. If one guy has $1000 and two others have none. Then it is moral that the guy with the $1000 gives $300 each to the other two to allow the human process of eating and sleeping to occur. If you don’t like the idea that people in other countries are willing to work for what you consider "pauper" wages, what do you propose to do about it?  If someone is willing to work for x dollars a day (or week, or month) and an employer is willing to pay them that amount, it frankly is none of your damned business.

Fair enuff. The only reason you’re so concerned that these foreign nationals may be underpaid is that you want them to be paid more, so that the demands of American workers will seem more reasonable.  Nice ruse, but you can’t change economic law.  People will act in their self-interest, and if you want to deal with them (work for them, sell to them, etc) you have to appeal to that.  This is reality.

Or legislate to the contrary: This is a much more logical reality. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have nothing against people making money, but large companies distroying this country so they can line their own pockets is criminal.  Henry Ford realized that he needed a work force that could afford the product he made.  Can people slaving away in a a third world nation afford the $100 pair of basketball shoes they make? They might be making money now, but at this rate the market for $100 basketball shoes is going to dry up. Sometimes you have to seethe whole picture. I can’t afford the $100 pair of basketball shoes they make in third-world countries.  Does this mean that I am underpaid?  And if people stop buying those shoes, things will most definitely change, pronto.  Refuse to buy them on principle, and write a letter to Nike telling them so.  Have your like-minded friends do the same.  You may change something, you may not.  But as long as there is a market for these things, someone will make them, again, as economically as possible.  Nike hires these people overseas because they can do the job more cheaply than $25 an hour unionized Americans with thier family leave, time-and-a-half, 30-days-paid-vacation, mandatory-insurance and a slew of other baggage that American workers by and large thing they’re entitled to. Unless you’re going to propose that any firm that sells in America can have only American employees, I don’t see that you have much else to say.  Is that where you’re going with this? –Mark Hornberger

Your last Idea is in the hat! That, is precisely what needs to be done. By ensuring that American Countrys can only employ abroad if Minimum conditions of wage equity are met     1: It buffs up local wages.     2: It buffs up foreign wages. Not a problem! Peace, Shayne. —  Shayne O’Neill Murdoch Media & Politics. Any arguement Any time!!  Call me a leftist Subverter if you will, but there is a lot to  be said for the carefull implementation of Marxist policies in  balancing the economic gap between the oppressor and the  oppressed.    **** SUBVERT THE DOMINANT PARDGYM! *****

Response:

    Have you     ignored every scintilla of historical evidence that shows us that     massive government-mandated wealth redistribution schemes never achieve     their alleged purpose?  But… I could be wrong.    You are indeed very wrong. The 1940s, 1950s and 1960s featured the greatest    economic boom in U.S. history. Taxes were highly progressive and redistributive;    the top rate was between 88 and 91 percent for most of that time. Only in the    80s was progressivity lost, as the top rate came down to 28 percent. And look    at the difference between the two eras:   We boomed in those periods because the rest of the world was still   recovering from WWII, not because of sky-high taxes on the evil rich.   Germany and the rest of Europe was in shambles, Japan was still being   rebuilt (with the proceeds from those high tax rates) and the rest of   Asia was not yet in a position to challenge us in the markets of the   world.   Russia and China were too busy killing their own citizens to   worry about expanding into world markets, and we were decades ahead of   them in technology, anyway.  Of course our economy boomed through the   roof – we had no competitors on the planet!!  To point to our sky-high   tax rates and indicate that they, not a lack of competition, were to   thank for the prosperity of those decades is simply ridiculous.  MH  No serious economist believes that international "competition" exists on a global  market, and I would challenge you to find one. A nation’s productivity depends  almost solely on its domestic factors — period. Paul Krugman led a revolution  in a trade theory in the last 5 years by these findings, and it appears he’s on  the short list of Nobel prize winners because of it. He writes: "If you hear  someone say something along the lines of ‘America needs higher productivity so  that it can compete in today’s global economy,’ never mind who he is, or how  plausible he sounds. He might as well be wearing a flashing neon sign that  reads: ‘I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.’"  You might be interested to know that international trade was never more than  6 percent of the U.S. economy between World War II and 1960. I would challenge  you to explain why you think such a small part of the economy would have  such a major impact that it would fuel the greatest economic boom in U.S.  history. You use terms like "simply ridiculous" to describe opposition to your  beliefs, but I can already tell that you haven’t even studied the fundamentals  of economics, and I reject your calumny until you can prove that you can post  an informed argument.    Income Growth by Quintile    Quintile       1950-1978     1979-1993    Lowest 20%     138%          -15%    2nd 20%         98            -7    3rd 20%        106            -3    4th 20%        111             5    Highest 20%     99            18    As you can see, the quintiles grew together at roughly the same pace during the years    of progressive taxation. During the 80s, however, the rich grew richer and the    poor grew poorer.   The poor didn’t get poorer in the sense that their standard of living   fell.  To look at a pie chart and see that the rich got a bigger slice   of the pie than before neglects the fact that the entire pie got bigger   over the timeframe.  Absolutely false, and completely uninformed. The following chart shows the  falling weekly incomes of nonsupervisory workers, who form roughly four-fifths  of the civilian workforce:  Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry,  1982 dollars  1965  $290  1970   297  1973   315  (Peak)  1975   292  1976   297  1977   299  1978   301  1979   291  1980   274  1981   271  1982   267  1983   272  1984   274  1985   271  1986   271  1987   269  1988   266  1989   263  1990   259  1991   255  1992   255  (Nadir)   The poor here have a higher standard of living that   in Mexico, India, Bangladesh, most of Africa, and indeed in state-run   economies anywhere in the world.  Completely irrelevant. Widening disparities in U.S. income have nothing to  do with poverty elsewhere. We’re talking about the justice of a nation  who sees the GDP grow every year and the individual wages of the vast  majority of its workforce fall each year.   They aren’t poor in the sense that   they’re starving to death, only "poor" in the sense that they want more   money but their labor isn’t worth it in the market.  You are forgetting the findings of the Harvard and Berkeley studies. They  found that absolute poverty doesn’t matter so much as relative poverty —  that is, inequality. The U.S. has the highest AVERAGE standard of living  in the world. But among rich nations, it doesn’t have the lowest death  rates, crime rates, poverty rates, high school dropout rates, etc. It actually  has the highest rates among rich nations, because it has the most inequality.   They feel ripped   off, but they’re suffering from the fact that about 80% of the world’s   population is eager, is begging to work for the wage that the American   worker considers to be disgracefully inadequate.  MH  There is less inequality and less poverty in the other rich nations. Workers  are treated far better in Europe… infinitely better.   Business owners went into business to make money, and in doing so they   provide jobs.  But wages are part of the expenses that business owners   have to factor into the prices of their products, so they have an   incentive to shop around for the lowest prices for labor.  That’s human   nature. If American businnesses decide to pay twice the wage that   represents the market norm (i.e. what their competitors are paying) then   they will have to raise prices to stay in business.  They will get   killed by their competitors who are charging lower prices because they   paid the going rate for labor, not some inflated sense of a "just"   wage.  When the American businesses hereby go bankrupt, the workers who   you are championing will be out of work altogether.  MH  Do you have any empirical evidence to support your assertions? I’d be  much more compelled to consider your beliefs if you would stop making  proclamations by faith and back them up with evidence, statistics, studies, etc.  The competitive disadvantages you speak of cannot be international in form.  A thorough study by Harvard economist Robert Lawrence found that the average  U.S. trading partner, weighted by amount of trade, pays its workers 90 percent  of what U.S. workers make. And trade forms only a very small share of our  economy. Lawrence has stated flatly that international factors  contribute "nothing" to U.S. wages. No such measurable competition exists.  Which means there are only domestic factors… and U.S. law affects (or  should affect) all companies equally, leaving no one with a competitive  disadvantage.    Exploitation is also theft. Progressive taxes correct for exploitation.   I disagree.  People are paid what their work is worth to the employer.  No, people are paid as little as an employer can get away with and still  meet his needs, because, after all, employers are self-interested human beings.   If you’re demanding a higher wage, but there is a long line of qualified   people waiting eagerly to take your job, then that’s a clue that your   "exploitation" may be a little imaginary.  Well, you’ve just proven to me you have no concept of how supply and demand  work. If supply exceeds demand, then prices fall. So if the supply of workers  exceeds the demand for them, wages will fall. In other words, job applicants  will compete with each other for the limited number of jobs, and they do so  by offering to take lower and lower wages.  I would remind you that we have an umemployment rate of about 5-6 percent in  this economy. Entry level workers are taking low-paying jobs not because  they want to, but because they have to. And that is how employers exploit  labor.   Wages have shrunk in this   country more as a response to opening world markets and the grown   availability of even cheaper labor abroad than as a result of a   capitalist conspiracy.  The higher you demand that wages be here, the   more attractive it will be for companies to move that job overseas where   someone else is begging to work for the wage you consider beneath you.   People go into business to make money.  You have a lot of reading to do on international trade theory.   –Mark Hornberger  Steve Kangas  http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm Pat sez: The ‘roo notes to Mark, "You have a lot of reading to do on international trade theory." The ol’ Ph.D. c a n d i d a t e (or have you gotten it yet?) is still trying to find answers from books to his sense of how the world should be, while all the rest of the world has to do – for his already answered questions – is look at that socialist eden, the former USSR.

[ 081496a 9K ]

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have you ignored every scintilla of historical evidence that shows us that massive government-mandated wealth redistribution schemes never achieve their alleged purpose?  But… I could be wrong. You are indeed very wrong. The 1940s, 1950s and 1960s featured the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. Taxes were highly progressive and redistributive; the top rate was between 88 and 91 percent for most of that time. Only in the 80s was progressivity lost, as the top rate came down to 28 percent. And look at the difference between the two eras: We boomed in those periods because the rest of the world was still recovering from WWII, not because of sky-high taxes on the evil rich. Germany and the rest of Europe was in shambles, Japan was still being rebuilt (with the proceeds from those high tax rates) and the rest of Asia was not yet in a position to challenge us in the markets of the world.   Russia and China were too busy killing their own citizens to worry about expanding into world markets, and we were decades ahead of them in technology, anyway.  Of course our economy boomed through the roof – we had no competitors on the planet!!  To point to our sky-high tax rates and indicate that they, not a lack of competition, were to thank for the prosperity of those decades is simply ridiculous.  MH No serious economist believes that international "competition" exists on a global market, and I would challenge you to find one. A nation’s productivity depends almost solely on its domestic factors — period. Paul Krugman led a revolution in a trade theory in the last 5 years by these findings, and it appears he’s on the short list of Nobel prize winners because of it. He writes: "If you hear someone say something along the lines of ‘America needs higher productivity so that it can compete in today’s global economy,’ never mind who he is, or how plausible he sounds. He might as well be wearing a flashing neon sign that reads: ‘I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.’" You might be interested to know that international trade was never more than 6 percent of the U.S. economy between World War II and 1960. I would challenge you to explain why you think such a small part of the economy would have such a major impact that it would fuel the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. You use terms like "simply ridiculous" to describe opposition to your beliefs, but I can already tell that you haven’t even studied the fundamentals of economics, and I reject your calumny until you can prove that you can post an informed argument. Income Growth by Quintile Quintile       1950-1978     1979-1993 Lowest 20%     138%          -15% 2nd 20%         98            -7 3rd 20%        106            -3 4th 20%        111             5 Highest 20%     99            18 As you can see, the quintiles grew together at roughly the same pace during the years of progressive taxation. During the 80s, however, the rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer. The poor didn’t get poorer in the sense that their standard of living fell.  To look at a pie chart and see that the rich got a bigger slice of the pie than before neglects the fact that the entire pie got bigger over the timeframe. Absolutely false, and completely uninformed. The following chart shows the falling weekly incomes of nonsupervisory workers, who form roughly four-fifths of the civilian workforce: Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry, 1982 dollars 1965  $290 1970   297 1973   315  (Peak) 1975   292 1976   297 1977   299 1978   301 1979   291 1980   274 1981   271 1982   267 1983   272 1984   274 1985   271 1986   271 1987   269 1988   266 1989   263 1990   259 1991   255 1992   255  (Nadir) The poor here have a higher standard of living that in Mexico, India, Bangladesh, most of Africa, and indeed in state-run economies anywhere in the world. Completely irrelevant. Widening disparities in U.S. income have nothing to do with poverty elsewhere. We’re talking about the justice of a nation who sees the GDP grow every year and the individual wages of the vast majority of its workforce fall each year. They aren’t poor in the sense that they’re starving to death, only "poor" in the sense that they want more money but their labor isn’t worth it in the market. You are forgetting the findings of the Harvard and Berkeley studies. They found that absolute poverty doesn’t matter so much as relative poverty — that is, inequality. The U.S. has the highest AVERAGE standard of living in the world. But among rich nations, it doesn’t have the lowest death rates, crime rates, poverty rates, high school dropout rates, etc. It actually has the highest rates among rich nations, because it has the most inequality. They feel ripped off, but they’re suffering from the fact that about 80% of the world’s population is eager, is begging to work for the wage that the American worker considers to be disgracefully inadequate.  MH There is less inequality and less poverty in the other rich nations. Workers are treated far better in Europe… infinitely better. Business owners went into business to make money, and in doing so they provide jobs.  But wages are part of the expenses that business owners have to factor into the prices of their products, so they have an incentive to shop around for the lowest prices for labor.  That’s human nature. If American businnesses decide to pay twice the wage that represents the market norm (i.e. what their competitors are paying) then they will have to raise prices to stay in business.  They will get killed by their competitors who are charging lower prices because they paid the going rate for labor, not some inflated sense of a "just" wage.  When the American businesses hereby go bankrupt, the workers who you are championing will be out of work altogether.  MH Do you have any empirical evidence to support your assertions? I’d be much more compelled to consider your beliefs if you would stop making proclamations by faith and back them up with evidence, statistics, studies, etc. The competitive disadvantages you speak of cannot be international in form. A thorough study by Harvard economist Robert Lawrence found that the average U.S. trading partner, weighted by amount of trade, pays its workers 90 percent of what U.S. workers make. And trade forms only a very small share of our economy. Lawrence has stated flatly that international factors contribute "nothing" to U.S. wages. No such measurable competition exists. Which means there are only domestic factors… and U.S. law affects (or should affect) all companies equally, leaving no one with a competitive disadvantage. Exploitation is also theft. Progressive taxes correct for exploitation. I disagree.  People are paid what their work is worth to the employer. No, people are paid as little as an employer can get away with and still meet his needs, because, after all, employers are self-interested human beings. If you’re demanding a higher wage, but there is a long line of qualified people waiting eagerly to take your job, then that’s a clue that your "exploitation" may be a little imaginary. Well, you’ve just proven to me you have no concept of how supply and demand work. If supply exceeds demand, then prices fall. So if the supply of workers exceeds the demand for them, wages will fall. In other words, job applicants will compete with each other for the limited number of jobs, and they do so by offering to take lower and lower wages. I would remind you that we have an umemployment rate of about 5-6 percent in this economy. Entry level workers are taking low-paying jobs not because they want to, but because they have to. And that is how employers exploit labor. Wages have shrunk in this country more as a response to opening world markets and the grown availability of even cheaper labor abroad than as a result of a capitalist conspiracy.  The higher you demand that wages be here, the more attractive it will be for companies to move that job overseas where someone else is begging to work for the wage you consider beneath you. People go into business to make money. You have a lot of reading to do on international trade theory. –Mark Hornberger Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm

Pat sez: The ‘roo notes to Mark, "You have a lot of reading to do on international trade theory." The ol’ Ph.D. c a n d i d a t e (or have you gotten it yet?) is still trying to find answers from books to his sense of how the world should be, while all the rest of the world has to do – for his already answered questions – is look at that socialist eden, the former USSR. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have you ignored every scintilla of historical evidence that shows us that massive government-mandated wealth redistribution schemes never achieve their alleged purpose?  But… I could be wrong. You are indeed very wrong. The 1940s, 1950s and 1960s featured the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. Taxes were highly progressive and redistributive; the top rate was between 88 and 91 percent for most of that time. Only in the 80s was progressivity lost, as the top rate came down to 28 percent. And look at the difference between the two eras: We boomed in those periods because the rest of the world was still recovering from WWII, not because of sky-high taxes on the evil rich. Germany and the rest of Europe was in shambles, Japan was still being rebuilt (with the proceeds from those high tax rates) and the rest of Asia was not yet in a position to challenge us in the markets of the world.   Russia and China were too busy killing their own citizens to worry about expanding into world markets, and we were decades ahead of them in technology, anyway.  Of course our economy boomed through the roof – we had no competitors on the planet!!  To point to our sky-high tax rates and indicate that they, not a lack of competition, were to thank for the prosperity of those decades is simply ridiculous.  MH No serious economist believes that international "competition" exists on a global market, and I would challenge you to find one. A nation’s productivity depends almost solely on its domestic factors — period.

Tell this to GM and the other American automakers.  They made gas-guzzling behemoths with impunity till the Japanese bit them in the ass.  I drive a Honda and it beats the hell out of any American car I ever had.  Tell the hundreds of thousands of former American auto workers than foreign competition had no bearing on their jobs becoming nonexistent, and they’ll either laugh or punch you.  Tell IBM that Toshiba and Matshushita aren’t threats to their domestic market, and don’t need to be factored in.  I guess Sony is irrelevant, because no "serious" economist believes that there is any such thing as global competition.  Pray tell, what other explanation might you have for the economic upheaval we’ve been going through for twenty years?  Lack of government spending, perhaps? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Paul Krugman led a revolution in a trade theory in the last 5 years by these findings, and it appears he’s on the short list of Nobel prize winners because of it. He writes: "If you hear someone say something along the lines of ‘America needs higher productivity so that it can compete in today’s global economy,’ never mind who he is, or how plausible he sounds. He might as well be wearing a flashing neon sign that reads: ‘I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.’" You might be interested to know that international trade was never more than 6 percent of the U.S. economy between World War II and 1960. I would challenge you to explain why you think such a small part of the economy would have such a major impact that it would fuel the greatest economic boom in U.S. history. You use terms like "simply ridiculous" to describe opposition to your beliefs, but I can already tell that you haven’t even studied the fundamentals of economics, and I reject your calumny until you can prove that you can post an informed argument.

Well, it was American firms who rebuilt Japan and Europe, and it was American firms who armed us to the teeth to protect us from the red menace.  This was all done with American products.  Also, the fact that international trade was only 6% or less of our economy actually supports my view, not yours.  American firms had no viable challenge in our domestic markets, so everything that was bought was bought from American firms.  All of our money was spent on things that were made here at home, which obviously contributed to the booming of American business. We thrived in those periods because we were in an isolation chamber – there were no foreign firms offering products to Americans, so no American dollars went back overseas.  Contrast this with today, where most of the things on the store shelves originated somewhere overseas, at least in part. American firms are having to compete in a global market, with firms who are perhaps more efficient or at the very least get to benefit from paying thier workers a wage 1/10 of what we pay ours.     – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The poor didn’t get poorer in the sense that their standard of living fell.  To look at a pie chart and see that the rich got a bigger slice of the pie than before neglects the fact that the entire pie got bigger over the timeframe. Absolutely false, and completely uninformed. The following chart shows the falling weekly incomes of nonsupervisory workers, who form roughly four-fifths of the civilian workforce: Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry, 1982 dollars 1965  $290 1970   297 1973   315  (Peak) 1975   292 1976   297 1977   299 1978   301 1979   291 1980   274 1981   271 1982   267 1983   272 1984   274 1985   271 1986   271 1987   269 1988   266 1989   263 1990   259 1991   255 1992   255  (Nadir) The poor here have a higher standard of living that in Mexico, India, Bangladesh, most of Africa, and indeed in state-run economies anywhere in the world. Completely irrelevant. Widening disparities in U.S. income have nothing to do with poverty elsewhere. We’re talking about the justice of a nation who sees the GDP grow every year and the individual wages of the vast majority of its workforce fall each year.

I was attempting to lend a little perspective to the debate.  It’s difficult to moan about how poor a person is when everyone around him makes him seem prosperous by comparison.  And, again, the wages have fallen to the extent that they have because a global workforce is now available, and is begging to do the job for less money than the American worker is demanding.  The higher the wage that we demand for American workers, the more attractive that foreign worker will be to business. They aren’t poor in the sense that they’re starving to death, only "poor" in the sense that they want more money but their labor isn’t worth it in the market. You are forgetting the findings of the Harvard and Berkeley studies. They found that absolute poverty doesn’t matter so much as relative poverty — that is, inequality. The U.S. has the highest AVERAGE standard of living in the world. But among rich nations, it doesn’t have the lowest death rates, crime rates, poverty rates, high school dropout rates, etc. It actually has the highest rates among rich nations, because it has the most inequality.

Regardless of what Harvard or Berkely think, I can’t call someone poor who isn’t poor.  That alot of people are better off than you does not make you any worse off.  This is politics by envy – if you feel oppressed and exploited, than you probably are. This is absurd. They feel ripped off, but they’re suffering from the fact that about 80% of the world’s population is eager, is begging to work for the wage that the American worker considers to be disgracefully inadequate.  MH There is less inequality and less poverty in the other rich nations. Workers are treated far better in Europe… infinitely better.

Regardless of how infinitely better they’re treated, their standard of living is lower, though to a lesser extent than it has been the rest of the century.  Your standard of what "poverty" should be related only to the standard of living of the person you’re concerned with, not in trying to estimate how far he is from the rich family across town. Business owners went into business to make money, and in doing so they provide jobs.  But wages are part of the expenses that business owners have to factor into the prices of their products, so they have an incentive to shop around for the lowest prices for labor.  That’s human nature. If American businnesses decide to pay twice the wage that represents the market norm (i.e. what their competitors are paying) then they will have to raise prices to stay in business.  They will get killed by their competitors who are charging lower prices because they paid the going rate for labor, not some inflated sense of a "just" wage.  When the American businesses hereby go bankrupt, the workers who you are championing will be out of work altogether.  MH Do you have any empirical evidence to support your assertions? I’d be much more compelled to consider your beliefs if you would stop making proclamations by faith and back them up with evidence, statistics, studies, etc.

Geez.  History vindicates my views unequivocally.  Why do you think American firms are moving jobs overseas?  Why do you think foreign firms were able to undercut our prices on automobiles, computers, and any number of things? The competitive disadvantages you speak of cannot be international in form. A thorough study by Harvard economist Robert Lawrence found that the average U.S. trading partner, weighted by amount of trade, pays its workers 90 percent of what U.S. workers make. And trade forms only a very small share of our economy. Lawrence has stated flatly that international factors contribute "nothing" to U.S. wages. No such measurable competition exists.

He’s a loon.  Read Milton Friedman, a University of Chicago economist. Read Ludwig von Mises. Read Murray Rothbard.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Which means there are only domestic factors… and U.S. law affects (or should

… read more »

Response:

Mark Hornberger: in response to your recent arguments, I can make a few generalizations — 1. However you wish to define poverty (by comparing it to other nations or by some absolute standard), you have still not commented on why inequality is correlated with social problems. Indeed, you are shirking this question. 2. You cannot base your entire personal beliefs on trade theory by reading a short list of (biased) authors whom you happen to agree with. You should read what your opponents have to say. Considering your statements, it is clear that you do not even know their arguments. The short list of authors you mention are outdated and are not considered on the cutting edge of trade theory. You also seem apparently ignorant of an entire revolution that has occurred within trade theory in the last 5 years. 3. The idea that the U.S. is suffering job loss due to international competition is a myth. A popular myth, to be sure, but a myth nonetheless. An excellent introduction to Krugman’s work can be found at http://daisy.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/politics/dangcompet.html . Allow me to summarize Krugman’s findings, with apologies to him for any mistakes on my part: The idea that nations compete in a global market, and that the U.S. must subsidize it’s best businesses to compete better, is called "strategic trade," and is based on six premises: The first premise is that international trade has a large impact on the American economy. It doesn

Question:

I’ve also learned that supervision of children this age must be almost constant when they’re awake. I don’t feel confident to wander off to another activity in the house for any period of time at all, anymore. I’m sure many of you will echo this sentiment!

Amen – when my oldest boy was 2, I had child safety locks on all cabinets and drawers. One day he walked to a cabinet, opened the safety lock as easily as any adult would, smiled at me, then closed it and walked away. From that day on, I learned that nothing is truly ‘childproof’! Vicki

Response:

Interesting thread — I’ve also read that if a kid eats a bunch of flouridated toothpaste (like half a large tube), that can also make them very sick…… guess what Cami likes to do?  We have the toothpaste tube up VERY high now, so that even Big Sister can’t get it down for Cami. Rebecca L.

Response:

I’ve also learned that supervision of children this age must be almost constant when they’re awake. I don’t feel confident to wander off to another activity in the house for any period of time at all, anymore. I’m sure many of you will echo this sentiment! Amen – when my oldest boy was 2, I had child safety locks on all cabinets and drawers. One day he walked to a cabinet, opened the safety lock as easily as any adult would, smiled at me, then closed it and walked away. From that day on, I learned that nothing is truly ‘childproof’!

  I remember rushing a friend and her two year old daughter to the hospital.  She had her shots recently and her mother had the acetaminiphin (sp?) drops handy and had left the ‘plunger’ top on (the hard plastic part spun around and the adult was supposed to push down and turn to get it off).  Her two year old found the quickest way into the bottle, she just bit of the rubber thing at the top and sucked it all back like she was drinking from a bottle.   On a slightly different note, I have a four and a half year old who found an old bottle of Tylenol 3’s with codiene in his dad’s gym bag.   He came to me right away with it and annouced that he had taken one.   For several years now I have been giving him children’s vitamins and not once have I ever reffered to them as ‘candy’.  I tell him that they are a form of medicine and even though he likes the taste of them that he can only have one as any more than that would make him sick.  With cold medicine and such I always stressed that he could only have a little bit and that only an adult should give it to him because if he has the wrong amount he could get very sick and end up in the hospital.  Well, he wasn’t listening this day about the adult part but I did have to smile thankfully that he listened to the other part because when I asked him "How many did you swallow?" he looked at me like I’d lost my mind and said "Only one, mom.  Any more than that and I could get sick." I called poison control and everything turned out fine.  Another opportunity to talk about medications in our home.  But it just in medications or ‘toxic’ cleaners that can get kids.  The four year old fed a few tablespoons full of baking soda to my then 2 year old one day while I was baking.  It happened so fast.  I was suprised when I called poison control to find out that in large enough amounts it can be toxic and that I had to rush the two year old to the hospital to get some blood tests to make sure his sodium levels were fine.  THAT was very scary as well as stressful.    I’d have to echo the above post that nothing is truly "child safe".   As parents you try your best to minimize the risks, keep a watchful eye, and hope for the best.

Response:

I’m writing today to share an experience in hopes it will educate other parents. This morning I left my two-year old watching a Thomas the Tank Engine video downstairs, while I went upstairs to do 15 mins. of computer accounting. When I returned, I discovered he had climbed up onto the kitchen counter and had gotten into a bottle of chewable child vitamins that normally kept on the window sill next to the sink. The container is a child-resistant type with a cap that spins unless one pushes down whilde turning. Well, let me tell you….I found the container opened, with the bulk of the vitamins in the sink. Somehow, he had managed to open the container, himself. Upon reading the label, I discovered advice to call my nearest Poison Control Center if there was fear of an overdose. Since my boy likes these vitamins and may very well have ingested several I decided to look up the phone number. I asked Josh how many he had eaten, to which he answered, "One, two….", then, "One, two, three…", then, "eight"! There was no telling! I connected with a very helpful woman at Poison Control who first asked me if there was iron in the formula. I read on the label that there was 18 mg of iron per dose. She did some calculations, asked Josh’s body weight and then told me he would have to had swallowed 22 or more tablets to have gotten a toxic dose. She had me count the remaining tablets, estmate how long we had been using them and it very quickly appeared that he couldn’t have taken many at all. I was extremely relieved as you can imagine. I had her give me toxicity symptoms to watch for in any case. She said that too much iron is corrosive to the gut and that an overdose would probably cause diarrhea and cramping, which might subside, only to degenerate into potential toxemia or shock later. As a normally prudent parent I take care to safeguard my child from hazards. I had no idea that I had left my boy so exposed! I’m fairly confident that he didn’t take many vitamins, however my faith child-resistant containers is truly compromised. I admit that the label on the vitamins does say to, "Keep the container out of the reach of children", which I had not done. From now on, this product and all like it will be stored up in an out-of-reach cabinet and the caps of all such containers will be tightly closed after use. I’ve also learned that supervision of children this age must be almost constant when they’re awake. I don’t feel confident to wander off to another activity in the house for any period of time at all, anymore. I’m sure many of you will echo this sentiment! —

Response: