Greatness !!
The same guy supposedly did this one about the other Obamney -
The same guy supposedly did this one about the other Obamney -
Showing posts with label craniofacial duplication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label craniofacial duplication. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2012
Saturday, September 3, 2011
According to Uncle Sam, I can't employ alcoholics. Or fire them.
The U.S. Department Of Transportation is rolling out a program called CSA 2010 (Compliance, Safety, and Accountability - 2010). They're having problems implementing the program because doing this kind of thing requires basic competence, which they ain't got. People with a sense of humor now call it CSA 2011. The Department Of Transportation has had some structural problems with the program.
CSA 2010 is the most comprehensive driver safety program ever imagined on this, or any other planet. Here are the rules on Alcohol Testing:
The FMCSA regulations require alcohol and drug testing of drivers, who are required to have a CDL. The DOT rules include procedures for urine drug testing and breath alcohol testing. Urine drug testing rules were first issued in December 1989. In 1994, the rules were amended to add breath alcohol testing procedures. In the years following the implementation of the drug and alcohol testing requirements, a number of factors including changes in testing technology, and the issuance of a number of written interpretations, required OST to review and revise the rules. Blah blah blah blah blah, you're not really reading this, are you? In December of 2000, OST published final rules that incorporated these factors, as well as input from the public sector, into the existing drug and alcohol testing regulations. In August of 2001, the FMCSA revised modal specific drug and alcohol testing regulations published in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 382 to reflect the revisions made by OST.
Why would drivers need to occasionally pass a sobriety test? Well, to see if they're driving drunk.
I recently had to attend a one-hour seminar on Drug and Alcohol Awareness. The goal was to train me to detect if a driver was drunk, or had been drinking. I've got to sit through it every year, despite the known fact that I don't pay my drivers enough for them to purchase alcohol.
This CSA 2010 thing is a big big deal. I'm plagued every week by consultants, seminar providers, and software salemen who have kits and programs that will help me cut through the confusion that is built into the program. (We've purchased a good one, BTW.)
But hold on a minute. Not everyone in Washington has gotten the message. This is from the Heritage Foundation website. The EEOC has declared that Old Dominion Freight Lines cannot fire alcoholic drivers.
The federal government has sued a major trucking company for its firing of a driver with an admitted alcohol abuse problem.
Alcoholism is classified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit maintains, and therefore employees cannot be prohibited even from driving 18 wheelers due to their histories of abuse.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the suit against the Old Dominion Freight Line trucking company on August 16, noted that while “an employer’s concern regarding safety on our highways is a legitimate issue, an employer can both ensure safety and comply with the ADA.”
So how does an employer ensure safety and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act? Maybe the driver has gotten into a program and cleaned up. But if he has a relapse and Old Dominion doesn't know about it, Old Dominion will still be liable if they let this guy drive and he drives the big rig into a school bus.
Here's a suggestion.... Let's trim it all back to the bare bones. Let's nuke the CSA non-programs. If Old Dominion employs an alcoholic driver who hits the school bus, Old Dominion can be taken into court and sued for every penny they've got. That's the program we need.
Old Dominion's hiring and firing decisions should be left up to Old Dominion. If they purchase alcoholic labor, they're going to have safety problems and they should be held responsible. OD should be free to make that purchasing choice, just like you have a choice in where or how to purchase groceries, gasoline, education for your children, dog food, TV sets, light bulbs, or clothing.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Don't bother reading this. It's just a series of funny pictures to make a very small point
From John Merline, on AOL News:
(Oct. 25) -- Throughout his presidential campaign and into his first two years in the White House, President Barack Obama portrayed himself as a champion of the middle class, ready to wage battle with big business and Wall Street fat cats to make sure the wealth got "spread around."
Back in March 2008, at a speech given on Wall Street, for example, he said that in the past, "we let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result," he said, is "a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street."
In September of that year, he argued that "for too long, [the Bush] administration has been wiling to hit the fast-forward button" to help Wall Street firms, "while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs or keeping people in their homes."
The next month, Obama said the country can't afford "four more years of the economic theory that says we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's time to turn the page."
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Realtor.com, Dow Jones industrial average.
And he said had a plan to do just that. "I've put forward a series of proposals," he said during the campaign, "that will foster economic growth from the bottom up."
But whatever his intentions, Obama's policies so far haven't exactly produced the results he promised.
In fact, the opposite has occurred.
As the nearby chart shows, by almost every measure, the middle class hasn't benefited much at all over the past two years – the number of employed has fallen while wages, disposable income and home prices have pretty much flatlined.
At the same time, Wall Street and big business have made out like bandits. The Dow is up 30 percent since Obama took office, and corporate profits have shot up 42 percent.
Meantime, companies are sitting on so much cash -- nearly $2 trillion worth -- they don't know what to do with it all. The non-financial companies in the S&P 500 index have seen their cash stockpile climb 26 percent over the previous year. Apple alone has amassed almost $26 billion in cash.
Obama may be right, as he said in August, that "on issue after issue, the Republicans in Congress have sided with corporate special interests over middle-class families."
But when it comes to actual results, Obama might want to take a good long look in the mirror.
(Oct. 25) -- Throughout his presidential campaign and into his first two years in the White House, President Barack Obama portrayed himself as a champion of the middle class, ready to wage battle with big business and Wall Street fat cats to make sure the wealth got "spread around."
Back in March 2008, at a speech given on Wall Street, for example, he said that in the past, "we let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result," he said, is "a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street."
In September of that year, he argued that "for too long, [the Bush] administration has been wiling to hit the fast-forward button" to help Wall Street firms, "while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs or keeping people in their homes."
The next month, Obama said the country can't afford "four more years of the economic theory that says we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's time to turn the page."
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Realtor.com, Dow Jones industrial average.
This chart shows the changes in employment, earnings, home prices, disposable income, the Dow and corporate profits since President Obama took office.
And he said had a plan to do just that. "I've put forward a series of proposals," he said during the campaign, "that will foster economic growth from the bottom up."
But whatever his intentions, Obama's policies so far haven't exactly produced the results he promised.
In fact, the opposite has occurred.
As the nearby chart shows, by almost every measure, the middle class hasn't benefited much at all over the past two years – the number of employed has fallen while wages, disposable income and home prices have pretty much flatlined.
At the same time, Wall Street and big business have made out like bandits. The Dow is up 30 percent since Obama took office, and corporate profits have shot up 42 percent.
Meantime, companies are sitting on so much cash -- nearly $2 trillion worth -- they don't know what to do with it all. The non-financial companies in the S&P 500 index have seen their cash stockpile climb 26 percent over the previous year. Apple alone has amassed almost $26 billion in cash.
Obama may be right, as he said in August, that "on issue after issue, the Republicans in Congress have sided with corporate special interests over middle-class families."
But when it comes to actual results, Obama might want to take a good long look in the mirror.
The mirror pics came from here. Let's throw in some Michael Jackson for your Monday.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Cash For Clunkers - Name That Economic Fallacy !
I've never seen this guy on TV since I don't watch much that isn't Tivo'd, but I'm a fan of his editorials, books, and website. It's sort of like being a fan of Winston Churchill's paintings, or Billy Bob Thornton's music. Here's Stossel on the Cash for Clunkers program:
Because sometimes, one billion isn’t enough.
The Obama Administration’s “Cash for Clunkers” program offers to buy used cars for $3,500 -$4,500 with taxpayer money. The government then destroys the “inefficient” used car. Not surprisingly, a lot of people want to sell their junk cars to the government. So many, in fact, that the $1 billion program has already run out of money.
Now it appears that Congress will ask not just for another billion, but another TWO billion. Look how generous Congress is with your money!
Because sometimes, one billion isn’t enough.
The Obama Administration’s “Cash for Clunkers” program offers to buy used cars for $3,500 -$4,500 with taxpayer money. The government then destroys the “inefficient” used car. Not surprisingly, a lot of people want to sell their junk cars to the government. So many, in fact, that the $1 billion program has already run out of money.
Now it appears that Congress will ask not just for another billion, but another TWO billion. Look how generous Congress is with your money!
The idea is that by destroying used cars, people will buy new cars, which creates jobs. But this commits the “broken window fallacy”. That $3 billion taken from taxpayers to, essentially, destroy used cars now cannot be put towards college, or a new home, or new clothes, or anything else. Some used cars are no longer available for poor consumers to buy. If the “new car” market is helped by “Cash for Clunkers”, every other market is hurt because that $3 billion cannot be spent on anything else.
Here's Stossel's concise explanation of the Broken Windows fallacy, from an earlier post:
Economists call this the "broken window fallacy." In the 19th century, French economist Frederic Bastiat illustrated it with the story of a boy who breaks a shop window. At first the townspeople lament the loss, but then someone points out that the shopkeeper will have to spend money to replace the window. What the window maker earns, he will soon spend elsewhere. As that money circulates through town, new prosperity will bloom.
The fallacy, of course, lies in the fact that if the window had not been broken, the shopkeeper would have "replaced his worn-out shoes … or added another book to his library." The town gains nothing from the broken window.
This logic is lost on the stimulus promoters. I'm surprised they don't suggest that we prevent recessions by breaking lots of windows.
The fallacy, of course, lies in the fact that if the window had not been broken, the shopkeeper would have "replaced his worn-out shoes … or added another book to his library." The town gains nothing from the broken window.
This logic is lost on the stimulus promoters. I'm surprised they don't suggest that we prevent recessions by breaking lots of windows.
This is similar to the forklift program we took advantage of at my employer, Jukt Micronics. The government gave us a huge rebate in exchange for trading in our old planet-warming forklifts for new ones that also warm the planet, but not as quickly. That was their logic, anyway.
Which finally gets me to my point. We're dealing with a group of Chicago machine politicians who are looting The Treasury and giving the money to their contributors - in this case, the UAW and the Big 3 auto makers. They use the wholesome, environmentally-friendly bullshit to convince The Sheeple that this isn't a scam.
But isn't it an article of faith in the Mommy Party that we need fewer cars on the road and more use of public transportation?
Or perhaps Craniofacial Duplication.
And what if the money to repair the Broken Windows doesn't exist, and has to be printed on the spot? Instead of the Broken Windows fallacy, isn't this the Monopoly Money fallacy?
Anyway, I know something is wrong here, but what is it?
The Broken Windows Fallacy?
Anarchic Hand Syndrome?
Craniofacial Duplication?
or The Monopoly Money Fallacy?
Sometimes things are so wrong, one explanation can't cover it.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Don't Smile For The Camera
The topic for this weekend is the driver's license.
This is from NBC/Washington:
WASHINGTON -- As most people are generally bubbly and bursting with joy after waiting in line after line for hour after hour -- often on a second or third visit after forgetting their cable bills to prove their residences (to environmentalists' chagrin, the DMV stands firmly in the way of practical paperless billing) -- at the Department of Motor Vehicles, Virginia is insisting that people refrain from smiling for their driver's license pictures.
My natural facial expression is usually somewhere betweeen pained and puzzled. I can cope.
A new policy requires a "neutral facial expression" for the photos in an effort to fight fraud. The policy comes in anticipation of facial recognition programs that would be able to recognize if someone already has gotten a license under a different name. Smiling makes that harder to determine.
For years my employers at Jukt Micronics have wanted to open a warehouse/distribution center in California, but California is turning into the next failed nation-state. So they decided that we're going to Virginia, and the lease has already been signed. Bummer.
Some drivers are all smiles despite the fact that the DMV is like the dentist minus the laughing gas. They argue that it's just a natural reaction to smile for the camera. But they won't be allowed to smile even a little bit because the DMV photographer will get a message rejecting the photo.
Which gets to my point....What the heck do they need with facial recognition software? Who, besides the Facial Recognition Software Lobby, thinks that the DMV and the VA Highway Patrol needs facial recognition software? Was this part of the porkulus package? (Here's a slightly related link to a Fort Worth Star-Telegram piece on the North Richland Hills and Bedford, TX police getting military style upgrades and armored vehicles as a porkulus perk. The better not to apprehend the thieves who've broken into my house.)
This has nothing to do with the controversy a few years back when some pranksters got their Virginia driver's license photos wearing disguises and making faces, DMV officials said.
Here's some greatness on the topic from Reason magazine.
This is from NBC/Washington:
WASHINGTON -- As most people are generally bubbly and bursting with joy after waiting in line after line for hour after hour -- often on a second or third visit after forgetting their cable bills to prove their residences (to environmentalists' chagrin, the DMV stands firmly in the way of practical paperless billing) -- at the Department of Motor Vehicles, Virginia is insisting that people refrain from smiling for their driver's license pictures.
My natural facial expression is usually somewhere betweeen pained and puzzled. I can cope.
A new policy requires a "neutral facial expression" for the photos in an effort to fight fraud. The policy comes in anticipation of facial recognition programs that would be able to recognize if someone already has gotten a license under a different name. Smiling makes that harder to determine.
For years my employers at Jukt Micronics have wanted to open a warehouse/distribution center in California, but California is turning into the next failed nation-state. So they decided that we're going to Virginia, and the lease has already been signed. Bummer.
Some drivers are all smiles despite the fact that the DMV is like the dentist minus the laughing gas. They argue that it's just a natural reaction to smile for the camera. But they won't be allowed to smile even a little bit because the DMV photographer will get a message rejecting the photo.
Which gets to my point....What the heck do they need with facial recognition software? Who, besides the Facial Recognition Software Lobby, thinks that the DMV and the VA Highway Patrol needs facial recognition software? Was this part of the porkulus package? (Here's a slightly related link to a Fort Worth Star-Telegram piece on the North Richland Hills and Bedford, TX police getting military style upgrades and armored vehicles as a porkulus perk. The better not to apprehend the thieves who've broken into my house.)
This has nothing to do with the controversy a few years back when some pranksters got their Virginia driver's license photos wearing disguises and making faces, DMV officials said.
Here's some greatness on the topic from Reason magazine.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Obama, McCain, Barr, and Heath Ledger
Pat Buchanan, our nation's leading ultra-protectionist, has an editorial in Real Clear Politics in which he wonders which way Barack Obama will Flip-flop next.
The essense of the piece is that we're a right-center nation. Obama had to run to the left of Hillary to win the democrat nomination, then go toward the center against McCain. Unless Obama really believes in his current spiel, he'll have to flip-flop even more after the election, simply because he's not truly insane.
Buchanan outlines a few of Obama's many flip-flops for us:
The essense of the piece is that we're a right-center nation. Obama had to run to the left of Hillary to win the democrat nomination, then go toward the center against McCain. Unless Obama really believes in his current spiel, he'll have to flip-flop even more after the election, simply because he's not truly insane.
Buchanan outlines a few of Obama's many flip-flops for us:
Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of "refining" his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi Army and deal with Al Qaeda.
On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government.
Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon.
Buchanan doesn't mention any life or death issues like flag lapel pins.
McCain has been honored with an online Master List of flip-flops. There are hundreds listed.
Decrying Obama's lack of executive experience, and then nominating Palin is in there somewhere. That was one big John McCain flip-flop.
Then there's my guy, Bob Barr - a man who has recently performed a breathtaking double-gainer, touch your toes, back-flip-with-a-spiral flip-flop.
The judges gave him a "10" just for having the nerve to try it.
Barr has flip-flopped on The Patriot Act, The Defense of Marriage Act, Reform of Drug Laws, and just about every other social issue out there. He now calls himself a Born Again Libertarian.
There are plenty of others, but let me bring up just one more person: Heath Ledger. You may have heard of him. Heath Ledger was a sensitive, caring gay Montana cowboy in 2005. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Seemed like a nice enough person.
By 2008, though, something had happened. Ledger didn't give a rip about Jake Gyllenhaal any more. He seemed more like a psycho than anything else. He was killing people. He made a pencil disappear by shoving it into someone's eye. I have no idea what was going on with the makeup.
From 2005 to 2008, Heath Ledger went through a massive personality change. 
What do Obama, McCain, Barr, and Ledger have in common?
Their scripts changed. (You don't really think these people write their own lines, do you?) When gas hits $4.00 per gallon, the "Ban On Offshore Drilling" script no longer makes sense. Preview audiences at Iowa shopping mall theatres gave it a "thumbs down". Therefore, the script got an alternate ending, known as "signaling conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve".
McCain has a Democratic opponent with less executive experience than your typical McDonald's Assistant Manager, and didn't hesitate to say so. No one cared. So the new script called for a female governor who also had a shallow resume. This script drew crowds for about two weeks but now appears to be destined for cable.
Barr doesn't like being out of the public eye. He used to be a fairly generic Republican congressman until he got redistricted. Barr saw an opening in the Libertarian Party, got a new screenplay, and now there are at least two people driving around Fort Worth, Texas, with Bob Barr bumperstickers.
Heath Ledger, not necessarily the best actor listed on this page, was the most blatant offender. His movies actually gave credit to screenwriters ! ! ! Can you believe it? The nerve of that guy.
All of these changes are poll-driven, and are usually brought about by surveying small sample audiences. The alternate movie endings you sometimes get on DVD's are merely flip-flops not fully executed by the producers.
But from now on, let's not call them flip-flops. That's so John Kerry in the previous millenium.
They are all script changes.
Monday, June 30, 2008
What Was Samuel Clemens' Birthplace?
Some game show has apparently asked the question "What was Samuel Clemens' Birthplace?"
People are being sent here from various search engines, due to a fluke in Google's algorithms.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens was born in Florida, Missouri on November 30, 1835. The family moved to Hannibal, Missouri a few years later. Hannibal is the town that Clemens made famous, so I'm assuming they're using this as a trick question.
Here's a pre-emptive strike..... "How did Samuel Clemens get the name Mark Twain?" And "What does the name Mark Twain mean?"
The "marks" were the strips woven into a depth sounding device used on steamboats. "Mark One" meant approximately six feet deep. "Mark Twain", twain meaning "two", meant twelve feet or "safe water". Click here for a full listing of the divisions of marks. Anyone who rode on a steamboat would've heard these terms shouted to the pilot throughout a river trip, so when Clemens needed a pen name, Mark Twain seemed like a natural choice.
Those who love psychobabble have wasted a lot of ink on Clemens picking a pseudonym that means safe but not too deep.
Now, back to our regular scheduled programming. I apologize for whoring for hits. And I would appreciate it if someone could comment on why people suddenly want to know where Sam Clemens was born.
People are being sent here from various search engines, due to a fluke in Google's algorithms.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens was born in Florida, Missouri on November 30, 1835. The family moved to Hannibal, Missouri a few years later. Hannibal is the town that Clemens made famous, so I'm assuming they're using this as a trick question.
Here's a pre-emptive strike..... "How did Samuel Clemens get the name Mark Twain?" And "What does the name Mark Twain mean?"
The "marks" were the strips woven into a depth sounding device used on steamboats. "Mark One" meant approximately six feet deep. "Mark Twain", twain meaning "two", meant twelve feet or "safe water". Click here for a full listing of the divisions of marks. Anyone who rode on a steamboat would've heard these terms shouted to the pilot throughout a river trip, so when Clemens needed a pen name, Mark Twain seemed like a natural choice.
Those who love psychobabble have wasted a lot of ink on Clemens picking a pseudonym that means safe but not too deep.
Now, back to our regular scheduled programming. I apologize for whoring for hits. And I would appreciate it if someone could comment on why people suddenly want to know where Sam Clemens was born.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Two Faced Baby Worshipped As Goddess
An Indian baby has been born with a rare condition known as Craniofacial Duplication.
Ok, I am SO going to hell for this, but....
I'm going somewhere with this....be patient.
Indian couple Vinod and Sushma Kumar last month gave birth to one-month old daughter Lali - with the girl born with two faces.Technically, the girl has two sets of eyes, mouths and noses but however appears in otherwise good health according to Doctors.Her family says that Lali eats with both mouths, and also blinks in time across all four of her eyes.Doctors say the rare condition is known as craniofacial duplication - where most facial features are duplicated, except for the ears.Doctors say that the child is breathing properly, and appears to have no need for surgery to remove the 'second face'.Meanwhile hundreds of locals have flocked to see baby Lali - believing her to be the reincarnation of a goddess....
There are uncanny paralells between this unfortunate infant and a celebrity who may have had (botched?) surgery to correct Craniofacial Duplication. All the signs are there: 1) Like baby Lali, she's worshipped as a goddess by members of a primitive culture, 2) hundreds have flocked to see her, just like they do baby Lali, and 3) she's often accused of being (continue by clicking here)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)