RussK

Yes, I see a difference in scope. My point was that I'm not going to let some form of socialism keep me down, or let it occupy anymore of my thought than it deserves.

I will continue to live my life as happily as possible, while only attempting to tackle issues of political importance only to the extent that it doesn't negatively affect my life. When it comes to measures of the new health law, I will accept any measure that is forced upon me and any "benefit" that is available to me that adds some value to my life; just as I will continue to buy mandatory car insurance, drive on government roads, and attend and use other government institutions--no one is more deserving or qualified than I to receive these benefits, and I no more deserving than anyone else.

To many, if not most people, those consequences don't look all that bad. Because of that, I have a hard time believing that they are going to be repealed any time soon, or by any republican dominated government in the future. It's a little hard to scare people about socialized medicine when there has been a constant and dramatic increase in government involvement in the sector since the 1960's. A recent article I just read stated it clearly enough: by 2012 medicare would have already covered half of the health industry. Additionally, I don't perceive the populist uproar concerning this issue will last much longer. This is just speculation, but I think many have already lost steam--because they never had proper motivation to begin with. I asked a wild old lady I know, who was vehemently against the health law, if she thought things were going to be as bad as she said, now that the bill has passed. For whatever reason, she was very willing to capitulate and act like the whole thing wasn't a big deal to begin with. But, of course, she's elderly, so I wasn't willing to go in to the details of why it is, and always will be, an issue with great consequence. She has her medicare still, so I'm sure it doesn't matter much to her anyway.

That's BS. I wonder how many of these people are actual qualified educators or curriculum planners? Since the population of Texas is so large, I've heard this will affect other states. I guess now, further interest group warfare is sadly in order. Maybe California and the north-east can team up and standardize another standard. Outside of religion, who knows what else they may add. Or, in the future, maybe the curriculum can be decided by politics on the national level, by the Federal government.

I'm sure that this doesn't apply to government jobs, right? Who could have thought. Credit and BG checks are definitely a good idea for many positions at both private and government level. There's no way the government is going to stop doing it, and they shouldn't, so forcing private business to quit is very arbitrary and unequal use of the law.

I've not seen the movie yet but plan on it soon. However, I have seen countless clips from the movie and have to agree with you. Many of the action sequences are fictionally dramatic, realistically over-the-top. I don't have much of a problem with that, as long as it's not too bad, since it is a movie. Yet, I can see why EOD personnel, who may look at the movie in a more true to life perspective, can be turned off by it. My interests in the movie are primarily focused on some of the themes presented. In particular, the one that stands out is the idea of veterans seeking combat for the sake of action.

I'm not sure what reactions academy members had to Cameron's prior speech, but I have strong doubts that awarding his ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow is "sticking it to him." I don't remember if it was 20/20, Dateline, or whatever similar show it was that I watched recently, but they diffused that idea fairly well by getting feedback from both Cameron and Bigelow on the subject. Supposedly, there is little to no animosity between then, and they even share scrips and assist each other on a regular basis.

Graduate from the Community College with high GPA and Presidents List and you will have much less trouble transferring to a private institution. Additionally, many private schools have scholarships and grants that will pay for a lot of your expenses, if you meet requirements, like keeping good grades, need, etc... Of course, before you even start at the CC, and you know you want to transfer, you need to figure out a list of universities of interest and figure out their requirements. For example, many institutions don't care about concentrated AA degrees; they inform the specific student to only work for a general, transfer AA degree. Depending on your goals, the military may be out of the question. If you join at 23 you'll probably get out at 27. Going to college at that age, especially a community college, isn't going to be a very comfortable experience. Another consideration is the age you'll be after you're done with university. You will also be passed by your friends and family when it comes to their careers and, possibly, meaningful relationships. Additionally, depending on what you do in the military, it's likely that when you get out at 27-28, your level of maturity will be much different than your peers and you'll have to adjust over time. Furthermore, if, when you do fulfill your initial contract, you have not saved a substantial amount of money, you will most likely have to work while attending school. The Chapter 33 GI Bill will pay full tuition at most public colleges and some private for three years, and it will give you a monthly payment (around $1,000). So, while the GI Bill is a lot of help, it's not going to take care of everything.

I heard that some Rep. wants to propose legislation to put this debt on the books. I wonder if, in the case they do recognize the debt, it will be enough to scare the American people. I'm afraid to say that I don't think it would have much of an impact. After operating in debtor mode for so long, I think that most accept this type of behavior by the government as normal.

Well, I guess I'll applaud them for being honest. Most of the other outlets are pretty much nothing but cheerleaders as well, but they try and keep the lie.

I actually thought about attending tonight's event, but I've got things to do tomorrow. Going down to Minneapolis is like a six hour round trip for me. Maybe, in the future, if there's an event scheduled for Friday, I may attend.

I've never participated in the movement in any way, though I wish I had to gain more understanding of it than my current position of just going by what others are saying about the movement. However, I do know a few older people and distant family members that participate, and I do make generalizations about the movement from these few irrational and emotionally driven (used) people. So, really, with only watching a few seconds of the speech, I thought Pyotr's assessment of it was most likely spot on, given what both Palin and the Tea Party movement has shown us already. Sadly, I think you are absolutely correct in questioning whether Palin was trying to counter the "Who is John Galt" segment. From what I've heard and read, the reason for this convention and speech was to help unify the Tea Party "organization" into a more traditional political organization with a solid, consolidated voice or platform. Given who they've selected to speak for this more unified organization, we can see the direction they want to go; and it's not of any benefit for the future.

When she said the phrase about "hopey, changey stuff" I almost puked in my mouth, and I couldn't watch any longer. So I only saw about five seconds of the speech.

There was a point in the second half where the Saints scored and cameras panned over to show reaction from Payton Manning; instead of his calm demeanor he was animated. Many of the people watching the game at the party noticed this, and I think it was one of the turning points. I think he just got himself too hyped up. It was the best Super Bowl I've watched--I wasn't able to catch the last three. Congrats Saints.

I was just commenting about this to someone. Yesterday, I received Lewis', Nothing Less Than Victory, and will probably start reading it sometime next month. The combination of Journo's, Thompson's, and Lewis' works will provide a large, unique tract from which foreign policy can be analyzed. Right now I'm waiting to pre-order "Logical Leap" and "Neoconservatism." There seems to be confusion about hardcover or paperback at the AR bookstore, and B&N.com doesn't yet have Harriman's book listed.

I just noticed your location. A lot of Green Bay fans that I know don't want Favre to win a Super Bowl with another team; they want him all to themselves (Green Bay), and to only be known for winning a Super Bowl with that team. I see that you wanted the Vikings to go to the Super Bowl, so that's kind of surprising. What's interesting though, is a lot of the GB fans that I know, who were criticizing Favre and asked for just about everything to happen to him short of death, were aghast and very sympathetic when he was taking all those hits in the Saints game. It's like they had totally forgotten everything they previously said about him, and the fact that he was playing for the Vikings. Hats off to Favre for absorbing those hits the best he could. Even at his age and being in the league so long, one thing is certain: very few, if any, QBs would be able to stay so resilient in a similar situation.

I've seen a lack of excitement in the posts about the Super Bowl including the Saints. Not sure why, they are the dominant team the the NFC this year, and are exciting on both sides of the ball. I for one am excited about the Super Bowl; the Andouille and Boudin is on the way for some good party dishes. Maybe I'm a little more excited because I got on their bandwagon around mid-season, after understanding the Giants were trash; and I lived on the Gulf Coast for a long time, living through the later era of the Aints--although, I never gave a damn about them anyway. I'll be pulling for the Saints, but I do think that the Colts will win. After the Vikings/Saints game, and the pissing and moaning that followed, the referees will be flag happy, throwing flags against contact on Manning (who will probably be falling to the ground on his own, as he usually does). In order for the Saints to win, their defense needs to get in and make Manning dance around nervously in the pocket, anticipating the hit he's about to receive; he will shut down much quicker than Favre. Hopefully Smith, Vilma, or Sharper will be able to put a helmet on him.

I read on ESPN a couple of weeks ago that most likely the referee who was responsible for watching the QB had his field of vision blocked, so he couldn't see the contact to the face mask. No need to rehash old new though. Nothing will stop the crying from GB fans anyway. When it comes to stopping the coddling of quarterbacks, I totally agree with you. I'm tired of seeing QB's get special treatment; some getting more than others from game to game. In general, I'm tired of the whole onslaught of ridding hard hitting from the NFL. For a few years now, if one wants to see hard hitting defense, college (FBS) has been the league to watch--depending on the teams on the field. Of course, that's slowly changing as well. On the issue helmet to helmet, launching with the helmet, or whatever term for a hard hit, I support the Ray Lewis mentality. After getting fined $25,000 this season for a hit on Chad Ochocinco, Lewis said, "That's football. And if I had to do it again, I'd do it a million times the same way." Lewis also considers his most recent fine, for a hit in the playoff game against the Colts, and the coddling of QBs an "embarrassment" for the NFL.

Of course there are myriad viruses that will do this, but a very common one that I have seen over the past couple of years and very recently are the koobface viruses, which are associated with social networking sites. Since you say you were searching around for your content on the web, I'm guessing you may have got a hit upon such sites and visited it. Check your task manager and C:\Windows directory for freddy*.exe, ld*.exe, or pp*.exe (* denotes some random number). All of these are associated with the details you've given.

Where are you at in the Panhandle? I used to live in the area, and I'll probably be down there (Destin/Ft. Walton Beach) in March for a week. If your group is doing anything at that time, I may stop by.

OT question, but does Chrome really have a pop-up window that says "Aw Snap..."?

Ok, all the advice given so far is good, but once you're infected by a modern virus, anti-virus software alone isn't likely going to get rid of everything. What you need to do is start collecting information on the symptoms that are visible to you; take notes on your the culprit, getting all possible identifying information possible. Many of these phishing and faux screens have identifying (similar) characteristics (tile bar, brand name, buttons), write them down on paper; when you run the anti-virus software to remove files, write down the infected file names before you erase or quarantine them; etc.. Once you've compiled enough information you're going to need to search for the culprit(s) using a search engine. Because one of the viruses is preventing searching, you're going to have to use a different computer. At this point you should start getting some hits from the identifying information, especially the file names you've recorded. From here you can then search for the specific virus(s) you may have identified. After you've tracked down a specific virus, you can check your system for it and remove it by the various instructions you've located at this point. This will include removing files and registry entries. Of course, you're going to have to search for '*virus* removal,' ect... Once you've identified the virus, the main anti-virus software company websites are also good tools for listing exactly where a virus installs itself, helping you remove it completely from your system. This process is in-depth but almost mandatory these days. Once a virus gets into your OS like this it will prevent the proper operation and installation of anti-virus and security software. Additionally, you are most likely going to be infected by numerous viruses, all of which do different tasks, most of which will be related to bot-net expansion; viruses usually keep downloading and installing new viruses, that's why your symptoms change and get worse. EDIT: Furthermore, once you've got your computer clean, you need to re-download and install your anti-virus software; and then do a complete scan. Of course, it's important to wait for whatever product you choose to download to update itself once for the new virus definitions. This should help totally clean the system, in case you've missed anything which is highly likely. This should give you back some control and usability, but you should still think about reformatting at some point. When you do reformat, make sure you install an up-to-date virus suite -before- you start putting your old files on your new installation. EDIT2: I forgot to add to also look through the processes running on your computer, by using the task manager, for any thing that looks strange, and add that to your information. Another tip to collect further details is to run through the faux windows, like the virus one, a little. If you think it's going to ask you to download something, take it all the way to that point and record the file name of the program it wants you to download. This is obviously a little hazardous, but what's it matter, your computer is infected already by multiple viruses, and by doing this you will find out the identity of one of the viruses and be able to continue from there. Of course, don't actually download and run the virus.

Pipe smoke smells very good. I don't smoke anymore, but it would be something if regular cigarette tobacco smelled as good. Out of curiosity, how is a pipe smoked; do people inhale the tobacco all the way through to the end, or is it similar to smoking a cigar?

The site is back up btw. I learned about it through its e-mail update, yesterday. Blog and RSS feeds have also been updated.

Sure, the Haitian problem is mostly their own doing, as well as the socialist antagonists like the United Nations. Whenever there are high populations of poor people and poorly built buildings in natural hazard areas, the chance of a major natural disaster is high, even when the magnitude of the event is not as high compared to other similar events that have occurred throughout the world. A direct hit of a 7.0 earthquake on San Fransisco would not produce as many fatalities; however, the cost of the damage, in dollar amounts, could possibly be higher compared to the Port-au-Prince earthquake. Hopefully a state of some type of normalcy occurs in the earthquake affected area of Haiti, before hurricane season arrives, in about four months. But that's just a hope, and I know it's likely not going to happen due to their lack of just about everything that would assist them with a quick recovery. If things are still atrocious there and a hurricane (or more than one) strikes, the recovery will be slowed and the dollars in foreign aid will rise even higher. On top of the foreign aid spending, attempts to immigrate illegally to the US, through Miami, will also add to the cost.