Do you even know what a caucus is? Who cares what happens in IOWA ?

 

A lot is made about Iowa and its first in the nation voting.

 

The Iowa "caucuses" are talked about all the time in every news report you see.

 

• The US Census Bureau says Iowa has about 2 million , 9 hundred thousand people in it. (2,900,000)

 

• Factually more people live in the Atlanta area than in Iowa, but hey, this is politics.

 

• Only about 2.4 % of all businesses in Iowa are owned and operated by non-whites.

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html

 

• Iowa's population of 2.9 million includes 1.8 million active registered voters of which about 526,207 are Democrats.
• Iowa is a mostly Republican , white state.

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ia/iaorganize.html

 

So why does Iowa and its Republican mostly white caucus set any kind of tone for voting in America anyway?

 

What the heck is a caucus?

 

In U.S. politics and government, caucus has several distinct but interrelated meanings. One is frequently used to discuss the caucuses used by some states to select presidential nominees, such as the Iowa caucuses. The bottom line is that a Caucus is merely an old word for a meeting or session that is necessary to establish the credentials of the presidential nominees, similar to the primaries.

 

It's mostly semantics for what you and I, and other average voters need to know.

 

This is basically "game time" for the candidates to prove why they are more prepared to be President than the person standing next to them.

If a nominee "wins" the Caucus in the Iowa voters' minds, they are therefore rocketed ahead of the pack. 

 

Better explained like this :( http://www.thisnation.com/question/013.html)

 

From : (http://www.thisnation.com/question/013.html)

Here is what a caucus is : (Specifically the IOWA caucus) 

Voters in Iowa ,will gather in "caucuses" to begin the process of selecting their state's preferred presidential candidates in each party.

Iowa's process for choosing between presidential candidates is unique among the fifty United States. Every other state has a more traditional primary election in which registered voters can cast their ballots for the candidates they prefer.

In Iowa, however, voters in each political party attend separate, small meetings, or caucuses, in towns and neighborhoods across the state. Caucuses are held at the precinct level in schools, fire stations and sometimes even in individual's homes.

At the caucuses, those in attendance indicate their support for the candidates competing for each party's presidential nomination. In the Democratic party caucuses, votes are cast by raising hands, a sign-in sheet or by splitting into groups supporting each candidate. In the Republican caucuses, votes are cast by secret ballot (each eligible voter in attendance is able to select the candidate of his or her choice on paper without others in attendance knowing how he or she voted).

The results of the caucus voting, however, do not directly determine which candidate will win the support of Iowa's voters for the presidential nomination. In fact, the caucuses are just first step in the process. Each caucus selects delegates to send to each of the 99 county conventions, which are held in March. At the county conventions, Democrats select delegates to district conventions where delegates to the state convention are chosen. Republicans bypass the district convention stage, choosing delegates to their state convention at the county conventions. Both party's state conventions are held in June. Only then, when state convention delegates cast their votes for delegates to the national party conventions, that Iowa's preferred presidential candidate's in each major party will be determined.

So why do the Iowa caucuses get so much attention from the candidates and the media? First, Iowa is largely viewed as a "bellwether" state because it represents a cross-section of America in terms of ideology and party preference. Perhaps more importantly, the Iowa caucuses traditionally provide the candidates with their first real test. Candidates focus their energies and attention on Iowa because a win or even a better-than-expected performance there can provide or sustain the critically important early momentum all presidential hopefuls crave. Indeed, by the end of the day, some of the candidates (particularly Republican candidates, because there are still six of them competing for their party's nomination) may have suffered a big enough defeat to drop out of the race. At the other end of the spectrum, Bush and Gore, the current front-runners in their respective parties, will probably have scored victories significant enough to solidify their positions and build momentum for the next measuring stick--the New Hampshire primaries.

So a caucus isn't really a vote.

Its really just a path for the news anchors to follow to tell us who to vote for.

In reality it is meaningless, and if they were state number 25 on the when we voted list, we would care less what happens in Iowa.

What ought to happen is the states primaries should all happen on the same day, then you would see what matters come to the top instead of the garbage you hear from this mess in Iowa.

Thankx- bigmike

 

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

 

Take a second and check out my new business at

 

http://answrtek.com and let me know what you think.

 

Mitt Romney? - I don't think so - He can't be trusted to be President

 

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody in their right mind would vote for a guy like Mitt Romney.

 

I mean, here is a guy, I mean a wealthy rich guy, who changes his mind on what he stands for more often than you change the oil in your car. He has been for and then against almost every major political point made (abortion, the War, immigration, etc) and has shaded the truth on just about everything else. If he wasn't for it , he was against it, unless the issue polled badly , then he was for it again.

 

In short, he is a typical politician. He will say or do pretty much anything to get elected. He says he doesn't cater to special interests and then points out he doesn't take any special interest money. Bull hockey. He is spending his own money, and got that money from special interests, his own. He is interested in padding his resume, looking good and winning.

 

The problem with a guy like him is basically, "What you see is what you get".

 

He has never met a position he could change, nuance, or spin to get someone to believe him.

 

How can we trust a guy like this?

 

Here is what he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" on 09/21/2007-

 

"Obviously, my position did change with regards to life.

But on other issues, my positions have been very consistent with my principles and my views."
--Mitt Romney

 

Of all the candidates, both Republican and Democratic, the former Massachusetts governor is most vulnerable to the charge of being a "flip-flopper." He has attempted to immunize himself from this accusation by making a virtue out of necessity, and acknowledging  his most blatant u-turn , on protecting the right to abortions. But an examination of his record shows that his positions have changed on a wide variety of other issues, from immigration to gay rights to gun control.

 

Here are a couple of examples:

In 1994 in a letter he wrote to Log Cabin Republicans, Romney said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military.

• He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell policy."
  

While campaigning for the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he said he would not "chip away" at the state's tough gun laws.

• He later signed up for a lifelong member ship of the National Rifle Association in 2006, while contemplating a run for the Republican nomination.
  

In 2005, he favored immigration reform  along the lines proposed by Sen. John McCain.

• He now denounces it as an amnesty plan.
• The recent discovery that illegal immigrants continued to mow his lawn a year after he was told about it,  opens him up to the the charge of hypocrisy.

 

Romney's positions on abortion have shifted more frequently than anyone else I have ever seen , hardening during the primaries as he went after Republican votes and moving to the center during the general election.

• To claim that his positions are "consistent with my principles and my views" is a tautology that conceals the deeper truth that his views and principles have a habit of changing with the political season.

• It is also a stretch for Romney to claim that he lowered taxes while Governor of Massachusetts. He didn't lower taxes, he renamed them "fees". Fees are up in his state almost 700 %

The question is " How can we trust a guy like this?" The answer is , "We can't".

Just my opinion.

You don't believe me ? Look it up on Google yourself.

There are over 9000 google pages today where you can see the guy is full of crap. 

http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&ned=us&hl=en&ned=us&q=Romney+positions

 

Thankx- bigmike

 

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

 

Take a second and check out my new business at

 

http://answrtek.com and let me know what you think.

Why Human Resources departments should really be called "Litigation Services"

There is no such thing as a Human Resource Professional any more.

Before 1985 (or so) most Human Resource professionals , then called Personnel department heads, were graduates of college with an emphasis on things like training, education, social services, personnel degrees, humanities courses, etc.

After 1985 (or so), at about the same time that laws were starting to change which governed a companies conduct, and gave employees more defined rights under the law, a shift started to occur.

At about that time , (give or take a few years) depending upon how astute a company was at recognizing the changes at hand, the Human Resource professional was born. Their educational track was similar to the personnel professional with a few important differences. First , they still had a leaning towards training and education however the vast majority of those folks also were trained in specialties like labor law, EEO compliance, gender studies, racial diversity and the like.

That shift in itself was not necessarily a bad thing. Most would agree that the era defined by the period of time between 1950-1985 in corporate America was dominated by an attitude of arrogance and indifference towards employees. Most places had all white male upper management, and women , other races, and foreigners were relegated to positions which were classified as support staff. In some cases a companies conduct was illegal both in their policies towards women and towards other races. Also wrong was the way they approached education, hiring and training.

When all these updated (and new) laws were passed companies understood they needed to do some things different in order to comply with those laws and reduce their legal exposures.

Thus, the Human resource Professional was born.

What's the difference between a Personnel Director and a Human Resource Professional, you might ask? Well, the biggest one is that while the exterior functions would appear to be about the same (recruiting, education, training, etc), the interior functions changed dramatically. Interior functions are those responsibilities performed out of sight of the common employee. Pro-active defensive strategies like Pre-Employment arbitration agreements, reduced employee benefits, legally defensible job descriptions, back to work light duty rules and aggressive non-union strategies were all a result of this shift.

Prior to this, most of those decisions were handled by upper management with no real training in how to defend the company in court. It was usually just left to the lawyer to figure out later how to act on a complaint after it was received and defend what the company had already done.

Today most HR departments should really be named "Litigation Defense Services". Their real job is to reduce the amount of monies paid to defend lawsuits and to defend the companies policies and business practices from outside reviews like the NLRB, the EEOC, violations of the ADA and other entities governmental or other wise, which are very costly to defend and very damaging to a companies image and bottom line if they lose.

Policies in corporate America today are driven by these departments and more often than not the decisions are driven by lawyers and not by conscience. Current policy creation is not driven by a company going the extra mile and doing the right thing for their employees, they are not driven by morality, they are now almost exclusively driven by comprehensive defensive legal strategies.

This is the biggest difference and is the reality in modern America. In today's America, the HR department does not look first to defend the employee when they are wronged. Their first job is to defend the company. Make a complaint to your HR department and the first thing they look at is you, the complainer. File a charge of harassment and the first thing the discussion centers around is not the charge but your actions and conduct, leading up to the incident . Pretty much, hire an attorney to defend you, and you are not welcome at work any more.

You may still work there, technically, but your time is limited. You are done until the complaint is resolved.

After it is resolved, the scrutiny you will endure will be hard to imagine.

Here is two examples I witnessed first hand.

Both actually happened and while not really typical of of how things go day to day in most companies, it does point out how ridiculous things have gotten.

• A female restaurant manager had surgery for breast cancer. The company wanted her to return to work after 10 days, thereby limiting their insurance exposure. She resisted and got her doctor to write her an excuse limiting her work days, hours of work and had some restrictions attached like weight she could lift, hours she could work, etc. From my point of view what's another two weeks? She would have returned to work in two more weeks , back to her normal job and everything would have went back to normal. Her boss got on the phone and insisted very strongly she had to come back to work, in some capacity, doing anything even if it was just sitting in a chair observing the store while another manager ran the unit. He basically told her he didn't give a damn what the doctor said, she had to come back to work or he would replace her and get rid of her. He would fire her for having cancer because she was forcing him to run her restaurant, in her absence. She resisted his direction ,reported her boss to HR for pressuring her to come back to work even though she had severe restrictions in place from her doctor. While talking with the HR representative they made it clear that they were going to support the boss and his decision, so she hired an attorney to protect her. What was the companies response? They designed a work schedule that lived just inside the doctors orders, and scheduled her to work 5 days a week from 1 am to 6 am , in a restaurant that was not normally open after midnight. Then the supervisor stood and waited for her to show up every day and was there when she was scheduled off every day and verified personally whether she met the schedule or not. Her attorney advised her not to show up as he felt they had a strong case for claim and she could win a settlement. She didn't work and they fired her. Once she lost her job, the attorney bailed because she couldn't come up with his fee. The company got exactly what they wanted and she lost everything. She filed complaint after complaint with any agency that would listen. It took more than 10 years to wind its way through the maze of legalities and in the end, eve though she prevailed it cost her everything. She lost her house, her insurance and her job and died 6 months later. The HR director was also a lawyer and he is still employed in the same capacity.

• In another case, a male plant worker got very sick and was hospitalized. After hospitalization, the doctor ordered bed rest and severely limited duty for some 90-120 days. The company through its HR department, directed the insurer to withhold payment after 90 days because the employee had used all his short term disability and was not paying his premiums for long term disability. They never contacted the employee directly because the work rules in place in the facility allowed the company to direct communication to the employees supervisor and to place any written notices in the employees in house mailbox as a substitute for telephone or direct mail communication. Their logic was that even though the employee never received the communication, because he was at home and very sick, it was not their fault he never received it because they followed their own rules. It didn't matter that the employee could not receive it because he was off sick and could not get past the guard shack to retrieve it because he was not an active employee with a valid pass. He should have known to have it checked for correspondence from the company and because the supervisor was available by phone he should have known to call and ask about it. Both of these rules were contained in a company handbook the employee received at orientation 2 years earlier and is the only place these policies were posted. Once the bills started rolling in 5 or 6 months later and the employee called the HR department to find out why, the company advised him it was because he did not pay his long term disability insurance premiums as requested through inter-company mail. They then advised him that because he had not contacted the company in the requested amount of time, that his employment was ended "administratively" one month prior to his phone call. The effect was that he got sick , and because he got sick he got fired, a month before he knew anything about it. How he found out something was up is that he got a COBRA notice in the mail. Out of work, with no insurance and with no job, and according to his company it was his fault for not responding to their letters they never sent him.

I'm sure that many people would disagree with me about my opinions expressed here.

I am also positive that there are many examples of where the employee was protected and the company did the right moral thing in helping their employee.

The point is you should not for one moment think that your companies HR department is there to protect you.

They are there to protect the company, sometimes at all costs.

I heard a CEO of one company say one day " We never settle anymore. Settlements set precedents. Precedents cost money. I'd rather pay the lawyer."

Keep that in mind the next time you think about going to HR with a problem at work.

You could be next.

Thankx- bigmike

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

Take a second and check out my new business at

http://answrtek.com/ and let me know what you think.

Your company just fired a shot over the bow of your ship (and you were asleep and missed it) and you got sank !!!

 

Here is how Companies are winning (or at least containing the damage) against their employees.

 

A few years ago a slew of Federal and State laws were passed (in the early 1990's) which were supposed to add layers of protection to employees rights and keep them from getting treated badly or illegally by their employers. A "No polygraph law", The family medical and leave act, a minimum wage law with a lot of caveats attached, and social laws like the ability to file EEOC claims, unemployment claims, medical claims, privacy laws , Whistleblower retribution claims acts and etc were enacted.

 

Most employers have now figured out how to go about their business and do pretty much what they want, without regard to the law ( or its intent anyway). They are paying lawyers to violate the spirit of the laws , while staying just inside the farthest edge of the letter of the laws that they possibly can.

 

Here's what I am talking about and how they do it.

 

First, the most common strategy is to get your agreement about how certain matters are handled legally if you have been or feel as if you have been wronged. Most commonly , they get you to sign and date a legal document as part of Pre-Employment routines, which details how many legal and civil matters are settled. They call it arbitration, which is a fancy way of saying it won't ever go to court. (At least they hope never, in the final outcome).

 

Arbitration really means that another lawyer who is a trained and certified arbiter will hear your case, informally, usually in a law office, and the case will be judged by the arbiter. It will probably never be heard as a part of any legal matter in court and will not contribute to case law. The reason that this is a winning strategy is you always have the option of representing yourself at arbitration, and companies know that they can outspend you 100 to 1 on attorney fees. They then keep you tied in knots doing a paperwork dance in arbitration and they will still spend 80 percent less legal dollars than they would have if it went to a regular court. 

 

They then couple this strategy with one I call the "Pay as you go plan", where you get buried under in paper work , depositions, legalese, meetings and other "house keeping" matters, which takes time away from where you earn your money (your work) , and either forces you to become a very good lay-lawyer or spend an inordinate sum hiring a civil law attorney.  They play the percentages and know that almost nobody who earns less than $150,000 can afford to or ever will hire an attorney to represent them. This is all civil law and civil attorneys do not take cases like this on a contingency basis ( their fees come from your winnings) without money up front. They also know that the vast majority of people do not have the ten-thousand dollars ready at hand that it will take to get a case off the ground. If you are able to hire a lawyer, they also know that most people cannot afford the monthly bill either.  The reason this strategy works is they can afford all of these things and laugh at you while they bury you into the ground under a mountain of paperwork.

 

Most people give up and go away long before they ever get to this point. Almost every type of claim against a company with arbitration is handled this way. they will tell you it is because the costs are lower than litigation , but really it is because the chance of winning is about 10 times greater for them.

 

Sad , but very true.

 

Next, and this happened before the laws were passed, is they had lobbyists working hard to protect them and you didn't. Lobbyists are very helpful at getting the caveats inserted into legislation that release the company from any obligation if certain things happen.

 

Let's see what a steak dinner can do?

 

Say you get hurt at work by a forklift driver. You were just standing there, and a forklift runs over your foot. You did nothing wrong, you had nothing to do with the accident, you were not the cause. You go to the hospital, get your injuries treated, and are off work for say 8 weeks. You think your employer should cover you under say, workmen's compensation laws. Will you be covered? The answer is it depends.

 

First, as part of most recent workmen's compensation laws enacted since 1985, if you have any drugs, alcohol, or narcotics of any illegal kind in your system, you are probably not covered. That is not even the worst part. The worst part is, and believe me this is part of the pro-win the claim pursued by companies, the bill will be sent to you for treatment and you will probably be fired. How do they know? The legislation says that the hospital , doctor or clinic has to test you for drugs (etc) if you come in under a workmen's compensation claim. How did they get a test? They drew blood for "tests", sometimes never telling you they are testing for drugs (etc) except in some form you may have signed without reading that was 5 pages long and required 3 signatures and 4 initials, consenting to the tests.

 

The way the laws are written in some states, they never have to tell you at all, you are supposed to know it in advance. So if you had too much too drink the night before, went to work before it all wore off and had  a detectable level of alcohol (any level will do), then you are under the influence and you are at fault. Sorry about your luck.

 

You can test at .01 BAC and this is enough to deny you the benefit. Great news huh?

 

Secondly, they can pay you for the time you missed under a certain amount of hours or gross pay, and give you a job that could be no mort than sharpening pencils. They call this limited duty, return to work benefits. Great news you get to return to work ! Wrong, Screw up one time and they will fire you for incompetence, be late one minute twice and they can release you for "habitual tardiness", and then just stall you on the hospital bill until the care giver stops bothering the company with the appeals for payment and then just comes after you instead. You have to prove you don't owe it and your former company does.

 

The other way they have figured out how to get out of it is to make you jump through all kinds of hoops , by scheduling you for visits at their doctors who must concur with the original hospital findings. If you miss one appointment , no matter how inconvenient, no matter why you missed it, Poof. Your claim is denied and they pay nothing.

 

There is more to this story and more to examine. I'll get to it next time.

 

 

Next : Why Human Resources departments should really be called "Litigation Services".

 

 

 

Thankx- bigmike

 

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

 

Take a second and check out my new business at

 

http://answrtek.com and let me know what you think.

 

A stream of consciousness

A stream of consciousness     

 

 

How is it that a corporate CEO can make millions of dollars per year and millions more in bonuses and then feel justified in laying off people in his company in order to bump up the share price for the shareholders? Don’t the shareholders realize that at some point they could bump up their own share price, invest directly in their own companies and make more profit by having a nimble well trained and well staffed company? At least they would if it wasn’t the same 250 people on every board in every company in America. There is no glass ceiling anymore, its an ASS ceiling.

 

In the same train of thought, Why is it that the news will report that a company laid off thousands of people, or closed a plant or sold a whole division and that bumps up the share price ? Seems to me bad news (less capacity and less employees to do the work), should key the directors and the shareholders that they have the wrong upper management in the first place. Seems to me they ought to hold the CEO responsible for the problem, not the hourly staff. The CEO can hang on for 10 years and he has a contract they have to buy him out of to get rid of him. Us? It’s a greased banana and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

It makes very little practical sense to fire the older workers because of high  wages, to hire younger workers because of low wages, because to do so makes the purchasing power of the money they are paid (the younger worker) worth less. You earn less, everything costs more and your dollar doesn’t go anywhere as far as it used to. Global warming? Yeah, after we burn all the couches and chairs and dinner tables to keep warm maybe.

 

In companies like the ones I just alluded to, the CEO’s of those firms have one common personality type. They think, for some strange reason that laying off people, constantly firing and constant criticism will shake up the place and make people more productive. I just don’t get it. What happens when you constantly shake up the place is everybody starts looking for a way to protect their job and keeps their head down, with very little effort going towards getting and productive work done in the first place. Dilbert makes more and more sense every day.

 

For some years now corporate America has been chasing a share price at the expense of everything else. We have almost wiped out our ability to manufacture everything from tube socks to washing machines in our quest for lower costs and higher share prices. Large retailers like Wal-Mart have contributed to this idiocy for a long time and I’ve yet to hear anybody ask the question that seems pretty obvious to ask.

How are we going to be able to buy anything in this new “World Economy” , if we don’t have anywhere to work that pays a decent wage and if there are no companies left to be loyal to?

 

What are we supposed to be loyal to now anyway?

 

A Brand?

 

“Yes maam, I’d like one TIDE t-shirt and two pairs of VIAGRA socks please”. Get a grip !

 

See the thing is , we are in the middle of a fallacy that is a downward spiral. Less jobs is less money. Less money is less purchasing. Less purchasing is a negative economic trend. We will not be able soon to buy anything made in China because we won’t have any money to buy it with.

 

Who are all these poor third world nations going to sell to if they can’t sell it to us?

 

I couldn’t tell as I am late for my shift at McDonalds.

 

Today is dumpster clean out night and the kids are starving !!

 

Thankx- bigmike

 

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

 

Take a second and check out my new business at

 

http://answrtek.com and let me know what you think.

Why, Why, Why !!

 

Why, Why, Why !!

• Do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are getting dead?
• Why do banks charge a fee on 'insufficient funds' when they know there is not enough money?
• Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
• Why doesn't glue stick to the bottle?
• Why do the us sterilized needles for death by lethal injection?
• Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
• Why does Superman stop bullets with his chest, but ducks when you throw a revolver at him?
• Why do Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
• Whose idea was it to put an 'S' in the word 'Lisp'?
• If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
• Why is it that no matter what color bubble bath you use the bubbles are always white?
• Is there ever a day that mattresses are not on sale?
• Why do people constantly return to the refrigerator with hopes that something new to eat will have materialized?
• Why do people keep running over a string a dozen times with their vacuum cleaner, then reach down, pick it up, examine it, then put it down to give the vacuum one more chance?
• Why is it that no plastic bag will open from the end on the first try?
• How do those dead bugs get into those enclosed light fixtures?
• When we are in the supermarket and someone rams our ankle with a shopping cart then apologizes for doing so, why do we say, 'It's all right?' Well, it isn't all right, so why don't we say, 'That hurt, you stupid idiot?
• Why is it that whenever you attempt to catch something that's falling off the table you always manage to knock something else over?
• In winter why do we try to keep the house as warm as it was in summer when we complained about the heat?
• How come you never hear father-in-law jokes?

 

And my Personal Favorite !!

• The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
  I've done my job and sent this e-mail to you , now it's up to you to send it on.

 

 

Thankx- bigmike

 

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

 

Take a second and check out my new business at http://answrtek.com and let me know what you think.

A Tale of two Houses

Consider this story.

I'll bet you have never heard anything about this at all.

House #1 - A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.

• Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas.
• In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year.
• The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 In natural gas alone per month
• This property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
• This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area.
• It's in the South..

House #2- Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.

• This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide.
• The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest.
• A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.
• The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.
• The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
• Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern.
• Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern.
• The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.
• Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

Guess who owns these houses?

House #1- The proud owner is Mr. Global Warming - Al Gore.

House #2 - George W. Bush owns this abode.

I'll bet two things.

1. If you are a "Democrat", you ain't gonna like it and
2. I'll also bet your response will be some lame justification, denial and a dismissal of this as an unfair comparison, as an attack
• I can hear it now , " That’s so unfair, these two houses are not even located in the same parts of the country",
• "He has purchased carbon offset credits to make up for his energy usage",
• "His house is ten years newer", whine, whine, whine, indignant sniffle, POUT, FROWN.
• Poor babies..

For those of you who doubt, visit : http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Thankx- bigmike

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

Take a second and check out my new business at

http://answrtek.com/ and let me know what you think.

Some thought on various subjects

 

I watched clips and excerpts from the Republican debate the other day.

• Fred Thompson said "I'm not doing hand shows today",
• In answer to one of those silly show of hands , yes or no questions by some liberal moderator.
• Good for him.
• They already reduce the answers to thirty seconds, which tells you nothing about what they think.
• I'm glad he stood up for that point.

 

One of Hillary Clintons advisers "quit", the campaign the other day, over some remarks he made about Obama, where he referenced Mr. Obama's prior admitted drug use.

• He just spoke the truth. Obama has admitted prior use of drugs the way I understand it. maybe a long time ago, but what's the point?
• He did admit it, it is part of the record.
• He "quit" because it was convenient to do so and it took the heat off of Hillary.
• Whatever.

 

The long awaited Mitchell report is out. Steroids are/were in baseball.

• What a waste of time and money.
• If Bud Selig wanted to do something about this, he could have said enough is enough, a long time ago and he did not need George Mitchell's report to do it.
• From my point of view, if it was illegal, turn it over to the authorities, let them prosecute it.
• If it was against the rules let the commissioner act on the facts.
• Otherwise if you can't prove it, innocent until proven guilty, and move on.
• Steroids do not help you to hit a round ball with a round bat in a contact area about as big as a nickel in the first place.
• All the whack jobs in the world who rail about the "integrity" of the game? Please. Its been about money and that's all for 25 years or so. Get over it. Baseball had 6 billion dollars in revenue last year.
• And by the way, Where have these idiots been? America has had a "drug problem" for 200 years.
• Whatever. I could care no less.

 

Al Gore won an Oscar and a Nobel peace prize.

• And he invented the internet and he didn't win the election.
• He can have the Oscar and the peace prize, second place is where he belongs.

 

Does anybody else find it to be moronic that the Game manufacturers would have us believe that they can't produce enough Game consoles to meet demand?

• First the X-box couldn't be made fast enough.
• Everybody else followed suit. (Playstation2 and 3, Nintendo Wii, X-Box 360)
• We are a world of supply and demand pricing. If the demand is high and the supply is low, guess what happens to the price?
• Go check the price of a gallon of gas and you will have your answer.
• We are not that gullible are we?

 

Has anybody else heard enough about "Britney" ?

• I'm done and have been for a long time. (Same with Paris, Diana, Nicole and whoever else)
• Move on please. Your clogging up the news with crap.

 

The CIA destroyed tapes they made torturing prisoners.

• Yeah, and that surprises you ?
• Why? Key words here were CIA.

 

Microsoft in the news again, being investigated again, for another supposed transgression, again.

• Now , the makers of Opera, an alternative browser, claim that Microsoft is being anti-competitive because Internet Explorer comes pre-installed on Windows computers, and that gives them an unfair advantage.
• As many of you know I am no fan of Microsoft in the most general of senses, however.....
• First, The product is made by Microsoft. (Windows is a Microsoft product.)
• Second, if I buy a Ford, I expect Ford designed brakes on the car.
• Third, If I do not like Ford designed brakes, I can go to an aftermarket supplier, and get aftermarket Brakes to replace the Ford designed brakes.
• You can do the same with  a Browser.
• If you do not know how to do this, that is not the fault of Microsoft , nor is it the fault of the makers of Opera.
• I don't get it, Is Microsoft supposed to sell their product for them?
• By the way, the "Plays for sure" program was killed by Microsoft today. Best news I've heard all day.

 

And , last but not least,-

 

Michael Vick got sentenced to 23 months in prison for his role in dog fighting.

• I don't care really, just to say he is stupid. Should have got him some hookers and a private plane and had a party like every other spoiled rich kid athlete does.
• If I had 200 million dollars I wouldn't mess around with dog fighting when I could buy an island to fight humans on.
• Who cares ! (Yeah, I think its wrong by the way, dog fighting that is.)
• The point is that we'll spend millions of dollars everyday to prosecute high profile, high dollar , big news media stories, and we won't spend 25 cents to make sure that people in this country actually get a fair trial.
• It's ridiculous.
• You can get charged with 15 crimes in a three year period in most every major metropolitan city in America, wait 2 - 3 years to go on trial, and get probation  as punishment!!
• I'm supposed to care about some rich ass athlete who fought dogs, then was investigated by the FBI, the Federal government, a slew of cops in three states, who gets more time in jail than the average drunk driver does?
• I'll bet that Vick's attorney's get a fat paycheck though, whata ya wanna bet?

 

 

Thankx-

 

bigmike

 

posted from "The Rant from bigmike" at

http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

 

Take a second and check out my new business at

 

http://answrtek.com and let me know what you think.