Admittedly I know very little about running companies or stockholder relations with management. But even with my limits, finding out that a company is mismanaging its employment practices to a point of costing the stockholders approximately--
$41,728,000 dollars a year in profits catches my attention.
Wal-Mart is the company and it happens to be the worlds largest corporation let alone the largest retailer. How can this be? I have been led to believe over the years that the way Sam Walton wanted things, his practices were going to affect overall consumer prices for the better-- of us all. But when his low wage a benefit plan is put to the test and compared to companies that are also large, he is all hat and no cow.
As the article below indicates, Walmart pays $4.45 per hour less in wages, $1,875 less in employee benefits, covers fewer employees with healthcare and yet rips off the stockholders in the amount of $2,608 per year in --profit per employee.
That's right! For every employee [all 1,600,000 of them] Walmart earns $2,608 less per year profit per employee than Costco [another large retailer]. In fact--the head of Costco claims it just makes good business sense to pay their employees more!
Of course it does if it means you end up with another $42,000,000 per year profit by paying more. Why aren't the Wal-Mart stockholders up in arms. That is a substantial amount of profit being lost do to management employee practices.
And now I'm upset. If Walmart is needing to make up that profit shortfall, then I'm being asked to come up with the extra money through higher prices! Companies still need to make a certain return on investment in order to attract investors[stockholders].
Yodi's pet toys and my underwear prices are higher because Wal-Mart wages are lower. If Sam knew this he would probably be doing something about it. He always claimed to be a friend to his customers. Maybe not as friendly as I thought.
Now I wish I knew even less about business and profit. This is another one of those little know facts that I now know but have little if any control over. But those stockholders sure do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 28, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist
Wal-Mart's low-road model
The Wal-Mart Watch campaign, a labor-environmental group highly critical of America's mega-mega retailer, recently launched more than 1,000 events nationwide for its "Higher Expectations Week."
A scathing documentary by independent filmmaker Robert Greenwald with a focus on Wal-Mart's business tactics and treatment of workers began to play to audiences across the country.
Wal-Mart is fighting its critics with waves of television ads celebrating happy workers and the company's gifts to local charities.
But the action goes much further. Across state capitals, legislators are into spirited debates over whether Wal-Mart should be forced to pay adequate health benefits or leave it to the states to subsidize its low-paid workers through Medicaid and other public benefits.
In one sense, all of this is predictable: With annual sales of $288 billion and 1.6 million employees, Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest corporation. Its footprint on American communities and retailing is so vast that some opposition to its tactics is virtually inevitable.
But something even bigger seems to be occurring. Wal-Mart has become the poster child for an era of unfettered globalized corporate operations — "a destabilizing business model, a dangerous detriment to America's local and national economies and to the middle class," in the words of critic Leo Hindery Jr., former CEO of the telecom carrier Global Crossing and an active figure in Democratic Party politics.
Hindery, at a recent Washington conference organized by the Center for American Progress, noted that as recently as 1992 (the year of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's death), the Business Roundtable of top business leaders was asserting that corporations had a major responsibility not just to stockholders but to their employees, society at large and the nation's economy. But now, Hindery asserts, the Business Roundtable — indeed, most of the corporate world — focuses almost exclusively on profits for stockholders.
Wal-Mart leads and embodies the trend, he asserts, in three ways: the "clobbering" of Main Streets when Wal-Mart moves to one of its usual edge-of-town locations, "the miserable wage and benefits package offered by Sam Walton's creation," and Wal-Mart's buying strategy, focused on cheaply produced foreign goods, a total reversal of Walton's "Buy America" advocacy.
The reply of economists friendly to Wal-Mart is based — like the company's promotions — almost exclusively on low prices and efficiency. According to a Wal-Mart commissioned study by Global Insight, a respected economic-forecasting firm, low Wal-Mart prices saved consumers $263 billion last year. Wal-Mart defenders say that's "progressive" because the benefits flow principally to low-income families who shop at discount stores.
But the real choice, says Harry Holzer, former chief economist for the U.S. Labor Department, is between "lower-road" employer strategies focused, like Wal-Mart, on low wages regardless of high employee turnover, versus a "higher road" strategy by employers focused on higher worker productivity that's supported by higher wages and benefits as well as training and promotion ladders.
The mass-retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club warehouse chain, has emerged as the high-road model. While Wal-Mart fights aggressively to stop any union organizing whatever, Costco has agreements with the Teamsters for 16 percent of its employees and has extended most of the benefits to its entire work force.
Indeed, a Business Week analysis shows Costco's average hourly wage is $15.97, far above the Wal-Mart (Sam's Club) $11.52 figure (even excluding the 25 percent of Wal-Mart workers who are low-paid part-timers). The yearly employer contributions to health care — Costco, $5,735; Wal-Mart, $3,500. Of Costco employees, 82 percent are covered by the health plan; Wal-Mart, 47 percent. Employee turnover at Wal-Mart is three times higher than Costco's.
And then comes the clincher, suggesting the low-road approach may not be so clever after all: Costco's profit per employee is $13,647; Wal-Mart's, $11,039.
Paying good wages and benefits, says Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, "is not altruistic; this is good business."
Still, if history is any measure, it will take energetic union organizing to force Wal-Mart to shift tactics — perhaps a replay of 1937, when a courageous Detroit sit-in strike by young women at Woolworth's, the dominant retailer of the day, sparked a string of nationwide victories and substantial pay increases.
Wal-Mart Watch, though founded by Andy Stern, head of the Service Workers International, isn't ready to leap into an organizing fight. If and when it's ready, look for a struggle that shapes America's economy and character for the century.
Neal Peirce's column appears alternate Mondays on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com
2005, Washington Post Writers Group
Monday, November 28, 2005
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving
Nothing profound-- just wishing you all a very very happy holiday.
And a plug for "GOD", without who there would be little to be happy about.
Yodi and Mike
And a plug for "GOD", without who there would be little to be happy about.
Yodi and Mike
Monday, November 21, 2005
Why Bushs' Iraq Plan Is Doomed
I am sure that President Bush is feeling somewhat dazed these days. He came into office a mere 71 months ago full of determination and with his agenda still wet from the printers office tucked under is arm. What happened in such a short time?
Actually what happened to President Bush will continue to happen to politicians in our country until we deal with some of the following issues.
1. few common values among the divergent groups that make up our society.
2. a failure of immigrants to meld with in the American culture.
3. a loss of the American ideal and dream.
4. A loss of religion and its values within American society.
5. A loss of trust in each other and especially politicians.
Another factor that affects The President and all politicians is the ready availability of news, comment, and debate within society. This factor has not only left the politicians scratching their heads, but church leaders, busuiness leaders, and all formal institutions of American culture doing likewise. Even the American Red Cross is under serious scrutiny because of published accounts of how they respond to relief efforts in our country. And of couse this leads to fewer donations.
The two party political system and its ability to represent so many different communities and their priorities results in ineffectual leadership and continued stalemate on major issues facing America.
An example of the Presidents Iraq policy and its rapid disapproval ratings bear witness to the affects of our fractured society.
Right now approximately 35% of Americans agree that America should stay engaged in Iraq, yet four years ago, most Americans believed we needed to address our countries vulnerablility in the wake of the World Trade Center attack..
Politicians cannot afford to have such low poll numbers and therefore America will pull out of Iraq. The real reason that the numbers are low is rooted in one or more of the 5 items I listed above.
We are a country so divided after years of cultural breakdown, that no politician is able to mount a sustained agenda and at the same time can keep the public support high enough to be within their comfort zone, ie:--re-election zone.
If we were a united people, healthcare, social security, public education, energy, and transportation issues would already be solved with new vibrant united zeal. Instead there are so many self centered views about these issues, from so many communities with myopic vision, that no solution is available until we address the fractures within our people.
Compunding the Presidents agenda and all the political agendas is that politicians have lost their ability to control media and its content. Americans over 40 who use the internet for example, visit 6 sites on average. Younger Americans visit 29 sites on average. Now those sites can be news, entertainment, hobby related, blogs, forums, chat rooms,--all manner of sites. My point with these statictics is that no political party or politician can influence this many independant information sources. There are millions of individual sources to choose from. Here I am making comment on this subject and a few folks will read this and whether they agree or not--they will have been exposed to another view. So I can be considered a source [minor]--but none the less another published source. The ability to control propaganda has been lost.
What was once a television market controled by three major networks now has over 100 different channels each with their own content and view.
What was once radio with a few commentators such as Larry King is now a media with dozens of talking heads and their respective agendas.
The ability to manipulate and direct public attention and support in a broad scale through all media has been lost.
But our problems as a society still exist and still cry out for solutions.
President Bush and American politics have simply lost its ability to commander an agenda which is supported by the majority of Americans. We all feel disconnected from each other, our communities, and our country.
We have no common roots anymore. We have dozens if not humdreds of individual cultural communities with their own agendas.
If America had been this rootless and fractured in 1861, President Lincoln would have lost the civil war and we would have two distinct countries where one once was.
We were a country founded upon such deep roots and beliefs in our own sacred sociiety, that for most of our history we remained a people unto itself and content at isolation. Isolationism was the reason America was so late entering both world wars in the 20th century. A loss of those same deep roots can be viewed as a cause of us now being intent upon projecting our might and influence outside our borders.
Most of the fractured communities within our country feel that America needs to return to our roots and cultural heritage. To insist that new immigrants integrate into American culture and leave their old behind. Outside of an outright invasion by foreign powers onto our shores, Americans are ready to pull their collective horns in and revert their attention away from terrorist problems a half world away and 1,400 years old.
There is only one true unifying force that is capable of transcending all peoples.
Religion and faith is that force. and only a political system that embodes these same ideals can succeed in solving mankinds varied problems. We are all different and we are a fractured society--but when all these differences are set aside and we peel away the layers--we are united at our core by a common creator and a common basic conscience.
It is religion and faith that have been under the most vicious assault over the past four decades in America.
It is religious warfare that is behind the worlds problems.
President Bush has three more years in office. If he wants to have a succesful last term in office, he needs to re-direct the focus on his adminisration to uniting all the various communities under one mantra that can bring us back together as a nation.
"GOD"
I don't mean under a state religion or my "GOD"--I mean under programs that get back to the common nature we all share. America will only win wars such as the terrorist war when we win back our common roots. If we want to be a nation that projects its values--then those values that need projected are plainly layed out in the Christian bible. Lessons are shown throughout the Old Testament that can be applied to our own country. I'm sure that terrorist agents existed back in Noahs' time. People who twisted religion to become a brand of behavior completely foreign to our creators intent.
If the President wants to address the 5 points and move our country towards solving every groups concerns, then he must unite all the groups together. If he doesn't make strides to this end, then he will be left with a bald spot on his head from all the frustrated scratching and we will be left three more years away from solving not only terrorism--but all the other issues that are screaming for attention.
Come on Yodi, we need to pray for a change in fuzzy thinking going on in our nations leadership. The answer to their bald spots is right in front of their nose--right in front of their face in the mirror. It is believing that mankind alone can solve mankinds problems through political and military solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
Evidence of the affects the 5 pints I listed on politics can be found in the attached article. when reading it notice how many different polls and views the author used to support her article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA > Foreign Policy
from the November 21, 2005 edition
Why Iraq war support fell so fast
US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – The three most significant US wars since 1945 - Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - share an important trait: As casualties mounted, American public support declined.
In the two Asian wars, that decline proved irreversible. With Iraq, the additional bad news for President Bush is that support for the war in Iraq has eroded more quickly than it did in those two conflicts.
For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war - now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll - has depleted any reserves of "political capital" he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week's bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.
But the seeds of Bush's woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.
In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.
With Vietnam, that 50-percent threshold was not crossed until August 1968, several years in; with Korea, it was March 1952, about a year and a half into US involvement.
Why did Americans go sour on the Iraq war so quickly, and what can Bush do about it?
John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today's lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war - alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism - has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.
In fact, "I'm impressed by how high support still is," Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans' continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.
In addition, intense political polarization gives Bush resilient support among Republicans.
But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.
"[Bush's] best option is bringing peace and security to Iraq," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University. "If he can accomplish that, people will think the war's going well and that he made the right decision. But that's proving almost impossible to achieve."
Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, writing in the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, states that "in my judgment the Bush administration has about a year before the public's impatience will force it to change course."
Not helping the president has been the modern phenomenon of 24/7 cable news coverage, which brings instant magnification to the daily death toll and the longstanding media practice of focusing on negative developments.
And there is the lingering public memory of Vietnam itself, which, in the Iraq war, may have made the public warier sooner of getting stuck in a quagmire.
Scholars like Mueller at Ohio State speak of an emerging "Iraq syndrome" that will have consequences for US foreign policy long after American forces pull out - particularly in Washington's ability to deal forcefully with other countries it views as threatening, such as North Korea and Iran.
"Iraq syndrome" seems to be playing out, too, with the American public. The just-released quadrennial survey of American attitudes toward foreign policy - produced jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations - shows a revival of isolationism. Now, 42 percent of Americans say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" - up from 30 percent in 2002.
According to Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut, that 42 percent figure is also similar to how the US public felt in the mid-1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s, at the end of the cold war.
SOURCE: THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION; RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF
Actually what happened to President Bush will continue to happen to politicians in our country until we deal with some of the following issues.
1. few common values among the divergent groups that make up our society.
2. a failure of immigrants to meld with in the American culture.
3. a loss of the American ideal and dream.
4. A loss of religion and its values within American society.
5. A loss of trust in each other and especially politicians.
Another factor that affects The President and all politicians is the ready availability of news, comment, and debate within society. This factor has not only left the politicians scratching their heads, but church leaders, busuiness leaders, and all formal institutions of American culture doing likewise. Even the American Red Cross is under serious scrutiny because of published accounts of how they respond to relief efforts in our country. And of couse this leads to fewer donations.
The two party political system and its ability to represent so many different communities and their priorities results in ineffectual leadership and continued stalemate on major issues facing America.
An example of the Presidents Iraq policy and its rapid disapproval ratings bear witness to the affects of our fractured society.
Right now approximately 35% of Americans agree that America should stay engaged in Iraq, yet four years ago, most Americans believed we needed to address our countries vulnerablility in the wake of the World Trade Center attack..
Politicians cannot afford to have such low poll numbers and therefore America will pull out of Iraq. The real reason that the numbers are low is rooted in one or more of the 5 items I listed above.
We are a country so divided after years of cultural breakdown, that no politician is able to mount a sustained agenda and at the same time can keep the public support high enough to be within their comfort zone, ie:--re-election zone.
If we were a united people, healthcare, social security, public education, energy, and transportation issues would already be solved with new vibrant united zeal. Instead there are so many self centered views about these issues, from so many communities with myopic vision, that no solution is available until we address the fractures within our people.
Compunding the Presidents agenda and all the political agendas is that politicians have lost their ability to control media and its content. Americans over 40 who use the internet for example, visit 6 sites on average. Younger Americans visit 29 sites on average. Now those sites can be news, entertainment, hobby related, blogs, forums, chat rooms,--all manner of sites. My point with these statictics is that no political party or politician can influence this many independant information sources. There are millions of individual sources to choose from. Here I am making comment on this subject and a few folks will read this and whether they agree or not--they will have been exposed to another view. So I can be considered a source [minor]--but none the less another published source. The ability to control propaganda has been lost.
What was once a television market controled by three major networks now has over 100 different channels each with their own content and view.
What was once radio with a few commentators such as Larry King is now a media with dozens of talking heads and their respective agendas.
The ability to manipulate and direct public attention and support in a broad scale through all media has been lost.
But our problems as a society still exist and still cry out for solutions.
President Bush and American politics have simply lost its ability to commander an agenda which is supported by the majority of Americans. We all feel disconnected from each other, our communities, and our country.
We have no common roots anymore. We have dozens if not humdreds of individual cultural communities with their own agendas.
If America had been this rootless and fractured in 1861, President Lincoln would have lost the civil war and we would have two distinct countries where one once was.
We were a country founded upon such deep roots and beliefs in our own sacred sociiety, that for most of our history we remained a people unto itself and content at isolation. Isolationism was the reason America was so late entering both world wars in the 20th century. A loss of those same deep roots can be viewed as a cause of us now being intent upon projecting our might and influence outside our borders.
Most of the fractured communities within our country feel that America needs to return to our roots and cultural heritage. To insist that new immigrants integrate into American culture and leave their old behind. Outside of an outright invasion by foreign powers onto our shores, Americans are ready to pull their collective horns in and revert their attention away from terrorist problems a half world away and 1,400 years old.
There is only one true unifying force that is capable of transcending all peoples.
Religion and faith is that force. and only a political system that embodes these same ideals can succeed in solving mankinds varied problems. We are all different and we are a fractured society--but when all these differences are set aside and we peel away the layers--we are united at our core by a common creator and a common basic conscience.
It is religion and faith that have been under the most vicious assault over the past four decades in America.
It is religious warfare that is behind the worlds problems.
President Bush has three more years in office. If he wants to have a succesful last term in office, he needs to re-direct the focus on his adminisration to uniting all the various communities under one mantra that can bring us back together as a nation.
"GOD"
I don't mean under a state religion or my "GOD"--I mean under programs that get back to the common nature we all share. America will only win wars such as the terrorist war when we win back our common roots. If we want to be a nation that projects its values--then those values that need projected are plainly layed out in the Christian bible. Lessons are shown throughout the Old Testament that can be applied to our own country. I'm sure that terrorist agents existed back in Noahs' time. People who twisted religion to become a brand of behavior completely foreign to our creators intent.
If the President wants to address the 5 points and move our country towards solving every groups concerns, then he must unite all the groups together. If he doesn't make strides to this end, then he will be left with a bald spot on his head from all the frustrated scratching and we will be left three more years away from solving not only terrorism--but all the other issues that are screaming for attention.
Come on Yodi, we need to pray for a change in fuzzy thinking going on in our nations leadership. The answer to their bald spots is right in front of their nose--right in front of their face in the mirror. It is believing that mankind alone can solve mankinds problems through political and military solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
Evidence of the affects the 5 pints I listed on politics can be found in the attached article. when reading it notice how many different polls and views the author used to support her article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA > Foreign Policy
from the November 21, 2005 edition
Why Iraq war support fell so fast
US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – The three most significant US wars since 1945 - Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - share an important trait: As casualties mounted, American public support declined.
In the two Asian wars, that decline proved irreversible. With Iraq, the additional bad news for President Bush is that support for the war in Iraq has eroded more quickly than it did in those two conflicts.
For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war - now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll - has depleted any reserves of "political capital" he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week's bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.
But the seeds of Bush's woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.
In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.
With Vietnam, that 50-percent threshold was not crossed until August 1968, several years in; with Korea, it was March 1952, about a year and a half into US involvement.
Why did Americans go sour on the Iraq war so quickly, and what can Bush do about it?
John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today's lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war - alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism - has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.
In fact, "I'm impressed by how high support still is," Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans' continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.
In addition, intense political polarization gives Bush resilient support among Republicans.
But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.
"[Bush's] best option is bringing peace and security to Iraq," says Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University. "If he can accomplish that, people will think the war's going well and that he made the right decision. But that's proving almost impossible to achieve."
Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, writing in the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, states that "in my judgment the Bush administration has about a year before the public's impatience will force it to change course."
Not helping the president has been the modern phenomenon of 24/7 cable news coverage, which brings instant magnification to the daily death toll and the longstanding media practice of focusing on negative developments.
And there is the lingering public memory of Vietnam itself, which, in the Iraq war, may have made the public warier sooner of getting stuck in a quagmire.
Scholars like Mueller at Ohio State speak of an emerging "Iraq syndrome" that will have consequences for US foreign policy long after American forces pull out - particularly in Washington's ability to deal forcefully with other countries it views as threatening, such as North Korea and Iran.
"Iraq syndrome" seems to be playing out, too, with the American public. The just-released quadrennial survey of American attitudes toward foreign policy - produced jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations - shows a revival of isolationism. Now, 42 percent of Americans say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" - up from 30 percent in 2002.
According to Pew Research Center director Andrew Kohut, that 42 percent figure is also similar to how the US public felt in the mid-1970s, at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the 1990s, at the end of the cold war.
SOURCE: THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION; RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF
Friday, November 18, 2005
When you have spent all you can spend..
Each of us in our own unique way are stubborn. Some are able to realize this and are willing to set their feelings aside and open their eyes to other points of view. We can at times have so much emotional investment or captial investment tied up in a position--that the pain is immense when we are faced with the real facts not the filtered variety that goes along with our stubborn traits.
I believe our President and some of his advisors are currently suffering from a severe case of stubborness when it comes to some of their pursuits. It takes a wise man to set aside his own feelings and listen to others views when the natural tendancy may be to stick his head in the sand to avoid all dissent.
America has had a captain at the helm who has just such a severe case of stubborness. It is up to the Congress now to find a way to pull the President feet first out of his hole and own up to the facts. His program may very well have sounded sound at one time. But there does come a time when a reasonable approach would be to consider other routes rather than continue the ship on a course where it most certainly will crash onto the rocks.
I'm willing to give the President a certain amount of rope--but I'm not willing to keep reeling out more until their is none left to give.
The fiscal policy that has resulted in extreme foolishness-- may very well end up extingquishing any hope we or future generations have for a comfortable standard of living for all citizens. If interest rates were ever to spiral as they did durung the Carter administration, the interest on the national dept alone would seriously disrupt hundreds of needed projects funded from the Treasury. We simply cannot go on creating artificial money and spend it until the presses run out of ink! I understand the concept of seeding the economy by lowering taxes. But there does come a point where the anticipated growth in the economy simply cannot be forthcoming due to reckless unfunded dept.
We admonish large corporations for failing to properly fund retiree pensions. 10's of billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations are now being dumped at the taxpayers doorstep. I doubt whether all those companies planned to fail in their obligations. They too probably thought that they could grow their companie's and profits in the future enough to more than fund any short term deficits in the funds. Unfortunately for those reaching the golden years of retirement, something went wrong.
As a country we must now face up to the same facts as the Corporations. Deficits are REAL. And they cannot be wished away. How can we logically expect future generaations of Congressmen to act any different than todays model? Pork barrel is their mantra. To heck with tommorow.We must be realistic and assume they will come from the same mold.
So what do we do now when we have both Congress and the Administration refusing to deal with deficits and refusing any form of constraint. Sure--we hear of the few million here or their lobbed off some childcare program or senior program. This is all smoke and mirrors. The excess spending spree is in the TRILLIONS! Do we even grasp how many zeros that is? 8,000,000,000,000--it is twelve zeros? And rapidly approaching 13. Thirteen may very well be the unlucky number that brings the financial house of cards crashing down, along with the hopes and dreams of several generations into the future.
Mr. President. Please lift your head out of the sand. You have spent all you can spend. The well has long since ran dry. Please shut down the printing presses.
Ok Yodi, help me drag my soapbox back to the shade.
I believe our President and some of his advisors are currently suffering from a severe case of stubborness when it comes to some of their pursuits. It takes a wise man to set aside his own feelings and listen to others views when the natural tendancy may be to stick his head in the sand to avoid all dissent.
America has had a captain at the helm who has just such a severe case of stubborness. It is up to the Congress now to find a way to pull the President feet first out of his hole and own up to the facts. His program may very well have sounded sound at one time. But there does come a time when a reasonable approach would be to consider other routes rather than continue the ship on a course where it most certainly will crash onto the rocks.
I'm willing to give the President a certain amount of rope--but I'm not willing to keep reeling out more until their is none left to give.
The fiscal policy that has resulted in extreme foolishness-- may very well end up extingquishing any hope we or future generations have for a comfortable standard of living for all citizens. If interest rates were ever to spiral as they did durung the Carter administration, the interest on the national dept alone would seriously disrupt hundreds of needed projects funded from the Treasury. We simply cannot go on creating artificial money and spend it until the presses run out of ink! I understand the concept of seeding the economy by lowering taxes. But there does come a point where the anticipated growth in the economy simply cannot be forthcoming due to reckless unfunded dept.
We admonish large corporations for failing to properly fund retiree pensions. 10's of billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations are now being dumped at the taxpayers doorstep. I doubt whether all those companies planned to fail in their obligations. They too probably thought that they could grow their companie's and profits in the future enough to more than fund any short term deficits in the funds. Unfortunately for those reaching the golden years of retirement, something went wrong.
As a country we must now face up to the same facts as the Corporations. Deficits are REAL. And they cannot be wished away. How can we logically expect future generaations of Congressmen to act any different than todays model? Pork barrel is their mantra. To heck with tommorow.We must be realistic and assume they will come from the same mold.
So what do we do now when we have both Congress and the Administration refusing to deal with deficits and refusing any form of constraint. Sure--we hear of the few million here or their lobbed off some childcare program or senior program. This is all smoke and mirrors. The excess spending spree is in the TRILLIONS! Do we even grasp how many zeros that is? 8,000,000,000,000--it is twelve zeros? And rapidly approaching 13. Thirteen may very well be the unlucky number that brings the financial house of cards crashing down, along with the hopes and dreams of several generations into the future.
Mr. President. Please lift your head out of the sand. You have spent all you can spend. The well has long since ran dry. Please shut down the printing presses.
Ok Yodi, help me drag my soapbox back to the shade.
Monday, November 14, 2005
The "HIV" community
I was not aware that the HIV sufferes had their own community. Were you?
Quote:[from article]
"A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
I know their is a large group of people ranging from babies to adults from every corner of the planet, every race,and every religion who have contracted this virus. I also no that there are many individual stories associated with this disease.
Nobody is born HIV positive.
There is a group of individuals who because of their loose morals and sinful actions have contracted this deadly scourge. I suppose that is one community.
Then there is a group of innocent individuals who contacted the virus by unwittingly being exposed through blood transfusions and the like. I suppose that is another community
But somehow the very word 'community" agitates me. The reason being, that the vast majority of HIV cases come from deviant sexual activity. And this activity is the result of adultrywhich is a mortal sin needing resolved--by these same people.
And--the innocent people who get infected as a result of this virus being spread around by there immoral people results in a death sentence to the victims.
I'm happy if the man in the attached article is in fact cured. That would truly be a grace deserving of tribute. But which community was he from?
Another thought crossed my mind when reading this article. Wouldn't it have been great if those in the innocent "community" had never been offered residence in such a horrible group. I doubt whether they appreciate being in such company.If asked, I'm sure their response would have been something like this. "Thanks--but no thanks, I believe I will just stay in my own community" "The one with a furture" "You know--"the community of life"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Cured' HIV man turns down more tests
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 14/11/2005)
Doctors and scientists have urged a man reported to be the first to be cured of the HIV virus to come forward for further tests.
Andrew Stimpson, 25, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002, but tests carried out last year came back as antibody negative.
An investigation carried out by Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust found that both sets of tests were correct.
If true it would make Mr Stimpson the first known person to defeat the Aids virus and could potentially prove invaluable for researchers seeking a vaccine.
Mr Stimpson, a former hairdresser from Largs in Ayrshire who lives in London, told a Sunday newspaper: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. It is scary and confusing but makes me feel very special."
However some scientists were sceptical about the reports and a spokesman for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital said he had declined to come forward for more detailed tests.
Prof Jonathan Weber from the division of medicine at Imperial College, London, said: "There have been false reports of this phenomenon before. Very rarely a blood test can be falsely positive."
A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
Quote:[from article]
"A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
I know their is a large group of people ranging from babies to adults from every corner of the planet, every race,and every religion who have contracted this virus. I also no that there are many individual stories associated with this disease.
Nobody is born HIV positive.
There is a group of individuals who because of their loose morals and sinful actions have contracted this deadly scourge. I suppose that is one community.
Then there is a group of innocent individuals who contacted the virus by unwittingly being exposed through blood transfusions and the like. I suppose that is another community
But somehow the very word 'community" agitates me. The reason being, that the vast majority of HIV cases come from deviant sexual activity. And this activity is the result of adultrywhich is a mortal sin needing resolved--by these same people.
And--the innocent people who get infected as a result of this virus being spread around by there immoral people results in a death sentence to the victims.
I'm happy if the man in the attached article is in fact cured. That would truly be a grace deserving of tribute. But which community was he from?
Another thought crossed my mind when reading this article. Wouldn't it have been great if those in the innocent "community" had never been offered residence in such a horrible group. I doubt whether they appreciate being in such company.If asked, I'm sure their response would have been something like this. "Thanks--but no thanks, I believe I will just stay in my own community" "The one with a furture" "You know--"the community of life"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Cured' HIV man turns down more tests
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 14/11/2005)
Doctors and scientists have urged a man reported to be the first to be cured of the HIV virus to come forward for further tests.
Andrew Stimpson, 25, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in August 2002, but tests carried out last year came back as antibody negative.
An investigation carried out by Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust found that both sets of tests were correct.
If true it would make Mr Stimpson the first known person to defeat the Aids virus and could potentially prove invaluable for researchers seeking a vaccine.
Mr Stimpson, a former hairdresser from Largs in Ayrshire who lives in London, told a Sunday newspaper: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. It is scary and confusing but makes me feel very special."
However some scientists were sceptical about the reports and a spokesman for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital said he had declined to come forward for more detailed tests.
Prof Jonathan Weber from the division of medicine at Imperial College, London, said: "There have been false reports of this phenomenon before. Very rarely a blood test can be falsely positive."
A spokesman for the NHS trust said: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested."
Sunday, November 13, 2005
"Give a Serf a Chance"
In a nation of over 300,000,000 people-- [and 20,000,000 illegals], one would believe there would be more than a few families getting into the presidential race. Even though we whipped King George and cut the chains that bound us to his throne--it was only a matter of a few years before we clammored for our own royal family.
George Washington nearly ended up with "King" type authority and after he left office, we have had a string of families willing to bring forth dynasties. Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, and it is becoming more obvious every day that Her Majesty Queen Hillary [Clinton] will attempt to continue the Clinton dynasty.
But--wait--it now appears that the Presidents brother and Governor of the "Shire" known as Florida--may be entering the fray [see article].
Are Americans going to allow these two dynasties to clash in the elections for the prize of being out next "King", [or does Emporer sound better]?
I realize that it can cost a "King's " ransom to win a major state or national campaign. But isn't it about time we get some new family bloodlines into the mix?
Maybe their are some commoners out there who will actually bring some new ideas for solving our nations problems.Why not give them a chance for a change? "Give a serf a chance!"
The current royalty have already sat around the throne room with their family members and hashed out all the "family" ideas. All that Hillary or Jeb have to offer is family tradition re-packaged with a different colored bow.
Yodi likes the new mantra--"give a serf a chance!" It does have a refreshing ring to it. Don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Bush leaves open White House bid
Sunday, November 13, 2005; 10:31 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother of U.S. President George W. Bush, ruled out running for president in 2008 but left open the possibility of a subsequent bid in an interview with a German magazine published on Sunday.
Jeb Bush, who is scheduled to visit Germany this week, told Focus weekly he had not thought much about running for the office held by his father and older brother except to rule out the next election at the end of George W. Bush's second term.
"You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no," he said, in comments translated into German by the magazine.
Asked whether his answer meant a later challenge was possible, he said: "Let's say there's a vague chance."
Bush, 52, said he spoke frequently with his brother and visited the White House whenever he was in Washington but he said the two mainly discussed family matters or sport.
George Washington nearly ended up with "King" type authority and after he left office, we have had a string of families willing to bring forth dynasties. Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, and it is becoming more obvious every day that Her Majesty Queen Hillary [Clinton] will attempt to continue the Clinton dynasty.
But--wait--it now appears that the Presidents brother and Governor of the "Shire" known as Florida--may be entering the fray [see article].
Are Americans going to allow these two dynasties to clash in the elections for the prize of being out next "King", [or does Emporer sound better]?
I realize that it can cost a "King's " ransom to win a major state or national campaign. But isn't it about time we get some new family bloodlines into the mix?
Maybe their are some commoners out there who will actually bring some new ideas for solving our nations problems.Why not give them a chance for a change? "Give a serf a chance!"
The current royalty have already sat around the throne room with their family members and hashed out all the "family" ideas. All that Hillary or Jeb have to offer is family tradition re-packaged with a different colored bow.
Yodi likes the new mantra--"give a serf a chance!" It does have a refreshing ring to it. Don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Bush leaves open White House bid
Sunday, November 13, 2005; 10:31 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the brother of U.S. President George W. Bush, ruled out running for president in 2008 but left open the possibility of a subsequent bid in an interview with a German magazine published on Sunday.
Jeb Bush, who is scheduled to visit Germany this week, told Focus weekly he had not thought much about running for the office held by his father and older brother except to rule out the next election at the end of George W. Bush's second term.
"You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no," he said, in comments translated into German by the magazine.
Asked whether his answer meant a later challenge was possible, he said: "Let's say there's a vague chance."
Bush, 52, said he spoke frequently with his brother and visited the White House whenever he was in Washington but he said the two mainly discussed family matters or sport.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Artificial Intelligence Is Not For Me
Twice this week I have ran up against talking robots. And it sends chills up my back.I just don't like them.
On one of the forums I belong to, we now have a brand new chat room. I have always felt this was a valuable addition to the forum community, but this was the first time one has actually been started. No sooner did I join in for a chat then it became evident that I was chatting with a "fake" member by the name of Town Crier. "It" was actually a cyber form of artificial intelligence. And--it was trying to pick my brain. It all sounds silly to fear something like this. But--I do.
Yesterday, I called AOL to cancel my membership. I spent five minuted talking to a robot on the other end of the line. It wasn't until I had satisfied this other form of artificial intelligences requests that I was allowed to speak with a real person. Probably in India but at least real. She too asked me a bunch of questions. It didn't appear like AOL liked the idea of me quiting their realm. After turning down all the offers to modify my existing account--the phone call was suddenly cut off.
Now I have to call again and talk to the robot and jump through the hoops all over again. I'm waiting until tommorow. I needed a couple of days to recover from my last two conversations with cyber beings. Maybe I should let Yodi handle it for me. Do you think the robot will care? What kind of a world are we becoming?
On one of the forums I belong to, we now have a brand new chat room. I have always felt this was a valuable addition to the forum community, but this was the first time one has actually been started. No sooner did I join in for a chat then it became evident that I was chatting with a "fake" member by the name of Town Crier. "It" was actually a cyber form of artificial intelligence. And--it was trying to pick my brain. It all sounds silly to fear something like this. But--I do.
Yesterday, I called AOL to cancel my membership. I spent five minuted talking to a robot on the other end of the line. It wasn't until I had satisfied this other form of artificial intelligences requests that I was allowed to speak with a real person. Probably in India but at least real. She too asked me a bunch of questions. It didn't appear like AOL liked the idea of me quiting their realm. After turning down all the offers to modify my existing account--the phone call was suddenly cut off.
Now I have to call again and talk to the robot and jump through the hoops all over again. I'm waiting until tommorow. I needed a couple of days to recover from my last two conversations with cyber beings. Maybe I should let Yodi handle it for me. Do you think the robot will care? What kind of a world are we becoming?
Friday, November 04, 2005
Finacial disaster hits energy companies !!!!!!!
In a shocking new poll conducted by the Neighborhood Forum, nearly 50% of the respondants have dropped their fuel consumption by more than 10% and nearly 17% by more than 30%.
This non scientific poll , [if the figures hold up], shows that Americans are in the process of threatening the very existence of the energy companies they have come to rely on.
There has been no word coming from tight lipped energy executives yet about this turnaround in gasoline and diesel fuel use. We can only suspect that lobbyists for the industry are as I write, arm twisting the congress and executive branches of our government for relief. This is serious!!
I believe it is the duty of every American to reach into their pocketbooks and sacrifice in this time of need for these great pillers of American culture. I propose a telethon to be held in our nations financial capital Wall Street, USA, on behalf of these struggling energy providers.
First the were hit by hurrican damage that forced them to raise their prices more than 25%. And now the ungrateful consumers have kicked them while they are still reeling from this setback. A truly unpatriotic response by greedy fuel users.
Mother nature is against them and now the American consumer. Please give what you can--and then dig a little deeper. It is the Christian thing to do.
Thank you Yodi. I will make sure the president of Mobile Oil gets your chew toy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM POLL CONDUCTED 11-3-2005
Have higher prices reduced your usage?
No--I still use the same amount of fuel [ 5 ] [41.67%]
Yes--I have cut back 1% to 10% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back 10% to 20% [ 3 ] [25.00%]
Yes--I have cut back 20% to 30% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back more than 30% [ 2 ] [16.67%]
Total Votes: 12
This non scientific poll , [if the figures hold up], shows that Americans are in the process of threatening the very existence of the energy companies they have come to rely on.
There has been no word coming from tight lipped energy executives yet about this turnaround in gasoline and diesel fuel use. We can only suspect that lobbyists for the industry are as I write, arm twisting the congress and executive branches of our government for relief. This is serious!!
I believe it is the duty of every American to reach into their pocketbooks and sacrifice in this time of need for these great pillers of American culture. I propose a telethon to be held in our nations financial capital Wall Street, USA, on behalf of these struggling energy providers.
First the were hit by hurrican damage that forced them to raise their prices more than 25%. And now the ungrateful consumers have kicked them while they are still reeling from this setback. A truly unpatriotic response by greedy fuel users.
Mother nature is against them and now the American consumer. Please give what you can--and then dig a little deeper. It is the Christian thing to do.
Thank you Yodi. I will make sure the president of Mobile Oil gets your chew toy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM POLL CONDUCTED 11-3-2005
Have higher prices reduced your usage?
No--I still use the same amount of fuel [ 5 ] [41.67%]
Yes--I have cut back 1% to 10% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back 10% to 20% [ 3 ] [25.00%]
Yes--I have cut back 20% to 30% [ 1 ] [8.33%]
Yes--I have cut back more than 30% [ 2 ] [16.67%]
Total Votes: 12
Thursday, November 03, 2005
My "not so pleasant" online purchase experience.
Last week after months of research, I made a decision to make a major purchase on-line from a company that I thought could be trusted. I grew up with their catalogs and dad swore by their tools and the fact that they had a lifetime guarantee. Something about the term "lifetime" associated with a company tends to bring up strong images of quality and trust. Every town in America probably had one of their stores or at least a catalog outlet.I must admit that over the years I have drifted more towards discount stores and this stores main competitor--Walmart. maybe it was nostalgia that made me choose to go with this stalwart of American retail history.
I visited the companies on-line site, picked out the item I wanted and before completing the order, I called their toll free number just to confirm that the product was in fact available and to pin down exactly when it would arrive, and what I needed to do. Sylvia, [I keep notes on who I talk to along with what they say]-the on-line representative answered all my questions with an air of confidence and cheer in her voice. She closed the deal for me. All I needed to do was follow the simple order form, fill in all the required lines, enter my card number, and today my purchase would arrive.
Monday, a computer generated voice called me at home. The voice rattled off my order information and confirmed my thursday delivery. I was excited. I had spent over $2,000, this to me was a major expenditure planned on for many months, and I was dealing with a company over 100 years old and known for quality and customer service.
At 12 noon today, I called the toll free number to check on my delivery. I was given the shipping companies number by Shelly.I called the number and after listening to elevator music for 10 minutes, Barb came on the phone. I gave Barb my order number----and at that point my experience went down hill. Barb announced that she had called my home phone yesterday at 9 AM. That she had left a message that I needed to call her back by 12 noon to confirm my delivery--and because I had not called back as required--it would be sometime in December before the delivery would be coming as they were booked up until then. I explained to Barb that I did not receive a call yesterday as I was home all day, and that my phone message machine did not have a message. Barb became huffy and told me that there was nothing more she could do and that was that. I asked to talk with her supervisor. I was put on hold and after 10 more minutes of elevator music, Barb informed me that a supervisor would call me by 9 PM toningt. And then my phone call was cut off.
I called the on-line number again and this time James answered. I explained to him my situation and felt that I had become the victim of poor company service. After he took down all my order info and putting me on hold--and about 5 minutes of elevator music--my phone call was cut off. I called again and this time Sylvia answered the call. I gave Sylvia all my info once again. I was put on hold and after another 5 minutes of elevator music---Sylvia informed me that there was nothing to be done. She was very apologetic. I asked Sylvia if I could speak with a supervisor. She put me on hold and after a few more minutes of elevator music, Donna came on the line. Donna informed me that the product I had ordered was in fact out of stock--and that was why my delivery date was sometime in December. I was confused. I asked her why the delivery company [Barb] had given me a false story about my delivery? I was apologized to. I asked Donna if there was any other way that I could recieve this item before sometime in December. She put me on hold and after a moment--the phone call was cut off.
At this point--many would wonder why I didn't simply cancel the order? The thought did cross my mind--but I decided to insist that this company live up to their end of the bargain. I had did everything I was supposed to-but they had failed me.Why should I be lied to and why should they get away with shoddy customer service? Besides---at this point I had already invested a lot of emotional energy into this purchase.
I called the number again. I had to go through this entire process again . First talking to the sales rep. [I forgot to write this ones name down], and eventually talking to Beth a different supervisor. Beth did some checking and informed me that the product was actually in stock, but that the delivery company only delivered in my area once a week. And--that the schedule was filled up until mid December. At this time I became upset. I had now been lied to several times and requested to talk to somebody in management. I was getting this straightened out today. Beth called Barb at the shipping company. She then informed me that Barb would call me back in a few minutes to further discuss my delivery status.
Barb called me back and after several tense moments, she arranged for my product to be delivered next tuesday. She told me that she would call on monday to confirm the delivery. I told Barb that as far as I was concerned she could consider the delivery date confirmed.
I don't feel so nostalgic about this company anymore.
So--we shall see on tuesday if my delivery arrives. Stay tuned.
I visited the companies on-line site, picked out the item I wanted and before completing the order, I called their toll free number just to confirm that the product was in fact available and to pin down exactly when it would arrive, and what I needed to do. Sylvia, [I keep notes on who I talk to along with what they say]-the on-line representative answered all my questions with an air of confidence and cheer in her voice. She closed the deal for me. All I needed to do was follow the simple order form, fill in all the required lines, enter my card number, and today my purchase would arrive.
Monday, a computer generated voice called me at home. The voice rattled off my order information and confirmed my thursday delivery. I was excited. I had spent over $2,000, this to me was a major expenditure planned on for many months, and I was dealing with a company over 100 years old and known for quality and customer service.
At 12 noon today, I called the toll free number to check on my delivery. I was given the shipping companies number by Shelly.I called the number and after listening to elevator music for 10 minutes, Barb came on the phone. I gave Barb my order number----and at that point my experience went down hill. Barb announced that she had called my home phone yesterday at 9 AM. That she had left a message that I needed to call her back by 12 noon to confirm my delivery--and because I had not called back as required--it would be sometime in December before the delivery would be coming as they were booked up until then. I explained to Barb that I did not receive a call yesterday as I was home all day, and that my phone message machine did not have a message. Barb became huffy and told me that there was nothing more she could do and that was that. I asked to talk with her supervisor. I was put on hold and after 10 more minutes of elevator music, Barb informed me that a supervisor would call me by 9 PM toningt. And then my phone call was cut off.
I called the on-line number again and this time James answered. I explained to him my situation and felt that I had become the victim of poor company service. After he took down all my order info and putting me on hold--and about 5 minutes of elevator music--my phone call was cut off. I called again and this time Sylvia answered the call. I gave Sylvia all my info once again. I was put on hold and after another 5 minutes of elevator music---Sylvia informed me that there was nothing to be done. She was very apologetic. I asked Sylvia if I could speak with a supervisor. She put me on hold and after a few more minutes of elevator music, Donna came on the line. Donna informed me that the product I had ordered was in fact out of stock--and that was why my delivery date was sometime in December. I was confused. I asked her why the delivery company [Barb] had given me a false story about my delivery? I was apologized to. I asked Donna if there was any other way that I could recieve this item before sometime in December. She put me on hold and after a moment--the phone call was cut off.
At this point--many would wonder why I didn't simply cancel the order? The thought did cross my mind--but I decided to insist that this company live up to their end of the bargain. I had did everything I was supposed to-but they had failed me.Why should I be lied to and why should they get away with shoddy customer service? Besides---at this point I had already invested a lot of emotional energy into this purchase.
I called the number again. I had to go through this entire process again . First talking to the sales rep. [I forgot to write this ones name down], and eventually talking to Beth a different supervisor. Beth did some checking and informed me that the product was actually in stock, but that the delivery company only delivered in my area once a week. And--that the schedule was filled up until mid December. At this time I became upset. I had now been lied to several times and requested to talk to somebody in management. I was getting this straightened out today. Beth called Barb at the shipping company. She then informed me that Barb would call me back in a few minutes to further discuss my delivery status.
Barb called me back and after several tense moments, she arranged for my product to be delivered next tuesday. She told me that she would call on monday to confirm the delivery. I told Barb that as far as I was concerned she could consider the delivery date confirmed.
I don't feel so nostalgic about this company anymore.
So--we shall see on tuesday if my delivery arrives. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
"A Good Catholic Boy"
"A good Catholic boy"-- "And he doesn't believe in abortions" proclaimed CBS reporter Mike Wallace--as he described Judge Samuel Alito.
Somehow I feel a jab all the way into my ribs when I hear comments like that made.
Mr. Wallace, however has a habit of being biased and we should all note that whenever hearing anything that comes from his lips. He's the guy that CBS has banned from doing programs on gun control because of a lack for objectivity. Or should we just say--plain bias.One might have thought that CBS learned a lesson from the bised reporting done by EX news anchor Dan Rather"gate".
I wonder what would be amazing-- about Judge Alito's personal stance against butchering unborn babies? All Catholics in communion with the church teachings feel this way.
Boy-- it appears that the President has gotten this nomination right-- by the outcry from such organization as the Democrat Party website, and the ladies at NOW and NARAL. Are they concerned that some of the legislation they have gotten passed is somehow now in jeopardy. WAIT! Did I say legislation? I meant court rulings by the activist Justices on the Supreme Court.But alas--all good things must come to an end--and so do all unjust rulings.
I read one article this morning that stated "a majority of Americans think Judge Alioto's nomination should be filibustered. The poll was taken of 28 people!!
Yes Yodi, it appears from all the negative reactions from the left, that we might just have a good man coming to the court. psst! Another good Catholic boy.
Somehow I feel a jab all the way into my ribs when I hear comments like that made.
Mr. Wallace, however has a habit of being biased and we should all note that whenever hearing anything that comes from his lips. He's the guy that CBS has banned from doing programs on gun control because of a lack for objectivity. Or should we just say--plain bias.One might have thought that CBS learned a lesson from the bised reporting done by EX news anchor Dan Rather"gate".
I wonder what would be amazing-- about Judge Alito's personal stance against butchering unborn babies? All Catholics in communion with the church teachings feel this way.
Boy-- it appears that the President has gotten this nomination right-- by the outcry from such organization as the Democrat Party website, and the ladies at NOW and NARAL. Are they concerned that some of the legislation they have gotten passed is somehow now in jeopardy. WAIT! Did I say legislation? I meant court rulings by the activist Justices on the Supreme Court.But alas--all good things must come to an end--and so do all unjust rulings.
I read one article this morning that stated "a majority of Americans think Judge Alioto's nomination should be filibustered. The poll was taken of 28 people!!
Yes Yodi, it appears from all the negative reactions from the left, that we might just have a good man coming to the court. psst! Another good Catholic boy.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Republican leadership in shambles
In 2001, James Carville declared war on Conservative USA. Today, the Democrats soundly humiliated the Republican leadership. And Bill Frisk is mad. Boo Hoo!! Those mean spirited Democrats took over the senate and closed the doors.
The problem with the Republicans is--while they have been towing the mark by such pacifist regard for the Dems--THE DEMS HAVE BEEN PRESSING THE WAR THAT CARVILLE DECLARED?
After 10 years of congressional control---has there ever been a congress that has spent more money? Isn't this what the Democrats were always famous for?
How about the Supreme Court? The Democrats seem to have nearly pulled off the coup of the century with the Republican President's nomination of Harriet Miers.
Does our country have firm family values and morals that the conservative right has called for? If anything--things are even more secular now than in 2001.
And today---while Frisk stood in front of the camaras saying he can't trust Harry Reid--the Democrat MINORITY leader, it mattered not. The Dems won the day by controling the agenda on the Senate floor. And--they said they will do so again and again until they get their way. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Maybe somebody should warn the Republicans. While they may be operating in a cease fire mode--the Democrats never did call a halt to Carville's war. Psst! hey Bill---enemies cannot be trusted.
Can you believe this Yodi?
The problem with the Republicans is--while they have been towing the mark by such pacifist regard for the Dems--THE DEMS HAVE BEEN PRESSING THE WAR THAT CARVILLE DECLARED?
After 10 years of congressional control---has there ever been a congress that has spent more money? Isn't this what the Democrats were always famous for?
How about the Supreme Court? The Democrats seem to have nearly pulled off the coup of the century with the Republican President's nomination of Harriet Miers.
Does our country have firm family values and morals that the conservative right has called for? If anything--things are even more secular now than in 2001.
And today---while Frisk stood in front of the camaras saying he can't trust Harry Reid--the Democrat MINORITY leader, it mattered not. The Dems won the day by controling the agenda on the Senate floor. And--they said they will do so again and again until they get their way. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Maybe somebody should warn the Republicans. While they may be operating in a cease fire mode--the Democrats never did call a halt to Carville's war. Psst! hey Bill---enemies cannot be trusted.
Can you believe this Yodi?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)