Officer: Were you the only one with the baby at the time?
Accused: Yes.
Officer(to doctor or doctors): Are these injuries consistent with an accident(s)?
Doctor(s): No.
Officer(to the accused): Ma'am/sir, if you would, step to this spot right here (trap door) while I place this noose around your neck, please. Thank you.
snap!
Officer(to doctor): You may use his/her organs for transplants.
--
Taxpayer money saved.
Society cleansed of a lowest common denominator.
People in need of a new organ saved.
====
UPDATE: Woman charged with injuring a 7-month-old baby
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA092806.childinjured.en.25359976.html
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
How I See It
I read a couple articles and looked at a couple polls this morning before going running. I also saw a bit of a campaign appearance by Tester, who holds an outside-the-margin-of-error lead in his race to unseat Burns in Montana. When this heavy-set man with a flat top said "I'm one of you", I believed it, and I'm guessing most in the audience did, too. Santorum also seems to be a goner. I held out hope for him as recently as a week ago, but I just don't think it's going to happen. With a little more than a month to go, barring the proverbial gaffe, unforeseen event or startling revelation, I think the GOP should prepare to lose two seats for sure (Nominally, three, if you count Rhode Island. But I say 'good riddance' to Chaffee, and shame on the GOP for running so hard against the more conservative Laffey in the primary.)
Then there is Ohio and Missouri. While Brown's lead on DeWine is less than half of Casey's on Santorum, Ohio's reported climate for republicans makes that seat look like a decent bet to change hands, and to an avowed hard-left liberal, no less. The true remaining toss-up I think is Missouri. Talent has less than a percentage point lead (www.realclearpolitics.com) over McCaskill, but I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled that one off.
The only possible GOP pickup looks to be in New Jersey, and look what it takes to accomplish that! I think Kean is benefiting from those folks' weariness for all that voting democratic has brought them. Hopes look to be dimming, if only slightly, for McGavick in Washington, Kennedy in Minnesota and Steele in Maryland (I have more hope for the latter than either of the former.) Right now, I'm thinking the Senate will look like this in January: 52R, 46D, 2I. (My gut also tells me the GOP will hold the House. What kind of defeat/victory the right/left will see that as remains to be seen.)
Then there is Ohio and Missouri. While Brown's lead on DeWine is less than half of Casey's on Santorum, Ohio's reported climate for republicans makes that seat look like a decent bet to change hands, and to an avowed hard-left liberal, no less. The true remaining toss-up I think is Missouri. Talent has less than a percentage point lead (www.realclearpolitics.com) over McCaskill, but I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled that one off.
The only possible GOP pickup looks to be in New Jersey, and look what it takes to accomplish that! I think Kean is benefiting from those folks' weariness for all that voting democratic has brought them. Hopes look to be dimming, if only slightly, for McGavick in Washington, Kennedy in Minnesota and Steele in Maryland (I have more hope for the latter than either of the former.) Right now, I'm thinking the Senate will look like this in January: 52R, 46D, 2I. (My gut also tells me the GOP will hold the House. What kind of defeat/victory the right/left will see that as remains to be seen.)
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Good move, Mr. Daley
"In vetoing the ordinance, Mayor Daley cited a potential loss of jobs. In recent weeks, several big retailers had written to his office to oppose the ordinance. "I understand and share a desire to ensure that everyone who works in the city of Chicago earns a decent wage," the mayor wrote to the aldermen yesterday. "But I do not believe that this ordinance, well intentioned as it may be, would achieve that end. Rather, I believe that it would drive jobs and business from our city."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115799249720159515.html?mod=us_business_whats_news
I love how this Wal-Mart vs. Chicago City Council affair is unfolding. It's unfortunate, however, that, as usual, the ones who liberal public policymakers claim to stand for are the ones that end up being hurt. The same goes for school choice, vouchers. One of these days, Democrats are going to wake up and realize that the only supporters they have left are unions. By 'only', I mean just union members. But by then, unions might not exist due to right-to-work-friendly public bodies. This is a free country. Firms can set up shop anywhere they want. By passing legislations/ordinances mandating certain pay and benefit levels, the likes of Chicago and Maryland are saying they do not want for their citizens the consumer surplus that comes with low-priced goods, not to mention employment. So, thanks to such public representatives, the economic gap between life in the city and life in the suburbs widens. It's not as if Wal-Mart does not already pay such wages as those being mandated, and offer certain benefits. They do. But, they apparently do not wish to expand into areas where they would be overregulated and instructed how to conduct their own business. Their bottom line and growth over the years has conveyed to them that they must be doing something right.
This is what gives me pause when considering employment in such municipalities. One of these days, people will wake up and realize that voting for liberals/Democrats is against their own interests (save, of course, for trial lawyers, union members, etc.).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115799249720159515.html?mod=us_business_whats_news
I love how this Wal-Mart vs. Chicago City Council affair is unfolding. It's unfortunate, however, that, as usual, the ones who liberal public policymakers claim to stand for are the ones that end up being hurt. The same goes for school choice, vouchers. One of these days, Democrats are going to wake up and realize that the only supporters they have left are unions. By 'only', I mean just union members. But by then, unions might not exist due to right-to-work-friendly public bodies. This is a free country. Firms can set up shop anywhere they want. By passing legislations/ordinances mandating certain pay and benefit levels, the likes of Chicago and Maryland are saying they do not want for their citizens the consumer surplus that comes with low-priced goods, not to mention employment. So, thanks to such public representatives, the economic gap between life in the city and life in the suburbs widens. It's not as if Wal-Mart does not already pay such wages as those being mandated, and offer certain benefits. They do. But, they apparently do not wish to expand into areas where they would be overregulated and instructed how to conduct their own business. Their bottom line and growth over the years has conveyed to them that they must be doing something right.
This is what gives me pause when considering employment in such municipalities. One of these days, people will wake up and realize that voting for liberals/Democrats is against their own interests (save, of course, for trial lawyers, union members, etc.).
Monday, September 04, 2006
Nothing Should Be Free
"A reported 30 million Americans — one in four workers — make less than $8.70 an hour, which is not enough to lift an American family of four out of poverty.
"These days, productivity is high, unemployment is low and 30 million Americans can't keep their heads above water."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/vlanda/stories/
MYSA090406.2O.landa.2122d8f.html
Harold Meyerson wrote something similar last week for the American Prospect and the Washington Post, although his was much sappier and bitter.
During the debate to raise the minimum wage recently, it was reported that the number of minimum wage-earners who support a family was less than 10%. No doubt there is some overlap between that figure and the 30 million who make less than $8.70/hour. Most who make that much are not the primary breadwinners in the family. They are more likely the stay-at-home spouse looking for a little extra income, the senior citizen looking to supplement retirement savings or the teenager living at home working his/her first job. Incidentally, the latter represents the worker who is most hurt by the minimum wage. As long as an employer has to pay a government-mandated wage, he/she may as well hire someone with more work experience thereby depriving the inexperienced teen the chance to ascend that first rung on the work ladder up.
Despite the >10% figure, it should be said that it's on the provider(s) of the household to do better. We live in a country where education is the key to getting ahead. (Thanks to anti-choice teachers' unions, that's even hard to get for some.) And that's not a bad thing. It's a fact of life. I knew working for and supporting myself on approximately double the minimum wage (before it was raised the last time) wasn't going to cut it, so I did something about it. The government, whether local, state or federal, only hurts people when it sets such a wage floor. Not only does it price people out of the labor market, it encourages those who are hired at that wage to park their lives there.
Incidentally, the reason why the minimum wage failed recently was that Democrats insisted on sticking it to people who worked hard enough to attain a sizable estate. They want to help and improve the lives of the poor, but when they earn too much, they want to confiscate more than half of it when you die.
"These days, productivity is high, unemployment is low and 30 million Americans can't keep their heads above water."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/vlanda/stories/
MYSA090406.2O.landa.2122d8f.html
Harold Meyerson wrote something similar last week for the American Prospect and the Washington Post, although his was much sappier and bitter.
During the debate to raise the minimum wage recently, it was reported that the number of minimum wage-earners who support a family was less than 10%. No doubt there is some overlap between that figure and the 30 million who make less than $8.70/hour. Most who make that much are not the primary breadwinners in the family. They are more likely the stay-at-home spouse looking for a little extra income, the senior citizen looking to supplement retirement savings or the teenager living at home working his/her first job. Incidentally, the latter represents the worker who is most hurt by the minimum wage. As long as an employer has to pay a government-mandated wage, he/she may as well hire someone with more work experience thereby depriving the inexperienced teen the chance to ascend that first rung on the work ladder up.
Despite the >10% figure, it should be said that it's on the provider(s) of the household to do better. We live in a country where education is the key to getting ahead. (Thanks to anti-choice teachers' unions, that's even hard to get for some.) And that's not a bad thing. It's a fact of life. I knew working for and supporting myself on approximately double the minimum wage (before it was raised the last time) wasn't going to cut it, so I did something about it. The government, whether local, state or federal, only hurts people when it sets such a wage floor. Not only does it price people out of the labor market, it encourages those who are hired at that wage to park their lives there.
Incidentally, the reason why the minimum wage failed recently was that Democrats insisted on sticking it to people who worked hard enough to attain a sizable estate. They want to help and improve the lives of the poor, but when they earn too much, they want to confiscate more than half of it when you die.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Bizarro
"Obesity is now the chief nutritional woe facing America’s poor."
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7853537&fsrc=nwl (sub req)
Is it just me, or is that a little ironic? I has always fascinated me how homeless people can be fat. Doesn't that indicate that, of the things they are not getting enough, food isn't one of them?
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7853537&fsrc=nwl (sub req)
Is it just me, or is that a little ironic? I has always fascinated me how homeless people can be fat. Doesn't that indicate that, of the things they are not getting enough, food isn't one of them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)