Piano Stairs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw&feature=player_embedded
20091106
20091105
Simply a Wave of the Hand
Pope and Nancy Pelosi
The Pope and Nancy Pelosi are on the same stage in front of a huge crowd.
The Pope leans towards Ms. Pelosi and said, "Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, like that of your followers, but go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"
Pelosi replied, "I seriously doubt that. So, with one little wave of your hand huh? Show me"
So the Pope slapped her.
The Pope and Nancy Pelosi are on the same stage in front of a huge crowd.
The Pope leans towards Ms. Pelosi and said, "Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, like that of your followers, but go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"
Pelosi replied, "I seriously doubt that. So, with one little wave of your hand huh? Show me"
So the Pope slapped her.
Crossing Borders
Let me see if I understand all this...
If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border, you get shot.
If you cross the Turkish border illegally, you spend the rest of your life in prison!
But, if you cross the U.S. border illegally you get:
A driver's license
A social security card
Welfare
Food stamps
And, free health care?
Oh well sure. That makes perfect sense.
20091104
Common Sense
So why won't Congress realize this is why we elect them; to protect our freedom, not legislate it away?
Because, anyone who has the ability to write a billion dollar check has now lost the ability to think rationally.
It's all about POWER
1. "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."
2. "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
3. "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."
4. "When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation."
5. "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it..."
Because, anyone who has the ability to write a billion dollar check has now lost the ability to think rationally.
It's all about POWER
1. "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."
2. "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
3. "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."
4. "When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation."
5. "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it..."
20091103
20091101
Limbaugh: Obama Is A "Threat To Liberty"
Agree with him or not, try proving Rush Limbaugh wrong, not call him names.
See this interview on FoxNews and say where exactly he's wrong.
Not the usual personal attacks like, "oh, he's so hateful." or crap like that.
See this interview on FoxNews and say where exactly he's wrong.
Not the usual personal attacks like, "oh, he's so hateful." or crap like that.
20091029
20091028
Bovine Political Science for Dummies
DEMOCRAT
You have two cows..
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows..
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor..
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the
other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are
reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows..
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows..
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and
produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent
quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to
milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote
for the black one..
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is
the best looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows..
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
You have two cows..
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows..
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor..
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the
other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are
reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows..
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows..
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and
produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent
quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to
milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote
for the black one..
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is
the best looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows..
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
20091027
20091026
20091018
You may be Taliban if:
1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least two.
10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.
20091010
Junkiest Science
And now, the winner for Moral Gymnastice and Factual Contortion is:
the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Read how difficult it must be to evade common sense, high jump over sound reasoning, and leap to conclusions that run around logic.
The "Junkiest" Junk Science That Taxpayers' Money Can Buy
Friday, October 09, 2009
Now, more than at any other time in anyone's memory, the federal government is in no position to waste taxpayer dollars on gun control advocacy "research." Nevertheless, the National Institutes of Health recently gave anti-gun researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine $639,586 to conduct a survey intended to prove that possessing a gun doesn't benefit assault victims.
Criminologist Gary Kleck calls the resulting survey "the very epitome of junk science in the guns-and-violence field—poor quality research designed to arrive at an ideologically predetermined conclusion."
Here's how it was done. The Pennsylvania researchers surveyed only those assault victims who were shot, limited in the last six months of the survey to victims who were fatally shot. It did not consider the far more numerous gun owners who used guns for self-defense successfully without being shot, nor crimes that were not even attempted because the criminals feared that prospective victims might be armed.
The survey was further limited to residents of urban Philadelphia who, according to the research, "were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest," compared to the rest of the population. Victims who were shot in Philly, but who were not from Philly, were excluded too. The survey considered a victim to be "armed" even if his gun was "in a nearby vehicle, or in another place."
As Kleck says, "none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not." Kleck notes that other published research "reached precisely the opposite conclusions" reached by the NIH-funded survey.
What Kleck had in mind were the results of the federal government's annual National Crime Victimization Survey, covering tens of thousands of assaults. Kleck and others have reviewed those surveys and found that people who use guns to defend against assaults are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of protection.
the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Read how difficult it must be to evade common sense, high jump over sound reasoning, and leap to conclusions that run around logic.
The "Junkiest" Junk Science That Taxpayers' Money Can Buy
Friday, October 09, 2009
Now, more than at any other time in anyone's memory, the federal government is in no position to waste taxpayer dollars on gun control advocacy "research." Nevertheless, the National Institutes of Health recently gave anti-gun researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine $639,586 to conduct a survey intended to prove that possessing a gun doesn't benefit assault victims.
Criminologist Gary Kleck calls the resulting survey "the very epitome of junk science in the guns-and-violence field—poor quality research designed to arrive at an ideologically predetermined conclusion."
Here's how it was done. The Pennsylvania researchers surveyed only those assault victims who were shot, limited in the last six months of the survey to victims who were fatally shot. It did not consider the far more numerous gun owners who used guns for self-defense successfully without being shot, nor crimes that were not even attempted because the criminals feared that prospective victims might be armed.
The survey was further limited to residents of urban Philadelphia who, according to the research, "were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest," compared to the rest of the population. Victims who were shot in Philly, but who were not from Philly, were excluded too. The survey considered a victim to be "armed" even if his gun was "in a nearby vehicle, or in another place."
As Kleck says, "none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not." Kleck notes that other published research "reached precisely the opposite conclusions" reached by the NIH-funded survey.
What Kleck had in mind were the results of the federal government's annual National Crime Victimization Survey, covering tens of thousands of assaults. Kleck and others have reviewed those surveys and found that people who use guns to defend against assaults are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of protection.
20091009
Schools for fools!
We moved our child to a school we like (ie. one that teaches, not indoctrinates).
Choice is ALWAYS a good thing.
Choice is ALWAYS a good thing.
20091003
20091002
20090929
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)