Sheet music in Pdf, Encore and Midi formats. The Perfect Scores. -

Welcome To RV Travel Buddy Ultimate Online Directory. We have developed at wonderful opportunity for people of all ages, that enjoy traveling the region, and would like to earn extra income. This is also […]

Nr. 49: with special guest Smokin Jo - Dance Department - The Best Beats To Go!
The Best Beats To Go! Nr. 93 with special guest D.Ramirez - Dance Department - The Best Beats To Go! The Best Beats To Go! Nr. 22: with special guest Cassius - Dance Department - The Best Beats To Go! […]

Do You Feel Safe Now?
Now that military officers selected by the Bush Pentagon have reached a split verdict convicting Salim Hamdan, a onetime driver for Osama bin Laden, of supporting terrorism, but innocent of terrorist conspiracy, do you feel safe? Or are we superpower Americans still at risk until we capture bin Laden’s dentist, barber, and the person who installed the carpet in his living room? The Bush Regime with its comic huffings and puffings is unaware that it has made itself the laughing stock of the world, a comedy version of the Third Reich. Hamdan was not defended by the slick lawyers who got O.J. Simpson off, and he most certainly did not have a jury of his peers. Hamdan was defended by a Pentagon appointed US Navy officer, and his jurors were all Pentagon appointed US military officers with an eye on their careers. Even in this Kangaroo Court, Hamdan was cleared of the main charge. The US Navy officer who was Hamdan’s appointed attorney is certainly no terrorist sympathizer. Yet even this United States officer said that the rules Bush designed for the military tribunals were designed to achieve convictions. He also said that the judge allowed evidence that would not have been admitted by any civilian or military US court. He said that the interrogations of Hamdan, which comprised the basis of the Bush Regime’s case, were tainted by coercive tactics, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. [Split verdict in first Guantanamo war-crimes trial, AP, August 6, 2008] Does this make you a proud American? Do you think you are made more safe when you stand there while “your” government implements its own version of Joseph Stalin’s show trials? The trial and conviction of Hamdan has made every American very unsafe. The one certain fact about US law is that it is expanded until it applies to everyone. Consider RICO, for example, the asset freeze law that was intended only in criminal cases involving the Mafia; it wasn’t long before RICO found its way into civil divorce proceedings. Bush’s multi-year, multi-billion dollar “War on Terror” has been reduced to railroading a low level employee, a driver, for “terrorism.” One would hope that the Hamdan verdict would be enough shame and ridicule for the US in one day. But no, Bush didn’t stop there. On his way to the Beijing Olympics, President Bush expressed “deep concerns” for the state of human rights in China. But not in Guantanamo, nor in Abu Ghraib, nor in the CIA’s torture dungeons used for “renditions,” nor in Iraq and Afghanistan where the US is expert at bombing weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, and every assortment of civilians imaginable. As the good book says, clean the beam from your own eye before pointing to the mote in your brother’s eye. But Americans, the salt of the earth, have neither beams nor motes. We are the virtuous few, ordained by God to impose our hegemony on the world. It is written, or so say the neocons. What would President Bush say if, heaven forbid, the Chinese were as rude as he is and asked Mr. Superpower why the land of “freedom and democracy” has one million names on a watch list. China with a population four times as large doesn’t have a watch list with one million names. What would President Bush say if China asked him why the US, with a population one-fourth the size of China’s has hundreds of thousands more of its citizens in prison? The percentage of Americans in prison is far higher than in China and is a larger absolute number. What would President Bush say if China asked him why he used lies and deception to justify his invasion of Iraq. China, unlike Bush, is not responsible for 1.2 million dead Iraqis and 4 million displaced Iraqis. China’s human rights policy is not perfect. China’s greatest human rights failing is that China is the Bush Regime’s prime enabler of its war crimes and human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. By financing Bush’s budget deficit, China is financing Bush’s gratuitous wars. Indeed, China can be said to finance the weaponry that the US gives Israel to enable the suppression of the Palestinians and with which to bomb the civilian population of Lebanon. China is a serious human rights abuser, because China is complicit in Bush’s human rights abuses. If we are honest about who is actually murdering and abusing people, it is the US, Israel, and the UK. There’s your “axis of evil.”Technorati Tags: Hamdan, Bush, War on Terror, Guantanamo, Security, Tyranny If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: Click Here for the Free Populist party Newsletter Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury’s Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones - La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000). Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate

Fashion History.
100 content rich, illustrated pages of fashion History, Costume History, Clothing, Textiles and Social History. fashion History. - Sexy Greek Goddess is a 2pc. set. Costume inludes dress and headband. Sexy Greek Goddess is stretch spandex. Sexy Greek Goddess is a one shoulder keyhole dress. nl100206mm Price: […]

Lower Labor Costs Now!
Official data are starting to reveal what close observers have suspected for some time. Layoffs are increasing. Unemployment is on the rise. It now stands at a four-year high of 5.7 percent, which is not high by historical standards, but it stings when you consider that the rate dipped below 4 percent in the late 1990s. What worries people is the trend line. This is the seventh straight month of reported job declines. Job instability is the number one factor that leads to public panic. It is more pressing than stock-price declines, general price increases, and a host of other bad trends, because it hits people in the most direct way by threatening to end the flow of money that puts bread on the table. Don’t blame the employers. They are faced with making cutbacks wherever possible. They have to worry about surviving in the downturn. It is not only labor costs that must be cut. Cutbacks must occur in every area. In the past, we’ve seen policy intervention designed to do exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. The most typical is an expansion of unemployment benefits, and both parties have already agreed to this regrettable step. Such benefits amount to telling a lie to people, that they can continue to hold out for higher wages when the most important step workers can make is to lower their offering prices for labor on the market. But, you say, it is unrealistic to expect people to devalue their work by lowering their wage expectations. If so, there is another way to go about the same thing: lower the costs of hiring on the market. The costs of employment to the employer go way beyond the wages and salaries they pay. Among them are payroll taxes, of which the employer must absorb half, at least in an accounting sense. Once you add Social Security with Medicare with unemployment with workmen’s comp, the employer ends up paying about 10% of labor costs in taxes. The laborer also pays 6.2 percent. But these accounting divisions are purely formal. In an economic sense, the laborer ultimately pays the full tax. But the point is that there is no choice about this. If someone is hired, there must be a tax premium built into the cost of hiring this person, and this is before the worker has added any value at all to the work of the enterprise in question. The payroll tax is a tax on employment because it is a forced price increase in the wage that everyone hopes to gain. If we eliminated this, we would see the costs of hiring plummet, and the benefit would be experienced directly and immediately by the worker. The worker would not have to lower wage and salary expectations. Instead of paying the government, the worker would be able to add that money to his or her own remunerative calculus. Another tax on employment comes in the form of mandatory provisions of health insurance for firms of a certain size and employment of a certain time. When the costs of health care having risen beyond belief, this is a serious impediment to hiring. Employees tend to think of health insurance as a free benefit or even a right, but this is an illusion. The money paid comes out of the paycheck. Almost all employees would be better off arranging for their own private medical insurance or taking the risk upon themselves. The new demand for individual provision would make the market for health insurance more competitive and bring down prices. It would also increase the incentive of people to take better care of themselves, since the perception of “free” health care creates a moral hazard. Another great step would be to eliminate the minimum wage. What this would do is decontrol the prices of labor in general. It would permit workers the freedom to offer their services at any rate privately negotiated between the employee and the employer. The minimum wage merely puts a floor on wages that reduces their flexibility on the market. It acts like any price control: in this case, it creates a surplus of labor services that go unpurchased. It outlaws some jobs. There are other costs of hiring that are very high but ultimately incalculable. Discrimination law has gone from being a relatively clear (though ultimately wrongheaded) rule against racial and sexual discrimination to become a legal minefield that just boggles the mind. Once you consider the entire panoply of restricted “grounds” of discriminating, every single employee becomes a walking lawsuit. The risks to hiring anyone are huge. It is no longer possible to imagine hiring full-time employees without feeling as if you are likely to be stuck with these people no matter how they perform and no matter what turn economic conditions take. On the margin, this makes employers far more risk averse to hiring anyone, especially in risky times. If regulators, bureaucrats, judges, and juries would back off here, we would see a great increase in employee mobility and new willingness on the part of every firm to take on new employees. Now, the problem immediately presents itself. What will the poor government do if it is denied all this revenue? What will become of workers’ rights if government ceases to protect victimized workers from nasty employers? Well, here is the problem. The choice right now isn’t between a high-paying job with lots of benefits and a low-paying job with no benefits. The choice for many is coming down to having a job or not having one. As for government revenue to sustain transfer programs, I say tough: let the public sector suffer for a change. A dramatic initiative to lower the costs of hiring could end up having great effects. It could wean us from the World War II-era mistake of pushing the costs of health care onto employers. It could force a desperately needed reform of Medicare and Social Security. It would shift the locus of control over employment contracts from government to those affected most directly by those contracts: namely the individual workers and the firms for which they work. Of course what you read here is roughly the opposite of current policy trends, which are to increase rather than reduce the costs of hiring. This is how government ends up taking a bad situation and making it worse, which is what it has done consistently throughout history. This won’t change until the public makes its demands known to the elites. The best anti-recession slogan right now would be: Lower Labor Costs Now. Technorati Tags: Economy, Recession, Labor, Wages, Business, Economics Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty. Copyright 2008 LewRockwell.com If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: Click Here for the Free Populist party Newsletter

Retirement Online Search Resource Center - Retirement - Retirement Help
Go Home Retirement Newsletter Archives Retirement Links Advertise on this site Add URL. A safe and secure website. Investments Online Extreme Search Center Welcome to the Investments Online Search Center. One day that will be all you have. Date : Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:57:17 -0500 Answer Your the Eldercare Questions Online Finding the right […]

HVAV Technician
Offering Lodging and a good salary, we are a well established contractor with 25 years in the industry specializing in HVAC and Refrigeration field for service and installation requires a fulltime person immediately to work in the Nothumberland area. …… Direct Support Professional The Direct Support […]

This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2008 at 10:24 pm and is filed under Party. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.