Update from the Heartland
No.375
16.2.09 – 22.2.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.375
16.2.09 – 22.2.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
ERRATUM:
Last week [374], I reported 48 souls on-board Colgan 3407 that crashed on approach to Buffalo. The manifest was updated with the addition of a deadheading pilot, making the total on-board: 49. Miraculously, the wife and adult daughter of the man killed on the ground escaped from different parts of the impact house. It is amazing more people on the ground were not killed or injured. Additionally, the NTSB released a simple animation from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) of the final seconds, which shows the initial attitude divergence being a pitch-up to approximately +31°. The NTSB also reported that the autopilot was engaged during the descent and approach. Therefore, I need to amend my initial assessment. The crew noted “significant” icing during the approach, which by itself in those conditions, is not unusual. Unfortunately, the autopilot, like a cruise control in your car, will mask changing aerodynamic conditions until it reaches its authority limit, at which time it alerts the crew and disengages. I suspect the initial pitch up was the autopilot disengagement exacerbated by ice accumulation beyond the boots on both the main wing and tailplane that contributed the crew’s over-reaction to the large attitude excursion. They might have recovered but were too close to the ground. All of this is just conjecture on my part, and we shall await the NTSB’s findings.
A personal note before we begin:
For all citizens who enjoy freedom, I strongly urge you to experience the HBO Films movie “Taking Chance” with Kevin Bacon. This shall suffice.
The follow-up news items:
-- For my Poll Question of last week [374] regarding Chuckie Schumer’s “tiny, porky amendments” comment [374], I received 7 votes, not a statistically significant sampling, but all American citizens. All (100%) of these responding citizens care about “those little, tiny, porky amendments.” I guess Chuckie Schumer ain’t as smart or perceptive as he thinks.
[NOTE: There are numerous opinions offered in the Comments section below. Also, I know there are other opinions out there in cyber-land; I would have appreciated a larger sampling. Oh well! Thanks to those who responded.]
-- On Wednesday of the previous week, CNN’s Lou Dobbs reflected upon Chuckie Schumer’s “tiny, porky” comment [374], and asked, whether listeners agreed or disagreed with Schumer’s remark, just as I did. His informal opinion poll: 93% Disagree; 7% Agreed. I would love to hear from those who do not care about “tiny, porky amendments,” and why they do not care.
-- A week ago Sunday, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela [250, 313, et al] finally got his way. Citizens of Venezuela affirmed the referendum Chávez sought removing term limits on the presidency, so that he could hold the office for as long as he wants. Hugo may well be the poster child for why we need term limits, i.e., do we want this?
I urge everyone to read this opinion column and think about the message:
“Discrimination hurts -- more so in hospitals”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Sunday; 15.February.2009
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/903192.html
Pakistan accepted the Taliban’s offer for a ceasefire in the northwest tribal region, and more significantly, acquiesced to the Taliban’s demand to impose their brand of extremist Islamic Sharia law in the region. The country ceased to exist as a unified nation. To put this in perspective, this unfortunate action by the government of Pakistan is akin to the old Confederacy in the United States being allowed to re-impose slavery and segregation on U.S. citizens with dark skin pigmentation. This was not a wise move and will ultimately hurt Pakistan and hinder the on-going Battle for Afghanistan as part of the War on Islamic Fascism.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times editorial staff offered us condemnation of the Virginia state senate.
“The Virginia Tech Betrayal”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: February 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08sun3.html?th&emc=th
ERRATUM:
Last week [374], I reported 48 souls on-board Colgan 3407 that crashed on approach to Buffalo. The manifest was updated with the addition of a deadheading pilot, making the total on-board: 49. Miraculously, the wife and adult daughter of the man killed on the ground escaped from different parts of the impact house. It is amazing more people on the ground were not killed or injured. Additionally, the NTSB released a simple animation from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) of the final seconds, which shows the initial attitude divergence being a pitch-up to approximately +31°. The NTSB also reported that the autopilot was engaged during the descent and approach. Therefore, I need to amend my initial assessment. The crew noted “significant” icing during the approach, which by itself in those conditions, is not unusual. Unfortunately, the autopilot, like a cruise control in your car, will mask changing aerodynamic conditions until it reaches its authority limit, at which time it alerts the crew and disengages. I suspect the initial pitch up was the autopilot disengagement exacerbated by ice accumulation beyond the boots on both the main wing and tailplane that contributed the crew’s over-reaction to the large attitude excursion. They might have recovered but were too close to the ground. All of this is just conjecture on my part, and we shall await the NTSB’s findings.
A personal note before we begin:
For all citizens who enjoy freedom, I strongly urge you to experience the HBO Films movie “Taking Chance” with Kevin Bacon. This shall suffice.
The follow-up news items:
-- For my Poll Question of last week [374] regarding Chuckie Schumer’s “tiny, porky amendments” comment [374], I received 7 votes, not a statistically significant sampling, but all American citizens. All (100%) of these responding citizens care about “those little, tiny, porky amendments.” I guess Chuckie Schumer ain’t as smart or perceptive as he thinks.
[NOTE: There are numerous opinions offered in the Comments section below. Also, I know there are other opinions out there in cyber-land; I would have appreciated a larger sampling. Oh well! Thanks to those who responded.]
-- On Wednesday of the previous week, CNN’s Lou Dobbs reflected upon Chuckie Schumer’s “tiny, porky” comment [374], and asked, whether listeners agreed or disagreed with Schumer’s remark, just as I did. His informal opinion poll: 93% Disagree; 7% Agreed. I would love to hear from those who do not care about “tiny, porky amendments,” and why they do not care.
-- A week ago Sunday, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela [250, 313, et al] finally got his way. Citizens of Venezuela affirmed the referendum Chávez sought removing term limits on the presidency, so that he could hold the office for as long as he wants. Hugo may well be the poster child for why we need term limits, i.e., do we want this?
I urge everyone to read this opinion column and think about the message:
“Discrimination hurts -- more so in hospitals”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Sunday; 15.February.2009
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/903192.html
Pakistan accepted the Taliban’s offer for a ceasefire in the northwest tribal region, and more significantly, acquiesced to the Taliban’s demand to impose their brand of extremist Islamic Sharia law in the region. The country ceased to exist as a unified nation. To put this in perspective, this unfortunate action by the government of Pakistan is akin to the old Confederacy in the United States being allowed to re-impose slavery and segregation on U.S. citizens with dark skin pigmentation. This was not a wise move and will ultimately hurt Pakistan and hinder the on-going Battle for Afghanistan as part of the War on Islamic Fascism.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times editorial staff offered us condemnation of the Virginia state senate.
“The Virginia Tech Betrayal”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: February 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08sun3.html?th&emc=th
The oh-so-wise editors of the Gray Lady rendered judgment. “Richmond lawmakers have callously rejected a gun control proposal sought as a memorial to the 32 students slain in the Virginia Tech massacre [280; 6.April.2007]. Once more, state senators proved more beholden to the gun lobby’s propaganda and campaign money than to public safety.” First and foremost, the Virginia state senate was solely ‘beholden’ to the Constitutions of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the gun lobby or campaign contributors. No matter how hard they try, the 2nd Amendment still reads and means the same as it did in 1791. Second, as with so many sensitive topics, the New York Times, like far too many citizens of this Grand Republic, appears to be quite content focusing on the façade, the covering, the frontispiece, rather than the root cause of any issue. Whether guns, sex, drugs, juvenile delinquency, gambling, prostitution, crime, abortion – pick your topic – we seek the feel-good, quick-fix rather than a genuine solution. We treat the symptoms, not the disease. So it is again; this time regarding guns. I mourned the loss of all those young, innocent lives that day, along with everyone else. What happened on that university campus was a genuine, profound tragedy. Nonetheless, restricting the possession of firearms for all citizens, by whatever means happens to slip by a legislature, is like all the other damnable morality laws we enact – they make us feel good about swatting a fly with the thermonuclear weapon. Restricting gun ownership, possession or carriage will never, ever stop a lone, crazy person intent upon injury; it only ensures law-abiding citizens are disarmed and defenseless. Jeanne and I recently watched an obscure movie, “An American Crime,” with Catherine Keener and Ellen Page – the cinematic rendition of the 1965, torture / murder of Sylvia Marie Likens, 16, at the hands of Indianapolis housewife Gertrude Nadine Baniszewski (née van Fossan), then 36, and her heartless brood. There were plenty of messages in the movie, but the relevant one in this context was that plenty of people (more than a few – neighbors, friends, passers-by) had ample evidence of Sylvia’s torture over a three month span of time, and they DID NOTHING! The Likens case has stark similarities to another famous murder case – Catherine Susan ‘Kitty’ Genovese stabbed to death on a street in Queens, New York [13.March.1964], witnessed by a reported 80 citizens who DID NOTHING! As long as citizens continue to fail one of the most basic responsibilities of citizenship and community, I shall remain a staunch opponent of foolish, superficial, gun control attempts, and I condemn the New York Times editorial staff for their shallow, myopic opinion. Until the mythical day arrives, I happen to believe the Swiss and Israeli model is pretty darn good – every household should be armed as part of their national duty.
In May 2001, Chandra Ann Levy was murdered and her body dumped in Rock Creek Park, Washington, District of Columbia. The Levy case gained notoriety because of her involvement with Representative Gary Adrian Condit of California (who failed to get re-elected in 2002). An arrest warrant is pending for Ingmar A. Guandique – a then 19-year-old illegal Salvadoran immigrant (alien), a convicted felon and prisoner in the California prison system. Perhaps the Levy family can gain closure from the loss of their daughter. If Guandique is tried and convicted of the Levy murder, I can only hope he reaches the same conclusion as his victim – execution. My apologies to those who are offended by such bluntness.
Since we seem to be talking about murder this week . . . Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, wife of Muzzammil Hassan, 44, an immigrant and naturalized citizen of Pakistani descent, suggested to her husband that he create a television station to help improve the image of Muslims in the United States, thus began Bridges TV. It seems the couple Hassan of Orchard Park, New York (near Buffalo), did not enjoy marital bliss, and Missus Hassan filed for divorce, which provoked Mister Hassan, with his Muslim machismo offended, to behead his wife, claiming his religious right to do so. The topic exploded on a different network. From that list, we had a person chastise [us] for not understanding “their” religion and values – not being tolerant of diversity. The response struck a nerve, so I fired off my opinion.
This Grand Republic was born in the crucible of rebellion to secure certain “unalienable rights” for each and every citizen. Unfortunately, it took us 200 years to approach that ideal, but today, we are much closer as we continue the journey to achieve the ideal. Every citizen is equal regardless of the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and to a certain extent disability.
I don't give a good crap about his religion, values, attitudes and opinions, or any religion for that matter, when those attributes cause injury to another human being. Last time I checked beheading is premeditated capital murder. His wife was a citizen . . . just as you are, I am, and all the rest of us. A wife is NOT property (and hasn't been since 1920) nor subservient regardless of what their religion says. If he or anyone comes to this country and cannot live as equals and tolerate the diversity that made this country great, I urge them to leave post-haste.
He deserves exactly the same punishment he meted out to her, but our system will go much more lightly on him than I would.
This attitude that religion gives anyone the right to abuse another human being is as offensive as slavery, segregation, crime or terrorism. Such attitudes are an offense to civilized humanity.
A contributor sent along this article:
“So Far, Amateur Hour”
by Kathleen Parker
RealClearPolitics.com
Published: February 11, 2009
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_pet_goat.html
. . . and, another contributor pointed to this related article:
Failure to Rise
by Paul Krugman
New York Times
Published: February 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html
In the last administration, I found myself in the position of defending a President I respected, but with whom I had many strong disagreements. I tolerated and tried to counter the Anybody But Bush (ABB) crowd in hopes they would eventually cut him some slack. Now, it seems, I shall be cast once again into defending the President, this time against the Get Obama (GO) or Anti-Obama (AO) crowd. There is no leader on the face of the planet or who has ever lived who has not made mistakes – sometimes even big ones. For Kathleen Parker to say what she did, IMHO, tells me she possesses no concept of what leadership means and especially what presidential leadership entails. The last three Presidents, including the current citizen-occupant, have served under the extraordinarily brilliant spotlight of 24-hour news services (many), instant communications, the Internet, the blogosphere, digital & cellphone cameras, and a citizenry with unprecedented access. I fundamentally disagree with Kathleen’s parochial, partisan, political assessment. Barack has made mistakes and missteps in his early days, but in the main, I give him pretty high marks for performance, so far. Let’s give the man a chance to swim before we try to drown him.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
News from the economic front:
-- The Donald's casino group – Trump Entertainment Resorts – filed for Chapter 11 protection from its creditors – the organization’s third appearance in bankruptcy court, which most recently emerged from bankruptcy proceedings in 2005.
-- Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa appeared to be quite under the influence of some substance at the weekend Group of Seven press conference. The video is disappointing, especially at times like these. Of course, Nakagawa denied that his behavior was due to “heavy drinking” and blamed a combination of cold medicine and alcohol. He indicated that he intends to resign from his post after passage of various budget bills to take responsibility for his behavior at a press conference. The episode came after data showed Japan's economy contracted at its fastest pace in nearly 35 years in the final quarter of 2008.
-- President Barack Obama signed into law the US$787B stimulus package – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [PL 111-005]. The creation and now signing of the new law touched off quite a firestorm, some of which have been noted below. The marketplace was not impressed, despite the President’s ebullient speech, and neither were a number of Update contributors. Time shall tell the tale.
-- The Commerce Department announced home construction decreased 16.8% to a seasonally adjusted 466,000 annual rate, compared to the prior month, for a 7th straight month, and a sign of future building tumbled as high inventories and the recession sent builders into further retreat. Housing starts were 56.2% below the pace of construction in January 2008.
-- The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (OMC), citing a “continued sharp contraction in real economic activity,” indicated that it is expecting GDP to contract by up to 1.3% in 2009, a larger drop than it had forecast in October. The OMC expects unemployment to rise as high as 8.8% this year, higher than its October projection of 7.1% to 7.6%. The OMC also indicated that the housing sector was beginning to stabilize (I hope they see more than the rest of us). The Fed cut its economic outlook for 2009 and warned that the United States economy would face an “unusually gradual and prolonged” period of recovery as the country struggles to climb out of a deep global downturn.
-- The Swiss bank UBS agreed to pay US$780M in fines and immediately turn over some client names to settle a federal criminal probe into the bank's role in helping U.S. taxpayers hide bank accounts from the IRS. Gee, I wonder who might be on that list of American citizens (taxpayers supposedly)? Sure is not me!
-- Bank of America Chairman and CEO Kenneth D. ‘Ken’ Lewis was issued a subpoena by New York State Attorney General Andrew Mark Cuomo, who is investigating whether the bank withheld information from investors in violation of state law. Investigators also interviewed former Merrill CEO John Alexander Thain [365]. Cuomo’s office is trying to determine if investors were misled about the extent of Merrill’s losses in late 2008 and whether details of the bonuses to Merrill employees should have been disclosed to investors.
-- The U.S. consumer price Index (CPI) rose 0.3% in January on a seasonally adjusted basis – the first increase in six months – with core prices, which exclude food and energy, rising 0.2%. On a year-over-year basis, the CPI was flat – the lowest rate of change since August 1955 – while the core prices were up 1.7%.
-- Gold futures hit $1000 an ounce Friday morning as investors scurried for safe havens. Isn’t this economic speculation fun?
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Ah yes, the scandal that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving. During Governor Bladojevich’s impeachment process, then Senator-designate Roland Burris was asked, “Did you have any contact with the governor’s brother?” After consulting with his lawyer, he did not answer the question. Now, we learn that Burris had at least three conversations with the governor’s brother Rob, who had asked the senator-designate for political contributions to the governor. Burris took an oath before his testimony to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” What part of the “whole truth” doesn’t Burris understand? And, he expects us to trust him?
-- Senator Roland Wallace Burris of Illinois is now under investigation by the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee for potential perjury or conduct unbecoming a U.S. senator related to misstatements to the Illinois senate during the impeachment trial process for ex-governor Blago. So the worm turns . . .
We should not be surprised. We add another to the rogue’s gallery:
The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- Billionaire international financier Robert Allen Stanford, owner of Stanford Financial Group, has been charged with US$8B securities fraud, by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), after extensive investigation by the SEC, FBI + other regulatory agencies. With guys like Stanford, I hope the Federal government convicts him and seizes everything he owns to pay back those he defrauded.
-- U.S. prosecutors are investigating whether Stanford was operating a Ponzi scheme dating back to last year. FBI agents found Stanford in Virginia on Thursday and served him with court orders and documents relating to the SEC’s civil charges. Criminal charges have not yet been filed against Stanford.
“Pasco sues self-proclaimed swingers’ club”
by Peter Linton Smith
FOX News Tampa Bay (Florida)
Last Edited: Tuesday, 17 Feb 2009, 6:19 PM EST
Created On: Tuesday, 17 Feb 2009, 5:41 PM EST
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/nature_coast/pasco_swingers_club_021709
Pasco County (Florida) undercover law enforcement visited Club Elite in Port Richey three times between November 2007 and May 2008. The club opened in September 2007, and claimed to be the “Bay Area’s premiere swingers’ club.” The sheriff’s office claims to have received unspecified public complaints. I would really like to hear the basis for those complaints. Does anyone care to bet the complaints came from people who never stepped into Club Elite? We have every right to disapprove of alternative lifestyles and even our perception of what swinging entails. But, what right do we have to treat, as criminal, activities that are not in public view and are sufficiently advertised to allow citizens to decide whether they wish to attend or participate. This case does not affect me and probably does not affect anyone reading this Update. Yet, I respectfully submit to a critical audience, morality laws against non-public conduct are an offense to our most basic freedom – the freedom to choose our path to Happiness. As I have recounted before a friend’s challenge, “Show me the damage!” Whatever they were doing in Club Elite last year, who was injured or harmed? We really must get over our prudishness and grow up, to allow every citizen to live their lives as they choose.
I must offer my sincere, heartfelt kudos to the British government for denying entry into their country to Fred Phelps [190, et al] and his spawn Shirley Phelps-Roper [235, et al], who sought to export their obscene, religious-rationalized homophobia to England, ostensibly to protest the stage production of “The Laramie Project” – the story of Matthew Wayne Shepard, the 21-year-old, University of Wyoming student brutally beaten to death for being perceived as a homosexual [6.October.1998]. It is bad enough that we must tolerate the bigotry and hatred of the Phelps clan; we do not need to be contaminating other peaceful countries.
You may recall the case of British, multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy [364] and my open letter to the Kansas governor and legislature regarding a Death with Dignity law [349A]. With a new legislature and a sitting governor on the short list for a cabinet post, it is time for me to update my letter and challenge my state representatives to pass a proper Death with Dignity law. From across the pond, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge – Baron Judge, PC – indicated this week that British courts will reject prosecutions of people who assist the suicide of terminally ill patients. A judge, even the chief justice, who decides not to enforce the law is judicial fiat by inaction. At a personal level, I laud the wisdom and compassion of the Lord Chief Justice, yet I am compelled to state that Judge’s action is not the way. We must amend the law to allow citizens at their end-of-days to make decisions appropriate for them without risking the criminal prosecution of their loved ones, and for the protection of self-destructive, mentally ill citizens. Thank you Lord Chief Justice Judge, but we need new laws.
Comments and contributions from Update no.374:
“Maybe I'm being a little cynical, or paranoid, but I have a huge, huge problem with Obama saying that only government can solve this economic crisis. Government was one of the causes of our recent money problems by forcing banks to give out all these loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back. Not that the national press will ever take a Democratically-controlled Congress to task on this. No. It's only big evil corporations/banks/etc that are the problem. Not that some of them are totally blameless, but again, the mainstream press can't bring itself to hold Democrats accountable when they screw up. If this government is our only solution, then we're in big trouble. As Reagan showed in the 80's, things usually go well when government gets out of people's way and let's them be inventive and create jobs. Reagan had faith in the American people. Judging by Obama's words, he does not.
“Oh, for your poll, yes, pork spending concerns me. It is my money, after all. Another fact that Washington doesn't seem to understand. It's not your money, it's our money.
“That's my rant.”
My reply:
Yes, the President overstated a bit; government is not the only solution. Likewise, the banks and corporations are not the problem, anymore than Jesse James or Billy the Kid were the problem in the Wild, Wild West. Government has many responsibilities, one of which is public safety – ordering the public domain. At least the last eight administrations failed in that responsibility to various degrees, not least of which was failing to regulate the financial marketplace even to the extent to the existing law. I do not believe the Federal government is the only solution, but I am convinced it is a major part of it. We need the President to be honest with us, but we also need to him to use his rhetorical skills to restore confidence – the biggest faltering ingredient to my thinking.
I will put you down as a yes on the poll. And, yes, absolutely, the Treasury belongs to We, the People – NOT one political party or another. The Republicans failed to heed that reality. The Democrats are headed down a different road in the same direction.
Another contribution:
“Re: the Bennie Herrings of the world: Just a shot from the hip: Suspect any who have had to depend on law enforcement personnel in real time encounters probably have come up with the same disappointment that I have. My personal experience suggests that many if not most of our policemen are just lazy bums with a gun they are just itching to kill with. They have no interest in seeing or discovering facts on the street. With the vast number of former military trained individuals in the market place, why do we not have a hiring preference with substantial pay differentials for hiring former military experienced individual, especially those who have some combat disability or experience. It seems our policemen almost never succeed in identifying and arresting criminals that are not dragged to them and dropped at their feet by some accidental discovery forced on them.
“Re: Suleman etc.: Is this an example of where the 'Right To Privacy' is leading this nation; Bah humbug. Enough of this nonsense; The right to procreate should be viewed as an earned right.
“Again, I invite any reader to see http://www.hermanosborne.com/.”
My response:
Re: Herring & police. I can assure you . . . you are NOT alone in your less than complimentary opinion of some police. Yes, there are lazy cops, just as there are lazy people in the workplace. FYI, the company I work for just laid off 30+% of its workforce, and yet, even after than horrendous trauma, I walk the assembly floor and see workers joking and socializing during work time – not working! There are good, sincere, concerned police. We must not taint all police, just as we must not stereotype all people. I do indeed like and support your suggestion of applying veterans to police duties. The problem our youngest son – now a county deputy sheriff – experienced suggests the process will not be easy. Department chiefs have their biases and political peculiarities.
Re: Suleman. Very good question. A citizen’s fundamental right to privacy does play in this case and others like hers. My opinion: I agree; procreation should be an earned right. We have far too many negligent, complacent and abusive parents; and, we, as a society, have shown extraordinary reluctance to intervene. My personal belief hangs upon zero population growth (2.3 children per parental couple). Concomitantly, I think everyone should be able to have as many children as they wish, and, most importantly, they can support, nurture, education and raise properly . . . and by ‘properly’ I mean, productive, law-abiding, peaceful, respectful, members of society. When one or both parents must turn to the State for support, then the State has every right to define conditions of that support, up to and including elimination of procreative ability, permanently in extreme cases like the New York, addict, rotary uterus.
A different contribution:
“In reply to your poll question: The only people that do not care about the 'porky amendments’ are the people that think they are about to go to a pig-roast. Of course I care. Where’s the beef?
“There are three types of ‘spending’ in the stimulus plan that everyone is, or should be, concerned about:
“1. Spending targeted to help certain people or certain areas get money. (Pork) Not a bad thing if you're on the guest list, and some of it may in fact stimulate at least local economies.
“2. Spending targeted to advance a backlogged liberal, socialist-leaning agenda. Not necessarily all bad, but most almost certainly not geared toward ‘stimulating the economy’ and certainly not an ‘emergency.’ Every one of these items should have been thoroughly debated in the public forum and passed or failed in their own right, not 'sneaked' in under the banner of an emergency stimulus package. As Tom Daschle reportedly told Obama when he turned over his senior staff to the junior Senator: some things are too important for public debate. Puts a different face on ‘hope’ and ‘change’ doesn’t it?
“3. Spending targeted to create jobs and actually stimulate the U.S. economy.
“No one really knows the ratio of 1 and 2 above to number 3. We can list and tally the ‘billions of dollars’, but even that does not guarantee a clear picture. No one knows for sure that the stimulus plan would have worked even if there had been no pork or social agenda. Of course no one knows for sure that it will not work in its current form either. Like the ‘modified’ Schlieffen Plan of WWI, we’ll be debating whether it was a bad plan or a good plan poorly executed for years to come, and of course looking for people to blame.
“Personally, I think this is the first indication of Obama’s lack of substance. He should have made it clear to Pelosi and Reed that he would go to the mat for the plan, but only if it was ‘his’ plan. And his plan should have been much smarter: limit the pork and social agenda until after we’ve gained the confidence of the American People with a lean, effective, bi-partisan emergency spending bill. Sneak the port and social agenda in later.
“As you point out, all he did was ‘say’ the right things – again. During the first major challenge of his Presidency, he was on the sidelines in his cute cheerleader outfit and it worked - again. I know I’m taking you out of context by starting the paragraph with ‘as you point out.’ But I could not disagree with you more about ‘an unprecedented attempt to build consensus.’ When the Republican senators asked him if there was any ‘room’ to change the bill, he flatly told them no. So he was obviously just ‘talking’ again – no substance, certainly no bi-partisanship. Pelosi was crystal clear on that. Frankly, I’m a little surprised at your comment. I’m not sure how anyone can see this as anything but politics as EXTREMELY usual. There is nothing ‘unprecedented’ about any of it.
“I guess we’ll see.”
My reply:
No one knows what is going to happen, and it seems everyone can predict something. And, the Schlieffen Plan worked the second time around. We also can and will second-guess Barack, but for now, I’m inclined to give him some rope on this one. As I said, both ends of the spectrum appear to be equally pissed off, which suggests some degree of balance. At least they got some of the pork out of the final bill.
We are entitled to disagree. Our disagreement can be constructive.
Barack may be all talk. The truth on this question shall be obvious soon enough. I concede, perhaps his actions are not unprecedented . . . again, time will tell. Nonetheless, I am still inclined to give him more rope.
. . . a follow-up:
“Hear! Hear! Or is that Here! Here!? If everyone agreed it would be a pretty boring world. I don't think that's ever been a problem in America. As always, thanks for the recap of important events and thought provoking dialogue.”
Another contribution:
“Yes, I do care about them and I sent and indignant e-mail to Sen. Schumer informing him that I was offended by his arrogance.
“I cannot share your appreciation for our new President. He rammed the biggest spending bill in the history of the world down our throats and didn't even have the decency to allow those who voted on it enough time to read it. Now he's been content to wait several days before signing it. Our children and grand children will be paying off this debt for decades to come. I'm sorry, but this is not change I can believe in. Eight billion dollars for a high speed rail line from Disneyland to Las Vegas is an imperative stimulus?”
My response:
[T]hanks especially for your indignant missive to our good buddy Chuckie. His arrogance is despicable.
We can remain skeptical and critical, and we can try to help him be successful. A high speed rail line between L.A. & Las Vegas is closer to the purpose than birth control or a local water park. Time shall tell the tale.
. . . round two:
“Harry Reid's railroad might be a worthy project, but the environmental impact study will take years. Actual awarding of contracts, obtaining rights of way, etc. will take many years more. So, where's the stimulus? I will grant it's more than you get in smoking cessation programs, which will actually have a negative economic impact.
“But, my real objection is that it is the poster child for the pork in this so-called stimulus. Obama promised no ear marks, but the bill is nothing but ear marks with the Democrats filling it with every conceivable pet project. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be borrowed to pay for them and there was no debate at all. The lack of debate and transparency is appalling. The service on the debt for this and other programs to come will be a tremendous burden on taxpayers for decades to come.
“Rahm Emanuel said it best -- it's all about exploiting a crisis. Obama's rhetoric about the worst economy since the Great Depression and ‘catastrophe’ was just meant to hype fears in order to blow this bill by everyone. It's shameful, disgraceful and not what we should get from our elected officials. To say I'm disappointed with the Obama administration is an understatement. He's rolled back welfare reform under cover of this bill, too.
“Now, with his demagoguery of corporate aircraft, he's doing to General Aviation what Clinton did to the power boat industry. Wait till you see his health care programs. Hang on to your wallet. He's coming after anyone who has been successful in life with the goal of redistributing their wealth.”
. . . my response to round two:
Valid points all; and, I agree in the main.
Compared to the original House & Senate versions, the final law was less porky, but porky nonetheless. I would have lauded the President if he had made a more aggressive public statement about getting the pork out; unfortunately, I shall withhold my praise for might have been.
The President, ‘Chuckie’ Schumer, her holiness Nancy, and Tim Geithner are wrong – the USG is NOT the only solution. There is no question the market will cleanse the dead wood, the over-valued properties, the greedy people, all of the badness. As I’ve said before, the only question is how much pain are we innocents willing to suffer?
Pure, free-market, Capitalism is fantastic, near perfect, for the wealthy. Losing 50% of US$100M or more, still leaves enough to live quite comfortably. Half of what I have is not so comfortable. I’ve likened the pure free market to the Wild, Wild West – survival of fittest – OK as long as I’m the quickest gun & most ruthless. Pure Communism is nirvana or Utopia for the unwashed masses, but hardly a Pantheon of ambition, drive, innovation and advancement. As with the political spectrum – uber-Left to uber-Right – the economic spectrum is quite similar. It seems to me the moderate balance is a much more stable condition than either extreme. Also, we bear witness to what unbridled greedy can do. If I’m wealthy and can absorb the losses, then I can say, “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.” The ARRP, TARP, et cetera, is an attempt to lessen the pain of the masses, but such government spending will also mask the dead wood, greed, mistakes and revaluation – obviously not a good thing.
Just as W & Hank gave us a ‘trust me’ on the first shot, Barack & Tim are giving us another dose of ‘trust me’ – not a particular comfortable condition, either. I hope Tim is a man of his word, and the USG will back out of the market when things stabilize. We haven’t yet approached regulation, but its coming. And, as is so often the case, Congress will undoubtedly overreact as it did with the Church Committee. C’est la vie.
Congress has shown no comprehension whatsoever about efficiency amplification of business aviation – not a surprise – since they know so little about finance, intelligence, or warfighting. The industry is fighting back, but the impact has already been felt, and I suspect the recovery of our business will take much longer as a consequence. C’est la guerre.
This too shall pass.
A different contribution thread:
“As a flaming Conserberal, I am outraged but not at all surprised by the pork in the package, by the ill-advised and doomed ‘stymulus’ folly itself, and by the Senator's remarks. All are typical of Democrats and are well imitated by the current Repandercrats. Again I say, the only partial solution is to correct the grave but understandable oversight of our comparatively less ambitious founding fathers in crafting the constitution, who other than perhaps Thomas Jefferson never imagined career politicians and political dynasties: amend the wonderful document to limit terms. The obscene election career path and the associated seniority system is an abomination that continues to discourage many true patriots from taking an unselfish break from productive careers (as distinguished from most of the members of congress) to serve the country with their best good faith efforts to do what is right rather than what will get them re-elected. Term limits would not eliminate those few in Congress who are true patriots, and it would make their job easier and our country stronger.
“We somehow learned from FDR worship and limited presidential terms. When will we be wise and brave enough to do this for Congress? I admit that I'm afraid that no such reform is possible, given the present federally dependent state of our electorate. ‘It was a great country while it lasted...’”
My reply:
I am not so ready to sell Barack down the river just yet. We shall see.
FDR made his share of mistakes, just as W made his, and Barack will make his. But, so much of this is about attitude and confidence. I am still employed and too young to retire; in fact, even if I was ready to retire, I am not sure the economic uncertainty would make that action a wise choice at present. We have not touched the bottom of this one, yet, IMHO. Nonetheless, this is the worst recession in my lifetime, and we have a way to go for recovery.
Term limits . . . yea verily! I’ve been in favor of term limits for all elected public officials. Congressional term limits will take a constitutional amendment, since there is no way on God’s little green Earth Congress will even propose such a law. Renewal in Congress would be a positive, refreshing move.
. . . a different contribution to the same thread:
“(1) ‘a flaming Conserberal’ - wonderful expression - thanks.
“(2) I am unfamiliar with your allusions concerning Schumer. Could you elaborate? I am not a Schumer apologist but am a follower of his career because I met him 40 years ago almost to the day - he ran a successful "anti-machine" slate in the Harvard-Radcliff Young Democrats in 1968-9; he ran for pres, Cameron Kerry (John's kid brother) ran for VP, I ran for treasurer and David Williams (class of 1972, also office manager of Boston McCarthy for Pres). Schumer told Williams and me our job was to ‘tell him what to do;’ he later got a Rhodes Scholarship and the rest is history. So I'm interested in what he does. Don't think he knows me from Adam any more.
“(3) I disagree with you about term limits. Either people deserve to be in office or they don't, and it's up to the voters to decide. I've seen some really top people ‘termed out’ who should have stayed a lot longer. I've also seen people in office beyond their time, but this is something for the voters to decide. One of the problems I saw in California is that after term limits were instituted for the Legislature, the ‘experts’ on how things were su[posed to be in Sacramento became not the senior legislators, because there weren't any more, but the senior lobbyists. There are no term limits for lobbyists. Jesse Unruh was the speaker of the California Assembly for MANY years, and he had a rough-and-tumble semi-crooked reputation, but he had a saying about the lobbyists (please excuse the language, but that's the way he was): ‘If you can't fuck their women, drink their booze, take their money and vote against them, you don't belong in politics.’ So he set up a system in which crooked money coming into the California Assembly was always funneled through his office and the members of the Assembly were beholden to him rather than to the lobbyists, against women he was strong enough that he could shield the Assembly from their worst influences. That system held for many years after Unruh left the Assembly, which consequently was relatively immune to dirty money, but since tem limits came in there has been no one of the stature to be able to stand up against the senior lobbyists. That in California at least was the intended ‘hidden agenda’ of the advocates of term limits. So think about it.
“(4) Subject of pork. Dunno whether you knew, but the Senate Appropriations Committee put inter alia $50 billion in loan guarantees for construction of nuclear and coal-fired power plants into the stimulus bill. Reportedly it was to get Republican votes in the Senate, but hold on, this isn't a rant against Republicans, it's a rant against hypocrites. Of course the money had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. I knew about the responses of 5 major ‘progressive’ groups capable collectively of activating close to 10 million supporters at the push of a button: Friends of he Earth [FOE] (which had discovered the covertly-added provision and launched a high-visibility Internet and TV-ad campaign to get it out), Physicians for Social Responsibility [PSR] (which followed FOE's lead but on a lesser scale), the Sierra Club (now 1,300,000 strong, which did nothing whatsoever except mislead its followers about the "green-ness" of the Senate bill), True Majority (a recently-surfaced liberal Internet organization, about 600,000 strong, which did ditto) and Move-On (about 5 million strong, a liberal Internet organization founded by billionaire George Soros with the intent of nominating a Democrat voicing ‘change,’ which also did ditto) When I learned about what the latter three were NOT doing, I went ballistic and got everyone I could find to protest. At one point PSR's Washington lobbyist told me her assessment, which incidentally I shared, of why those three organizations did nothing – ‘They're Democrats.’ Finally the Sierra Club put out a press release calculated to accomplish nothing whatsoever except I think to give it cover with both the proponents and the opponents of the $50billion. The press release went unnoticed and was too late to have any influence on the conference committee (which removed the $50b from the bill) but (with a heading congratulating the Senate for passing the bill (with the $50b still in) said the Club ‘fully supports’ the bill as passed by the Senate but asks the conference committee to ‘address’ the issue of the $50b. I spread the above story hither and yon all over the Internet as far as I could, and was given kudos by Friends of the Earth. If I had one friend left at the upper levels of the Sierra Club, I don't any longer.”
. . . my reply to the above contribution:
Chuckie Schumer’s statement of the floor of the Senate was the source of [the] comment; the quote is available at the blog noted above. From your association with Chuckie, I think we could all benefit from your perspective of his statement.
Congressional term limits: I’m with [the advocate]. Prima facie, and idealistically, congressional service should be solely up to constituents and should be about national service. Yet, I doubt anyone familiar with Jesse Unruh has fond memories of the classic corrupt politician . . . well, except those who gained from his largesse with money that belonged to the residents of California. No system should be dependent on any person. Human beings are flawed, vulnerable creatures, enormously susceptible to the corruption of power, which is why the Framers tried mightily to put in place checks & balances, to reduce the influence of any one person. My primary reason for my advocacy of term limits is the incestuous and corrupting influence of money. Members of Congress earmark & pork up legislation with spending that is largely hidden and designed to benefit a very narrow group of cronies. If spending for any project had to survive the intended legislative process and prove its national, proper benefit to We, the People, I dare say we would have far less spending. The longer flawed people serve in Congress, the more they become addicted to spending the People’s money to their political benefit and garner favor for more obscene spending. Am I cynical about our Federal sugar-daddy? Yes, without qualification or equivocation. My anger is pointed at both political parties. I condemn them both. The only difference between the two parties is their pet projects & bevy of cronies with their hands out. Term limits seems like the only way to slow down the obscene spending in Congress.
A comment from the blog:
“I'm very surprised that airplane engines are tested on birds half the size of Canada geese. Canada geese are so plentiful as to be a nuisance here in Ohio. Who decided that they were no danger to aircraft?
“‘A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.’ Blackwater by some other name still smells.
“I follow the RV industry in a small way. In these times, the RV industry has essentially crashed. That industry centers on Elkhart, Indiana; hence the very high unemployment rate there.
“‘The marketplace will sort things out’ asks me to trust the bonus babies who got us into this. No thanks.
“I do share your resistance to panic, though. A sound percentage of us do indeed still have jobs, at least for this day. Those who don't have become a large enough group to bring me concern, but not panic.
“As you and I have discussed elsewhere, I believe tax cuts combined with a hatred of regulation have put us into this mess; further tax cuts amount to throwing good money after bad unless there's something very different about this round.
“Poll question: Yes, I believe that the stimulus bill carries considerable pork. No, it doesn't bother me any more than the Republican pork did, so long as there’s some chance of creating jobs building people's pet projects and working on them.
“I share your distaste for the political posturing. However, I dislike the Republican Party enough that I won’t miss them if they manage to eliminate themselves from the scene by hanging on to the attitudes that cost them the election.
“Regardless of party or posture, I’ll believe that Washington has achieved transparency when I see it make the party in power uncomfortable.
“I do not know enough of Judd Gregg to know whether he acted under pressure from his party or carried out some grudge of his own.
“I cannot account for Nadya Suleman without bringing some form of mental illness into the picture. No sane person would do that to fourteen innocent children. Her doctor, on the other hand, is simply greedy and unethical. Whichever government agency is billed for his work could appropriately sue to recover the money from him on ethical grounds.
“I have not used the Kindle myself. The reviews are mixed; ‘better but not near perfection’ is the most common tone. I have read a few eBooks on my laptop and attempted such reading on a PDA. I suspect that eventually the portability factor of eBooks will drain some market share from paper publishing, but the details remain unpredictable.”
My posted response:
Any bird, chunk of ice, or debris can damage a turbine engine, since there is no way to protect the fan face. The design requirement is containment of the damage, i.e., do no collateral damage as a consequence. In the case of Flt 1549, the design worked perfectly (to the best of my knowledge). We have always relied on the very low probability of birds taking out both engines. This is the first time I’m aware of that birds took out both engines – all thrust.
Blackwater is a product of necessity. W & Rummie failed to increase the size of the combat forces to fight the War on Islamic Fascism. We still have a seriously undersized military for the present war. And, I doubt very much that Barack has the cojones to double or more properly triple the number of infantry divisions. Thus, USG contracted with several companies including Xe to do what the military should and normally would have done in a combat zone.
Unchecked greed got us into this mess, so I’m with you; we cannot trust CEO’s to do the correct thing. Likewise, apparently, we cannot trust lenders and borrowers to do the correct thing either
Well said, pork is pork, regardless of what party does it. I railed against Republican pork the last eight years, and I shall rail some more against Democratic pork. I am not so generous with our tax dollars. If a project is important enough for Federal funds, then it is important enough for public scrutiny. We can create jobs that contribute to the common good, but local pet projects like a water park, birth control, a peanut museum, and such are quite hard to justify when there are so many other “more important” projects like maintenance of the Interstate highway system, bridges, dams, electric grid, etc.
Great perspective re: Nadya Suleman. Her emotional problems, whatever they may be, will not be improved by having a small army of children. She will have to resort to compromising the privacy and childhood of those children in order to find some support, and I dare say, the State will have to pony up as well. I really like your idea. The State should send the bill to Dr. Kamrava for his misconduct & malpractice. If it bankrupts him, so be it. He chose to ignore ethics and morality; he should pay the price. Now that I’m riled up, let’s throw his butt in prison and seize all his assets to provide for those hapless children.
Thank you for your experience with eBooks. If you ever hear of anyone using Kindle, I’d like to hear a critique.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
In May 2001, Chandra Ann Levy was murdered and her body dumped in Rock Creek Park, Washington, District of Columbia. The Levy case gained notoriety because of her involvement with Representative Gary Adrian Condit of California (who failed to get re-elected in 2002). An arrest warrant is pending for Ingmar A. Guandique – a then 19-year-old illegal Salvadoran immigrant (alien), a convicted felon and prisoner in the California prison system. Perhaps the Levy family can gain closure from the loss of their daughter. If Guandique is tried and convicted of the Levy murder, I can only hope he reaches the same conclusion as his victim – execution. My apologies to those who are offended by such bluntness.
Since we seem to be talking about murder this week . . . Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, wife of Muzzammil Hassan, 44, an immigrant and naturalized citizen of Pakistani descent, suggested to her husband that he create a television station to help improve the image of Muslims in the United States, thus began Bridges TV. It seems the couple Hassan of Orchard Park, New York (near Buffalo), did not enjoy marital bliss, and Missus Hassan filed for divorce, which provoked Mister Hassan, with his Muslim machismo offended, to behead his wife, claiming his religious right to do so. The topic exploded on a different network. From that list, we had a person chastise [us] for not understanding “their” religion and values – not being tolerant of diversity. The response struck a nerve, so I fired off my opinion.
This Grand Republic was born in the crucible of rebellion to secure certain “unalienable rights” for each and every citizen. Unfortunately, it took us 200 years to approach that ideal, but today, we are much closer as we continue the journey to achieve the ideal. Every citizen is equal regardless of the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and to a certain extent disability.
I don't give a good crap about his religion, values, attitudes and opinions, or any religion for that matter, when those attributes cause injury to another human being. Last time I checked beheading is premeditated capital murder. His wife was a citizen . . . just as you are, I am, and all the rest of us. A wife is NOT property (and hasn't been since 1920) nor subservient regardless of what their religion says. If he or anyone comes to this country and cannot live as equals and tolerate the diversity that made this country great, I urge them to leave post-haste.
He deserves exactly the same punishment he meted out to her, but our system will go much more lightly on him than I would.
This attitude that religion gives anyone the right to abuse another human being is as offensive as slavery, segregation, crime or terrorism. Such attitudes are an offense to civilized humanity.
A contributor sent along this article:
“So Far, Amateur Hour”
by Kathleen Parker
RealClearPolitics.com
Published: February 11, 2009
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_pet_goat.html
. . . and, another contributor pointed to this related article:
Failure to Rise
by Paul Krugman
New York Times
Published: February 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html
In the last administration, I found myself in the position of defending a President I respected, but with whom I had many strong disagreements. I tolerated and tried to counter the Anybody But Bush (ABB) crowd in hopes they would eventually cut him some slack. Now, it seems, I shall be cast once again into defending the President, this time against the Get Obama (GO) or Anti-Obama (AO) crowd. There is no leader on the face of the planet or who has ever lived who has not made mistakes – sometimes even big ones. For Kathleen Parker to say what she did, IMHO, tells me she possesses no concept of what leadership means and especially what presidential leadership entails. The last three Presidents, including the current citizen-occupant, have served under the extraordinarily brilliant spotlight of 24-hour news services (many), instant communications, the Internet, the blogosphere, digital & cellphone cameras, and a citizenry with unprecedented access. I fundamentally disagree with Kathleen’s parochial, partisan, political assessment. Barack has made mistakes and missteps in his early days, but in the main, I give him pretty high marks for performance, so far. Let’s give the man a chance to swim before we try to drown him.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
News from the economic front:
-- The Donald's casino group – Trump Entertainment Resorts – filed for Chapter 11 protection from its creditors – the organization’s third appearance in bankruptcy court, which most recently emerged from bankruptcy proceedings in 2005.
-- Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa appeared to be quite under the influence of some substance at the weekend Group of Seven press conference. The video is disappointing, especially at times like these. Of course, Nakagawa denied that his behavior was due to “heavy drinking” and blamed a combination of cold medicine and alcohol. He indicated that he intends to resign from his post after passage of various budget bills to take responsibility for his behavior at a press conference. The episode came after data showed Japan's economy contracted at its fastest pace in nearly 35 years in the final quarter of 2008.
-- President Barack Obama signed into law the US$787B stimulus package – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [PL 111-005]. The creation and now signing of the new law touched off quite a firestorm, some of which have been noted below. The marketplace was not impressed, despite the President’s ebullient speech, and neither were a number of Update contributors. Time shall tell the tale.
-- The Commerce Department announced home construction decreased 16.8% to a seasonally adjusted 466,000 annual rate, compared to the prior month, for a 7th straight month, and a sign of future building tumbled as high inventories and the recession sent builders into further retreat. Housing starts were 56.2% below the pace of construction in January 2008.
-- The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (OMC), citing a “continued sharp contraction in real economic activity,” indicated that it is expecting GDP to contract by up to 1.3% in 2009, a larger drop than it had forecast in October. The OMC expects unemployment to rise as high as 8.8% this year, higher than its October projection of 7.1% to 7.6%. The OMC also indicated that the housing sector was beginning to stabilize (I hope they see more than the rest of us). The Fed cut its economic outlook for 2009 and warned that the United States economy would face an “unusually gradual and prolonged” period of recovery as the country struggles to climb out of a deep global downturn.
-- The Swiss bank UBS agreed to pay US$780M in fines and immediately turn over some client names to settle a federal criminal probe into the bank's role in helping U.S. taxpayers hide bank accounts from the IRS. Gee, I wonder who might be on that list of American citizens (taxpayers supposedly)? Sure is not me!
-- Bank of America Chairman and CEO Kenneth D. ‘Ken’ Lewis was issued a subpoena by New York State Attorney General Andrew Mark Cuomo, who is investigating whether the bank withheld information from investors in violation of state law. Investigators also interviewed former Merrill CEO John Alexander Thain [365]. Cuomo’s office is trying to determine if investors were misled about the extent of Merrill’s losses in late 2008 and whether details of the bonuses to Merrill employees should have been disclosed to investors.
-- The U.S. consumer price Index (CPI) rose 0.3% in January on a seasonally adjusted basis – the first increase in six months – with core prices, which exclude food and energy, rising 0.2%. On a year-over-year basis, the CPI was flat – the lowest rate of change since August 1955 – while the core prices were up 1.7%.
-- Gold futures hit $1000 an ounce Friday morning as investors scurried for safe havens. Isn’t this economic speculation fun?
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Ah yes, the scandal that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving. During Governor Bladojevich’s impeachment process, then Senator-designate Roland Burris was asked, “Did you have any contact with the governor’s brother?” After consulting with his lawyer, he did not answer the question. Now, we learn that Burris had at least three conversations with the governor’s brother Rob, who had asked the senator-designate for political contributions to the governor. Burris took an oath before his testimony to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” What part of the “whole truth” doesn’t Burris understand? And, he expects us to trust him?
-- Senator Roland Wallace Burris of Illinois is now under investigation by the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee for potential perjury or conduct unbecoming a U.S. senator related to misstatements to the Illinois senate during the impeachment trial process for ex-governor Blago. So the worm turns . . .
We should not be surprised. We add another to the rogue’s gallery:
The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- Billionaire international financier Robert Allen Stanford, owner of Stanford Financial Group, has been charged with US$8B securities fraud, by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), after extensive investigation by the SEC, FBI + other regulatory agencies. With guys like Stanford, I hope the Federal government convicts him and seizes everything he owns to pay back those he defrauded.
-- U.S. prosecutors are investigating whether Stanford was operating a Ponzi scheme dating back to last year. FBI agents found Stanford in Virginia on Thursday and served him with court orders and documents relating to the SEC’s civil charges. Criminal charges have not yet been filed against Stanford.
“Pasco sues self-proclaimed swingers’ club”
by Peter Linton Smith
FOX News Tampa Bay (Florida)
Last Edited: Tuesday, 17 Feb 2009, 6:19 PM EST
Created On: Tuesday, 17 Feb 2009, 5:41 PM EST
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/nature_coast/pasco_swingers_club_021709
Pasco County (Florida) undercover law enforcement visited Club Elite in Port Richey three times between November 2007 and May 2008. The club opened in September 2007, and claimed to be the “Bay Area’s premiere swingers’ club.” The sheriff’s office claims to have received unspecified public complaints. I would really like to hear the basis for those complaints. Does anyone care to bet the complaints came from people who never stepped into Club Elite? We have every right to disapprove of alternative lifestyles and even our perception of what swinging entails. But, what right do we have to treat, as criminal, activities that are not in public view and are sufficiently advertised to allow citizens to decide whether they wish to attend or participate. This case does not affect me and probably does not affect anyone reading this Update. Yet, I respectfully submit to a critical audience, morality laws against non-public conduct are an offense to our most basic freedom – the freedom to choose our path to Happiness. As I have recounted before a friend’s challenge, “Show me the damage!” Whatever they were doing in Club Elite last year, who was injured or harmed? We really must get over our prudishness and grow up, to allow every citizen to live their lives as they choose.
I must offer my sincere, heartfelt kudos to the British government for denying entry into their country to Fred Phelps [190, et al] and his spawn Shirley Phelps-Roper [235, et al], who sought to export their obscene, religious-rationalized homophobia to England, ostensibly to protest the stage production of “The Laramie Project” – the story of Matthew Wayne Shepard, the 21-year-old, University of Wyoming student brutally beaten to death for being perceived as a homosexual [6.October.1998]. It is bad enough that we must tolerate the bigotry and hatred of the Phelps clan; we do not need to be contaminating other peaceful countries.
You may recall the case of British, multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy [364] and my open letter to the Kansas governor and legislature regarding a Death with Dignity law [349A]. With a new legislature and a sitting governor on the short list for a cabinet post, it is time for me to update my letter and challenge my state representatives to pass a proper Death with Dignity law. From across the pond, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge – Baron Judge, PC – indicated this week that British courts will reject prosecutions of people who assist the suicide of terminally ill patients. A judge, even the chief justice, who decides not to enforce the law is judicial fiat by inaction. At a personal level, I laud the wisdom and compassion of the Lord Chief Justice, yet I am compelled to state that Judge’s action is not the way. We must amend the law to allow citizens at their end-of-days to make decisions appropriate for them without risking the criminal prosecution of their loved ones, and for the protection of self-destructive, mentally ill citizens. Thank you Lord Chief Justice Judge, but we need new laws.
Comments and contributions from Update no.374:
“Maybe I'm being a little cynical, or paranoid, but I have a huge, huge problem with Obama saying that only government can solve this economic crisis. Government was one of the causes of our recent money problems by forcing banks to give out all these loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back. Not that the national press will ever take a Democratically-controlled Congress to task on this. No. It's only big evil corporations/banks/etc that are the problem. Not that some of them are totally blameless, but again, the mainstream press can't bring itself to hold Democrats accountable when they screw up. If this government is our only solution, then we're in big trouble. As Reagan showed in the 80's, things usually go well when government gets out of people's way and let's them be inventive and create jobs. Reagan had faith in the American people. Judging by Obama's words, he does not.
“Oh, for your poll, yes, pork spending concerns me. It is my money, after all. Another fact that Washington doesn't seem to understand. It's not your money, it's our money.
“That's my rant.”
My reply:
Yes, the President overstated a bit; government is not the only solution. Likewise, the banks and corporations are not the problem, anymore than Jesse James or Billy the Kid were the problem in the Wild, Wild West. Government has many responsibilities, one of which is public safety – ordering the public domain. At least the last eight administrations failed in that responsibility to various degrees, not least of which was failing to regulate the financial marketplace even to the extent to the existing law. I do not believe the Federal government is the only solution, but I am convinced it is a major part of it. We need the President to be honest with us, but we also need to him to use his rhetorical skills to restore confidence – the biggest faltering ingredient to my thinking.
I will put you down as a yes on the poll. And, yes, absolutely, the Treasury belongs to We, the People – NOT one political party or another. The Republicans failed to heed that reality. The Democrats are headed down a different road in the same direction.
Another contribution:
“Re: the Bennie Herrings of the world: Just a shot from the hip: Suspect any who have had to depend on law enforcement personnel in real time encounters probably have come up with the same disappointment that I have. My personal experience suggests that many if not most of our policemen are just lazy bums with a gun they are just itching to kill with. They have no interest in seeing or discovering facts on the street. With the vast number of former military trained individuals in the market place, why do we not have a hiring preference with substantial pay differentials for hiring former military experienced individual, especially those who have some combat disability or experience. It seems our policemen almost never succeed in identifying and arresting criminals that are not dragged to them and dropped at their feet by some accidental discovery forced on them.
“Re: Suleman etc.: Is this an example of where the 'Right To Privacy' is leading this nation; Bah humbug. Enough of this nonsense; The right to procreate should be viewed as an earned right.
“Again, I invite any reader to see http://www.hermanosborne.com/.”
My response:
Re: Herring & police. I can assure you . . . you are NOT alone in your less than complimentary opinion of some police. Yes, there are lazy cops, just as there are lazy people in the workplace. FYI, the company I work for just laid off 30+% of its workforce, and yet, even after than horrendous trauma, I walk the assembly floor and see workers joking and socializing during work time – not working! There are good, sincere, concerned police. We must not taint all police, just as we must not stereotype all people. I do indeed like and support your suggestion of applying veterans to police duties. The problem our youngest son – now a county deputy sheriff – experienced suggests the process will not be easy. Department chiefs have their biases and political peculiarities.
Re: Suleman. Very good question. A citizen’s fundamental right to privacy does play in this case and others like hers. My opinion: I agree; procreation should be an earned right. We have far too many negligent, complacent and abusive parents; and, we, as a society, have shown extraordinary reluctance to intervene. My personal belief hangs upon zero population growth (2.3 children per parental couple). Concomitantly, I think everyone should be able to have as many children as they wish, and, most importantly, they can support, nurture, education and raise properly . . . and by ‘properly’ I mean, productive, law-abiding, peaceful, respectful, members of society. When one or both parents must turn to the State for support, then the State has every right to define conditions of that support, up to and including elimination of procreative ability, permanently in extreme cases like the New York, addict, rotary uterus.
A different contribution:
“In reply to your poll question: The only people that do not care about the 'porky amendments’ are the people that think they are about to go to a pig-roast. Of course I care. Where’s the beef?
“There are three types of ‘spending’ in the stimulus plan that everyone is, or should be, concerned about:
“1. Spending targeted to help certain people or certain areas get money. (Pork) Not a bad thing if you're on the guest list, and some of it may in fact stimulate at least local economies.
“2. Spending targeted to advance a backlogged liberal, socialist-leaning agenda. Not necessarily all bad, but most almost certainly not geared toward ‘stimulating the economy’ and certainly not an ‘emergency.’ Every one of these items should have been thoroughly debated in the public forum and passed or failed in their own right, not 'sneaked' in under the banner of an emergency stimulus package. As Tom Daschle reportedly told Obama when he turned over his senior staff to the junior Senator: some things are too important for public debate. Puts a different face on ‘hope’ and ‘change’ doesn’t it?
“3. Spending targeted to create jobs and actually stimulate the U.S. economy.
“No one really knows the ratio of 1 and 2 above to number 3. We can list and tally the ‘billions of dollars’, but even that does not guarantee a clear picture. No one knows for sure that the stimulus plan would have worked even if there had been no pork or social agenda. Of course no one knows for sure that it will not work in its current form either. Like the ‘modified’ Schlieffen Plan of WWI, we’ll be debating whether it was a bad plan or a good plan poorly executed for years to come, and of course looking for people to blame.
“Personally, I think this is the first indication of Obama’s lack of substance. He should have made it clear to Pelosi and Reed that he would go to the mat for the plan, but only if it was ‘his’ plan. And his plan should have been much smarter: limit the pork and social agenda until after we’ve gained the confidence of the American People with a lean, effective, bi-partisan emergency spending bill. Sneak the port and social agenda in later.
“As you point out, all he did was ‘say’ the right things – again. During the first major challenge of his Presidency, he was on the sidelines in his cute cheerleader outfit and it worked - again. I know I’m taking you out of context by starting the paragraph with ‘as you point out.’ But I could not disagree with you more about ‘an unprecedented attempt to build consensus.’ When the Republican senators asked him if there was any ‘room’ to change the bill, he flatly told them no. So he was obviously just ‘talking’ again – no substance, certainly no bi-partisanship. Pelosi was crystal clear on that. Frankly, I’m a little surprised at your comment. I’m not sure how anyone can see this as anything but politics as EXTREMELY usual. There is nothing ‘unprecedented’ about any of it.
“I guess we’ll see.”
My reply:
No one knows what is going to happen, and it seems everyone can predict something. And, the Schlieffen Plan worked the second time around. We also can and will second-guess Barack, but for now, I’m inclined to give him some rope on this one. As I said, both ends of the spectrum appear to be equally pissed off, which suggests some degree of balance. At least they got some of the pork out of the final bill.
We are entitled to disagree. Our disagreement can be constructive.
Barack may be all talk. The truth on this question shall be obvious soon enough. I concede, perhaps his actions are not unprecedented . . . again, time will tell. Nonetheless, I am still inclined to give him more rope.
. . . a follow-up:
“Hear! Hear! Or is that Here! Here!? If everyone agreed it would be a pretty boring world. I don't think that's ever been a problem in America. As always, thanks for the recap of important events and thought provoking dialogue.”
Another contribution:
“Yes, I do care about them and I sent and indignant e-mail to Sen. Schumer informing him that I was offended by his arrogance.
“I cannot share your appreciation for our new President. He rammed the biggest spending bill in the history of the world down our throats and didn't even have the decency to allow those who voted on it enough time to read it. Now he's been content to wait several days before signing it. Our children and grand children will be paying off this debt for decades to come. I'm sorry, but this is not change I can believe in. Eight billion dollars for a high speed rail line from Disneyland to Las Vegas is an imperative stimulus?”
My response:
[T]hanks especially for your indignant missive to our good buddy Chuckie. His arrogance is despicable.
We can remain skeptical and critical, and we can try to help him be successful. A high speed rail line between L.A. & Las Vegas is closer to the purpose than birth control or a local water park. Time shall tell the tale.
. . . round two:
“Harry Reid's railroad might be a worthy project, but the environmental impact study will take years. Actual awarding of contracts, obtaining rights of way, etc. will take many years more. So, where's the stimulus? I will grant it's more than you get in smoking cessation programs, which will actually have a negative economic impact.
“But, my real objection is that it is the poster child for the pork in this so-called stimulus. Obama promised no ear marks, but the bill is nothing but ear marks with the Democrats filling it with every conceivable pet project. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be borrowed to pay for them and there was no debate at all. The lack of debate and transparency is appalling. The service on the debt for this and other programs to come will be a tremendous burden on taxpayers for decades to come.
“Rahm Emanuel said it best -- it's all about exploiting a crisis. Obama's rhetoric about the worst economy since the Great Depression and ‘catastrophe’ was just meant to hype fears in order to blow this bill by everyone. It's shameful, disgraceful and not what we should get from our elected officials. To say I'm disappointed with the Obama administration is an understatement. He's rolled back welfare reform under cover of this bill, too.
“Now, with his demagoguery of corporate aircraft, he's doing to General Aviation what Clinton did to the power boat industry. Wait till you see his health care programs. Hang on to your wallet. He's coming after anyone who has been successful in life with the goal of redistributing their wealth.”
. . . my response to round two:
Valid points all; and, I agree in the main.
Compared to the original House & Senate versions, the final law was less porky, but porky nonetheless. I would have lauded the President if he had made a more aggressive public statement about getting the pork out; unfortunately, I shall withhold my praise for might have been.
The President, ‘Chuckie’ Schumer, her holiness Nancy, and Tim Geithner are wrong – the USG is NOT the only solution. There is no question the market will cleanse the dead wood, the over-valued properties, the greedy people, all of the badness. As I’ve said before, the only question is how much pain are we innocents willing to suffer?
Pure, free-market, Capitalism is fantastic, near perfect, for the wealthy. Losing 50% of US$100M or more, still leaves enough to live quite comfortably. Half of what I have is not so comfortable. I’ve likened the pure free market to the Wild, Wild West – survival of fittest – OK as long as I’m the quickest gun & most ruthless. Pure Communism is nirvana or Utopia for the unwashed masses, but hardly a Pantheon of ambition, drive, innovation and advancement. As with the political spectrum – uber-Left to uber-Right – the economic spectrum is quite similar. It seems to me the moderate balance is a much more stable condition than either extreme. Also, we bear witness to what unbridled greedy can do. If I’m wealthy and can absorb the losses, then I can say, “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.” The ARRP, TARP, et cetera, is an attempt to lessen the pain of the masses, but such government spending will also mask the dead wood, greed, mistakes and revaluation – obviously not a good thing.
Just as W & Hank gave us a ‘trust me’ on the first shot, Barack & Tim are giving us another dose of ‘trust me’ – not a particular comfortable condition, either. I hope Tim is a man of his word, and the USG will back out of the market when things stabilize. We haven’t yet approached regulation, but its coming. And, as is so often the case, Congress will undoubtedly overreact as it did with the Church Committee. C’est la vie.
Congress has shown no comprehension whatsoever about efficiency amplification of business aviation – not a surprise – since they know so little about finance, intelligence, or warfighting. The industry is fighting back, but the impact has already been felt, and I suspect the recovery of our business will take much longer as a consequence. C’est la guerre.
This too shall pass.
A different contribution thread:
“As a flaming Conserberal, I am outraged but not at all surprised by the pork in the package, by the ill-advised and doomed ‘stymulus’ folly itself, and by the Senator's remarks. All are typical of Democrats and are well imitated by the current Repandercrats. Again I say, the only partial solution is to correct the grave but understandable oversight of our comparatively less ambitious founding fathers in crafting the constitution, who other than perhaps Thomas Jefferson never imagined career politicians and political dynasties: amend the wonderful document to limit terms. The obscene election career path and the associated seniority system is an abomination that continues to discourage many true patriots from taking an unselfish break from productive careers (as distinguished from most of the members of congress) to serve the country with their best good faith efforts to do what is right rather than what will get them re-elected. Term limits would not eliminate those few in Congress who are true patriots, and it would make their job easier and our country stronger.
“We somehow learned from FDR worship and limited presidential terms. When will we be wise and brave enough to do this for Congress? I admit that I'm afraid that no such reform is possible, given the present federally dependent state of our electorate. ‘It was a great country while it lasted...’”
My reply:
I am not so ready to sell Barack down the river just yet. We shall see.
FDR made his share of mistakes, just as W made his, and Barack will make his. But, so much of this is about attitude and confidence. I am still employed and too young to retire; in fact, even if I was ready to retire, I am not sure the economic uncertainty would make that action a wise choice at present. We have not touched the bottom of this one, yet, IMHO. Nonetheless, this is the worst recession in my lifetime, and we have a way to go for recovery.
Term limits . . . yea verily! I’ve been in favor of term limits for all elected public officials. Congressional term limits will take a constitutional amendment, since there is no way on God’s little green Earth Congress will even propose such a law. Renewal in Congress would be a positive, refreshing move.
. . . a different contribution to the same thread:
“(1) ‘a flaming Conserberal’ - wonderful expression - thanks.
“(2) I am unfamiliar with your allusions concerning Schumer. Could you elaborate? I am not a Schumer apologist but am a follower of his career because I met him 40 years ago almost to the day - he ran a successful "anti-machine" slate in the Harvard-Radcliff Young Democrats in 1968-9; he ran for pres, Cameron Kerry (John's kid brother) ran for VP, I ran for treasurer and David Williams (class of 1972, also office manager of Boston McCarthy for Pres). Schumer told Williams and me our job was to ‘tell him what to do;’ he later got a Rhodes Scholarship and the rest is history. So I'm interested in what he does. Don't think he knows me from Adam any more.
“(3) I disagree with you about term limits. Either people deserve to be in office or they don't, and it's up to the voters to decide. I've seen some really top people ‘termed out’ who should have stayed a lot longer. I've also seen people in office beyond their time, but this is something for the voters to decide. One of the problems I saw in California is that after term limits were instituted for the Legislature, the ‘experts’ on how things were su[posed to be in Sacramento became not the senior legislators, because there weren't any more, but the senior lobbyists. There are no term limits for lobbyists. Jesse Unruh was the speaker of the California Assembly for MANY years, and he had a rough-and-tumble semi-crooked reputation, but he had a saying about the lobbyists (please excuse the language, but that's the way he was): ‘If you can't fuck their women, drink their booze, take their money and vote against them, you don't belong in politics.’ So he set up a system in which crooked money coming into the California Assembly was always funneled through his office and the members of the Assembly were beholden to him rather than to the lobbyists, against women he was strong enough that he could shield the Assembly from their worst influences. That system held for many years after Unruh left the Assembly, which consequently was relatively immune to dirty money, but since tem limits came in there has been no one of the stature to be able to stand up against the senior lobbyists. That in California at least was the intended ‘hidden agenda’ of the advocates of term limits. So think about it.
“(4) Subject of pork. Dunno whether you knew, but the Senate Appropriations Committee put inter alia $50 billion in loan guarantees for construction of nuclear and coal-fired power plants into the stimulus bill. Reportedly it was to get Republican votes in the Senate, but hold on, this isn't a rant against Republicans, it's a rant against hypocrites. Of course the money had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. I knew about the responses of 5 major ‘progressive’ groups capable collectively of activating close to 10 million supporters at the push of a button: Friends of he Earth [FOE] (which had discovered the covertly-added provision and launched a high-visibility Internet and TV-ad campaign to get it out), Physicians for Social Responsibility [PSR] (which followed FOE's lead but on a lesser scale), the Sierra Club (now 1,300,000 strong, which did nothing whatsoever except mislead its followers about the "green-ness" of the Senate bill), True Majority (a recently-surfaced liberal Internet organization, about 600,000 strong, which did ditto) and Move-On (about 5 million strong, a liberal Internet organization founded by billionaire George Soros with the intent of nominating a Democrat voicing ‘change,’ which also did ditto) When I learned about what the latter three were NOT doing, I went ballistic and got everyone I could find to protest. At one point PSR's Washington lobbyist told me her assessment, which incidentally I shared, of why those three organizations did nothing – ‘They're Democrats.’ Finally the Sierra Club put out a press release calculated to accomplish nothing whatsoever except I think to give it cover with both the proponents and the opponents of the $50billion. The press release went unnoticed and was too late to have any influence on the conference committee (which removed the $50b from the bill) but (with a heading congratulating the Senate for passing the bill (with the $50b still in) said the Club ‘fully supports’ the bill as passed by the Senate but asks the conference committee to ‘address’ the issue of the $50b. I spread the above story hither and yon all over the Internet as far as I could, and was given kudos by Friends of the Earth. If I had one friend left at the upper levels of the Sierra Club, I don't any longer.”
. . . my reply to the above contribution:
Chuckie Schumer’s statement of the floor of the Senate was the source of [the] comment; the quote is available at the blog noted above. From your association with Chuckie, I think we could all benefit from your perspective of his statement.
Congressional term limits: I’m with [the advocate]. Prima facie, and idealistically, congressional service should be solely up to constituents and should be about national service. Yet, I doubt anyone familiar with Jesse Unruh has fond memories of the classic corrupt politician . . . well, except those who gained from his largesse with money that belonged to the residents of California. No system should be dependent on any person. Human beings are flawed, vulnerable creatures, enormously susceptible to the corruption of power, which is why the Framers tried mightily to put in place checks & balances, to reduce the influence of any one person. My primary reason for my advocacy of term limits is the incestuous and corrupting influence of money. Members of Congress earmark & pork up legislation with spending that is largely hidden and designed to benefit a very narrow group of cronies. If spending for any project had to survive the intended legislative process and prove its national, proper benefit to We, the People, I dare say we would have far less spending. The longer flawed people serve in Congress, the more they become addicted to spending the People’s money to their political benefit and garner favor for more obscene spending. Am I cynical about our Federal sugar-daddy? Yes, without qualification or equivocation. My anger is pointed at both political parties. I condemn them both. The only difference between the two parties is their pet projects & bevy of cronies with their hands out. Term limits seems like the only way to slow down the obscene spending in Congress.
A comment from the blog:
“I'm very surprised that airplane engines are tested on birds half the size of Canada geese. Canada geese are so plentiful as to be a nuisance here in Ohio. Who decided that they were no danger to aircraft?
“‘A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.’ Blackwater by some other name still smells.
“I follow the RV industry in a small way. In these times, the RV industry has essentially crashed. That industry centers on Elkhart, Indiana; hence the very high unemployment rate there.
“‘The marketplace will sort things out’ asks me to trust the bonus babies who got us into this. No thanks.
“I do share your resistance to panic, though. A sound percentage of us do indeed still have jobs, at least for this day. Those who don't have become a large enough group to bring me concern, but not panic.
“As you and I have discussed elsewhere, I believe tax cuts combined with a hatred of regulation have put us into this mess; further tax cuts amount to throwing good money after bad unless there's something very different about this round.
“Poll question: Yes, I believe that the stimulus bill carries considerable pork. No, it doesn't bother me any more than the Republican pork did, so long as there’s some chance of creating jobs building people's pet projects and working on them.
“I share your distaste for the political posturing. However, I dislike the Republican Party enough that I won’t miss them if they manage to eliminate themselves from the scene by hanging on to the attitudes that cost them the election.
“Regardless of party or posture, I’ll believe that Washington has achieved transparency when I see it make the party in power uncomfortable.
“I do not know enough of Judd Gregg to know whether he acted under pressure from his party or carried out some grudge of his own.
“I cannot account for Nadya Suleman without bringing some form of mental illness into the picture. No sane person would do that to fourteen innocent children. Her doctor, on the other hand, is simply greedy and unethical. Whichever government agency is billed for his work could appropriately sue to recover the money from him on ethical grounds.
“I have not used the Kindle myself. The reviews are mixed; ‘better but not near perfection’ is the most common tone. I have read a few eBooks on my laptop and attempted such reading on a PDA. I suspect that eventually the portability factor of eBooks will drain some market share from paper publishing, but the details remain unpredictable.”
My posted response:
Any bird, chunk of ice, or debris can damage a turbine engine, since there is no way to protect the fan face. The design requirement is containment of the damage, i.e., do no collateral damage as a consequence. In the case of Flt 1549, the design worked perfectly (to the best of my knowledge). We have always relied on the very low probability of birds taking out both engines. This is the first time I’m aware of that birds took out both engines – all thrust.
Blackwater is a product of necessity. W & Rummie failed to increase the size of the combat forces to fight the War on Islamic Fascism. We still have a seriously undersized military for the present war. And, I doubt very much that Barack has the cojones to double or more properly triple the number of infantry divisions. Thus, USG contracted with several companies including Xe to do what the military should and normally would have done in a combat zone.
Unchecked greed got us into this mess, so I’m with you; we cannot trust CEO’s to do the correct thing. Likewise, apparently, we cannot trust lenders and borrowers to do the correct thing either
Well said, pork is pork, regardless of what party does it. I railed against Republican pork the last eight years, and I shall rail some more against Democratic pork. I am not so generous with our tax dollars. If a project is important enough for Federal funds, then it is important enough for public scrutiny. We can create jobs that contribute to the common good, but local pet projects like a water park, birth control, a peanut museum, and such are quite hard to justify when there are so many other “more important” projects like maintenance of the Interstate highway system, bridges, dams, electric grid, etc.
Great perspective re: Nadya Suleman. Her emotional problems, whatever they may be, will not be improved by having a small army of children. She will have to resort to compromising the privacy and childhood of those children in order to find some support, and I dare say, the State will have to pony up as well. I really like your idea. The State should send the bill to Dr. Kamrava for his misconduct & malpractice. If it bankrupts him, so be it. He chose to ignore ethics and morality; he should pay the price. Now that I’m riled up, let’s throw his butt in prison and seize all his assets to provide for those hapless children.
Thank you for your experience with eBooks. If you ever hear of anyone using Kindle, I’d like to hear a critique.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment