I like to give people my opinion all the time but on the following issue (which I have expressed my opinion on once before) I’d like to know what you all think about this…
Many of you may have read the Journal Times article of Friday talking about the GOP Budget Compromise: Local GOP legislators ready to deal on budget
But did you get the chance to read the letter to the editor on Saturday from Rep Vos and Rep Gunderson?
GOP firm on taxes
On Saturday The Journal Times ran a story that indicated Republicans were willing to work together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find an answer to the budget stalemate in Madison. While that part of the story is accurate, other aspects didn’t fully reflect our position.
We understand that politics is about give and take. Republicans are willing to sit at the table and negotiate our spending priorities with Democrats as long as it takes. However we will not negotiate on one of our most important principles: our heart-felt belief that tax increases are not the answer to balancing this budget.
Unfortunately some Democrats have already indicated that they will oppose the proposal and insist on their demand for higher taxes.
The proposal that will come before the State Assembly on Tuesday clearly reflects the priorities of our state; strong support for local schools, municipalities and counties while clearly showing our belief that these priorities can be funded without the need for any additional taxes.
While the story also didn’t mention this point, the proposal also sets a maximum property tax increase of 2 percent for 2008 and 2009.
We are committed to finding workable solutions to ensure Wisconsin keeps moving forward and that taxpayers are protected.
State Rep. Robin Vos, R-Caledonia.
State Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford
Now I see that the JT is weighing in on this issue and is siding with Vos and Gunderson.
State GOP pushes budget compromise
What do you think?
Babu: Quiet!! You shut up! You make me change restaurant, but nobody comes! You say make Pakistani, Babu Bhatt have only Pakistani restaurant. But where are people? You see people? Show me people. There are no people!
Jerry: You know, I think I'll just take the check.
Babu: You bad man! You very very bad man! [leaves]
Jerry thinking: Bad man? Could've my mother been wrong?
In case you missed it the country was Pakistan!
I rate this week’s 8 out of 10.
It is time that the Democrats pull their collective head out from there ass and see what is going on in the world.
PR Newswire: Pelosi: President's Policy is a Path to 10 More Years of War in Iraq
AP: Democrat Reid: Iraq plan unacceptable
Reuters: Democratic 2008 contenders bicker over Iraq pullout
If they truly believe that the Iraq policy is wrong then they have the ability to pull the plug…but they won’t do it. They can’t do it.
Democrats could, right now, vote to de-fund the Iraq War and have the troops home by year end. So why wont they do it?
They know that the chaos that would ensue in the Middle East as well as the image of US soldiers turning tail and running would only cause bitter hatred of not only the US abroad but of the Democrat Party here at home.
To make myself perfectly clear…the reason the Democrats will not vote to de-fund the war is because they know that they are wrong.
They know that the ‘Bush-Petreaus Doctrine’ is correct and that given time the Iraqi government and military will be fully functional. They also know that if they were to win in 2008 (I’m highly doubtful that they will) they will have to continue helping the Iraqis and therefore be labeled as a liar or a ‘flip-flopper.’ That is why they want Bush to end it…if they do, they look weak…if they wait until 2008, they won’t end it, so they will look like liars…if they win and they end the war prematurely they will be responsible for the consequences of leaving the vacuum in the Middle East…they would rather blame Bush for that.
In the end it looks like the Democrats are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” 2008 just might be another sweep…with the Democrats on the losing side this time.
September 11Almost everyone remembers where they were on a bright, comfortable Tuesday morning six years ago today, when 19 men dispatched by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and armed with boxcutters brought the reality of jihadist terror to our shores. Five terrorists, one pilot and four "muscle hijackers" (used to subdue passengers) hijacked three planes; American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were flown into the World Trade Center, and American
Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. A fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, carrying four hijackers and apparently headed for the U.S. Capitol, crashed into a hillside in southwestern Pennsylvania after a fierce struggle between the terrorists and heroic passengers who stormed the cockpit.
During a period of less than two-and-a-half hours, ending at 10:28 A.M. when the second World Trade Center tower collapsed, nearly 3,000 Americans and foreign nationals were killed — many dying on impact when the planes crashed. On some of the planes, passengers and flight attendants were stabbed to death; as many as 200 people jumped to their deaths from the top floors of the World Trade Center to escape the infernos raging around them. More than 300 firemen and paramedics died in an effort to rescue people trapped inside the World Trade Center.
Six years later, the images of that horrible day remain etched in our memories: the chilling reports that United Airlines and American Airlines were each missing two planes; the gaping hole where Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and set it on fire; the television pictures of Flights 11 and 175 hitting the World Trade Center and the collapse of both towers; and watching pedestrians near Wall Street running away from a massive cloud of dust from the collapse of Twin Towers. Some of the most sobering sounds from that day were the recorded telephone calls from the brave people on the doomed airliners, passengers describing the hijackings and announcing, on Flight 93, their intentions to die fighting the hijackers for control of the plane.
For a brief period after September 11, Americans were more or less united in their determination to defeat the terrorists who attacked us that morning. But six years later, Americans are deeply divided as to the nature of the threat and the danger it poses to our nation. Many Americans, especially in the Democratic Party and on the political left, believe President Bush is exaggerating the magnitude of the terrorist threat — which is why we have such heated debate over issues such as electronic intercepts of terrorist suspects' conversations, interrogation methods, "secret" CIA prisons, the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay.
It drives his political adversaries wild, but Mr. Bush says that all of these controversial measures help explain why we have not been attacked again since September 11. Within weeks of the attacks, Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, the chief feature of which was breaking down the "wall" instituted by the Clinton administration. That wall made it nearly impossible for intelligence agencies and law enforcement to exchange information in terrorism-related investigations. Since September 11, more than 200 persons have been convicted in U.S. courts on terrorism-related charges, and law enforcement officials say that the legislation has been essential in helping them break up terrorist cells in places such as Virginia, New York, Oregon, Washington and Michigan.
The danger in citing the lack of a subsequent attack on American soil as evidence for the success of administration policies is obvious: An attack could happen at any time, and there is no definitive way to know whether we haven't been hit again because the enemy is taking its time or because we have been much more vigilant for the past six years. It is equally clear that, if America had been hit again, Mr. Bush would bear much of the blame. Whatever the reason, we have been spared the carnage experienced in such places as London, Madrid, Baghdad, Amman and Bali during the past six years. That is why America must remain evermore vigilant.
Number one, I can not believe that the Committee Chairman of Foreign Affairs can’t remember that it was Congress itself, not the President, which asked for a report on the status of the surge. Do they actually believe that an upstanding four star General, who the Senate approved for this post, would actually come before Congress and lie?
Number two, what does this Democrat from California not “buy?”
Does he not “buy” that the number of deaths in Iraq is down?
Does he not “buy” that the numbers of IED’s are down?
Congress is filled with politicians and the military is filled with, you guessed it, military personnel. If there is a war to be waged or if we are looking to find out the status of the war I would look to the military leaders before I would look to the politicians. They are the ones that understand the goings on of the fight.
General Petraeus has done an exemplary job and should be commended not condemned by this Congress. If people like Clinton, Obama, or even Mr. Lantos have an axe to grind with the Bush Administration then they should be man enough to stand up to the administration not to bad mouth a decorated military officer and waste his time sitting in open session listening to these people belittle a report that they have yet to hear.
Here is the Presentation that General Petraeus presented to Congress.
Here is General Petraeus’s report to Congress.
Here is Ambassador Crocker’s report to Congress.
AP: Iran fined $2.65 billion for terrorism
24 years after the bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut a federal judge sided with the victim’s families and fined Iran for sponsoring terrorism.
Iran has tried to push the blame off on Hezbollah, an Islamic militant group.
H/T to my by my brother-in-law, thanks BJ, and the Brussels Journal.
Pro-Hezbollah Group Will Demonstrate in Brussels on 9/11
It was a rather interesting read. The Arab-European League (AEL) is planning to hold a demonstration to counter the Danish-British-German organization SIOE (Stop the Islamisation of Europe) which has been banned from protesting.
The SIOE was to protest outside of European Union Buildings against the introduction of Sharia laws to Europe. The SIOE was told that their protest was a criminal act because it was intended to incite discrimination and hatred and the Socialist Mayor of Brussels, Thielemans, has since banned the protest.
Hmmm, but a group (AEL) that has called for the printing of comics that claim the holocaust did not occur and also held violent protests about a comic that depicted Muhammad has not been banned from protesting…very interesting.
The SIOE has meet with other issues on their road toward keeping religious zealots out of the European government when they decided to appeal Mayor Thielemans ban in court they were delayed while the courts decided which language the court should hear the appeal in. See article here:
Kafka in Brussels: Organizers Anti-Sharia Demo Have to Speak French
On August 29th the appeal ended in short order with the courts siding with the Mayor.
On September 4th the SIOE filed a civil suit against the Mayor hoping that this will put the Mayor into a position to allow them to protest or face monetary implications for banning the protest.
September 5th brought forward even more confusion when the German co-organizer of the SIOE demonstration called the whole think off because of the increasing amount of extremists interested in the demo. The German called the demo off due to security concerns.
This prompted an immediate response from the Danish and British co-organizers who immediately expelled the German from the SIOE group due to his unilateral decision to halt the demo.
So why would I spend the time to post all of this?
When anyone is afraid to stand against a group due to the potential of violence from a small segment of that group we have created a situation that will cause that group to gain more power. As that group gains power it will exert even more pressure to censure those that speak against them creating a never-ending cycle.
This is what we are seeing in areas of high Islamic concentration like the Netherlands. Islam itself is not the problem but the radicals inside the religion and those outside the religion that want to placate them are!
I do not see the SIOE as being the bad guys here. I think that their protest needs to be held just too simply point out that Sharia law is religion not law. If there are violent people at the SIOE they should be prosecuted but their voices should not be squelched any more than those of the AEL.
The country was Slovakia!
The math problem could have been solved one of two ways…the most accurate way is to know what the country was and determine how wide the country was…in this case Slovakia is approximately 263 miles across.
3.5 inches = 263 miles
3.5/3.5 = 263/3.5
1 inch = 75.1 miles
The other way that would be less accurate would be to measure the width of the country as it appeared on the blog. It should have been approximately 0.34 inches and the scale of the map was 1 inch = 780 miles
0.34(1) = 0.34(780)
0.34 inches = 265 miles
if the country was 3.5 inches wide then the scale would have been:
3.5 = 265
3.5/3.5 = 265/3.5
1 inch = 75.7 miles
This week we are going back to the original version of this ‘game.’
I give this country a 7 out of 10.
But in case you are like Justin and think that this is too hard well I’ll help to easy you back into things…the scale is 1:267I don’t know how to feel about this headline:
One Man's genes show DNA is still a mystery
Are they implying something or am I being overly sensitive?
First there was the 1999 Algore quote “I took the initiative in creating the Internet”
Then in 2004 John Kerry said “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”
Now in 2006 we have Bill Richardson saying “Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary.” DesMoinesRegister.com Article: Richardson: God Wants Iowa First
Does Richardson really think that God cares if Iowa is first…please!?!?
Based on a recommendation from Justin I’m changing things up a little this week…we will return to my regularly scheduled format next week.
This week however I am asking that you do some math in addition to determining the country.
The following country is to the same scale that China was a few weeks ago. 1 inch = 780 miles.
Name the Country:
Now for the math:
Knowing the country, if I would have placed it on my blog my traditional way it would have been approximately 3.5 inches long. What would the scale for that map have been? Your accuracy should be to the tenth of a mile.
*****UPDATE******
I nearly forgot...last weeks country was....QATAR!
This week is tough...I give it a 12 out of 10.
Just a few weeks ago it was reported (and justifiably downplayed) that there had been an error in reporting of hottest years on record. At the time it had been reported that 1998 was the hottest followed by 2006. Well an enterprising man (Steve McIntyre) pointed out that the numbers were incorrect and that NASA had made an error. This error put 1934 as the hottest on record followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, and 1931 respectively.
Well just to make sure that that correction has been properly buried the Science Reporter from the AP, Randolph Schmid, ignores the recent data and still reports on an article published by NOAA that ignores the correction and tries to sell the average temperature of 2006 and 1998 as being caused by man.
So I guess that if they ran the same simulations for 1934, 1921, and 1931 they would find that man caused those temperature increases too, right?
This week is a bit harder. I give it a 9 out of 10 only because many of you probably have never even looked at this country.
Good Luck!
I’m not quite sure which spouse will be sleeping on the couch but I’m quite sure that they are not speaking to each other much right now!!!
From The Smoking Gun: Honey, You're Under Arrest
Nevada sheriff's deputy busts his wife (also a cop!) for DUI
You can tell you are a political geek when you look at James Carville and Carl Rove and think that they are pretty cool.
Did anyone catch Rove on either Rush or on Meet the Press?
What did you think of his analysis of Hilary?
Personally I think Rove did what Rove does best…points out the flaws of the opposition in a public setting. This then sets the opposition into a quandary. Do they correct the flaw and thereby admit that it was truly a flaw or do they ignore the flaw and allow the other side to take advantage of the issue?
Rove is genius when it comes to this tactic. Hilary has to now either defend herself against what Rove exposed is her weakness – Health Care – or simply ignore the attack and hope that the Republican contenders don’t beat her up with the topic.
Simply inspired!
This week is easy. 1 out of 10.
H/T to Fred at Real Debate for this one.
Do you see anything wrong with this photo and caption?
Here is the photo:
Here is the caption:
An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more than 200 wounded when four suicide truck bombs targeted people from an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, officials said.
Let me give you a small hint…The modern military has a tendency of shooting ammunition not throwing it!!!
From The Washington Times Editorial:
The hottest year: 1934?
It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record?Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.
The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.
The media coverage amid this confusion has been execrable. Last week's Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine" without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. Naturally, Newsweek is not very interested in the recent data restatement.
Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: "Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years," read its front-page story, "capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday." Funny, but we thought "unprecedented" would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.
Alas, when the source of data that prompted this story, the National Climatic Data Center, adjusted its numbers in May, The Post did not correct its shrieking January story. Nor has The Post yet bothered to report NASA's latest data restatement. Instead, on Friday, we get: "Did Global Warming Cause NYC Tornado?"
If we cannot get through 2007 without a data restatement so fundamental that it dethrones the "hottest year on record," we should not keep hearing angry intonations that "The debate is over." The debate is not over — not if such basic climate data is so disputed.
This is a question that comes up every year when we do the State GOP Resolutions. My answer is ultimately yes they matter a great deal.
Resolutions are the current thoughts of the party. They are a road map for our elected officials to follow based on what we as grass root members would like to see. When you compare the resolutions of both parties you will see the differences.
Kay at Blue Racine was kind enough to supply the link to the Wisconsin Democrat’s 2007 Resolutions that were passed at this year’s state convention.
Now for those of you that know me I just love this type of stuff. I read every one of their resolutions and I believe I will be spending a great deal of time going through them and comparing them to the GOP resolutions.
I think that it is important for people to understand that while the Democrats talk about helping all they really want to do is tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. (You’ll think that is funny once you read resolution 07-FA-07)
Since I want to analyze the resolutions lets start with the most obvious: repeats. The Democrats have a total of 46 resolutions (10 of which were proposed from the floor); there are 2 resolutions on global warming; 2 resolutions on ending the war in Iraq; 6 resolutions to impeach the President and/or Vice President; 2 resolutions to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act; 4 resolutions on Campaign Financing; 6 resolutions claiming support for “universal health care.”
The GOP had zero repeat resolutions. (link)
From the looks of things the Dems just got lazy. They decided that the work needed to review all of the redundancy in the multiple resolutions was just too much and that it was easier to just pass them all. Unfortunately for them if an undecided voter were to read through this (like that would happen for either of the parties resolutions!) they would quickly come to the conclusion that these people have nothing to offer but the beat of the drum.
Last quick note on this will be to look at the number of Democrat resolutions that require taxes to be increased…nearly 50% of them are tax increase resolutions! Remind your friends and family the next time they mention their tax bills!!
I’m sure some of you are waiting for this week’s math problem…well you are going to have to wait until I get an answer to last week’s problem.
Solve for x, y, and z:
3y + 9 = -3x/2
2x – y – 3z = -17
6z – 8x + 4 = 32
I’ll help you a bit:
For one of the equations you will solve for z.
For another equation you will solve for y.
In the last equation you will use substitution.
I have to say that I am not too surprised that the following people are out --
CNN.com: GOP hopeful Tommy Thompson abandons presidential bid
Tommy is a down home folksy type of guy…someone you might like to hang out with around the backyard keg…not really the guy you’d want in the White House! I wish Tommy all the best and still hope that maybe we can convince him to run against Russ Feingold….now that would be a race worth watching!!!!
AP: Karl Rove to resign at end of August
While Mr. Rove is considered “the architect” he has also been a lightning rod. Democrats have made Rove the most hated man in the GOP and I have great respect for the guy because he has not let that disrupt his ultimate job…getting Republicans elected. Unfortunately Republicans and Conservatives don’t see eye to eye on everything as was made abundantly clear in 2006.
Mr. Rove has done his part and now he can sit back and wait for the next big fish. Unfortunately for Mr. Rove the Democrats will see him coming from miles away this time.
Good luck Tommy and Karl.
Just when we were beginning to think that space was going to be the new frontier.
8/2/07 
CBC: Russia plants flag staking claim to Arctic Region
8/9/07
BBC: Canada PM asserts Arctic claims
8/10/07
AP: Denmark maps Arctic Region in claims race
I wonder where the US is in all this mess. Where is our claim to the Arctic? Are we going to allow all these other countries quibble over the region and not get our share? Is this just a shameful ploy by the Russians to create an issue where none exists?
And in case you miss the old space race…China is coming on strong. They first launched a man into space in late 2005 and are setting sites on their first space walk in 2008. Today China has a new claim…
Reuters: China to map "every inch" of moon surface: report
My wife and I attended the State Fair yesterday and had the opportunity to look at both the Democrat and the Republican booths and we noted a couple of unique items related to the straw polls offered by both parties.
First off the Republicans were using the straw poll as a mini fundraiser asking for participants to contribute a quarter for their vote. No one was turned away if they didn’t have a quarter but it was a great idea. We did not note anything like this at the Democrat booth.
The second thing that jumped out at us, and the most startling, was the way the poll was being conducted. Republicans used solid containers to conceal how others had voted, while the Democrat’s used see through containers that exposed the vote for everyone to see. Now this might not seem that strange but when you consider that human nature is to side with a winner the Democrat poll is going to be slanted.
What do you think…should we know how the majority is voting before we vote?
This week’s was hard for me to identify…and I chose it!!
9 out of 10!
Good Luck.
If you were so inclined to look up “decagon, perpendicular, area” on yahoo you could have gone to a website that would have said the following:
3. Given the apothem (inradius)
If you know the apothem, or inradius, (the perpendicular distance from center to a side. See figure above)where
A is the length of the apothem (inradius)
N is the number of sides
TAN is the tangent function calculated in radians (see Trigonometry Overview).
Area = (14^2)(10)tan(3.1415/10) = (196*10)tan(0.314) = (1960)(.325) = 637 (approximately due to rounding)
The alternative is based on what steveegg was hinting at:
All of the angles in a regular decagon are equal to 144 degrees. If we draw a line from the center of the decagon to a vertex you will bisect the angle forming two 72 degree angles and a triangle. We can compute the area of the triangle using the following equation:
Area (triangle) = ½ base * height
We know the height and we can compute the base since we know the measurement of the interior angles using the following:
Tan (of interior angle) = opposite/adjacent
Or tan (72) = 14/?
? = 14/tan(72) = 14/3.1 = 4.5
Then using the area formula for a triangle:
Area (triangle) = ½ (4.5) (14) = 31.5
Since the decagon can be divided into 20 of these triangles the area of the triangle is multiplied by 20 and you get an approximate area of 630.
Now tell me that wasn’t fun! I know I’m a geek!
This week we will take a small step backward.
Solve for x, y, and z:
3y + 9 = -3x/2
2x – y – 3z = -17
6z – 8x + 4 = 32
If I hear one more liberal jump on the band wagon trying to pin the terrible event that occurred last week in Minnesota on Republicans I’m going to really hurt someone!
Here are the facts that most liberals don’t want to face:
- In our $2.7 tillion Federal Budget we spend only 1.7% on Highways and Mass Transit
- We spend 20.5% on Social Security – in case you were wondering that would be an entitlement program!
- 12.7% on Medicare – or in other words socialized healthcare for the retired
- 7.1% on Medicaid – or socialized healthcare for the poor
So we spend approximately $1,090,061,000,000 on Social Welfare programs but only $45,783,000,000 on Highways and Mass Transit. If you can’t do the math, that means we spend nearly 24 times as much on social programs than we do on our basic infrastructure!
Based on this can we now say that Johnson’s “great society” is dead? How much longer are we going to allow the liberals to milk the society while the walls crumble?
I was on another site today and I noticed that there are still a lot of people out there that would love to see term limits placed on Congressman. This is an issue that is debated as a resolution every year for the GOP.
I for one believe that there are term limits in place already…they are called elections. Every 2 years for your Representative and every 6 years for our Senators we have to head to the polling place to cast our votes for these people. If you believe that the elected official is a bum then you really have to work hard to oust that person from their seat. It can be done. Incumbency is not a guarantee for reelection but it is definitely an advantage.
Placing term limits on legislators I believe is redundant. They are one of many, meaning that their vote does not count more just because they have been there for 2 dozen years. A Freshman Senator’s vote counts as 1 out of 100 just like Ted Kennedy’s.
Arguments for Executive offices’ can be made and I usually agree with those.
In a time when it is hard to find good Congressman why would we want to put in place a system that would only ensure that there is fresh blood in the seat every so many years versus ensuring that we vote for and elect good quality candidates.
This week’s I rate a 5 out of 10.
If you have a right triangle and you know the length of 2 of the sides you can figure out the length of the remaining side by using the Pythagorean Theorem.
a^2 + b^2 = c^2 (where c is the hypotenuse – the side across from the right angle)
Everyone got it right…the answer was 5. (if you’d like to see the work check out stevegg’s comments here.)
Compute the area of the following:
In case you missed it last night, Glenn Beck had State Senator Erpenbach on to defend the HUGE tax increase to those in Wisconsin. You can find the entire transcript here but these are some of my favorite parts:
GLENN BECK: I apologize to the people in Wisconsin, but believe it or not, I actually hope this passes, because, by bankrupting your state, it may be the best chance we have to prevent the other 49 states from making the same ludicrous and disastrous decision.You didn’t misread…Erpenbach actually called this $15.2 BILLION tax increase a tax cut!!
Jon Erpenbach is a Wisconsin state senator who supports the proposal. Hello, Senator, how are you, sir?
JON ERPENBACH, WISCONSIN STATE SENATOR: Hi, Glenn.
BECK: You`re going to convince me this is a state tax cut?
ERPENBACH: Well, it is. It actually is a tax cut. Glenn, listen to me.
BECK: Your taxes for a family will be about 20 percent of your family income, 20 percent, and that`s for the state. That`s higher than the federal in most cases.
ERPENBACH: Glenn, you can`t take the entire state budget and everything else, with the tobacco tax, and lump it all together with Healthy Wisconsin.
BECK: Oh, of course not.
ERPENBACH: You have to look at it separately.
BECK: Of course you do. That way you don`t realize that you`re paying 20 percent to the state.
…
BECK: I have 30 seconds. Let me just ask you this. Illegal aliens are going to get health care. If you have a company that is paying these people off of the books and they get health care, will you prosecute the companies for paying people off the books?
ERPENBACH: Well, I would hope that a company isn`t doing anything illegal in the state of Wisconsin...
BECK: Hope...
(CROSSTALK)
ERPENBACH: At the very least, if you`re an illegal alien and you have a job, you`re going to be paying for your own health care, just like I am.
BECK: I guess that`s a no. Thank you very much. That`s the "Real Story" tonight.
So remember folks when you are talking about this $15.2 BILLION TAX INCREASE point out to people that the State Democrats actually think this is a tax cut!!!
Here is the link to The Smoking Gun story: Dear Piece of Trash:
On GreenBayPressGazette.com you will find the following column: 'Madison Math': Make sure a cut is a cut written by State Representative Karl Van Roy (R – Hudson.)
The following analogy is great and I for one am going to use it everyday!
If you ask your boss for a $3 an hour raise and he agrees to give you $1, is it fair to tell your friends and relatives your boss just stuck it to you and gave you a $2 an hour pay cut?
He finishes the though by adding:
Telling people you were cut something that you never had in the first place is the scam of "Madison Math." It's not just misleading; it's dishonest. (emphasis added by gopfolk)
AP: Atlantic tropical storms have doubled
There are a group of researchers actually saying that there is a noticeable change in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes seen in the Atlantic in the last 100 years and that the “increase” in these storms is largely blamed on “man-made” global warming.
For those of you that actually pay attention to this issue it is worth noting that former IPCC hurricane scientist and current Science and Operations Officer for NOAA’s Hurricane Center, Chris Lansea, has labeled this research as “sloppy science” pointing out that “The doubling in the number of storms and hurricanes in 100 years that they found in their paper is just an artifact of technology, not climate change.”
Let us be really honest here, do you actually believe that we were able to see, and count, every tropical storm and hurricane in the Atlantic before that advent of satellite technology? There are a few of the blind “consensus” scientists saying that aircraft flights were enough to detect the storms back in the day…but those didn’t even begin until the 1940’s and surprise, surprise when these flights began to take place more storms were detected!
The Atlantic covers 1/5 of the Earth’s surface and is 41 million square miles…do you really think that planes could have detected all of the storms in the ocean? Enter into the picture satellites…and amazingly enough we detect even more storms!
May be these “scientists” should write a more realistic paper titled: Technology brings about more devastating storms to the world. At least their conclusions could be supported by their data!
From today’s Investor’s Business Daily Opinion section:
Posted 7/25/2007
Global Warming: A private firm's downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?
A reasonable response is: They can't. But the global warming climate of fear did not blow in on the soft breezes of reason, but by the storm winds of emotion.
Forecaster WSI Corp. said Tuesday that the season ending Nov. 30 will bring 14 named storms, six of which will grow into hurricanes, three of them major. WSI's initial forecast was for 15 named storms, eight hurricanes and four majors.
Why the change? "Because," said WSI forecaster Todd Crawford, "ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring."
Could it be that the 2007 hurricane season is turning out to be as overrated as 2006? Remember last year's predictions — that we were in for a brutal spell of storms? It had been quiet, they said, and we were due for a series of Katrina-like hurricanes. But as we wrote last November, as the much-dreaded '06 season whimpered to a close, the storm year came in like a lamb and went out the same way.
For years, the Greenshirts have told us that emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from man's addiction to fossil fuel-based energy are turning the planet into a sweltering hothouse. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change has projected a temperature increase of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit for the 21st century due to the greenhouse effect.
As a result, alarmists say, ice caps will melt, glaciers will thaw and sea levels will rise as much as 20 feet, causing floods and death in low-lying areas. Storms are also predicted to increase in both frequency and intensity.
To prevent this coming Category 5 cataclysm, we're supposed to shell out trillions of dollars and gladly adopt Spartan lifestyles. Instead of trying, as their grandparents did, to see how many bodies they can squeeze into a telephone booth, today's college kids are expected to see how many they can get in a Prius.
Yet the fact remains: The local weatherman can't forecast more than about 10 days out, and neither can the experts tell us how warm, or cool, the planet is going to be in 2100, 2075 or
even 2050.Even short-term predictions have been off. James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a 0.45-degree Celsius (0.81-degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature from 1988 to 1997. But in reality (a place environmental activists rarely visit) the increase was a mere 0.11-degree Celsius.
We hope no one in Hansen's neighborhood relies on him to tell them when it's going to rain or when they'll need a coat and hat.
Setting aside the hubristic notion that alarmists know what the right temperature is, too many other factors besides the greenhouse effect influence climate for them to declare they know exactly, or even approximately, what's coming. Solar activity, for instance, is among the most powerful, as are the El Nino and La Nina phenomena.
We also question the concept of a "global" temperature. How could such a thing be measured when weather stations dot rather than blanket the Earth? Danish physicist Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen, made sense earlier this year when he said it's "impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.
"A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system (and) climate is not governed by a single temperature," he said. "Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. , which make up the climate."
The formula for a climate of fear, though, requires nothing more than a lot of thunder and a bit of heat generated by political activists.
A headline I saw today on Drudge intrigued me: NOAA: Vegas Temps Down Since 1940’s. But the title is erroneous. If you click on the link you will see the following chart:
This is for the Average Maximum temperature by decade! As you can see there has been a decline in the Average Maximum but the headline was incorrect. It said the Vegas Temps Down Since 1940’s and this is not a factual statement.
If we look at the Average Minimum temperature by decade we see that there has been an increase during the same time:
Here is the Average Temperature by decade…it has increased 3 degrees since the 1940’s:
I am all for trying to debunk the "man-made" global warming nuts out there but using misleading data is just stooping to their level!
grumps came up with the right country - Bolivia!
This week there can be no complaining about the rating of the country since I can not make it any easier than a 1.
1 out of 10.
Last week I think I tripped a few of you up…Congrats to still unreal for getting the right answers.
sin θ = Opposite over Hypotenuse = Y/X
cos θ = Adjacent over Hypotenuse = Z/X
tan θ = Opposite over Adjacent = Y/Z
csc θ = 1/Opposite over Hypotenuse = 1/(Y/X) = X/Y
sec θ = 1/Adjacent over Hypotenuse = 1/(Z/X) = X/Z
cot θ = 1/Opposite over Adjacent = 1/(Y/Z) = Z/Y
This week we will use the same “lopsided” triangle and solve for Z (and before someone points it out) the triangle is NOT to scale!
There are just days or in some cases weeks where there is little that I want write about because I just want to scream about everything. Here are the foot notes of what’s going on in my head:
AP: Judge: Sudan owes USS Cole families $8M – WHAT?!?! These 17 families are only worth $8 million...The Sudan should pay far more for supporting terrorism.
AP: Doc won't face charges in Katrina deaths – Hope that the law suits against her also fail…she did nothing wrong!
AP: N.M. works on rodent recovery plan – Only in America would we put the lives of rodents above progress.
AP: Study: Rising temperatures pose danger – See!! Global warming can be blamed on the Indians!!!
Reuters: Forecaster cuts 2007 hurricane outlook - HA!!!! Now there is a real surprise!!! How many years does that make now? If we can’t predict the weather of a small portion of the world, how do you think we can predict the climate of the entire plant?
Reuters: Your plant just called to say ... I'm thirsty! - Just think you used to have to put your finger in the soil to tell if the plant needed watering?!?! I love technology but is this a little too far?
Press Release: Moore Statement on Today’s Minimum Wage Increase - Is she really that dumb to think that there are that many people working minimum wage jobs? Does she understand the financial repercussions this is going to have in the job market here in Wisconsin?!?!
Press Release: Lt. Governor Lawton to Take Lead on Climate Change, Energy Independence - {spit take} 60-80% reduction of CO2 emissions below 1990 levels…I have a quick solution…don’t send her to this stupid meeting…fewer politicians speaking means lower CO2 levels!! And where the hell is the energy independence?? I guess if we are living in huts, using candles, and driving horse drawn carriages again we would be independent again…Note to self buy all stock in buggy whips…they might be coming back!!!!
Kay’s Blue Racine: Politics 101 – “You can't trust people just because they say they're democrats” - Personally I think she should have wrote “you can’t trust people IF they say they’re democrats.”
To all you political geeks out there…I have to admit that I am one…I saw an interesting article last night on Fox 6 news discussing Fantasy Congress.
I’m sure some of you are already participating in it but for those that are not I’d like to introduce you to the game.
- Go to www.fantasycongress.com
- Sign up
- Join a league (mine if you’d like!)
- Draft your team of Congressmen
- Play the game!!
It’s just that easy!!!
I have set up a private league and any of you wishing to join are welcome.
The League name is: The Right Opinion
Password is: myopinion
I attended a meeting yesterday in Kenosha staring Senators Erpenbach, Wirch, and Lehman for the purposes of having them tell us why this plan is so good. To be honest they didn’t tell the audience anything new.
Their plan is a payroll tax plan that will take 4% of an employee’s paycheck and send it to the State of Wisconsin. The employer is MADATED to pay 10.5% of an employee’s paycheck to the State of Wisconsin. You have no choice but to participate, this is MANDITORY for all “gainfully employed” Wisconsinites.
They repeatedly stated that is was “not an optional plan” that one could opt out of. In Wisconsin you will only have one choice for health care and that is the State of Wisconsin’s Healthy Wisconsin plan. Sure you can buy additional insurance over and above the plan but the State plan is first.
They believe that this plan provides “personal responsibility.” I don’t see how mandating anything shows personal responsibility. They said that this program (which they later say is “not a government program”) makes sure that people “pay their fair share” when it comes to health care. Um, 93% of Wisconsinites already have health care; this isn’t needed for us because we are already paying our share. They said it’s the “right thing to do.” While I believe that we need to look closer at health care, I do not think that having the government mandate a program to all is the right action to take!
I asked a simple question: “Tell me if I’ve got this right, the State of Wisconsin is going to MANDATE that all gainfully employed Wisconsinites must pay into this system and use it but that this is “not a government program”?”
“Yes, that’s correct,” was the response.
I’m very sorry but anyone that believes that the government “mandating” anything provides “personal responsibility” and is “not a government program” has been in the sun too long.
I go by the old adage if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck.
In this case, if it looks like a government program and acts like a government program, then it is going to cost far more than anyone has estimated and will be as helpful as a trip to the DMV.
This week we are keeping things difficult…9 out of 10…Next week will be too easy.
JT: GOP Assembly budget is disastrous for Racine by State Sen. John Lehman D-Racine
Senator, how would you describe your budget? You know, the one in which you burden the poorest in our state with monstrous taxes including the cigarette and gasoline tax and deny poor children in our community a chance at a better education. You sir, are “heartless.”
You and your Democrat friends worked tirelessly to bring socialized medicine and the enormous cost of the plan to a state that is not in need of it and at the same time exempting your friends at WEAC. That sir is “irresponsible.”
You demonize the Republicans for not supporting KRM, which you claim has broad support, but you do not support a referendum that would determine if such broad support actually exists among the citizens of Racine. That is a “blatant attack” on the taxpayers of Racine.
Senator, I suggest that before you start calling names like a child that you take a look inside and truly decide if this is really the way you wish to legislate. If it is, I suggest you get ready to lose your Senate seat.
x^2 + x – 2 = 0
(x + 2)(x – 1) = 0
x + 2 = 0 and x – 1 = 0
x = -2 and x = 1
Or using the quadratic formula (that I’m sure you all remember)
if ax 2 + bx + c = 0 then
x = ( -b±√(b^2 - 4ac))/ 2a
x = (-1 ±√(1^2 – 4*1*-2))/2*1
x = (-1 ±√(1 – (-8)))/2
x = (-1 ±√9)/2
x = (-1 ± 3)/2
x = 2/2 = 1 and x = -4/2 = -2
So here is your next challenge:
sin θ = ?
cos θ = ?
tan θ = ?
csc θ = ?
sec θ = ?
cot θ = ?
Please welcome Former State Senator Cathy Stepp to the blog-o-sphere!
Cathy will be posting occasionally on RealDebateWisconsin, so be sure to check her out!!
Here is her first post: My Maiden Voyage
Good Luck Cathy!!
I’m sure most of us are not surprised to hear that Jim Gilmore is out of the race for the presidency, but for some I think they are surprised to hear that he was even in the race.
AP: Gilmore 1st major candidate to drop out
Gilmore was a long shot to be sure but at least he is a conservative…I’m wondering how long it will be before Giuliani and McCain drop out?
H/T to Denis Navratil of Free Racine for the following blog:
On Gender Disparities in the Justice System
Well it seems that some don't like my suggestion that racial disparites in the jail population may be caused by increased criminal activity among black people. So I will apply their thinking to the problem of gender disparities in the criminal justice system.
Of course it is common knowledge that our jails are mostly filled with males. Why are there so many men in jail relative to women? It must be sexism right? Or institutional gender bias? Or is it those all female juries? Or is it gender profiling? Why do our mostly male police officers prefer to arrest other men? Could it be that they are acting out their homoerotic fantasies by wrestling other men to the ground and handcuffing them?
As a man, I think we should take a serious look at this problem. Perhaps Governor Doyle can commission a study on the subject. After all, the gender disparity in the criminal justice system is far greater than the racial disparity.
Well said Denis! Maybe people will take your comments about racial disparities to heart now that you have put the argument into context.
This week is a bit harder….6 out of 10.
Congrats to caledonia unplugged who got last weeks Math problem correct!!
0.59375 as a fraction is 19/32.
This week’s is all about algebra.
Solve for x…and show your work! ;^)
x^2 + x – 2 = 0
(hint: the carrot (^) between the x and the 2 means “raised to” or in other words “x^2” means “x squared.”)
… you all feel it right? That looming behemoth of taxes just waiting to be dropped right on out heads is still out there.
I’ve read over the Assembly’s budget and if I knew that the final budget was going to be anywhere close to this I would be happy but the reality is we are in for a HUGE tax increase and unfortunately there is very little the Republicans can do about it.
Republicans are already being painted as though they took a machete to the budget…just look at these headlines:
Racine JT: Bad news for Racine: Local legislator decries GOP Assembly budget proposal
Wisconsin State Journal: Budget would cut from UW System
Or how about these quotes:
Rep. Colon: “Instead they have protected the interests of big oil companies and big tobacco companies.”
Sen. Robson: “Assembly Republicans are on the verge of passing the most fiscally irresponsible, morally reprehensible budget to come out of Madison in some time.”
Rep. Kreuser: “Worst of all, despite deep cuts to nearly every important state priority, the GOP budget fails to offer any meaningful tax relief to middle class families beyond what was proposed by Governor Doyle.”
Here is the best part…the budget proposed by the Republicans is basically a net zero budget. What this means is that while they are adding certain items, such as expanded school choice, they are cutting in other areas to compensate for it. This is how people handle their own budgets at home why should our legislators be any different? The Democrats are screaming now but in the end (once the compromise committee meets) they will get a portion of their tax increase that they are looking for.
I hope that the Republicans stick to their guns and hold to this budget…not only today but through the committee review that is still to come.
Good luck guys and gals!
As I have stated time and again, science is about research and knowledge, not consensus.
From Reuters: Scientists Find Clues to Ice Cap Longevity: Study
It appears that scientists who are looking at the ice caps around Greenland have noted that their previous theory related to free ice flow in the region was off by about 330,000 years! This finding shows just how resilient the ice caps really are.
What has now been determined is that the models that show rising ocean levels may not be as bad due to a faulty assumption of the Greenland ice sheet.
To all my conservative friends: This does not negate the possibility that rising global temperatures could melt this ice cap only that prior history shows that this cap is very stable and able to take temperature variations much better than previously thought.
To all my liberal friends: Consensus is not science. Science is made up of people testing theories and hypothesis. Looking at an isolated bit of data and extrapolating it out is not scientifically sound. The use of computer models are only as good as the data that is placed into it and therefore can not be relied upon if all relevant data is not considered.
In the end this is just another setback for the “man-made-global-warming” crowd.
This week I give it a 2 out of 10.
On this day we must remember those who have gone 
before, those that fight for freedom now and those who will be called to service in the future. Our Nation is strong but only because a few of its citizens are willing to risk their lives to ensure the tranquility and freedoms that we all take for granted.
I’d like to say thank you to all who have served. We can never repay you for what you have done.
On this day our founding fathers signed a simple piece of paper which has been the backbone of this county for over 200 years.
May god continue to watch over this great country and bless us with continued prosperity well into the future.
Here is the Declaration of Independence:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
You know just when you think that you have a good line on the environmentalist wackos they surprise you with something new.
In today’s Sydney Morning Herald you can find this article: Human greed takes lion's share of solar energy
I’m hoping that this is some sort of joke but when you see claims like “reducing the amount of energy available to them (other species) by almost 10 per cent, scientists report” you do start to worry that these people are being serious.
So I guess we should stop farming…it’s the only environmental thing to do.
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) released its 2006 Congressional ratings on Thursday June 28th and here are how our legislators stacked up:
The Senate rankings were based on 21 pieces of legislation.
Feingold rated a 43% (Lukewarm to taxpayers); while Kohl received 19% (Hostile toward taxpayers.)
The House rankings were based on 44 pieces of legislation:
Baldwin 0% (Obviously lowest score in the house – Hostile toward taxpayers);
Green 86% (Taxpayer Hero – Why isn’t he Governor?!?!);
Kind 9% (Hostile toward taxpayers);
Moore 5% (Hostile toward taxpayers);
Obey 5% (Hostile toward taxpayers);
Petri 86% (Taxpayer Hero);
Ryan 98% (Taxpayer Hero);
Sensenbrenner 95% (Taxpayer Hero)
This gives our overall delegation an average score of 44.6% which is classified as lukewarm to taxpayers.
CCAGW also took a look at what the average Democrat/Republican in the House and Senate looked like and here is how we stacked up:
Average Senate Democrat was 15% our average was 31%...I guess we own a small thank you to Feingold for not being as bad as the rest of the Senate Democrats.
Average House Democrats rated only 9%...but our House Democrats averaged 4.75%!!! How pathetic is that!?!?
Average House Republicans rated a 46% (terrible!) but our House Republicans averaged 91.25%!!! Thank you Green, Ryan, Petri, and Sensenbrenner for your efforts to keep waste out of our government and for being a true friend to taxpayers.
For more information on CCAGW please visit them at www.cagw.org.
Last week I asked you to show me the factors of 20 and for extra credit show the prime factors of 20…jdopierala got it right. Factors of 20 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, & 20. Prime factors are prime numbers that when multiplied together you get the resulting number 2*2*5 = 20
This week I’m still taking it easy on you.
Please convert the following to a fraction: 0.59375
