January 18, 2006
Government Demands
Public colleges, including community colleges, are being asked to educate more students in nursing.
What?
Yes, the government is demanding that schools educate more nurses. Of course, what is missing is the actual bodies.
This really illustrates how completely and utterly devoid of reality government bureaucrats have become -- they believe they are so powerful that they can simply create whatever they need. Need some nurses? Just buy them -- they've got an unlimited supply of money, right?
Morons.
Hey government -- get the heck out of the way, and there will be PLENTY of nurses!
Posted by: Ogre at
10:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
1
WHAT!? You mean the government ISN'T the solution to all of my problems? I'M SO DISILLUSIONED! WHATEVER WILL I DO?
For any moon-bats out there, that was SARCASM. Man I HATE having to put that disclaimer on there.
Posted by: Smoke Eater at January 18, 2006 08:35 PM (K7uqT)
2
Face Washington each morning, Smokey, and say your prayers.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:40 PM (+Gl1m)
3
The real reason there aren't enough nurses is because we're underpaid for what we do, and treated like dirt.
Let the guv'ment deal with THAT!
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 20, 2006 02:52 AM (GYYm5)
4
Um, sorry, that's not the government's job. In North Carolina, the government sees it's job as just telling people what they can and cannot do.
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 02:59 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 17, 2006
Cause and Effect
I'm sure by now you've seen the
news of the weird:
A study by an Italian sexologist has found that couples who have a TV set in their bedroom have sex half as often as those who don't.
Of course, when the journalists get ahold of studies like this, they quickly do what the researchers cannot do -- draw a conclusion that confirms a cause and effect relationship:
Thinking of buying a TV for the bedroom? Think again -- it could ruin your sex life.
Now I can't find the study anywhere online, but if the researchers are worth anything, you will not find what the journalists printed in their report. Why? Because there may be absolutely NO relationship between the TV and sex. Heck, the study only reported that HAVING a TV reduced the sex life!
What if they never turned it on?
The reason this cause-effect relationship absolutely cannot be determined is because there are simply too many variables. Perhaps the reason the TV is there is because of the reduced sex life of the couples? Just because two things are found to have a relationship, a cause-effect cannot be concluded.
But I guess that's why the people reporting the story are reporters and not researchers.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:06 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"What if they never turned it on?"
Good point, obviously they weren't turning something on, thanks for making me smile this morning
Posted by: blue at January 17, 2006 03:21 PM (X5r/y)
2
A farmer walks into his bedroom with a sheep under his arm and says, "Darling, this is the pig I have sex with when you have a headache." His wife is lying in bed (WATCHING TV) and replies, "I think you'll find that's a sheep, you idiot." The man says, "I think you'll find I wasn't talking to you."
Sorry in advance Ogre, I just couldn't help it.
Posted by: Tomslick at January 17, 2006 03:37 PM (xNjHI)
3
Ah, more pseudoscience.
Never occurred to these people that OLDER people are going to be more likely to have the tv in the bedroom - they're richer than younger people, and more likely to have rooms big enough... not to say that oldsters don't get busy
I can't remember who said it, but correlation does not mean causality.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at January 17, 2006 04:35 PM (vR7Sl)
4
LOL! You guys are great.
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:25 PM (/k+l4)
5
Hey, I have a TV in my bedroom and it doesn't effect my sex life, we use it for porn!
Posted by: Contagion at January 17, 2006 10:23 PM (e8b4J)
6
I thought about that, but I just so wasn't going to go there!
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 11:01 PM (+Gl1m)
7
Contagion - I thought you used the video camera for porn? :-)
Posted by: Harvey at January 18, 2006 01:18 AM (ubhj8)
8
Well gee, he's got to see the results of his hard work, doesn't he?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 01:24 AM (+Gl1m)
9
I suspect the only relationship between not having a TV in the bedroom and having more sex has to do with the personalities and values of people that would not want a TV in the bedroom, and not the actual presence of the TV itself.
Posted by: FIAR at January 18, 2006 02:40 AM (14Lib)
10
ANd that's the part the journalists don't get. It could be that people put TVs in their bedroom because they're not having sex.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:55 PM (/k+l4)
11
People with a TV in the bedroom only have half as much sex (in the bedroom) because the other half of their sex is in the other rooms.
Posted by: Machelle at January 18, 2006 01:39 PM (ZAyoW)
12
Yes, that TV sure can be distracting, can't it?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 01:57 PM (/k+l4)
13
Contagion stole my line . . . again!
Posted by: oddybobo at January 18, 2006 04:06 PM (6Gm0j)
14
Wow, I'm a little late to this one.
My wife sent me a link to this on Yahoo. I wondered the same thing, since we have a TV in our bedroom. The only time it has been turned on was when we were painting the walls in the bedroom and wanted to have something to listen to.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at January 18, 2006 08:25 PM (K+h36)
15
Oddy, did you say something about being in Contagion's porn movies?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:31 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Success measured by Tax Dollars
For those who support as large a government as possible, and those who are strong supporters of socialist ideas, North Carolina Education is #1, as The very socialist Charlotte Observer
points out. When speaking about the huge dollars spent by the state and subsidys given away to college students in North Carolina, the Observer says,
That's evidence that tax dollars spent on those resources are good investments. But it's also a mandate to keep state tuition and fees from boiling out of reach of ordinary citizens.
But that's not enough. Despite the taxpayers providing a majority of the cash to pay for college educations in the state, the Observer wants even more:
But the legislature must also pay a greater share of the university's operating costs.
In other words, the taxpayers should pay for colleges, and a college education should cost nothing to those who get it. Well, that's what socialists and the left believe -- if you work, you should be punished by being forced to pay for other people who do NOT work. That's plain wrong.
And yet, even that's not enough for the Observer! Despite there being no evidence that class size has any effect on education -- and some studies in North Carolina actually show a smaller class size can REDUCE the number of students who get good grades and pass, they still want even MORE money spent on colleges:
In Chapel Hill the student/faculty ratio is 14:1; in Charlotte it's 19:1. The only way to overcome that disadvantage is by improved state funding.
Money is not the answer. It never has been. Government is ill-equipped to run the education system -- they've been doing it for decades, and the system is much worse than it was before.
Government should get completely out of the education business -- from pre-K to colleges. They have absolutely proven that they cannot educate people, so they should stop trying. The free market really does work.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:17 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The only problem I have with private education is that no regulation will exist for the education. This could eventually turn into a case of the more you pay the better the student. This in turn will seperate the lower class from the upper class furthering the divide.
I would like to see at least some regulation, some commonality between the schools. I don't mean government regulation but a national body from the actual schools could regulate them.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at January 17, 2006 01:53 PM (5+Jvh)
2
I don't see a problem with paying more for a better education. That's already the case, whether people want to admit it or not. Harvard University costs more than the local community college.
People need to understand that education is NOT for everyone. Basic reading and writing skills WILL be taught -- people were MUCH more literate before government started running education.
But not everyone needs or wants a college education. But government WANTS everyone to have one -- so they can pay for it and control it.
If there's no government regulation, there will be self-regulation, which is FUN in a free society.
For example, look at the computer industry -- there's no government regulation (for the most part), but there's standards for hardware and software, and there's dozens of accrediting bodies that can certify people in all sorts of ways.
I'd LOVE to see that in education, too!
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 02:04 PM (/k+l4)
3
I agree with that for colleges but not K-12 which is what I was referring to. I don't think K-12 should turn into a spending fest to determine your childs future. Soon it will turn into picking food or education for your children.
The problem with regulations in computers is that the government has or had a say in its creation and still has some say (RIAA and FCC) in decisions and standards.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at January 17, 2006 02:49 PM (5+Jvh)
4
I know government will never get out of education -- there's too many people making money from the nightmare -- but the least we could do is fix it -- let the money for the students follow the student. That's how nearly every other country with government $ works -- and they're all doing better than we are.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:22 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 16, 2006
Eating Cake
What's with the saying,
You want to have your cake and eat it, too.
Well of course I do! What's the point of having a cake if you can't eat it? Does anyone know any history on this silly statement?
Posted by: Ogre at
08:34 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What is the origin of the phrase:
: "You can't have your cake and eat it too" ?
From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman:
"You can't have your cake and eat it too -- One can't use something up and still have it to enjoy. This proverb was recorded in the book of proverbs by John Heywood in 1546, and is first attested in the United States in the 1742 'Colonial Records of Georgia' in 'Original Papers, 1735-1752.' The adage is found in varying forms: You can't eat your cake and have it too. You can't have everything and eat it too; Eat your cake and have the crumbs in bed with you, etc. ..."
This should clear up pretty much nothing. That is a weird saying.
Posted by: Tomslick at January 16, 2006 09:31 PM (xNjHI)
2
That's interesting, Tomslick, and I guess it explains it.
I guess it makes more sense in reverse -- you can't eat your can and still have it. Weird, though...why would I want to have the cake after I've eaten it?
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:45 PM (+Gl1m)
3
Ogie:
Happy New Year! The phrase is not as silly as it seems.
You nailed it here. "Weird, though...why would I want to have the cake after I've eaten it?" Maybe one would want to have it, but of course it can't be done. That is exactly the point.
Here is another example of wanting to eat your cake and have it too: "I want to raise taxes for the prosperity of the country." Why doesn't that work? Because you are looting the people who create prosperity! You want to eat the creators and still have them!
"Eating your cake and having it too" is a serious phrase and a serious problem in our culture.
All the best..
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at January 16, 2006 11:21 PM (jqUF+)
4
Ogie....More:
Conservatives say they want free markets, wealth, and capitalism; but then invoke the morality of religion: sacrifice, duty, and altruism as their base. They can't have it both ways. Sacrifice, duty, and altruism do not lead to free markets, wealth, and capitalism. They lead to the opposites.
Here's another one for liberals and conservatives (and libertarians)..."Wishing won't make it so."
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at January 16, 2006 11:31 PM (jqUF+)
Posted by: oddybobo at January 17, 2006 02:32 PM (6Gm0j)
6
There is nothing altruistic about taking money from people who are richer than you. It is altruistic to give to those who are poorer than you but only if you are not forced to do it.
The argument is that with altruism, religion, sacrifice and duty capitalism can work and people will not have to be forced to do things.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 17, 2006 04:40 PM (SlODe)
7
That's the key, Mindflame. You can have capitalism and altrusim in the same place very easily!
The opposite of capitalism and free markets is not religion, it's government control.
Why can't I sacrifice in a free market? If I'm free, I can -- if I'm not free, I cannot.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:29 PM (/k+l4)
8
No, that's it Smokey -- just because people are free and live in a free society with capitalism doesn't mean they will suddenly and completely reject sacrifice.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:37 PM (/k+l4)
9
Being free and living in a free society is the best way I can see to promote sacrifice. Only in a free society do you have things to sacrifice for (besides the universal sacrifice for children, family, etc.). Does anyone remember the Iraqi conscripts waving the white flag ? Surely they weren't willing to sacrifice their lives for their oppressive government.
Posted by: Johnny Uno at January 19, 2006 05:01 PM (ovA1+)
10
Excellent point, Johnny! (Only in a free society do you have things to sacrifice for)
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:40 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Martin Luther King Day
Today is Martin Luther King Day. I know the government is not working today (as if they work any other day), but I, and I'm sure many others in private industry, are. I just want to make a feeble attempt to support the things that Martin Luther King supported.
Unfortunately, there are so very many different organizations and people who strongly OPPOSE all that he worked for, and all that he did.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
If you support quotas based on race, you are opposed to Martin Luther King.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
If you support affirmative action based on skin color, you are the opposite of what Martin Luther King desired.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
If you belong to a political organization that determines it's membership based upon race, you are an affront to what Martin Luther King worked for.
I am appalled at how many people and groups use Martin Luther King's name to advance their causes while opposing and working against everything that he stood for.
Some other great quotes from a man who truly worked for justice -- unlike the majority that use his name today:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
And in the extended entry, one of my favorite descriptions of laws:
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
07:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1239 words, total size 7 kb.
Guard Our Borders!
The following is a portion of the Guard Our Borders weekly blog burst that helps illustrate some of the various problems that are generated by completely open borders (beyond the obvious terrorism implications):
***
How can the small business that provides physical services to customers compete with illegal laborers that cut corners by using extended family labor? On a radio program a few weeks ago, I heard countless American workers recount how they lost contracts because illegal aliens agreed to do the work for far less and much quicker - and no wonder, because they had their entire family working, including the kids! One man who couldn't find work as a sheetrocker saw his jobs going to a man whose wife and children worked on the site. How are American workers supposed to compete with illegal (but free!) child labor?!
My husband supervises multiple construction subcontractors who ALL use illegal Mexican laborers. He is aggravated beyond belief because his inspectors find fatal flaws in each and every phase of construction - without exception. The sub ends up having to demolish and remove all the faulty construction and replace it, sometimes more than twice! Costs skyrocket and schedule delays cost so much more than budgeted, and it all comes down to this bottom line: the illegal aliens do not have the proper know-how or expertise or capability to do the job right the first time. I cannot fathom how many millions of dollars the subs will have to squander before they reach the conclusion that they'd be better off hiring skilled American laborers who understand their instructions and produce a more professional product than cutting corners by hiring illegals who don't know what they're doing and produce a shoddy product.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
06:02 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.
1
You mention about the free care provided to illegal aliens and Americans paying for it.
In Dearborn hospitals, illegals come over here and have their children (so they are american citizens) and then head back to the middle east, skipping out on the hospital bills.
The hospitals are complaining because they have so many of them in the hosptial at times that the care for the people with insurance goes down.
So not only are we paying for the illegals bills we are receiving less care because of them also.
Not to mention their children are american citizens now. Who knows if that will come back and bite us in the ass in the future.
Posted by: Machelle at January 16, 2006 07:51 PM (ZAyoW)
2
Skipping out on the bills? Most of the time they're not even billed at all!
But yes, that's another aspect -- that paying citizens' care declines due to criminals' health care!
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 08:51 PM (+Gl1m)
3
It's called unrestricted Capitalism, boys, and if you don't like it, go live in commie-land!
What? Too harsh? Too stupid?
Well then, stop repeating similar things in public.
And while you're at it, just remember next time you want to defend WalMart that they are using similar underpaid foreigners to suck American dollars out of the country in exchange for cheap goods.
Boy! It had to be dragged into your neighborhood before you could see it, didn't it? You just couldn't see how much damage these people were doing until it was pushed into your face!
Oh, well. Next problem . . .
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 17, 2006 12:40 AM (ZINSp)
4
Um, what? How is government forcing people at gunpoint to pay for services from others even remotely related to capitalism?
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 12:44 AM (+Gl1m)
5
Oh, I'm sorry - I thought this post was about American businessmen hiring whomever they chose, be it American workers or cheap illegal immigrants.
I didn't see the part about the taxman coming to your door, sack in one hand and sawed-off in the other.
Same difference, anyway - this post is about the employers who, given a choice between hiring American workers, paying them what they're worth, and having their salaries pay for their food, meds, and kids, and hiring illegal immigrants, paying them peanuts, and having YOU pick up the medicare tab, . . .
choose to get rich on your back.
Guv'ment doesn't come into the matter, except as the (willing) tool of the construction corps.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 18, 2006 05:48 AM (RmWaw)
6
May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:57 PM (/k+l4)
7
Small Town Hick, funny you should mention it. In the first half of the original GTB article I very heatedly deal with the whole Wal-Mart angle. It's a very unpopular position among conservatives, but Wal-Mart does NOT practice true free trade and has shifted 80% of its business OUT of America. Americans don't care because we've become amiable, uncomplaining consumers of cheap shit that never works, instead of proud producers of the highest quality goods (with the exception of weaponry tech). Anyways, there's more, and I've taken a lot of heat on that whole Wal-Mart thing, but I'm nothing if not consistent in my views:
http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2006/01/16/1573/.
C'mon over and throw some flame around, if you'd like. It looks like it may be a slow day...
Posted by: Redhead Infidel at January 18, 2006 01:46 PM (BqNFt)
8
Yes, I left that part out because I currently had another post that was reliving the whole "WalMart is the most evil thing in existence today" at the same time. So I was hoping this one would focus on the criminal aliens rather than just WalMart is evil.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How bad do you want Freedom?
The Free State Project is
an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.
I often view this project as the last great hope for freedom and liberty in this country as I observe all the destructions of freedom in states and the federal government today.
This is not a Republican project. It is not an anti-Democrat project. It's not even a Libertarian project. It's about freedom, plain and simple. And it's working.
A number of people associated with this project have already move to NH. Some have run for and won seats in elected offices. Others are chairs of Democrat and Republican caucuses. Over 100 people have already moved, and they're already having an effect. Imagine what would happen if 1,000 moved.
The current drive is to get 1,000 people to commit to moving in the next 2 years. It's called The First 1000. I think it's a great idea. Go read about the project and make the decision.
The biggest argument I've heard against it is that New Hampshire is cold. That's where the title of this post came from. How much do you really want freedom?
The truth is, I was not sure I would be able to make it to NH by 2008. However, after learning about all of the great stuff that is going on in NH, I am not sure if I can make it if I am not in NH by 2008
-- Keith
Posted by: Ogre at
03:05 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That leads to the obvious question: Why are you still in Charlotte?
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 16, 2006 04:55 PM (FWvKf)
2
I've signed up to move. I've got a realtor and am working on land. The job is the tricky part, but I've had a couple interviews in the state already.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 05:13 PM (/k+l4)
3
The plan may have one fatal flaw -
New Hampshire is a place someone else may want.
God help the free man sitting on land someone else wants. Someone else with guns.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 16, 2006 11:49 PM (ZINSp)
4
What? Who else? The socialists in the US? Don't worry, everyone there is armed.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 12:38 AM (+Gl1m)
5
I do hope everyone has read--memorized, in fact--Sir Thomas More's
Utopia.
Posted by: Harrison at January 17, 2006 01:17 AM (EjqGT)
6
Don't laugh too hard at those socialists, Ogre.
Two of the biggest socialist movements of the last century - Russia's Soviet socialists and Germany's National Socialists - were noted for their use of weapons against their neighbors.
Keep your powder dry, man.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 17, 2006 03:58 AM (ZINSp)
7
Oh yes, that's understood. But don't forget New Hampshire's state motto:
Live Free or Die.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 10:58 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Charlotte Observer Hates Free Speech
You might think that a newspaper would be on the front lines of supporting the clear right to freedom of speech in North Carolina. If you did, you would be wrong. The Charlotte Observer last week
clearly outlined their position: free speech is bad.
lawmakers ... should toughen it [the law] by prohibiting all gifts and solicitations. They should prohibit registered lobbyists from making political contributions and raising cash to help fund election campaigns, and make it illegal to for politicians to pocket campaign contributions for personal use.
That's right, the Charlotte Observer says that YOU should not be able to give any money to lawmakers for any reason. You should not be able to give money to help someone with an election. And if somehow a legislator manages to get some money for an election, they should not be able to spend it without asking the Observer for permission first.
So, why the hatred for freedom? Well, that's the Observer's position. One of the workings of communism is that there is a class of people that are "above" the rest of the people -- there to tell everyone else what to do because they won't do it themselves. That's the position that the Observer takes. Remember that, when you read a Knight-Ridder paper -- they honestly believe they know better than you, and you should not have freedom of any kind.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:01 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That makes you smarter than the average bear!
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:45 PM (+Gl1m)
2
Although I won't (and can't) debate that the paper is pobably leftist I think the suggestion is that 'registered lobbyists' shouldn't be able to give gifts and solicitations (whatever that means) to politicians. Which I have to say, I whole heartedly agree with. Lobbyists (special interests) are one of the most dangerous groups around. When the average citizen gives a donation to a politician it is generally because you believe in them and their platform. When lobbyists donate it is to influence them to do their bidding which usually conflicts the politicians constituents. For if the people really wanted what the lobbyists wanted then there would be no need for the gifts (bribes?)
Posted by: Johnny Uno at January 19, 2006 05:22 PM (ovA1+)
3
I don't see any problem with lobbyists at all. It's the politicians that are corrupt -- and the absolutely BEST way to fix this is to reduce government!
If they don't have anything to "sell" to the lobbyists, there would be no lobbyists to "buy!"
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:43 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lawmakers want Cash
Once again, to illustrate the
total uselessness and incompetency of North Carolina Democrat Party-led government:
State lawmakers this week demanded Gov. Mike Easley give more money to energy assistance programs, and a spokeswoman for Easley said the governor would work with them.
So, why do they need more money for the energy programs? Because governor Easley and
Jim Black raised taxes on all forms of energy January 1, in the middle of the winter.
So the government needs more money to give away to it's subjects so those subjects can pay more taxes to the government, who doesn't have enough money to give to the peons to give to the government.
Welcome to the U.S.A. today.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
January 15, 2006
U.S.S. Clinton

USS William Jefferson Clinton CVSU-812
This is the first ship of its kind in the U. S. Navy designed to reflect the Clinton legacy of budget cuts. Constructed from recycled aluminum, the vessel is completely solar powered. While its speed is classified, it is rumored to be above .5 knots. Eventhough the carrier cannot launch or recover aircraft, it does present a menacing appearance.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:07 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Buwaaahahahh... that's classic...
I wonder how hard the thing
blows...
Saw ya on the Wall Of Blogs at the BloggingMan 2007 site! Glad to have you on board!!
You planning on attending?
I'll buy ya a beer...
Keep up the good work Ogre!
Posted by: Peakah at January 16, 2006 02:24 AM (LxGm9)
2
Oh, I wish I could! I'm way out on the east coast -- too far for me.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:29 AM (+Gl1m)
3
Must have been designed as environmentally friendly by AL Gore. He invented envrionmentally friendly design, you know.
Posted by: PVB at January 16, 2006 04:54 PM (Ct8/l)
4
I heard he invented something...
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 05:12 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Just Wondering...
When Pat Robertson
said that
Sharon "was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America,"
he was roundly attacked and
told he was offensive by everyone from the President's Press Secretary to every media outlet on the planet until
had to apologize --
Are people angry at him for suggesting that Sharon was wrong for giving away land or because he suggested that God might actually punish people who do wrong?
And yet when actual government officials in Saudia Arabia, when speaking of 345 people killed, say things like
This was fate destined by God
and
it cannot stop what God has preordained. It is impossible;
that no one says a word at all?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
1
His insanity is disconcerting to rational folk. He should stick to helping the lower middle class find Jaezus and feel better about their diminishing plight. Either that, or get whisked away to God with his 100 thousand raptors.
Even conservatives are calling him a kook. His time has come and gone.
Posted by: anonymoses at January 15, 2006 03:08 PM (NBy2A)
2
Disclaimer: I am NO fan of Rev. Robertson.
Christians are held to a higher standard - it's that simple.
It doesn't bother me that we're not more critical of the Saudis. It would freak people out to find out the
finer points of Wahhbism which is the controlling influence over Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 15, 2006 04:54 PM (XK1Nc)
3
I'm just wondering what is was most about that statement that bothered people. Is it that people are offended that God might actually punish people on Earth, or that Robertson said that Sharon was being punished.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:28 PM (+Gl1m)
4
And good point, Justin.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:28 PM (+Gl1m)
5
So Smokey, is the offensiveness the idea that God might actually punish people who oppose him on earth, then?
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 08:10 PM (+Gl1m)
6
"Is it that people are offended that God might actually punish people on Earth,..."
I'd say a definite yes on that. Robertson takes more of an Old Testament view toward God which most people want to forget. According to the OT, when Israel first approached the land God set aside for them, 12 spies were sent in to check it out. 10 said forget it, we'll never beat those Canaanites. 2 said go for it. Because of their negativity, Israel wandered 40 years in the desert until the "negative" generation died off. The Book of Judges is all about the years Israel "forgot" about God, was punished, remembered, forgot again, got punished again, etc. etc.
We Christians prefer the "gentle Jesus meek and mild" image, forgetting we should read/learn from the WHOLE of scripture.
Naturally people hate the idea of being punished for what they do "wrong." It's not fair, for some reason. That's why so many try to get our courts to sanction what they know (in their secret hearts) is just plain wrong.
Posted by: harrison at January 15, 2006 08:47 PM (rRtlD)
7
I tend to agree with you, Harrison -- people are offended by even the IDEA that God might punish people for wrongdoing today.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 09:23 PM (+Gl1m)
8
I think Pat's statement is troubling also in that it limits God. Pat says that Sharon was "dividing God's land" well all land is God's land. If you believe that God wants the Jews to have all of historical Israel, right now, by taking it by military force from the Palestinians that it is still 'the JewÂ’s land'.
Pat's statement is sort of comes out God = Zionists. Which really bothers me. It also bothers me that he feels willing to say what GodÂ’s will is. If Pat Robertson knows what GodÂ’s will is than he is a prophet and he should not have apologized. But because he did apologize we know that was just his own opinion and that makes him a false prophet and an embarrassment to Christianity.
Pat Robertson is the leftÂ’s favorite Christian leader. The fact that he makes statements similar to these coming from Iran makes me sick at heart.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 16, 2006 04:04 AM (SlODe)
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:42 AM (+Gl1m)
10
The reason for all the venom is twofold.
1) Pat Robertson counts around here. Who cares what some Saudi cleric says? Probably didn't make the news.
2) We're Christians. We're supposed to be above vengeful thoughts. Turn the other cheek, remember?
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 16, 2006 11:52 PM (ZINSp)
11
Vengeful thoughts? But does that mean that God cannot take his vengence on anyone on Earth today?
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 12:39 AM (+Gl1m)
12
All land may belong to God, Mindflame, but accordin' to Scripture, He set Israel apart as His Special Place. He did all sorts of not-nice things to the Israelites who defiled/betrayed it.
Small Town--if Christians are always supposed to turn the other cheek, then what the heck was Jesus doin' in the Temple tossin' around those moneylenders?
D'ya'll realize the Bible (OT/NT combined) has more references to God's Wrath than to God's Love? Just askin'.
Posted by: Harrison at January 17, 2006 01:25 AM (EjqGT)
13
And that's what bothers people SO much, Harrison, I think.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 10:59 AM (+Gl1m)
14
Harrison,
Jesus was punishing people who defiled the temple not seeking to benefit Himself in anyway. When He personally was attacked He did not resist evil. If you were going after people who misuse the Church and God's word for personal gain you will not hear a peep from me. (That was not what Pat Roberson was doing)
We are supposed to turn the other cheek, the wrath belongs to God. If you really want to hurt someone then be meek and loving as they mistreat you. You will heap burning coals on their head. Jesus told us we don't have a right to vengeance.
Who is to say what God's will was in this matter? Don't you remember how the 'friends' of Job judged him for his troubles saying he must have sinned against God to have these troubles. They were wrong to do that and Pat Robertson is wrong to accuse Ariel unless God Himself told him to do so. I think Ariel is suffering from being old and overweight, who is to say that God did not delay the sickness as opposed to cause it. In general Christ makes it clear it is not our place to condemn or find cause for the misfortunes of others. (Luke 13:1-9)
In the Old Testament God regarded the lives of the peoples who lived in Palestine. He made His people wait in Egypt until the peoples had become sinful enough to disserve being conquered by Israel. Israel was given the land not because they were good but the people their were evil. Also when the Israelites tried to go and conquered without the strength of the Lord they failed. Right now Israel is a secular nation, that practices irreligion, abortion and all the evils for which the destroyed the Canaanites, Amorites and others so many thousands of years ago. The Lord did not tell Israel that this was the time to take the land and Israel has rejected God and become a secular nation. I donÂ’t see how anyone could say that it is GodÂ’s word for Israel to wipe out these people, many of whom are pious Christians.
It is even more bizarre to say that God is punishing a fat old man with a heart attack when all Ariel Sharon was doing was making definable borders for the Palestinian ghettos. Israel could kill all the Palestinians, or they could give them citizenship, but if they do neither these people have to be somewhere. That somewhere is what Sharon was building a wall around. There is not religion in this is just hatred and a feeling of entitlement. Both the militant Islamic followers andthe Zionist are more interested in their racist land grabs than they are in God. Well God will not be reduced to a political tool.
Pat Robertson has dishonored the Christian community (as Ray Nagin also has) and quite simple sounds like a Ayatollah.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 17, 2006 05:20 PM (SlODe)
15
So, in your opinion, Mindflame -- and I'm not asking you to pass judgement or condemn anyone here on Earth -- does God currently punish people? And I mean today, here on Earth. Is God's wrath felt today?
If so, how would we know it?
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:33 PM (/k+l4)
16
I think feeling God's wrath here on Earth is one of the best things that can happen to a person. If you respond to it well maybe you wont feel God's wrath for all of eternity. That kind of punishment is a blessing and a sign of God's special favor. (Rev. 3:19)
God ,of course, could punish today in the physical world, I think he does. But we are warned not to look back on bad things that happen to people and say "That was God's judgment for X". The book of Job warns against this, the Psalms warn against it and Luke 13, warns against it. We don't understand God's motives and we don't know the secret details of peoples lives. Even if we knew that Ariel Sharon was suffering from the wrath of God (rather than the natural result of being old and fat) then it would be wrong to think that we could read the mind of God enough to say why. There are some Ayatollahs who believe that God is punishing Sharon for not pulling out of more terrorizes.
Of course we have had prophets, real ones, who have said "If you don't stop doing X, than Y will happen."
That is pretty different from what Pat Roberson, Ray Nagin, and the Ayatollahs have been doing. Because they all came along after things have happened and said that they happened because people did not do as they say.
The short answer, Yes, Ogre, I think that God does from time to time show his wrath on Earth but I think it is impossible (and blasphemous) to interpret that wrath if we are not personally the target or directly informed by God about it.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 17, 2006 10:32 PM (SlODe)
17
And I tend to agree with you. I think he does show his wrath. And I certainly agree that our tiny minds will never fully comprehend all that he does.
I just wonder if we shall see prophets in our lifetime that will be able to see His works directly.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 11:04 PM (+Gl1m)
18
Thats kind of a weak comparison. The media cant really be expected to track down every random, dumb statement from random officials of other countries. And of course, the reason it got play here and in Israel, is because Pat Robertson has long been a political powerhouse for the evangelical base of the GOP. The Saudi Officials you mention, are not. Well, actually, you could argue they are also, but not in a good way.
I thought Robertson's statement was incredibly inappropriate. If you are a family member of Sharon, do you want to hear that crap? How about some good, christian support for a family in their time of need. And Robertson's statement seemed politically expedient- he saw an opportunity to use Sharon's stroke to pimp his own views on the West Bank. Conservatives and the White House were right to condemn it.
If Clinton or Jesse Jackson or anyone else had said it, it would have gotten the same coverage and I would have claimed that it was inappropriate and rather selfish.
Posted by: Stacy at January 17, 2006 11:24 PM (4RpL0)
19
And somebody questioned how feinstein and hillary "would like it" if they had to live over in Saudi Arabia- what does that have to do with anything? If you want to find someone who spends more time with the Royal House of Saud than almost anyone in politics, it's the Bush family, so I am not sure what your point is, other than the usual "I hate the dems so I'll make this factually-irrelevant
statement that makes no sense."
Saudi Arabia is a terrorism apologist who had more of a hand in 9/11 than any other country. They are anti-west and anti-semitic but you wont see the Bushies doing much or saying much about it. They're pals. And they protect the Saudis every chance they get.
So, I think your outrage is misplaced.
Posted by: stacy at January 17, 2006 11:30 PM (4RpL0)
20
I think you're incorrect in saying that if Clinton or another Democrat had said it that the treatment from the press would be the same. I present Mayor Nagin as a prime, current example.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:35 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 14, 2006
Kyoto Treaty is Dead
Supporters of the Kyoto treaty, give up. When NPR runs a segment that shows that Kyoto is as dumb as everyone else knows it is, it's time to give it up.
The Ugly American has a post with all the details. It seems that scientists just now discovered that plants produce methane. And one of the requirements of the Kyoto treaty is to reduce your country's methane levels.
So, loony environmentalists, in order to effectively comply with Kyoto, each country needs to raze their leafy plants and trees. Nice.
Can you say, "NATURAL PROCESSES?"
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:04 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.
1
In the last chapter of "Slander", Ann Coulter said the left was clinging to charges that man causes "global warming" because it was the only issue in which it would take Republicans a thousand years to prove them wrong.
Well, it looks like the schedule's been moved up, LOL.
I guess now they'll have to find a way to blame greenhouse gas production by trees on Bush.
Posted by: Seth at January 15, 2006 05:36 AM (eAUyf)
2
I remember just a few years ago, it was all blamed on cow farts -- so in order to stop global warming we had to stop eating beef. Yeah, that one got them real far, too.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:02 PM (+Gl1m)
3
There could be man made parts to global warming, however, from alot of reading I have been doing into this subject, they may be offsetting the potential for another mini ice age, such as the Earth had between the 1400's and 1800's. My opinion has changed from believing that it is happening to "I'm not sure." Too much conflicting evidence. The leftoids need to stop with the hyperinflated rhetoric and concentrate on true science.
Anyhow, cow farts. Didn't Pelosi author that study?
Posted by: William Teach at January 15, 2006 02:17 PM (V5vwb)
4
No, Pelosi's study was cow patties...
And yes, there's SO much conflicting evidence, I don't think we'll ever be able to determine the solution. For example, when clearcutting was going on at a huge rate in central and south America, the global amount of evil ozone was reduced -- so should we clear-cut all trees to save the ozone layer?
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:33 PM (+Gl1m)
5
I read Michael Crichtons "State of Fear" over Christmas, and started doing more research. You remember that I used to believe that it was happening. Evidence changes that.
I think that one of the problems we see is that the global warming believers rely on computer models, rather then hard scientific research. They also miss the point that the Earth is always in flux. Plates move, volcano's go off, ice melts, etc. The Sun puts out more radiation or less. It could be a good year for plankton or a bad year, meaning more CO2 to O2 or less conversion.
The true believers do not want to hear anything to the opposite, or that even says "we do not really know." If man is creating issues, I would like to know. Flourocarbons were bad. That was proven. What is happening with CO2, methane, etc, is unknown. But it cannot be discussed with the True Believers, just like one cannot discuss politics with Surrender Monkeys rationally. Which is a shame.
Posted by: William Teach at January 15, 2006 03:27 PM (V5vwb)
6
Very true that evidence changes things. After reading that book, all I have to say is "Hockey Stick Graph."
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 05:29 PM (+Gl1m)
7
why dont you all stop talking about cow farts and who studied them or not - get off your computers and DO something about it? instead of talking?? When has simple discussing who is right or wrong ever done anything?
Hitler was wrong about what he did - but he didnt sit around and talk he did something!
need i go on?
Posted by: roxy at June 20, 2006 12:37 PM (BWVLv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Truth about Government Regulation
In case you're wondering who in the world supports all those moronic endless pages of government regulation, wonder no more. A varied group in New Hampshire showed up to a hearing to
support stupid regulations.
So, who showed up to claim that barbers should have 1,500 hours of training before you're ALLOWED to cut someone else's hair? Why barbers, that's who.
Who showed up to demand that manicurists be required to have 300 hours of training before being permitted by the all-powerful state to clip someone's fingernails? Why the manicurists, that's who.
Do you see the pattern? Government regulations are used as a hammer to restrict competition. They are used by unions and others in the businesses to make it more difficult for other people to compete with them -- and that's completely and totally WRONG.
In this case, some Free State people tried to get the law to be more freedom-friendly. One person was actually arrested and sent to jail for cutting someone else's fingernails without a state license.
They tried to get the law fixed, but they were shouted down by people who hate freedom and competition. It's capitalism to attempt to reduce your competition so you can profit. It's totalitarianism to use the government to do it.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:09 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm a nurse.
I've seen at least four people die - DIE - from a pedicure.
That's because they were diabetics with poor circulation. You nick one of their toes in the wrong place, and it's gangrene city.
I dunno - maybe you don't need 200 hours training to be a barber or a manicurist.
But maybe you do. I would have a look into what that 200 hours is spent learning before making a judgement.
Posted by: The Small Town hick at January 14, 2006 11:46 PM (RmWaw)
2
Not me. I choose freedom over safety.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 12:57 AM (+Gl1m)
3
I would choose not to go to someone who does not have a certification.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 16, 2006 04:08 AM (SlODe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What is a Right?
Blogless Steve, when commenting on my
recent post about the
morons scum-suckers socialists trying to crush Wal-Mart, when asked why he didn't like freedom, said:
the freedom to not be able to afford proper medical care? the freedom to have to run to emergency care even for small issues because of an inability to afford a physician?
Contagion tried to give a simple answer with
Health Insurance
Is
a
Privilege.
Steve didn't get it.
Folks, something cannot be a right if it requires something from someone else. In order for you to have medical care, SOMEONE ELSE must provide it for you. Someone else's labor MUST be used. That's taking. When government forces it upon someone else, that's the same as stealing.
Rights are things YOU have. Rights are things YOU can do. I have the right to freedom of speech -- and that requires nothing, not even listening, from anyone else. I have the right of freedom of assembly. You do not have to provide me a place to assemble -- you need do nothing for me to have and exercise that right.
I have a right to life -- it requires you to do nothing for me to be alive.
When people try claiming things as housing and medical care as "rights," it shows that they have no concept of rights. If something that requires someone else is a "right," then rights are determined by government, exercised only by force, and quite literally anything can be determined to be a right.
Remember folks, government CANNOT grant rights. Rights are granted by a power much higher than government will ever be. Government is only capable of taking AWAY rights -- and that's almost never for good.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:18 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I do not think health insurance is a right. I do think that since companies eliminate compettition through "consolidation" that in fact they become monopolists. In the financial world we call it "pricing power". If we are increasing pricing power we are in fact eliminating compettition. This works both on the sales and cost of goods sold side of the equation.
The way I perceive this "battle" is an attempt to limit pricing power on the cost of goods sold (employment wages) position.
I am a free market proponent and have to say that I am leaning toward the legislative solution in order to protect "compettition".
Posted by: David at January 14, 2006 02:53 PM (Jdbsc)
2
How does punishing a private company and making goods more expensive for EVERYONE increase competition?
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:58 PM (+Gl1m)
3
Through consolidation Walmart and other national retailers have created monopolies. We take on monopolies continuously because increased compettition results in lower prices. The idea that today's products cost less from the mega retailers does not take into consideration price/quality ratios. Two simple examples: the Tshirt you bought in 1970 would last for 100 washings and cost 5$ the same Tshirt today last for 10 washings and cost 3$.
Housing is another example, since 1964 the HB industry is 25% less productive, that means the same house, using relative dollars cost 25% more.
Increased compettition always results in lower prices, contraction of compettition results in higher prices.
Our perception is that the products at Walmart or Target cost less, I propose that they actually increase cost by reducing quality.
Posted by: David at January 14, 2006 03:40 PM (Jdbsc)
4
I'm curious. To the people that think Health Insurance should be a privilege, who should pay for it? or are we just not going to pay the doctors, hospitals, staff and labs?
If those of us that worked hard to get a good paying job are expected to pay extra so Joe and Jane Poorhouse have insurance, why should I work hard to make more money and try to better my life if I'm going to be punished for it?
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 07:54 PM (e8b4J)
5
And in a free market, David, you don't have to buy the lower quality item if you don't want it!
If Wal-Mart is a monopoly, then break them up -- don't punish them financially.
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 10:04 PM (+Gl1m)
6
Actually, Wal-Mart DOES have excellent health coverage, you just have to be *full time* to get it...
What a lot of folks don't understand is this, Wally World goes thru a lot of *Temp* help, not from *temp* services but from folks that need a job, ANY job, and they need it now, and have no intention of staying to begin with...
My wife is in *upper middle management* for a company that is contracted to Wal-Mart and we have a lot of serious dealings with Wal-Mart directly and thru some friends that are both former *upper* management with Wal-Mart...
The benefits are unsurpassed, but like anywhere else, you have to EARN them, and a lot of folks want instant gratification...
Ogre, I found you thru GM's blog, he's a great guy and on my blog roll, I came in to see your place, saw THIS and just had to post... Take care...
Fred
Posted by: TexasFred at January 14, 2006 11:17 PM (qX3iX)
7
Thanks very much for stopping by, TexasFred! Any friend of GM is a friend of mine and quite welcome here!
And yes, people refuse to admit that employees of WalMart actually WANT to work there. No one is forced at gunpoint to work for WalMart! When one opens up, there's a HUGE line of people wanting to work there -- part time OR full time.
I know a person who's an employee there. They do occasionally complain about the hours. I simply tell them, "Why don't you find another job?"
The answer? "Oh, that's too much work, I don't want to do that."
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:58 AM (+Gl1m)
8
Interesting that I've been hearing about monopolies, decreased competition, and consolidation for decades but somehow we have more companies every year.
It reminds me of the folks worrying about how much Rupert Murdoch owns of the media (2%), and hankering for the good old days of competition when there were three networks, a similar handful of movie studios or news magazines, and a couple of dominant newspapers.
David, what you see is real, it's just not the whole story.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 15, 2006 04:06 AM (bfKow)
9
But it's just not fair, you see, AVI. They have MORE than I do, so I want some of it...at least that's the primary motivation that I observe from the anti-WalMart crowd.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:00 PM (+Gl1m)
10
Yep, I have a right to healthcare, no matter who pays for it. And they better fix me up good, because if they don't, I have a right to sue the pants off them. That'll show 'em.
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Oyster at January 15, 2006 02:17 PM (YudAC)
11
And you certainly have the right to sue them so you don't have to work!
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:34 PM (+Gl1m)
12
I pray you get cancer and have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on medical bills. I hope it is painful, too. I hope you have a thousand surgeries and your life is ruined because of your medical bills. Then maybe you think differently.
And I am not even one of those "liberals" you call scum everyday.
Posted by: Robin Hood at January 15, 2006 10:29 PM (3Xdjc)
13
Wow. I cannot imagine how horrible your life is, filled with such utter hatred and evil.
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 10:38 PM (+Gl1m)
14
And no, most liberals I know are just confused and misguided, not filled with utter hatred (although there are many on the left who are filled with such hatred).
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 10:39 PM (+Gl1m)
15
Oh, c'mon, Ogre, that guy just 'outed himself' as just like all the rest of the people you call scum every day. C'mon. You know you want to say it.
Liberal scum!
ah that made me feel so much better...you liberal scum. Gosh I said it again! That guy was liberal scum! bwhahahaha
And the curse he put on you--I hope he was stirring his cauldron full of bats wings and frogs eyes when he was saying it to you.
Liberal scum...
Posted by: Cao at January 16, 2006 01:59 AM (RyucI)
16
I just can't help but feel sorry for someone who is really filled with so much hatred in their life. It's really, really, sad.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:08 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Blow to Freedom
Good Hope Hospital's appeal
has been denied by North Carolina's appellate court. It was a split decision, so the case will go to the state supreme court automatically, but the hospital is just running out of time.
You see, Good Hope Hospital, 3 years ago, decided they wanted to make some changes. The hospital was a little run down with some old equipment -- the building is 93 years old. So they wanted to renovate and build a larger building.
The state said No. The state decided that they didn't want the hospital to update their equipment because the hospital "hadn't shown need."
In 2004, a law judge (whose decision is not binding on the state) ruled in favor of the hospital. The state ignored him and ruled against the hospital. They appealed to the appeals court that just denied them.
Oh, and at the same time, the federal government has warned the hospital that if they do not upgrade and update their equipment, they will not be able to provide any services for Medicare or Medicaid patients -- and if the supreme court does not hear the case very soon, the hospital will go bankrupt -- which is apparently the goal of the state.
So yes, the federal government says that the hospital's facilities are outdated -- so outdated as to be unsafe. But the state says the hospital hasn't shown proper "need" to renovate and expand.
What a crock. This is just another example of the total pile of crap that appears when government gets involved in something. The state shouldn't have ANY say in who renovates their own property. The feds shouldn't be paying billions for health care. It's all wrong.
Anyone know where I can find a free country?
Posted by: Ogre at
12:03 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Could it be that there was a nearby competitor to Good Hope that didn't want them to expand?
Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 16, 2006 02:49 AM (Le59Z)
2
Could be a nearby competitor with more legislative and bureaucratic donations...
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:54 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 13, 2006
mmMMmm...Chicken

This evening, I'm going to Kentucky Fried Chicken to buy a big bucket of chicken. I don't usually get chicken from KFC -- in the south, Bojangles usually does much better. But all
the morons bringing KFC to my attention has just made me hungry. I suggest you help KFC and go buy a bucket today.
Maybe we should have a blogospheric-wide "Buy a KFC Bucket" day...
Posted by: Ogre at
09:09 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh yes... I think it is time I have some KFC. What bozos...
Posted by: vw bug at January 13, 2006 10:07 PM (4oOot)
Posted by: Ogre at January 13, 2006 10:41 PM (+Gl1m)
3
Wow, on a fluke we wen tto KFC for lunch today. I love their honey BBQ wings. Now I'm really glad I did. I never thought Pam Anderson was attractive, now she just seems like an idiot on top of it. Hey, she is blonde!
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 12:37 AM (e8b4J)
4
I had a whole bucket of wings today.
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:30 AM (+Gl1m)
5
Wish they still served that Rotisserie Gold they had a few years back.
Posted by: Seth at January 14, 2006 02:48 PM (ACq/K)
6
Pam Anderson should be sued for continued cruelty to her boobs. If chickens were subjected to all the constant medical attention her boobs get PETA would have a case for animal cruelty.
I think we should start a "Free Pam's Boobs" campaign.
Everybody chant with me: Free Pams Boobs Free Pams Boobs
Posted by: kender at January 14, 2006 04:59 PM (k5SaN)
7
Free Boobs! Free Boobs!
What?
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 10:39 PM (+Gl1m)
8
I agree, KFC is a great American company with a delicious product. In addition, the endorsement from PETA of KFC already brings me by there about every couple of weeks or so.
Posted by: Kevin at January 15, 2006 04:20 AM (0ozWZ)
9
Oh and I had a 2 piece original white meal today there.
Posted by: Kevin at January 15, 2006 04:20 AM (0ozWZ)
10
I have absolutely GOT to plan a day and spread it throughout the blogosphere...
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:02 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Impaler for Governor?
Oh boy. The President Bush haters have a new champion.
Jonathon Sharkey wants to become president and violently murder President Bush. Oh, but first he wants to be the governor of Minnesota so he can practice brutally murdering criminals in public.
His socialist policies on taxation (tax the rich, give to the poor, no refund checks) and health care (pay more if you earn more) should make him popular in that state. The ACLU might also like his stance on religion ("I despise and hate the Christian God the Father. He is my enemy.") and Democrats are sure to love his giveaways ("helping Minnesota farmers with state grants and tax-breaks, so they can keep their farms, and make a significant profit.").
Well, I do try and make Friday posts more entertaining than the rest of the week...
Posted by: Ogre at
07:03 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I should have drank more before reading that... It still pissed me off.
Posted by: Contagion at January 14, 2006 12:38 AM (e8b4J)
2
Don't worry, I'm sure he'll get about 2 votes.
Posted by: Ogre at January 14, 2006 02:32 AM (+Gl1m)
3
His policies seem pretty sound. If I was a minnesotten I probably would vote for him.
Posted by: Lucy at January 15, 2006 10:22 AM (c1U4q)
4
You've got plenty of time to move there, Lucy, before the election!
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2006 02:03 PM (+Gl1m)
5
Gee, it kind of makes you miss Jesse Ventura.
Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 16, 2006 02:53 AM (Le59Z)
6
At least he was entertaining.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 02:54 AM (+Gl1m)
7
Well, he does support capital punishment.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 16, 2006 04:17 AM (SlODe)
8
I never said he was all bad -- just a couple beers short of a six-pack.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:45 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
If you would like to read a stunning, accurate, detailed, well-done tribute to the current sitting senior senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, please be sure to head on over to
Social Sense. Mustang has an
excellent tribute to the man who has been in the U.S. Senate for 30 years.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
Government Employment
Government continues to grow, no matter what you might see or hear. It is way beyond control and likely cannot be stopped. And I can back up those statements with hard numbers.
Did you know the average salary of a government worker is $36 per hour, while the poor slob that actually works for a living in the private sector's average is only $24 per hour?
Can someone please explain to me why the number of government employees in education has increased by 22% over the last 10 years (to over 8.5 million), but the actual population of schools has only increased by 9%? And yet, the students with "high school diplomas" are dumber than ever?
And does anyone else see a problem with the idea that the number of people receiving welfare benefits has fallen 66% since 1994, but the number of government employees to administer that system has INCREASED?
(Numbers from The Cato Institute).
Posted by: Ogre at
03:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
116kb generated in CPU 0.0398, elapsed 0.1266 seconds.
101 queries taking 0.1024 seconds, 346 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.