Freedom of Speech?

On Wednesday, as Secretary Rice was about to speak before the Foreign Affairs Committee, a woman with blood like paint on her hands called Secretary Rice a “war criminal.” This is quite a way to exercise one's right to free speech.

Let us set aside this woman's motives and look solely at her tactics, and whether or not they are effective.

Those of like mind with her probably cheered. Perhaps even some in congress. What she wants is to change the minds of people who do not want to precipitously pull out of Iraq.

I am one of those, and since she waived her blood-like hands in front of the Secretary, I am now convinced that we should immediately pull out of Iraq...NOT.

Did ANYONE change their minds about Iraq because of this nut? Was anyone not wanting to pull out now, convinced that we should now, because of her actions? Or were some, like myself, even more convinced their position is the correct one if this is the kind of individual who holds the opposing view?

Did anyone who wants to pull out of Iraq immediately want to distance themselves from this type of “sanity challenged” individual, and perhaps even question there own judgment on the issue, if this kind of nut job holds their same view?

Those who yesterday wanted to pull out immediately still do, and those who yesterday wanted to complete what we started and leave Iraq a thriving democracy (or something resembling one) still want that as well.

So, other than getting herself into some legal trouble, did she accomplish anything?

Read more about it.

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

Willing Suspension of Disbelief?

When Senator Clinton fist made this comment I thought that it sounded strange. The phrase “Suspension of disbelief” is an art term. When you go to a movie, for example and you say "That a car would not blow up like that." you suspend your bias against believing what you are seeing and you still enjoy the movie, giving the artists some dramatic license.

The word “disbelief” lead me to think she was saying that she had a bias against believing the testimony. I dismissed this thought for some time thinking that surely a woman as intelligent as Senator Clinton would have done her homework on a predesigned, sound byte quote like this. She had obviously thought long and hard about this particular phrase, the one she knew would be quoted everywhere, and she wanted to be clever, catchy and stop right at the line of outright insult to one of out nation’s foremost generals.

However, in her desire to set just the right tone with her words she actually may give us some real insight into her thoughts. Let's look at the word disbelief.

Disbelieve- to refuse to believe in something. Webster's dictionary 1999.

So, using Webster's definition, Senator Clinton said that to accept General Petraeus' report required a “willing suspension of my refusal to believe in the report.” Doesn’t she need to stop refusing to believe it, and keep an open mind?

Why hold hearings in the Senate if the Senators will not keep an open mind? If they already know ALL, why waste time, money and energy with the hearings? Perhaps Senator Clinton should give her report on how things are going in Iraq to General Petraeus, since she claims to know more about it than he does, she must willingly suspend her knowledge (disbelief) to accept his report.

Read more about it.

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

401k help for all?

I read this article on Yahoo! News. Following are two exact quotes...

“Families could get 401(k) retirement accounts and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“Her campaign said that for every $7 million estate that gets taxed, at least 5,000 families would receive the matching funds.”

Let’s do some quick math.

5,000 families helped by each $7 million estate.
x $1,000 matching funds.
= $5,000,000 taxed from each estate of $7 million.

Therefore…

$7,000,000 value of estate.
-$5,000,000 tax calculated from above.
=$2,000,000 amount remaining of the estate BEFORE other taxes!

Then…

$2,000,000 balance from above.
-$740,000 estate tax of 37% (assuming the $5,000,000 for 401k program is 100% tax deductible. If not, this number could be $2,590,000, more than the balance, so you would owe the government $590,000 for having had a wealthy parent and you get nothing!)
=$1,260,000 amount remaining after federal estate tax.

Then you have state and local taxes.

So, if your parent dies with $7,000,000 in the bank, you will see LESS than $1,260,000. Or LESS that 18%!!!!!

My parents have nowhere near these amounts of money so it has no direct effect on me either way, but does this sound fair to you?

Read more about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.