Did anyone notice that the soldier that caused this crap was a SNIPER? Typical of the most cowardly specialty in the armed forces. These sniveling shits can't do anything right.

Do you really believe this or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

...I think we should limit ourselves to dragging their battered corpses through the streets until there is nothing left but some hamburger stuck to a spinal cord, like they do to our soldiers.

Do you really think we should lower the bar and base our morals on the worst people in the world? I'd like to think our nation is better than that.

I live in Arizona - lots of people carry guns.

Even in Arizona you Can Not carry a gun into a government building.

There are places guns do not need to be carried.

I 100% agree.

The thing is, you choose to go to the post office, courthouse, federal building, etc., knowing full well of their firearm policies. The government owns those buildings and should be free to set their own rules.

I think it's completely different when the NRA voluntarily disarms themselves at their own meeting. The second amendment is the number one issue for the NRA. If they really wanted McCain to speak, they should have had a meeting at an off-site local (where McCain sets the rule).

By banning guns at their own event, it makes them appear to not believe their own guns/CCW = safety rhetoric. If the NRA goes to John McCain's house, they should play by his rules, if John McCain goes to the NRA's house, he should play by theirs.

I haven't been to an NRA convention since Pittsburgh (2004?). From what I recall, everyone had to clear their weapons and the convention center was very secure--lots of on and off duty police, CCW holders, etc. Many politicians spoke at the event but I don't remember them ordering everyone to disarm--I think they would have been laughed at if they tried!

Both my spouse and I are gun owners and are members of the NRA. We live on a good block in an otherwise bad neighborhood and both have CCW permits.

If the NRA truly believes guns make us safer (which I personally do), they should have been greatly offended by being disarmed by a government agency, at their own meeting, none-the-less. Under their own logic, an NRA meeting (with a whole lot of gun owners) would be one of the safest places imaginable.

I think it's terrible that they would put aside their own values just to let a politician pander to them.

Does anyone else find it odd that some of the people who were against releasing the Abu Ghraib photos because they'd incite the natives, yet support desecrating the Koran w/out concern of the adverse effects amongst the population?

Your SS taxes are not an investment like a 401K... They go to pay TODAY's retirees. The actual hours you work are the only investment that you get a return on in SS. And they will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

Not that I don't agree with you about the effects of unbridled greed coming from the largest demographic group in the nation.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-05-19 08:50 AM | Reply | Fla

I think the biggest problem with the current system is that we're currently going through a major demographic change; we'll be a much older nation in the future. Unless we start having a lot more babies (which isn't feasible with the current economy) or increase immigration, I just don't see how we'll have a worker-to-retiree ratio to support the whole pyramid.

You take ANY money away from Social Security You are hastening it's destruction. How can You fund Social Security if one has the option to Opt Out?? What needs to be done is raise the amount that is taken for Social Security. Instead of NintyOne Thousand raise it to two hundred thousand. Social Security and Medicare are VITAL for the Elderly and the Disabled. We have to take care of Our elderly somehow. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have America. They sacrificed their lives to make America a better place. It is in their golden years that they should reap those benefits.

Larry Mohr

Larry,

Ultimately, that is my biggest dilemma. As a young person, who's currently dumping a ton of money into my 401k/IRA (as well as 529 and HSA), I wish there was a way to put all of my (and my employers match) FICA and Medicare money towards my own retirement. I hate the idea of getting such little return for all of the money I've put into the system. My spouse and I also have pretty decent health insurance and our own life and disability policies. Our AFLAC disability (short & long term) policies also far surpass anything we could get with SS Disability.

In all honesty, I'm very frustrated with the "boomers" who are getting ready to retire. I feel like they lived through the hey day of American economic prosperity; an era that will probably never return yet don't have their own retirement accounts. I find it remarkable that the modern IRA has been around for such a long time, yet there are so many who don't have one.

As someone who has spent my entire entire adult life in the post-industrial era of stagnant wages and skyrocketing insurance & energy costs, I'm a bit frustrated that so many boomers have nothing to show for their working lives besides a pile of debt. Somehow my spouse and I have managed to put away a decent amount of money (and are well protected with insurance) on very meager salaries, yet there are many out there who lived through much more lucrative times and have nothing to show for it.

On the other hand, I understand the need for programs like Social Security for those who are less fortunate or suffer from unforeseen economic or health issues. Having high levels of poverty for the elderly and disabled is not somewhere I'd like to see our country go either.

There must be a way to strike a balance between the quality and payout of private retirement and insurance with the backing of the US Government to stabilize the ups and downs of the market. The problem is, there is so much political rhetoric on both sides, I don't think we'll find a solution until we have a major crisis. It's hard to strike a balance between the democrats who want a nanny state and the republicans with their f*ck the poor/elderly/disabled attitude.

If it was such an abomination unto God, don't you think He might have mentioned it there? He did, however, mention adultery. Why don't they propose a constitutional amendment banning that?

I've often wondered the same thing. You'd think fundamentalists would be all for an amendment banning adultery.

I didn't even agree with civil unions for gays before but I now agree gay people should be able to have a civil union if they want it. But leave the Sacrament of Marriage alone.

What about just replacing marriage with civil unions for both gays and straights? If a couple wants a religious marriage, they can get their civil union at the courthouse and then can go to their church which can perform whatever ceremony they want. If a couple wants a secular civil union they can go to the courthouse and get one.

This is pretty much how it's done already... When I got married, we went to the County Clerk's office and filled out the paperwork (there was no mention of anything religious it). We then had the ceremony at our church a few weeks later.

We all know once the sanctity of marriage is overruled...

In a sense I do agree; though, the "sanctity of marriage" has nothing to do with a court ruling, it has to do with attitudes towards marriage.

I believe marriage is a very important, fundamental part of our society (that's why I support gay marriage). But I think the deterioration of it as an institution has a heck of a lot to do with the normalization of divorce. People like John McCain, Rudy Guilliani, Newt Gingrich, and many others have done more damage to the sanctity of marriage than any other factor. Does anyone really think these guys value the institution of marriage or think their divorces had anything to do with gay marriage? With such prominent people getting divorces (and committing adultery), not only do they not value the sanctity of their own marriages, they help foster the impression that marriage and adultery is a normal part of adulthood.

It drives me crazy when I hear the "pro-marriage" crowd discuss how fundamental heterosexual marriage is to our society, yet completely focus on gay marriage, and totally ignore divorce (the number one cause of marriages ending). The only thing worse is hearing a divorce (or adulterer) give marital advice or discussing the "sanctity of marriage".

It seems like every month, there's a new article about how kids today are lazy, stupid, whatever... The funny thing is, every generation claims this about the next. I think blaming those younger than yourself is just part of the bitterness of getting old.

I'm sure if one researched hard enough, you could find the exact same articles going back the past 100 years. Just instead of blaming the internet, you'd find discussion of the adverse effects of radio, television, telephone, comic books, serial novels, arcades, etc. on youth.

I just don't see anyone could lump all of the young adults today into a single classification. For every deadbeat 25 year old college-drop out, living at home, spending his days on his PS2, there are many intelligent, well-educated, hardworking young adults out there.

Americans today are a lot more un-patriotic than my granfather's generation.

There were many members of the WW II generation that had major issues with the Korean War. Did that make them un-patriotic too?

With a rapidly aging population, I imagine any career that caters to the elderly will probably be in demand in the coming years.

I don't think it's a big surprise that Clinton won WV. However, I do find it interesting how many people voted for candidates other than McCain, Clinton, or Obama.

It looks like 7% of Democrats and 24% of Republicans in WV aren't terribly happy with their choices and decided to vote for someone who's no longer running. Does anyone know if this is pretty typical?

Democrats
Clinton: 238,939 67%
Obama: 91,613 26%
Edwards: 25,849 7%

Republicans
McCain: 89,661 76%
Huckabee: 12,171 10%
Paul: 5,912 5%
Romney: 5,188 4%
Giuliani: 2,831 2%
Keyes: 1,427 1%
Curry: 726 1%

Real interesting bit of info. A buddy of mine was visiting a top wine growing region in Hungary, Eger, this past weekend. He was invited by a vineyard for tastings and to watch vine graftings. He was surprised to learn that the vineyard specifically flew Mexicans in from California to do the work since they had the best skills and were the fastest. And no they aren't the cheapest by far there is very cheap labor from Slovakia, Romania and Serbia available.

Specifically, which vineyard hires Mexicans?

My in-laws live outside of Eger and we try to go there every couple of years. I may be wrong but I have never heard of any vineyard hiring Mexicans. I'm sure my in-laws would have mentioned it, as they are very sensitive about "foreigners" taking their jobs (mainly Romanians, Turks, and Gypsies).

In fact, it's a somewhat new phenomenon that Eger (specifically, "The Valley of Beautiful Women") actually has any decent wine. It used to have quite a reputation of making some of Hungary's worst rot-gut. Eger has always been a tourist destination for Hungarians, but through some international investment, it has become a major tourist destination for central Europe. Several of Eger's vineyards also export to the US and are usually described as variations of "Bulls Blood" (which the name also has an interesting story behind it).

I have no doubt that wine specialists in California were consulted but I have major doubts that Mexicans were imported for labor.

This kind of stuff isn't all that uncommon. Though, I must admit it's much more common in older cemeteries.

I've worked on many cemetery relocations, and rarely (if ever), do the number of headstones truly represent the number of burials. And often, headstones aren't even over the actual burials. In addition, older burials (w/out gravestone) are often encountered while digging modern grave shafts. Though most won't admit to it, with this situation it's generally SOP for funeral homes to just dig a shallow shaft and place the modern burial on top of the older one.

At this point, nothing would surprise me...

In fact, the first large project I ran (many years ago), we were contracted to move a cemetery that involved excavating about 100 burials (dating between 1850 and 1980). Upon excavation, we also discovered the cemetery was on top of an even larger, prehistoric cemetery. Needless to say, it really complicated things :-)

I support completely revamping the GI Bill.

Though, because I am nearly 100% positive this bill won't pass (nor get through a veto), I wish they would make some easy and inexpensive changes to the current GI Bill.

They need to do whatever is needed to allow for more efficient processing of paperwork and quicker disbursement of funds. They should also ban any university or college from essentially punishing the student (by not allowing him/her to register, graduate, receive grades, get a transcript, etc...) due to delays in processing GI Bill paperwork.

While an undergrad, there were numerous semesters where (through no fault of my own) my GI Bill paperwork (as well as ARNG EAP) was held up and funds weren't disbursed until half way through the semester. I know I wasn't the only one who dealt with this, and unless things have dramatically changed recently, this was (and I'm sure still is) a huge issue. My congressman's office was so used to dealing with these problems, they had a form letter just for GI Bill related issues.

They need to also make changes to the National Guard/Reserve GI Bill program. To receive the money, a reservist needs to be actively drilling. With back-to-back deployments (and multiple AT's a year) it's very hard for a lot of reservists to get through a 4-year college during a 6-year enlistment. I also believe any reservist who serves more than 3 years on active duty should be entitled to active duty GI Bill.

It's a shame Congress won't make the easy changes to the existing program. These issues have been on-going for decades and are nothing new. They'd rather fight for a bill that they know won't be signed into law for political reasons.