Hat tip Geezer
According to Nancy Pelosi's bill, you're going to pay for that kid's court ordered health insurance until they are 27.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Page 302-303:
"Qualifying child. - For purposes of this section, the term 'qualifying child' meaning given such term by section 152(c). With respect to any period during whichhealth coverage for a child must be provided by an individual pursuant to a child support order, such child shall be treated as a qualifying child of such individual(and not as qualifying child of any other individual). "
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Why would you omit that?
The Zero ran an article today on a bunch of homeless shelters opening up here in Thurston. No doubt the number of families on the edge this year is higher than normal.
I'm a cautious giver and a few things about this article strike me as 'off'
1- Everyone and their mother is mentioned in terms of organizations. Odd, but not a showstopper. One note to other cautious givers- this is what non-credible orgs do to make them seem more credible.
2-A "front name" is given. This is what I've seen a lot with the DV crooks and frauds around the sound; a bunch of local cronies get together and form some shell name and then disappear.
3- Contact name. The contact name is a person- not an organization. I called the number and DINGER DINGER---- I get an Americorps voicemail.
Funny- Americorps wasn't mentioned any place in the article or contact info. HMMMM. I wonder why?
I'm a cautious giver and a few things about this article strike me as 'off'
1- Everyone and their mother is mentioned in terms of organizations. Odd, but not a showstopper. One note to other cautious givers- this is what non-credible orgs do to make them seem more credible.
2-A "front name" is given. This is what I've seen a lot with the DV crooks and frauds around the sound; a bunch of local cronies get together and form some shell name and then disappear.
3- Contact name. The contact name is a person- not an organization. I called the number and DINGER DINGER---- I get an Americorps voicemail.
Funny- Americorps wasn't mentioned any place in the article or contact info. HMMMM. I wonder why?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Want equality?
Then be equal.
Under the law- you are not equal to a heterosexual white male, if you have six dozen laws that say you will be treated differently then a heterosexual white male.
So when you get beat up- and your attacker gets 10 times the jail sentence because you were not a heterosexual white male- you are not equal to a heterosexual white male.
When you get a check each month or a college scholarship for NOT being a heterosexual white male, you are not equal to a heterosexual white male.
If you don't want to be equal to me, I'm not angry at you. I pity you, because this is the bondage you have imposed on yourself. If it were up to me, you'd be treated equal to me. Inequality is your choice, not mine.
Under the law- you are not equal to a heterosexual white male, if you have six dozen laws that say you will be treated differently then a heterosexual white male.
So when you get beat up- and your attacker gets 10 times the jail sentence because you were not a heterosexual white male- you are not equal to a heterosexual white male.
When you get a check each month or a college scholarship for NOT being a heterosexual white male, you are not equal to a heterosexual white male.
If you don't want to be equal to me, I'm not angry at you. I pity you, because this is the bondage you have imposed on yourself. If it were up to me, you'd be treated equal to me. Inequality is your choice, not mine.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Credit: Obama
I have to give Obama credit for creating bipartisanship. The opposition to the health care boondoggle is absolutely bipartisan.
Book Review: good readin'
Malcolm Gladwell- Outliers.
The book provides solid and honest analysis with great examples, but has a somewhat dishonest conclusion. I enjoyed the Tipping Point and Blink (recommend the former, you could pass on the latter); this book is nearly on par with Tipping Point.
Cons:
The book wreaks at many points of left wing social engineering spew. Gladwell commits the fatal flaw of having a political agenda in mind while conducting the analysis rather than leaving conclusion to the reader. His conclusion is that American Exceptionalism, the Horatio Alger/Ben Franklin rags to riches types of stories have nothing to do with the individual's choices, but more to do with (as the commies like to say) your teachers, your coaches, your community.... all the usual rot that lefties love to preach about everyone having to contribute to the common good.
While the examples he provides are compelling, they aren't conclusive; he completely fails to examine the non- outliers; ie based on Gladwell's premise you are more likely to win powerball then be the best at what you do by your own choosing. Anyone having seen families where adopted kids (at birth) were raised along side other children with different parents will see his conclusion to be complete bullshit. For every Bill Gates- there's a trillion janitors with the same opportunities.
Gladwell examines exceptions and attempts to form rules; this is where the book falls apart. Any decent legislator will tell you: you don't form broad public policy based on rare outliers. This is exactly the mistake that Gladwell makes...
That said, the book is a very compelling read- and as an outlier in a field of my own, I came to a very different conclusion from his presentation. Speaking for the best of the best of the best- you don't win by accident- it's a conscious choice 24/7 to constantly identify and eliminate obstacles. Gladwell touches this point on the 10,000 hour rule- and then ignores it. As anyone who has dug, scratched, clawed and fought their way to the top knows, there are plenty of opportunities, excuses to NOT put in 10,000 hours of effort into your work. All of the other people "where I'm from" chose to not make the decisions I did.
Pros:
The book points out something which will be familiar to low level computer programmers; that is the effect of how winners are able to capitalize on the accumulation of small advantages. This is iteratively leveraging the fraction of a penny Richard Prior socked away through floating point rounding errors in Superman 3 (also done in Office Space). In a socio-economic sense, REALLY REALLY REALLY successful people find those advantages and relentlessly exploit the hell out of them. They are passionate, (down right scary) and there is a fire within them to pursue perfection that does not burn in 99.999999 percent of the rest of the population. You can't buy that, you can't coach that, you can't teach that. It just occurs. When it does occur- Gladwell's examples demonstrate what is possible.
Winners will take any facet of their existence (including a disadvantage) and turn it into an advantage. Winners will not accept defeat, winners (for some reason unique to only them) know that only one person has the power to make them quit; it's the person you brush your teeth with every morning.
I found the book intriguing for another reason as well- I've been pondering the concept of multigenerational wealth for a few years now. Presuming the likes of Bill Gates Sr and Warren Buffett don't succeed in redistributing all the family wealth between generations, I've been trying to determine HOW one raises their children to start from where parents left off in rising w/in an ownership style of society while avoiding the "sandals to sandals" in 2-3 generation phenomenon. Gladwell's examples provide a good groundwork for how parents can accomplish that.
Even with that knowledge- it always comes back to the line in Chariot's of Fire: "You can't put in what God left out."
The book provides solid and honest analysis with great examples, but has a somewhat dishonest conclusion. I enjoyed the Tipping Point and Blink (recommend the former, you could pass on the latter); this book is nearly on par with Tipping Point.
Cons:
The book wreaks at many points of left wing social engineering spew. Gladwell commits the fatal flaw of having a political agenda in mind while conducting the analysis rather than leaving conclusion to the reader. His conclusion is that American Exceptionalism, the Horatio Alger/Ben Franklin rags to riches types of stories have nothing to do with the individual's choices, but more to do with (as the commies like to say) your teachers, your coaches, your community.... all the usual rot that lefties love to preach about everyone having to contribute to the common good.
While the examples he provides are compelling, they aren't conclusive; he completely fails to examine the non- outliers; ie based on Gladwell's premise you are more likely to win powerball then be the best at what you do by your own choosing. Anyone having seen families where adopted kids (at birth) were raised along side other children with different parents will see his conclusion to be complete bullshit. For every Bill Gates- there's a trillion janitors with the same opportunities.
Gladwell examines exceptions and attempts to form rules; this is where the book falls apart. Any decent legislator will tell you: you don't form broad public policy based on rare outliers. This is exactly the mistake that Gladwell makes...
That said, the book is a very compelling read- and as an outlier in a field of my own, I came to a very different conclusion from his presentation. Speaking for the best of the best of the best- you don't win by accident- it's a conscious choice 24/7 to constantly identify and eliminate obstacles. Gladwell touches this point on the 10,000 hour rule- and then ignores it. As anyone who has dug, scratched, clawed and fought their way to the top knows, there are plenty of opportunities, excuses to NOT put in 10,000 hours of effort into your work. All of the other people "where I'm from" chose to not make the decisions I did.
Pros:
The book points out something which will be familiar to low level computer programmers; that is the effect of how winners are able to capitalize on the accumulation of small advantages. This is iteratively leveraging the fraction of a penny Richard Prior socked away through floating point rounding errors in Superman 3 (also done in Office Space). In a socio-economic sense, REALLY REALLY REALLY successful people find those advantages and relentlessly exploit the hell out of them. They are passionate, (down right scary) and there is a fire within them to pursue perfection that does not burn in 99.999999 percent of the rest of the population. You can't buy that, you can't coach that, you can't teach that. It just occurs. When it does occur- Gladwell's examples demonstrate what is possible.
Winners will take any facet of their existence (including a disadvantage) and turn it into an advantage. Winners will not accept defeat, winners (for some reason unique to only them) know that only one person has the power to make them quit; it's the person you brush your teeth with every morning.
I found the book intriguing for another reason as well- I've been pondering the concept of multigenerational wealth for a few years now. Presuming the likes of Bill Gates Sr and Warren Buffett don't succeed in redistributing all the family wealth between generations, I've been trying to determine HOW one raises their children to start from where parents left off in rising w/in an ownership style of society while avoiding the "sandals to sandals" in 2-3 generation phenomenon. Gladwell's examples provide a good groundwork for how parents can accomplish that.
Even with that knowledge- it always comes back to the line in Chariot's of Fire: "You can't put in what God left out."
Sunday, October 18, 2009
NFL- you don't need my patronage
Two points:
1. If the NFL wants to engage in persecution based on political beliefs, then they have consciously decided they don't want me watching games, nor buying their merchandise nor supporting their sponsors. I may not have the shakedown influence of Al Sharpton, but I do have other things to do with my time and money.
2. If I were black- I'd be taking a long pause right now about the state of things in the NFL. By pulling this stunt with Rush Limbaugh, the NFL is saying is that they are OK with players (mostly black) engaging in marginally and often blatantly criminal behavior, but if you are a successful white guy- your words actually mean something. In this context, if you are black - your words don't matter. A black thug/criminal is ok with the NFL, because afterall, what do they expect from blacks anyway?
If you are a black player (or fan) and you don't demand to be held to the same standard as a rich white guy, then you are saying you WANT to be treated like a 2nd class citizen.
I'm not OK with that. When you hold everyone to the same standard, winning actually means something.
How ironic a black UConn player died in a stabbing this weekend. Funny I don't hear about Rush Limbaugh getting into a lot of knife fights.
1. If the NFL wants to engage in persecution based on political beliefs, then they have consciously decided they don't want me watching games, nor buying their merchandise nor supporting their sponsors. I may not have the shakedown influence of Al Sharpton, but I do have other things to do with my time and money.
2. If I were black- I'd be taking a long pause right now about the state of things in the NFL. By pulling this stunt with Rush Limbaugh, the NFL is saying is that they are OK with players (mostly black) engaging in marginally and often blatantly criminal behavior, but if you are a successful white guy- your words actually mean something. In this context, if you are black - your words don't matter. A black thug/criminal is ok with the NFL, because afterall, what do they expect from blacks anyway?
If you are a black player (or fan) and you don't demand to be held to the same standard as a rich white guy, then you are saying you WANT to be treated like a 2nd class citizen.
I'm not OK with that. When you hold everyone to the same standard, winning actually means something.
How ironic a black UConn player died in a stabbing this weekend. Funny I don't hear about Rush Limbaugh getting into a lot of knife fights.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Dear Rep Grayson
If you insist on being a lying jackass, then I insist on honoring you with MS Paint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)