( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Incarceration of black men in South Africa before ANC rule, and in
contemporary America

South Africa (1993) 851 per 100,000

U.S.A. (2002) 7150 per 100,000

Source U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Policy Initiative "The
International Use of Incarceration" By Marc Mauer The Sentencing Project.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Quite the statistics.
What's going on? ...a general lack of respect for law & order?

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Damn, Bush sure caused a lot of incarcerations in a very short time. Sounds
more like it has been under several presidents. Your predjuice is showing.
Bigtime!

"Jim" wrote in message
...
For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Incarceration of black men in South Africa before ANC rule, and in
contemporary America

South Africa (1993) 851 per 100,000

U.S.A. (2002) 7150 per 100,000

Source U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Policy Initiative "The
International Use of Incarceration" By Marc Mauer The Sentencing Project.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Jim wrote:
For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Statistics for USA (2000) would be for William J Clinton's America, not
George W Bush's.

Steve

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Incarceration of black men in South Africa before ANC rule, and in
contemporary America

South Africa (1993) 851 per 100,000

U.S.A. (2002) 7150 per 100,000

Source U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Policy Initiative "The
International Use of Incarceration" By Marc Mauer The Sentencing Project.



Yeah, we have a well-deserved rep in this country for being the
imprisonment capital of the universe, along with one of the few capital
punishment nations among western democracies. Oh...we also have a a dumb
ass as POTUS.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000


Statistics for USA (2000) would be for William J Clinton's America, not
George W Bush's.

Steve



Yeah, I'd guess the rates are higher now.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Statistics for USA (2000) would be for William J Clinton's America, not
George W Bush's.

Steve


If the numbers were broken down by age, you might actually have a valid
point. Or not. Without that information, you can't pin this on any
particular president.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Incarceration rates in Bill Clinton's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) (Clinton as President in 2000) 2298 per 100,000

It should be obvious why Stalin's numbers are lower- (except, of course, if
you're a moron) Stalin simply had millions of people killed, rather than pay
to incarcerate them.




Incarceration of black men in South Africa before ANC rule, and in
contemporary America

South Africa (1993) 851 per 100,000

U.S.A. (2002) 7150 per 100,000

Again, this should be obvious- Under apartheid, people disappeared, were
kidnapped and tortured, and were burned alive in the streets by angry mobs.
In America, if you break the law, you go to jail. Yes, there is a disparity
in the numbers of black folks going to jail. I'm not going to start a
discussion on the underlying social, economic, and cultural reasons for
this.


Source U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Policy Initiative "The
International Use of Incarceration" By Marc Mauer The Sentencing Project.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.
Yeah, we have a well-deserved rep in this country for being the
imprisonment capital of the universe, along with one of the few capital
punishment nations among western democracies. Oh...we also have a a dumb
ass as POTUS.

Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Also, look at the FBI crime statistics. Many violent crimes are on the
decrease. Coincidence? I think not.

.....farting in your general direction....

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a
magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.
Yeah, we have a well-deserved rep in this country for being the
imprisonment capital of the universe, along with one of the few capital
punishment nations among western democracies. Oh...we also have a a dumb

ass as POTUS.

Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Would you care to rethink that statement?

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...

Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Statistics for USA (2000) would be for William J Clinton's America, not
George W Bush's.



If the numbers were broken down by age, you might actually have a valid
point. Or not. Without that information, you can't pin this on any
particular president.

The valid point is that Incarceration rates for 2000 can not be George W
Bush's rates, as the magazine claimed, since he didn't take office until
2001. If the magazine called "UTNE" can't even that that point of well
based fact correct, I wouldn't trust them for much else.

Just goes to show how easy it is to brainwash liberal Democrats, eh?

Steve

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

Zing wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Jim wrote:


For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Yeah, we have a well-deserved rep in this country for being the
imprisonment capital of the universe, along with one of the few capital
punishment nations among western democracies. Oh...we also have a a dumb

ass as POTUS.

Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Also, look at the FBI crime statistics. Many violent crimes are on the
decrease. Coincidence? I think not.

....farting in your general direction....


What? You're denying we have a dumb ass as president?

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal
level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Would you care to rethink that statement?

Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

Here are some summary statistics from the US Dept. of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sent.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm

For 2000, only 6% of all felons went to the federal pen. This did not
include the inmates in county and municipal lock ups (stats below). I
imagine years prior to 2000 would show about the same percentages.

State legislatures & the Governors enact the STATE laws. Offenders of STATE
law go to STATE prison.

The US Congress, US Senate and the POTUS enact the FEDERAL laws. Offenders
of FEDERAL law go to FEDERAL prison. So how is the POTUS responsible, say,
for a wife beater in an Indiana prison, a burglar in Florida, or a boat
thief in Deale Maryland? ]

Here's a little cut 'n paste from their web site:

In 2000, State and Federal courts convicted a combined total of nearly
984,000 adults of felonies -- State courts convicted an estimated 924,700
adults and Federal courts convicted 59,123 adults (accounting for 6% of the
national total.)

In 2002, 6.7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on
parole at yearend 2002 -- 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32
adults.


State and Federal prison authorities had under their jurisdiction 1,440,655
inmates at yearend 2002: 1,277,127 under State jurisdiction and 163,528
under Federal jurisdiction.


Local jails held or supervised 737,912 persons awaiting trial or serving a
sentence at midyear 2002. About 72,400 of these were persons serving their
sentence in the community.


States spend more on criminal justice than municipalities, counties, or the
Federal government.

After dramatic increases in the 1980s and 1990s, the incarceration rate has
recently leveled off.

The number of prisoners under sentence of death at yearend 2002 decreased
for the second consecutive year.

Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

Property crime rates continue to decline.

Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates
for men and women are getting closer in recent years.

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

The estimated number of arrests for drug abuse violations decreased slightly
from 2001 to 2002.


Theft rates continue to decline.

Burglary rates continue to decline

After declining since 1992, motor vehicle theft rates leveled off after
2000.

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest
level ever recorded in 2002.

My conclusion: The UTNE fish wrapper Jim gets is full of it. (no wonder they
have to give it away unsolicited) They've confused the 6.7 million people
who were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year end 2002 with
the 2.18 million (Fed, state, local) actually IN prison. Extreme liberals
love to play fast and loose with the truth, but it just makes them look
ridiculous to anyone who cares to look at the facts.

I'm not saying that the incarceration stats aren't frightening, but you'll
see that when prison rate increases, crime seems to go down! Who woulda have
thunk that?

I wonder if the new age libs of UTNE would advocate a wholesale amnesty for
all those poor incarcerated souls. It would be funny to see their faces at
their love-ins in Sedona AZ as crazed maniacs pilfered their Volvo wagons,
hauling off all those crystals and granola bars.

Regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Stanley Barthfarkle" wrote in message
om...

Incarceration rates in Bill Clinton's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) (Clinton as President in 2000) 2298 per 100,000

It should be obvious why Stalin's numbers are lower- (except, of course,
if
you're a moron) Stalin simply had millions of people killed, rather than
pay
to incarcerate them.


Stanley:

You're correct. It's hilarious that a new age rag like UTNE would even make
such a comparison or Bush vs. Stalin.
See http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
It's a personal web site but has an extensive bibliography.

34 - 50 MILLION deaths (maybe more) attributed to J. Stalin, excluding WW2.
Mao might even be higher. Kind of makes Hitler look like an amateur. It's
also funny in a tragic, unfathomable way that these monsters were the heroes
to many of the previous generation of libs. I used to argue these points in
the 1970's with many a tweedy, whiskered Marxist professor in college.

Regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Zing wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



What? You're denying we have a dumb ass as president?

Dumb, or dumb-ass?

Well, I'm not privy to the results of his IQ test. His SAT scores were
higher than average, but that and a buck twenty five get you a cup of
coffee. Yes, the man can and does mangle the English language, but despite
what we Usenet pundits think, this is not necessarily a reflection of
intelligence. Sheesh, the libs have been saying every Republican since Ike
is an idiot (Nixon excepted - their view painted him more of an evil genius,
and they were correct that he was evil, but wrong in thinking he was a
dastardly genius). Yea, Ike, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. are all idiots.
Bush 1 was even a wimp early in his campaign until the lazy lib press
finally got around to digging up his service as a WWII dive bomber pilot.

How come libs get it wrong so often? Why so recalcitrant? Are they too dumb
(or dumb-assed) to ever change strategy?

Regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


If the numbers were broken down by age, you might actually have a valid
point. Or not. Without that information, you can't pin this on any
particular president.

The valid point is that Incarceration rates for 2000 can not be George W
Bush's rates, as the magazine claimed, since he didn't take office until
2001. If the magazine called "UTNE" can't even that that point of well
based fact correct, I wouldn't trust them for much else.

Just goes to show how easy it is to brainwash liberal Democrats, eh?

The libs in this group all goosestep to the liberal media. They are just
borg's running like lemmings for the cliff. ; )



Steve

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Zing wrote:
What? You're denying we have a dumb ass as president?

At least he doesn't waste his time, cut and pasting articles from online web
sites. Bush is comfortable enough with his intelligence and life, that he
doesn't have to make up elaborate stories about his wife and boats he owns.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington
Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore,
were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard,
respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college
admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush),
neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C
grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while
his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and
Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks
were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest
scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.


"Zing" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Zing wrote:


Well, I'm not privy to the results of his IQ test. His SAT scores were
higher than average, but that and a buck twenty five get you a cup of
coffee. Yes, the man can and does mangle the English language, but despite
what we Usenet pundits think, this is not necessarily a reflection of
intelligence. Sheesh, the libs have been saying every Republican since Ike
is an idiot (Nixon excepted - their view painted him more of an evil
genius,
and they were correct that he was evil, but wrong in thinking he was a
dastardly genius). Yea, Ike, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. are all
idiots.
Bush 1 was even a wimp early in his campaign until the lazy lib press
finally got around to digging up his service as a WWII dive bomber pilot.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

wrote:

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington
Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore,
were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard,
respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college
admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush),
neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C
grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while
his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and
Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks
were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest
scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.




Grades?

Sheesh.

Bush may have been clever in his youth, but decades of booze and drugs
did him in. He can barely read. He has no mind for details. He speaks
like an idiot, and can't piece together complex sentences.

Feh.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...

Jim wrote:

For reasons I don't understand I am getting sample copies of a magazine
called "UTNE", sort of a combo new age, liberal, holistic thing.

Anyhow page 15 has a small insert titled "Land of the free?"

Incarceration rates in George W Bush's America and Stalin's USSR

U.S.S.R (1950) 1423 per 100,000

U.S.A (2000) 2298 per 100,000

Statistics for USA (2000) would be for William J Clinton's America, not
George W Bush's.



If the numbers were broken down by age, you might actually have a valid
point. Or not. Without that information, you can't pin this on any
particular president.

The valid point is that Incarceration rates for 2000 can not be George W
Bush's rates, as the magazine claimed, since he didn't take office until
2001. If the magazine called "UTNE" can't even that that point of well
based fact correct, I wouldn't trust them for much else.

Just goes to show how easy it is to brainwash liberal Democrats, eh?

Steve


UTNE Reader is a compilation of articles published elsewhere, often from
academic journals most people would not normally have access to.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Most of these incarcerations are at the state, county and municipal
level,
so POTUS has nothing to do w/ it, Mr. Krause.

Would you care to rethink that statement?

Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

snip

Too bad you spent all that time writing. This class ends soon. If this is
your thesis, it's indefensible. Please go back and start over with the RIGHT
theory.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

snip

Huh?

Too bad you spent all that time writing.

Thanks for your heartfealt concern Doug. I canz tipe reely fast so it wasnt
to bad plus it wasnt that much writin cuz most wus cut an paste sinz you
asked me to rethink my statement an i use that goooogle thingy to check
stuff out. yes sometime facts are a bummer cuz they lay waste to our closely
held beliefs.

This class ends soon.
I hope so. I'm rained in, can't go anywhere and bored to death, hence my
fooling around here.

If this is
your thesis, it's indefensible. Please go back and start over with the
RIGHT
theory.


Wasn't really a thesis (I wrote one once). Just a collection of indisputable
facts and my personal conclusion. Plus its fun to play with the libs. Even
more fun than playing with the neocons. Doug, what's the RIGHT theory? Doug,
what's YOUR theory? Please keep it short - typing is hard work.

Kind Regards - Your pal Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:qtxqc.76275$iF6.6395680@attbi_s02...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Zing wrote:
What? You're denying we have a dumb ass as president?

At least he doesn't waste his time, cut and pasting articles from online
web
sites. Bush is comfortable enough with his intelligence and life, that he
doesn't have to make up elaborate stories about his wife and boats he
owns.




You don't seem to mind reading the articles posted here.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Harry Krause" babbled:

Bush may have been clever in his youth, but decades of booze and drugs
did him in. He can barely read. He has no mind for details. He speaks
like an idiot, and can't piece together complex sentences.


Bah.

This comes from the old, dried up wanna-be boater that lives off his old
nurse/wife's stolen Zanax, and the cheapest booze he can find at the
all-night liquor store. If you stood Harry up in front of 20 people, he
would pee himself and drool.

Hey, if Harry can make up crap so can I.

Mine is less of a stretch.

Jack

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. com...

"Harry Krause" babbled:

Bush may have been clever in his youth, but decades of booze and drugs
did him in. He can barely read. He has no mind for details. He speaks
like an idiot, and can't piece together complex sentences.


Bah.

This comes from the old, dried up wanna-be boater that lives off his old
nurse/wife's stolen Zanax, and the cheapest booze he can find at the
all-night liquor store. If you stood Harry up in front of 20 people, he
would pee himself and drool.

Hey, if Harry can make up crap so can I.

Mine is less of a stretch.

If polished speaking were a true sign of intelligence, news anchors around
the globe would all be rocket scientists.

Businesses would not function if the CEO of every corporation was involve
with every detail of daily business. Businesses that flourish are those
that the CEO underlings to handle the details.


Jack

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

wrote in message
hlink.net...
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the
Washington
Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al
Gore,
were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard,
respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college
admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush),
neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and
C
grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while
his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and
Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks
were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest
scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.


That's pretty interesting. I've heard that today the average for freshman is
about 1050 or so and that has been dumbed down, so 1206/1355 in those days
was well above the average, though not spectacular. I wonder how that
brilliant, knows-something-about everything-Renaissance man Bill Clinton
did? Pretty well, I imagine.

Regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Sure, I'd be happy to rethink the statement.
OK......thinking.....Googling.......DONE.

snip

Huh?

Too bad you spent all that time writing.

Thanks for your heartfealt concern Doug. I canz tipe reely fast so it
wasnt
to bad plus it wasnt that much writin cuz most wus cut an paste sinz you
asked me to rethink my statement an i use that goooogle thingy to check
stuff out. yes sometime facts are a bummer cuz they lay waste to our
closely
held beliefs.

"Rethink" means you head to the web? That's not thinking.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. com...

"Harry Krause" babbled:

Bush may have been clever in his youth, but decades of booze and
drugs
did him in. He can barely read. He has no mind for details. He
speaks
like an idiot, and can't piece together complex sentences.


Bah.

This comes from the old, dried up wanna-be boater that lives off his
old
nurse/wife's stolen Zanax, and the cheapest booze he can find at the
all-night liquor store. If you stood Harry up in front of 20 people,
he
would pee himself and drool.

Hey, if Harry can make up crap so can I.

Mine is less of a stretch.

If polished speaking were a true sign of intelligence, news anchors
around
the globe would all be rocket scientists.

Businesses would not function if the CEO of every corporation was
involve
with every detail of daily business. Businesses that flourish are those
that the CEO underlings to handle the details.

Good theory. But, the CEO has to be ready to behead an underling when
necessary, and with little or no warning.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Rethink" means you head to the web? That's not thinking.


Ohhh come on Doug! A little research at a US Gov't web site, presenting a
few facts and coming to a conclusion isn't thinking? My head felt all tingly
so I must have been thinking. No, I'm not drinking beer.

Doug, Let me try again and I'll try to keep it simple.

1) You asked if I would rethink my statement that only a small fraction of
incarcerated felons were in the Federal system. I said "certainly."

2) I gave two links that absolutely, unequivocally show that my statement is
correct. For the click impaired, I cut and pasted their summaries so they
wouldn't have to look at those confusing graphs.

3) I wrote a conclusion in my very own words! Now that's thinking! Please
post a coherent reply and show the world that you can think too.

See, we did this in school and the teacher would say "good thinking." Some
of youz guyz really crack me up. Oh, BTW I have a boating question, but it's
stopped raining so I'm out of here.

Kind regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...


If polished speaking were a true sign of intelligence, news anchors
around
the globe would all be rocket scientists.

Businesses would not function if the CEO of every corporation was
involve
with every detail of daily business. Businesses that flourish are those
that the CEO underlings to handle the details.


Jack


Good points Jack.

It's amusing how many simplistic political watchers think, in a child-like
way, that the POTUS needs to be so "super smart." An effective POTUS of
course is intelligent. But sometimes the best leaders are not the very
"smartest" folks. Who thinks Jack Welch at GE was "smarter" than his

engineers? I read his book. He'll tell you he is not. Jimmy Carter is widely
believed to be our smartest modern prez. A very ineffective leader as we all
know (but a good man IMO). G. Washington was driven but not brilliant but an
excellent leader. Jefferson, the most brilliant of all, had a tumultuous
tenure, deeply polarizing the nation, yet a good prez. Clinton -undoubtedly
a very sharp mind, but a lousy leader who frittered away an economic boom
time and period of relative world peace, will be remembered for ejaculating
on his staff and tugging at his peckerwood in the oval office. He too
bitterly polarized the nation, but hey he was SMART. Some of the smartest
people you'll ever find are in the US University system. Most of those folks
are a mile deep and an inch wide, but many couldn't lead a cub scout troop
to Chucky Cheeze. Read Bob Woodward's book "The President at War." Extensive
interviews and I don't think Mr. Woodward would say GWB is stupid.



Stupid is as stupid does. Afghanistan is successful thus far. The economy is
coming back. Iraq is a disaster, but the jury is still out there - it's not
even half time yet.



If we can actually get those medieval nuts to govern themselves peacefully,
than Bush will come out looking like a winner. If we can't, he's in trouble.
If the economic rebound falters and Iraq can't be tamed, he's toast. A
second term is in jeopardy now, no doubt. But I'm amazed that Sen. Kerry was
the best the Democrats could come up with. A decent candidate could cream
Bush. Whatever happened to the Sam Nunn (D-GA) type of Democrat?



Kind regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote:

Good theory. But, the CEO has to be ready to behead an underling when
necessary, and with little or no warning.


That fits your liberal definition of how business works. But rarely is it
that easy, or tightly defined. In business, we tend to try to give people
at least as much elbow room as you libs want to give *convicted* criminals.

Otherwise, you'd be out of a job in no time flat.

Jack

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Rethink" means you head to the web? That's not thinking.


Ohhh come on Doug! A little research at a US Gov't web site, presenting a
few facts and coming to a conclusion isn't thinking? My head felt all
tingly
so I must have been thinking. No, I'm not drinking beer.

Doug, Let me try again and I'll try to keep it simple.

1) You asked if I would rethink my statement that only a small fraction of
incarcerated felons were in the Federal system. I said "certainly."

No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to rethink your comment about one
president or another being connected with incarceration rates. Your theory
is way too simple. Crime rates and subsequent results are the result of a
system, not a particular politician, although politicians will get in front
of microphones and choke their chickens all day long about how they're going
to fix things that their predecessors broke.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
om...

"Doug Kanter" wrote:

Good theory. But, the CEO has to be ready to behead an underling when
necessary, and with little or no warning.


That fits your liberal definition of how business works. But rarely is it
that easy, or tightly defined. In business, we tend to try to give people
at least as much elbow room as you libs want to give *convicted*
criminals.

Otherwise, you'd be out of a job in no time flat.

Jack



The theory of "the buck stops here" is convenient, until it isn't. :-) Your
boy likes to dress up and play house and act like a big cheese, but that's
not leadership. Leadership would consist of few, if any verbal comments from
the White House about an issue like the prison scandal. The comments would
consist of people suddenly out of work.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Zing" wrote in message
...

Stupid is as stupid does. Afghanistan is successful thus far. The economy
is
coming back.

What??? Where did you hear that? And, in your own words, please describe
"the economy" of Afghanistan with a little bit of detail.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:12:35 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"Zing" wrote in message
...

Stupid is as stupid does. Afghanistan is successful thus far. The
economy
is
coming back.

What??? Where did you hear that? And, in your own words, please describe
"the economy" of Afghanistan with a little bit of detail.

Well, the opium crop is doing quite well. I check the following link
periodically, and the situation has seemed to settle a little, but it is
still *far* from a success.

http://afghanistannews.net/

A little tidbit on the continuing prisoner abuse scandal:

http://paktribune.com/news/index.php...7 3ca79393cc9

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:12:35 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"Zing" wrote in message
...

Stupid is as stupid does. Afghanistan is successful thus far. The
economy
is
coming back.

What??? Where did you hear that? And, in your own words, please describe
"the economy" of Afghanistan with a little bit of detail.

Well, the opium crop is doing quite well. I check the following link
periodically, and the situation has seemed to settle a little, but it is
still *far* from a success.

http://afghanistannews.net/

I was wondering if zing could say with a straight face that the economy's
doing well, when it's based on a drug which our gov't would stamp out
completely if it could.

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"thunder" wrote in message
...

I was wondering if zing could say with a straight face that the economy's
doing well, when it's based on a drug which our gov't would stamp out
completely if it could.

Doug:

I was referring to the US economy in that post. Sorry for the confusion.

My point was Afghanistan is doing OK. The enemy is on the run, there is
relative peace (compared to the last 2 decades), some infrastructure is
being rebuilt, prospect for fair elections, though delayed are still real.
The general population seems to accept the Western security presence. Sure,
the list of problems are huge, including the opium crop, but it's
comparative progress IMO.

Kind regards - Zing

( OT ) Interesting numbers (if true)
 

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"thunder" wrote in message
...

I was wondering if zing could say with a straight face that the
economy's
doing well, when it's based on a drug which our gov't would stamp out
completely if it could.

Doug:

I was referring to the US economy in that post. Sorry for the confusion.

My point was Afghanistan is doing OK. The enemy is on the run, there is
relative peace (compared to the last 2 decades), some infrastructure is
being rebuilt, prospect for fair elections, though delayed are still real.
The general population seems to accept the Western security presence.
Sure,
the list of problems are huge, including the opium crop, but it's
comparative progress IMO.

Kind regards - Zing



The opium crop represents 65% to 80% of their GNP. They have almost nothing
else. If you consider that to be a healthy country, you'd probably be happy
living on an ice floe.