Aren't we, in this modern day and age, truly wonderful human beings?   We have finally achieved the ability to "multi-task" or so we have led ourselves to believe.   "Multi-task" is but a buzz word for the act, or ability, of/to handling more than one item at a time.   When, during the campaign, the economy tanked and our government wanted to craft a solution, John McCain was ridiculed for suggesting that the two candidates (of course, already being important members of the government) take a hiatus and focus on this most pressing issue.   Obama ridiculed McCain and noted that he, himself, was more than capable of dealing with more than one thing at a time, of "multi-tasking."   The problem is, when really important matters are before you, multi-tasking is a very bad idea.

Right now, the economy is in as bad a shape as it has been for quite some time.   Things are not getting better.   The stock market is fairly stable but that is because it has hit a bottom and decided not to test a new, second low ... for now.   That's not likely to remain the case since each and every new day there is additional bad news.

Most public companies are in the process of closing the books, undergoing financial statement audit, and ultimately reporting earnings as well as outlook for the near-term future.   Earnings have already been somewhat discounted by the stock market but any downward surprises are likely to be met with panic.   Forecasts for 2009-2010 are looking fairly bleak but that's not going to freak out the markets since everybody seems to be on the same page.   But as soon as the financial people firm up their numbers for the past and immediate future, they are going to set about working on the current.

Financial people are working all sorts of hours to get the books closed up tight and the forecasts out the door.   But as soon as that clears, their bosses are going to want them to work on plans to increase the bottom line figures in coming quarters.   That time, right after financial reporting season, is the "restructuring" season.   It is almost upon us!

Already we are hearing layoff plans being announced but the pace of these is likely to pick up steam over the next four months.   Each large layoff leads to less purchasing power out there on which everybody else's forecasts are based.   So after earnings comes job loss, comes downward revisions, comes more downturn.   That's a bad cycle and it has significant momentum right now.   Don't fool yourself that we have already hit rock bottom.

Yesterday I saw a news flash suggesting that we ought to jump back into the stock market today because right after the market hit bottom in 1932, it jumped up again.   The notion is we should be buying stocks because what goes down must come up.   This is, of course, an illusion since during the great bear market of the Great Depression, the stock market did jump up several times, only to retreat again.   If you could time such things, you'd be doing very well.   But then again, that's as true in bad times as it is in good ones.

The truth is, nobody is absolutely sure whether we may suffer yet another huge downward fall.   That depends on the overall nature of economic news over the next year or so.   This is why the economic stimulus package that ultimately surfaces from Congress is so important.   It simply MUST stimulate the economy or we are in for desperate times ahead.   We need to focus on one thing and one thing only.   That is economic stimulus.

But Obama and Congress are self-described multi-taskers.   And Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, never likes to let a good crisis go to waste.   So thus far, the "economic stimulus" we have been hearing about is filled with everything but the kitchen sink, everything liberal, though nothing much stimuative to the economy.   There is nothing wrong with a liberal government, one that was duly elected, pushing money into its pet projects per se.   We should all expect that.   Elections have consequences.   But if the economy doesnot get stimulated as a result of this trillion dollar package, there's going to be hell to pay come mid-term elections.

Everything I have been able to read and hear about the stimulus package bouncing around Congress - and to be fair, I have not spent a lot of time reading about it for a particular reason - says it contains hundreds of millions for things like education spending, global warming research, universal healthcare, "infrastructure" rebuilding and funding for a slew of items having nothing to do with our current crisis.

Puching money into education is not going to result in business booking around the country.   It is merely paying back a constutuency, the teacher's union.   And if we are already certain that global warming is real, and we seem to know precisely what it's effects are going to be, why should we spend one thin dime for additional research?   In fact, what we should be doing is reducing the already huge sums spent for scientific research to determine whether global warming is happening or not.   Universal healthcare is a nice pet project for liberals but it has zero stimulative effect on the economy.   Infrastructure building would be nice were it not for the fact that most of these projects will take years just to begin, after the court battles are fought with environmentalists.   The million other pet liberal projects likewise will do nothing for the here and now.   Thank goodness Obama figured out that spending for abortion and contraception, especially outside these United States, was a really bad idea at this time.   But still, where is the meat and potatoes?   Where are the items which will result in jobs and economic stimulus?

If liberals wanted to really stimulate the economy while at the same time pushing money into their favorite programs, we'd see something like hundreds of millions pumped into a program to put solar panels onto people's rooftops.   Sure, that money would go to the supposed "rich" since one would have to own property in order to qualify.   But there is nothing better which would result in more highly skilled construction jobs, not to mention purchase of non-consumer durables like trucks and equipment.   At the same time, we would be building the country to combat global warming (which by the way I still consider to be a hoax).

Similarly, given that the liberals think global warming is real and here, one would expect some sizeable utilitarian projects dealing with the supposed problem which both yield results and employ huge numbers of people.   When we're kicking around numbers like a trillion, we can talk about some of the expenditures which normally get squashed because of their size like nuclear power.

Forget about the supposed renewable fuels from agricultual products.   That's been a huge fiasco, driving up the cost of food worldwide.   Even if such a project were to be stimulative, it does nothing to feed people who are currently hungry.   Rather, it takes food out of their mouths.   The out of work, or soon to be out of work after their pay for no work program runs out, UAW people need jobs, real jobs.   They aren't going to go to work on corn farms.   They need to build equipment and for that we need something big.

Windmills are probably as big a joke as agri-fuels.   But there are a million other sorts of energy related programs which would yield jobs and equipment purchases.   Why spend money on scientific research yielding long-term benefits when what we need is economic stimulus right now?   We have some "solutions" to our country's energy needs already on the table.   Why not fund the ones which actually accomplish something?   With the amount of money we're currently kicking around, the government could practically buy everyone in California and other water-starved places new appliances which are both energy and water efficient.   That kind of purchasing would create jobs, spur new private sector businesses, and create long-term liberal benefits.

The point is, there are a million little projects which could be completely funded, considering the amount of money we are contemplating spending, which would stimulate the economy while also accomplishing goals liberals love.   But because the Democrats and Obama are multi-tasking, they've already taken their eyes off the ball.   The way its going, they are almost certain to strike out.   And time for this at-bat is about up.   We're now talking months, not years, before the economy takes another downward plunge and brings the stock market with it.   The time to act is now and the act had better be focused, focused on the economy, not just the top liberal pet projects.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Liberalism

The discussion topic for the day is: what the hell is meant by all these requests to "give Barack Obama a chance?"

First off, do you all mean, give him a chance to be President?   There isn't one among those who do not "support" Obama who can do a single thing to not allow the man to be President.   He earned th job and tomorrow he takes office.   The only way anybody cannot give him the chance is to kill him and that's illegal.   Not only is it illegal, a physical assault on the President of the US, regardless of his party, is an assault on the country.   It is a decidedly un-American unpatriotic thing to do.

If somehow killing the President were legal and patriotic, not many would sign up for the job since the guy to step in and fill his shoes would be Jumpin Joe Biden.   If somehow both were killed, who would we be left with, what is the line of succession?   The answer is, things get worse, far worse, as you move through the line of succession.   No intelligent human being could possibly want to roll the dice by assassinating the President.

So we will certainly give him a chance to be President.   What other options are there?

I have to assume that there is more to the phrase "give him a chance" than the mere physical sense of the possible meaning.   The sister phrase and/.or question belies the real meaning.   That is, "he is your President so support him."   By support him, generally folks mean for us all to be proactive in proclaiming that we love or like the man and are 100% behind every possible policy he might apply.   We are supposed to be united tomorrow in our unconditional support for the Democrat President.

Where exactly are we supposed to have learned what this kind of suppport involves?   Should we look back at the way in which liberals and Democrats "supported THEIR president when that person happened to be a Republican or conservative?   Should we take example from the way the media proclaimed Reagan a nice guy but not very bright person during and after the point at which he managed to turn around an economy mired in stagflation caused by poor policy decisions made by Democrat Jimmy Carter?   Should we look to the blame placed (by the media and our children's history books written by liberals) at Nixon's feet for the Vietnam war when it was Kennedy who put us there and Johnson who sunk us into the swamp?   Should we take note of the way in which Nixon was called a criminal, not for engaging in the act, but rather for covering it up so as to keep the political power he earned through legitimate means, while Clinton's transgressions are completely overlooked and pooh-poohed by the media?   Should we give Barack a chance the same way the media and liberals gave both George Bush's a chance?

I'm all for it.   Let's give Barack Obama a chance, the same chance liberals gave Republican Presidents!   You guys created the game.   We conservatives learned from the masters.   Let's go.   Game on!

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama

Forget about Hamas, Madoff, the Depression, Obama's immaculate inauguration, Michelle O.'s mom living on the public dole, Blagojevich, Gore's use of an amount of energy which he proposes each of us use ... multiplied by 100,000.   There is a bigger problem.   A spate of UFOs has been reported all over the country.   The aliens are here.  o; The proof?   The photograph to the right was taken in the US Congress.   The alien claimed he was Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.   He said, "Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence."   He wants to move swiftly to encumber the US economy despite the fact that we are in perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen and, more importantly, that the climate has not warmed since the IPCC was formed (no wonder they received the Nobel prize).   Waxman is qualified to represent the "change" agenda because he has been in office since 1975.   But I suspect the fellow in the photograph is actually an alien.   And now we know where all this global warming BS has been coming from.   The aliens wants our petrol!

Labels: global warming

It's not that easy being green.

As Gizmodo points out, sometimes you have to go way out of your way to save a little carbon-based fossil fuel!

Submitted for your consideration, consider the plight of one newly elected Congressman Eric Massa of NY.   Mr. Massa is a greenie, he loves the planet and fears that carbon dioxide might be ruining it.   While running for Congress, Mr. Massa set forth a new "Declaration of Independence."   He called his work a "Declaration of Rights Which have Been Denied" and included the phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ...

The People have a right to a sustainable environment ...

The People have a right to energy at reasonable prices"

Evidently prone to grand symbolic gestures, Mr. Massa set out upon a journey to demonstrate the utility of fuel cell automobiles, a journey which would lead Mr. Massa to the edges of the Twilight Zone.

The Congressman decided he would proceed to his new post in the legislature, 300 miles from his home, in a vehicle having a range of just 200 miles without benefit of a hydrogen station along the way.   In order to accomplish the task, he used his massive capacity for creativity.   He drove one vehicle to the halfway point, exited it, climbed inside another and proceeded to his destination.

In order for this to take place: 1) a second vehicle had to be waiting at the ready - it had to be towed there by some vehicle which could make the full journey, one powered by fossil fuels and, 2) the first vehicle had to be towed from the halfway point by another vehicle which could make the full journey.   In other words, one conventional vehicle followed Mr. Massa from home, while towing a second one which then towed the empty fuel cell car home to NY and yet another had to be used to place the second fuel cell vehicle along the route.   SUVs were used for the towing since they can handle the load.

One SUV travelled some unknown distance to place the second fuel cell car along the route.   A second SUV towed another for the first 150 mile leg of the journey and then followed on an additional 150 miles.   The third SUV was released from tow at the midway point so that it could travel back home while towing the empty fuel cell car.   Then, upon arrival at the destination, SUV # 2 then towed the now useless fuel cell car back the 300 miles to home.

For the 300 mile one way trip, a total of five vehicles and four total drivers were necessary.   Each of the fuel cell vehicles travelled 150 miles, one SUV travelled an unknown distance.   The second SUV travelled 600 miles (to DC and back).   The third SUV travelled 300 (to the midway point and back).   That's a total vehicle log of 1,200 miles travelled to accomplish a 300 mile one way trip.   One would hope the return trip would be a little less onerous.

It is worth noting that Mr. Massa's first fuel cell car could easily have made the trip to an Amtrak train station, dropped him off and returned back home again, whereupon he could have proceeded to DC far more economically aboard a train, met his second fuel cell car, which also could have been driven, not towed, there, and then enjoyed a short drive to Congress.   He could have made use of the very fuel efficient infrastructure which has been in place for decades thanks to funding provided by the very Congress he entered.

But had Mr. Massa done the sensible thing, he would not have entered the Twilight Zone.

Get used to common sense problems being resolved in this fashion.   We're all headed to the Twilight Zone.

Labels: global warming

There's no such thing as the "rightful owner" of any land. It's always been about who has the stronger army. Who is the good guy in this?

Human beings are social animals, and we humans tend to segregate ourselves into groups, and then become loyal to that group.

The Theory of Evolution that Darwin himself defined says that the strongest will survive, and those who adapt to their surroundings are the ones who propagate. Isn't that what all wars have been about?

Calling all you Bush bashers.   Calling all MSM Journalists.

This is a call to arms, um, hands, um, even handedness.   You want to prove that there is no MSM left/Democrat bias, go ahead.   Here's your shot.

When Bush was inaugurated four short years ago, you screamed from every media outlet how ridiculous it was that he was spending $40-60 million for his inauguration during a time of war.   Obama is poised to more than double the cost of Bush's "extravagant" party.   MORE THAN DOUBLE!

According to you'all, the situation in Iraq is no better than it was 4 years ago and the one in Afghanistan is worse.   So I suppose the circumstances are no different for Obama's inauguration.   Ih yeah, there is the little matter of the economic crisis.   That changes things a bit.

But the point is, where, MSM, is your extensive coverage regarding the COST of Obama's extravange?

Folks, this is just the beginning.   You think we hammered at your lack of objective coverage in the past?   Just wait.   It's game on.

Michelle Obama sent out an e-mail, a dweebish call to service, which reads as follows:

Your call to service

Friend --

One week from today, on January 19th, Barack and I will join thousands of people all across the country for an extraordinary day of service.

I recorded a short video to tell you more about this important effort. Please take a minute to watch it and sign up to host or attend a service event near you.

Volunteers of all ages and backgrounds are committing to renew America together, one community at a time.

Whatever service activity you organize or take part in -- cleaning up a park, giving blood, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or mentoring an at-risk youth -- you can help start this important journey. But this is about more than just a single day of service, it's the beginning of an ongoing commitment to your community.

Monday, January 19th, is also Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Dr. King taught us to live a life of service, and he led by example. He once said:

"If you want to be important -- wonderful. If you want to be recognized -- wonderful. If you want to be great -- wonderful. But, recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's a new definition of greatness."

Barack and I will be volunteering in Washington, D.C., our new home. I hope you'll join us by taking part in this national call to service in your community:

http://www.USAservice.org/calltoservice

It will take ordinary citizens working together with a common purpose to get this country back on track. This national day of service is an important first step in our continuing commitment.

Now is the time to remind all Americans what ordinary people can accomplish when we stand together.

Thank you,

Michelle

Beg Pardon?

The parks in my area are pretty much pristine because the people in the surrounding area feel personally responsible for keeping them that way.   Yes, sometimes illegal aliens do come in and throw their beer bottles (alcohol is actually prohibited), food containers, etc. all over the place but then ordinary people see it and pick up the trash.   One day, I expect the illegals and others will eventually trash the parks but right now, they remain clean.

Give blood?   That's community service?   That's a bit of a stretch especially when what we give is then sold by others.   Give a little blood, get a donut.   Need blood, check out the itemized charges on your hospital bill!

Volunteer at a homeless shelter?   I'm sure there are homeless people nearby but, honestly, they congregate in the cities so as to use vacant buildings or the services the cities provide.   Unless you live in a pretty large city, chances are fairly good there is no "homeless shelter" at which to volunteer and frankly, I'd like to keep it that way.

Mentor an at-risk youth?   At risk for what?   Mentor in what way?   Risk being sued for God only knows what?   No thanks.

You know, people do what they can.   We don't need some wealthy politician's wife (how they got wealthy is anyone's guess), who went to college and obtained a law degree ON THE PUBLIC DOLE, and someone who has never given nor volunteered in a meaningful way, when it was inconvenient for herself, telling us what we must do to make this country right, in her terms.   The last thing this country needs is a bunch of liberal talkers talking and trying to make us feel guilty because we haven't given enough as they take half or more of our earnings and hand it over to people incapable of sitting still in high school or working beyond 30 hours per week or etc., etc.

You can play the guilt game if you don't rob us.   You can rob us but don't make us say thank you as you steal our money.   If you do both while expecting us to smile and then vote you back in again, you;re a dweeb and let's see how that plays out for ya.

Chicago is again in the news though not exactly for political corruption reasons.   Today it is about their "cappuccino bill."   That's right, their cappuccino bill.   It seems that, under the management of our nominee for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, the schools purchased 30 cappuccino/espresso machines for $67,000.   They didn't even get a good price on the purchase.   According to Inspector General James Sullivan, the schools paid about $12,000 too much - they could have done better on the internet!   Also, according to Sullivan, several schools weren't interested in getting these machines.   He said, the schools "weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum."

The schools weren't prepared to implement cappuccino/espresso machines into the curriculum?   If they had been, would that have made the purchases appopriate?

Why are Chicago schools doing such a bad job of educating students?   Can we expect a federally mandated, fully funded, cappuccino/espresso curriculum project along with the economic stimulus plan?   Does that count as rebulding infrastructure?

Oprah recently chose a gut wrenching, incredibly inspirational love story to promote.   Here's what her site says about it (as of noon Monday, December 29, 2008):

the single greatest love story, in 22 years of doing this show, we've ever told on the air ... When he was 12, Herman Rosenblat and his family were taken from their home in Poland and sent to a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.   Young Herman was forced to work shoveling bodies into a crematorium ... One day two years later, Herman walked up to the barbed wire fence and saw a girl on the other side ... The girl fed Herman an apple every day for seven months.   Then one day he told her not to come back—he was being moved to another camp.   "A tear came down her eyes," Herman says.   "And as I turned around and went back I started to cry, too.   I started to cry knowing that I might not see her again." Herman was shipped to Czechoslovakia.   Just two hours before he was scheduled to die in the gas chambers there, Russian troops liberated the camp and Herman was set free.

Why is this interesting?   It's interesting because it's not a true story though it was presented as such by the author, his literary agent, and Oprah.

The real story is somewhat less gut wrenching.   The couple actually met on a blind date in NYC.   I can see how the confusion happened!

The author was indeed at Buchenwald, and for that reason alone he should know better than to defile the memory of all those, Jew and non-jew alike, who perished in Nazi concentration camps by turning it into fiction.   Further, the man's fictionalization may cause Holocaust deniers to gain ground.   Worse, those who have listened to Holocaust victims tell their personal stories may call some of it into question.   It is absolutely critical that, with respect to the Holocaust, we stick to actual truths since those truths are so horrible, so difficult for many to believe, that the stories told simply must be absolutely verifiable.

During my college years, I spent one, three credit course reading historical accounts of the Holocaust in the form of legislation, letters, military orders, and personal eye witness accounts of the events which culminated in gas chamber deaths of millions upon millions of "untermenschen" (subhumans).   We experimented with the decriptions provided by Nazis about the spaces in which they shipped, housed or killed so many people and were struck by just how cramped the trains, baracks and gas chambers were. We read accounts provided by administrators arranging shipping, burial, etc.   We listened to special speakers talk about their experiences in the camps and realized how horrendous of an experience it was.   But had some kid stood up and said, "hey, prove that any of that happened, you're making that up" it would have cheapened the learning which took place as we pampered college kids came to understand exactly what the Holocaust was.

The single most striking element of the entire horrendous affair was its ordinariness and apparent nonchalant manner in which it all was caried out.   I think perhaps that is the most important historical lesson.   One seemingly simple law after another was passed and enforced, each, on its own, seemingly somewhat innocuous.   Nobody really paid all that much attention to the individual pieces which when put together in a finished puzzle represented the single most complete example of human capacity for evil.   Some would claim that everyone who read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" would automatically know what he intended to do yet even today we read the several memoirs of a politician and doubt he really means what he published in a book or that he will ever be able to carry out his plan.

Somehow, I suspect that most young people who have not understood the Holocaust in a formal, academic manner, just would never be able to fully understand or believe its normal, everydayness.   My own kids think this happened when someone (Hitler) came to power proclaiming that he was going to kill millions of people in the manner one of our politicians today might say he backs universal healthcare.   They don't understand that this kind of thing is done via the backdoor, the casual, the manpulation of the populace by the official media, the passage of laws and the actions of courts and administrators.   They see it on a grander, more immediate scale.   That's not how it all got going.   It is critical to prevent recurrence that we fully appreciate precisely how this played out.

When we cheapen history by fictionalizing it in this manner, by making it into a love story, we turn an ugly truth like the Holocaust into a product which can be branded, packaged, advertised and used to make money while also defiling the victims and causing otherwise good people to believe it just cannot happen in the real world.   When we drift into a fiction-only existence in which reality loses its grip on our attention, we create the fertile environment in which this kind of thing can happen again.

You would have throught Oprah learned her lesson with that million little pieces fiasco.   Apparently she has not.   Apparently, if she is going to fall, it must be on the side of the melodramatic rather than on that of the Truth.   At this point, anytime Oprah promotes a book, you've really got to bang your head into the wall and then think hard before running out to buy it.   Thank goodness, this time, the publisher found out and killed the book before Oprah started shoving it down tens of millions of Americans' throats.

Labels: Oprah

The AP wonders, "Will Obama's stimulus work fast enough?"   That's the wrong question.   The right question is, will Obama's stimulus work at all?

The AP discusses Obama's plan and notes that unlike the recent Bush stimulus which was used by individuals to pay down debt, Obama's plan would not result in a check but rather a reduced withholding - a gradual payout or tax reduction.   The idea being that nobody would have enough money in their hands at one time to pay down debt.   That's absurd.

Also noted is, "states would get up to $200 billion over two years for Medicaid health coverage for the poor and to narrow state budget gaps, which are forcing layoffs and cuts in services."

Healthcare for the poor is going to stimulate the economy?   Sorry, that has no chance.

But $200 billion for state budget deficits because those deficits are causing cuts in services?   You mean governmental services - those that cost many times more in the public sector than the private and which do NOT create jobs or spur the economy.   Besides, California alone is projecting a deficit on the order of one quarter of Obama's entire plan.

The AP says, "It's too soon to know whether many of the 2.5 million jobs the president-elect has said he intends to 'save or create' within his first two years would become permanent."   No, its not too soon.   Public sector jobs do not spur the economy and generate tax dollars the way private sector work does.   Government jobs are make work.   Private sector jobs are driven by profits and necessarily more permanent.

The economy will lose the jobs Obama hopes to "create or SAVE by the time he takes office.   And what's this about saving jobs?   We don;t need to save jobs.   We need to create them within the economy.   Bush created those jobs and many more.   So Obama's goal is to save abouit half the jobs Bush created?   That's pretty weak.

Obama is said to want to accomplish his goals by "embracing projects already in the pipeline and stressing infrastructure repairs, parts of the plan could roll out soon — perhaps within weeks — creating jobs and stirring economic activity."   He wants to follow through on stuff that was already in the pipeline?   That's "new" or "change?"   That's visionary?

We are in serious trouble and things are not nearly as bad yet as they are going to be.

Won't Caroline Kennedy release information concerning her finances as anyone running for the office she seeks would have to?   What might she have to hide?   Obviously, there is no legal reason for her to release this information unless and until the is actually running for election to the office.   Perhaps there is no other reason.   If so, she should just say that and repeat it again and again.   Presumably the AP would just accept it and drop the issue.   But if she has a reason to hide, what might the reason be?   Here's my thoughts:

Amount of wealth
She either has far more or far less personal wealth than anyone supposes and this is a point of embarrassment to her.   It may be that she is ashamed of a very high level of wealth.   It might just be that she has far less than her crowd believes.   It could be that she leads others to believe she donates more to some of their causes than she possibly can.

Investment / tax strategy strategy
Perhaps Caroline is invested in a sophisticated manner unavailable to persons of her personal wealth which happens as a favor to one of her relatives like the good senator.   Perhaps she is invested in such a manner that she pays very little in income taxes.   Perhaps, like a Presidential candidate from a bygone era, she is invested mostly in munis.   Perhaps her personal wealth is invested oversees in some tax haven or she utilizes other strategies to minimize taxes.

Benefitting from Ted's work
It may very well be that Caroline is a direct neficiary of some of the legislation Ted sponsors or supports.   A little pork here and there is one thing but pork which benefits one's relatives is quite another.   Perhaps something Ted pushed for is on the record and might be connected up to some of Caroline's investments.

Lack of charitable contributions
Maybe Caroline like many Democrats talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.   Perhaps her wealth is substantial and she doesn;t give a thin dime to charity.   Lord knows she would hardly be the first Democrat to practice this personal policy - give away only other people's money.   But maybe it is either a source of personal embarrassment or she believes releasing information about the recent pass will prevent her from being re-elected whereas a few years to clean up her books, as it were, would avoid this uncomfortable situation.

There are any number of reasons Caroline would have to hide her finances.   And there's no good reason for her to share the information with us, except one.   Americans are fed up with the internal pay to play games of the Democrat party.   They are sick of politicians lying about everything from a bridge to nowhere to the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac fiasco created by Barnie and friends,ands blamed on Bush.   We've had enough of dishonest, self-interested, self-dealing crooked politics.   We've reached the end of the line and are quickly becoming rebellious.   We want reasonable answers to reasonable questions.   We are sick of the political patronage practices which are ruining our government and we are ready to burn the whole goddamn thing down.   So go ahead, Caroline, and hide behind the law if you need to.   Live with the repercussions.

The NY Times published a letter, really an e-mail, it received from "the mayor of Paris" criticizing her ladyship,. Caroline Kennedy, which was really sent by someone else.   They retracted it and said, "We are reviewing our procedures for verifying letters to avoid such an incident in the future."

How long do you suppose it will take them to "review their procedures?"   I mean, really, how long do you think it would take?   5 minutes?   Procedures as they stand, "get a ridiculous letter which says it comes from somebody big => print it."   Procedures as they will stand in the future, "get an unverified ridiculous letter from an unconfirmed source, strike delete key."

The blogger, Peter Kofka, who posted this "news" on All Things Digital, a site owned by the Wall Street Journal, has marked himself as a liberal media apologist by attaching a few editorial comments as follows "Expect this story to generate a lot of new media rulz! from the blogosphere.   But you can file that in the same place you put the "Twitter is like a news wire, only better!" arguments.   I'm just glad the Times can afford to have a staff big enough to verify the authenticity of every letter it prints.   And I worry that this won't be the case in the near future."

The Times is no better than the blogosphere.   It may have the cash to pay somebody to verify letters but it didn't use that cash - it did not verify the letter - that was the whole problem.   Instead it chose to publish its "exclusive" despite the obvious warning signs.   I mean, this wouldn't have made my inbox.   It wouldn't have broken free from the spam filter.   I'd never have seen the obviously spoofed e-mail.   How can anyone be so stupid?   Oh, I know.   It's an ego thing.   Somehow, I doubt this will be the last time someone slips one by the Times, whether they have enough staff to review this stuff or not.   Somehow I doubt this will be the last time anybody fools some big-headed media stalwart into believing the unbelievable.

Labels: Media

If you want to make any money in this crazy market, here's a phrase filled up with advice: short oil.   Oil fell today to below $38 per barrel.   Nobody is suggesting any longer that it may recover to the $75 target OPEC suggested was the right price.   Now there is speculation it could go down as low as $20 and the market for it is now looking for any kind of bad news.   OPEC may suggest further cuts but that is likely to be shrugged off since announcements don't cut supply and compliance becomes somewhat dicey when your own country's economy is looking like a disaster.   Iran, Venezuela and non-OPEC member Russia are unlikely to want to cut their revenue any further.   If the global oil market continues to tank, they are going to experience a fair amount of pain and will have little motivation to extend or intensify that pain through self-inflicted means.   Even if these countries actually make the cutbacks they have already promised or deepen these further, the price is likely to continue its downward spiral causing them to suffer even more.

Labels: economy

Seattle got snow and ice.   Seattle plowed the streets ... with rubber blades so as to not damage the roadways ands manhole covers.   Seattle treated the ice covered streets with some sand but not enough.   Seattle roads remain caked in ice and that is by design.   Seattle, you see, does not use salt because it is afraid that might harm the environment.   They don't want salt to run off into the bay!

Yes, the bay is salt water.   And, no, using a limited amount of salt over a short duration does NOT permanently harm the environment.   And, by the way, Seattle police use rear wheel drive vehicles.   So when somebody is breaking into your house, don't call the police.   They won't come with sirens screaming to your home to rescue you.   They'll be arriving on foot since the roads are impassible!!!!!!

This is what you get when you and your elected officials are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.

Labels: Liberalism