Tuesday, May 16, 2006


Yes, the president's approval rating is low. So are the ratings of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

President Bush: 33% approval

Congressional Republicans: 33% approval, 64% disapproval
Congressional Democrats: 39% approval, 58% disapproval

The war in Iraq is consistently cited as why President Bush is getting a low approval rating.

He has low ratings in many issues (immigration, gas prices). But the one that is confounding is his low marks for the economy (38/60) which is his fault because he never cites the great economic data.

Only 39 percent approve of the job Democrats in Congress are doing, while 58 percent disapprove



Rich Lowry on Immigration on National Review Online:

"Like President Clinton's gesture of sending more U.S. troops to Somalia after the 'Black Hawk Down' battle in Mogadishu, when everyone knew we were really on our way out, Bush's Guard deployment is a prelude to surrender. The immigrants who have come here in defiance of our laws will get to stay, bring their families and be joined by just as many immigrants in the future´┐Żat least if Bush gets his way.

It is with this position that Bush has wrecked his political standing, kicking out from under himself the support of his conservative base. Bush's National Guard feint is a sign that the White House thinks conservatives are not just disaffected, but credulous. The Guard won't have any real enforcement duties. It will merely provide logistical backup to the Border Patrol. The Guard's presence will be temporary, until a proposed doubling of Border Patrol agents takes place. But if the past is any guide, all of those new positions ultimately won't be funded, once the political heat passes. "

After the hubbub of the speech has died done, what will be the actual outcome in Congress? It seems that the president and Senate will gang up on the House.


It's all about me: Why e-mails are so easily misunderstood | csmonitor.com 

It's all about me: Why e-mails are so easily misunderstood | csmonitor.com:

"In effect, e-mail cannot adequately convey emotion. A recent study by Profs. Justin Kruger of New York University and Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago focused on how well sarcasm is detected in electronic messages. Their conclusion: Not only do e-mail senders overestimate their ability to communicate feelings, but e-mail recipients also overestimate their ability to correctly decode those feelings.

One reason for this, the business-school professors say, is that people are egocentric. They assume others experience stimuli the same way they do. Also, e-mail lacks body language, tone of voice, and other cues - making it difficult to interpret emotion.

'A typical e-mail has this feature of seeming like face-to-face communication,' Professor Epley says. 'It's informal and it's rapid, so you assume you're getting the same paralinguistic cues you get from spoken communication.'"

Know what I'm saying?



The next time you go golfing in Hawaii, make sure you're with someone that you completely trust!

The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled a golfer may not be held liable for mistakenly hitting another golfer with an errant golf ball.
In a unanimous decision, the court upheld a lower court ruling to dismiss Ryan Yoneda's lawsuit against Andrew Tom, whose wayward ball hit Yoneda in the eye at Mililani Golf Course in 1999.

Chief Justice Ronald Moon wrote Yoneda assumed the risk of the injury when he played golf.

It is "common knowledge that not every shot played by a golfer goes exactly where he intends it to go," the ruling said, adding there wouldn't be much "sport" in the "sport of golf," if golf balls went exactly where the player wanted.

The April 28 ruling makes clear a golfer who intentionally hits a ball to inflict injury, or recklessly hits the ball knowing that injury is highly likely, would not be exempt from liability.

Yoneda filed suit after Tom's ball hit his left eye.

The impact of the ball left Yoneda with a black-eye bruise that didn't go away for a month-and-a-half. His eye welled shut and he also suffered permanent vision damage.

The court considered whether golfers should have to shout "fore" or other warnings to protect other players. The justices concluded, however, that doing so was golf etiquette, not a requirement recognized by law.

This ruling should come as no surprise. It would be a stretch to think that failing to yell "fore" would be a breach of some legal duty.

USATODAY.com - Hawaii Supreme Court rules golfers not liable for errant balls


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?