subj= la isla de encanta

Welcome to Puerto Rico!

subj= vacation time


I leave for Puerto Rico tomorrow. WOOHOO!

subj= duh...


CNN.com - Bush, Clinton figures defend handling of terror threats - Mar 23, 2004: "'I think the message is that the United States' mechanisms -- the FBI, the CIA, the DOD [Department of Defense], the White House -- failed during both the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration,' Clarke said Tuesday on CNN's 'American Morning.' "

Hind sight is 20-20. I have to admit some fault to all of the parties named above, yet is there really anything that can be done about it now. Points to consider:

- Clinton was undergoing enough scandal to not want to effectively assasinate some 'guy' in the middle of the desert on the grounds of prior crimes against humanity.
- Bush without the personal issues, or consideration of dispicable world events, is under fire for ousting Saddam Hussein under the same parameters which Clinton would have had to claim for 'removing' Bin Laden (at the time).
- WMD or not, Saddam Hussein in the long run has been equally if not superiorly evil in the eyes of history.
- Would Clinton have been thought proactive or as saving lives if he had had Bin Laden killed prior to Sept.11?
- Would we have invaded Iraq had 9-11 not happened?
- Would Madrid have occurred if Spain had no troops involved in Iraq?
- Are the French doing something altogether not very different in Haiti?

These last four are of course largely rhetoric, but my point is that neither administration can come out winning here. Democratic nor Republican alike, and placing blame on agencies which we cannot not remove is rediculous.
It's truly possible that the current administrations consolidation of our Intelligience Agencies will decrease the likelihood of a similar catastrophe. As well, their consolidation is probably is what is bringing all these informations to light. Under the old system it's quite possible that these lines of cross-communication may have been hindered or even closed.

subj= qod

ESPN.com - NBA - Walton: The new darling of the NBA: "Abraham Lincoln and Mother Theresa -- becoming the personification of their two favorite mantras: 'Things work out best for those that make the best out of the way things work out' and 'A life not lived for others is not a life.'"

words to live by

subj= life on other planets

The Interstellar Amino Acid Test: "As Max Bernstein says, 'It may not be that efficient, but a cloud 100 light-years across makes a pretty big beaker.'"

subj= what's so bad about limiting overtime?

CNN.com - Money matters as race gets under way - Mar. 4, 2004: "But MoveOn.org takes aim directly at Bush, criticizing a push to eliminate overtime pay for workers and the outsourcing of jobs. (The four new Bush-Cheney ads don't even make a slight reference to Kerry.) The MoveOn.org ads will run over five days at medium levels on broadcast stations in 67 media markets. "


Dude....While overtime pay is awesome, I would prefer to get paid enough not to need overtime pay or more importantly hours. In many countries, other than the U.S., citizens seldom work more than 40 hours if they work that many to begin with. The regulation of overtime pay should really become a regulation of overtime hours in my opinion. I would love to see a law that prohibits employers from having more than a certain percentage of overtime hours billed per calendar month or year.

In fact, if less work can be done by current staff it would foster the hiring of additional staff. Companies currently prefer paying overtime hours because it serves the purpose of their need to accomplish tasks and lets them determine which employees 'need' their jobs or are simply willing to work additionally for more money. What employees don't realize is that the company probably still saves money paying out overtime hours than having the added cost of benefits for a new employee and using the additional resources required to obtain said employee.

You might think that this would cause companies to lower pay rates, and so what. In the long run it might have the full economic effect of lowering the cost of living in more economically populous areas.
But more importantly, more people would have jobs with benefits and isn't that the big gripe these days?

If you really just need to make more money, maybe extra hours isn't the path, maybe you should just find a better paying job.

subj= concerts at fenway

Jimmy Buffet may be gracing fenway park, as 'The Boss' did last summer. Isn't this a genious way to create more revenue for the club. Does the club actually get any money for holding events at the ballpark? If they did, a couple of key concerts planned prior or in the future could easily have resolved their financial disputes with Alex Rodriguez. Maybe in the future they'll use it as a method to quiet their jealosy over the Yankees' spending budget. I say jealosy because the Sox have a budget which is equally exhorbitant to at least 1/2 of the other teams in MLB. It' easy to cry shame on those who have more than you, how about acknowledging your advantage over those that have less.

subj= secession from vermont

CNN.com - Killington residents vote to secede from Vermont - Mar. 3, 2004

So the city of Killington wants to secede from the state of vermont, likely to become a member of new hampshire. The big problem they have is that Vermont currently "over" taxes the inhabitants of this city and excessively re-invests this revenue in other portions of the state. Simply put, residents of Killington feel they are being asked for money, through property taxes, that they gain no benefit from.

The town held a vote on breaking away from vermont, which passed. It is arguable that the state government would prevent a secession, but the mere possiblity and procedure followed will set precedent. Apparently the residents have an unresolved issue with the way the state funds its' education system.

In comment, is this not what the people are supposed to do when the govenment does not follow their will. Is this not what the colonies did when England overtaxed them without regard for their opinions on who or how it was spent. If the city is to a state, what a state is to the country. Then by all means the city/town should be able to petition the state and if necessary secede.

I'm not sure wether it would set a good or bad precedent for how big government should interact and respect little governments or their constituents, but it could turn out to be that the little man's voice actually makes a different in big policy in the end.

w.o.d.= innocuous


Main Entry: in·noc·u·ous
Pronunciation: i-'nä-ky&-w&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin innocuus, from in- + nocEre
1 : producing no injury : HARMLESS
2 : not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : INOFFENSIVE, INSIPID
- in·noc·u·ous·ly adverb
- in·noc·u·ous·ness noun

subj= church and state


So I read this great article about making gay marriage legal and the point of it was
...get rid of marriage.
It's simple and a bit out there, but so true. If marriage is considered a religious ceremony, and there is obviously no true reason to mingle religion with government, then the government should not acknowledge matrimony. It should instead of amending the constitution to create 'separate but equal' entities of marriage (which only through miracle would be made equal), should no longer recognize or distribute marriage licenses but henceforth distribute union licenses. Matrimony as a religious sacrament has been adopted by the government to recognize the union of two people. What is it to the government that these two people be man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

The union of two entities in the eyes of the government should only exist as an agreement between two companies. If the government no longer has to uphold the religiously defined union of marriage it can feel free to distribute license to whomever would like one. Anyone who then chooses to enter into religious matrimony can do so through the avenue of their own faith. The government then affords it's citizens regardless of sexual orientation a means by which to legalize their, at minimum financial, union. As well, those faiths that wish not to recognize homosexual partnership will not be muscled by government into appearing to condone such practice. Thusly those people who wish to be married can go to their respective place of worship and be acknowledged by their faiths, and those that simply wish to take of the govenmental advantages afforded those who move onto the family life, without taking into account religion, can do so.

1. Redefine marriage, as recognized by the government, to be a civil union.
2. Define a civil union as enterable between any two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
3. Let the churches, mosques, synagogues, etc., figure out who they want to let get married.

subj= homework


It's been a long long time since I've had to do homework, let alone submit any. I've been kinda nervous about this but at the same time I'm kind of excited. Let's see if I feel the same way about next week's test. =(