Making something of nothing
Published by StB on Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 1:06 PM.
I like BG's shared items widget on the side. I read whatever pops up in there. I figure I can get a good laugh out of it as well as some good opinions and food for thought.
Today was laugh day. This had me chuckling:
Crooks and Liars> Coming to a shredder near you
Like a bunch of school girls skipping on the playground, they quickly conclude that because the cost of paper shredding has skyrocketed that Bush and Cheney cannot be up to any good. Thus with glee, the commenters pile on how many crimes are being committed and there just must be bad things going on. If not, why would they have to shred paper at such an alarming rate? Even though some sane people point out that these steps are not only logical, but practical in our day and age of information theft, the frothing of the mouth continues.
Think about where you work. I bet they have some policy on data privacy and how to handle the disposal of information, whether it be paper or electronic. Why would the government have the same policy? In fact, you better hope they do.
Furthermore, let's take into consideration the daily intelligence reports that the president and his staff are given. Do you think all those copies end up in a file cabinet? Of course not. Why would you want sensitive information to possibly end up in a dumpster where anyone can get there hands on it?
No need to overthink this one.
Today was laugh day. This had me chuckling:
Crooks and Liars> Coming to a shredder near you
Like a bunch of school girls skipping on the playground, they quickly conclude that because the cost of paper shredding has skyrocketed that Bush and Cheney cannot be up to any good. Thus with glee, the commenters pile on how many crimes are being committed and there just must be bad things going on. If not, why would they have to shred paper at such an alarming rate? Even though some sane people point out that these steps are not only logical, but practical in our day and age of information theft, the frothing of the mouth continues.
Think about where you work. I bet they have some policy on data privacy and how to handle the disposal of information, whether it be paper or electronic. Why would the government have the same policy? In fact, you better hope they do.
Furthermore, let's take into consideration the daily intelligence reports that the president and his staff are given. Do you think all those copies end up in a file cabinet? Of course not. Why would you want sensitive information to possibly end up in a dumpster where anyone can get there hands on it?
No need to overthink this one.
Must have been Algeria's foreign policy
Published by StB on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 10:27 AM.
Wall Street Journal > Al Qaeda's Latest
Antiterror policies that work? Nah, can't be!
Al Qaeda apparently struck again yesterday, this time with a pair of truck
bombs outside United Nations offices in Algiers. The dead -- at first count 26
but perhaps dozens more -- included numerous U.N. workers. The attack was the
worst on that body since the 2003 truck bombing on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad
that killed 22.
The workers in Algeria had nothing to do with the Iraq war,
but were merely part of the U.N.'s larger operations in North Africa, including
the U.N. Development Program, which provides foreign aid. The attack is another
reminder that Americans and their allies aren't the only, or even the main,
targets of Islamic terrorists. The North African branch of al Qaeda claimed it
was responsible for the attack, and the suicide bombers also hit Algeria's
Constitutional Council in a different neighborhood.
The attacks are also a
sign that al Qaeda continues to search for "soft" targets that are less well
protected than those in Western capitals. Algeria has been a prominent target in
recent months, and North Africa in general seems to be a region where al Qaeda
feels it has enough recruits and ample opportunity to strike. The fact that
these are Muslim governments doesn't matter, as the Islamists gladly kill
innocent Muslims to make their larger political point.
Americans have been
fortunate not to have been struck on their homeland since 9/11, even as so many
other nations have. If our furious domestic debates over "torture" and terrorist
wiretapping are an indication, many Americans seem to assume that this kind of
immunity will continue and has nothing to do with U.S. antiterror policies since
September 11. Algiers is a reminder of the dangers in making such
assumptions.
Antiterror policies that work? Nah, can't be!
Keep your hands off
Published by StB on at 10:06 AM.
It is positions like this that make no sense to me.
SignonSanDiego.com>In joint appearance, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Warren Buffett denounce income gap
If you would get off your high horse, you would see that people are making it on their own. And the last thing they want is for the government to grab their money when they die instead of letting it be passed down to their children and grandchildren. Not everyone that receives an inheritance acts like Paris Hilton. There are many people that continue to work hard. It is the way people raise their children- not the money they have- that makes this country stable. To this extent, Buffet is a hypocrite. He has already stated his kids will not get his cash and that he expects them to earn it. Why not give allow families across the country to make that same decision?
Why do they think the government is entitled to receive a paycheck when people die? If anything, the estate tax should be repealed.
Since when is a system that treats everyone fairly a huge break? Buffet and his "super-rich" still pay the bulk of taxes in this country by a wide margin and get very little in return. If he is worried about political instability then he should get off a stage with Clinton. Her own personal power trip- along with her husband- was all about getting the money. Wooing the big bucks to get into office by any means possible. Ask Peter Paul.
If Buffet feels guilty about this, why is he not giving the money to the government now? Probably because he knows how inefficient the government is with their programs. When Bush proposed his tax cuts years ago, the philosophy was simple. It is my money and I know how to spend my money better than the government does. That still stands today.
SignonSanDiego.com>In joint appearance, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Warren Buffett denounce income gap
“The estate tax has been historically part of our very fundamental belief that
we should have a meritocracy, that we do not want a system – where we expect
people to make it on their own – to be, over time, dominated by inherited
wealth,” she said. “That we do believe that people should have to get out there
and make their way, to a great extent.”
If you would get off your high horse, you would see that people are making it on their own. And the last thing they want is for the government to grab their money when they die instead of letting it be passed down to their children and grandchildren. Not everyone that receives an inheritance acts like Paris Hilton. There are many people that continue to work hard. It is the way people raise their children- not the money they have- that makes this country stable. To this extent, Buffet is a hypocrite. He has already stated his kids will not get his cash and that he expects them to earn it. Why not give allow families across the country to make that same decision?
Why do they think the government is entitled to receive a paycheck when people die? If anything, the estate tax should be repealed.
Buffet and Clinton warned of the dangers of a growing gap between rich and poor,
and a tax system that disproportionately helps people Buffet called “these
super-rich” – himself included. Both said political and economic instability
could result.
“In the last seven-eight years what has happened is that the
super-rich have gotten a huge break,” Buffett said.
Said Clinton: “There's a growing sense that it's not working for the average American. If people feel that for whatever reason the deck is stacked against them, then that does feed the instability.”
Since when is a system that treats everyone fairly a huge break? Buffet and his "super-rich" still pay the bulk of taxes in this country by a wide margin and get very little in return. If he is worried about political instability then he should get off a stage with Clinton. Her own personal power trip- along with her husband- was all about getting the money. Wooing the big bucks to get into office by any means possible. Ask Peter Paul.
If Buffet feels guilty about this, why is he not giving the money to the government now? Probably because he knows how inefficient the government is with their programs. When Bush proposed his tax cuts years ago, the philosophy was simple. It is my money and I know how to spend my money better than the government does. That still stands today.
