Funny... I was reading through comments, but it wasn't until I got to yours that my memory was sparked.
You perfectly described the two graphic artists I use when I need that kind of work (which I can admit I'm completely incapable of). Both (one man, one woman) use Macs, know almost nothing about them, and are employed as artists. Actually, both have artists day gigs that they really don't like, but they do get to ply their craft for a living.
Admittedly, I have tried other "artists" and have never had any success. What I get out of these two are
fast work
image quality
equal or better than what I asked for
an ability to quickly alter the design for future use
All of those are very important, especially given today's development/design environment.
As a nice aside, we tend to barter a bit, as I can trade development skills for design skills with them.
Why not? I commute 3 hours twice a week to Dallas for work. I've also had 1:45 commutes in the past, because my work is a bit specialized, and I have to keep going where the work is. The commutes are cheaper than getting an apartment or hotel for the duration, so it's what I'm stuck with unless I want to keep moving. I don't think the kids would like that too much.
Wow... you've really bought into the doublespeak yourself.
should it be proved necessary
At what point is it proved necessary? You really have two choices here. The first is to think it was proved necessary when everyone in the world thought Saddam Hussein either had WMD's or was building WMD's. The other choice is to say you would have to wait until it was too late, and he already had them. Yes, Saddam using WMD's (as he did in the past on his own people) would have been proof positive, but at what cost to the rest of the world?
Kerry said, on numerous occasions, that Saddam either had WMD's, or wanted to build/acquire them. We know now that he was putting up a smoke screen so Iran would think he had them and Iraq wouldn't look weak. Even Saddam's cabinet thought Iraq had them. Of course our intelligence would be led to believe he had them. What's pitiful now is that, with all of his definitive statements about what the US had to do, Kerry is waffling now, because the war is unpopular, and he will say what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he believes. The fact is, nobody really knows what Kerry believes. If you were to tell me any statement Kerry has made about policy, I'm sure I could come up with either an opposite statement from him in the past, or a voting record that proves otherwise.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.
It would make sense, if in fact the USA were a democracy. It happens to be a representative federal republic, and has been so since 1789. It should be no surprise to you, then, unless, of course, you were born before that year.
Without trying to answer for any of the rest of the slashdot crowd, you just summed up the last few years of my life nicely. Whereas I used to have the ability to work through the night, weekends, whenever I felt it necessary (which was often) to work, I did. Before I got married. Now, I stick to the 40-45 hour schedule, and am in more of a maintenance mode of coding than the creative/cutting edge style I loved back then. That's not to say I'm not creative now, but I certainly don't have the "free time" to take on all of the extra projects I used to.
My life, now, is about my kids, and not only watching them grow, but being a part of that. I'm happy with it, for whatever it's worth.
It's not the worst thing, and at the end of this message, I will give you the long list I wanted to avoid posting. Regarding Kerry's idea to use diplomacy to avert terrorism, we tried that for 20 years. And I'm glad you pointed out the question of HOW we stop it. So far, Kerry has avoided any details as to how he would stop it, other than faster and better than Bush.
As far as Kerry being an expert in foreign policy, I would love to see anything you can drum up to prove that point. He is an expert politician, and an expert debater, but that's about as far as his skillset takes him as far as I'm concerned.
Your comment about Bush and Poland seems a little off aim, as, again, I am not defending Bush at all. All I was trying to point out was that the folks who are bashing Bush are turning a blind eye to Kerry's faults, and he has many. Here's the long list...
Kerry pointed out that US intelligence was lacking. He, however, sat on the intelligence committee, although he only bothered to show up 25% of the time. His voting record (below) shows he continually voted against intelligence budget cuts, and he continually denies having done so now.
During the first debate, Kerry had the nerve to say our military is lacking essential equipment to do their job overseas. However, Kerry also has a strong record of cutting defense spending (see below).
Kerry claimed not to have spoken to old time anti-war associate Al Hubbard since 1971. This was proven untrue. He also claimed Hubbard was an Air Force Captain. It turns out Hubbard never served in the military.
Kerry claimed to have been under heavy fire for 5000 meters, but according to the Navy after action report, there was no damage (including bullet holes) to the boat. 3.2 miles of heavy A/W and S/A from both banks and every bullet missed? He still tells the story his way... another lie. Why perpetuate this lie? Because it makes him look like a war hero.
Speaking of war hero lies, of the three purple hearts he "earned" giving him the ability to leave service 243 days early, only two files can be found. It seems both injuries were self inflicted. More lies.
Kerry talks a big game about how we've lost more jobs under Bush than in previous years. However, the unemployment rate is 5.5% lower right now than under Clinton. Another lie.
Kerry was one of only 16 senators who opposed DOMA, but now claims he is only for civil unions. Frankly, I'm not sure wether to call this one a lie, or a waffle, in order to tell people what he thinks the polls suggest they want to hear.
5/7/2001, John Kerry recieved a letter from retired FAA agent Brian Sullivan, describing the lax security at Logan Airport (Boston) and how the DOT OIG had become an ineffective overseer of the FAA. Kerry's decisive plan of action was to foward the letter to the DOT OIG. What?!? After 9/11 (specifically 9/15), he told reporters and the GAO (who launched an investigation into security lapses) that he had launched an undercover investigation after recieving the letter. The GAO found no evidence of any previously launched investigation, including no documentation from Kerry himself. Another lie. Do you see a trend here? He claimed to have "sounded the alarm long before 9/11." By sending a letter to the very same ineffective overseer? He did nothing more than pass the buck, then lie about it.
Kerry's intelligence voting record
1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no cosponsors of Kerrys bill, which never made it the floor for a vote. (S.1290, Introduced 9/29/95)
1995: Voted Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)
It's just biased to point out one honest thing Kerry has said amid the plethora lies he's told during his campaign. Not to be biased myself, Bush has been caught lying too.
1997, Nov 11, John Kerry on Crossfire, with john Sununu
"This is not just a minor confrontation," said Kerry. "This is a very significant issue about the balance of power, about the future stability of the Middle East, about all of what we have thus far invested in the prior war and what may happen in the future."
Kerry, in 1997 speech to congress...
We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.... Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun the United States must not lose its resolve to take action... As the world's only current superpower, we have the enormous responsibility not to exhibit arrogance, not to take any unwitting or unnecessary risks, and not to employ armed force casually. But at the same time it is our responsibility not to shy away from those confrontations that really matter in the long run. And this matters in the long run
This is from the same guy who, while on the intelligence committee, read the same intelligence report that Bush did, voted to use military force in Iraq based on that intelligence, and now claims Bush misled the American public. During the debate last week, he claimed he never said the President "lied," however that was the exact word he used in 2003.
Neither candidate is good for the highest office in this country, but it sickens me to see so many supporters of Kerry's on this website. Techies tend to do their own research, but it seems a great number of/. members aren't doing just that.
That anyone would take either candidate at their word is incomprehensible. They both have proven track records of lying, but you're quick to point out that Kerry said something, so he must mean it.
Laughable at best.
Re:I'm a micro-view of the job situation
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
I live in the Houston area, and have been a professional developer/dba for 12 years now. The problem Houston currently has is that it's extremely heavy in Oil/Gas, Banking, and Insurance companies, all of which are not doing terribly well right now. Let's not forget that in 1992, Enron, Dynegy, and El Paso flooded the market with a few thousand qualified IT professionals.
My most recent contract is in Dallas for a major telco. As I drive through Dallas, I am constantly reminded why there are so many more IT jobs there. It's an extremely diverse city with regard to industry, and many companies there are IT dependant.
Houston's industry is old-school, and finding work there has been difficult for the past few years now. I would either consider a move, or taking a contract with a per-diem until local industry picks back up.
You nailed the growth, bust, and subsequent recovery on the head there. I got into IT (professionally) in 1992 as a C programmer, having written code for 8 years previously. I watched the industry fill up with VB folks who cut their teeth on XL macros. That was ok for a while, as most were just gui programmers, or taking care of small tasks.
By 1999, there were unqualified programmers/network admins/dba's everywhere, because the industry grew way too fast. People were, I hate to admit, getting overpaid to do some of the simplest of tasks, because there weren't enough warm bodies to fill the vacant cubicles.
Then came 2001. By the end of the year, most, if not all, companies were cutting back their budgets, and scrapping all IT that wasn't essential to run their business. You're right, in that most of the underqualified seemed to leave the industry first. A lot of folks like me just kept taking the paycuts (I couldn't imagine doing anything else for a living) before the eventual layoffs. I was out for only 4 months, then back into the swing of things, as companies seemed to be funding projects that sat idle for long enough.
I'm back just under my early 2001 rates, and my phone rings constantly for contract gigs. It appears the IT market, at least in my area, has leveled itself and is ready to move forward again.
It's funny you mention the swift boat incident alongside the Bush National Guard information, and only call one side a liar.
First, regarding the NG information, Bush completed more than 50 points (required amount) in each of his fiscal years in the NG. As for showing up in AL, I have no idea. But his record clearly states that his fiscal years were April to April, and there wasn't a single year that he didn't meet his requirements.
Second, the after action report (SPOT report) of Kerry's incident where he claimed he was under SA fire for 5000 meters showed there wasn't a single ding in his 50' swift boat. 5000 meters and no damage to the boat? I would suggest with that finding that Kerry is lying. He was forced to admit recently that there was a second swift boat there, and he'd lied about that as well.
I didn't post this to suggest people vote for Bush. I did, however, want to point out the holes in your post as more of the same that you're complaining about.
Let me see if I get this straight. You commented that ) Drugs are expensive because they are illegal... suggesting crack, crystal meth, and marijuana are expensive? No, only some drugs are illegal. Even though name brand green beans are $0.50-0.88 per can, some people will still buy the cheaper generic ones for a variety of reasons. So cocaine gets cheaper, so does crack, and there's still a market for it.
) Several studies have shown that when junkies get their fix consistently, they are perfectly able to maintain their jobs and responsibilities.
I cannot stand it when people say "several studies" and give no source whatsoever. Anyone can say those two words, and it adds an element of believability in the same way saying Benjamin Franklin once said it, or whispering it. For every study, there is an equal and opposite study. My experience in the volunteer work I've done in the past for the Star of Home shelter in Houston is that once people are on drugs, it is extremely difficult to get them off of them, and they "need" more and more. At first they can afford them, but the increased need for them eventually causes them to lose everything, or overdose. Quite a few of the people I spent time with lost their jobs because they were no longer able to function at work, given their increased need for the high associated with the addictive drug of choice... needing it during their working hours eventually. So maybe I should write and publish a "study" disproving the studies you paraphrased, but did not give any reference to.
If even 10% of the money that we currently spend on fighting the drug war were directed towards drug treatment, we could greatly reduce the drug problems we face right now.
Currently, in the war on drugs, 20% of federal dollars are spent on treatment, leaving the other two thirds to be spent on prevention. The Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2003 Executive Summary shows that the federal budget increase for 2003 was $461MM. That's just an increase. The total was almost $19BB. Care to make any summaries as to how that money could have been spent instead? Let's look at how you suggest (rather how Peter McWilliams, whose only qualifications are as an author, suggests) we could spend the war on drugs money elsewhere...
Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.
Anyone who has an understanding of federal bonds and the majority of their use would never suggest we pay off the national debt. Most of those bonds are held by American taxpayers, and typically for retirement funds. Would you like to see more people forced into an already overbought and unstable stock market instead? In the realm of risk analysis, people closer to retirement need investments that less risky, and t-bonds/t-bills are near the top of that list.
Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent.
With 41% of federal income spent on social security and medicare, and an additional 18% spent on the US military, I challenge you to show me the math in 100-41-18=75.
Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.
What? Oh, probably the story of the $600 hammer again. That hammer never existed.
Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year
Erm... watch the clock tick and let me know when it reaches the $580 billion dollars you get when you give 280 million people a check for $2000.
Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.
While my numbers may not represent everyone in the US, I think I'm prob
I agree, and I hope it didn't sound like I was bashing the other programmers on that team. Actually, it's nice to have some coders around that have namespace/classes memorized and can fly through code. I understand many countries' education systems are based on memorization... China also comes to mind.
I had no idea Feynman had a biography, much less two of them. I'll have to hunt them down as I'm sure they're interesting reads. Thanks!
As an American geek, I take great offense to that comment. As a matter of fact, I'm on a contract right now that includes three H1-B programmers from India, who, while faster coders than I am, marvel at my problem solving skills.
I lengthy discussion about the difference in our styles turned up that Indians are taught based on memorization, while Americans are taught based on problem solving.
So go ask those other programmers on my contract whether or not American geeks suck at IT jobs.
Likewise, politicians are probably the most recorded people around.
So what was Senator Kennedy doing last night in the privacy of his own home? The problem with your statement is they're recorded when they know they're being recorded. If one of them drives off a bridge leaving a woman stranded in his car to drown, it's an unknown. Or if one of them is having an affair with a well known actress, we're not going to know.
But if Joe AverageBlueCollarGuy does either while we're all monitored 24/7, not only are the police going to know, but anyone who watches the news probably will too.
These politicians who suggest such things as having people's phone conversations recorded should have to eat their own dog food.
I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative, but there is an amendment related to ownership of guns for a very valid reason... there isn't one for gay marriage, abortion, or dope.
The idea of state's rights is a pretty profound one. If you vote in Texas for gay marriage, but lose, then public opinion override's yours and you either deal with it, or move to another place where people's opinions line up with yours.
I have to say this... I'm glad that the bad on assault weapons ran out of time, not because I think assault weapons are something everyone should be allowed to own, but because the definition of assault weapon was getting thinner every year. The original definition was a weapon that, by pulling a trigger once, would fire many rounds... fully automatic weapons. In recent years many politicians were trying to include semi-automatic weapons, which would include the rifle I hunt deer with. Granted, I also have a semi-automatic.45, but anyone who has hunted wild hogs in Texas knows you have to have something that shoots close range, and a lot, for their own safety.
After my offtopic rant, I do agree that _Freedom_ is the key, but the public vote, educated or otherwise, should be the deciding factor.
While the arguement between alcohol being legal and drugs not is extremely thin, there's really no comparison to drugs and tobacco. Nobody's driving was impaired enough to kill someone because they were high on tobacco (though I'm sure someone looking down to light one may have). Nobody has had the line between right and wrong distored enough to kill someone because they were high on tobacco.
That being said, I've never understood, at least logically anyway, why alcohol is legal and marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine, etc... isn't. Both alcohol and illegal drugs impair people, cause them to lose their jobs, steal, kill, etc...
In reality, alcohol was made legal again because bootlegging made a farce of the criminal justice system's attempt to enforce the law. Isn't that what's going on in the war on drugs?
With 6 million people in the Houston metro area, a night doesn't go by without hearing in the news that someones death was cause by a drug related incident, AND someone's death was cause by an alcohol related incident. The sad thing is politicians, given a choice, would probably rather make alcohol illegal than to legalize drugs.
Actually, for reference, Libertarians aren't for legalization of drugs, they are against laws against them. While the final product is the same, the road to it is a bit different.
Think about how much crime (and the load on police and prisons) would plummet if drugs were legalized.
Then you have to add back in the number of crimes that would be committed with more people addicted to crack or meth breaking into houses to "earn" money for their next fix, having lost their job because they stopped showing up.
While the law imprisons too many people, I do think it at least deters some people (like myself) from ever starting on them in the first place.
That will be about the time other ancient books will be discovered where God told Adam "Eh, I tried this thing before, but it sort of didn't work out."
Slashdot Mirror
You perfectly described the two graphic artists I use when I need that kind of work (which I can admit I'm completely incapable of). Both (one man, one woman) use Macs, know almost nothing about them, and are employed as artists. Actually, both have artists day gigs that they really don't like, but they do get to ply their craft for a living.
Admittedly, I have tried other "artists" and have never had any success. What I get out of these two are
All of those are very important, especially given today's development/design environment.
As a nice aside, we tend to barter a bit, as I can trade development skills for design skills with them.
Why not? I commute 3 hours twice a week to Dallas for work. I've also had 1:45 commutes in the past, because my work is a bit specialized, and I have to keep going where the work is. The commutes are cheaper than getting an apartment or hotel for the duration, so it's what I'm stuck with unless I want to keep moving. I don't think the kids would like that too much.
Wow... you've really bought into the doublespeak yourself.
should it be proved necessary
At what point is it proved necessary? You really have two choices here. The first is to think it was proved necessary when everyone in the world thought Saddam Hussein either had WMD's or was building WMD's. The other choice is to say you would have to wait until it was too late, and he already had them. Yes, Saddam using WMD's (as he did in the past on his own people) would have been proof positive, but at what cost to the rest of the world?
Kerry said, on numerous occasions, that Saddam either had WMD's, or wanted to build/acquire them. We know now that he was putting up a smoke screen so Iran would think he had them and Iraq wouldn't look weak. Even Saddam's cabinet thought Iraq had them. Of course our intelligence would be led to believe he had them. What's pitiful now is that, with all of his definitive statements about what the US had to do, Kerry is waffling now, because the war is unpopular, and he will say what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he believes. The fact is, nobody really knows what Kerry believes. If you were to tell me any statement Kerry has made about policy, I'm sure I could come up with either an opposite statement from him in the past, or a voting record that proves otherwise.
Go to this to see how many people, including Bill Clinton and John Kerry, thought Iraq had WMD's as well. From 1998 until we recently overthrew Saddam Hussein and were actually able to inspect Iraq, most of the rest of the world also thought there were WMD's.
dunno, maybe because that's what democracy is about. The people... vote... for their leader...
This is true, but since the United States is a representative federal republic, could you come up with another arguement to support popular vote?
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.
It would make sense, if in fact the USA were a democracy. It happens to be a representative federal republic, and has been so since 1789. It should be no surprise to you, then, unless, of course, you were born before that year.
Well put. I play video games.... and I smoke cigarettes. Which one can I go long periods without and not have withdrawals?
Without trying to answer for any of the rest of the slashdot crowd, you just summed up the last few years of my life nicely. Whereas I used to have the ability to work through the night, weekends, whenever I felt it necessary (which was often) to work, I did. Before I got married. Now, I stick to the 40-45 hour schedule, and am in more of a maintenance mode of coding than the creative/cutting edge style I loved back then. That's not to say I'm not creative now, but I certainly don't have the "free time" to take on all of the extra projects I used to.
My life, now, is about my kids, and not only watching them grow, but being a part of that. I'm happy with it, for whatever it's worth.
As far as Kerry being an expert in foreign policy, I would love to see anything you can drum up to prove that point. He is an expert politician, and an expert debater, but that's about as far as his skillset takes him as far as I'm concerned.
Your comment about Bush and Poland seems a little off aim, as, again, I am not defending Bush at all. All I was trying to point out was that the folks who are bashing Bush are turning a blind eye to Kerry's faults, and he has many. Here's the long list...
Kerry's intelligence voting record
1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no cosponsors of Kerrys bill, which never made it the floor for a vote. (S.1290, Introduced 9/29/95)
1995: Voted Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)
1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billi
It's just biased to point out one honest thing Kerry has said amid the plethora lies he's told during his campaign. Not to be biased myself, Bush has been caught lying too.
/. members aren't doing just that.
1997, Nov 11, John Kerry on Crossfire, with john Sununu
"This is not just a minor confrontation," said Kerry. "This is a very significant issue about the balance of power, about the future stability of the Middle East, about all of what we have thus far invested in the prior war and what may happen in the future."
Kerry, in 1997 speech to congress...
We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.... Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun the United States must not lose its resolve to take action... As the world's only current superpower, we have the enormous responsibility not to exhibit arrogance, not to take any unwitting or unnecessary risks, and not to employ armed force casually. But at the same time it is our responsibility not to shy away from those confrontations that really matter in the long run. And this matters in the long run
This is from the same guy who, while on the intelligence committee, read the same intelligence report that Bush did, voted to use military force in Iraq based on that intelligence, and now claims Bush misled the American public. During the debate last week, he claimed he never said the President "lied," however that was the exact word he used in 2003.
Neither candidate is good for the highest office in this country, but it sickens me to see so many supporters of Kerry's on this website. Techies tend to do their own research, but it seems a great number of
That anyone would take either candidate at their word is incomprehensible. They both have proven track records of lying, but you're quick to point out that Kerry said something, so he must mean it.
Laughable at best.
I live in the Houston area, and have been a professional developer/dba for 12 years now. The problem Houston currently has is that it's extremely heavy in Oil/Gas, Banking, and Insurance companies, all of which are not doing terribly well right now. Let's not forget that in 1992, Enron, Dynegy, and El Paso flooded the market with a few thousand qualified IT professionals.
My most recent contract is in Dallas for a major telco. As I drive through Dallas, I am constantly reminded why there are so many more IT jobs there. It's an extremely diverse city with regard to industry, and many companies there are IT dependant.
Houston's industry is old-school, and finding work there has been difficult for the past few years now. I would either consider a move, or taking a contract with a per-diem until local industry picks back up.
You nailed the growth, bust, and subsequent recovery on the head there. I got into IT (professionally) in 1992 as a C programmer, having written code for 8 years previously. I watched the industry fill up with VB folks who cut their teeth on XL macros. That was ok for a while, as most were just gui programmers, or taking care of small tasks.
By 1999, there were unqualified programmers/network admins/dba's everywhere, because the industry grew way too fast. People were, I hate to admit, getting overpaid to do some of the simplest of tasks, because there weren't enough warm bodies to fill the vacant cubicles.
Then came 2001. By the end of the year, most, if not all, companies were cutting back their budgets, and scrapping all IT that wasn't essential to run their business. You're right, in that most of the underqualified seemed to leave the industry first. A lot of folks like me just kept taking the paycuts (I couldn't imagine doing anything else for a living) before the eventual layoffs. I was out for only 4 months, then back into the swing of things, as companies seemed to be funding projects that sat idle for long enough.
I'm back just under my early 2001 rates, and my phone rings constantly for contract gigs. It appears the IT market, at least in my area, has leveled itself and is ready to move forward again.
It's funny you mention the swift boat incident alongside the Bush National Guard information, and only call one side a liar.
First, regarding the NG information, Bush completed more than 50 points (required amount) in each of his fiscal years in the NG. As for showing up in AL, I have no idea. But his record clearly states that his fiscal years were April to April, and there wasn't a single year that he didn't meet his requirements.
Second, the after action report (SPOT report) of Kerry's incident where he claimed he was under SA fire for 5000 meters showed there wasn't a single ding in his 50' swift boat. 5000 meters and no damage to the boat? I would suggest with that finding that Kerry is lying. He was forced to admit recently that there was a second swift boat there, and he'd lied about that as well.
I didn't post this to suggest people vote for Bush. I did, however, want to point out the holes in your post as more of the same that you're complaining about.
Let me see if I get this straight. You commented that ) Drugs are expensive because they are illegal... suggesting crack, crystal meth, and marijuana are expensive? No, only some drugs are illegal. Even though name brand green beans are $0.50-0.88 per can, some people will still buy the cheaper generic ones for a variety of reasons. So cocaine gets cheaper, so does crack, and there's still a market for it.
) Several studies have shown that when junkies get their fix consistently, they are perfectly able to maintain their jobs and responsibilities.
I cannot stand it when people say "several studies" and give no source whatsoever. Anyone can say those two words, and it adds an element of believability in the same way saying Benjamin Franklin once said it, or whispering it. For every study, there is an equal and opposite study. My experience in the volunteer work I've done in the past for the Star of Home shelter in Houston is that once people are on drugs, it is extremely difficult to get them off of them, and they "need" more and more. At first they can afford them, but the increased need for them eventually causes them to lose everything, or overdose. Quite a few of the people I spent time with lost their jobs because they were no longer able to function at work, given their increased need for the high associated with the addictive drug of choice... needing it during their working hours eventually. So maybe I should write and publish a "study" disproving the studies you paraphrased, but did not give any reference to.
If even 10% of the money that we currently spend on fighting the drug war were directed towards drug treatment, we could greatly reduce the drug problems we face right now.
Currently, in the war on drugs, 20% of federal dollars are spent on treatment, leaving the other two thirds to be spent on prevention. The Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2003 Executive Summary shows that the federal budget increase for 2003 was $461MM. That's just an increase. The total was almost $19BB. Care to make any summaries as to how that money could have been spent instead? Let's look at how you suggest (rather how Peter McWilliams, whose only qualifications are as an author, suggests) we could spend the war on drugs money elsewhere...
Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.
Anyone who has an understanding of federal bonds and the majority of their use would never suggest we pay off the national debt. Most of those bonds are held by American taxpayers, and typically for retirement funds. Would you like to see more people forced into an already overbought and unstable stock market instead? In the realm of risk analysis, people closer to retirement need investments that less risky, and t-bonds/t-bills are near the top of that list.
Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent. With 41% of federal income spent on social security and medicare, and an additional 18% spent on the US military, I challenge you to show me the math in 100-41-18=75.
Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.
What? Oh, probably the story of the $600 hammer again. That hammer never existed.
Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year
Erm... watch the clock tick and let me know when it reaches the $580 billion dollars you get when you give 280 million people a check for $2000.
Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.
While my numbers may not represent everyone in the US, I think I'm prob
So under which President's term do you actually think mass media was deregulated?
If I ever saw a post that should be modded up funny, yours would be it.
I agree, and I hope it didn't sound like I was bashing the other programmers on that team. Actually, it's nice to have some coders around that have namespace/classes memorized and can fly through code. I understand many countries' education systems are based on memorization... China also comes to mind.
I had no idea Feynman had a biography, much less two of them. I'll have to hunt them down as I'm sure they're interesting reads. Thanks!
As an American geek, I take great offense to that comment. As a matter of fact, I'm on a contract right now that includes three H1-B programmers from India, who, while faster coders than I am, marvel at my problem solving skills.
I lengthy discussion about the difference in our styles turned up that Indians are taught based on memorization, while Americans are taught based on problem solving.
So go ask those other programmers on my contract whether or not American geeks suck at IT jobs.
Likewise, politicians are probably the most recorded people around.
So what was Senator Kennedy doing last night in the privacy of his own home? The problem with your statement is they're recorded when they know they're being recorded. If one of them drives off a bridge leaving a woman stranded in his car to drown, it's an unknown. Or if one of them is having an affair with a well known actress, we're not going to know.
But if Joe AverageBlueCollarGuy does either while we're all monitored 24/7, not only are the police going to know, but anyone who watches the news probably will too.
These politicians who suggest such things as having people's phone conversations recorded should have to eat their own dog food.
I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative, but there is an amendment related to ownership of guns for a very valid reason... there isn't one for gay marriage, abortion, or dope.
.45, but anyone who has hunted wild hogs in Texas knows you have to have something that shoots close range, and a lot, for their own safety.
The idea of state's rights is a pretty profound one. If you vote in Texas for gay marriage, but lose, then public opinion override's yours and you either deal with it, or move to another place where people's opinions line up with yours.
I have to say this... I'm glad that the bad on assault weapons ran out of time, not because I think assault weapons are something everyone should be allowed to own, but because the definition of assault weapon was getting thinner every year. The original definition was a weapon that, by pulling a trigger once, would fire many rounds... fully automatic weapons. In recent years many politicians were trying to include semi-automatic weapons, which would include the rifle I hunt deer with. Granted, I also have a semi-automatic
After my offtopic rant, I do agree that _Freedom_ is the key, but the public vote, educated or otherwise, should be the deciding factor.
While the arguement between alcohol being legal and drugs not is extremely thin, there's really no comparison to drugs and tobacco. Nobody's driving was impaired enough to kill someone because they were high on tobacco (though I'm sure someone looking down to light one may have). Nobody has had the line between right and wrong distored enough to kill someone because they were high on tobacco.
That being said, I've never understood, at least logically anyway, why alcohol is legal and marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine, etc... isn't. Both alcohol and illegal drugs impair people, cause them to lose their jobs, steal, kill, etc...
In reality, alcohol was made legal again because bootlegging made a farce of the criminal justice system's attempt to enforce the law. Isn't that what's going on in the war on drugs?
With 6 million people in the Houston metro area, a night doesn't go by without hearing in the news that someones death was cause by a drug related incident, AND someone's death was cause by an alcohol related incident. The sad thing is politicians, given a choice, would probably rather make alcohol illegal than to legalize drugs.
most libertarians are for drug legalization
Actually, for reference, Libertarians aren't for legalization of drugs, they are against laws against them. While the final product is the same, the road to it is a bit different.
Think about how much crime (and the load on police and prisons) would plummet if drugs were legalized.
Then you have to add back in the number of crimes that would be committed with more people addicted to crack or meth breaking into houses to "earn" money for their next fix, having lost their job because they stopped showing up.
While the law imprisons too many people, I do think it at least deters some people (like myself) from ever starting on them in the first place.
That will be about the time other ancient books will be discovered where God told Adam "Eh, I tried this thing before, but it sort of didn't work out."