Hey you! With the internet and shit in amerika.... Get to know this stuff.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
just one of those mornings
so, it's 4.30am, est, and i'm sitting here at the machine, getting ready to log on to chatzilla for some good ol' fashioned irc chatting. i've gotten back into it for class purposes- this could be bad, because i remember skipping a fuckload of classes in order to get my chatting fix back in the day.
i'm fresh off of a steve earle concert, as well. it was interesting to hear the chants of 'fuck bush' along with earle's comments about being a rich near-marxist that has the ability to buy his children's way out of war.
plus! the mix of misogynistic bastard telling red head jokes, completely disrespecting his opening act/backup singer is classic, especially right in front of her face, in front of 2,000 people. allow me to clarify: i mean, the left wing politics i'm in complete agreement with and the fact that he has gone to jail and stood up for beliefs that are very similar to mine is also cool. but i found myself completely torn by very different emotional reactions during the show. to wit, i wanted to drink a beer with him, yet i was still compelled to punch him in the mouth.
my bootymonster is in here with me, keeping me company during the sleepless morning. let's hope i can find some tires today.
some rant, and still rollin',
-angrywoofdog
i'm fresh off of a steve earle concert, as well. it was interesting to hear the chants of 'fuck bush' along with earle's comments about being a rich near-marxist that has the ability to buy his children's way out of war.
plus! the mix of misogynistic bastard telling red head jokes, completely disrespecting his opening act/backup singer is classic, especially right in front of her face, in front of 2,000 people. allow me to clarify: i mean, the left wing politics i'm in complete agreement with and the fact that he has gone to jail and stood up for beliefs that are very similar to mine is also cool. but i found myself completely torn by very different emotional reactions during the show. to wit, i wanted to drink a beer with him, yet i was still compelled to punch him in the mouth.
my bootymonster is in here with me, keeping me company during the sleepless morning. let's hope i can find some tires today.
some rant, and still rollin',
-angrywoofdog
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
fake news from a fake government
Check this shit out:
News reports have revealed that the Department of Education used $240,000 of our taxes to hire Armstrong Williams, an ultra-conservative black columnist and talk-show host, to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act to his readers, viewers and colleagues in the media.[1] Williams did just as the Department asked, praising Bush's signature education initiative in his columns as well as on his and other television shows. Repeatedly, he failed to inform his audiences that his comments were bought and paid for with their own taxes.
This is not an isolated incident or simply bad judgment. The Government Accountability Office found last year that the Department of Health and Human Services violated two federal laws by producing propaganda videos touting Medicare's new drug benefits which were misleadingly packaged to look like news reports from independent journalists. Last week, the GAO announced that the Office of National Drug Control Policy had also potentially broken the law by using taxpayer dollars to produce similar "fake news" video segments.[2] Both agencies distributed the videos to news broadcasters, which in some cases aired them without telling viewers that they were watching government-sponsored propaganda.
Behind its rhetoric about moral values, the Bush administration is undermining ethical standards in government and attempting to hook the public on White House spin with undisclosed pay-offs to journalists.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-09-williams_x.htm
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54651-2005Jan6?language=printer
News reports have revealed that the Department of Education used $240,000 of our taxes to hire Armstrong Williams, an ultra-conservative black columnist and talk-show host, to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act to his readers, viewers and colleagues in the media.[1] Williams did just as the Department asked, praising Bush's signature education initiative in his columns as well as on his and other television shows. Repeatedly, he failed to inform his audiences that his comments were bought and paid for with their own taxes.
This is not an isolated incident or simply bad judgment. The Government Accountability Office found last year that the Department of Health and Human Services violated two federal laws by producing propaganda videos touting Medicare's new drug benefits which were misleadingly packaged to look like news reports from independent journalists. Last week, the GAO announced that the Office of National Drug Control Policy had also potentially broken the law by using taxpayer dollars to produce similar "fake news" video segments.[2] Both agencies distributed the videos to news broadcasters, which in some cases aired them without telling viewers that they were watching government-sponsored propaganda.
Behind its rhetoric about moral values, the Bush administration is undermining ethical standards in government and attempting to hook the public on White House spin with undisclosed pay-offs to journalists.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-09-williams_x.htm
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54651-2005Jan6?language=printer
Friday, January 07, 2005
Richard Gere in Palestine
Apparently, Palestinians are not very impressed by Richard Gere. While he may be a nice person and a buddhist and all, I think it is refreshing that there are people in the world that could give a fuck about fame.
"I don't even know who the candidates are other than Mahmoud Abbas, let alone this Gere," Gaza soap factory worker Manar An Najar told Reuters.
"We don't need the Americans' intervention. We know who to elect. Not like them - they elected a moron."
-Reuters Wire
BWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAA!
ROTFFLMFAO
"I don't even know who the candidates are other than Mahmoud Abbas, let alone this Gere," Gaza soap factory worker Manar An Najar told Reuters.
"We don't need the Americans' intervention. We know who to elect. Not like them - they elected a moron."
-Reuters Wire
BWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAA!
ROTFFLMFAO
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Huge returns needed to make up for cutback
(Okay, I know that I've only been posting shit that can be found elsewhere. But, I don't have time to revamp/rewrite a redistro. So, such as is it, you still need to know this shit is happening! And I am giving credit where credit is due....)
In promoting his plan to create personal accounts under Social Security, President Bush is giving ominous warnings that Social Security faces "bankruptcy down the road" and that "the crisis is here."
His plan would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes -- possibly 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent employer-employee tax -- in stocks or other investments. But if investing this small portion at plausible market-rate returns for safe investments could actually save us from this "crisis," then there must not be much of a crisis.
In fact, Social Security is facing serious long-term problems, but personal accounts could actually make those problems worse.
Most of the new money going into Social Security goes right back out to pay current benefits. Any excess goes into the trust funds, effectively invested in U.S. government bonds at market rates of interest. But, it is projected that around 2018, after many Baby Boomers retire, all the new money and more will be needed to pay full promised benefits. As planned, the trust funds will then start redeeming those bonds to cover the difference.
The Social Security trustees project that around 2042, the trust funds will be exhausted and new payroll tax revenue will cover about 73 percent of promised benefits. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, estimates that the trust funds will be depleted around 2052, and that payroll taxes will then cover about 80 percent of promised benefits.
There are a variety of ways that these long-term problems could be addressed. The sooner they are addressed, the less painful the solution will likely be.
But scary rhetoric is, at least, misleading. Medicare is in far worse shape than Social Security. Yet, instead of Bush proclaiming "crisis," his new drug benefit alone creates an additional, infinite-horizon unfunded liability of around $16 trillion. Moreover, the combination of our budget deficit and our trade deficit threaten a far greater crisis.
The Bush borrow-and-spend budget policies, coupled with huge tax cuts going far disproportionately to the wealthiest individuals, have mired the government in massive new debt. So, we might face a crisis when government needs to redeem those bonds held by the trust funds. But much of our potential crisis results from the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration. Yet Bush would make those tax cuts permanent, while forcing us to borrow trillions more when tax money needed to pay already-promised benefits is diverted into personal accounts.
And, judging from the 2001 report of Bush's own commission, personal accounts wouldn't make up for the shortfalls described above.
The big unanswered question becomes: As you put tax dollars into your personal account, how much will be the cutback in your traditional benefit? A huge cutback in traditional benefits could make Social Security look solvent, but that would require astronomical returns on those personal accounts just to make up for the cutback.
So, why is the Bush administration promoting personal accounts? Consider these possibilities.
Many conservatives believe that it should not be the role of government to provide a safety net. Some view Social Security as a socialist Ponzi scheme. And personal accounts look like a good step toward ending it.
Wealthy investors would probably benefit from increased stock prices. (For smaller investors, the damage to the safety net would probably negate this benefit.)
The investment industry, major Bush contributors, would collect huge fees. This would reward them with a handsome "return" on their contributions.
Many Americans are already convinced of the crisis. There is polling data that suggests that among young people, more believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever collect benefits from Social Security. If you believe that you will likely receive little or nothing, major change is an easy sell.
And, for the Bush administration, this "crisis" offers the additional advantage of directing our attention away from any number of their other policies that are far more likely to result in actual crisis.
David Roberts teaches tax policy, including Social Security, at DePaul University.
In promoting his plan to create personal accounts under Social Security, President Bush is giving ominous warnings that Social Security faces "bankruptcy down the road" and that "the crisis is here."
His plan would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes -- possibly 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent employer-employee tax -- in stocks or other investments. But if investing this small portion at plausible market-rate returns for safe investments could actually save us from this "crisis," then there must not be much of a crisis.
In fact, Social Security is facing serious long-term problems, but personal accounts could actually make those problems worse.
Most of the new money going into Social Security goes right back out to pay current benefits. Any excess goes into the trust funds, effectively invested in U.S. government bonds at market rates of interest. But, it is projected that around 2018, after many Baby Boomers retire, all the new money and more will be needed to pay full promised benefits. As planned, the trust funds will then start redeeming those bonds to cover the difference.
The Social Security trustees project that around 2042, the trust funds will be exhausted and new payroll tax revenue will cover about 73 percent of promised benefits. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, estimates that the trust funds will be depleted around 2052, and that payroll taxes will then cover about 80 percent of promised benefits.
There are a variety of ways that these long-term problems could be addressed. The sooner they are addressed, the less painful the solution will likely be.
But scary rhetoric is, at least, misleading. Medicare is in far worse shape than Social Security. Yet, instead of Bush proclaiming "crisis," his new drug benefit alone creates an additional, infinite-horizon unfunded liability of around $16 trillion. Moreover, the combination of our budget deficit and our trade deficit threaten a far greater crisis.
The Bush borrow-and-spend budget policies, coupled with huge tax cuts going far disproportionately to the wealthiest individuals, have mired the government in massive new debt. So, we might face a crisis when government needs to redeem those bonds held by the trust funds. But much of our potential crisis results from the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration. Yet Bush would make those tax cuts permanent, while forcing us to borrow trillions more when tax money needed to pay already-promised benefits is diverted into personal accounts.
And, judging from the 2001 report of Bush's own commission, personal accounts wouldn't make up for the shortfalls described above.
The big unanswered question becomes: As you put tax dollars into your personal account, how much will be the cutback in your traditional benefit? A huge cutback in traditional benefits could make Social Security look solvent, but that would require astronomical returns on those personal accounts just to make up for the cutback.
So, why is the Bush administration promoting personal accounts? Consider these possibilities.
Many conservatives believe that it should not be the role of government to provide a safety net. Some view Social Security as a socialist Ponzi scheme. And personal accounts look like a good step toward ending it.
Wealthy investors would probably benefit from increased stock prices. (For smaller investors, the damage to the safety net would probably negate this benefit.)
The investment industry, major Bush contributors, would collect huge fees. This would reward them with a handsome "return" on their contributions.
Many Americans are already convinced of the crisis. There is polling data that suggests that among young people, more believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever collect benefits from Social Security. If you believe that you will likely receive little or nothing, major change is an easy sell.
And, for the Bush administration, this "crisis" offers the additional advantage of directing our attention away from any number of their other policies that are far more likely to result in actual crisis.
David Roberts teaches tax policy, including Social Security, at DePaul University.
Bill Gates' software sucks for even him.... hah!
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Despite suffering through an embarrassing computer crash that prompted jokes and guffaws, Bill Gates promised that Microsoft Corp. would help consumers stay plugged into technology, during a keynote speech Wednesday.
In his seventh annual keynote speech at the International Consumer Electronics Show, Microsoft's chairman explained that the proliferation of high-speed Internet access and the falling price of data storage are compelling people to put music, photos, movies and other aspects of their life into a digital format.
But while promoting what he calls the "digital lifestyle," Gates showed how vulnerable all consumers - even the world's richest man - are to hardware and software bugs.
During a demonstration of digital photography with a soon-to-be-released Nikon camera, a Windows Media Center PC froze and wouldn't respond to Gates' pushing of the remote control.
Later in the 90-minute presentation, a product manager demonstrated the ostensible user-friendliness of a video game expected to hit retail stores in April, Forza Motor Sport. But instead of configuring a custom-designed race car, the computer monitor displayed the dreaded "blue screen of death" and warned, "out of system memory."
The errors - which came during what's usually an ode to Microsoft's dominance of the software industry and its increasing control of consumer electronics - prompted the celebrity host, NBC comedian Conan O'Brien, to quip, "Who's in charge of Microsoft, anyway?"
Gates, who was sitting next to O'Brien on a set staged to look like NBC's Late Night set, smiled dryly and continued with his discussion.
In his seventh annual keynote speech at the International Consumer Electronics Show, Microsoft's chairman explained that the proliferation of high-speed Internet access and the falling price of data storage are compelling people to put music, photos, movies and other aspects of their life into a digital format.
But while promoting what he calls the "digital lifestyle," Gates showed how vulnerable all consumers - even the world's richest man - are to hardware and software bugs.
During a demonstration of digital photography with a soon-to-be-released Nikon camera, a Windows Media Center PC froze and wouldn't respond to Gates' pushing of the remote control.
Later in the 90-minute presentation, a product manager demonstrated the ostensible user-friendliness of a video game expected to hit retail stores in April, Forza Motor Sport. But instead of configuring a custom-designed race car, the computer monitor displayed the dreaded "blue screen of death" and warned, "out of system memory."
The errors - which came during what's usually an ode to Microsoft's dominance of the software industry and its increasing control of consumer electronics - prompted the celebrity host, NBC comedian Conan O'Brien, to quip, "Who's in charge of Microsoft, anyway?"
Gates, who was sitting next to O'Brien on a set staged to look like NBC's Late Night set, smiled dryly and continued with his discussion.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Bush Pushing for More Faith-Based Funds
(You can bet your sweet ass that no money will go to anyone except christians. No muslims, jews, or pagans will be allowed. Wait and watch....)
By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush has succeeded in opening the checkbooks of five federal departments to religious organizations. Now he's setting his sights on money doled out by the states.
The goal is to persuade states to funnel more of the federal money for social service programs that they administer to "faith-based organizations."
Federal regulations now allow federal agencies to directly fund churches and other religious groups. Bush acted alone to rewrite these regulations after failing to persuade Congress to change the law.
Partly as a result, in 2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to The Associated Press. That was about 8 percent of the $14.5 billion spent on social programs that qualify for faith-based grants in five federal departments.
That's not enough, said Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments, he said, and many states do not realize that federal rules now allow them to fund these organizations.
"We're on the sunrise side of the mountain," he said.
To encourage states, the White House has hosted a series of conferences, Towey has met with state leaders and Bush has personally lobbied governors. The White House office also is providing states with technical assistance in setting up their own faith-based offices.
Towey's office will also be looking for cases in which the administration believes state or local governments are not treating religious groups fairly. He cited a case last fall where the city council in Janesville, Wis., was urged by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a group that opposes Bush's initiative, not to give the Salvation Army $250,000 to buy a building for a homeless shelter because worship activities would also take place inside. Towey's office told city officials that federal regulations allowed the grant to go forward.
"When it's brought to our attention that a group's being discriminated against, the federal government's going to weigh in," he said.
The coming year will also see a new $100 million drug treatment program get up and running, which allows addicts to use their government money to seek treatment from religious groups.
States were initially slow to warm to the Bush initiative. An independent 2003 study of state efforts to contract with faith-based groups found little activity. That was partly because states did not see a need to target religious groups and partly because their budgets were so tight that there was little room for new contractors, said Richard Nathan, director of the Rockefeller Institute at the State University of New York in Albany.
"For the most part, the response ... has been muted," concluded the 2003 study.
But within the past six months, Nathan said, the states have shown more interest, with more governors appointing liaisons to the religious community and announcing policies that make it clear the state will consider their applications for funding.
By Towey's count, there are now 21 governors, including many Democrats, who have set up their own faith-based offices.
Meanwhile, opponents, who contend that the White House is walking over the line separating church and state, are looking for a case to take to court to challenge the entire initiative on constitutional grounds. And they are promising to keep their eye on the states.
"There clearly is a wave of new faith-based offices coming to states around the country, and I think some of them are likely to deal with it responsibly and others to deal with it as irresponsibly as the administration does," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Also advancing Bush's initiative: a drug treatment program that is just getting under way. Called Access to Recovery, it gives drug users vouchers to take to any organization they choose — including those that rely on a religious conversion to break the addiction. Because the program uses vouchers, it can legally fund explicitly religious activity.
"Many people have overcome addition through faith transformation," Towey said. Counselors in these programs won't have to meet the same medical standards that drug treatment counselors typically must, he said. "There's going to be standards in place, but also, in addition to science, some faith."
That's what worries people like Lynn.
"Some of them are not qualified to do this work," he said, "particularly in areas where medical expertise is needed but is no longer apparently necessary."
By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush has succeeded in opening the checkbooks of five federal departments to religious organizations. Now he's setting his sights on money doled out by the states.
The goal is to persuade states to funnel more of the federal money for social service programs that they administer to "faith-based organizations."
Federal regulations now allow federal agencies to directly fund churches and other religious groups. Bush acted alone to rewrite these regulations after failing to persuade Congress to change the law.
Partly as a result, in 2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to The Associated Press. That was about 8 percent of the $14.5 billion spent on social programs that qualify for faith-based grants in five federal departments.
That's not enough, said Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments, he said, and many states do not realize that federal rules now allow them to fund these organizations.
"We're on the sunrise side of the mountain," he said.
To encourage states, the White House has hosted a series of conferences, Towey has met with state leaders and Bush has personally lobbied governors. The White House office also is providing states with technical assistance in setting up their own faith-based offices.
Towey's office will also be looking for cases in which the administration believes state or local governments are not treating religious groups fairly. He cited a case last fall where the city council in Janesville, Wis., was urged by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a group that opposes Bush's initiative, not to give the Salvation Army $250,000 to buy a building for a homeless shelter because worship activities would also take place inside. Towey's office told city officials that federal regulations allowed the grant to go forward.
"When it's brought to our attention that a group's being discriminated against, the federal government's going to weigh in," he said.
The coming year will also see a new $100 million drug treatment program get up and running, which allows addicts to use their government money to seek treatment from religious groups.
States were initially slow to warm to the Bush initiative. An independent 2003 study of state efforts to contract with faith-based groups found little activity. That was partly because states did not see a need to target religious groups and partly because their budgets were so tight that there was little room for new contractors, said Richard Nathan, director of the Rockefeller Institute at the State University of New York in Albany.
"For the most part, the response ... has been muted," concluded the 2003 study.
But within the past six months, Nathan said, the states have shown more interest, with more governors appointing liaisons to the religious community and announcing policies that make it clear the state will consider their applications for funding.
By Towey's count, there are now 21 governors, including many Democrats, who have set up their own faith-based offices.
Meanwhile, opponents, who contend that the White House is walking over the line separating church and state, are looking for a case to take to court to challenge the entire initiative on constitutional grounds. And they are promising to keep their eye on the states.
"There clearly is a wave of new faith-based offices coming to states around the country, and I think some of them are likely to deal with it responsibly and others to deal with it as irresponsibly as the administration does," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Also advancing Bush's initiative: a drug treatment program that is just getting under way. Called Access to Recovery, it gives drug users vouchers to take to any organization they choose — including those that rely on a religious conversion to break the addiction. Because the program uses vouchers, it can legally fund explicitly religious activity.
"Many people have overcome addition through faith transformation," Towey said. Counselors in these programs won't have to meet the same medical standards that drug treatment counselors typically must, he said. "There's going to be standards in place, but also, in addition to science, some faith."
That's what worries people like Lynn.
"Some of them are not qualified to do this work," he said, "particularly in areas where medical expertise is needed but is no longer apparently necessary."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
