Thursday, September 11, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Family Time
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Food For Thought - Two People's Opinion
From: ####
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008
To: #### (Blog owner)
Subject: Income Concentration at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows.
Yeah for the tax cuts! It would be nice if they actually benefited anyone other than the mega wealthy. Here's some good info for you thanks to your buddy W who's had such a hard, hard 8 years. As he said, "It's hard work being the President." N_ s*&^ Dick Tracy. Can't wait until he's gone. Worst President Ever. Undeniable.
http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax2.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi: ####
Point 1: In my mind I see this way: Those people that "get it" are earning more money, building more job creating businesses, paying more taxes and generally doing quite well ... Thank You! The lower earners are those that listened to their iPod's and text-messaged their buddies during school time ... And joined the 40% of the current US crop of "students" that dropped out of school, ended up in dead-end jobs, went to the Emergency Room when they were sick (because they preferred to have a "hot car" and/or a gigantic plasma TV rather than medical insurance) and ... complain loudly about the great division between "have's and have-not's." The later group is in the "I want it NOW" group, but have no desire to WORK for it.
Point 2: While I certainly don't endorse everything JWB has done, (Or Carter, Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, JFK or Theodore Roosevelt and many others, for that matter) the problem is the country has needlessly become very polarized, like a school-yard fight. No one listens, or wins, but even worse, no one learns. J W Bush has done an excellent job under an excruciating situation. It's almost unforgivable to toss tomatoes when you are comfortably sitting at home in the greatest and safest country ever known to man. Easy to do ... But not too smart, in my opinion. "Worst President Ever. Undeniable" ... I don't think so!
Best regards, ####
Ps: I wish I were Bush's "buddy," but I don't run in those circles. About the only thing we have in common is we both flew F-102's. Everyone I knew that flew F-102's was a very accomplished person. (The F-102 was a single-engine, single-seat, supersonic all-weather fighter-interceptor. You either "had it together" or you made like a lawn-dart!)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
NASCAR: No help here
There are typically forty (40) cars in each race.
Let's assume that the average race distance is 300 miles ... they range from 150 miles to 500 miles. If 40 cars drive 300 miles, that is a total travelled distance of 12,000 miles (40 x 300).
If each car averages three miles per gallon (a very realistic number: I know, I've been there and done that), the race will turn 4,000 gallons of fuel into polluting exhaust fumes.
If 100,000 fans drive to the race with an average of two people to a car, that means 50,000 cars drive to each race. Let's also make a WAG that their average driving distance TO the race is twenty-five miles. Since most chose to drive back home after the race, that's another twenty-five miles. This means that 50,000 cars drive 50 miles to see the race and return home. That is a total distance travelled for all cars of 2,500,000 miles - TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND MILES! (50,000 x 50)
If those 50,000 cars average 25 MPG (Somewhat optimistic) they will consume 100,000 gallons of fuel!
Bottom Line:
Forty race cars burn 4,000 gallons of fuel in order to attract 100,000+ fans who, in turn, burn 100,000 gallons of fuel to see the race.
Seems pretty dumb, to me ... and this is just for ONE race! There are dozens of NASCAR races each year.
Gas shortage - Smash shortage!
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Is "The Fix" in?
The observation made seems reasonable to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:09 AM
To: roger@daisley.com
Subject: re "president" item
The other night I watched some very smug OPEC types being asked if they would increase oil production. When they answered in the affirmative, the reporter next asked if they would bring down the prices and they laughted as if to say surely you jest.
I think they are doing this to ensure a certain person will be in the white house next year and after he's been elected they will lower the cost and all will go back to normal with "their man" leading the USA.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Welcome to Toastmasters
Welcome to Toastmasters, June 13, 2033. That's right: 2033!
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Well ... DAH!
The democratic presidental candidate say's: "No, we should NOT start increased drilling right now because (get this ...!) it would not change the price of gas at the pump RIGHT NOW." Well ... DAH!
It seems clear to me that, once again, the democrates would much rather CONTROL our lifestyle, rather than upset the tree huggers.