Doing the math: Nader Stricken from PA Ballot

10/14/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: General
In this article the Commonwealth Court of PA struck Ralph Nader's name from the PA ballot declaring that nearly two-thirds of the signatures on his nominating petitions were invalid or had been forged in what the court called an unparalleled case of election fraud.

"I am compelled to emphasize that this signature-gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court," wrote James G. Colins, the president judge of the Commonwealth Court


James Colins also noted that he had served longer and reviewed more nominating papers than any judge in the court's history.

The other thing of note in this article was who was helping Nader:
Republicans were helping him in the hope he would take votes from Mr. Kerry.. Democrats had led the challenge to the Nader signatures.


It's just speculating on a hypothesis.

Trolley Car Diner

10/12/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: General
I'm doing this a favor to anybody who might be thinking of stopping and eating at the Trolley Car Diner. It is, without a doubt the worst place to eat in Philadelphia.

It didn't come by that title easily. I've eaten there at least 6 times, and not once can I say that the food was even close to satisfactory. Why do I keep going back? I guess it's just a dire wish on my part that one of the few places at all to eat in Mt Airy would at least be somewhere near satisfactory. Sadly, this isn' the case.

And it's not just me. Whenever casual conversation brings up this place, the first thing out of peoples mouths when I mention my disappointment with the place is, " Oh, I knowwwwww ... it's so baaaad" !

After all, how can you fuck up diner food? It's supposed to be 'bad' to begin with, but bad in a good way. It's supposed to be tasty, filling, and cheap. Presentation isn't part of the deal, nor is health. Quantity counts more than quality. But even still, there are limits and standards. Screwing up diner food is like screwing up fixing dinner for your cat: it's pretty damned hard to do.

As hard as it is, however, here are a few hints I picked up from my visits to the Trolly Car: Don't serve regular any regular juice, but instead serve pre-sweetened concentrate stuff from a machine. Screw up the hash browns on a regular basis, serve some kind of mystery meat for the sausage. Overcook the eggs. Make sure the toast is over toasted and stale. And that's just breakfast.

It just goes on and on. I just don't know how someone could screw it up so badly, but they have managed to. I suppose they get some sort of award for that.

Keyboard Kitty

10/11/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: General

Beat blender

10/11/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: song of the day
Here's a website with a collection of very fashion foward songs.

And here's their listen link

Derrida dead at 74

10/09/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: General

Jacques Derrida

As the sun slowly sets in the Poconos

10/06/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: song of the day
Think of going Home

When shadows fall
And trees whisper day is ending
My thoughts are ever wending Home

When crickets call
My heart is forever yearning
Once more to be returning Home

And when the hills conceal the setting sun
Stars begin to peep in one by one (one by one)

Night covers all
And though fortune may forsake me
Sweet dreams will ever take me Home

Bush Environmental Laws: Not based in science or law

10/06/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: General
It was fairly obvious what the Bush administration was up to when they canceled the New Source Review laws.

I've been continually interested in how the cancellation happens. The old rules are cancelled after being called inefficient. Then new rules either are not put into place, or if they are, the result is a significant increase in pollution.

In this particular case, the New Source rules were defanged by raising the level of 'upgrade' needed before they'd be triggered.

It used to be that spending 5% or more of the value of a power station for maintainence would invoke the rules calling for pollution expenditures on pollution control at that plant.

That 5% threshold was increased by so much that as long as the power companies didn't replace the station entirely, they could do pretty much what they wanted to without invoking the New Source Review rules.

The end result was a reduction in the amount spent on pollution control. Not only that, but the rules had a side-effect of hamstringing many of the existing prosecutions already underway.

In this editorial we find out from a congressional report just what the Bush Administration said wouldn't happen has happened.

In June 2002, for instance, Jeffrey Holmstead, an assistant E.P.A. administrator and the main architect of the new rule, told the Senate that he had been assured by the "enforcement folks" at his agency and the Justice Department that there would not be a "negative impact on enforcement cases."

Suspecting otherwise - and suspecting Mr. Holmstead knew better - Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont ordered an internal investigation, which Ms. Tinsley has now produced. It confirms Mr. Leahy's worst fears. Even though the Northeastern states, as well as advocacy groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, have temporarily blocked the new rule in court, its looming presence has badly undermined the government's ability to enforce old cases, let alone pursue new ones - exactly what the "enforcement folks" predicted from the start. More broadly, Ms. Tinsley said she could find no basis for the new rule in science or law, and urged her superiors to restore the old one.



I'm wondering this: If the true intent of these changes was to relax things for the power industry which would (and has) resulted in greater and extended levels of pollution, and if this had valid reasoning behind it, then why didn't they simply represent their case this way?

By hiding behind words like 'increased efficiency' they're implicitly suggesting that their true justifications need hiding from the public, leading to the (not unreasonable) charge that they've got something to hide.

If increasing profits for power companies at the expense of the environment is your objective, and if this is a valid and reasonable thing to do, they why not simply say that and lay out the justifications and reasons for everyone to see?

The Breck Girl versus Dr. No

10/06/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: General
The debates tonight turned into a rather nasty bitchfight. Think WWF and you've got an idea. This particular scene would have been played out before the players ever got into the boxing ring.

Edwards walked over and gave Cheney a Suplex, who, then walked over to Edwards as he was waving at the crowd and slammed a chair into his back.

On and on it went: You're a liar, no no, YOU'RE the liar!!!

Edwards intended to get first mover advantage by striking first and hard. Dr. No was unflappable, though. It seemed for a while that he was besting Edwards.

But it became evident that he was just repeating the same things just as Edwards was. One of Cheney's gaffs was directing the public to a website: factcheck.com when what he wanted was factcheck.org

If you go to factcheck.com, you'll get an amusing surprise.

What I didn't understand was why Edwards didn't apply the bad judgement card. Right along the lines of when did you stop beating your wife it would have had Cheney not only having to defend his judgement, but it would have removed Edwards from the bitchslapping that was going on about whether Iraq was the right move or not.

If Edwards had led with "please explain how you could have had such bad judgement", that would have implied the bad decision on Iraq without leaving Cheney with a direct statement to rebut. He'd have to start in on the fact that, no he didn't have bad judgement, and not only that, the premise of the statement, that Iraq was a mistake was also false. The beauty of that kind of charge, is that the listening audience gets too confused and automatically assumes the premise as a given. When did you stop beating your wife??

In the end, they just both ran out of gas and seemed to just peter out, giving each other a half-hearted jab now and again. Who won? I think Don King.

If you're fond of Sand Dunes and Salty Air

10/05/04 | by david2 [mail] | Categories: song of the day
Quaint little villages, here and there.

Groove Armada and Patti Page are too.

Pages: << 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 ... 144 >>

January 2020
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Search

The requested Blog doesn't exist any more!

XML Feeds

powered by b2evolution free blog software