26 October 2005
If I hear "incentivize" one more time I'm going to slit my wrists. Whoever made that word up and all the buzzword addicts should be shot. Incentivize. Puh-lease. "yes, yes, input incentive 5x +$500 - job stress = increased output. . . all humans are machines all humans are machines". Incentivizing the labor force sounds like "increase the current on those robots". Ugh. fascists suck.
22 October 2005
"When they have the right temperament, [pit bulls] are really averse to biting people, almost to the point of appearing cowardly when confronted by a human . . . [o]ne of the most important qualities in organized dog fighting was that no matter how frenzied the dogs became in their excitement, they could never, ever bite the handler." (Dogfancy, October 2005)
That's right all you idiots thinking you've got a tough guard dog: your dog was BRED TO BE PASSIVE TOWARDS HUMANS. So all you gangsta's out there: you're dumb. And you give my loving dog a bad name.
So why all the pit bull bites? Because it's the same morons that buy these dogs as guard dogs that also abuse them. And, ANY dog, no matter what breed, becomes aggressive when abused - even a Lhasa Apsu or Poodle. So the Joe Q. Public's emotion toward the breed is ironically the opposite what it should be, no thanks to the drama queens on the local network news and the idiots that take what they say as Truth. Oh yeah, and no thanks to the imbeciles who abuse these dogs because they actually think they've got a tough guard dog. Actually, Mr. Toughguy, you're dog is a wuss and coward when it comes to humans. You might as well be walking a Pomeranian down the block: "[t]he American Temperament Test Society, Inc. breed statistics as of December 2004 show an 83.4% passing rate for the [pit bull] as compared to an 81% overall pass rate" (Wikipedia).
You take a breed that has one of the most loving dispositions towards humans and you abuse that love to the point of making the dog aggressive. That doesn't make you tough; it adds cowardice to your stupidity. Why don't you try abusing a dog that really isn't so willing to take your abuse, a dog that actually is "tough" when it comes to humans? Try and pull your abusive stunts on it. Then, unlike the loving and passive pit bull, who will do anything to please its master, you'll have your hand bit off like it should be, and maybe, if we're lucky, your dog will kill you in your sleep and save you from your own misery and the pit bull from a bad reputation. But, of course, you're too much of a coward to try that now, aren't you?
That's right all you idiots thinking you've got a tough guard dog: your dog was BRED TO BE PASSIVE TOWARDS HUMANS. So all you gangsta's out there: you're dumb. And you give my loving dog a bad name.
So why all the pit bull bites? Because it's the same morons that buy these dogs as guard dogs that also abuse them. And, ANY dog, no matter what breed, becomes aggressive when abused - even a Lhasa Apsu or Poodle. So the Joe Q. Public's emotion toward the breed is ironically the opposite what it should be, no thanks to the drama queens on the local network news and the idiots that take what they say as Truth. Oh yeah, and no thanks to the imbeciles who abuse these dogs because they actually think they've got a tough guard dog. Actually, Mr. Toughguy, you're dog is a wuss and coward when it comes to humans. You might as well be walking a Pomeranian down the block: "[t]he American Temperament Test Society, Inc. breed statistics as of December 2004 show an 83.4% passing rate for the [pit bull] as compared to an 81% overall pass rate" (Wikipedia).
You take a breed that has one of the most loving dispositions towards humans and you abuse that love to the point of making the dog aggressive. That doesn't make you tough; it adds cowardice to your stupidity. Why don't you try abusing a dog that really isn't so willing to take your abuse, a dog that actually is "tough" when it comes to humans? Try and pull your abusive stunts on it. Then, unlike the loving and passive pit bull, who will do anything to please its master, you'll have your hand bit off like it should be, and maybe, if we're lucky, your dog will kill you in your sleep and save you from your own misery and the pit bull from a bad reputation. But, of course, you're too much of a coward to try that now, aren't you?
18 October 2005
"As of 2001, the most recent year for which data are available, part-time appointments accounted for 45% of all faculty positions, and another 19% of faculty were employed full-time, but off the tenure track. Together, such contingent appointments [ones without any long-term commitment made by the institution] make up more than half of all faculty appointments in American higher education. Just 36% of faculty held the full-time tenured or tenure-track appointments that used to be the norm."
- American Association of University Professors
--
On part-time and adjunct professors:
"The [Coalition on the Academic Workforce] survey tears away the veil of lies about the new economy - that if you get a good education and become an expert in the knowledge economy, you will get a good job," comments AAUP staff member Richard Moser. "Here we have some of the most highly educated professionals in the country, and they're barely making a minimum wage."
- Chronicle of Higher Education, December 1, 2000
- American Association of University Professors
--
On part-time and adjunct professors:
"The [Coalition on the Academic Workforce] survey tears away the veil of lies about the new economy - that if you get a good education and become an expert in the knowledge economy, you will get a good job," comments AAUP staff member Richard Moser. "Here we have some of the most highly educated professionals in the country, and they're barely making a minimum wage."
- Chronicle of Higher Education, December 1, 2000
15 October 2005
I don't think I've ever been witness to such a beautiful day. The weather is absolutely perfect: 67 degrees, clear skies, cool breeze, fall foliage.
I was given teaching assignments next semester (2 courses - which is as much as they can give me as an adjunct). So I have a full adjunct load. That means I'm 1 credit hour short of being half time, and the pay still reflects this (my annualized salary is about $12,000/year with no benefits), but nonetheless, it's good to know there's work next semester. Being an adjunct means you never know when the semester you're teaching will be your last.
I was given teaching assignments next semester (2 courses - which is as much as they can give me as an adjunct). So I have a full adjunct load. That means I'm 1 credit hour short of being half time, and the pay still reflects this (my annualized salary is about $12,000/year with no benefits), but nonetheless, it's good to know there's work next semester. Being an adjunct means you never know when the semester you're teaching will be your last.
09 October 2005
According to the October 2005 Industrial Worker, using complied data from the Economic Policy Institute (www.epinet.org):
With the US Census bureau setting poverty at $19,307, poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7%, and 17.8% of all American children live in poverty.
In 2004 19% or all workers are without health insurance.
There many more interesting statistics in the article, demonstrating how the lower 60% of Americans are losing income, while the top are gaining, and how the top 20% of American households now earn 50.1% of all income.
But I would like to take a second to note the following:
If national unemployment in October 2004 was approximately 5.1% (US Dept. of Labor), and the poverty rate was 12.7%, this means that 7.6% of Americans living in poverty were not "unemployed". There are two possibilities for this: 1) they fell of the rolls - this means that after some time, people who are unemployed are no longer considered unemployed, because they give up looking for a job (even though they still might not have one), or 2) they are working and poor. So of the total number of people living in poverty, over half have either given up after months of searching or they are working and still living in poverty. To be honest, if I knew that most of the people in my impoverished boat, when finding a job, still live in poverty, I might give up and fall off the rolls myself.
The American dream of busting your tail and working up "the ladder" is a hoax. Plenty of people bust their tail working at a job and fall farther and farther into debt and poverty as they are working. Middle class workers are coming to realize that as a commodity (as Human Resources departments sees labor - just look at the title, "Human Resources". Humans are treated like gasoline or paper - just one other resource for production), they are expendable and will be cut off when downsizing takes place in order to maximize profit margins to make richer those who were rich enough to invest in stock to begin with.
And for those of you who like to bitch about federal taxes, Human Resources takes about 34 cents on the federal tax dollar, and the military takes about 48 cents on the dollar. That 34 cents? That's not just welfare, buddy. That's: Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department and the Soc. Sec. Admin (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm) And the military still outspends all of that.
Something else to consider (from a 1996 report by the National Center for Policy Analysis):
"# Only 43 percent of all poor families receive food stamps . . .
# Only 19 percent of all poor families live in public housing or receive housing subsidies . . .
# Only 41 percent of all poor families are covered by Medicaid . . .
# Amazingly, 46 percent of all poor families receive no means-tested benefit of any kind from government . . ."
So if your going to bitch about taxes, then go picket the Pentagon. Or better yet, go picket your local Enron. According to the Libertarian group, _The Cato Institute_, in their report for the 105th Congress:
"There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. Terminating those programs could save taxpayers more than $400 billion over the next five years."
Maybe instead of corporate subsidy, Bush can give the American impoverished worker a bigger tax break.
With the US Census bureau setting poverty at $19,307, poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7%, and 17.8% of all American children live in poverty.
In 2004 19% or all workers are without health insurance.
There many more interesting statistics in the article, demonstrating how the lower 60% of Americans are losing income, while the top are gaining, and how the top 20% of American households now earn 50.1% of all income.
But I would like to take a second to note the following:
If national unemployment in October 2004 was approximately 5.1% (US Dept. of Labor), and the poverty rate was 12.7%, this means that 7.6% of Americans living in poverty were not "unemployed". There are two possibilities for this: 1) they fell of the rolls - this means that after some time, people who are unemployed are no longer considered unemployed, because they give up looking for a job (even though they still might not have one), or 2) they are working and poor. So of the total number of people living in poverty, over half have either given up after months of searching or they are working and still living in poverty. To be honest, if I knew that most of the people in my impoverished boat, when finding a job, still live in poverty, I might give up and fall off the rolls myself.
The American dream of busting your tail and working up "the ladder" is a hoax. Plenty of people bust their tail working at a job and fall farther and farther into debt and poverty as they are working. Middle class workers are coming to realize that as a commodity (as Human Resources departments sees labor - just look at the title, "Human Resources". Humans are treated like gasoline or paper - just one other resource for production), they are expendable and will be cut off when downsizing takes place in order to maximize profit margins to make richer those who were rich enough to invest in stock to begin with.
And for those of you who like to bitch about federal taxes, Human Resources takes about 34 cents on the federal tax dollar, and the military takes about 48 cents on the dollar. That 34 cents? That's not just welfare, buddy. That's: Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department and the Soc. Sec. Admin (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm) And the military still outspends all of that.
Something else to consider (from a 1996 report by the National Center for Policy Analysis):
"# Only 43 percent of all poor families receive food stamps . . .
# Only 19 percent of all poor families live in public housing or receive housing subsidies . . .
# Only 41 percent of all poor families are covered by Medicaid . . .
# Amazingly, 46 percent of all poor families receive no means-tested benefit of any kind from government . . ."
So if your going to bitch about taxes, then go picket the Pentagon. Or better yet, go picket your local Enron. According to the Libertarian group, _The Cato Institute_, in their report for the 105th Congress:
"There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. Terminating those programs could save taxpayers more than $400 billion over the next five years."
Maybe instead of corporate subsidy, Bush can give the American impoverished worker a bigger tax break.
06 October 2005
Bush has started pushing rhetoric reminiscent of the Vietnam war: that if the insurgents control Iraq, it will lead to a domino effect where other country may fall victim to "the terrorists". What a bizarre way to admit that he got us into another Vietnam. A total contortion of responsibility. For years, we've heard that this will not be another Vietnam, that it *is* not another Vietnam, but instead of now admitting that it is, the President has ramped up the Vietnam/Cold-War rhetoric invoking the Domino theory. In one swift move, he admitted that Iraq is another Vietnam while he pushed everyone else's attention away from the fact that he did just that. Once again, the left was correct, and now the President agrees: we're in another Vietnam - another ideological war against dominos falling in favor of an ideology we disagree with - a war in which there is no end in sight and in which we've see no improvement over the past 3 years. If anything, things have progressively gotten worse. And this war, from generals' testimonies, is anticipated to last at least 9 years. Shock and Awe, baby. We're going to go in there and they will throw roses at us and hail us as their liberators. Yeah, right. And I'm the profit Mohammed.
03 October 2005
While the Bush administration is doing what it does best, distracting everybody from the issue-at-hand, don't forget that Bin Laden is still at large, we're wrapped in another Vietnam, the fuck-ups regarding Katrina still have to be dealt with, and we have a man who doesn't believe in the UN as our representative there.
Or, um. Wait. I forgot: all the drama queens are now leeching onto Bush's new nominee. Oh, all the woe we spilled for New Orleans. Well, we don't care about you now. We cut a check for Red Cross, now you're on your own. Now I have to talk about Bush's nominee, the judge who was never a judge.
WTF is up with that anyway? Bush is going to put someone who has NEVER been a judge on the highest legal body of our nation? Are you on fucking crack? The Roberts thing was one thing, but this. . . this is pure stupidity. This is a "he he, I'm the fucking president, I'll do whatever I like, even if it's dumb and flouts this nations principles". At least Roberts had been a judge. I mean, why not nominate me? I think I'd do pretty well at judging things.
Being an attorney is different than being a judge. And only a numbskull like Bush would think one is just a promotion from the other. A Supreme Court judge has to actually account for, and articulate convincingly, both sides of an argument - a philosophical argument. This is unlike the attorney, who has to argue a factual case and only represent one side, strategizing *at the expense of the other side*. This woman is also a politician.
So, Mr. Bush, what was that about not legislating from the bench? You're going to take a politician - a former city-counsel woman and "Bush loyalist" - a lawyer with no judging experience and one who attends a conservative evangelical church and put her on the Supreme Court? a) She does not represent even close to a majority of America b) SHE'S NOT A JUDGE and c) SHE'S A PARTISIAN.
Oh, and this is the kicker. She was on Bush's committee for finding nominees. And she didn't recuse herself from the committee when she was being sussed out for their nomination. Now THAT's *real* integrity. Roberts makes me nervous. This woman is dangerous.
Or, um. Wait. I forgot: all the drama queens are now leeching onto Bush's new nominee. Oh, all the woe we spilled for New Orleans. Well, we don't care about you now. We cut a check for Red Cross, now you're on your own. Now I have to talk about Bush's nominee, the judge who was never a judge.
WTF is up with that anyway? Bush is going to put someone who has NEVER been a judge on the highest legal body of our nation? Are you on fucking crack? The Roberts thing was one thing, but this. . . this is pure stupidity. This is a "he he, I'm the fucking president, I'll do whatever I like, even if it's dumb and flouts this nations principles". At least Roberts had been a judge. I mean, why not nominate me? I think I'd do pretty well at judging things.
Being an attorney is different than being a judge. And only a numbskull like Bush would think one is just a promotion from the other. A Supreme Court judge has to actually account for, and articulate convincingly, both sides of an argument - a philosophical argument. This is unlike the attorney, who has to argue a factual case and only represent one side, strategizing *at the expense of the other side*. This woman is also a politician.
So, Mr. Bush, what was that about not legislating from the bench? You're going to take a politician - a former city-counsel woman and "Bush loyalist" - a lawyer with no judging experience and one who attends a conservative evangelical church and put her on the Supreme Court? a) She does not represent even close to a majority of America b) SHE'S NOT A JUDGE and c) SHE'S A PARTISIAN.
Oh, and this is the kicker. She was on Bush's committee for finding nominees. And she didn't recuse herself from the committee when she was being sussed out for their nomination. Now THAT's *real* integrity. Roberts makes me nervous. This woman is dangerous.
We almost lost our dog yesterday. It was the longest and most terrifying two hours of my recent history. My wife and I were camping in a Wisconsin State Park, and after a beautiful afternoon and night, we decided to do one more hike the following morning before heading back home. We took Roscoe and started out on what we thought would be a quick 2-hour, 3-mile hike. Roscoe has a habit of leading in front of us, sniffing out the trail and occasionally heading off the trail for a romp, but he was never more than 100 feet from me or farther away from earshot or eyesight. I've hiked and backpacked with Roscoe on populated trails and in the backcountry of the Cascade Mountains in winter. He's never disappeared. But about 2.5 miles into our hike, we hadn't seen Roscoe for a few minutes. He loves to swim, and we were near the Wisconsin River, so we assumed he went in for a swim. But he didn't come when we called him. Nothing. We didn't hear him run off to chase anything. We didn't hear him bark or get into an altercation. Nothing. It was like a silent alien abduction. He just disappeared. It was so bizarre. I raised him since he was 8 weeks old, and he's off-leash 95% of the time, and he's only run off once when there was a storm. But out hiking he's the trail dog, he found our way back to a trail when I had gotten lost once in the wilderness. He's good. And smart. It just didn't make sense. Stephanie couldn't make sense of it. Did coyotes eat him up? Did he drown? He wouldn't just up and go; numerous times before, when he was ahead, we would find him waiting for us at a fork in the trail wanting to know which way to go. He would come back down the trail to see where we were if he hadn't see us in a while. Where would he have gone and why? For two hours we ruminated over these questions. Stephanie and I backtracked, the split up at the fork where we lost him, thinking he probably went up one or the other. We met back at the car having not found him, and then we went back down to where we lost him to try one last time.
He still was not there.
We hiked back to the car, slowly, sadly and wondered if we had seen our dog for the last time. I knew that if Roscoe didn't find his way to people by nightfall he probably was gone for good. I knew he wouldn't be lost, but I knew that he could be dead.
When we arrived back at our car, exhausted, thirsty and hungry Stephanie checked the cell phone, and there was a message from the welcome center: Roscoe had found his way to the manager's garage, and he was tied up out front of his house. We have no idea how her got there, but he was happy to see us. Somehow he got away from us. Was it the rain; did it spook him? Did he chase an animal so far that he was no longer in earshot?
Regardless, I kneeled in front of my dog and cried all of the tears I was anxiously holding and repressing when I knew there was a very good chance we lost him. Of course, the Ranger who was waiting for us so that he could give us a citation decided that now was the opportune time to lecture us on why they have a leash law at the park. Not once did he do this, but three times. Now, I understand the guy has a job to do, and I understand that I'll need to pay a fine. But lecturing me on a leash law isn't going to be what puts Roscoe on a leash next time. It's the fact that I almost lost him. I told the Ranger that I didn't need a lecture on leash laws at that time, and that I'll just pay the fine, to which he responded "Well, I think you do." You think a grown man crying about the fact that he almost lost his dog needs a lecture about leash laws? I think god gave me that lecture quite clearly when Roscoe disappeared. Oh, this was the other doozy: "this is a perfect example of why we have a leash law." No, idiot. You have a leash law because the State of Wisconsin doesn’t want to be held liable for passively condoning dogs being off-leash. The State of Wisconsin doesn't give a shit whether or not I loose my dog, which was exemplified by the Ranger's total inability to help us find him when we reported Roscoe lost. So don't lecture me about your revenue-generating, cover-our-ass law as if you actually give a shit about my dog or me. My wife and I were going to give a generous donation to the park, because we felt bad for placing such a burden on the employees, but after being treated so poorly by a Ranger, whose only concern was maintaing a power trip, we decided that the citation will be all we donate. What an asshole.
BUT. All of this is really is insignificant. It wouldn't be a post if I didn't rant about something, now would it. We're just glad to have Roscoe back. We would have paid any amount to have him found. Now here he lies, on our living room carpet, silently sleeping and dreaming of the deer he chased that cloudy afternoon on the Wisconsin River. We know one day Roscoe will have to leave us, but we pray that it will be from old age.
He still was not there.
We hiked back to the car, slowly, sadly and wondered if we had seen our dog for the last time. I knew that if Roscoe didn't find his way to people by nightfall he probably was gone for good. I knew he wouldn't be lost, but I knew that he could be dead.
When we arrived back at our car, exhausted, thirsty and hungry Stephanie checked the cell phone, and there was a message from the welcome center: Roscoe had found his way to the manager's garage, and he was tied up out front of his house. We have no idea how her got there, but he was happy to see us. Somehow he got away from us. Was it the rain; did it spook him? Did he chase an animal so far that he was no longer in earshot?
Regardless, I kneeled in front of my dog and cried all of the tears I was anxiously holding and repressing when I knew there was a very good chance we lost him. Of course, the Ranger who was waiting for us so that he could give us a citation decided that now was the opportune time to lecture us on why they have a leash law at the park. Not once did he do this, but three times. Now, I understand the guy has a job to do, and I understand that I'll need to pay a fine. But lecturing me on a leash law isn't going to be what puts Roscoe on a leash next time. It's the fact that I almost lost him. I told the Ranger that I didn't need a lecture on leash laws at that time, and that I'll just pay the fine, to which he responded "Well, I think you do." You think a grown man crying about the fact that he almost lost his dog needs a lecture about leash laws? I think god gave me that lecture quite clearly when Roscoe disappeared. Oh, this was the other doozy: "this is a perfect example of why we have a leash law." No, idiot. You have a leash law because the State of Wisconsin doesn’t want to be held liable for passively condoning dogs being off-leash. The State of Wisconsin doesn't give a shit whether or not I loose my dog, which was exemplified by the Ranger's total inability to help us find him when we reported Roscoe lost. So don't lecture me about your revenue-generating, cover-our-ass law as if you actually give a shit about my dog or me. My wife and I were going to give a generous donation to the park, because we felt bad for placing such a burden on the employees, but after being treated so poorly by a Ranger, whose only concern was maintaing a power trip, we decided that the citation will be all we donate. What an asshole.
BUT. All of this is really is insignificant. It wouldn't be a post if I didn't rant about something, now would it. We're just glad to have Roscoe back. We would have paid any amount to have him found. Now here he lies, on our living room carpet, silently sleeping and dreaming of the deer he chased that cloudy afternoon on the Wisconsin River. We know one day Roscoe will have to leave us, but we pray that it will be from old age.
02 October 2005
New York Times, October 1, 2005:
"In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the [G. W. Bush] administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."
Why does it take professional journalists 4 years to figure out what the left has been saying for years?
The left was correct about there being no WMDs. The left was correct that the administration would use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq (this was circulating well before Bush made his plans public). The left was correct about Iraq turning into a Vietnam. The left was correct about the war creating a greater terrorist threat. The left was right about the social security crisis being manufactured as a means of distracting from Iraq.
But no one wants to listen to the "crazy left". Let me correct that: no one wants to believe the left, so they stand in denial. They stand in denial until the truth is standing in front of them hammering away on their skulls.
"In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the [G. W. Bush] administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."
Why does it take professional journalists 4 years to figure out what the left has been saying for years?
The left was correct about there being no WMDs. The left was correct that the administration would use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq (this was circulating well before Bush made his plans public). The left was correct about Iraq turning into a Vietnam. The left was correct about the war creating a greater terrorist threat. The left was right about the social security crisis being manufactured as a means of distracting from Iraq.
But no one wants to listen to the "crazy left". Let me correct that: no one wants to believe the left, so they stand in denial. They stand in denial until the truth is standing in front of them hammering away on their skulls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
