Slashdot Mirror

From another study on the costs involved in auto manufacturing completed at MIT Vehicle Manufacturing Assembly Labor and Other Manufacturing Costs = 6.5% of MSRP

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics the median wage for employees working in auto manufacturing is $58,400.

Assuming an average family household and both adults work in auto manufacturing the gross income will be at least $116, 800. Looking at IRS statistics for the adjusted gross income level of $100,000 to $200,000 the average household income is $132,881 and after deductions paid $17,388 in income tax. The is an effective 13% tax rate on gross income.

So on a $25,000 car with 6.5% going to wages and an effective 13% tax rate on those wages the portion of the retail cost is $211.25 and add to that the corporate gross profit of 6% from the Stanford auto manufacturing study and a 35% tax rate we have another $525 for a total of $736.25 of income tax in the retail price of a $25,000 automobile which is 2.9%.

And yes, I know there are all kinds of other little taxes here and there you want to throw in to where we are no longer talking about income tax but it becomes so convoluted its not clear exactly how everything is associated anymore, but it doesn't matter. Even if the auto manufacturing workers paid 100% of their income in income taxes you still would not be even close to 22%.

But setting all of that data showing the 22% is bogus aside and just assuming this fantasy world is real lets take a quick look at this Fair Tax. With the word "Fair" in its name it sounds great, we all like fair don't we, but reading Boortz he specifically states that "the FairTax plan was revenue neutral". Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting but it appears you want no taxes while the FairTax being revenue neutral is not a no tax plan but instead is just tax reform with the same level of taxation but shifted around so revenue for the government, corporations and employees remains the same.

But even in Boortz' comments he makes some outlandish suggestions such as "When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax."

HA HA HA!!! Now that is hilarious! Eliminate the payroll tax, which in layman terms means take away the Social Security and Medicare safety net that ensures a minimal level of support for U.S. workers when they reach retirement age, and let the corporations decide if they should keep all that money themselves or maybe if they are nice they will give the U.S. workers some crumbs. Sorry but in the real world history has shown over and over and over that given the opportunity the U.S. worker will get screwed. Scrap that "Fair" Tax plan and try working out something more realistic. :)

http://boortz.com/mp3/archive/countdown.swf

You assume that the Founding Fathers intended for 90% of the government to come from local/state level, it might even be correct. However, the question is not what were their intentions but what is written in the constitution. By the way, they also intended for black people to be slaves and for women to have no vote, do you think anyone who think differently should not be entitled to vote? You might not say there is only one correct way to do things, but you definitly say there is a very small number of ways, and they can't be very different from yours.

I know of no writings left by the Founding Fathers where they stated that they believed slavery was right; I personally tend to believe that they realized they could not win that battle (look how long it took for the abolition movement to succeed) and focused pragmatically on what was within their power to achieve but I have not seen much evidence on this either way. Also, when it is studied objectively, it has been found that allowing women to vote may not be the best idea, because they tend to value security more than freedom and the type of security that government has to offer is a very dangerous thing. Please see the studies; there are very strong correlations between granting women suffrage and the expansion of the size and power of government. Some links: A brief summary that mentions this same belief, shared by a woman, a paper by John Lott on the subject (I believe this one is originally from here) and a general, light read on why big government is a bad idea here. You will find, however, that this is a subject where the facts tend not to reflect what people want to hear, and (because people often act like spoiled children when this is the case) it's hard to have a discussion about it in which people actually stick to facts and logic.

Regarding the "very small number of ways", I didn't just make this up in a vacuum, you know. Study a little history and you will find it plainly evident that every nation which has ever become a police state or a fascist dictatorship did so by allowing its government to become too large and too powerful and too involved in the everyday lives of its citizens and by considered myriad things other than defense, public works, and law enforcement to be its business. The idea is so simple. When an organ in the body carries out its function and serves the rest of the body (when the heart's only concern is pumping blood, when the lungs' only concern is respiration, etc.), that body is healthy; when an organ draws a disproportionate share of resources and multiplies its cells beyond what is necessary for its function, it grows out of control, concerns itself only with its own perpetuation, and becomes a cancer that threatens to kill the rest of the body. Likewise, government does the same and becomes a parasite feeding on its own people when it becomes the all-important solution to every problem and starts making decisions for its people when there is no legitimate public interest in doing so (although plenty of busybodies will invent such reasons to satisfy their need to control others), such as when it attempts to tell consenting adults what they may and may not do in their own homes.

As for income tax, it allows you a higher level of taxation over those who can handle it (that is, relatively rich people). This allows Capitalism to work, without an income tax, the ever-growing income differences will make one of the two systems collapse - the Democracy or the Capitalism. You could get the same effect from sales tax, but only if you make it progressive by different levels of taxation on different products, so basic products will be (at least, almost) tax free, and luxuries will be taxed heavily.

Just set your home page to here and you're all set.

That is some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

Appeasement has been tried and failed. The reason they exist is for the purpose of violently pushing an agenda. You can't just shrug off violence on a large scale. 9/11...ehhh, who cares. Bombings in Spain....well, it could have been bigger. Kidnapping of Isreali citizens......it was only a few.

You are a fucking moron who would rather live in tyrannical peace than turbulent freedom. There are times when violence is the only response left.

The GP was a direct cut and paste from Neil Boortz today. Please develop your own opionions, asshat.

There's the typical U.S. type of religious intolerance, where some fanatics might shun people of other religions or go to the funerals of loved ones who served their country in the military and thank god the soldier was killed because the miliatry allows gays under the "don't ask don't tell" policy, while the rest of Christianity and, in fact, the country, deride this immoral behavior.

And there's the fanatic Islamic intolerance where non-muslims (and often even muslims who have tolerance for others) have their heads chopped off (here's a nice representative picture), and much of the rest of Islam sits back and nods saying "well, this is what happens to non-believers." In other words, they might not condone it, but they don't condemn it, either. And yes, in my experience, it is the majority. I don't fear for my life when I see obviously muslim practitioners (I'm not just talking about skin and hair color, I'm talking about religious garb), because I realize that the vast majority would not harm me. But they tolerate the intolerance of other muslims.

"Whether you're a CNN fan, or a FoxNEWS fan, you have to wonder how much of what we see is fake, or exaggerated." Reuters Admits, Pulls Doctored Photos"

http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/07/27/islam-deaf-d umb-and-blind/

http://boortz.com/nuze/200602/02032006.html

I have found irrefutable proof of global warming!

To put it another way

Sorry.

Sadly, it happens all too often that a science fair is judged by people who are completely out of their depth in any discussion of science.

e.g., Public School teachers.

Carter, like Neville Chamberlain before him, isn't a traitor: he's just incompetent. Whenever he has dealth with anyone operating from truly evil motives, he has failed to recognize that fact, and act accordingly. Nice guy, but definitely not the man you want in charge when a pack of maniacs commit an act of war by invading an embassy.

I refer to Carter as a traitorous rat not because of his complete failure to exercise a swift and decisive response in the hostage affair (this only serves as an excellent example of his complete incompetency), but for his behaviour in travelling outside the country to bad-mouth our citizens, government, and policies, as well as his habit of making cozy with leaders of anti-American nations. A local radio commentator by the name of Neal Boortz (http://www.boortz.com/) likes to say that Carter never met a dictator he didn't like, seems very true in my recollection. Wow, this is wayyyyyyyyyyy off-topic, let me see if I can draw it back together:

For a former Governor of this State who later became President, when you consider Carter's complete lack of intellectual integrity and Georgia's low educational rankings/standards, it is of no surprise to me that there are people out there who consider themselves educated (or ARE educated, like the Cobb Co. people who demanded the "Evolution is not real science" stickers in text-books) yet still equate I.D. with actual science, as these people wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass; I should know - as an I.T. professional, I deal with them on a regular basis, and am amazed by how rapidly people's eyes glaze over the minute you say something they don't understand, like "quantum physics" or something simple like "there's something borked on the network, so don't open attachments in your email or you might get a virus". This is also well indicated in a state where one of the most popular colleges to attend's biggest draw is the popularity and record of its football team, not the quality of its education (this would be U.G.A.).

Let us face facts: As long as the Homecoming football game draws more interest than the science fair, we're doomed to this kind of intellectual mediocrity, where intelligent students have to attend private schools so as not to be bored off their rockers, and the smart-kids who don't have that option are usually outcast because others cover their intellectual inferiority in a show of name-calling and brute-force when they can get away with it; While the football player who might one day buy himself an MBA while bored in the off-season is idolized and paid ridiculous sums of money because he had genetic advantages in the physical department and was hard-headed enough to do nigh nothing else but work out throughout school. I believe in the right to freedom of religious beliefs, and freedom from a state or federal religion, freedom to spend your dollar however you want (so long as it doesn't hurt someone else), freedom to watch sports if you want... But for the love of... Rational thought, intelligent design does not belong in a classroom, unless you are in a private relgious school! Then again, for my money, my children don't belong in and will not attend public schools, which really ought to be privatized across the entire nation, IMO, with minimum standards, but my child's education should not be put in the hands of the government.

Dude, you're describing the situation as it existed circa 1990, or even 1980. But it's 2005 now [almost 2006 - yikes!], and everything you've foreseen has come to pass.

Compare the story of Mr. Charles "Roscoe" Heaton:

Ex-con. Emory grad. Would you hire him?
Sunday, November 27, 2005

He thought he had paid his debt to society by serving two years in prison. He thought his accomplishments since would open doors to a successful future. But nine years after his release, Roscoe has found he's a marked man. His criminal record may be a life sentence...

http://www.ajc.com/sunday/content/epaper/editions/ sunday/news_34981681f67ca08200e2.html

I think by public use, they meant something like roads, bridges, etc. that are publically "owned." What looks like is happening here is that private land is being grabbed by the local government and sold to another private entity, who will in turn allow the public access. That access, however, is ultimately held hostage to the will of its new owner. As soon as it sis determined that public access is not needed, it can be revoked. At that point, the seized land is no longer for public use (as if it ever truly were).

What this is is another nail in the coffin of the idea of property rights. We own what we own until the government decides it can make better use of it. Georgia has had several high profile cases of this recently. YOu can check out Neal Boortz's "Neal's Nuze" archives for some good info on it. In fact, you'll probably be able to get his take on this in the moring.

hey if you have proof that fox is biased then go for boortz's fox news challenge

What about ABC blocking?
http://imdb.com/news/sb/2005-04-04/

This guy has a challenge about Fox blocking.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200503/03282005.html

gas prices are up 50% for the last 12 months

Yes, to an average of $2.06 per gallon, which means they'd have to increase another 50% to match the all-time high. "In March of 1981, gasoline cost $3.08 a gallon, adjusted for inflation."

The industry will fight vociferously to protect them.

If only the citizenry of the US would fight as hard for our REAL property rights! Over the last several years, eminent domain has been used by many municipalities to force people off of the property they OWN so that developers like Wal-Mart can build stores. Some examples:

Alameda Square in Denver Colorado: The City of Denver is considering condemning the shopping center so that Wal-Mart can build a super center. story

Alabaster, Alabama: Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart in the town of 24,000. The local government is all for it because they're "not receiving enough in tax revenue to support the town." Trouble is, there are a few property owners that don't want to sell. Answer, local government is resorting to eminent domain. They're citing the increase in tax revenue as the "public good" that justifies condemnation of the property. story

Ardmore, Pennsylvania. A local government plan to "revitalize" the town of Ardmore has officials seeking to use eminent domain to oust property owners and demolish several historic buildings. story

New London, Conneticut. (This is the Supreme Court case that's being heard and was referenced in the posted article). The town is attempting to use eminent domain to forcibly evict seven property owners and sieze their property so that a private company can develop more tax-profitable properties on the land. story

Lakewood, Ohio. Scenic Park, a middle class neighborhood, was seized under eminent domain. The homes were deemed "blighted" because they didn't conform to certain criteria. They didn't have three bedrooms, two baths, an attached garage or central air. Incidentally, the mayor's house, in another neighborhood, doesn't fit these criteria, either. The homes were razed in order to put in a mall and high-end condos. story

Ogden, Utah. The Mayor and City Council want to demolish 34 homes and 6 businesses in order to erect a Wal-Mart (there's that Wal-Mart again) Super Center.

Clemson, SC (right up I-26 from me). Pickens County Council voted to invoke eminent domain to condemn a tract of land zoned residential for the purpose of building a Wal-Mart. story

Between the years 1998-2002, TEN THOUSAND properties were seized via eminent domain in order for the municipalities to sell to private developers!!! The right to own land and property is directly tied to all our other rights. Now, I'm not a big, Anti-Corporation type of guy as I recognize that corporations are not vast, faceless entities, but are made up of individuals that work, eat, sleep, and all that. I have BECOME extremely anti-Wal-Mart, though, in part due to this eminent domain thing and also because of their recent trouble with the labor laws. I don't begrudge Wal-Mart's right to exist, but they've demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to tight rope the law and even break it if necessary in order to continue growing. They're like a virus that must be stopped. I'm on a personal boycott of Wal-Mart. If something isn't done about governments seizing property rightfully owned by law-abiding individuals, a huge pillar of our democratic republic is going to be severely compromised. This is no joke, people. This poses one of the most severe threats to our country.

If you want to keep abreast of the situation, here are a couple of good links. And I especially want to thank Neal Boortz (national talk radio guy, Libertarian). Were it not for him, FAR fewer pe

If that's one of your favorite sites, it's no wonder you are so deeply franchised inside the 4th reich.

We really need facts, not propoganda. Fact: Dubya has consistently lied to the american people.

Enough said

And of course if the device/service can tell speed, it can tell position, how long at each stop, etc., and it need not be limited to teenagers, as this article describes:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200306/06092003.html

Another thing Neal Boortz has done (it may have been a couple years ago, I haven't heard about it lately) was help write and get a bill introduced into the Georgia legislature that (recalling only generally the gist of the bill) any crime commited by a teenager driving a car that results in someone's death, that teen cannot be tried as a juvenile, but must be tried as an adult. If a teen wants the adult privelege of driving a car, he or she most take the adult respolsibilities as well. There has been at least one teen vehicular homicide case where the teen was being tried as a juvenile.
Boortz has also been in favor of raising the minimum age to get a driver's license, due to the high rate of deaths among teenage drivers (see from the article under the the "related stories and links" section, Teen Driving Death Rate Soaring, and has often criticized parents of teens for buying them cars.

Other(s) commented on the ease of getting a driver's license in the USA. I've heard how some other (European) countries have much stricter driving tests, costing (the US equivalent of) hundreds of dollars, and taking hours (not counting the time standing in line, historically one of the biggest parts of getting a US license), much of which is driving on real roads in real, stressful situations such as rush hour traffic on freeways.
Is there talk about strengthening what it takes to get a driver's license in the US? Not that I've heard, in fact I've heard just the opposite, that some in California want to give licenses to illegal aliens.

For a longer and healthy, injury-free life, one's best bet is to stay off the public roads. Meanwhile, lobby to demand higher standards among the driving population.

Yup. That sort of thing happens a lot.

I didn't think Objectivist ideas was _that_ strong in USA to inflict on the election. Maybe I'm wrong though...

I don't know that a reliable count of American Objectivists has ever been conducted. In some ways, they're a difficult group to track, because they don't build churches (except under contract :-), haven't formed an independent political party (though most, one would think, at least lean Libertarian), etc.

They are certainly out there, however. I keep a copy of Atlas Shrugged on my desk at work, and have found perhaps a half-dozen like-minded peers through this simple advertisement. Not a stellar count over a few years, but that is partly the product of the generic Objectivist aversion to proselytization. I am always pleased to hear Neal Boortz's periodic plugs on "hate radio" :-)

Indeed, that is part of why I am posting today. Seeing so many electoral commentators broad-brush Bush "moral values" voters as "evangelical", I decided that perhaps I should rise to the charge. Objectivism, and the world, could do with a healthy dose of evangelical exhortation, and the mood of the country suggests that perhaps they are ready to listen. One may hope.

Damn it... I agree with something Neal Boortz said. Now I'm going to have to rethink my whole position.

I dunno about the rest of you, but to me this line sounds suspiciously like, "If you don't anger it, maybe it will leave us alone and not hurt us."

This seems like appeasement, like saying "A vote for John Kerry ls a vote for the terrorists."

http://boortz.com/images/funny/global_test_kit.jpg

Right Wing News Allah Is In The House Little Green Footballs Cavalier's Guardian WatchBlog Iraq The Model Instapundit Power Line Michelle Malkin Ace Of Spades HQ A Small Victory The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Israpundit Jihad Watch IMAO Moxie Niel Boortz Lonewacko Wizbang Dumb Celebs Fear And Loathing In Iraq Kim du Toit PABAAH Ann Coulter La Shawn Barber Mark Steyn David Limbaugh

I really like to read Neal Boortz's Web site. I like the way he comments on today's news with a few random thoughts tossed in. Plus his "Reading Assignments" show off some pretty funny links on the net.

I haven't seen this one mentioned so I thought I'd throw it in.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Someone who is preaching to the masses about this is libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz whom had countless problems with his computer and finally got word about FireFox (I was proudly one of those who told him about it) now he is talking about it a lot and giving updates and has said he will NEVER go back to IE! With IE and popup blocking software he still got popups but with FF he said not he hasn't gotten a single one.

The point of the electronic demonstrations isn't to take down a site, according to Ricardo Dominguez, co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, or EDT, which is releasing a FloodNet program of its own. Unlike hackers' denial-of-service attacks, which often hijack computers against their users' will, EDT's JavaScript-based software depends on how many people use the program. "It's a way to let people around the world gather and let their presence be felt," Dominguez said.

Not that he would mind if a Republican server just happened to crash along the way. In 2002, at the EDT's direction, 43,000 people flooded the site of the World Economic Forum during its meeting in New York. The organization's website went offline for several hours following the demonstration.

gxine mms://66.250.188.14/WSB_AM &

i would suggest this article about the subject...

Job Losses and Trade

via NealzNuze

The Florida election results clearly showed the problems with punch card voting.

Actually, according to a study by MIT and CalTech, punch cards are comparable to other voting methods, and, depending upon who you believe, possibly better. Though I've been unable to find the study itself, I've seen it mentioned by Neal Boortz and others. (I've not been able to find the study; nonetheless, I've found Boortz to be accurate in his facts more often than not.) Punch cards actually come out on top of the other methods.

However, many of these problems were due to poor ballot design...

Enh; I don't know. The infamous "butterfly ballot" certainly seemed simple enough to me, and to the third graders to whom it was shown, and to the Democratic Party officials who designed and approved it, and nobody seemed to complain when it was published in the newspaper, but I'm sure I'm missing something.

...poor maintenance of voting equipment...,

Imagine that...you have to maintain a mechanical device. This ought to be a crime, at least of negligence.

...or poor training or [should this be "of"] poll workers and voters.

Poor training of poll workers? Admittedly, I've not been one, but it seems simple enough. If not, then this falls under the same "negligence" bit, as above. Poor training of the voters? As I said, the ballot seemed clear enough; if the voters couldn't figure it out, then I suppose we ought to be pointing fingers at the schools for turning out uneducated graduates. Further, if they couldn't understand, and couldn't be arsed to ask the poll workers for help, well, if they don't care that much, if they can't be bothered to check their votes, do we really want them voting? I don't mean that as flamebait--if you take the time to consider your vote, and act carefully to get it right, why should somebody else, who had no idea for whom they voted, have just as much say?

Don't hold your breath waiting for a coherent response. Your opponent is quite adept when it comes to arguing without consulting logic, or for that matter, facts. Most likely, he'll keep coming back with statements that effectively amount to "nuh uh!"

BTW, good job quoting Boortz... I was going to, but then I saw your post. It would be very nice if he would get a search feature to search through his fabulous Nealz Nuze blog. There have been many times that I wish I could refer to articles he's posted, or facts he's summed up, but had to go back through by each day. Also, if you're interested, you can hear him on these streaming stations.

bottom of the page
ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove it's accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework.

HALLIBURTON .. THE REAL STORY

I am so completely sick and tired of hearing these Bush-hating, left-wing, Saddam-appeasing neo-socialists rant and rave about Halliburton that I could ..... well ... I could just spit. What morons. These are people who hate capitalism, hate the profit motive, and believe that every evil visited on the world is done so in the name of corporate greed. Losers all.

To listen to these irrational cretins you would think that this entire war in Iraq was being fought for one purpose, to enrich Halliburton. It would be not at all surprising if some of these anti-capitalist geeks believed that Bush arranged for those airplanes to fly into the World Trade Towers for that one purpose .. enriching Halliburton.

Try this experiment. The next time you hear some liberal parrot squawk about Halliburton just ask them one simple question. "Well, pal --- since you're such an expert on Halliburton, why don't you tell me just what it is that Halliburton does? Name one product or one service that Halliburton provides."

Don't hold your breath waiting for cogent answer.

Part of the perceived evil that is Halliburton is the fact that Dick Cheney once ran the company. As everyone knows, we should strive mightily to avoid ever placing anyone with the know-how and ability to run a multi-million dollar corporation in a position of responsibility in the political realm. Actually making a success of yourself in the private sector disqualifies you for public service, while not having any actual discernable private sector job skills is the supreme qualification for public service.

So ... let's get to the bottom of this. Did Bush or Cheney do something underhanded or illegal in handing some rather lucrative contracts to Halliburton for infrastructure and other work in Iraq?

We'll start with another question you can ask your bedwetting leftist friends. Ask them if they've ever heard of LOGCAP. They will tell you that they don't know what that is. You won't be at all surprised. LOGCAP is the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program created by the United States Army. It is a program that uses a competitive bidding process to award a contract to a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services the Army might need ... right then. Some brilliant thinkers in the Army came to the conclusion that it might not be such a swell idea to screw around with competitive bidding processes for logistics and other services during wartime. Imagine that.

Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions. Odd, isn't it. The same people who are screaming about Halliburton right now had absolutely nothing .. nada .. nunca .. not one thing to say about Halliburton when it was the Clinton Administration that was handing out contracts .. with no bidding, by the way. You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton. Gore's reinventing government panel had some very complimentary things to say about Halliburton and the services it provides to the U.S. government. Ahhh ... but what does Al Gore k

Recently I was diagnosed with A.A.A.D.D. -- Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder. This is how this insidious disease manifests itself:

I decided to wash my car. As I start toward the garage, I notice that there is mail on the hall table. I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car. I lay my car keys down on the table, put the junk mail in the trashcan under the table, and notice that the trashcan is full. So I decide to put the bills back on the table and take out the trash first.

But then I think, since I'm going to be near the mailbox when I take out the trash anyway, I may as well pay the bills first. I take m y checkbook off the table, and see that there is only one check left. My extra checks are in my desk in the study, so I go to my desk where I find the can of pop that I had been drinking. I'm going to look for my checks, but first I need to push the pop aside so that I don't accidentally knock it over.?

I see that the pop is getting warm, and I decide I should put it in the refrigerator to keep it cold. As I head toward the kitchen with the pop, a vase of flowers on the counter catches my eye -- they need to be watered. I set the pop down on the counter, and I discover my reading glasses that I've been searching for all morning. I decide I better put them back on my desk, but first I'm going to water the flowers.

I set the glasses back down on the counter, fill a container with water and suddenly I spot the TV remote. Someone left it on the kitchen table. I realize that tonight when we go to watch TV, we will be looking for the remote, but nobody will remember that it's on the kitchen table, so I decide to put it back in the den where it belongs, but first I'll water the flowers. I splash some water on the flowers, but most of it spills on the floor.

So, I set the remote back down on the table, get some towels and wipe up the spill. Then I head down the hall trying to remember what I was planning to do. At the end of the day: the car isn't washed, the bills aren't paid, there is a warm can of pop sitting on the counter, the flowers aren't watered, there is still only one check in my checkbook, I can't find the remote, I can't find my glasses, and I don't remember what I did with the car keys.

Then when I try to figure out why nothing got done today, I'm really baffled because I know I was busy all day long, and I'm really tired. I realize this is a serious problem, and I'll try to get some help for it, but first I'll check my e- mail.

From Neal Boortz

Not much of a brief, to be sure. For an outstanding bit of law (on a totally unrelated matter, to be sure), I recommend Judge Samuel B. Kent. Yes, folks, this is his actual opinion. Well worth a read. Why can't all lawyers write like this?

Here

the little guy, from whom we collect the REAL tax money from

Please check out the last screen here. For those of you who are too lazy to click and scroll, I'll just take a couple numbers from there, Neal Boortz's program notes for Election Day.

Taxpayers with incomes in the top 25% (above $55,225) paid 84.01% of total U.S. tax revenue. Taxpayers in the top 50% (above $27,682/year) paid 96.09% of all U.S. tax revenues.

If someone is getting screwed, it sure ain't your sympathetic "little guy."

Please send this to Neal Boortz. I wish I could have moderated you.

1. The right to be treated with dignity and courtesy by all government employees engaged in the screening process.
2. One passenger ombudsman to be made available at all airport screening stations to mediate disputes between federal screeners and agents.
3. No passenger will be separated from his baggage during the screening process. All screening of passenger carry-on items shall be handled in the full view of the passenger.
4. All passengers traveling with family members shall have the right to have one adult family member present during all aspects of the screening process.
5. Baggage screeners shall take extraordinary care to repack all items in passenger's luggage neatly and carefully.
6. Seating shall be provided for all passengers who are required to remove their shoes in the screening process.
7. Screeners shall be responsible for all damage to passenger's property during the search process.
8. Screeners will not be permitted to search the contents of a wallet or other item carrying passenger's cash or credit cards without a supervisor present.
9. All passengers who have personal items confiscated at the screening stations shall be provided with mailing envelopes for use in mailing seized items to passenger's home address. The passenger shall be permitted to place the item in the envelope, seal the envelope, and place the item in the U.S. mail at the screening station.
10. The right to the immediate intervention and assistance of a local law enforcement officer in the event passenger suspects that a screener has stolen property of the passenger of if the screener has touched or groped the passenger in an inappropriate way.
11. All screening stations shall be under constant video and audio surveillance and tapes of said surveillance shall be available to local law enforcement officers in the event of a dispute between passengers and screeners.

Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.

In case you hadn't noticed, the compulsion has already been forbidden. In 1943, the Supreme Court decided in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that students could not be compelled to say the pledge. Quoting from that opinion, "[s]uch a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States." So for the past 49 years, it has been unconstitutional for the State to require anybody to recite the pledge of allegiance. This decision goes further--this decision restricts the rights of those people who do wish to say it. That's a whole different matter.

Unlike your average slashdotter, I actually read the court's opinion. In the opinion, the Court recognizes that "Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge [page 4]." They also mention that Dr. Newdow went off the deep end, asking to court to order both President Clinton and the Congress to change the wording, actions which are well outside the jurisdiction of the court (page 6). He named as defendants the Southern California Unified School District, again a breach of jurisdiction, as his daughter is not enrolled there. Dr. Newdow has a history of making such challenges: in 2000, he sued President Bush over his inauguration, seeking to enjoin him from making any reference to religion in the future. When the suit was thrown out, "[i]n a last-ditch effort to salvage the suit, Newdow sought to add as a defendant Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the congressional committee in charge of the 2000 inaugural. At a hearing before the magistrate, Newdow suggested the committee could be ordered to ban clergy from the guest list or not let them speak [Denny Walsh, The Sacramento Bee." He also filed a lawsuit against then-President Clinton, Congress, and the Broward County School District for the same reason, and attempted to continue the suit even after his daughter was no longer a student in that district. That case, as well, was thrown out.

In spite of the plaintiff's whiny nature, though, there is at least a glimmer of validity to his claim. The wording alone is innocuous enough, similar to "In God We Trust," but the history of the Pledge reveals more. The Pledge originally had no reference to God; the reference was added by an act of Congress in 1954. To quote Neal Boortz:

What was the big threat in 1954? Godless Communism, that's what. Democratic Congressman Louis C. Rabaut from Michigan was the House sponsor of the bill which added "under God" to our Pledge. Rabaut testified before a congressional committee in support of the legislation. He said "the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and its origins.
...
Rabaut wasn't the only person who indicated a religious purpose to the 1954 legislation. We also have the words of the President of the United States in 1954, Dwight Eisenhower. When he signed the legislation he said "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The phrase "under God" is innocent enough on it's own, but in context, it really does smack of State-endorsed religion. I should qualify that remark by mentioning that I myself believe in God; I am merely stating that I can understand the case made by Dr. Newdow.

Realistically, I expect the decision to be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court; they have already held that the phrasing is not unconstitutional in a similar case from Chicago (don't remember, about to go to lunch, don't want to look it up). He may have won his day this time, but public opinion, government opinion (Bush, and 99 senators, condemned the decision), and court opinion (the Chicago case) all seem to be against him. It will make an interesting case, to be sure.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court decided two other interesting cases today. Previously, random drug testing had been held to be legal only for student athletes; the case they decided today opened that up to students in any extra-curricular activities. The plaintiff in this case was in a the school chorus, and on an academic quiz team. She tested negative, but sued over what she called a "humiliating and accusatory policy FOXNews.com." Schools do not need to have any just cause for testing students. In the second case, the Court upheld the idea of school vouchers for parochial schools, striking a blow in favor of school choice advocates everywhere. Expect to hear a lot of rhetoric about this one.

We gave big tax breaks, largely to the weahtly.

If you want to take back the congress there is only one option I'm aware of, the green party. It is not a perfect choice, but, alas, I don't have any other idea to solve this fundamental problem of wealth inballence.

Bush making a good decision...I must not understand the issue fully
:snip Sounds like a case of the latter
Stop being a moron and become informed on issues!
Worth reading daily
[bias but for once not to the left]
be an informed voter
View from right and left

From Neal Boort'z site

I have been saying for years that Americans are, by and large, increasingly willing to trade freedom for security. Now - with the arrival of terrorism on our shores - that willingness may increase.I've lost count of the national leaders, Gephardt, Daschle, Lott, Brokaw, Jennings and others who have talked of our need to give up some of our freedoms for a little increased security. Ronald Reagan had an answer for that. He said that there was no "s" on "freedom." It is indivisible. You're either free, or you're not.

I suppose to be fair, online radio is useful if you follow a certain station for some reason or live somewhere totally isolated, but for the masses, it seems like extra baggage.

Not to mention the fact that some talk show hosts have new audiences in places like Moscow....

According to Neal Boortz in his news section this morning, WSB in Atlanta is solving the problem by filtering out the commercials from the webcasts. Makes sense to me... could end up being another source of revenue for the stations also, as they could sell streamed commercials separately.

According to Neal Boortz in his news section this morning, WSB in Atlanta is solving the problem by filtering out the commercials from the webcasts. Makes sense to me... could end up being another source of revenue for the stations also, as they could sell streamed commercials separately.

Can you provide a concrete example that conclusively demonstrates the assertation that CNN is "left-leaning?"

Desert Storm was Ted's finest hour, with the likes of Christiane Amanpour and Wolf Blitzer doing (and I know this is sacrelige to some) as well as Uncle Walter ever did... complete with a little misdirection for ol' Saddam thrown in for good measure. Too bad yon 800 pound liberal weenie media guerrilla (intentional) took notice.

I think it speaks volumes that a certain Libertarian talk show host doesn't watch CNN and has not for several years now, and has now given up on the Big Three as well in favor of Rupert Murdoch the Aussie's Fox. The Aussies may not care for their former masters the British, but they haven't forgotten what good journalism looks like. "We Report, You Decide(tm)." Helluvalot better than "We Know What's Good For You."

image here

(for those of you confused by ballots, I'll explain: the greyed out areas are counties that voted for Gore.)

I suppose the whole point is moot given that florida was recently handed to bush, but I think it shows that the "will of the people" has been served; if you total the population of counties bush won, he beats gore. Why? More family type voted bush, plain and simple.