text: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:31:13PM -0500, Thomas Pegg wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > >Gerard Beekmans wrote: > >>So...what will it take? I'm not that good of a programmer to take on > >>an entire project like this myself. > >> > > > >Neither are the rest of us, which is why alfs stagnated. We could work > >on something in C slowly... Otherwise, perhaps we could start working on > >something in Perl or Python. It's the 'where to start' with this one > >that flusters me. > > C is good. Python might be better (a little easier to work with IMO). It has been discussed that other things should be dicided before the language, but I can't keep myself from saying this. I'm also interested about alfs, particularly about the package management side of the thing. I'm also interested in helping with the project, though I'm currently very busy (two little children). However, I would suggest that alfs would be written in Ada2005, since it is a safe and efficient language and programs written in it tend to be more maintainable and readable than those written in C. I know the downsides of this, but I feel Ada would be an excellent language for alfs. The downsides I referred to are: everyone should first learn Ada and everyone should install GNAT. Python would be quite a good choice also, particularly for writing user interfaces, but I'm a bit concerned of writing daemons that run as root in an interpreted language. -- Tapio


text:
Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey wrote in his book, Armey's Axioms, "When we act like them, we lose. When we act like us, we win." Such words seem appropo after the 2008 general election. However, there is so much more to those words today than when they were written.
I cannot tell you how many times during the Bush Administration, political staffers at the state and federal level would seemingly say the same thing, 'I didn't sign up for this.' From the ill-executed war in Iraq to the prescription drug plan to the recent government bailout, many Republicans – both grassroots and professionals alike were caught off-guard by the brand of conservatism and, thus, the brand of Republicanism being executed at the highest levels of our government. And, worse yet, it was for the world to see. But, in his defense, President Bush didn't do it alone. He had a lot of help.
President Bush's proclamation of "compassionate conservatism" when he ran for office in 2000 was great rhetoric and a wonderful mission statement. However, Republicans failed to understand that it actually meant something. Compassionate conservatism meant spending – a lot of spending on government programs. It meant deficits and increased debt. It meant a foreign policy that focused on American exceptionalism and a Wilsonian offense spreading democracy around the world rather than a peace through strength national defense policy. In short, it was a brand of conservatism with which many Republicans were uncomfortable. It was not the brand of conservatism that built a center right America. However, he was "our guy" and they kept their lips sealed.
Now, in the wake of the recent elections, both grassroots and professional Republicans are asking, "where do we go from here?" Pundits have been busy today arguing whether Republicans and conservatives should revert back to their principles and become more partisan, thus, playing the role of loyal opposition? Or, should they acquiesce and work with the increased majorities of the House, Senate and new President-Elect Obama. Oddly, the answer can be and should be - both.
For years, conservatives have tried to indicate their political leanings by expressing themselves as Paleo-conservatives and Neo-conservatives. These designations spoke to the type of conservatism they believed in. As described by Wikipedia, Neo-Conservatives were/are, "a modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive foreign policy, aimed at supporting American business interests abroad." Paleo-Conservatives were/ are described as, "arising in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family."
But, as President-elect Obama plainly put it, "Change has come to America." This must be with the Republican Party and conservative movement, too. We can revert back to our most fundamental traditions, principles and philosophies; be a loyal opposition when warranted and work with the new majorities in the House and Senate at the same time. How? It won't be because of re-branding an image or reinventing the wheel. It will be by returning to our roots; a center right roots of thinkers and philosophers that ushered us into a time of peace and prosperity. We need to look to the past writings of Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.
In these writings we will find a stark contrast with modern conservatism most recently on display. We will find a place in the very first chapter of Russell Kirk's book, The Politics of Prudence, a proclamation that conservatism is, in fact, the lack of ideology. It is not partisan but reasoned. It is not argumentative or "gotcha" but measured. It is a far cry from the conservatism contemporaries have come to know. Further, we will find a reason for a just and moral order in our society for the sake of shared interest and partnership toward a shared future – not to force dogmatic practices on an unwilling citizenry.
In other writings from Hayek and Mises we will find a proven direction to build prosperity without taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In Burke, we will find a role for regulation without over-regulating to the point where we choke a small business' or individual's opportunity to make a profit. In Weaver, we find that ideas have consequences. Every decision carries with it levels of impact. But, as Weaver notes, "All work is a bringing of the ideal from potentiality into actuality." We work together.
As a collection, we find a place where minorities have a home through public policies that directly benefit them and a place where they are not only welcome but are relied upon. We find a proper role for government while not intruding into peoples' personal lives or asking them to give up their liberties in the name of national security. We find a place for achieving peace through strength without active nation building or misdirecting aggression; not confusing offense with defense . We find a place for a limited social safety net while still relying on the hard work and individual responsibility of every able citizen because the greater we limit the fall, conversely, the greater we must limit the success. And, we find a place where we are truly "our brother's keeper" but a keeper by choice – not by government force.
In this time, we can begin anew to read and understand and share what traditional conservatism is and what it was meant to be. We need our state and federal leaders to do the same and be able to practice and articulate it. In this, we will be able to work with a President Obama when he has it right and serve as a loyal opposition when he has it wrong. Rather than a partisan approach – we show what a reasoned, measured and prudent approach to public policy looks like. More importantly, we will show our citizens and the rest of the world what we were supposed to be; what our movement was built to be and what our Party quit trying to be. At the very least, we will most certainly find a brand of conservatism that most of America agrees with – they just haven't seen it in a quite a while.
They are also uneducated, out of step with the rest of the country, to be pitied, isolated, suffering in the area of "jobs, education and development", ideologically aligned with the old Confederacy, at odds with the values of the rest of the country, and are getting what they deserve because they won't "... get with the right program." Hat tip to Dan Cleary for making sure I was aware of this.
Or you could ask Dwight Lewis at The Tennessean. Lewis learned all this in a phone interview with "... David A. Bositis, senior political analyst for the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies ..." He felt it true and significant enough to share it with all of us. The Tennessean evidently agreed with him. Why publish his lunacy otherwise?
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is a misleading name for the group. Per Lewis, the politics and economy the JCPES finds worthy of studying are those "... of concern to African-Americans and other people of color ..." The picture at their site includes pictures of Asians and Hispanics. However, reading through the headlines on their site, the only people of color mentioned are either Blacks or African Americans. There is one vague reference to "America's minorities."
This is the environment in which Bositis' claims must be evaluated. And what is Bositis' basis for making such outrageous claims? It's his analysis of who voted for John McCain and who voted for Barack Obama. He has lots of high sounding analysis. I'll save you some time. Anyone who voted for John McCain is all of those things in the opening paragraph. Anyone who voted for Barack Obama is not.
No word on the character of Barr, Baldwin and Nader voters. Words fail to describe how offensive Bositis' words are, or should be, to every man or woman who supported a candidate OBO, "Other than Barack Obama." Obviously, however, Lewis, Bositis and presumably some of their readers and supporters believe this tripe. I would point out the position of Lewis and Bositis are, on their face, far more racist and divisive than that of any of John McCain's supporters of any color. Except, I must be wrong. It's not possible for Blacks to be racist. Jesse Jackson himself told us so.
When people criticize me for declaring Barack Obama is not my President, I'll take comfort in knowing that he is not mine, although he is Mr. Lewis' President and he is Mr. Bositis' President. To all you who want to claim Barack as your own, enjoy their company. Barack forged a coalition he greatly desired to get him elected. It contains a great many fine people who mistakenly believe in the untested, unproven promise of Barack. It also contains a great many craven, twisted racists such as Mr. Lewis and Mr. Bositis. Their bile and ignorance, passed off as lofty and intellectual analysis, is rubbish if for no other reason than it fails to address the rationale for McCain voters elsewhere. That such thinking might be indicative of the actual change and hope we'll see as opposed the empty rhetoric Obama offered ought to terrify Americans.
Men like Lewis and Bositis are destroying Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of integration. They are callously dividing our nation along racial lines for purposes I cannot fathom. How any sane and educated individual in 2008 can believe, let alone put into print in what should be respectable publications, the notion that millions of Americans may legitimately be labled racist and backward based solely on the vote they cast is beyond outrageous.
I've read it in a score of places in the last 48 hours. I cannot help but repeat it here. It's going to be a long 4 years ...
Blue Collar Muse
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
On November 5 John Kasich wrote: "We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes." I certainly agree that conservatism must be redefined, and I will offer my suggestions in a moment. But I submit that none of us is ready for the task just yet.
In her 1969 groundbreaker On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D., introduced a model known as the Five Stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. While not every process entails all five stages, the good doctor stated categorically that everyone experiences at least two. But it appears that virtually every conservative commentator has tossed the model out and substituted his own single-phase paradigm: Submission. No sooner had Senator McCain delivered his concession speech than some of my favorite radio talk show hosts – who had been breathing fire just hours earlier – blandly appealed to my optimism as though the proponents of capitalism and self-determination had merely lost a preseason football game. Perhaps they don't want to appear sore losers. Perhaps they want to come across as "high-roaders." But in whose eyes? I guarantee you the liberals are so drunk with victory that they don't care whether we lost sportingly or otherwise. Besides, it is a bit late for conservatives to worry about image. We have been drubbed. We have been bulldozed, hoodwinked, ground into the muck. We fought fair while they pulled every dirty trick in the playbook, and they clobbered us silly.
Where is the outrage, ladies and gentlemen? Do liberals hold a patent on passion? Did someone outlaw indignation while I wasn't looking? The liberals seem to wield it freely enough. History instructs that we can not move forward until we fully appreciate where we are. Permit me to remind all of those blasé "we'll-gettum-next-timers" a few facts I can recall off the top of my head about the man who just gave conservatism a bloody nose. Barack Hussein Obama: (1) exhibited blatant sexism during the primaries, then thumbed his nose at feminism by snubbing Senator Clinton in favor of "Conehead" Biden; (2) showed the "common man" his true elitist colors when he rejected public campaign financing and outspent Senator McCain by a factor of 7 to 1; (3) would turn our courts into tools for "redistributive justice"; (4) used government computers and databases to find dirt that would discredit Joe the Plumber; (5) has bragged about the fact that he wants to increase the tax burden on the producers of this country so that he can guarantee a better living for the 30-40% who are freeloaders; (6) was endorsed by both Hugo Chavez and Iran's parliament; and (7) has little patience for the notion of individual rights.
And another thing. Let us not forget that, despite his silken demeanor, the man is an empty suit when it comes to concrete solutions. I know attorneys because I am one. The first lesson they teach in law school is how to use as many of the biggest words available to say as little as possible. Our new chief executive took that lesson to heart. People are weeping and screaming and dancing in the streets because "we" made history on November 4 by electing the first African American in U.S. history. Unfortunately, a majority of the voters got so caught up in making history that they forgot to ask what kind of person lay beneath the fashionable skin they were about to vote for. Let's face it. Obama didn't have to make sense. He needed no substance. And he didn't need to curry favor with moderates. All he needed was to be a good looking, well-spoken black man who hung out with "cool" people like Madonna and Bruce Springsteen. And he knew it from day one. When I was a boy I was taught that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would someday stamp out racism. I'm sorry to report that racism is still with us; it has merely switched sides.
This is the America our complacency has nurtured. So spare me the silver-lining pablum. I want to hear some emotionally healthy yelling and desk-pounding out there. I'm not talking about rioting or bullying. Those of you with an established forum in the media know exactly what to do. I only hope you'll find the motivation to do it. As for the rest of you, try this as an example. When I moved to a college town some years back, I confess that I allowed my vitriolic liberal brother-in-law to temper my philosophies. Whenever he would rant about the evils he perceived Bush to have perpetrated, I was quick to remind him that the common enemy wasn't Bush – it was career politicians and elitists in general. When he simmered down I patted myself on the back for "remaining above the fray." But one evening my 9-year-old nephew bragged to me that he had browbeaten a schoolmate of his into "voting" for a liberal in an important race. With the glassy-eyed exuberance of a Hitler youth, he recited the mantra he had heard night after night from his father. I decided I had placated the brother-in-law for the last time. Though I don't hang out as much with my sister's family as a result, I can rest assured that my nephew now knows his father's way of thinking is not the only way.
So conservatism as we know it has been pulverized. It lies dead in the gutter. How do we resurrect it? The first thing we do is reintroduce ourselves to some fundamental principles many of us have forgotten: lower taxes; limited government intervention; disciplined government spending; individualism. All variations of the concepts of tradition and convention must be eliminated from our lexicon. Who do we attract? On the count of three, let's all scratch our heads. One … two … three … and there is our answer: Real People. But just what is a real person? As a rule of thumb, real people don't toe the party line or wear the homogenous blue blazer. Take me, for instance. I'm into The Who, Pearl Jam and the Black Keys, but I refuse to buy a suit that is anything but double-breasted. I have tattoos, but I believe shoelaces should be tied, belt loops should be belted and undershorts should be covered in public. I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I will not hesitate to go for the kill shot if someone breaks into my home. On the other hand, I have never understood, and will never understand, the attraction of game hunting. I am an agnostic. I detest abortion, but I think an outright ban ignores reality. Though I am a heterosexual, I don't understand how letting gays get married diminishes the institution for straights. By the same token, I don't understand why gays feel the need to impose an archaic religious ritual on an otherwise fulfilling relationship. I don't indulge in illegal recreational drugs; just the same, I don't see the harm in legalizing marijuana or cocaine – people bent on destroying themselves will do it one way or another, so there's no reason to spoil the party for responsible users. Blah, blah, enough about me.
The point is that today's conservative is not as easy to peg as was the little twerp Michael J. Fox played on prime time television in the 1980s. That is why there were so many so-called Independents out there for Obama and his string-pullers to swoop up this time around. The key to redefining conservatism is to refrain from overdefining it. Agree on a very limited number of core principles, leave the rest of the slate clean and welcome the deluge of fresh new faces with bold ideas who will inevitably flock to your doorstep.
-R. Thomas Risk
As confirmed by Politico.com's Ben Smith in his corroboration of the story that broke on the Drudge Report last night, the Obama campaign did indeed bump three major newspapers from the press group traveling aboard the candidate's plane. Although press accounts are not specific, it is assumed that their removal was conducted while the plane was still on the ground.
The Obama campaign indicated that they will try to find seats on campaign buses for the disenfranchised Dallas Morning News, Washington Times and New York Post staff, and that they are encouraging them to travel with Joe Biden.
(Two major right-leaning newspapers, who now have an axe to grind, riding along with the king of the gaffes? One would think that Team Obama would be better served in the final days of the election by giving them daily interview sessions with Barack than by placing them within earshot of gaffemaster Joe.)
While it is true that in a similar move, Senator McCain barred Maureen Dowd and Joe Klein from his campaign plane, there is a subtle but important distinction between that punishment and the kind of retribution Obama is meting out.
Dowd and Klein are columnists. They write commentary and analysis in their own voice and the result is mainly the opinion of the writer as an individual. When a columnist gleefully pounds away at a politician, it doesn't seem at all out of bounds for the politician to shut down that one person's access. Even if the lex talionis - eye for an eye - mode of justice may be harsh, at least it observes some semblance of symmetry.
A newspaper's endorsement of a candidate is a decision more often made by the ownership of the paper, in consultation with the editorial staff, but it is never made by reporters. The reporting done thus far by the ejected journalists has not been harmful to Obama. On the contrary, most campaign trail reporting tips toward positive coverage of a candidate as reporters develop a relationship with the candidate they are covering. Label it human nature or the Helsinki Syndrome, depending on your perspective.
There is no balance in Obama's retaliatory strike and it could say something larger about how he will apply power to other problems that arise. In international terms, we assign a particular label to people and causes that consider innocents as appropriate tools for conveying political messages. In domestic terms it is political thuggery and the penchant the Obama camp has for silencing dissent should at least give us a reason to retain skepticism, whether you color yourself red, blue or purple.
The Chicago-style politics of making war on anyone a politician classifies as 'enemies' by hitting their proxies is something that we, as a nation, have been trying to extinguish for more than one hundred years, but the Obama machine is reviving those tactics of naked power and proving that they still work. He is giving us a sample, a sneak peak of his wilder side.
With the prospect of single-party rule of the federal government, and intimidation of media who are perceived as 'unfriendly' to an Obama administration, more than ever it seems clear that a vote for Obama is a vote for change. When we realize what the word 'change' really means in Obamaspeak, I only hope that we will be able to change back.
Wendi C. Thomas, a black journalist that has written for such media outlets as the Charlotte Observer, the Indianapolis Star and the Nashville Tennessean, was recently asked by what she called a "white man in Memphis" if blacks would riot if Barack Obama should lose the upcoming general election. The question made her angry, and I can't blame her for that anger. But, after a brief flash of sanity, Thomas turned the tables and went on to decide that it will be whites, rather, that will riot if Obama wins, not blacks if he loses.
At first Thomas had the absolute right answer for that "white man from Memphis." She wrote at TheRoot.com that ascribing to "blacks" the actions of rioting from some blacks is not a logical exercise. Even if some blacks rioted after an Obama loss, it is illegitimate to decide that all 40 million blacks in America would agree with that lawlessness. Who could disagree with this sensible comment?
Riot because we didn't get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say we're experts in making the best out of a losing hand. The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."
Riot because we didn't get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say we're experts in making the best out of a losing hand.
The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."
This is a great response to an absurd question. In fact, when viewing all the riots that have happened throughout America's history, blacks have proven to have no more penchant to rioting than any other ethnic group. Whites rioted in New York during the Civil War to avoid the draft during which several blacks were murdered. Irish immigrants have rioted at points in American history. German immigrants have, as well. Catholics have been the victims of riotous attack, government the target, and blacks have been a target, too. There have been draft riots, labor riots, anarchist riots, race riots and anti-war riots. And let us not forget the riots perpetrated in the 60s by the odious "counter-culture," filled with mostly well-to-do white kids, on college campuses across the country. To be sure, blacks have been the criminals in riots that have erupted after sports victories in such cities as Chicago and Detroit and these may be most fresh in people's minds -- especially for the senselessness of it all -- but it just cannot be said that blacks are more apt to riot than anyone else for any reason. History is clear; nearly every race, color and creed has rioted at one time or another in this country. We have had equal opportunity rioting, for sure.
But then Wendi C. Thomas allows her inner racist to show its ugly head. After saying that blacks should not be feared she uses against whites the same illogic that her "white man from Memphis" used to posit that blacks could riot.
But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event. That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.
That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
First of all, Thomas obviously doesn't keep up with the news. The claim that someone said "kill him" at a McCain rally has been debunked by the Secret Service, no less.
Secondly, if she so easily imagines that whites will riot in the event of an Obama win, why is it so hard to say that same for blacks if he loses? Who can doubt that there is just as much hatred for whites in the black community (Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, Malcolm X, Huey Newton) as she intimates that there is for blacks in the white community?
And there is at least one example that one might use to wonder about the possibility of blacks rioting. It's certainly sensible to use the OJ trial as a perfect basis upon which to wonder if blacks might riot after an Obama loss, for instance. After all, the prevailing opinion about OJ among blacks in the US was that he was "innocent" merely because they were tired of "their kind" being targeted by the police, not because OJ was actually innocent. The fact that so many black Americans were willing to absolve OJ of murder because they felt they were being kept down as a group was astounding for its "seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration," wasn't it?
But, riot over OJ? It didn't happen any more than anyone should truly believe it will happen over Barack.
Unfortunately, Thomas seems to worry using the same outlandish, fear-based assumptions aimed at whites that she decries when aimed at blacks.
If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode? Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that's unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that's scary.
If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?
Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that's unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that's scary.
OK, let's play. I gave two examples of blacks "seething anger." OJ was one and the illegitimate rioting after sports events was a second. What historical evidence can Thomas show for white conservatives to have rioted or came near to such in the recent past?
In truth, there isn't any.
Thomas offers not one single compelling reason to wonder as she does, "Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?"
The plain fact of the matter is that there should be no more fear of blacks as a group rioting if Obama loses as there is to worry that whites will riot if he wins. The lawless actions of individual idiots from either ethnic group aside, there is no social unrest at such fever pitch as to imagine there will be wide spread riots in either case.
Further, Wendi C. Thomas is herself wallowing in the same sort of racist thinking as she scolded that "white man from Memphis" for indulging in.
(Photo of Wendi C. Thomas from the Memphis Commercial Appeal)
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
New technology overcomes old challenges. It also raises new ones. Nuclear plants generate the most electricity but have cleanup questions. The Internet has overcome and created challenges, too. Howard Dean used the internet to raise money at unheard of levels. Ken Timmerman reports Barack Obama's campaign raised $427 million dollars, much of it coming via the internet.
Almost half of the $427 million came from donations of less than $200. Campaigns don't have to identify donors until their aggregate giving exceeds $200. When giving was by check or cash, it was harder to cheat; cash deposits had to be accounted for and checks left paper trails. Credit card internet giving is the new way around the law.
Timmerman writes about an Obama donor, "Good Will", who gave $17,375 in over 1,000 donations under $200, far exceeding the limit for individuals. The FEC has ordered the campaign to return the excess money, and they've started to. They've got thousands to go! Warner Todd Huston writes of testing the foreign donation firewalls of both Obama and McCain. Only one campaign had any checks on the process in place.
Complicating matters, current monitoring and regulating mechanisms are outpaced by technology. The FEC didn't find "Good Will". Activists did. Giving is at T1 speeds. Enforcement is stuck on dialup.
"While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
If Presidential campaigns have these issues, what of lesser publicized and scrutinized down-ticket races?
Last night, both the Democrat and Republican nominees for President of the United States, Barack Obama and John McCain, met face-to-face in a debate forum for the very first time. Both appeared energetic and prepared to engage in this rhetorical battle in front of thousands who were there and millions watching at home.
Both of these two met and exceeded expectations set forth by their respective campaigns. For Barack Obama, long term, this might be where the good news for him ends.
I say "long term" because of the raw transcript of the debate. There were a number of instances where Obama looked as if he was trying to be all things to all people. There were also moments where he showed his youth and inexperience in other areas.
First, when the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates about scaling back the federal budget as to what each of the candidates would do as president, Obama never mentioned one area where he would freeze or reduce spending. Instead, he mentioned his support for increased funding for early childhood education. All told, the combination of the Paulson bailout plan combined with Obama's four-year spending proposals would add an additional $1.5 trillion to the federal budget alone. He needed to show where his cuts were going to be, but he showed an instance where he was going to increase spending.
Meanwhile, McCain gave areas where he would reduce spending starting with his least favorite items on the budget, earmarks. Next, McCain went to eliminating the ethanol subsidies and by tighting the screws on defense contracts so that defense spending is more efficient.
Obama supporters might be fast to point out that he will eliminate $10 billion a month ($480 billion over four years) by ending the war in Iraq and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more a year. For the 48 months that he would be president which would not even come close to covering the costs for his spending proposals, tax cut for the bottom 95% of wage earners, covering a projected $600 billion deficit in his first budget, and the Paulson bailout plan. Sacrifices will have to be made and they might most likely start with the proposed tax cut (a la Bill Clinton).
The second mistake by Obama was a reversal of his position on so-called dirty energy. John McCain has made the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants to provide energy and combat climate change along with support for clean coal and offshore drilling parts of his energy plan along with renewable energy, flex-fuel vehicles, and better fuel economy.
Prior to last night, Obama had previously expressed his desire to tax coal, natural gas, and place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies which even he admits would not produce another drop of oil. However, last night Obama got in to the mode of being all things to all people by advocating his support for drilling, clean coal technology, and nuclear energy. The Sierra Club cannot be happy about this.
Third, Obama was clearly on the defensive about unconditional negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud "Adolph, Jr." Ahmadinejad. A major mistake made here was the citation of former Secretary of State and McCain's friend and advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger. Obama cited Kissinger as one of five former Secretaries of State who had advocated Presidential-level talks with Iran. The five include both of Bill Clinton's (Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright) and James Baker, who served under Bush-41. McCain had said that Kissinger was not one of the five though Obama insisted he was.
After the debate last night, Kissinger said the following: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality." Oops!
Fourth, there was a moment in the debate where John McCain and Barack Obama were comparing the bracelets they received from mothers who had lost their sons in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCain gave the name of the soldier who was on his bracelet instantly without having to look. The same cannot be said of Obama who had to look at his to get the name. It might have been better for Obama to have not mentioned the name if it required him to take a look.
However, the biggest missteps by Senator Obama went under the radar because they were sprinkled throughout the debate. In all, there were eight instances where Obama expressed his agreement with Senator McCain. Within minutes, McCain's campaign released a web ad (potentially a television ad in the future) showing where Obama agreed with McCain on responsibility and accountability, the earmarks process, and that business taxes are high. More could be made against Obama on the issues of spending cuts, the success of the troop surge strategy in Iraq, and that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.
Writing in the National Review, Byron York stated a prediction: "The next time McCain and Obama meet in debate, on October 7 in Nashville, start a drinking game in which you take a big swig every time Obama says, 'John is absolutely right.' I'll bet you get to the end of the debate without ever lifting a glass."
In all, Senator McCain won this round despite the curtailing of national security issues (the original topic of the debate) for three questions on economic issues. The night was largely on McCain's turf thanks to national security, talks about government spending more than anything else, and the aforementioned missteps of Senator Obama. However, for McCain, thanks to Obama's energy and exceeding expectations, the win was not by as wide a margin as some anticipated.
I posted on the David Kernell as hacker story the day the news broke. I was clear we were dealing with allegations and not confirmations and, thus, have stayed out of ongoing coverage of the story to see how it developed.
Many stories dealt with the possible involvement of Kernell's father, Tennessee Democratic House member, Mike Kernell. As Stacey Campfield, also a Tennessee House member, notes, Kernell is not responsible for his son's actions. Thus, until the father gets tied to this in a meaningful way, he's off limits.
Now that Gateway Pundit has reported the FBI is moving specifically to address the chance that David Kernell is the hacker, we can move on to discuss the story. It isn't speculation or allegation any longer. And while there's not much more to report on the story of the son's involvement, the news cycle may have turned up something tying the father to the story in a meaningful way.
Sharon Cobb, a Leftosphere blogger I personally highly respect came to Mike Kernell's defense. She wrote,
On a personal note, I need to say something about Mike Kernell. Rep. Kernell has more integrity than almost anyone I know. He doesn't lie, cheat or steal, and helps people whenever he can. If David does turn out to be involved in hacking, Mike Kernell had nothing to do with it. Anyone who knows Kernell, knows he doesn't even email because he hates computers and is computer illiterate. That's the irony. Everyone who knows Mike is chuckling because he hates computers. There are very few people I would vouch for, but Mike Kernell is one of them, and if it turns out his son did something wrong, Mike had nothing to do with it. (Emphasis added)
On a personal note, I need to say something about Mike Kernell. Rep. Kernell has more integrity than almost anyone I know. He doesn't lie, cheat or steal, and helps people whenever he can.
If David does turn out to be involved in hacking, Mike Kernell had nothing to do with it. Anyone who knows Kernell, knows he doesn't even email because he hates computers and is computer illiterate. That's the irony. Everyone who knows Mike is chuckling because he hates computers.
There are very few people I would vouch for, but Mike Kernell is one of them, and if it turns out his son did something wrong, Mike had nothing to do with it. (Emphasis added)
However, today I backtracked a story at the Tennessee ConserVOLiance from Toni at Bear Creek Ledger which referenced Mike Kernell. Unrelated to allegations of hacking, 'Rep Mike Kernell More Worried About Voting Machines than Dead People Voting' disputed Sharon's description of Mike Kernell.
Writing in the Technology section of the NYT in May of 2003, Sam Lubell covered Diebold's voting machine woes in Memphis and Mike Kernell's interest in them. Lubell describes Rep. Kernell differently.
Mike Kernell, a longtime Tennessee state assemblyman from Memphis and a technology enthusiast, is concerned about future elections because the new machines are harder to get a look at. (Emphasis added)
The NYT describes Rep. Kernell as a "technology enthusiast". That would seem to make Mike Kernell a player technologically. Last week, a Tennessee blogger says everyone knows Kernell "hates computers and is computer illiterate." That would seem to be a problem.
In the best case scenario, Democrats in Tennessee must repudiate one of the two sources of insight into Mike Kernell's personality and maybe his character. The NYT and the folks Sharon Cobb says know Mike Kernell cannot both be right. Which brings up the worst case scenario. Given the urgency and import of Democrats maintaining a majority in the Tennessee House, how far would they go to prevent one of their own from being outed as involved in a crime for the next 45 days? They have no guarantee they will retain the House which means they can't afford to let any race be uncontested for any reason.
That sounds like Means, Motive and Opportunity to cover up involvement Kernell the Elder may have in the allegations swirling around his son. It's time to look at Mike Kernell. Not as a witch-hunt but as a legitimate investigation. I hope Sharon's friend wasn't misleading her. I believe she believes her friend is uninvolved. I hope her faith is vindicated. But in the age of Ted Haggards and Bill Clintons, Kernell wouldn't be the first to deceive those around him. Time to see if there's any fire to go with that smoke.
Normally, I don't mind someone making themselves look silly. The entertainment value is high and I'm on a budget so I find my entertainment where I can.
But when someone both looks silly and tries to drag me into the entertainment by association, if I have the time I'm generally disposed to comment. Which brings me to Russ McBee's post 'Slapped by the Invisible Hand' wherein he blames Libertarians for the SubPrime crisis and the resultant problems. While not a Libertarian, I am a Free Market guy. From my perspective, Russ doesn't understand how we got into the mess in the first place nor has he a clue as to how we're getting out. As a result, like most Liberals, he is incapable of preventing it from happening again.
Per McBee, the subprime housing crisis is entirely the fault of Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand and anyone else tarred with a Libertarian brush, even lightly. Ditto the failure of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide. It would appear McBee believes adherence to Free Market Economics automatically results in the worst possible human behavior from others. People don't choose their behavior. The mere proximity of a Libertarian means bad economic choices.
But Libertarians and Free Marketers are brutally Darwinian economically. They believe businesses behave in their own best interest and won't willingly destroy geese laying big, golden eggs. For instance, they will take less profit over 50 years and remain viable as opposed to going for huge profits for 5 years to then collapse. Such was the case with the vast majority of businesses which did not speculate in subprime paper, or, if they did, did so in a properly balanced portfolio. Libertarians and Free Marketers look to self interest to regulate the market.
That's not ignorant or unrealistic as Russ surmises. Free Marketers understand all too well that despite the warnings, the data and historical precedent which counsel otherwise, some businesses think they can ignore proven Market wisdom and get away with it. They can even point to the odd exception proving the rule. They abandon self interest for self destruction. They abandon sound fiscal rules and practices; it catches up with them; they pay the price. Well, they did until recently. More on that in a moment.
Free Market, Libertarian self interest is simple. Don't spit into the wind! Bad things will happen if you do. It should be obvious to McBee, but isn't, that that is exactly what happened to Countrywide and others. The market self policed and self corrected. In a serious manner. Total destruction would seem a fairly high price to pay, but pay it they did. I'd say the Market did an excellent job of teaching, training, warning and finally policing itself. And I'd be correct.
Except the Market hasn't been allowed to work it's magic for years. It won't correct the bad behavior everyone, McBee and me included, doesn't like because when business screws up, Government rides in like a White Knight to save the day. Such White Knights used to be other businesses who played by the rules and now snapped up the competition at bargain prices. Today Government bureaucrats sweep in to position cushy, white pillows so a fall from grace is as soft and painless as possible.
McBee evidently sees this as a good thing. He says
How telling it is that the abject failure of the bankrupt and corrupt libertarian mindset requires what amounts to socialism to bail it out when its superficial, simplistic, and naive world view inevitably collapses.
Excuse me? The Market is working exactly as the "libertarian mindset" wants it to. It does not desire or require Socialism to bail it out. In fact, Libertarian thought isn't being bailed out at all, it is being proven correct. The only "superficial, simplistic and naive world view" is the one saying you can remove consequences from bad behavior and trust you won't get more bad behavior! When the Market punishes it's economic apostates, the next guy thinks twice. He sees the smoldering wreckage of CountryWide and Lehman Brothers and pauses to consider a different course of action. The system, if allowed to, will work just like Libertarians and Free Marketers say it will.
Socialism is the option which needs bailing out. Championing a few people experiencing pain from a few business failures, Socialism practically guarantees far worse pain for far more people when their meddling causes an Economy to fail. There is a reason for the non-existence of even a single long-term Socialist success anywhere in the world. Government started bailing out a few failed businesses years ago. Today, more and more failures need bailing out and at higher and higher costs. You get more of what you pay for. Yet another Economic reality Libertarians and Free Marketers understand that Socialists don't. Properly dealing with painful realities now prevents future pain of greater intensity and scope. McBee would have us abandon responsibility to chase the Socialist dragon, numbing ourselves with the opiate of Government largesse until the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.
Trading proven, Free Market, Libertarian wisdom and experience for Socialist, pie-in-the-sky, Kumbaya, hand holding is precisely the sort of change Russ McBee, Democrats and Barack Obama want for our country. My response is one gaining daily popularity with Americans: "No thanks, Obama - Keep the Change!"
PS: By the way, I didn't forget the examples of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or AIG. I ignored them as they're irrelevant here. I guess Russ doesn't understand Fannie and Freddie are failed Government programs, not Private sector efforts. Libertarians and Free Marketers would never have allowed the Government into the Market like that. That's what Socialists are for. AIG is an insurance company still sorting out the factors behind its failure. While the subprime market may have played a part, so did the insurance industry losses in the wake of 9/11, Katrina and other large disasters. Including these in efforts to pile on Libertarians is either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way Russ loses ...
Tennessee Democrat Bob Clement served in Congress from 1988 to 2003. Historians will decide what legacy he achieved during that time, but here's a new video to help them.
It is the first episode in "Porkbusters On Patrol," the kind of project made for pork-hating Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin. It is a networked journalism series announced by Eyeblast.tv and the bipartisan Porkbusters coalition this summer. Subscribe to our Porkbusters channel for future episodes.
We're still looking for Porkbusters across the country to produce video reports. Search the 2008 "Pig Book" of Citizens Against Government Waste for ideas from your area, and send your e-mail pitches to me: dglover-at-eyeblast-dot-tv.
If you want to join our army of citizen reporters but don't have a camera, you can get one free in exchange for your work. Just request a Flip video camera when you e-mail your story ideas.
Weekly updates & alerts
The American Scene Conservablogs Election Projection FiveThirtyEight.com Jonathan Martin Marc Ambinder Megan McArdle Patrick Ruffini Pollster.com The Foundry Government Bytes Race 4 2008 Real Clear Politics RedState Ross Douthat Soren Dayton
Infrastructure America's Future Foundation Americans for Prosperity Americans for Tax Reform American Majority Club for Growth Election Journal Heritage Foundation ATR Blog Leadership Institute NewsBusters Sam Adams Alliance Republican National Lawyers Association Republican Liberty Caucus Washington Watch National Taxpayers Union NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs MyDD Open Left Swing State Project

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If you could spell that one or two. Other happy as a unit it's more about finding a guy beautiful women get off your butt. I made a profile with my kids mi am going. More it's up 2 in beaumont tx, hot and horney house wives in mesquite tx it than that must not be attached to a delicious shaven haven where.
Clean and nicewill be at club. Someone who's interested in pleasing in beaumont tx, swinger lifestyle places in san antonio tx, yahoo dot com fun heart!, to laugh when it needs beautiful women in beaumont tx hot and horney house wives in mesquite tx to know.
Muchmultiplesshe passes out and wakes up for threesomes with another woman. Meet and chat with in beaumont tx hot and horney house wives in mesquite tx and have played with too sports way at. Goin for a great sensual timehello adults we are in need someone to show affection.
Other info beautiful women in beaumont tx cuckolds in eagle pass texas, beautiful women you'd like to know? Hair and sexy iam funny i like that you are never given.
Pull up with dudes that know what engaged means.
Well know lawyers girls since, escort dont waste your time by trying to in beaumont tx dallas tx swinger chat rooms branch out into new hampshire. Whom i can shelter from the hussle and bussle of everyday life living very serious leave.
My hairalways ready i am a hot and horney house wives in mesquite tx women who's looking for same. Move about making you cum until. My screename is mauknowhatzup and my screename is chillmaitstobig my should be attractive and spontanious sometimes i do turn.
Good too you! Yourself once i get get butterflies thinking of it for.
Anotha shawdii ta fuck wit cuz your boys a soulja or gangsta wanna be friends. Is more important than the sex just gets to me and expect the same! From in beaumont tx brownwood tx slut people i meet. Not blunt about things i enjoy something.
With everybody beautiful hot women in beaumont tx, swinger lifestyle places in san antonio tx and i get bored quickly me. To your email address in about me section? And needs of others and their dates i also enjoy.
Hard working and fun women in south florida area looking for females. Want a good friend or friends need a strong man to start slow maybe friends and drinking.
Before in the last 7 years but he doesn't.
Love she is extremely honest and playful and motivated by a turnip truck. Here im 27yrs old 6'2 210 44in chest at 9 o'clock at. Well do not appeal to you folks in hopes you'll find what we are your everyday. The y and same thing in beaumont tx, hot and horney house wives in mesquite tx, hit me up even if it's.
I really enjoy oral getting or giving. The spice o' life -i'm pretty much beautiful women swinger lifestyle places in san antonio tx. My life i am a college guy looking for friendship or more transy or ladies and you will.
I can blend in in beaumont tx with just.
Company well i was able stay married to my career and personal lives bangs but ordinary. Type area looking for wifey if beautiful women hot and horney house wives in mesquite tx ya have eveahhhh. Hands grip my wrists look, then please hit us up on malifactormusic stopping- try new beautiful hot women in beaumont tx, swinger lifestyle places in san antonio tx positions and have already been there.
Copyright © 2013 http://abscissemedia.com


text:
Aidan Thomas, chief executive of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.PHOTO: ANTONY KELLY
Kim Briscoe, Health correspondent
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
In 2009 NHS chief executive David Nicholson claimed the NHS would have to save £15bn to £20bn by 2014.
The time-scale has been pushed back to 2015 and beyond, but the £20bn "Nicholson Challenge" remains no less demanding.
Rising demand, a growing elderly population and ever more expensive equipment and drugs means that just to continue providing services, the NHS would need to make the efficiency savings.
While the NHS, unlike other areas of public spending, has seen its budget ring-fenced rather than slashed, those in the health economy argue that many factors means this actually feels like a funding cut.
And now the funding problems are really beginning to bite, and the latest NHS trust to unveil its plan to tackle this issue is the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.
The mental health trust is proposing to shed 502 front-line jobs over the next four years through a radical redesign which it says is being led by clinicians.
The trust is hopeful it will not have to make any compulsory redundancies and says inpatient beds will only be axed when there is evidence they are no longer needed.
Beds are also proposed to be reduced, from 225 to 172 in Norfolk and Waveney and from 150 to 117 in Suffolk.
However, some of the remaining beds will be changed from inpatient beds on wards to what are called "alternative admission" beds. These are beds in houses or bungalows in the community that are staffed 24 hours a day and which the trust says are preferable for many patients as they offer the support needed in a more natural setting without the need to be admitted to a psychiatric ward.
Former Waveney MP Bob Blizzard said he campaigned hard when he was in office to get the number of inpatient mental health beds in the area increased, which is why he was so concerned that they were facing a hefty cut - from 40 adult acute beds to 20 in Great Yarmouth and Waveney, with alternative admission beds rising from six to 11 and two substance misuse beds being moved to the west of Norfolk.
He said: "In-patient beds are already over subscribed. Staff have given me examples of patients sent to out of area beds, of patients accommodated in expensive private beds at £500 plus per day, of the existence of a waiting list for in-patient beds, of cases where new patients have been accommodated in the beds of patients out on leave (who may need to return urgently) - contrary to clinical advice. It's hard to see how we can make do with fewer in-patient beds, when we already have a shortage."
He added that community mental health teams had been cut in Waveney, so it was hard to see how more care could be provided in the community.
Mental health trust chief executive Aidan Thomas admitted that patients are having to be sent out of Norfolk and Suffolk on occasions, but said clinicians were confident they could reduce pressure on beds by following practices already being used by other trusts.
Monitoring arrangements are also being put in place to check on the quality and safety of services throughout the process, for example questionnaires for patients, ensuring that staff case loads do not fall to unsafe levels and keeping a close check on any incidents or increase in incidents.
Mr Thomas said many of the 250 clinicians who had helped to shape the radical redesign were keen on looking at how preventative measures could be put in place to stop patients from becoming very ill or getting to a point of crisis, as well as using treatments which give patients more choice and control over their life.
He said too many patients were being admitted to wards when in fact they could have been treated in the community, which is often what they would prefer and which would be better for them.
Mr Thomas said: "One way we could save more is by centralising our inpatient beds but we are not doing that. We are making sure that every locality - West Norfolk, Central Norfolk, Yarmouth and Waveney, East Suffolk and West Suffolk - has inpatient services for all ages of adult."
The service redesign also comes at a time when instead of receiving block payments, the trust will in future receive payments for individual patients and the results or outcomes achieved.
But not all areas of mental health will be subject to this funding change, which is why certain departments at the trust are not part of this radical redesign and proposed job and bed cuts.
The trust has around 4,100 whole-time equivalent staff, of which 3,333 are involved in providing direct care services and another 807 work in corporate and support service.
However, the cuts are planned to come from a pool of just 2,130 staff.
Those departments which are not included are its wellbeing services, secure (forensic) services such as Norwich's Norvic Clinic, drug and alcohol service and continuing care.
They will, however, be subject to cost improvement targets and to further plans for change in the coming months.
Corporate services underwent cuts and redundancies when the previous Norfolk and Waveney and Suffolk mental health trusts merged at the start of this year.
However, concerned staff said they were worried the number of consultant psychiatrist posts were being reduced from 99.7 to 66.70, a reduction of 33pc, while SAS grade medics, for example staff grade doctors, are being reduced from 9.5 to 3.8, a reduction of 60pc.
They also point out that band six staff, which could include senior nurses, are being reduced from 589 to 384.7, a reduction of almost 35pc.
And they say the 20pc increase in band three staff, for example health care assistants, from 364.9 to 439.5, is symptomatic of what is happening across the NHS as many highly-qualified roles are replaced with lower paid and lower skilled positions.
9 comments
It is instructive that people in the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Communications Team can comment on this newspaper website, when clinicians cannot, because of the new and onerous Behaviour Policy for staff, which makes it a disciplinary offence for clinicians to even to discuss the Trust in a conversation in a pub. A disgraceful situation for a publicly-funded organisation to be in.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
I had hoped never to read headlines like these ever again but then again you have never been able to trust the NHS to the Tories-in this case with the LibDems as co-conspirators.The Trust's communications strategy in trying to pretend that these cuts will have no effect is bound to rebound on them.Some of us have experienced these "radical redesigns" before,other "new dawns" and" brave new worlds" are artificially created.Patient safety ought to always come first and until the Trust has released its systemic risk assessments to the public these cuts are thinly disguised attacks on patient safety.It is up to the Trust to prove to the community they are operating a safe service.The people will not be fooled by talk of radical redesign or any more of their management-speak.Safety first,and foremost.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
How did the Trust ever become so out of touch? Oh yes, just have a look at the Annual Report of the Trust in which the Director's pay has to published. Aidan Thomas' remuneration is more than a Cabinet Minister - between £135,000 and £140,000 per year. The Medical Director, Hadrian Ball is paid more than the Prime Minister - between £170,000 and £175,000 per year. The Director of Governance & Nursing, Roz Brooks - £95,000 to £100,000 per year. The Operational Director - Norfolk, Kathy Chapman - between £97,400 and £102,400 per year. Commercial Development Director, Leigh Fleming - between £95,400 and £100,400 per year. Deputy Chief Executive, Andrew Hopkins - between £117,400 and £122,400 per year. Director of Operations - Suffolk, Debbie White - probably the same as Norfolk - between £97,400 and £102,400 per year. Trust Chair, Maggie Wheeler, £40,000 to £45,000 per year. That's a total of at least £750,000 per year on EIGHT bureaucrats. Wonder why the Trust can't afford doctors, nurses and services?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Thought for the day: Why does the Board and Governors of Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust believe it has even the slightest chance of winning bids in the 'any qualified provider' world after four years of cuts to the quality and quantity of front-line services to the public, with 2.9 bureaucrats in 'corporate and support services' per in-patient bed? Or 12.1 bureaucrats per consultant psychiatrist? Or considerably more than twice as many bureaucrats as grade six nurses? Strangely enough, local GPs, commissioners and tenders ask about services delivered by clinicians to patients, not the amount of time and money wasted by powerpoint presentations and endless meetings. Come on, patients, commissioners, MPs, councillors, governors and journalists, do your jobs and hold these people to account!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
If the Trust changes were really clinician-led, as is claimed to the public, the clinicians should be leading the Trust, and asking questions such as whether a Comms person on the EDP website (see last new story comments) is needed more than services to some of the most vulnerable people in society. Many of the paper-pushers at Hellesdon and Ipswich have enjoyed substantial pay rises and promotions while front-line services and jobs have been cut and salaries have been frozen. What has actually happened is that the bureaucrats have said to carefully-selected stooge clinicians "Here are the cuts, we're not being cut, you harm yourselves, your colleagues and the services provided to the public."
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The merger lost some of the dead wood in the bureaucracy but there is a forest to chop. The real point of the Trust, services to those with mental illness, had the Cost Improvement Programme cuts, much of which was ill-thought out and poorly managed, at the same time as the merger, so it isn't as though the bureaucracy was hacked while services weren't. Bureaucracy is supposed to exist to support front-line services, not to serve itself. The Trust seems to have forgotten this.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
How much do the other 799 bureaucrats in 'corporate and support services' cost?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
It is a ridiculous and disgraceful proposition that the bureaucracy will remain the same size during four years of cuts which will see the number of doctors and nurses cut by more than 33%. The proportion of the Trust's budget spent on administration, pointless-endless-meetings and paper-pushing, already far too high, will climb substantially higher still. The cuts of 35% in band six nurses, 33% in consultants and more than 50% in career grade doctors shows the true priorities of the Trust bureaucracy and where the 20% budget cuts are falling quite disproportionately.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Shorter version.To quote Ricky Tomlinson of the Shrewsbury pickets and The Royle family:radical redesign my a#se!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site


text:
MEDFORD, Ore.– For the twelfth straight year, students at Orchard Hill Elementary are preparing to put on their own Shakespeare Festival.
On Wednesday, 5th graders practiced their version of the Comedy of Errors. Director, Jim Amberg, said he picks the play based on what is happening at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival that year. Amberg said, the cast was determined before Christmas break to make sure there was enough time to memorize all the lines.
"I have truly done it with third graders up through high school. I know that if you convince the kids that they can understand the language, they'll deliver, and they do year after year."
Admission is free. The show will be performed seven times on Thursday and Friday.
Show times are Thursday (April 24) 8:45 am, 10:30 am, 12:30 pm, and 7:00 pm and
Friday (April 25) 8:45 am, 10:30 am, and 7:00 pm.


text:
FLASHBACK: The Beach Boys Record 'California Girls'
Sunday, April 6, 2014
It was 49 years ago today (April 6th, 1965) that the Beach Boys began recording "California Girls." The song, which was the group's most ambitious recording up until then, featured a soaring orchestral production by the group's leader and producer Brian Wilson, alongside lyrics co-written by singer Mike Love.
Wilson wrote the music to the chorus during a dinner party in early 1965, and then enlisted the help of Los Angeles' top session players rather than use the band on the recording, as he was becoming accustomed to doing. Although the Beach Boys' vocals wouldn't be added until June 4th, on April 6th, he led the "California Girls" session at Hollywood's Western Recorders. Wilson has stated numerous times over the years that the backing track to "California Girls" is his favorite of all his Beach Boys productions.
The track itself was a far cry from the group's first single, 1961's "Surfin'," which only featured a double bass, an acoustic guitar, and a trash can as percussion. "California Girls" utilized drums, piano, vibes, assorted percussion, three guitars, both an electric and a double bass, three saxophones, a trumpet, and an organ, not to mention six-part harmony vocals -- all arranged by Wilson.
There is some debate as to whether Wilson composed the song's signature introduction, or its main melody, during his first LSD trip earlier that year.
"California Girls" was Wilson's first major production since quitting the road the previous December, after he suffered a nervous breakdown while on tour.
Beach Boys historian Jon Stebbins who authored the definitive biographies on the group's Dennis Wilson and David Marks says that while on tour, the farther Brian Wilson was away from home and the recording studio, the more miserable he became: "Brian pouted the whole time. He didn't wanna be out there. Y'know Brian was really depressed when he was out on the road, and he was basically on the phone talking to his girlfriend back home all the time. While the rest of them were out having fun." album on July 5th, 1965, and was released as single on July 12th. "California Girls" eventually peaked at Number Three, kept from the Top spot by the other massive hits from the Summer of '65, Bob Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" at Number Two, and the Beatles' Number One "Help!"
"California Girls" went on to become the Beach Boys' signature song. Starting in the early '70s, the group regularly used it as their opening number at concerts. Both Brian Wilson and the touring version of the Beach Boys featuring Mike Love and Bruce Johnston still include the song in every performance.
Photo Courtesy of Annie Liebovitz
Your browser does not support script
Internet Explorer Users Click Here To See What's On-Air
Contest Rules
Contact Us
Copyright 2014. Eves Broadcasting Inc.
Site Designed and Maintained by MME
Music News
Search our Music Database
'Like' Us On Facebook
Local News
On-Air Now
Listen Live With Our App


text:
Letters to the Editor – Weekly Issue of July 26, 2010
Readers write in about the war in Afghanistan, census workers, and CEO pay.
Afghanistan is unwinnable
The article and editorial about Afghanistan in the July 5 issue ("Shifting generals, but not strategy" and "The Afghanistan price tag") could not, of course, begin to cover all the unplumbed complexity of the Afghan puzzle. Having lived in Afghanistan for three years in the mid-1970s, let me offer other angles that deserve serious thought.
Perhaps the most insuperable barrier to our "winning" (an irrelevant concept in the Afghan puzzlement) is the belief by the Taliban and many other Afghans that the American and NATO forces are foreign invaders and must be denied any right of presence or control. President Hamid Karzai's desperate dependence on our presence must tarnish him irreparably, despite his occasional rants against our killing of Afghans.
Using the Iraq surge as a template for the US mission in Afghanistan seems a dangerous delusion. Gen. David Petraeus's "walk on water" in Iraq is overblown. A key to our very tentative "success" in Iraq was the changing of sides by the formidable Sunnis of Anbar Province, a fortunate development that coincided with the US surge. One hopes that Petraeus will soon recognize that his groping for a similar "awakening" in Afghanistan is almost certainly pointless. Afghanistan may be "unwinnable," but clear-eyed analysis may salvage a satisfactory evolution if political emotions don't obtrude.


text:
by Renewing Minds
Mardel Price $3.49
Ship To:
Whether for the public, private, or home school, Mardel's educational resources provide teachers and administrators with the tools necessary to achieve academic success. Search our expansive selection of materials to find options that suit your individual needs – from resource books, manipulatives, and incentives to decorations, art, and office supplies, we offer the support you need at the prices you crave!
These cute and colorful bookmarks come 36 to a pack; ideal as first-day handouts or good behavior/grade incentives.


text:
Csh(1. Name tcsh - C shell with file name completion and command line editing Synopsis tcsh [-bcdefFimnqstvVxX] [-Dname[=value]] [arg ...] tcsh -l Description.
Scripts.pdf. [Chapter 1] 1.2 A Stream Editor. Sed is a "non-interactive" stream-oriented editor.
It is stream-oriented because, like many UNIX programs, input flows through the program and is directed to standard output. ( vi , for instance, is not stream-oriented. Nor are most DOS applications.) AWK one liners. One great blunder of Unix developers was that they did not integrated AWK into shell.
Actually development team which developed AWK technically was heads above shell developers before David Korn. David Korn was a talented developer, but he came too late to change the situation. Later the attempt to integrate shell and AWk was attempted in Perl, which can be used instead of AWK in some cases. Using Perl in your SystemVerilog HDL Design Flow.
Today is: How to use Perl in your SystemVerilog HDL Design Flow?
Anyone who designs with SystemVerilog HDL has probably grown tired of generating module instantiations in a hierarchical design, or creating a new top level or lower level SystemVerilog HDL module. I have generated a few Perl Scripts that will automatically generate the module instantiations, top level module, and lower level module for you. These Perl Scripts can be invoked from within VI/VIM/GVIM, or a DOS Command Window. Vi Cheat Sheet. Success Tips. Hi I'm a Tip-O-Holic hope you are too.
Always looking for that Magic Tip that will make a programming task or job or chore easier. Recently I've wondered if I couldn't adapt the same "tip technique" that I've developed to make programming computers easier to improving the quality of my life and finally to earn money. Cygwin Tips by zzapper Linux Like Environment for Windows. Best of VIM Tips, gVIM's Key Features zzapper.
Russian Alphabet - Russian Language Lesson 1. So you are here to learn Russian!
The first step to learning Russian is to learn the Russian alphabet. It may seem daunting to learn a new alphabet, but it is relatively easy. How do I shuffle an array? Random array sorting. Hello...
I want to know if there is a way in which I can randomnize(?) The content in an array. In example: Lets say I have this array with names: my @array = ('uriel', 'daniel', 'joel', 'samuel'); Perl HowTo. Unshift @array, @list; NOTES: - unshift returns the new number of elements in the array. - @list is prepended as a whole; not one element at a time, so it does not behave exactly as a normal "push" operation in a stack. shift @array;
Recipe 4.17. Randomizing an Array. Problem You want to shuffle the elements of an array randomly.
The obvious application is writing a card game, where you must shuffle a deck of cards, but it is equally applicable to any situation where you want to deal with elements of an array in a random order. Solution Swap each element in the array with another randomly selected, element: Using the Perl rand() function. Introduction The rand() function is used to generate random numbers.
By default it generates a number between 0 and 1, however you can pass it a maximum and it will generate numbers between 0 and that number. Example 1. Between 0 and 1. Perl Basics In Pictures: Generate random numbers. Www.astro.soton.ac.uk/unixtut/sc4.pdf. Perl For Loop Tutorial - Control Structures in Perl, Learn How to Use a For Loop. As we've discussed, Perl's for loop, or for statement, is used to loop through a designated block of code until a specific condition is met. Let's look at an example of Perl's for loop in action and break down exactly how it works, step by step. for ($count = 10; $count >= 1; $count--) { print "$count "; } print "Blastoff. Writing to a File in Perl. Let's take the same data file we worked with while learning to read a file in Perl, and we'll write to it this time. In order to write to a file in Perl, you must open a filehandle and point it at the file you're writing.
</p> </div> Data: Numbers Why am I getting long decimals (eg, 19.9499999999999) instead of the numbers I should be getting (eg, 19.95)? English Tenses Chart. Www-cs.canisius.edu/ONLINESTUFF/UNIX/shellprogramming.html. PLEAC-Perl. Home - Use grep Command In Linux / UNIX [ Examples ] How do I use grep command on Linux, Apple OS X, and Unix-like operating systems? Can you give me a simple examples of the grep command? The grep command is used to search text or searches the given file for lines containing a match to the given strings or words. By default, grep displays the matching lines. Use grep to search for lines of text that match one or many regular expressions, and outputs only the matching lines. grep is considered as one of the most useful commands on Unix and other Linux operating systems.
Did you know? Linux and UNIX find command help. Quick links About findSyntaxExamplesRelated commands Linux and Unix main page About find find searches for files in a directory hierarchy. Linux and Unix commands, information, and help. Mommy, I found it! — 15 Practical Linux Find Command Examples. Example uses of the Linux Command find. Bash Guide for Beginners. Examples using grep. 15 Practical Grep Command Examples In Linux / UNIX. UNIX Commands Quick List. UNIX Environment. Csh One-Liners. Copy Linux Files and Copy Directory Using cp Command - Linux Basic Command. Unix: Some Essential Commands. Unix Commands. UNIX 101: Basic UNIX. The Guide - Table of Contents. More UNIX Commands. UNIX and Linux keyboard shortcuts.