Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

Labor Day?
posted by Geoff on September 1, 2009 @ 10:54AM

Anyone have plans to return to Syracuse. I'll be going back myself. That alone should be reason for ya'll to return...especially you southerners! ;)

6 comments | Tags: None

If you laugh at this comic...
posted by GJ on August 31, 2009 @ 1:21PM

A century later, the harrowing flight of the survivors from Oregon was dramatized in a popular video game

...you're a geek. In case you hadn't already realized it.

3 comments | Tags: comic

Venn Diagram of Mythical Creatures
posted by GJ on August 28, 2009 @ 2:42PM

8 comments | Tags: pictures

Attack of the Ducks
posted by GJ on August 27, 2009 @ 12:58PM

7 comments | Tags: video, funny

Fantasy Sports....does anyone care?
posted by GJ on August 26, 2009 @ 3:25PM

Fantasy fooball and hockey didn't seem to get a lot of traction from users last year. Has it outlived its novelty? I don't want to guilt people into playing this year.

So, love it, hate it, could care less about it? Sound off! Football would have to start soon if we want to do that this year.

13 comments | Tags: fantasy

Steve said about 2 hours later

I enjoyed it when I had time (aka when I was single). I STILL owe Darcy the Trophy from hockey, and whomever else won it this year (guessing it was someone from the same household...but haven't even logged in to Fantasy Hockey since maybe January). Still need to get it engraved too. I like Fantasy Football because you only have to update your lines once a week. Hockey gets old because you have to update your lines for every day of games, and watch for when people get hurt. And that takes a bit of research, because they may sit out games for over a week before yahoo labels them as IR or "maybe" or whatever moniker they use. And they may just sit out a week because of a sprain and yahoo never marks them as being out. At least in football, they mark "possible," "likely," and stuff. Much easier to track.

So I'd be game for Football again. Hockey, I'd sign up for, but probably wouldn't put too much effort into it unless Parsla dumps me. Which since I haven't mowed her lawn in several weeks, she just might!
Marc said about 5 hours later

I'm definitely in for any of them. I'm already in a Fantasy Football league (on Yahoo) with some guys at work, so I'll already be paying attention for that league. So yea, count me in.
Geoff said about 18 hours later

I'm always game, but it does seem like folks lose interest fairly quick (not me of course!)
GJ said about 22 hours later

I think Steve pointed to the reason why people drop off in hockey--it is a fair amount of work.

I don't find football to be any less work--but there is so much infrastructure for fantasy football these days, it's easy to get high quality reports on your players to choose the right starters.

Hockey has no real good infrastructure--it's a lot of what you know and how much you watch / track stats. There is no mystery why the same people keep winning in hockey, or why a particular household does pretty freaking well.

Football can be a lot of fun, I think--more fun than hockey, although I have enjoyed hockey quite a bit myself. That said, football isn't much fun with only four to six players. Gets far more exciting with 8-10.
GJ said 6 days later

So...what's the verdict?
Steve said 6 days later

Football!
Marc said 6 days later

Yup, Football!
Geoff said 7 days later

yes, soccer!
GJ said 13 days later

ok, invites going out tonight. you'll want to sign up asap.

teams: gj, abby, dad, geoff, marc, steve.

filler: darcy if one more player joins (eric, parsla) since we need an even # of teams.

First NFL game is tomorrow(!). So if everyone registers today, I can do the draft overnight, I hope. If not, we might have to skip week one.
GJ said 13 days later

and no hockey league is planned, unless I hear from at least 3 people that they'll commit hari-kari without their fantasy hockey fix.
GJ said 14 days later

League is setup. Log into ESPN tomorrow morning to see what team you got stuck with--log in before then to set draft order, rankings, etc.
Steve said 14 days later

Parsla says she's not into it. I think her quote was, "Football? Are you kidding me?" I guess I need to work on her...she's too busy playing sorority life on facebook.
GJ said 14 days later

Football is up and running--draft held at 5am this morning. Please log into ESPN and set your lines, as the first NFL game is tonight. ESPN does a pretty good job of setting the lines for the first week--it takes your highest rated draftees, which is probably what you'd pick anyway, but has no vision regarding player injuries (and trust me, there are a few already this year).

If anyone is in the market for a RB, I might be in need of a WR or QB. You know where to find me.

Mouse S.O.S.
posted by Kristen on August 26, 2009 @ 8:56AM

I have a computer problem that I know will be an easy fix. On Drew's new laptop (lenovo, XP), everytime I'm typing something the cursor keeps moving to whereever I last had pointed the mouse. I have the mouse plugged into a USB port. So unless I realign the mouse with the end of the line that I am typing, it automatically jumps to the previous location. Very annoying!!

I had this same problem with my laptop and I think Marc fixed it. I've looked in the control panel but can't find anything. What the heck is the purpose of this feature? How do I turn it off????

7 comments | Tags: computers

Marc said 27 minutes later

Sounds like you've got lazy palms syndrome. :) Most likely while you're typing your palms are touching the track pad on the laptop. Since most laptops default tapping on the track pad as a mouse click, anytime you let your palm down it taps the track pad and registers a mouse click. Hopefully your Thinkpad isn't much different then mine, so try this:

Start > Control Panel > Mouse

In the Mouse window that pops up, look for "UltraNav" or some equivalent. You'll notice it's an IBM added tab because it has an icon and it looks horrible. In there is a section for TouchPad. If you never use the TouchPad, you can uncheck Enable TouchPad and you'll be good to go. If you just want to disable the tap-to-click feature, click on "Settings..." under that section. You'll see a new window come up with a list of things on the left. Click on "Tapping." You should see a checkbox for "Enable Tapping." Simply uncheck this and click OK. Problem solved.
Kristen said 42 minutes later

Ahh...I see a drew vs. kristen dilemna brewing. I prefer the mouse, he likes to use the touch pad. I guess I need to cure my lazy palms. LOL thanks Marc!
Marc said about 3 hours later

The touch pad can still be used, he just would have to give up the tapping. Laura would never give up tapping, but like you I've got the occasional case of lazy palms and can't stand when that happens. I disabled the touch pad tapping on my mac, but on my IBM laptop, I don't seem to have the problem, probably because the touch pad is much smaller.
GJ said about 6 hours later

Whereas I just disable the damn thing permanently. :)
Steve said about 9 hours later

Thanks Marc, I've had the same problem when I don't use a mouse. Fortunately, thanks to someone leaving their wireless laptop mouse in the trunk of a rental car I rented, I haven't used the touchpad much at all!
GJ said 1 day later

You must smack that person! :)
Abby said 1 day later

I get the same problem on our school computers... unfortunately I'm not allowed to change the settings :(

More anti-woo hilarity!
posted by GJ on August 25, 2009 @ 11:35AM

This is Irish comic Dara O'Briain.

2 comments | Tags: woo, video, funny, science

Stolen Blog post
posted by Steve on August 21, 2009 @ 9:59PM

I stole this from a blogger that got it from another blogger with permission.

"This morning I woke to my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the local water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to an FCC-regulated channel to see what the National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather will be, using satellites designed, built, and launched into orbit by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast, which has been inspected for safety by the US Department of Agriculture and took my medicine, which has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

"At the appropriate time, as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I got into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-certified and -approved automobile, and set out to work on the roads designed and built by the local, state, and national Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase fuel at a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, at a pump certified by the local Bureau of Weights and Measures to have dispensed what it says it did, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I drop my mail in the outbox for the US Postal Service, which can deliver a note anywhere in the country in less than a week, and drop my kids off at the local public school.

"After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of state and local building codes and a fire marshal's inspection, and which has
not been vandalized or plundered of its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the Internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and carp on freerepublic.com about how 'socialism' is bad because the government can't do anything right."

12 comments | Tags: None

Marc said about 2 hours later

Touché. If only we could figure out a way to do all of that without being a bazillion of dollars in debt. :)
GJ said about 22 hours later

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked, that a guy who claims he is a conservative posted this on the blog. That said, the government does provide a bunch of things we take for granted, and a lot of the nutjobs claiming Obama is a socialist AND the next coming of Hitler (who, btw, was no socialist, even thought he belonged to the National Socialist Party, which is where the Nazi name comes from) don't ever realize just how much they get from the government for their tax dollars, including their much beloved mighty military.
Geoff said about 24 hours later

I'm not sure I can contribute these successful programs and utilities to 'socialism'. It does prove the government, in part, can do some things right.
GJ said 1 day later

It's not that socialism has only to do with government being able to do things right or wrong. The folks accusing the administration of pushing socialism believe:

* the government is getting so big, it might as well be a socialist government
* the feds constantly violate our "guaranteed freedoms"--just like a socialist government does.

So any increase in government, good or bad, falls into the above categories in terms of the socialism accusers belief system. These same idiots often also claim that there is nothing wrong with the current system, other than we should do away with a lot of medicare spending because that's rife with excess spending and provides dubious value. I would note that most of the folks arguing from this perspective have health insurance, have never been very sick nor spent much time in the hospital, and are relatively well-off. :)

Steve said 1 day later

I figured it would shock you GJ, I'm surprised it took you so long to respond.

The health care thing - I've read a few blogs from friends of friends who are doctors, who support a national healthcare reform - including pushing down the salaries of doctores including themselves. They have not agreed to let their blogs become public, otherwise I'd share their thoughts here. I do beleive in a national healthcare system, just want something more reasonable than what the gov't is pushing for right now.

As for calling the current administration a socialist organization, I'd tend to agree with that comment where it comes to bailing out companies. Then again, that started with Bush! I don't think I would have ever bailed out the banking industry. As for the automotive industry, they were moving swiftly to turn themselves around to improve quality, fuel economy, and build more small cars, but their (our) need for a bailout came when the banks did start to fail, and consumers stopped buying cars. Vehicle sales fell from over 17 million a year to below 10 million. Now, you hear in the news how bad the economy is when retail sales drop 0.4%. Well, automobile sales dropped 41% virtually overnight. I'd like to see any industry that can survive an instant drop in sales that much. So I do support LOANS (albeit risky loans) to the auto industry to help them get through this banking crisis.

I have to admit, I love the cash for clunkers program. It's helped push sales up significantly. Unfortunately, Chrysler got caught off gaurd for this, as we had shut all of our plants down during bankruptcy, and now are dealer's lots are virtually empty. DOH! The cash for clunkers program is helping to take gas hogs off the road, gas hogs that also emit way more emmissions than the cars that are being turned in. So there are many benefits to the program - fuel economy, emmissions, and helping restart the auto industry sales. I'm a bit biased here, but this program seems to be the most beneficial to the American public of all the programs/bailouts I've seen so far. My biggest issue with it is - why does someone that bought a poor fuel economy car get a big rebate, whereas I was smart and bought small fuel efficient cars, and I get no reward for that. Actually, I get penalized, because my tax dollars are being given to the people that bought the gas guzzlers. That's my biggest problem with the program. Not that I'm rushing out to buy a new car.
GJ said 2 days later

The auto industry's steep drop was simply a matter of getting customers buying far too many new cars than they needed during the money days, and when the crap hit the fan, consumers woke up. The car companies, to their discredit, got themselves believing that 17 million cars a year was normal. I don't think the steep drop requires a bailout, or loans, or whatever--this is not the first industry to suffer such losses. Any time government steps in like this, it skews the forces of a market economy, and pushes off the painful changes (even the outright dissolution of the industry in question) that should be addressed now.

One need only look at GM's ludicrous statement about the Volt's make believe 230mpg rating to show that it hasn't learned any lesson. It's still not trying to sell cars--it's trying to sell an image (more like, a mirage). They still don't get that you win this game by selling cars that people will buy--cars that fit their needs and desires and are high quality. To be sure, the folks in the trenches at GM are fighting the good fight, but their leadership is still pathetically dysfunctional.

C4C wasn't really a helpful thing for the environment--all it did was sell cars. The whole enterprise of junking older cars and replacing them with newer cars comes at a big ecological cost--there's far more in play than just gas mileage. In fact, by junking these vehicles (instead of perhaps donating them to needy folks), we wasted a perfectly good resource all for this false image of being pro-environment. What happens now that it's over? Sales will drop back down to horrible levels, that's what. People are still losing jobs, still losing homes, and the economy still sucks. Not a good recipe to sell cars, methinks.

To get an idea of what might have happened had we not "bailed out" the banks, I'd suggest picking Drew's brain on that. I can't say that I support the idea of either one, especially after seeing how they were implemented. Why not bail out more industries, ya know? I know I'd sure like to get a bonus this year--or even next year!

One more item to correct--retail sales are off by way more than 0.4 percent. Year over year, many of the bigger retailers (but not all) are down 5-7% per year for the past 2-3 years. It's not a good time to be in retail--consumer spending on anything approaching a middle class luxury good has all but disappeared. It's not 41% overnight, but expect to see some major vendors go bye-bye if the economy has another sucky holiday season.
Steve said 3 days later

Ah, so cynical....

"The auto industry's steep drop was simply a matter of getting customers buying far too many new cars than they needed..."

So let me get this straight. If you're in an ultra competitive market, don't you want to sell as much as you can to generate a profit? If not, why? If the public is willing to buy, sell! It would take the market as a whole to decide to not sell as many cars. Good luck convincing over 20 different manufacturers to cap production.

GM made no false claims with their 230 mpg rating of the Volt. Based on today's EPA test cycle to determine fuel mileage, the gas engine would not start until near the very end of the test. That's how they would get rated so highly. They've also made public the highway fuel economy you'd get with the engine running - about 50 mpg if my memory serves.

You didn't lead in to what the big ecological cost is of improving fuel economy and engine emmissions. Do you mean the scrap material? Do you realize how much of a vehicle can be recycled? They don't all just sit in junkyards (unfortunately for me....).

Sorry about the sales thing. I was quoting a drop in 0.4% on a month over month basis - not long term. It's just something from memory when it was a headline story on the news about how the retail industry took a huge loss of 0.4%.

As for the bank bailout, the repurcussions had it not been done would probably have been big. But would it have affected you? Me? I have minimal debt (mortgage). I pay all of my bills on time. I have no pending insurance claims. I don't need unsecured debt, or secured debt (except for the house, which I already have a loan for). I don't think that if my mortgage company went out of business they would force me to sell my home (or pay it off) to garner money for bankruptcy (or for the creditors of the mortgage company that are owed money).

If all the bad banks went kaput, there were still many other banks (like Drew's) which were in good shape. They would then have the option to take huge market share and buyout other banks. Yes, securing loans would be very difficult in the near term, but after a few years, things would even out as the remaining banks adjusted to their new market share and more capital was available to the banks.

Would people with $40K a year jobs be able to secure a loan on a $250K house? No. And they shouldn't. Banks need to take some responsibility (along with the homeowner) when crafting a loan. They need to understand the risk they are taking in giving a loan to someone. That's been the problem - they totally underestimated or lied or didn't learn about the risk.

The auto industry bailout was considered necessary to maintain a couple million moderate to good paying jobs in the country. Many don't realize how far reaching the auto industry is. There are auto parts suppliers all over the country. There are dealerships all over the country. Not to mention the manufacturers themselves. There is a general rule out here - for every one Chrysler, GM, or Ford employee, there are 7-10 supplier employees. So if Chrysler, the smallest OEM, went out of business, there would be about 100,000 Chrysler employees out of work, and 700,000-1,000,000 supplier employees out of work. And when Chrysler goes out of business, it would take several suppliers down with them. Those suppliers going out of business would then strain the other auto manufacturers, especially GM and Ford. That would put them at risk of losing production and going out of business. Despite GM, Chrysler, and Ford staying around, there are still many suppliers closing up shop. That number would multiply many times over had 1 or 2 OEMs bit the dust.

What other major industries are there left in the US? Agriculture - people still have to eat, one way or another, and they've been getting government bailouts for forever. What else? I can't think of any other MAJOR industries in the US (not that there aren't, I'm just tired and can't think of anymore).
GJ said 4 days later

Let's start with the easy one. GM made no false claims in the 230mpg number? They gamed the EPA system to come up with that number, and the EPA even came out and distanced themselves from that claim. And yes, they are claiming 50mpg with the generator powering the car. Hmm...that one is pretty smelly too...I'd love to know why they don't use this setup in all their cars if a generator can outdo a straight up engine in terms of efficiency.\

You mentioned something about "don't you want to sell as much as you can to generate a profit?" Yes, you do. What you don't do is assume that sales of a durable good can go up and up while increasing quality. You don't assume that the market will support 17 million cars a year, since economies shrink and expand rather cyclically. You don't build permanent capacity to support your maximum sales rate, especially if you cannot afford to let them go idle. Finally, you tend to measure the market to ensure your product meets what the customer wants now, and in the future. The domestic car companies flubbed this but good, and that's a big reason they didn't see the huge drop coming and weren't prepared for it. It takes a special environment to cause a huge drop like what we saw--and to think the auto companies weren't part and parcel of the problem is simply silly.

The big ecological cost of new cars is what I'm talking about. How much quantity of rare-earth metals are used? Oil? Plastics? How much did it cost, in terms of energy consumption, to build that much newer car compared to what it took to build the old one? Like I said before, there's more involved than just the simple gas mileage improvement model over model.

The bank bailout, if you believe *some* economists, would have had a drastic impact on you and me regardless of our debt loads. When companies can't get credit, their businesses grind to a halt. Lots of people lose jobs...and lots of consumers stop spending their money on goods. Go back to step 1--it's a vicious cycle, and that's what the economists who pushed for the bank bailout were trying to prevent. They didn't entirely--obviously, because that's why we're still in this lovely downturn. The question looking backwards is, did they manage to make it better than it would have been? I hope so, but I have my doubts. I think it's far more than just the simple "bad banks go under, and good banks save the day eventually."

And like the auto industry, the banks that got into trouble earned a lot of their trouble for exactly the reasons you listed. They were cheating, trying to extract every last red cent from their customers, and for quite a few years, this shell game worked. The economy stumbled hard, however, and when the piper came calling, we found them with their pants down, so to speak. Bailing those banks out to continue living is just as bad, if not worse, than the auto bailout.

Major industries today? In the US? If you're talking manufacturing, not much. If you're talking retail, or information management, then yes, we still have several giants. Paying federal funds to keep the farmers in the black is a joke--if you've been watching the agricultural business, it's swallowed up most of the smaller farmers, food quality has been replaced with quantity, and we have many artificial incentives in the business now that result in situations that defy reason. I think the auto makers are pretty well screwed up, but they're not even close to that mess. But I think they're headed there, thanks to this bailout.

I've heard this argument about the dominoes in the auto industry ad naseum. I'm not disputing them--I'm saying that, guess what, this is America. Nothing gets our inventiveness going like adversity. By going the band-aid route, all we've done is put off dealing with the mess for another decade or so, at a tremendous cost to the taxpayers. You can bet that we're only scratching the surface of how much we're going to have to put into this bailout just to keep people employed at these good paying jobs.

It comes down to this--anytime the government intervenes in business, it creates "artificial gravity," so to speak. Sometimes it's needed--think the agriculture-health reforms of the 1920s. Most of the time, it's not, and the damage caused is tremendous.

And to think I'm a registered Democrat. :)

Gosh, I make a lousy Democrat. :)

Steve said 4 days later

Sure, GM took advantage of the EPA test, but they made no false claims. Of course, the EPA is now realizing they are going to have to test plug-in hybrid cars differently. Or do they? In part, they do. They need to include all of the electricity used to charge the battery and the cost of that in their calculation. Don't forget, the same day Nissan came out and claimed something like 340 mpg for their upcoming plug-in hybrid.

I won't say auto companies aren't at fault at all. They are. They allowed the unions to have too much control. The auto industry has been re-sizing themselves for a more realistic market for the past 3-4 years. The problem is, it's not a fast process when you are talking the size of the companies and the difficulties with "strong" unions. Honestly, I don't think the UAW is that strong anymore, and I was bitterly disappointed when Cerebus owned Chrysler didn't stick it to them harder. Should they have seen the mortgage industry issue? Probably. But so should a lot of other people (like the freaking government and the banks!). I saw it, hence why I live way out in Jackson in a $150K house, and not in a $300K house in Ann Arbor. And it paid off to, I could sell my $150K house for $110K pretty quickly, that $300,000 house now sells for about $175K, and still takes a while to sell, if at all.

Ok, some rare earth materials were used for the catalytic converters, so the cars don't pollute the air as much. No worry, there won't be a need for much of those rare materials when we switch to electric cars.

Geez GJ, from this post, I think we did switch parties....
Geoff said 5 days later

lol good commentary. Perhaps the Baumbachs should overthrow the government. I can be the whacky independent.
GJ said 5 days later

I've been thinking that for some time now. We've been arguing from each other's standard planks since the auto industry collapsed, which simply confirms for me that the only extremist in the family is.....Geoff!
Geoff said 5 days later

I take it to the extreme, that's what being a good designer is all about yo.

Very interesting article on health care reform
posted by GJ on August 19, 2009 @ 12:21PM

I found a great article on the state of health care in the US. You should check it out--it's very revealing as to what's wrong with our current system, and how the fixes being discussed in Congress today are nothing more than a temporary band aid.

Yes, it's a bit long--but it's worth it--if you care about this issue, that is.

10 comments | Tags: article

Geoff said about 1 hour later

Damn good article. Read it, all of it.
GJ said about 2 hours later

Geez, if Geoff is reading something this big, it must be good. :) Do what he said.
Geoff said about 2 hours later

It is damn good. Best article I've read in awhile. Great comparisons and is right up my alley in making folks in charge of themselves.

It's BS that we pay for people who don't take care of themselves (smokers, drinkers, fast food fiends). While this amounts to only a small portion of health care fees, the idea itself would encourage people to smoke less, drink less, eat less (and better) and promote health wellness/awareness.

Lots of great stuff in this article...

Marc said about 4 hours later

That was a fantastic article. Right before the paragraph where he mentioned how Americans would handle this money in their HSA poorly in a lot of cases, I thought the same thing. But thinking about it a little more. I don't care. If you want to take that money and blow it on a new toy and then can't afford to pay for medical care, go for it, Darwin wins again. I think basing a decision on "generally people are dumb" is not a good reason to help them out.

David Goldhill for prez.
Eric said about 5 hours later

This guy is a Democrat? I don't believe it. I can't image the hatemail he must be receiving. This is the only solution I have heard so far that I would absolutely support. My only concern (be it little, at that) is will I get back the 10's of thousands of dollars I've spent on Medicare already if it's abolished? Nada, would be my assumption. Small price to pay in my opinion.

Send this article to your congressman. And tell them to stop meddling with our freedom. I already have.
GJ said about 6 hours later

Eric, you'd be wise to remember that most Democrat voters are not Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank clones. As much, I assume you're not a clone of Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin. I do think Geoff at times is channeling Ron Paul, but that's mostly because he's certifiably insane. I think anyone, regardless of their party affiliation, can offer up solutions that are not fully in line with what their party of choice often advocates.

I think anyone, be them Democrat or Republican, would love to see the health care system fixed such that:

* everyone can afford it
* catastrophic coverage is guaranteed
* most care and end of life decisions are left to the family

I said "most" above because I'm a Democrat who loves meddling. The government will still likely need programs to educate and provide help to young mothers (especially poor ones), it will still need to regulate the drug industry (think of all the fake crap sold today on TV or magazines that can cure any old disease you might have). I'm sure those Democrat politicians can think up about a zillion more, and I'll expect the GOP to help keep them in line. :)
Eric said about 8 hours later

I was being somewhat facetious, only due to the crazy partisanship that's been raviging the news lately.

Thank God most are not like Nancy and Barney. Those two and few more ought to find another country that might appreciate their politics a little more. Same goes for the Right nutjobs. I'm getting pretty sick of all the Nazi, Hitler, Facist slings.

But on health care, I absolutely agree on your three points. And I think most people, no matter which way you lean, would agree. The really crazy thing...most people agree on most things, health care and beyond. What I don't understand is how people can't see when they are voting the nutjobs into office!

Oh and I don't associate myself to either party. I vote for and support people who do smart things with my tax money. What else is there? For example - I voted for our Democratic Sherrif. He does a great job - really tough on crime. I also voted for our Repulican congresswoman. She supports, amoung other things, funding for hydropower in Michigan. I think that's great because the project can pay for itself and reduce dependancy on coal power. Smart.

We read this article, and it makes pretty good sense. Our congress has no doubt studied similar plans. Why isn't this being discussed? Let's not try to fix health care. Let's fix it right. Yeah - it will be really hard for many years. So will fixing Social Security. So will paying off the national debt. But they all have to be done. The country cannot continue spending their way out of these problems. The further we dig ourselves into debt, the harder it will be to get out.
Geoff said about 20 hours later

Amen.

Ron Paul to be continued...
GJ said about 21 hours later

Whew. You had me worried there, man! Yeah, I'm shocked that so few of the average Americans use their brains when it comes to politics. There is no monopoly on this for the right or left, unfortunately.

And yes, I agree with your last paragraph, except for the line about Congress studying similar plans. I don't buy that for a second, so you definitely want to sent this article to the attention of your representatives. I doubt seriously we can derail what they will put in place this year, but if the conversation about this can get off the ground now, we might actually see this system fixed inside our lifetime. That would be a hell of an achievement considering how f*cked up it is now.

I wish I could say that I voted for Republicans at my state level, but most of them are freaking nutjobs. Local level, maybe someday, but the last crew of GOPers emptied the town coffers, so it'll be a few years before their "We're not THOSE Republicans" campaign stops being so amusing. Federal level, I dislike most of my reps, be them Dem or GOP.
GJ said about 21 hours later

Btw, in case any of you wondered where I stumbled upon this article, I found it at Electoral-vote.com. This guy is definitely a liberal, but is by far and away very knowledgeable about all things political and is definitely a good read if you want some understanding of what's going on in the politicalsphere.

For all you alien fans...
posted by Geoff on August 16, 2009 @ 12:05PM

Check out the new movie District 9, directed by Peter Jackson (who also directed Lord of the Rings, and the new King Kong). While not nearly as long as his other films, it's still a pretty cool movie. A very unique take on the alien "invasion" if you will. If you've got a few extra bucks and 2 hours of time, I encourage you to check out the film. This movie is not for the kiddies, I will warn you.

10 comments | Tags: aliens, movie


	1 2 Next page

Username:
Password:
Remember me