Salon.com News | March of the “lucky duckies”
A worker who commands the kingly salary of $12,000 a year pays just 4 percent of his income in taxes. That tax burden, the editors conceded, “ain’t peanuts” — but it’s too small for that worker to feel any “rage” toward his wasteful government.
“Who are these lucky duckies?” the editors asked.
The editorial was widely ridiculed as an example of ideological stubbornness gone disastrously, hilariously overboard. “One of the things that has fascinated me about The Wall Street Journal editorial page is its occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies,” wrote Jonathan Chait in The New Republic.
Adam Curry’s Weblog
Is it just me, or is iCal an incredibly good looking piece of crap?
I don’t really know anything about iCal, so for now, all I can say is, “don’t flatter yourself, Adam”
You aren’t that good looking. Can’t argue with the piece of crap part though. I’m still waiting for that t-shirt.
Vonage DigitalVoice .::. Now You’re Talking… For As Long As You Want!
I find this very intriguing. For $39/month, unlimited local and longdistance calls via your existing broadband internet connection with a full suite of calling features AND you can keep your existing phone number and use your existing phones.
For $25/month, you can get unlimited local calls and 500 minutes/month of long distance.
I’m really tempted. I want caller ID, but don’t want to spend another $6/month for it from Quest, and I’d save on long-distance.
Snow Job – President Bush appoints yet another phony businessman, this time as treasury secretary. By Daniel Gross
Snow may yet prove a brilliant treasury secretary. After all, the skills required are as much diplomatic and bureaucratic as they are managerial. But his elevation to the high-profile post, and the appointment of a stand-out like Donaldson to a second-tier position like the SEC, show the relative ascendancy of the access capitalists in the Bush administration and in the Republican Party generally. That may be why the markets regard the recent appointments as one step forward, two steps back.
shakes head in disgust
This is sad, we have a President who promotes mediocrity higher than excellence. But really, who can blame him? When you are dim, you don’t wan’t to stand to close to a bright light, or people will see you for what you are.
BTW, for people who think the woman’s movement started in the 60s, check out The Women, a movie made in the best movie year ever, 1939. Norma Shearer gives a speech to her mother about how things were different, back when women were considered chattel. Now they’re equal to men, says Shearer’s character. While a feminist could make a reasonable argument that the movie is sexist, it also carries the feminist message, strongly, in the 30s, way way before I was told (when I was a kid) that it existed. Women of my mother’s generation (she was seven when the movie was made) said the same thing Shearer said, quite a few years later. The data is out there, feminism was brewing for a while if only in Hollywood.
Woman’s sufferage certainly went beyond Hollywood. And don’t forget, prohibition was driven by a seemingly strange alliance between puritan prudes and feminists who were sick of women getting beaten and impoverished by their drunkard husbands.
Can anyone give me a good sound legal definition of “treason”