2 hours ago
Indeed, the CBO report says that even the poorest households saw at least a little income growth. Why is it any of their business that the high-earners in the top 1 percent saw astronomical income growth? Isn’t this just sour grapes?Mr. Robinson, the American Dream is available to all. But you have to take it. It's not a Republican plot preventing the poor from advancing. Sadly, it's themselves. As noted above, most poor folks are poor through their own faults. It's not 'Puter's job, or the government's job, to bestow the American Dream on anyone. Nor is it our job to pick winners and losers. Get up, man up and go get your own danged self a piece of the American Dream. All it takes are skills, knowledge and a work ethic.
No, for two reasons. First, the system is rigged. Wealthy individuals and corporations have disproportionate influence over public policy because of the often decisive role that money plays in elections. If the rich and powerful act in their self-interest, as conservative ideologues believe we all should do, then the rich and powerful’s share of income will continue to soar.
Second, and more broadly, the real issue is what kind of nation we want to be. Thomas Jefferson’s “All men are created equal” is properly understood as calling for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. But the more we become a nation of rich and poor, the less we can pretend to be offering the same opportunities to every American. As polarization increases, mobility declines. The whole point of the American Dream is that it is available to everyone, not just those who awaken from their slumbers on down-filled pillows and 800-thread-count sheets.
With such small, far-off objects, astronomers wait for what's known as a stellar occultation, in which the object will cross over a star, essentially casting a shadow over the Earth. The amount of starlight blocked by the object allows scientists to calculate the object's size.There is nothing really wrong with this description of the process, but the Czar thought you might not appreciate how freaking clever this technique is.
Witnessing this stellar occultation last year required being in the right place at exactly the right moment during the brief time window that Eris was scheduled to block the star.
Baklava is a tasty honey-based pastry, Balaklava is the location of the battle of "Light Brigade" fame...
--Dr. (KN)J, Royal Mathematician to the Gormogons, Afficionado of both Baklava and Balaklava
Re: the Marathon screen cap in a recent post. BEST. GAME. EVER.Yeah, dont we know it.
esckey until the computer beeped. Except he didnt have a sound card, so we couldnt hear anything.
Dear Mr. Dread and Powerful Axe-Hacking Machine (figuratively, of course, wouldn't want to offend GorTechie) The Czar of Muscovy,
I found this display of the power of the Gormogons at the local Big Box Electronics Store of Doom quite frightening. I knew you all are diabolical in your plots, but an entire wall display of Hello Kitty? I shudder, shudder, at your power. All I ask is to be spared in the coming Hello Kitty Uprising/Apocalypse (and we thought zombies were bad!).
Your loyal reader, and occasional linker
The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.In other words, the Americans lost faith in a tyrant and it was their right to say, adios.
Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.Yeah, well, if Lincoln fought against secession it must be wrong? Right? Well, some of Dr. J.'s neighbor would beg to differ, besides it happened four score and 5 years after the Declaration. Besides, Lincoln's side won.
The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.Ah, so the Founding Fathers were no different than the Occupy Wall Street crowd, wanting to get free stuff from the government? Wrong. The grievances were legitimate, especially given that the British Army treated colonists like crap, quartering on private property whenever and where ever they pleased, and British Tax Policies stifled growth.
"I'll make up my mind on that later," Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview with CNN's Candy Crowley. "I'm in one of the, probably the best shape I've been in in my life" I'm doing pretty well. I'm enjoying what I'm doing, and as long as I do, I'm going to continue to do it," he said.Vice President Biden, would be 74 when he would take office in 2016...but imagine, the 4-8 years of gaffetastic material we'd have to work with...if we survive 4 more years with One Term President™ Barack Hussein Obama.
While race does not and should not influence Thomas’s decision making on the bench, it surely shapes his voice and the nation’s perception of his racial jurisprudence. Nowhere is that more apparent than in his 2003 dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which he famously begins by quoting Frederick Douglass: “The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. . . . Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.” “Like Douglass,” Thomas adds, “I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators.- Curt Levy”
Unlike some of his fellow practitioners of judicial restraint who adhere strongly to stare decisis, he takes the Constitution as “the ultimate precedent”: If a prior decision is wrong, it should be fixed, and the sooner the better. He reminds us that the passage of 60 years after Plessy v. Ferguson did not render that precedent more worthy of respect. -Wendy Long
No one, of course, would deny that Justice Thomas has strong conservative views on constitutional law. He rejects much of affirmative action, believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, recognizes broad executive powers in wartime, and allows religious groups more participation in public life. But I have long thought that there is a deeper principle of political philosophy at work in Justice Thomas’s thought that goes beyond the close interpretation of disparate constitutional texts. What he brings to the Court as no other justice does is a characteristically American skepticism of social engineering promoted by elites — whether in the media, academia, or well-heeled lobbies in Washington — and a respect for individual self-reliance and individual choice. He writes not to be praised by professors or pundits, but for the American people. John YooDr. J. believes that the modern activist judges, perhaps originally because they were leading with the heart, rather than the head, wanted to make up for activist judges past sins (i.e. Dred Scott) by trying to be 'fair.' In so doing, they took off their blindfolds, disregarded their scales and wielded their swords against innocent parties. Fortunately, we have some judges, like Justice Thomas, who have kept their blindfolds on and their scales zeroed despite being pilloried for it in the press.
Dear Mr. Dr. J.: I wouldn't waste a lot of time-time-time noodling on the finer points of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. My crystal ball says he ain't agonna be the nominee of the GOP. It's not that he's not a nice enough man, but you do know where nice guys finish, right? No, it's more that he's just not up to the task.
Did you happen to catch his comments to CNN's Piers Morgan? In mere moments, Cain went from no abortions/no exceptions to a position of not really feeling it's right to tell women what to do. And its not like he withered under fire some hard-bitten political reporter-- this guy interviews whoever is on the cover of the People magazine that I read at Betty's Beauty Barn when I'm getting my bouffant shellacked. All I'm saying is that if a man who is a Baptist minister cannot manage to hold one-and-only-one position on abortion under questioning from likes of Piers Morgan, how do you think he'll do with say...Vladimir Putin?
Probably about as well as the current President?
Well, that's not going to be quite good enough because at least Obama will have completed 4 years of on-the-job-training.
So you plunked your vote for Mitt (with 2-T's) in 2008? It's interesting that you brought up the spectacle of watching "...candidate of destiny Hillary Clinton's campaign implode at the hands of that inexperienced guy whose last name rhymed with Osama...." I happen to think that Mitt (with 2-T's) has the potential to be the Hillary of 2012. As has been pointed out by many others, he's been running for years and years, yet he just cannot seal the deal. Now Rasmussen has a poll out showing Cain leading Romney 28 to 21 in IOWA. Romney can't hold off a guy who flubs a Piers Morgan interview and says that he could see himself as President doing a prisoner swap, freeing those we hold in Gitmo. Uh, right. Maybe it's Romneycare for some, abortion for others, but for me it is that quality he shares with John Kerry. No, not that perfectly coiffed hair. I mean that the only thing that you can say for sure about him is that he REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants to be the President.
There have been a string of truly minor things that I put forth for your consideration:
1. A couple of weeks ago the Missus Romney made a comment on the campaign trail in SC: “If they don't pick Mitt that's their stupid mistake, not mine,” It's well and good to stand by your man, but that hints at a very unattractive quality in the Romney way of thinking. It might even be a sense of entitlement.
2. Then in the Las Vegas debate, Mitt (with 2-T's) got himself just a little bit flustered, because the other kids were saying mean things about him. He reacted to Perry's attack angrily, then went so far as to reach over and put his hand on Perry's shoulder, which was plain weird-looking. Finally, he looked over at Anderson Cooper, and whined about the enforcement of rules.
3. I didn't see the actual "Perry is soooo stupid" ad, since it was yanked soooooo quickly, but it must have been a doozy. What next, a "Perry's mother wears army boots" ad? As I said, totally minor things. But to me they add up in my Manhattan-addled brain.
As the Czar pointed out in his post on the debate, the other candidates should be able to smell blood. If Mitt (with 2-T's), reacts to the coming attacks by:
1. displaying a sense of inevitability or entitlement
2. whining to debate moderators
3. running on the "Perry is soooo stupid" theme ...well, my money is on another "candidate of destiny" biting the dust.
Yours from the Doublewide, JABOperative JAB, as Dr. J. mentioned earlier. Thinking through 9-9-9 out loud got teh interwebz a twitter. He really believes this is because the Republican base is so engaged in the 2012 race that they are looking at the candidates with a fine tooth comb and as a consequence they are pulling out all the nits. Frankly, candidate dissatisfaction that it isn't just MSM propaganda. The Republican base wishes they could create a golem from pieces of each of the candidates because each of them has a big negative associated with them that can be exploited by the D's come next November.