since I posted. For some reason I've been getting up *early* like 4 am... of course it could be due to going to sleep around 9 pm!
This really pisses me off: Judge orders lesbian Air Force nurse reinstated.
Of course the ACLU is pushing this one. Sorry, you go into the military you cannot do as you like. They own you. You don't have the rights you did as a civlian. And this is against the UCMJ. You can't just pick and choose which laws out of it you will follow. This judge way overstepped his bounds. Judge Ronald Leighton of Tacoma, Washington, made his ruling Friday.
This guy is another Bush appointee. Think he was truly a conservative still? The judged ruled that it violated her due process rights and 5th amendment rights. This woman joined the Air Force in 97 and when her relationship with a woman was discovered, she was suspended in 04. This idiot judge ignores military law & says "there was no good reason for her dismissal". BAH. there are rules against this in the military. I guess next some bunko judge is going to rule for an officer fraternizing with an enlisted person.
They might be "exemplary officers/enlisted" however you cannot do whatever the heck you want and remain in the military. Hmm...5th amendment rights.. perhaps someone on a urinalysis could claim their 5th amendment rights were violated as their urine testified against themselves (i.e. they're druggies). BAH!
Speaking of druggies, there was news from Fox 2 up in Detroit about a gaggle of GM employees boozing it up and smoking pot during their lunch break:
We are having an enchilada dinner fundraiser for AWANA tomorrow at church so I have to make 2 or 3 pots of beans today - and tomorrow is Round-up Sunday...where we 'round up' those who haven't been to church in a while or those who show up faithfully - twice a year, Christmas and Easter.
Oh just remembered - I was reading a Thomas Sowell series of posts over at Human Events - titled "The Money of Fools". Here is the first part, Part II, Part III, Part IV.
I found this part most enlightening:
Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are "the rich" and "the poor." When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing "the rich," they are not even talking about people's wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people's incomes, not their wealth.
If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.
By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.
Similarly, most of the people who are called "the poor" are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of "the rich." Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.
The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.
How true this is! If you've never enjoyed one of Thomas Sowell's books before, trot on over to Amazon, and get crackin! Have a great Saturday!
1 week ago