Guard Dog

With no offense intended to taks or Hurlshot my experience has been that hard sciences teachers (particularly college professors) lacked the drive and mental toughness to survive in a highly competitive, even cut throat job market. Too many that I have know walked around thinking they were "owed" something. The cold truth in my job is that I am only as good as my last project and only secure so long as my current project is relevant and funded. There is an old saying in our profession: "Those who can, do. Those who can not, teach." There has never been a time when I would trade constant challenges in my work or the money I make for the security of teaching. Thats just me though. Hurlshot this applies much less to you since you are a professional teacher, trained to do just that. I suspect few who pursue the hard sciences do so with teaching in mind.

The Killer Angels by Jeff Sharra

My body of work in this field is extensive. My political career, business, and marriage all utterly collapsed within eight months. In that order too I might add. I was totally broke, facing foreclosure on my house, and involved in a furious and angry divorce with a woman (that I loved with ALL my heart) who said she wished I was dead more than once. For a time I started to agree with her. I got over it by staying drunk. Literally. I have almost no memory of 1998. But I can't say it did not help because after one phone conversation with her and her lawyer she dropped her attempt to take the house. I don't know what I said (in fact I have only the vaguest notion the conversation even took place) but evidently Jim Beam did more for my cause than my lawyer ever did. So, take my advice, and the advice of your fellow Canadian, David Allen Coe, and try to "drink Canada dry". At least until you feel better.

This truely sucks. Hopefully a few weeks on Rymadril and she will be fine. One of mine just turned 13. It has done wonders for his arthritis. I went on a Riverboat casino last night with some friends from work. I won almost $600 playing Blackjack. I decided I'm going to just spend it on something foolish. Haven't decided what yet.

Palin stories were a hoax All those stories about Palin not knowing Africa was a continent? They were a hoax. They were created by an fake internet blog used by a filmmaker to create buzz about a film project. And MSNBC and the New York Times all printed it as news. This is just like the bogus story they did about GWBs military service that was fabricated by a John Kerry operative and CBS ran as news in 2004. The "mainstream" media is so biased, and they so much want these negative stories about candidates they hate to be true they just run them with no vetting or verification. So now they retract quietly what they shouted out loudly. A number of posters on this very board follow the same thought process now that I think about it.

Congrats! Is the house new or did you by from an owner?

I'll see to that personally.

He did not cut much. In fact he raised income taxes, capital gains taxes, and inheritance taxes more than any other President in history (I expect all those marks are about to be eclipsed by Obama). But there were some important tax benefits we can thank him (and the Republican 101st Congress for) including the Lifetime Learning Credit which provides a tax credit for college tuition expenses for working adults, and a number of tax benefits for small businesses. What Clinton did manage to accomplish (after the 1994 elections I would point out) is cut almost $300 Billion in federal spending. He also was at least partially responsible for eliminating some 200,000 unnecessary federal jobs. Like I said, from 1995 to 2000 in terms of administration policy he was closer the being a Republican than Bush has been at times. Of course that is overlooking the corruption, scandals, people dropping dead left and right, his inability to control himself, and the endless hit parade of liberty hating authoritarian judges he foisted on us.

After spending a long day crunching code I don't see how Josh goes home and fiddles with the toolset. When I get off work I do things that are to total opposite of what I do at work.

As batty as it sounds there may be some truth to it. It depends on how Arnold's chances of reelection are looking. As I have said here often enough, politics is a pragmatists game.

I think yes so far a consoles are concerned. I think the majority of console gamers (50-60%) are under 18 and still living with parents. As a rule they depend on the parents for the money to buy games. If money is tight for families there will be a reduction in money available for vices and consequently a down turn in discretionary purchases like games. College students are no more or less broke than they ever are and they always find a way to buy games. PC games probably will not be affected but they represent a pretty small part of the gaming market these days.

I don't know if you or Mr. Insomniac had seen this: http://www.planescapetrilogy.com/ I got all excited over CODI too an nothing came of it. So I try not to get excited over this to avoid that heartbreak again.

The Neoconservatives are a subset of the Social Conservative faction. Once Bush leaves office they are most likely to fade into the night. They have no other champions. All those candidates I mentioned are from the Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian bent. And I would not be so quick to dismiss social conservative thought. I would point out that now 30 of 50 states have passed laws banning gay marriage via ballot initiative and none of the votes have been close. You need to understand something else about Americans, we are a generous and gregarious people but we also have a strong isolationist streak and if Obama starts talking about globalization most Americans will see that as surrendering our sovereignty as a nation. Nothing and I do mean NOTHING will put the Republicans back in power faster. I believe the next 4-6 years will lead to an ascendancy of the Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian factions in the party and they will be much less inclined to suffer an economic moderate like Snowe, but social moderates like Specter will do fine. You cannot out-democrat the democrats. So they should not even try. The truth is, something has to give. The schools of political thought (liberal and conservative) have far more in contention than they have in common now. And the very culture of the US is beginning to realign by region. Look at all the electoral maps since 1996 and you cannot help but see it. The day may come when Americans realize that the people in California have no common culture or politics with the people from Alabama. Or the folks in Texas no longer consider themselves the countrymen of New Yorkers. The day that happens will be the beginning of the end of the US. And that will be a sad day indeed.

No you are right. I say pit because the party is leaderless at the moment. There is no Reagan to unify them as he did in 1977, no Gingrich like in 1992. It's fractured and falling to infighting much the way it did after Goldwater lost. It does not mean they will not get their act together but there is precious little time to do it.

. What they offer will depend on how well they do in the 2010 races and how well the voters are dispositioned towards Obama. If he is beatble you will see two of the best candidates remaining, Bobby Jindal, John Thune, Charlie Christ, Jennifer Beck, J.C. Watts all come to mind. They are all young, charismatic and conservative enough to unite the Fiscal and Social Conservatives and in the case of Crist probably the Rockafellers too. If Obama looks unassailable they will trot out cannon fodder like Bob Dole from 1996. Possible choices would be Tom Coburn, Haley Barbour, or Jeb Bush (although I doubt he's interested). The Republicans should and probably will concentrate on Congress for the next two or three elections anyway.

Here is an excellent article about the current state of the Republican party and how it can climb out of it's pit return to prominence. You guys really should give this a read: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...310865404578730

You need to understand something about the GOP, it is not at all a monolithic entity. It is made up of three contentious factions that often work against each other despite their common causes. Even the three factions are broken into subgroups. The Democrat party is as well (there are dozens of factions there) but they have been more successful uniting when the chips are down. The three big groups are the Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and the Rockefeller Republicans. McCain was the champion of the Rockefeller's. He tied the Socials to him with his choice of Palin but made no effort to court the Fiscals who were hostile to him anyway. The big thing about the Republican base is, if they don't like you, they will stay home. And looking at voter turnout between registered Dem's and Repubs it looks like they did. The Republican party is in shambles now. The Rockefellers are blaming the Socials for the loss. The socials are blaming the fiscals and the fiscals are the ones who claim McCain was not conservative enough. But they say the same thing about Bush (correctly too since he has never practiced economic or fiscal discipline). I tend to agree. Conservative economics has never failed to produce growth in the US. Just look at the last President who cut taxes and spending at the same time. Bill Clinton. Surprised? From 1994 to the end of his term Clinton governed far more as a supply side fiscal conservative that Bush ever did. Before his it was Regan whose tenure saw the longest period of sustained growth in US History. So yes, I'd say that statement is true. If McCain was more conservative he might be President now. But if Bush had acted more like a conservative (small government, non-interventionist foreign policy, lower taxes and spending) the environment that saw the Republican party fragment and collapse and saw Obama sweep into power might never have happened.

Look at this example. You live in Washington I believe. Before it was gobbled up in mergers AT&T Wireless had it's headquarters in Redmond. Beginning in 2001 and escalating to 2005 Washington state 1)Removed a number of property tax exemptions for business who bought (as opposed to rent) their office spaces 2) Increased State regulatory tax on businesses operating in WA (aka "the Corporate Income Tax") 3) Increased state income tax. Doing business in WA became expensive enough that the company moved it's headquarters to San Antonio TX. Now, many employees were offered jobs in TX if they were willing to move. If they were not they were laid off. So, because of increased taxes WA lost the revenue it made off AT&T Wireless' business, the income and sales taxes paid by the workers who moved (permanently) and the ones who were laid off (at least temporarily). Do you really think that is a good outcome of raising taxes? The one area Obama is absolutely certain to hit, and hit very hard, is Capital Gains Tax. IMHOP this is nothing more than sanctioned robbery. Follow me on this. I am employed, I earn a salary that Uncle Sam takes 25-28% of every two weeks. Suppose I took some of that money(that I have been taxed on once) and bought a stock with it. And the stock does so well that I sell after a short time and make some money on it. That money is considered a capital gain and I'm taxed on it again. Under Clinton it was a flat 20% rate. Bush reduced it to 15% for business, 5% for individuals. Obama has already promised to allow it to return to 20% when the Tax Reconciliation Act sunsets in 2010. Then he has intimated he will raise it more. Securities investing is risky. If a stock buyer assumes the risk it's because they believe the return will be worth the potential for loss. If the government is then taking away a third of more of their returns they will be disinclined to invest. Without investments business do not have the capital to operate. You see where this leads? One of my biggest problems with Obama is that he actually believes the US has a zero-sum economy. I'm finding that mindset is common in bureaucrats who have never held a real job (Obama has not). Heavy taxation presumes that if money is taken from one group that earned it and given to another that did not then the two balance out. So many times in US history (most notably the late 70's) we have applied that model and it has always led to disaster. The US has market based economy and a tax plan that punishes and discourages investment only stifles growth. Market economies are never....ever...ever static. If it is not growing you can bet it's contracting.

What constitutes going 'extreme left' in the current US context? I mean, what are the policy areas and decisions he'll be making in the near future that will indicate whether he's viewed as leftist or moderate. Is it purely taxation and expenditure on public services? The big thing everyone's talking about is Iraq and Afghanistan but I don't see those as particularly left/right issues. Tax increases greater than what the average American deems as fair (a specious standard to be sure but I can't be clearer than that), gun control, attempts to limit free speech (the "fairness" doctrine), rapid and large scale military cuts (this may sound innocuous but it has a lot of bad trickle down effects). Excessive government spending (there are plenty in the opposition who will be waiting to make an issue of this). Ham fisted attempts at nationalization of business (like Clinton did in 1993). The American people wanted change but if you give it to them too much too fast they will dig in their heels and yell "Stop". If he did pull out of Iraq in rapid and dramatic fasion and the country collapses he would be finished politically. He knows that. That is why nothing will change in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know what he said on the campaign trail but no one is ever obligated to make good on a campaign promise. Plus I will get a HUGE "I told you so" right here on this board.

Trying to change the conversational tack here. Obama will take office at same time as the 111th Congress. What will define the first two years of his Presidency will be his relationship with them. While it is true his party has total control the leadershio he will be facing is prickly, and all to convinced of their own importance. To make matters worse they will go into this believing he owes them something (all of them are superdelegates). They will certainly give him what he wants, but you had better believe they expect him to give them what they want. What I will be most interested to see is the first veto battle. How soon will it come? Over what? Unless Obama is a total fool he should keep 1994 in his mind. His life will become significantly harder if one or both houses changes hands in 2010. Of course that is less likely because the Republican party is in ruins. They are descending into infighting between two of the three main factions. Without a clear leader in the opposition Obama can be as left as he wants to be without serious reprecussions. But he has to guard against going too far. America did not change it's ideological bent just because he won the election. It would behove him to remember that if slightly less than 2 million votes had gone against him in FL, NC, VA, OH, and CO (yes it was that close) history would have turned out different. If he goes extreme left it may cost him a second term but it will certainly cost the dems the House of Representatives. He has to think long term. Congress will not, they have only two years to make their case to their home districts for reelection. Therein may be his first conflict. I still predict that the very first thing the 111th Congress does will be to vote itself a pay raise.

Whoever you are.... where ever you are.... you must, MUST see this weeks South Park. Do it. You'll thank me.

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Sir Winston Churchill "At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth...could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years... If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln "Who would fear the wrath of cowards?" -Thomas Paine "If there are no dogs in heaven I do not want to go. When I die, send me wherever they went" -Roy Rogers "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln "There is nothing on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man" -George R.R. Martin

a) Thats a little hard to say since he hasn't even take office yet. But even Obama would have to get up pretty early in the morning to outdo Woodrow Wilson or FDR. Those two are the reigning kings of the expansion of Federal power. b) Not a chance. Even if he wanted to. c) Tell your friend about the 4th Amendment d) Taxes are going up and it will be more than he promised on the campaign but I believe the biggest hits will be capital gains. For seome reason dems love to punish investments. e) Ohhh I hope they take me somewhere warm! That last one is my favorite. I'd bet Pop would like that one to be true. Before you all laugh too much there was a lot of post-election lunacy from some posters on this very board after Bush won in 2004. None of that trash happened either. As for calling him a socialist (something even I might have done) allow me to point out that almost all descriptions are comparative. He is not a text book socialist but compared to other US presidents and candidates he is closer than most.