happythoughts

nobody but Obama knows what he meant by change. he would have had to either show a trac record of voting in the senate or lay out specifics of his policy during the campain, of which he did niether. so anything that he does that doesn't duplicate Bush is a change in his eyes. Actually, it is pretty easy to predict. I previously posted this voting analysis done by OpenCongress.org Obama voted with the Dem party 98% of the time. Obama voted with Clinton 96% of the time.

My dishwasher makes thumping sounds. (He pushes the dishes up against the kitchen wall while he's cleaning.)

It used to be that oral contracts were binding to $1000 and 6 months in duration, but this is different. In their marriage vows, he said he "...until death do us part". Why can't he show a little commitment? I hope that he not been trying to weasel out of his other permanent obligations to her happiness.

Just "wow". My nephew didn't start as an attorney at $40.

There have been a lot of websites that promoted that. Their problem was finding those products. Who builds stereos? Electronics ? Clothing? Nobody in the US. Your bank? Bank of America? Information processing is done overseas. Most major multinationals do that. Even the US govt sends software contracts overseas.

I just finished reading the history of piracy in the Caribbean. There it was largely govt sanctioned privateering. Eventually, the govts signed treaties and the pirates became outlaws without operating bases. The African pirates do not pick a side. They are opportunists. The previous solution was to initially pay "tribute" for safe passage, followed by a blockade and suppression. It seems like the richest people in the area would not be difficult to find.

Perhaps he had the enlisted pension and wasn't living the good life. In the 88-89 timeframe, I worked with a software contractor in my group. (He and I made excellent cash back then.) His wife was a bank manager. He was a vet who loved risk and he missed the excitement. He would correct last nights movie with "the correct way to bayonet someone" or "the fastest way to clear a tunnel". Having quiet conversations with a friend from his Army days. Or practicing walking down the hall quietly, play-stalking. The $300 "suitcase" cellphones had just came out. A woman called from her car and said she saw a guy with a gun and a ski mask get into a car. With the car tag and description, they picked him up for 9 bank robberies. He didn't need the cash. He just liked the action. Some people are just that way.

True. Forgot about that. The estimated age of 40 would make him a 20-yr guy getting out.

Perhaps the truth is in the middle. Novice - An ex-airborne jumper may have done 10-15 jumps in training. (disclaimer - No personal military background) I believe that the airborne groups have riggers who pack their rigs for them. So, gear knowledge, in the day, may have been as little as visual gear checks and use. This would explain the military gear selection over the sport gear. You go with what you know. Local knowledge - I have flown to many airports. Didn't know one fact about the area surrounding the airport. DBC flew from Portland to Seattle and knew that McChord was nearby, but also the 20 minute driving time. If I flew to Seattle, I would not know any of that. So, a person with local knowledge of the area, and/or military background. There were a lot of ex-airborne guys coming back from VN in 1971 with military, but not sport experience. Novice level experience. Maybe unemployed, so he didn't miss any work. That would tie a lot of the loose ends together. I always wondered if there was a car sitting in the Portland long term parking lot for 6 weeks and never claimed.

Again, innacurate in that it does not demand anyone be fired. It’s a hiring policy ...or more specifically a proposed change to corporate governance policy for determining composition of corporate boards of directors. So, you didn't bother to read the link or quotes at all? "For a woman to get in a man must get out. It is not difficult to find qualified women." The person being quoted is the person who is implementing the policy. Karita Bekkemellem. That is part of her plan. Yes, I read the original policy - two years ago. I re-read this year for possible revisions. Her reasoning is that there was discrimination in the past. Probably. No one has argued that. Sex discrimination is everywhere. Most rampantly in that plan. The discussion is about the Norway solution. The question has (again...) been about the stated intentions of the person implementing the plan. And if you read any of her statements, it is not ONLY a hiring plan. She speaks of the current composition of existing boards. Repeatedly. Anywhere that she discusses it. Ignore what you wish. No, not at all. It applies to currently existing companies. If they do not reach the 40% level, their company can be closed. That is how it IS being done. reuters Further statements about the plan - Existing companies. Not new companies, not hiring. The implementation of the policy is to go to over 500 existing companies and replace men on the boards. That is the implementation. As the minister stated, the discussion is about the 3600 boards seats occupied by men and their replacement. I used MIT as an example. Switching the example is a time-wasting bunny trail. The concept is the same. A tangental discussion of any of her other policies without answering the current question is another avoidance. I will state that the implementation of the policy is wrong. It makes a great NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) topic. People support programs until it happens to them. Some people are ok with giving away other peoples jobs. Those people should "walk the walk" and give away THEIR job. (I never see that happening, that is what makes them dishonest) No one is required to decide, or state, a position, but that is the eventual point of discussion.

Inaccurate how? I was applying the scenario requested. See the direct quote shown below. clicky When no vacancy exists, fire the men and replace them with women. I like to use examples because people relate to them easier and stay within the general boundaries of the discussion.

drowning statistics by country Out of 61 countries reporting - #4 United States 4,602 #57 Bahrain 9 Statistics show that the number of drownings in Bahrain is less than .2% of the US figure. The US should be sending delegates to Bahrain to discuss their plan for fighting this senseless loss of life.

The assumption is that it has a positive value for the society. Let's look at it in real life. Using an example, say... MITs physics professors. clicky I counted over 125. Names that resembled female names? 5. To implement the Norway policy, 50 of the 127 male professors would need to be replaced by women. To teach physics at MIT, I suspect there are few slackers on their faculty. Firing 50 of the best and brightest for no reason other than gender is sexism. Is this the new gender equality? Those 50 are punished for no crime other than their gender? Is this new form of discrimination a goal? It would make MIT physics dept equal to Norway in fashion, but destroy the actual value of a university - teaching. That is a harsh price to pay for being fashionable. Your position is based on fallacious reasoning. The situation at MIT (and elsewhere) is just a reflection of the difficulty women face getting tenure in a male dominated profession for reasons having little to do with their ability and a lot to do with their gender I wasn't discussing a reason for the situation at all. The cause is irrelevant because Norway didn't establish a cause. They just implemented a broadsword "solution" for the entire country. Do it, or be put out of business. So, regardless of the reason, my question would still stand. Are you ok with implementing the Norway legal solution? 40% must be women by replacement. Firing 50 professors for the reason of being male. The method of implementation is the same. Firing 50 male MIT professors and replacing them with women to "achieve" the 40% level. In order to achieve the ranking that Norway has, are you willing to do that for MIT? For the entire US? Every business, every college, next year. A number one ranking looks great in meaningless statistics. I'd easily say that it sounds like a preposterously stupid idea.

You can see the DJR in the corner.

The assumption is that it has a positive value for the society. Let's look at it in real life. Using an example, say... MITs physics professors. clicky I counted over 125. Names that resembled female names? 5. To implement the Norway policy, 50 of the 127 male professors would need to be replaced by women. To teach physics at MIT, I suspect there are few slackers on their faculty. Firing 50 of the best and brightest for no reason other than gender is sexism. Is this the new gender equality? Those 50 are punished for no crime other than their gender? Is this new form of discrimination a goal? It would make MIT physics dept equal to Norway in fashion, but destroy the actual value of a university - teaching. That is a harsh price to pay for being fashionable.

I noticed you used the word..."IF" You aren't actually stating confidence in their judgment. If they were going to notice a problem and fix it, they would have taken some steps by now. So much for their history. You will if we don't....but than it will be to late. Sorry to have to resort to fear...but as you know fear was designed to save lives. No, fear may cause a decision that would save a life. It isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion. People in deep water may panic and thrash around until they drown. GM is in pretty deep and their judgment suspect. There is no cause-effect between aiding them and saving them. As you stated, you do understand that they will have to change their method of doing business. That would mean - recognizing a problem and identifying a solution and implementing it. Did they recognize a problem before? Do they have a solution? Why didn't they implement it before?

Norway 2005 I wonder what happened to the incorrect-gender persons who previously held those positions? If the 40% mark wasn't reached by Jan 2008, the companies could be shut down forcibly by the govt. That is how you get to be Number One.

I don't think we should give other countries our money because we AMERICANS are toooooo stupid to run a business. We are better than this and can make it work. I'd rather have a socialistic government before allowing foreign companies to takeover all of our business. You mean like GM sells out US businesses? GM had no problem outsourcing their IT work to India. GM outsourcing They do it to save money. So, I'll use their logic and buy the least expensive. Right now, Detroit is screaming because it is their ox that is getting gored. Let's face it, if they are going to continue to mismanage their companies in the fashion that brought them to this point, then we are only talking about postponing the inevitable. Let's save the money and do something else with it. They can start making the decisions that they will face in 4 years anyway and the taxpayers keep $50 billion. I don't think that they woke up Nov 1st and said, "Dear me". They've know about this for a while. So, either they chose to avoid decisions or lack the capacity to make correct ones. Either way, I can't feel the need to bail them out.

GM and Ford management have been making decisions about models, labor, and financial plans. In most areas, wrong ones. The Camry and the Accord sell. Why not loan Toyota and Honda the money to buy GM and Ford? Let them hire American auto workers to make cars in Toyota plants. Same job, same town. If there are companies that make money, then why reward failure? Obviously, whatever they are doing is not working.

...and thus, the people have spoken. Now he has to actually name and execute programs. Just saying, "vote for change", does not make change happen. It also doesn't definitively make the "change" in the correct direction (I spend 12% of my driving vacations lost). Regardless, his supporters will say, "get over it, the people have spoken". In Calif, there has been some recent ballot determinations. However, the people on the losing side of that have not been so accepting. Name-calling resumes. So, no one really cares what the voters do. If it is not to their liking, then they immediately resume their crusade. I am actually surprised that people in Calif even care about legislation any more. Most groups just go to the court system and declare all offending legislation as violating a right. The legislative branch is all but neutered by the courts. The people speak, but no one cares.

Her strengths are her integrity and people skills.

Toyota makes cars in the US. So does Honda. Both companies are paying employees who live in the US. GM and Ford should make cars that compete with the Camry or the Accord. They should dump whatever model is selling in the bottom 10%. GM should quit making brands that compete with other GM subsidiaries.

I recently learned that the sheepdog in Disneys The Shaggy Dog didn't really drive the car. Is there no truth in movies? What next?

Personal plan... If I had a book about a hijacker who boarded a plane just before Thanksgiving and I was going to spend "a couple of months working on it" and it was just before Thanksgiving... I'd make a big press announcement just before Thanksgiving. But... that's just me. He could be sitting home on a beanbag chair with a bottle of bourbon and a bag of Cheetos watching... Mayberry RFD reruns and given up on the whole idea.

The money is supposed to go for research and development for fuel efficient cars... like the competition has been doing for 10 years. Let Toyota and Honda buy GM and Ford. They can immediately scrap all the worst 10 useless models that no one is buying. There are car manufacturers, building cars in the US, who are making business decisions based on common sense. The market has already made its decision with their wallets. Why give them more taxpayers money to continue on in their mistakes? Welcome to capitalism.