Free Republic

>> "We want to get more of that money back...."

I have to wonder why so much of the money is gleefully sent to Washington in the first place. If each state were to receive its "equitable" share back, they couldn't expect to receive even 75 cents on the dollar. Every dollar that goes to Washington gets handling costs stripped out of it before anything else happens to it -- the agency receiving the funds has to pay some clerks to open the mail, just for starters. Then there's the office rent, the office furnishings, office supplies, staff, and etc. -- and we haven't even mentioned the government program yet that this is supposed to fund. It is only the fractional remainder of each of those dollars that is then available for redistribution back to the states. Think how much highway could be built with the dollars that go to fund just the federal highway administration.

It is said that hind-sight is always 20/20. I wonder how best to characterize "Heinz-sight"???

Cheney has expressed that he has no intention of running for president, but I wonder if he would consider another VP hitch. What would be the chances for a Giuliani/Cheney slate for 2008?

You know, it occurs to me that with all this intensive polling going on, the media must be wondering why we continue to bother with actually holding elections. Apparently, the media still seems to think that the 2000 elections simply thwarted the Nation's "true choice".

Sorry if I'm being obtuse here, but...

The headline says, "Eli Lilly to Eliminate Up to 575 U.S. Jobs" which suggests to me that up to 575 people will be out of work. The second paragraph says, "...the affected employees will be offered other jobs within the company," which suggests (to me, at least) that these people will NOT be out of work.

Unless there is something else to this story, I don't see cause for any alarm, nor for that matter, the point of the report.

>> "I think the U.S. demeans itself when it adopts the philosophy that the ends justify the means in the fight against terror," said Reed Brody <<

I wonder what makes Reed Brody think that anybody gives a rip about his opinon.

<< Do I sense a certain schadefreude [sic] here? >>

That would certainly be the liberal interpretation. Is it schadenfreude when a parent stands by and watches an independent youngster fall off their first bicycle, or skateboard?

Behavior is not easily legislated. The attempt typically results in an unintended subsidizing of some undesirable aspect of it. When it comes to behavior that falls into the "moral" category, everybody seems to know better (and certainly doesn't want to be told). Political correctness seems to have left us without the ability (or willingness) to discern -- we've mischaracterized it as being "judgmental", even though it's an entirely different thing.

>> The sexually active teens here --- and there are many become lifelong taxpayer burdents. There is an epidemic here of chlamydia in the high schools --- the same one that have day-cares on their campuses. That's a very good thing for taxpayers. <<

A "very good thing for taxpayers" would be to relieve taxpayers from subsidizing this kind of behavior. Once the message sinks in that taxpayers won't pay the medical bills associated with unacceptable behavior, the problem will abate. It certainly may have to get worse before it gets better, but continued subsidizing of the problem will only perpetuate it.

>> The French Foreign Legion is a good example of making criminals over into brave soldiers. <<

I don't know whether that's anything more than a romantic legend. Could anyone put a name to one of those criminals cum brave soldiers from anytime within the past 50 years?

This Kerry/Edwards ploy of Monday-morning-quarterbacking is little more than a trial-lawyer distraction technique. By this logic, anyone who threatens to hijack an airplane with a concealed weapon need fear no consequences, so long as it turns out he/she didn't actually possess the weapon they claimed to have had. Or the bank robber who has his hand in his jacket pocket, claiming to have a gun -- if there's no gun (or it turns out to have been fake), then apparently, according to the Kerry/Edwards logic, no crime would have been committed. In their world, the arresting officers would have erred, because they made everyone else believe the perpetrators were armed.

Yeah, these guys are just what's needed to lead the free world. What a dynamic duo. Kerry, the public defender, and Edwards, the trial lawyer.

>> Malpractice insurance for an OB/GYN runs something like $100k/year. An office might gross something $1-2 million/year, in which case malpractice insurance premiums account for 5-10% of the overhead costs. <<

... and how much is it if you've had a judgement against you? Keep in mind that a doctor doesn't need to have done anything wrong to have a judgement go aganst him/her. Down syndrome babies come to mind...

"80% of the people in the room would like to make $200,000"

... and Kerry seems to think they should be punished with higher taxes for it.

" ... One of the funniest exchanges I thought, was when a man went off about "tax cuts for the rich", and how we were "rich white people" and don't care about the poor etc. ... "

Wonder what your insightful objector thought about the university paying Moore $40,000 for his brief appearance there? Or, did he think that Moore cares especially about the poor?

About Terry McAuliffe's link to contact the liberal media...

The address is http://www.democrats.org/media.

There's no reason you (or I) could not post our own messages to that same media. In fact, the site let's you forward you message to as many as 5 addresses (you'll find all your local media addresses just a checkbox away). I used it to contact my local CBS affiliate with my disgust about the bogus Draft issue.

The site is active right now, so why not use it to make those contacts that otherwise need to be looked up? I got a personal response back from our local paper's editor within 15 minutes of having sent my message over the Democrat wire.

I've just gone back for a more careful gander, and will agree with your observation -- both dates are probably 1978. I still wonder why the discharges are described differently. The document that says only "Discharged..." was apparently prepared in 1985. I don't know when the other was prepared. The following link shows the history parts of the two documents (but clips the top and bottom, so no preparaton dates are visible):

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000802.html

Ack! The link to the Kerry document didn't appear. Trying again...

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

At , one can view Bush and Kerry documents. Scroll down through the list of Kerry documents (they're listed alphabetically) to the one that's described as "Service Record (PDF) Prepared Jan. 25, 1985". The last entry on this document is dated 16 February 1973 and states "Discharged for U.S. Naval Reserve". I've also seen another version of this document where the 16 February 1973 entry has been replaced with a 16 February 1978 entry that reads "Honorably Discharged for U.S. Naval Reserve". FWIW, I think President Carter's amnesty was offered in 1977.