A blog by an American expatriate living in the heart of New Europe


"It's a lateral transfer" -- George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States
my photo
  Name:
  Gustav
  Location:
  Warsaw, Poland

view profile | e-mail Gustav


*roundtrip ticket

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Don't you just hate it...

... when work gets in the way of blogging?

Talking points

Russian-Polish diplomat beating fiasco latest:

Leads found in Russian children beating in Warsaw:
Warsaw police have detained two persons in connection with the beating of Russian diplomats' children in a public park in the city on July 31st. They were charged with pawn broking. The police were tight-lipped about exactly what their connection with the beating was.

The teenagers lost their mobiles and some cash in the attack. A few hours later the police detained 9 persons but freed them the next day due to lack of evidence.
Poland protests after another attack on diplomat
Poland's foreign ministry has issued a firm protest after another Polish diplomat was beaten up in Moscow. Minister Adam Rotfeld said that Polish-Russian relations have been developing from "bad to worse" and that there are too many cases in Russia for Poland not to demand a response this time.

In the third attack on a Polish embassy worker in Moscow in five days, the second secretary was hit on the head and kicked. He is in hospital with suspected concussion.

Poland stepped up security precautions at its embassy and asked Moscow for adequate protection of its diplomats. Minister Rotfeld was unable to contact his Russian opposite number Sergei Lavrov, who is on vacation but Poland received assurances from Lavrov's deputy that Russia undertook energetic steps to detain and punish the attackers and to ensure security to Polish diplomats.
Yeah. Right.
The attacks follow the mugging and beating of three teenage children of Russian diplomats and their friend from Kazakhstan in Warsaw last July, which created an uproar in Russia and president Vladimir Putin complain about an unfriendly act.


Protective guarding of Poland embassy tightened in Moscow
Police have tightened the protective guarding of the Polish embassy in Moscow.

A deputy spokesman for the Moscow Interior Department, Yevgeny Gildeyev, told Itar-Tass on Thursday that the "decision to increase the number of policemen guarding the embassy had been made on August 3 after the incident with children of Russian diplomats in Warsaw".

Two policemen were on guard at the embassy building routinely, but five are on duty at daytime and four at night at present, Gildeyev said.


He said police patrols have been reinforced to watch order in the area of the Tishinsky market in a territory adjacent to the embassy after another incident with a worker of the Polish embassy.

A police car patrol and three foot patrols began to ply in the area since Wednesday.

"Police are talking all measures for detaining suspects in the attacks on embassy workers, but identities of the criminals could not be established as yet," Gildeyev said.




Playing field is now level, Holland says


Shouldn't the cities who pay more to see their players get better players?

7 Comments:



Blogger Redneck Texan said...

Shouldn't the cities who pay more to see their players get better players?

I am gonna make a Neo-Con out of you yet. ;-)

Now expand that logic to taxpayers. Shouldn't someone who pays more money for our government have a greater vote in its direction?

8/11/2005 09:08:00 PM  


Blogger Gustav said...

Government ain't hockey.

Firstly, I reject any connection between self-determination and financial wealth. Each man can only decide for himself.

How the country then decides to sort out its finances is a separate matter.

But, if you wanna get Socialist about it, the argument could also be made that they pay more because they have already received (and receive) greater benefits.

But I wouldn't do that.

Expanding on your logic: if those who pay more taxes should get more votes, shouldn't states with more people also get a number of votes according to its true population? In other words, isn't the Electoral College bunk?

Hmmm. What would happen if the people who paid more taxes got more votes...?


States ranked by per capita income

Based on 2000 Census data

1. Connecticut – $28,766

District of Columbia – $28,659

2. New Jersey – $27,006
3. Massachusetts – $25,952
4. Maryland – $25,614
5. Colorado – $24,049
6. Virginia – $23,975
7. New Hampshire – $23,844
8. New York – $23,389
9. Delaware – $23,305
10. Minnesota – $23,198
11. Illinois – $23,104
12. Washington – $22,973
13. California – $22,711
14. Alaska – $22,660
15. Michigan – $22,168
16. Nevada – $21,989
17. Rhode Island – $21,688

United States of America – $21,587

18. Florida – $21,557
19. Hawaii – $21,525
20. Wisconsin – $21,271
21. Georgia – $21,154
22. Ohio – $21,003
23. Oregon – $20,940
24. Pennsylvania – $20,880
25. Vermont – $20,625
26. Kansas – $20,506
27. Indiana – $20,397
28. North Carolina – $20,307
29. Arizona – $20,275
30. Missouri – $19,936
31. Iowa – $19,674
32. Texas – $19,617
33. Nebraska – $19,613
34. Maine – $19,533
35. Tennessee – $19,393
36. Wyoming – $19,134
37. South Carolina – $18,795
38. Alabama – $18,189
39. Utah – $18,185
40. Kentucky – $18,093
41. Idaho – $17,841
42. North Dakota – $17,769
43. Oklahoma – $17,646
44. South Dakota – $17,562
45. New Mexico – $17,261
46. Montana – $17,151
47. Louisiana – $16,912
48. Arkansas – $16,904
49. West Virginia – $16,477
50. Mississippi – $15,853

Puerto Rico – $8,185

States ranked by personal per capita income

Based on 2003 data

District of Columbia – $48,342

1. Connecticut – $43,173
2. New Jersey – $40,427
3. Massachusetts – $39,815
4. Maryland – $37,331
5. New York – $36,574
6. New Hampshire – $34,702
7. Minnesota – $34,443
8. Colorado – $34,283
9. California – $33,749
10. Illinois – $33,690
11. Virginia – $33,671
12. Alaska – $33,568
13. Washington – $33,332
14. Delaware – $32,810
15. Wyoming – $32,808
16. Pennsylvania – $31,998
17. Rhode Island – $31,916

United States of America – $31,632

18. Nevada – $31,266
19. Hawaii – $30,913
20. Wisconsin – $30,898
21. Nebraska – $30,758
22. Vermont – $30,740
23. Florida – $30,446
24. Michigan – $30,439
25. Ohio – $29,944
26. Kansas – $29,935
27. Georgia – $29,442
28. Texas – $29,372
29. Oregon – $29,340
30. Missouri – $29,252
31. South Dakota – $29,234
32. North Dakota – $29,204
33. Iowa – $29,043
34. Maine – $28,831
35. Indiana – $28,783
36. Tennessee – $28,455
37. North Carolina – $28,235
38. Arizona – $26,838
39. Oklahoma – $26,656
40. Alabama – $26,338
41. Kentucky – $26,252
42. South Carolina – $26,132
43. Louisiana – $26,100
44. Montana – $25,920
45. Idaho – $25,911
46. New Mexico – $25,541
47. Utah – $24,977
48. West Virginia – $24,379
49. Arkansas – $24,289
50. Mississippi – $23,448

States ranked by median household income

Based on 2000 Census data

1. New Jersey – $55,146
2. Connecticut – $53,935
3. Maryland – $52,868
4. Alaska – $51,571
5. Massachusetts – $50,502
6. Hawaii – $49,820
7. New Hampshire – $49,467
8. California – $47,493
9. Delaware – $47,381
10. Colorado – $47,203
11. Minnesota – $47,111
12. Virginia – $46,677
13. Illinois – $46,590
14. Washington – $45,776
15. Utah – $45,726
16. Michigan – $44,667
17. Nevada – $44,581
18. Wisconsin – $43,791
19. New York – $43,393
20. Georgia – $42,433
21. Rhode Island – $42,090

United States of America – $41,994

22. Indiana – $41,567
23. Ohio – $40,956
24. Oregon – $40,916
25. Vermont – $40,856
26. Kansas – $40,624
27. Arizona – $40,558

District of Columbia – $40,127

28. Pennsylvania – $40,106
29. Texas – $39,927
30. Iowa – $39,469
31. Nebraska – $39,250
32. North Carolina – $39,184
33. Florida – $38,819
34. Missouri – $37,934
35. Wyoming – $37,892
36. Idaho – $37,572
37. Maine – $37,240
38. South Carolina – $37,082
39. Tennessee – $36,360
40. South Dakota – $35,282
41. North Dakota – $34,604
42. Alabama – $34,135
43. New Mexico – $34,133
44. Kentucky – $33,672
45. Oklahoma – $33,400
46. Montana – $33,024
47. Louisiana – $32,566
48. Arkansas – $32,182
49. Mississippi – $31,330
50. West Virginia – $29,696

Puerto Rico – $14,412


--- It's not looking so good for the red states, is it?

8/11/2005 10:18:00 PM  


Blogger Redneck Texan said...

If you have a problem with the electoral college, then you must also have problem with the Senate.

Why should Vermont have as much say as Texas?

Same concept. If someone from New York ran for President on the platform that people in New York would be except from paying taxes, he could win New York by 10 million votes, then lose in every other state by 200000 votes, but still win the election after only winning one state.

Your just mad because your last 2 votes have been wadded up and thrown in the trash. The prize for coming in at second place is a big bag of nothing.

But seriously Gus, don't you think there is something flawed about a system of government that gives some crack head living under a bridge the same say in the direction of our nation as someone who has fed the government coffers all his life?

Does being born an American citizen automatically make you qualified to choose the course for the nation's overall best interests? Should no American be asked to do anything for America to deserve the right to vote on which direction she takes?

Our forefathers earned that right...what did we do?

8/11/2005 11:57:00 PM  


Blogger Gustav said...

But seriously Gus, don't you think there is something flawed about a system of government that gives some crack head living under a bridge the same say in the direction of our nation as someone who has fed the government coffers all his life?

No. Because I don't know how he ended up a crackhead or filling up government coffers.

The principle is uniquely American, because it upholds the principle that one can always claw back. That in America there's always a chance.

If we took away that vote, we couldn't blame him for his situation - he is powerless. By giving him that inch of power, he dons accountability.

And vice-versa: take away the vote, and on what basis do we claim he is responsible for his own situation?

Does being born an American citizen automatically make you qualified to choose the course for the nation's overall best interests?

It entitles you to exercise your birthright to determine your own best interest.

Should no American be asked to do anything for America to deserve the right to vote on which direction she takes?

Each American should do something for his/her country. But votes should not be based on any litmus test. Once it does, disenfranchisement becomes inevitable.

Our forefathers earned that right...what did we do?

I ask myself that often, and I try to live up to my rights, practicing them responsibly and participating in our democracy.

I'm not home much now - but I did participate actively in community activities when I was there. In Poland I try to support cultural understanding between the US and Poland. Not through any organization, mind you - just at work and with the people I meet every day. People often tell me "you're different from all the other Americans I know" - I'm proud to be a representative of our country who can break the stereotype of the uncultured egomaniac - because I know how wrong that stereotype is.

That's pretty much it-- besides contributing work and wages to the economy, when I'm there.

I thank God that I didn't have to fight for my rights as they did. I pray that if I ever must, He gives me the courage to do so.

So if, for example, fighting in a war is your litmus test for voting, then I wouldn't qualify. I seem to remember that you wouldn't either.

So I'm glad that when it comes to voting, there are no strings attached.

Isn't that why they were fighting? Because they believed we shouldn't have to?

8/12/2005 12:54:00 AM  


Blogger Redneck Texan said...

I agree, I have done nothing to deserve my freedom or my right to vote. And I don't think serving in the military should be the only deciding factor on who votes, but I do think someone who served honorably in our Armed Forces certainly does deserve the right to vote, and has a better perspective on how important a strong military is to our continued freedom.

So lets say some politician, let call him a Democrat, walks around to all the bridges and crack houses in his district and promises them if they vote for him he will make sure they get free syringes and crack pipes, or to all the retirement homes and promises them to raise social security entitlements, or to union halls and promises them he will make labor friendly legislation, and these people vote for him because he will pass legislation that feeds their self-interest at the expense of the nation as a whole.....is that a good thing?

What is the long term fiscal price to pay for facilitating and encouraging people to vote for someone who promises them free shit.

Would foreign policy take a dangerous backseat to domestic issues if those folks were a majority.

I am not seriously promoting the idea of a litmus test to vote, but if someone had to say perform 40 hours a year of community service in order to vote, how many less people would vote?

I guess what I am saying is...if someone does not have the overall best interest of our nation in mind when they cast their vote, should they be able to control the fate of the nation if they are a majority?

btw....somebody tell Philly there is a salary cap now. Forsberg and Hatcher?

8/12/2005 01:55:00 AM  


Blogger Gustav said...

The knife cuts both ways.

Let's say a politician, let's call him a Republican, goes around to all the businessmen and white males, telling them he'll give them a tax-cut, come hell or high water, record deficit or no, record debt or no. He promises them that if they vote for him he'll make sure their coffers will be full of government dollars that were once designated to guarantee a comfortable end-of-life for older folks, but will now be channelled THROUGH the government, directly to those businesses - putting the solvency of that pension system at risk?

THEN LET'S SAY, he goes to all the religious folks in the community, and promises them that if they vote for him, he'll ban a group churches don't like from receiving benefits equal to that which are granted an analogous group that the church likes. He also promises that he will hold up the march of science, and blur the separation of church and state.

In other words, don't fool yourself that a businessman after a tax break is looking out "for the best interest of the country."

Neither are the churches. They say they have the nation's best interests at heart, but make no mistake that there are those who want to consolidate their power.

What I'm saying is, it's possible to believe that tax cuts or free needles would be good for the country, though you or I may disagree.

But it's also possible to want those things that Dems want and that GOP'ers want, simply out of self-interest.

The point is, if the nation elects someone as irresponsible as the man you mentioned above, or as slimy as the man I mentioned - especially out of self-interest -

THEN THE NATION GETS EXACTLY WHAT IT DESERVES.

You chose it, you get stuck with it for four years. If s/he is so terrible, the people will elect someone else next time 'round. Crackheads don't outnumber sane folk. Hopefully we learn from our mistakes.

If you believe seniors are voting for Democrats purely out of self-interest, and you want them to vote Republican, then you ought to convince them that it's in their best interest to vote Republican.

Or don't Republicans want what's in crackheads' and seniors' best interest?

8/12/2005 03:46:00 PM  


Blogger Redneck Texan said...

Touche....I cant argue with you bout that.

Politicians of both parties that just sign off on corporate lawyer written legislation is a leading factor in the reduction of our long term liberty.

Too bad we cant all vote for neither of the partisan whores on the corporate payroll eh?

8/13/2005 10:56:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Trackback:

Create a Link

< Main


american expat piękna polska michigan, my michigan Pijemy po polsku - Kickin' it Polish style Warsaw Station on Feedburner subscribe to my feed my feed