Despite all the nay-sayers and others who are so reluctant to give respect and credit where it is due, the Tennessee Titans remain undefeated with 10 consecutive wins this season. They are the only currently undefeated team in the NFL. At the beginning of the season when Kerry Collins replaced the injured starting quarterback Vince Young, I heard some announcers describing Collins as "an old throw-back from the 90s." Ha! I guess he's showing them!
On the flip-side, the Detroit team, much like their city's auto industry, has a perfect losing record for the season: 0 wins, 10 losses. ;-)
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
No Sympathy From Me
In a stunning display of wrongly placed tribute and sympathy, the Huffington Post pays memorial to one of their writers, the suicide murderer, Carol Anne Burger.
Burger apparently stabbed her ex-lover 222 times with a Phillips-head screwdriver, stuffed the body in a car trunk, abandoned the car, and then shot herself before police could question her. Yeah, such a great person really deserves a sympathetic tribute. If it had been a conservative writer you know that the media would be all over it with their twisted acrimony and spiteful conviction of "conservative values."
Burger apparently stabbed her ex-lover 222 times with a Phillips-head screwdriver, stuffed the body in a car trunk, abandoned the car, and then shot herself before police could question her. Yeah, such a great person really deserves a sympathetic tribute. If it had been a conservative writer you know that the media would be all over it with their twisted acrimony and spiteful conviction of "conservative values."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Transcend the Poison and Boot the Bastards
This whole financial scandal is full of poison, and it's making many of us very sick. On top of that I've been dealing with my own monthly possession by some kind of evil, satirical demon, as well as going through a battery of tests to make sure there isn't any more cancer trying poison my body. I am working on transcending all of this poison. Here is a dose of reality to try to help others transcend it too.
Let's look at the reality of who said what in recent years about the problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
The NYTimes reported this Sept. 11, 2003:
However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.
What Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said (page 2 of article linked above):
Well, so much for the Democrats' argument that the Bush Administration ignored the building problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for it. Obama, read it and weep, or at least quit falsely blaming Bush and McCain for all of this mess which is rooted much more in the corruption of the Congressional Democrats on the committees involved in finances and banking.
May 25, 2005, John McCain, speaking to the Senate:
The legislation was blocked by Democrats, with the assistance of a few Republicans.
October 27, 2005, NY Times reports:
That legislation died in the Senate. Did you catch that part about the Bush Administration wanting stronger regulation? Yeah, that's right. Whatever tripe Obama is pushing is spoiled rotten and full of toxins. We all know why this legislation failed. It was purely political games by the Democrat-dominated Congress because they hate Bush so much they were willing to sacrifice all of our future financial security just because they didn't want him to "win" anything. That, and they used the excuse that they thought he was seeking too much power. blah, blah, blah
All of that being said, can we please put to rest the wrong ideas that the Republicans are at fault for our "financial crisis"? How can Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank sleep at night knowing that they were actually big players in preventing the problems from being fixed before it became such a huge "crisis"? Pelosi has said that the Republicans and the Bush Administration failed to properly regulate things so that they got out of control. Well, Nancy, why can't you properly regulate the corruption right under your nose (Charlie Rangel, et al)?
Let's just stop it and do what Obama won't do: transcend the poison of the old political games. Yes, it's difficult and I'm having trouble doing that myself, but Jesus Christ, they (and we) are going to have to put all of that political nonsense aside and actually try to solve some problems. Will the Democrats please just stop demanding all these extra things that only complicate the problems? In Sunday's New York Times:
Jesus F. Johnson, is she a complete idiot or what? Oh, sorry, I'm still dealing with some residual poison. ;-) How about we just try to solve this one huge problem first before we start adding all these conditions and extras that will only complicate and impede progress? Growing jobs is important, but let's get this mortgage situation under control first. And as soon as the government-secured mortgages can get properly straightened out and distributed/sold to financial institutions that can actually handle them, then the broader "economic recovery" can be addressed. Sometimes it's necessary to prioritize and handle one thing at a time, instead of trying to kill fifty birds with one stone.
Truth be told, I tend to agree that there needs to be a serious restructuring of how corporations and financial institutions do business. In my utopian ideas it wouldn't be necessary for the government to regulate so much because all the businesses would naturally want to be ethical, fair, and responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior. But I know that is only an idealistic fantasy and that a lot of people won't regulate themselves without force or fear of severe penalties.
My own ideas are fairly radical, and maybe even "liberal" depending on how you define it. ;-) I've never believed that the corporate business model is really that good because it inherently encourages too-risky behavior without tough enough consequences. Inevitably when a corporation fails, especially the very large ones, it becomes a private profit-public loss situation because the "owners" aren't held accountable for the losses. The value of their ownership in the company is often not at all related to any real, physical assets. Their wealth is just an illusion based on an assumption of future performance. It's just a bad model to begin with, although I do know and somewhat appreciate some of the "pro" arguments for it. But any other purely private business just can't survive or function by doing things in the same way as corporations, and they can't rely on public money for bailing them out when they screw up.
Let's look at this $700,000,000,000 that the government wants to "liquidate" the whole mess, which apparently accounts for only about 10% of all mortgages in the US (though I haven't found any solid numbers on that so it could be inaccurate). Well, I'd say 10% isn't really that much, but because of the fucked up ways that the banks overinflated the values of them and lent much more money than what the actual collateral was worth, the problem seemed to exponentially grow somehow. Anyway, if I've done my math right, which I probably didn't because every time I try to use real numbers I mess up for whatever reasons ;-), every single man, woman, and child in the US either owes the government over $2000, or you might could say they each will own $2000 worth of other people's houses until the mortgages are paid off.
Okay, I suppose the socialists might be cheering about this movement into that direction. But frankly, I don't like it, although logically and rationally and morally speaking no one can place any claims, or liens as they call them, on our mortgage because ours isn't in any kind of trouble. It's just between us and our credit union. I just hope that all those other supposedly 90% of people like us will actually see some "return" on our investments in other people's properties. I'd say it would be fair for the government, as soon as they are able (if ever?), to send us a dividend of that $2000+ per person plus interest (but definitely not at a "sub-prime" rate). ;-) What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Or to be a little more "charitable" they could just give us future tax credits for those amounts, including some percentage of interest.
Does anyone really think it's a good idea to trust the current Congress to improve anything? Regardless of your political leanings it should be very clear that these people who are supposed to be "public servants" paid with our money have done a piss-poor job. In fact, I think we should have many of them charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and bribery (in the guise of lobbyists' payments). A good explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in this context is found in an article by Jon Roland:
Our Congress is sworn in and under the obligation to uphold their Oath of Office. This puts the responsibility on them to act on our behalf. I would lead an insurrection if that's what it would take to get all those corrupt bozos out of office. I am a conservative, but I'm a rebel too. Perhaps a revolutionary conservative is a paradox, but here I am anyway. ;-)
As for all those "executives" of these failed and brink-of-failing financial services companies, I think they should be charged with several serious crimes. Stop it with this namby-pamby fiddle-farting around with some big bailout that we can't really afford. Throw the bastards in jail for practically treasonous fraud. Yes, treasonous is a very strong word, but if you believe that the failings of these companies without (and possibly even with) a bailout will actually lead to the complete collapse of the US, and possibly global, economy, then okay, that looks awfully serious to me. They've essentially weakened our country's security in every way.
At least treat them like drug-dealers and seize all their property that they gained from their criminal activities. Make them pay for the mess they created. Of course, that wouldn't be enough to cover it all, but at least it would be something coming from the criminals who caused it. Back in the good old days, people like that would have been dealt with quickly. They certainly wouldn't be rewarded for their betrayals and treachery.
I hope that everyone who reads this will see the truth. And spread the word. I mean really. We're actually the bosses here. So let's act like it.
Amen, go in peace. :-)
Update: Shortly after finishing this and posting it, I heard on the news that the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros., and AIG. Praise the lord! I hope they are investigating some Congress members too. (of both parties, whoever has been instrumental in allowing the banking fraud to continue)
Let's look at the reality of who said what in recent years about the problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
The NYTimes reported this Sept. 11, 2003:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending.
However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.
What Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said (page 2 of article linked above):
These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.
Well, so much for the Democrats' argument that the Bush Administration ignored the building problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for it. Obama, read it and weep, or at least quit falsely blaming Bush and McCain for all of this mess which is rooted much more in the corruption of the Congressional Democrats on the committees involved in finances and banking.
May 25, 2005, John McCain, speaking to the Senate:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
The legislation was blocked by Democrats, with the assistance of a few Republicans.
October 27, 2005, NY Times reports:
Responding to the accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday overhauling the regulatory oversight of the two huge mortgage financing companies.
...
The White House issued a statement on Wednesday criticizing the legislation adopted by the House, saying it envisioned a regulatory regime that "is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."
The legislation "fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large," the White House statement said.
That legislation died in the Senate. Did you catch that part about the Bush Administration wanting stronger regulation? Yeah, that's right. Whatever tripe Obama is pushing is spoiled rotten and full of toxins. We all know why this legislation failed. It was purely political games by the Democrat-dominated Congress because they hate Bush so much they were willing to sacrifice all of our future financial security just because they didn't want him to "win" anything. That, and they used the excuse that they thought he was seeking too much power. blah, blah, blah
All of that being said, can we please put to rest the wrong ideas that the Republicans are at fault for our "financial crisis"? How can Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank sleep at night knowing that they were actually big players in preventing the problems from being fixed before it became such a huge "crisis"? Pelosi has said that the Republicans and the Bush Administration failed to properly regulate things so that they got out of control. Well, Nancy, why can't you properly regulate the corruption right under your nose (Charlie Rangel, et al)?
Let's just stop it and do what Obama won't do: transcend the poison of the old political games. Yes, it's difficult and I'm having trouble doing that myself, but Jesus Christ, they (and we) are going to have to put all of that political nonsense aside and actually try to solve some problems. Will the Democrats please just stop demanding all these extra things that only complicate the problems? In Sunday's New York Times:
Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would also insist on “enacting an economic recovery package that creates jobs and returns growth to our economy.”
Jesus F. Johnson, is she a complete idiot or what? Oh, sorry, I'm still dealing with some residual poison. ;-) How about we just try to solve this one huge problem first before we start adding all these conditions and extras that will only complicate and impede progress? Growing jobs is important, but let's get this mortgage situation under control first. And as soon as the government-secured mortgages can get properly straightened out and distributed/sold to financial institutions that can actually handle them, then the broader "economic recovery" can be addressed. Sometimes it's necessary to prioritize and handle one thing at a time, instead of trying to kill fifty birds with one stone.
Truth be told, I tend to agree that there needs to be a serious restructuring of how corporations and financial institutions do business. In my utopian ideas it wouldn't be necessary for the government to regulate so much because all the businesses would naturally want to be ethical, fair, and responsible for their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior. But I know that is only an idealistic fantasy and that a lot of people won't regulate themselves without force or fear of severe penalties.
My own ideas are fairly radical, and maybe even "liberal" depending on how you define it. ;-) I've never believed that the corporate business model is really that good because it inherently encourages too-risky behavior without tough enough consequences. Inevitably when a corporation fails, especially the very large ones, it becomes a private profit-public loss situation because the "owners" aren't held accountable for the losses. The value of their ownership in the company is often not at all related to any real, physical assets. Their wealth is just an illusion based on an assumption of future performance. It's just a bad model to begin with, although I do know and somewhat appreciate some of the "pro" arguments for it. But any other purely private business just can't survive or function by doing things in the same way as corporations, and they can't rely on public money for bailing them out when they screw up.
Let's look at this $700,000,000,000 that the government wants to "liquidate" the whole mess, which apparently accounts for only about 10% of all mortgages in the US (though I haven't found any solid numbers on that so it could be inaccurate). Well, I'd say 10% isn't really that much, but because of the fucked up ways that the banks overinflated the values of them and lent much more money than what the actual collateral was worth, the problem seemed to exponentially grow somehow. Anyway, if I've done my math right, which I probably didn't because every time I try to use real numbers I mess up for whatever reasons ;-), every single man, woman, and child in the US either owes the government over $2000, or you might could say they each will own $2000 worth of other people's houses until the mortgages are paid off.
Okay, I suppose the socialists might be cheering about this movement into that direction. But frankly, I don't like it, although logically and rationally and morally speaking no one can place any claims, or liens as they call them, on our mortgage because ours isn't in any kind of trouble. It's just between us and our credit union. I just hope that all those other supposedly 90% of people like us will actually see some "return" on our investments in other people's properties. I'd say it would be fair for the government, as soon as they are able (if ever?), to send us a dividend of that $2000+ per person plus interest (but definitely not at a "sub-prime" rate). ;-) What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Or to be a little more "charitable" they could just give us future tax credits for those amounts, including some percentage of interest.
Does anyone really think it's a good idea to trust the current Congress to improve anything? Regardless of your political leanings it should be very clear that these people who are supposed to be "public servants" paid with our money have done a piss-poor job. In fact, I think we should have many of them charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and bribery (in the guise of lobbyists' payments). A good explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in this context is found in an article by Jon Roland:
... the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Our Congress is sworn in and under the obligation to uphold their Oath of Office. This puts the responsibility on them to act on our behalf. I would lead an insurrection if that's what it would take to get all those corrupt bozos out of office. I am a conservative, but I'm a rebel too. Perhaps a revolutionary conservative is a paradox, but here I am anyway. ;-)
As for all those "executives" of these failed and brink-of-failing financial services companies, I think they should be charged with several serious crimes. Stop it with this namby-pamby fiddle-farting around with some big bailout that we can't really afford. Throw the bastards in jail for practically treasonous fraud. Yes, treasonous is a very strong word, but if you believe that the failings of these companies without (and possibly even with) a bailout will actually lead to the complete collapse of the US, and possibly global, economy, then okay, that looks awfully serious to me. They've essentially weakened our country's security in every way.
At least treat them like drug-dealers and seize all their property that they gained from their criminal activities. Make them pay for the mess they created. Of course, that wouldn't be enough to cover it all, but at least it would be something coming from the criminals who caused it. Back in the good old days, people like that would have been dealt with quickly. They certainly wouldn't be rewarded for their betrayals and treachery.
I hope that everyone who reads this will see the truth. And spread the word. I mean really. We're actually the bosses here. So let's act like it.
Amen, go in peace. :-)
Update: Shortly after finishing this and posting it, I heard on the news that the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros., and AIG. Praise the lord! I hope they are investigating some Congress members too. (of both parties, whoever has been instrumental in allowing the banking fraud to continue)
Monday, September 22, 2008
Tennessee Rep's Son Suspected Palin Hacker
Wow, another embarrassment for a Tennessee Democrat. David Kernell, son of Mike Kernell, a Democratic state representative from Memphis (in the State House, not the US House), is under investigation for the hacking of Palin's personal Yahoo email account. According to WBIR, on Sunday morning FBI agents served a federal search warrant at the Knoxville UT student residence of David Kernell. Apparently, witnesses say Kernell and his friends, who were having a "party," fled the apartment when the FBI agents arrived.
Terry Frank has posted images from Kernell's facebook pages. She also reports that Kernell is a "self-described 'Obamacrat'." Commenters on her blog also suggest that Kernell is closely related to David Plouffe, a campaign manager for Obama, but it looks like any evidence for that claim has been already erased from the Internet, if it ever really existed. Is it just a rumor or a cover-up? We might never know.
There is also some speculation suggesting that Kernell is also known as "Rubico" on the Internet.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Hogs In Suits
The full content of John Gibson's commentary yesterday:
Also according to the Center for Responsive Politics:
I think it needs to be said many times that when Obama blames the Republicans for the current "financial crisis" he is being a bit more than disingenuous. I would go as far as to call him a liar. So much for his promise to transcend the old political games. I'm pretty disappointed in how he's come around to that.
I do recall back around 2004, or thereabouts, maybe in one of his State of the Union addresses, President Bush spoke about his wish that more people could become homeowners because he thought it would make them more financially secure. Unfortunately, the greedy Bastard-Pigs-In-Suits who controlled the big financial services companies, who apparently were very invested in the Democrats, took that as some kind of free pass for taking advantage of the people's desires to become homeowners.
I watch a fair amount of TV, mostly news, nature/science documentaries, and a few "reality shows" sometimes. Well, I think it's a good way to gauge the trends of our society to see what is foremost in the popular culture. Commercials are one big source of these trends. Before the housing bubble burst, there were always very many commercials for mortgage and lending companies who were pushing these ridiculous, but superficially attractive, offers for people to get loans, e.g. for 125% of the value of their homes, and those very low "introductory rates" that would allow payments of only, for example, $900 on a loan of $200,000. Also, many of the offers told us that "everyone is approved" or some such encouragement for people to apply who really had no business getting big loans in the first place. Of course, many people are ignorant about these gimmicks and/or the lenders were pretty sneaky about the actual terms of those loans.
Let me explain why those lenders foolishly threw money at so many people. They were thinking that when the low introductory rates ended and people could no longer afford their payments, then they could foreclose on the loans and resell those homes for at least the value of the loan because housing values were climbing so much. They either didn't see that it was a bubble that was going to burst, or they knew and didn't care. And yes, I do blame the lenders more than the borrowers because any reputable and responsible lender is not going engage in trickery and very risky practices in hopes of getting some big pay-off from overly inflated collateral.
A big factor in the housing bubble bursting was when the construction industry responded to the higher demand for new homes, that people wanted to buy with those over-valued mortgages so that they could get more house for less money. They pretty much started a home-building boom because they thought that they would be able to sell all these new houses. It made the economy look pretty good for a while because more people were working and because the increased construction required more materials, supplies, and all the other stuff that is needed when there is a lot of building. It looked like great economic growth.
But it was just an illusion because it was ultimately based on some worthless paper and money games with no real collateral backing it up, not even all those houses out there with no one able to buy or sell them. It was not that capitalism failed. It was that some crooks pretending to be capitalists built their 'house of cards' out of speculation and greed without any solid foundation. You know, most actual functioning businesses just cannot and will not survive by trying to sell something that doesn't really exist. Didn't anyone learn anything from that DotCom bubble bursting?
If someone really wants to place some sort of final blame for these troubles we're in now, they should really look to the people at the top of the chain and who they support and who supports them and their actions. And if you really look you will see that it was not the "evil" capitalist Republicans who exploited the people's hopes and dreams for a better life. It was the Deomcrats who raked in millions at the expense of us all. Do the research. Look it up. Learn the reality and truth of the matter. And stop blaming the wrong guys. Blame the real Hogs in Suits who are pretending to be something else.
Amen, go in peace. ;-)
PS I love Neil Cavuto. He has some seriously big balls because he is the only person I've seen really stand up to Bill O'Reilly and put him in his place. Last night Cavuto was on the Factor and called Bill out on his wanting to blame the wrong guys for all of our troubles:
Bill wants the government to "watch" the big corporations in order to let us know when they are doing bad business. Well, that's a pretty naive view because it trusts the same guys who are the source of the trouble to self-regulate. It won't work. That approach never has worked. Besides, it sounds like he wants the government to be 'fortune tellers' (literally and figuratively) who can predict what companies will succeed or fail. Fortune-telling isn't a very solid business venture either, privately or publicly. ;-)
The real solution is to level the playing field by requiring all those big corporations to play by the same rules as the small businesses that can't and won't survive if they engage in ridiculous pretend capitalism and they aren't protected and bailed out by the government when it all fails for them. Cavuto is right that you can't blame the oil companies for having real profits because the oil companies are actually making money from real products and services and not some worthless paper. Don't penalize the successful capitalists for being successful. Bill O'Reilly should know that because he's always preaching that when it comes to his own money. ;-)
Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.
Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.
A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.
Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.
Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.
Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.
Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.
Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.
Also according to the Center for Responsive Politics:
Lehman Brothers has given $9.2 million through employees and its PAC since 1989, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively.
I think it needs to be said many times that when Obama blames the Republicans for the current "financial crisis" he is being a bit more than disingenuous. I would go as far as to call him a liar. So much for his promise to transcend the old political games. I'm pretty disappointed in how he's come around to that.
I do recall back around 2004, or thereabouts, maybe in one of his State of the Union addresses, President Bush spoke about his wish that more people could become homeowners because he thought it would make them more financially secure. Unfortunately, the greedy Bastard-Pigs-In-Suits who controlled the big financial services companies, who apparently were very invested in the Democrats, took that as some kind of free pass for taking advantage of the people's desires to become homeowners.
I watch a fair amount of TV, mostly news, nature/science documentaries, and a few "reality shows" sometimes. Well, I think it's a good way to gauge the trends of our society to see what is foremost in the popular culture. Commercials are one big source of these trends. Before the housing bubble burst, there were always very many commercials for mortgage and lending companies who were pushing these ridiculous, but superficially attractive, offers for people to get loans, e.g. for 125% of the value of their homes, and those very low "introductory rates" that would allow payments of only, for example, $900 on a loan of $200,000. Also, many of the offers told us that "everyone is approved" or some such encouragement for people to apply who really had no business getting big loans in the first place. Of course, many people are ignorant about these gimmicks and/or the lenders were pretty sneaky about the actual terms of those loans.
Let me explain why those lenders foolishly threw money at so many people. They were thinking that when the low introductory rates ended and people could no longer afford their payments, then they could foreclose on the loans and resell those homes for at least the value of the loan because housing values were climbing so much. They either didn't see that it was a bubble that was going to burst, or they knew and didn't care. And yes, I do blame the lenders more than the borrowers because any reputable and responsible lender is not going engage in trickery and very risky practices in hopes of getting some big pay-off from overly inflated collateral.
A big factor in the housing bubble bursting was when the construction industry responded to the higher demand for new homes, that people wanted to buy with those over-valued mortgages so that they could get more house for less money. They pretty much started a home-building boom because they thought that they would be able to sell all these new houses. It made the economy look pretty good for a while because more people were working and because the increased construction required more materials, supplies, and all the other stuff that is needed when there is a lot of building. It looked like great economic growth.
But it was just an illusion because it was ultimately based on some worthless paper and money games with no real collateral backing it up, not even all those houses out there with no one able to buy or sell them. It was not that capitalism failed. It was that some crooks pretending to be capitalists built their 'house of cards' out of speculation and greed without any solid foundation. You know, most actual functioning businesses just cannot and will not survive by trying to sell something that doesn't really exist. Didn't anyone learn anything from that DotCom bubble bursting?
If someone really wants to place some sort of final blame for these troubles we're in now, they should really look to the people at the top of the chain and who they support and who supports them and their actions. And if you really look you will see that it was not the "evil" capitalist Republicans who exploited the people's hopes and dreams for a better life. It was the Deomcrats who raked in millions at the expense of us all. Do the research. Look it up. Learn the reality and truth of the matter. And stop blaming the wrong guys. Blame the real Hogs in Suits who are pretending to be something else.
Amen, go in peace. ;-)
PS I love Neil Cavuto. He has some seriously big balls because he is the only person I've seen really stand up to Bill O'Reilly and put him in his place. Last night Cavuto was on the Factor and called Bill out on his wanting to blame the wrong guys for all of our troubles:
Bill wants the government to "watch" the big corporations in order to let us know when they are doing bad business. Well, that's a pretty naive view because it trusts the same guys who are the source of the trouble to self-regulate. It won't work. That approach never has worked. Besides, it sounds like he wants the government to be 'fortune tellers' (literally and figuratively) who can predict what companies will succeed or fail. Fortune-telling isn't a very solid business venture either, privately or publicly. ;-)
The real solution is to level the playing field by requiring all those big corporations to play by the same rules as the small businesses that can't and won't survive if they engage in ridiculous pretend capitalism and they aren't protected and bailed out by the government when it all fails for them. Cavuto is right that you can't blame the oil companies for having real profits because the oil companies are actually making money from real products and services and not some worthless paper. Don't penalize the successful capitalists for being successful. Bill O'Reilly should know that because he's always preaching that when it comes to his own money. ;-)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Bad Economy Affects Corvette Production
Well, you know it's getting bad when the usually "recession-proof" Corvette suffers too-low sales. The Bowling Green, KY, plant will close for one week in October and then reopen with slower production.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Shaft
Isaac Hayes found dead today.
Shaft!
Who's the black private dick
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shaft!)
You're damn right
Who is the man
That would risk his neck for his brother man?
(Shaft!)
Can ya dig it?
Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about
(Shaft!)
Right on
You see this cat Shaft is a bad mother--
(Shut your mouth)
But I'm talkin' about Shaft
(Then we can dig it)
He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his woman
(John Shaft)
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Adaptation to Gas Prices
Some places are beginning to consider changing over to four (10 hour) work days in order to reduce their gas budgets. I've also heard of a local school system and another local government considering this change. Utah is going to the four day workweek for most government offices, except prisons, courts, and public universities. I think this is a creative adaptation to the current economic problems brought on by the insane gas prices, though it won't be without some problems and adjustments. I'll be curious to see if this 4-day week will become a permanent condition in Utah and if it will become a more common tactic across the country. Watch the video with Utah's governor:
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Dear Rev. Jeremiah Wright,
You should be ashamed of yourself. And you should take some lessons from the Pope about how to act in the name of God. But let me tell you one thing. You are so wrong about the white government conspiring against black progress. What do you think the last 40 or so years have been all about? What planet have you been living on?
What do you think about the white government's raid on an all white polygamist compound? Do you think that's a conspiracy against anyone? It sure looks to me like a conspiracy against white religious pimps (and pedophiles). Maybe it would be fair if the government raided some black "compound" full of pregnant underage girls who might not even know who're the fathers. All they'd have to do is pick a public housing project of any major city, and I'm pretty sure they would find a comparable number of underage mothers and mothers-to-be. And I'm also pretty sure that most of those fathers are not underage. Surely you are capable of doing those calculations. And if you really cared about "your people" you would want the government's help to end the exploitation of your people's young women. I mean, Lord have mercy, are you really that dumb or is it just an act? Either way, you are not doing anything to help improve the world, and you are supposed to be a minister of God's Word and Love for all people. Honestly, how well do you think you're doing at that?
I will pray that God puts it heavy on your heart to do the right thing. And to say the right thing.
Sincerely,
Rae Ann (aka Vicious Momma)
What do you think about the white government's raid on an all white polygamist compound? Do you think that's a conspiracy against anyone? It sure looks to me like a conspiracy against white religious pimps (and pedophiles). Maybe it would be fair if the government raided some black "compound" full of pregnant underage girls who might not even know who're the fathers. All they'd have to do is pick a public housing project of any major city, and I'm pretty sure they would find a comparable number of underage mothers and mothers-to-be. And I'm also pretty sure that most of those fathers are not underage. Surely you are capable of doing those calculations. And if you really cared about "your people" you would want the government's help to end the exploitation of your people's young women. I mean, Lord have mercy, are you really that dumb or is it just an act? Either way, you are not doing anything to help improve the world, and you are supposed to be a minister of God's Word and Love for all people. Honestly, how well do you think you're doing at that?
I will pray that God puts it heavy on your heart to do the right thing. And to say the right thing.
Sincerely,
Rae Ann (aka Vicious Momma)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Romney Drops Out
Today's political bombshell was Romney's announcement that he is suspending his campaign. I wonder if that decision had anything to do with my reversal of endorsement? Oh, I know correlation does not mean causation. ;-)
So now what? The media are basically saying now that the nomination is McCain's and that any of us evil conservatives that aren't happy about it are only hurting the party's chances and morale. Boo-hoo-hoo. Sorry, but my allegiance isn't with some party. I'm thinking that now the time is ripe for an Independent or Third Party candidate. I'm sick of the strategies and behind-the-scenes deals meant only to keep certain people in power, and those people are almost indistinguishable from each other.
I'm not bending over for McCain. He's gonna have to do a lot of singing and dancing to impress me. Who's the boss, anyway? Not the candidate who's running for office. He's supposed to whoo me and my vote. I'm not supposed to change my views to fit the choices. And maybe I'm a little bitter that my state is usually passed over and considered too "insignificant" to visit and work hard for our votes. It's all a stupid game to them, and we are reduced to pawns.
Obama is scary. All he talks about is change and building a "new nation." Sorry, but we don't need a new nation. This one is just fine, thank you. Sure, there are problems but not enough to warrant anyone thinking that it things need to be completely changed (destroyed?) and rebuilt. His speech on Tuesday night was full of "I'm going to give you this" and "I'm going to give you that." I was just waiting for him to throw in free powerchairs for everyone! ;-) (Maybe that could be a new energy-saving solution: people would have to get around in their Jazzy or Hoveround chairs instead of cars.)
Hey, how about this? I think that most problems could be solved if people would stop being whiny, spoiled-rotten babies who expect the government to provide everything for them. Health care? Eliminate the insurance companies and their middle-man tactics that only drive up costs and inequities for everyone. As it is now, two different people can end up paying widely varying costs for the same 5 minute doctor visit. How is that a fair business practice? Much of the "managed care" crap comes from Hillary's ideas in the early 1990s. But I guess most people don't remember that. Before "managed care" insurance companies weren't the discount clubs that they are now. It's all a scam. You pay the insurance company for discounted healthcare, but it's just a completely unnecessary step in the process of getting treatment. Back in the "old" days we directly paid the doctor $30.00 for the visit, everyone paid the same price, and the insurance was only used for very big, serious, expensive things like hospitalization. Anyone who thinks that some government healthcare program that is administered by the existing insurance companies is a good idea is living in koo-koo land.
.
So now what? The media are basically saying now that the nomination is McCain's and that any of us evil conservatives that aren't happy about it are only hurting the party's chances and morale. Boo-hoo-hoo. Sorry, but my allegiance isn't with some party. I'm thinking that now the time is ripe for an Independent or Third Party candidate. I'm sick of the strategies and behind-the-scenes deals meant only to keep certain people in power, and those people are almost indistinguishable from each other.
I'm not bending over for McCain. He's gonna have to do a lot of singing and dancing to impress me. Who's the boss, anyway? Not the candidate who's running for office. He's supposed to whoo me and my vote. I'm not supposed to change my views to fit the choices. And maybe I'm a little bitter that my state is usually passed over and considered too "insignificant" to visit and work hard for our votes. It's all a stupid game to them, and we are reduced to pawns.
Obama is scary. All he talks about is change and building a "new nation." Sorry, but we don't need a new nation. This one is just fine, thank you. Sure, there are problems but not enough to warrant anyone thinking that it things need to be completely changed (destroyed?) and rebuilt. His speech on Tuesday night was full of "I'm going to give you this" and "I'm going to give you that." I was just waiting for him to throw in free powerchairs for everyone! ;-) (Maybe that could be a new energy-saving solution: people would have to get around in their Jazzy or Hoveround chairs instead of cars.)
Hey, how about this? I think that most problems could be solved if people would stop being whiny, spoiled-rotten babies who expect the government to provide everything for them. Health care? Eliminate the insurance companies and their middle-man tactics that only drive up costs and inequities for everyone. As it is now, two different people can end up paying widely varying costs for the same 5 minute doctor visit. How is that a fair business practice? Much of the "managed care" crap comes from Hillary's ideas in the early 1990s. But I guess most people don't remember that. Before "managed care" insurance companies weren't the discount clubs that they are now. It's all a scam. You pay the insurance company for discounted healthcare, but it's just a completely unnecessary step in the process of getting treatment. Back in the "old" days we directly paid the doctor $30.00 for the visit, everyone paid the same price, and the insurance was only used for very big, serious, expensive things like hospitalization. Anyone who thinks that some government healthcare program that is administered by the existing insurance companies is a good idea is living in koo-koo land.
.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Woo-Hoo!
I'm so happy that Eli and the Giants beat the crap out of Tom Brady and the Patriots. Final score: 17-14. And it was a great game that kept my interest all the way through. And the final Giants touchdown was perfectly timed.
They really put Brady in his place. He was sacked and knocked down a lot. I don't think that the Patriots had really expected the Giants to be so good. Most of the broadcasters didn't either and the pregame shows were obviously biased in their coverage. Even after the game there was too much focus on the Patriots and not enough on the Giants. Well, it was NOT a fluke that the Patriots lost. The Giants really did play much better.
I hadn't heard about the Spygate issue until yesterday's pregame shows. Briefly, the Patriots have been accused of illegally taping their opponents' practices, etc., to gain an unfair advantage. Well, maybe that's why they had been undefeated? Maybe they are cheaters who needed to get beat? It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.
Congrats to Eli Manning and the Giants!
They really put Brady in his place. He was sacked and knocked down a lot. I don't think that the Patriots had really expected the Giants to be so good. Most of the broadcasters didn't either and the pregame shows were obviously biased in their coverage. Even after the game there was too much focus on the Patriots and not enough on the Giants. Well, it was NOT a fluke that the Patriots lost. The Giants really did play much better.
I hadn't heard about the Spygate issue until yesterday's pregame shows. Briefly, the Patriots have been accused of illegally taping their opponents' practices, etc., to gain an unfair advantage. Well, maybe that's why they had been undefeated? Maybe they are cheaters who needed to get beat? It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.
Congrats to Eli Manning and the Giants!
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Super Days Ahead
Super Tuesday, February 5
See previous post about my tenative endorsements for the election day that is now being called Super Duper Tuesday.
Super Bowl Sunday, February 3
This year I've been pretty much into watching football. From year to year my interest in football and the Superbowl varies, but this year it has been lots of fun watching it with David because he doesn't mind my frequent questions about the rules and technical calls and such and because he thinks it's funny that I look at the butts (and bellies) in spandex, especially the biggest ones like of the linemen.
photo by Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
"The Giants hope Tui Alailefaleula, left, and Manuel Wright, each listed at 345 pounds, have talent to match their size."
The linemen are big and strong and very athletic although they might not look like the "ideal" athlete. Football players need to have different builds to match the different roles/positions they play. For example, the receivers are smaller and quicker while the linemen need to be big and strong to block each other. One thing I like about football is that you get a little bit of many different kinds of sports in one game. You have the thinking and throwing skills of the quarterbacks, the sprinter fast running of the "backs", the Sumo-style meetings of the offensive and defensive linemen, and the acrobatics of the tackling and catching of the "tight ends" (which is a giggle-inducing name) and other receivers. Okay, so David laughs at me for not really knowing all the proper names of the positions and what they do, but even though I'm ignorant of the rules and other technicalities I can still find my own enjoyment in the game. (Maybe it's similar to my interest in theoretical physics: I like the bigger picture even though the details aren't so well-comprehended.)
I'm lucky that he is secure enough not to feel threatened that I look at other men's butts (and guts) in spandex. Really, it's purely innocent and in no way a sexual or lustful looking. It's just interesting because it's different. It's the only time you see big, tough guys in spandex who seem oblivious to the fact that they are wearing spandex. Of course, there is a double standard here because I'm not secure enough to not feel threatened if he was looking at and commenting on the bodies of the cheerleaders. That might have to do with the fact that he looks more like the quarterbacks and other very "fit" players than I look like the beautiful cheerleaders. ;-)
Speaking of quarterbacks, I have to confess to having a slight, little celebrity crush on Eli Manning:
Well, I think it's his eyes actually. I find brown eyes kind of exotic because all of my family has blue or green eyes. Anyway, he's cuter than his big brother Peyton, who was the University of Tennessee quarterback in the mid to late 1990s. No offense to Peyton, of course, but he has plenty of admirers already, and he really is a good guy. You can even get free pep talks from him if you're feeling down.
Anyway, back to the Superbowl. This year the half-time entertainment will be Paula Abdul (oops, she was actually just a pre-game feature) and Tom Petty. I always liked Paula Abdul's early hits because they were fun and cute, and I've also always liked Tom Petty's music.
Oh, and in case it hasn't been apparent, I'm hoping that the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots and their winning streak. I guess I do sometimes find myself cheering for the underdogs. ;-)
And last but not least, the Superbowl snack menu will include guacamole because I've been craving avocados. There must be some nutrients in them that I'm especially needing right now. ;-) (It's probably a good thing that you don't usually put olive oil in guacamole because that might be an overly potent combination. LOL)
See previous post about my tenative endorsements for the election day that is now being called Super Duper Tuesday.
Super Bowl Sunday, February 3
This year I've been pretty much into watching football. From year to year my interest in football and the Superbowl varies, but this year it has been lots of fun watching it with David because he doesn't mind my frequent questions about the rules and technical calls and such and because he thinks it's funny that I look at the butts (and bellies) in spandex, especially the biggest ones like of the linemen.
photo by Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
"The Giants hope Tui Alailefaleula, left, and Manuel Wright, each listed at 345 pounds, have talent to match their size."
The linemen are big and strong and very athletic although they might not look like the "ideal" athlete. Football players need to have different builds to match the different roles/positions they play. For example, the receivers are smaller and quicker while the linemen need to be big and strong to block each other. One thing I like about football is that you get a little bit of many different kinds of sports in one game. You have the thinking and throwing skills of the quarterbacks, the sprinter fast running of the "backs", the Sumo-style meetings of the offensive and defensive linemen, and the acrobatics of the tackling and catching of the "tight ends" (which is a giggle-inducing name) and other receivers. Okay, so David laughs at me for not really knowing all the proper names of the positions and what they do, but even though I'm ignorant of the rules and other technicalities I can still find my own enjoyment in the game. (Maybe it's similar to my interest in theoretical physics: I like the bigger picture even though the details aren't so well-comprehended.)
I'm lucky that he is secure enough not to feel threatened that I look at other men's butts (and guts) in spandex. Really, it's purely innocent and in no way a sexual or lustful looking. It's just interesting because it's different. It's the only time you see big, tough guys in spandex who seem oblivious to the fact that they are wearing spandex. Of course, there is a double standard here because I'm not secure enough to not feel threatened if he was looking at and commenting on the bodies of the cheerleaders. That might have to do with the fact that he looks more like the quarterbacks and other very "fit" players than I look like the beautiful cheerleaders. ;-)
Speaking of quarterbacks, I have to confess to having a slight, little celebrity crush on Eli Manning:
Well, I think it's his eyes actually. I find brown eyes kind of exotic because all of my family has blue or green eyes. Anyway, he's cuter than his big brother Peyton, who was the University of Tennessee quarterback in the mid to late 1990s. No offense to Peyton, of course, but he has plenty of admirers already, and he really is a good guy. You can even get free pep talks from him if you're feeling down.
Anyway, back to the Superbowl. This year the half-time entertainment will be Paula Abdul (oops, she was actually just a pre-game feature) and Tom Petty. I always liked Paula Abdul's early hits because they were fun and cute, and I've also always liked Tom Petty's music.
Oh, and in case it hasn't been apparent, I'm hoping that the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots and their winning streak. I guess I do sometimes find myself cheering for the underdogs. ;-)
And last but not least, the Superbowl snack menu will include guacamole because I've been craving avocados. There must be some nutrients in them that I'm especially needing right now. ;-) (It's probably a good thing that you don't usually put olive oil in guacamole because that might be an overly potent combination. LOL)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Fallen Tree Destroyed Nearby Church
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Lord Have Mercy
A Tsar Is Born
Time's Man of the Year is Russia's Vladimir Putin. When I first heard it I was a little puzzled, but after reading and thinking more about it I see that it is a fair choice. He certainly has the power that many men wish for, especially the wannabe world dictator, Al Gore. ;-)
Interesting facts from the Time article:
He has never sent an email in his life.
Despite growing up in an officially atheist country, he is a believer and often reads his Bible.
He comes from a very modest, poor background.
He has a black belt in judo.
He is quick to aggitation and has little patience for small talk, jokes, and social niceties. He is generally ruthless and cold.
He complains about how he thinks America treats Russia as "an uninvited guest at a party."
But at the end of the article the writer explains:
Well, I have to say that if one acts like that then it's rather natural to assume that Russians "are a little bit savage still." You see, even we backwards Tennessee hillbillies know better than to end a dinner before the dinner is even served. In fact, we would be very insulted if a guest up and left before the main course was served, and we would expect a guest to be equally insulted if we kicked them out too soon.
Runs In the Family
Britney Spears' 16 year old sister, Jamie Lynn, has announced that she is pregnant. You would think that she might have learned what not to do by watching her big sister's series of screw-ups. And what about their mother? Has she never explained to her daughters what happens when you have unprotected sex? I was about to give their mother the benefit of the doubt with one daughter that didn't turn out so great, but now that both daughters appear to be defective one must place some blame on the mother, genetically and environmentally. Actually, I think that Mrs. Spears probably sold her and her daughters' souls to the Devil in order to gain fame and fortune. But as most of us know, when the Devil makes deals they aren't as good as you think they will be.
Time's Man of the Year is Russia's Vladimir Putin. When I first heard it I was a little puzzled, but after reading and thinking more about it I see that it is a fair choice. He certainly has the power that many men wish for, especially the wannabe world dictator, Al Gore. ;-)
Interesting facts from the Time article:
He has never sent an email in his life.
Despite growing up in an officially atheist country, he is a believer and often reads his Bible.
He comes from a very modest, poor background.
He has a black belt in judo.
He is quick to aggitation and has little patience for small talk, jokes, and social niceties. He is generally ruthless and cold.
He complains about how he thinks America treats Russia as "an uninvited guest at a party."
"We want to be a friend of America," he says. "Sometimes we get the impression that America does not need friends" but only "auxiliary subjects to command." Asked if he'd like to correct any American misconceptions about Russia, Putin leans forward and says, "I don't believe these are misconceptions. I think this is a purposeful attempt by some to create an image of Russia based on which one could influence our internal and foreign policies. This is the reason why everybody is made to believe...[Russians] are a little bit savage still or they just climbed down from the trees, you know, and probably need to have...the dirt washed out of their beards and hair."
But at the end of the article the writer explains:
Back at the dacha, with snow falling lightly outside, our dinner and discussion continue. Putin has been irritable throughout, a grudging host. Suddenly, at 10 o'clock, he stands and abruptly ends the evening. "We've finished eating, there's nothing more on the table, so let's call it a day," he declares. Actually, the main course (choice of sturgeon or veal) and dessert ("bird's milk" cake)—lovingly printed in gold ink on the prepared menu cards—haven't yet been served. The Russian President's brusqueness is jarring. Have our questions angered him? Bored him? Does he have another appointment? It's not clear. "Bye bye," says Putin—in English—as he walks briskly out of the room.
Well, I have to say that if one acts like that then it's rather natural to assume that Russians "are a little bit savage still." You see, even we backwards Tennessee hillbillies know better than to end a dinner before the dinner is even served. In fact, we would be very insulted if a guest up and left before the main course was served, and we would expect a guest to be equally insulted if we kicked them out too soon.
Runs In the Family
Britney Spears' 16 year old sister, Jamie Lynn, has announced that she is pregnant. You would think that she might have learned what not to do by watching her big sister's series of screw-ups. And what about their mother? Has she never explained to her daughters what happens when you have unprotected sex? I was about to give their mother the benefit of the doubt with one daughter that didn't turn out so great, but now that both daughters appear to be defective one must place some blame on the mother, genetically and environmentally. Actually, I think that Mrs. Spears probably sold her and her daughters' souls to the Devil in order to gain fame and fortune. But as most of us know, when the Devil makes deals they aren't as good as you think they will be.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Leaks
Yesterday we learned that due to some government idiot's leaking of information to the media we have lost a valuable internet source of intelligence about terrorist plans and activities. What is wrong with people? Don't they have any integrity anymore? I think whoever was responsible for this leak should be charged with treason. We don't know how many planned attacks might have been prevented because of the information from that source. And now it's gone, so if an attack happens the leaker/traitor should be executed. Yes, that's harsh, but it's really inexcusable for someone working for the people to do something so irresponsible and stupid and dangerous. If they made such a big to-do about the Valerie Plame thing then this should be an even bigger to-do.
Addendum:
"There’s no more ignominious fate for these once-powerful titans than irrelevance." Pat Sajak, in The Media and Fred Thompson
I like Pat. He's smart. And in his article about the media and Thompson he pretty well skewers the big media outlets for their crooked attempts to remain relevant in these changing times. A "dwindling handful of sclerotic media outlets" is what he calls them. Sclerotic means something like "old, stiff, and immovable" or the opposite of supple. I like that word, supple. Anyway, I think it does relate to the story above about the leaks to the media. I hope that these kinds of stunts, like releasing a secret video when told not to, will backfire in securing media relevance if enough people will realize how absolutely irresponsibly the media behaves. Enough already. Maybe these media types who air secret videos should be charged with treason too.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Robert Unger Eulogy
Robert Unger, one of my former (and likely favorite) skating instructors died last Sunday, Sept. 30. He had been ill for some time, and it has been a couple of years, at least, since I've seen him. He always remembered me which was nice. I wonder if it made him feel old to see people like me who he had known since their childhoods. He never seemed old to me.
Sometimes it was hard to tell if he was angry because of his heavy German accent. It wasn't hard to understand his words, but the intonation always sounded a little upset. Well, I think he enjoyed that all of us little girls were intimidated by his speech because I would often "catch him" turn and laugh when everyone else was too afraid to look at him. But his true annoyance would become more apparent in how red his face became. Sometimes it was as red as a beet. Those were the times I was sorry that I looked. ;-)
Mr. Unger was so smart, and that is why he was my favorite skating teacher. He was the one who taught me about the "physics" of skating, the how and why it works better to do it 'this way' instead of the wrong way. Somehow knowing that made it easier for my body to cooperate with my mind. Other kids, though, didn't care about that stuff. They just wanted to know how to do the tricks. They didn't usually care about how to do them right or better, as long as they could do them. They were often the better skaters though.
And Mr. Unger still encouraged us all regardless of how we learned. That is the heart of why he began the "recreational" skating competitions. He knew that many kids enjoyed skating so much although they might not be the most dedicated or talented ones around. He believed they should have the opportunity to celebrate their love of skating in friendly competitions. But believe me, even in "friendly and recreational" competitions it could still get pretty serious and nerve-racking.
I have many memories of Mr. Unger and my skating youth and later of my few years of adult skating and competing before becoming a mother. Not that mothers can't skate. I did the year after my first, and the Robert Unger School always had several adult students. But I was getting too old and too busy to be able to skate the way I wanted to skate. Sometimes we have to leave childhood things behind.
I hope that in his last thoughts Mr. Unger had the peace of knowing that he had helped improve the lives of so many through his teaching us discipline and achievement as well as the ability to move on the ice.
Oh, yeah, and I almost forgot about his hat. I must try to find a photo of him and that famous hat. He managed and owned the Ice Chalet in addition to being the head instructor of the skating school in his name.
Sometimes it was hard to tell if he was angry because of his heavy German accent. It wasn't hard to understand his words, but the intonation always sounded a little upset. Well, I think he enjoyed that all of us little girls were intimidated by his speech because I would often "catch him" turn and laugh when everyone else was too afraid to look at him. But his true annoyance would become more apparent in how red his face became. Sometimes it was as red as a beet. Those were the times I was sorry that I looked. ;-)
Mr. Unger was so smart, and that is why he was my favorite skating teacher. He was the one who taught me about the "physics" of skating, the how and why it works better to do it 'this way' instead of the wrong way. Somehow knowing that made it easier for my body to cooperate with my mind. Other kids, though, didn't care about that stuff. They just wanted to know how to do the tricks. They didn't usually care about how to do them right or better, as long as they could do them. They were often the better skaters though.
And Mr. Unger still encouraged us all regardless of how we learned. That is the heart of why he began the "recreational" skating competitions. He knew that many kids enjoyed skating so much although they might not be the most dedicated or talented ones around. He believed they should have the opportunity to celebrate their love of skating in friendly competitions. But believe me, even in "friendly and recreational" competitions it could still get pretty serious and nerve-racking.
I have many memories of Mr. Unger and my skating youth and later of my few years of adult skating and competing before becoming a mother. Not that mothers can't skate. I did the year after my first, and the Robert Unger School always had several adult students. But I was getting too old and too busy to be able to skate the way I wanted to skate. Sometimes we have to leave childhood things behind.
I hope that in his last thoughts Mr. Unger had the peace of knowing that he had helped improve the lives of so many through his teaching us discipline and achievement as well as the ability to move on the ice.
Oh, yeah, and I almost forgot about his hat. I must try to find a photo of him and that famous hat. He managed and owned the Ice Chalet in addition to being the head instructor of the skating school in his name.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Free Speech and Thanking Jesus
I've just learned of the controversial "thank you" speech that Kathy Griffin made at the Emmys.
Then I watched a gooberly video made by a boy who says he "hates conservative white men" and defends Griffin's "free speech" to say "Suck it Jesus" on TV and further explains that he doesn't see what the big deal is and blah, blah, blah. He's complaining about the "censorship" of her remarks and encourages people to sign some kind of petition and lots of other liberalish gibberish. He basically is complaining about the "free speech" rights of those who found her comments offensive and expressed their offense. (God forbid anyone should ever say anything offensive to a liberal or atheist!) He's complaining that her "militant atheist religion" is being criticized. Well, welcome to the club of persecution, dude.
You know, I fully realize that Kathy Griffin is a comedian and she tries to be funny and many times humor is found in the offensive. Okay, fine. But on national network TV there are standards of decency and things that aren't allowed to be said. I'm pretty sure that "Goddamn" isn't allowed, so "Suck it Jesus" is about the same thing or maybe even a little worse. Sure, people can say that it's silly to censor language on TV, but when protecting the rights of everyone we sometimes must place some limits on our own freedom. When will people realize this very basic fact?
I'm no "holy roller" or whatever, though I do have a "personal relationship" with what I can call God. If that is enough to offend a liberal or atheist then they are extremely immature and stupid. Similar to that boy in the video, I don't see what's so offensive to atheists when someone expresses thanks to God or Jesus. Why should they even care? See, that argument can be flipped around on the liberals too.
It's so unfortunate that these "militant atheists" cannot accept that freedom goes both ways. They have the choice to believe or not, just like everyone else has that choice. By belittling and berating those who choose differently from them, they are revealing just how narrow-minded and illogical they really are.
I really don't have a problem with atheists or liberals as long as they don't go around expecting special treatment or privileges. I can respect their rights and choice of beliefs, or lack thereof, as long as they can respect mine. But I've noticed that generally (not always, but too often), atheists (and liberals) don't, can't, and/or won't respect the choices of others. And true and unfortunate enough, the same can be said about most people and that is why it's sometimes necessary to limit freedoms to prevent chaos. (I think that might be some kind of natural law or something.) ;-)
Anyway, thanks to God and Jesus and Allah and Whatever for the opportunity to say these things. ;-)
And no, I haven't given up all pork. Only unhealthy pork from substandard and contaminated pigstys. ;-)
Then I watched a gooberly video made by a boy who says he "hates conservative white men" and defends Griffin's "free speech" to say "Suck it Jesus" on TV and further explains that he doesn't see what the big deal is and blah, blah, blah. He's complaining about the "censorship" of her remarks and encourages people to sign some kind of petition and lots of other liberalish gibberish. He basically is complaining about the "free speech" rights of those who found her comments offensive and expressed their offense. (God forbid anyone should ever say anything offensive to a liberal or atheist!) He's complaining that her "militant atheist religion" is being criticized. Well, welcome to the club of persecution, dude.
You know, I fully realize that Kathy Griffin is a comedian and she tries to be funny and many times humor is found in the offensive. Okay, fine. But on national network TV there are standards of decency and things that aren't allowed to be said. I'm pretty sure that "Goddamn" isn't allowed, so "Suck it Jesus" is about the same thing or maybe even a little worse. Sure, people can say that it's silly to censor language on TV, but when protecting the rights of everyone we sometimes must place some limits on our own freedom. When will people realize this very basic fact?
I'm no "holy roller" or whatever, though I do have a "personal relationship" with what I can call God. If that is enough to offend a liberal or atheist then they are extremely immature and stupid. Similar to that boy in the video, I don't see what's so offensive to atheists when someone expresses thanks to God or Jesus. Why should they even care? See, that argument can be flipped around on the liberals too.
It's so unfortunate that these "militant atheists" cannot accept that freedom goes both ways. They have the choice to believe or not, just like everyone else has that choice. By belittling and berating those who choose differently from them, they are revealing just how narrow-minded and illogical they really are.
I really don't have a problem with atheists or liberals as long as they don't go around expecting special treatment or privileges. I can respect their rights and choice of beliefs, or lack thereof, as long as they can respect mine. But I've noticed that generally (not always, but too often), atheists (and liberals) don't, can't, and/or won't respect the choices of others. And true and unfortunate enough, the same can be said about most people and that is why it's sometimes necessary to limit freedoms to prevent chaos. (I think that might be some kind of natural law or something.) ;-)
Anyway, thanks to God and Jesus and Allah and Whatever for the opportunity to say these things. ;-)
And no, I haven't given up all pork. Only unhealthy pork from substandard and contaminated pigstys. ;-)
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
China, Britney, and Other Observations
China
More Chinese manufactured toys have been recalled due to lead paint and shoddy workmanship. Well, I'm kind of concerned about all the recent recalls of Chinese products. Some have suggested that it's not really "that big a problem" or that more attention is being paid to China's errors than those of others these days. If you have young kids with popular toys that were made in China, then it is that big a problem. Duh. And if your tires have exploded or if your dog died from bad food or if you were poisoned by tainted toothpaste, it is that big a problem. My concern is that the Communist government of China, in its movement into their own form of Capitalism, is just not playing by the rules. They seem to be making their own rules which aren't exactly ethical or fair. And what of our huge 'trade deficit' with China? My prediction is that it will shrink considerably as more and more crap from China is discovered to be crap and fewer and fewer Americans tolerate it. And maybe they should start balancing things out a little differently if the quality of what we're getting is so low. Of course, there are some quality products from China too. But that's not what I'm thinking about here. Basically, I think that when an institutionalized atheist communist government tries to do capitalism they will have to learn that quality matters as much as price, and that is the kind of 'ethics' that institutional atheism doesn't teach. Well, neither does communism for that matter.
Britney
She is clearly suffering from some severe mental illness. Perhaps it's postpartum depression or maybe even bipolar disorder. Both of those conditions can manifest themselves in erratic, reckless, and psychotic (lost touch with reality) behaviors. Exactly like Britney has demonstrated over the last year. Someone please have her committed to a mental hospital so she can get the treatment she needs before she ends up dead. It's really sad for her two young sons when she's obviously not interested in being a good mother to them and when her skank of an ex-husband looks like a saint in comparison to her. Well, maybe he's not really all that bad after all? If any "regular" person did the things that Britney has done they would most likely end up in a mental hospital. I recall a couple of college classmates who "flipped out" (had psychotic episodes of crazy behavior) and had to leave school for a while for treatment (both did finish their degrees). Getting treatment for mental illness is not a stigma or anything to be ashamed about. On the contrary, not getting treatment is the thing to be ashamed about when there are so many things available nowadays, especially to those for whom money is not an obstacle. If there are any people who are still close to Britney they really must do some kind of intervention before it's too late.
Weather
I absolutely hate the Weather Channel. I'm certain that they are one of the biggest players in the whole "global warming" hoax. I mean, just look at how the channel has changed and become so slick and highly produced in the last 10 years. Climate change is big business for them and they are milking it for more than it's worth. For several years now we've been comparing the Weather Channel's forecasts with our local meteorologists' forecasts. The Weather Channel is consistently off by 3-4 degrees, like if the local guys say it will be 96 the Weather Channel says it will be 100. The same is true for the cold weather forecasts: the Weather Channel consistently says it will be 3-4 degrees colder than what the local guys say. And the local guys are always more accurate. You'd think that after so many years of being wrong in their forecasts that the Weather Channel would try to be more reliable. Well, no, apparently reliability and accuracy aren't their primary motivations. Their primary motivations are to promote extreme weather and climate change and to increase their profits. I really wish someone would do a big expose and reveal the Weather Channel's corruption.
Local Government
Recently we've been learning about the wide extent of corruption in our local government. Apparently, people have no qualms about exploiting public money for their own benefit. This is the core reason why communism and socialism will never work well. One of my favorite high school teachers used to talk about how communist and socialist systems tend to promote people wallowing in the "muck of mediocrity." The longer I live the more I see he was absolutely correct about that.
Jesus, why didn't someone alert me to that typo in government?
More Chinese manufactured toys have been recalled due to lead paint and shoddy workmanship. Well, I'm kind of concerned about all the recent recalls of Chinese products. Some have suggested that it's not really "that big a problem" or that more attention is being paid to China's errors than those of others these days. If you have young kids with popular toys that were made in China, then it is that big a problem. Duh. And if your tires have exploded or if your dog died from bad food or if you were poisoned by tainted toothpaste, it is that big a problem. My concern is that the Communist government of China, in its movement into their own form of Capitalism, is just not playing by the rules. They seem to be making their own rules which aren't exactly ethical or fair. And what of our huge 'trade deficit' with China? My prediction is that it will shrink considerably as more and more crap from China is discovered to be crap and fewer and fewer Americans tolerate it. And maybe they should start balancing things out a little differently if the quality of what we're getting is so low. Of course, there are some quality products from China too. But that's not what I'm thinking about here. Basically, I think that when an institutionalized atheist communist government tries to do capitalism they will have to learn that quality matters as much as price, and that is the kind of 'ethics' that institutional atheism doesn't teach. Well, neither does communism for that matter.
Britney
She is clearly suffering from some severe mental illness. Perhaps it's postpartum depression or maybe even bipolar disorder. Both of those conditions can manifest themselves in erratic, reckless, and psychotic (lost touch with reality) behaviors. Exactly like Britney has demonstrated over the last year. Someone please have her committed to a mental hospital so she can get the treatment she needs before she ends up dead. It's really sad for her two young sons when she's obviously not interested in being a good mother to them and when her skank of an ex-husband looks like a saint in comparison to her. Well, maybe he's not really all that bad after all? If any "regular" person did the things that Britney has done they would most likely end up in a mental hospital. I recall a couple of college classmates who "flipped out" (had psychotic episodes of crazy behavior) and had to leave school for a while for treatment (both did finish their degrees). Getting treatment for mental illness is not a stigma or anything to be ashamed about. On the contrary, not getting treatment is the thing to be ashamed about when there are so many things available nowadays, especially to those for whom money is not an obstacle. If there are any people who are still close to Britney they really must do some kind of intervention before it's too late.
Weather
I absolutely hate the Weather Channel. I'm certain that they are one of the biggest players in the whole "global warming" hoax. I mean, just look at how the channel has changed and become so slick and highly produced in the last 10 years. Climate change is big business for them and they are milking it for more than it's worth. For several years now we've been comparing the Weather Channel's forecasts with our local meteorologists' forecasts. The Weather Channel is consistently off by 3-4 degrees, like if the local guys say it will be 96 the Weather Channel says it will be 100. The same is true for the cold weather forecasts: the Weather Channel consistently says it will be 3-4 degrees colder than what the local guys say. And the local guys are always more accurate. You'd think that after so many years of being wrong in their forecasts that the Weather Channel would try to be more reliable. Well, no, apparently reliability and accuracy aren't their primary motivations. Their primary motivations are to promote extreme weather and climate change and to increase their profits. I really wish someone would do a big expose and reveal the Weather Channel's corruption.
Local Government
Recently we've been learning about the wide extent of corruption in our local government. Apparently, people have no qualms about exploiting public money for their own benefit. This is the core reason why communism and socialism will never work well. One of my favorite high school teachers used to talk about how communist and socialist systems tend to promote people wallowing in the "muck of mediocrity." The longer I live the more I see he was absolutely correct about that.
Jesus, why didn't someone alert me to that typo in government?
Saturday, June 9, 2007
This Is Good
DuPont and agricultural processor Tate & Lyle have started production in a new $100 million corn polymer processing plant in Loudon, TN, near Knoxville.
I wish that WBIR had the video of their news story on this from yesterday because it explained very well how this stuff is made and how it makes better than petroleum-based plastics and other materials. Also, from the economic point of view, this kind of development is GOOD for everyone. It helps the consumers and the farmers and the investors and the environment. Even if we aren't too concerned about global warming it is always good to improve the way we do things for many other reasons. And I think that instead of using scare tactics to force government mandates to "control greenhouse emissions" we should let the market do its job of evolving and improving as this example illustrates.
Dupont and Tate & Lyle's website has more information about their BioProducts.
See Google for more articles.
The clear liquid compound can replace, and the companies say can improve upon, petroleum-based ingredients. The results could be fabrics that can take dyes more brilliantly, carpets that are naturally stain resistant, face creams that are gentler to the skin and airplane de-icers that are biodegradable.
The companies tell The Associated Press they'll use 40% less energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by producing the polymer from corn sugar instead of petroleum-based feedstocks.
Customers already lining up include carmaker Toyota and carpet manufacturer Mohawk.
From WBIRTV
I wish that WBIR had the video of their news story on this from yesterday because it explained very well how this stuff is made and how it makes better than petroleum-based plastics and other materials. Also, from the economic point of view, this kind of development is GOOD for everyone. It helps the consumers and the farmers and the investors and the environment. Even if we aren't too concerned about global warming it is always good to improve the way we do things for many other reasons. And I think that instead of using scare tactics to force government mandates to "control greenhouse emissions" we should let the market do its job of evolving and improving as this example illustrates.
Dupont and Tate & Lyle's website has more information about their BioProducts.
See Google for more articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)