After listening to John Gambling on WOR radio this morning, my wife suggested I read an Op-Ed opinion column in today's New York Post, which Gambling quoted excerpts from. It was written by, Leon G. Cooperman, C.F.A. Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Omega Advisors, Inc., a $3.5 billion hedge fund based in New York City.
The reason the column caught her attention was that the author voiced several opinions quite similar to my own regarding the president. And while I found it quite interesting throughout, the last paragraphs pretty much sum up the author's thoughts.
He writes: "When you were a community organizer in Chicago, you learned the art of waging a guerrilla campaign against a far superior force. But you’ve graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force. You might do well at this point to eschew the polarizing vernacular of political militancy and become the transcendent leader you were elected to be.
You are likely to be far more effective, and history is likely to treat you far more kindly for it."
As for myself, I've written about the president's background in "community organizing" many times in prior blog's myself. Except I used somewhat different vernacular, calling him a baseball bat wielding thug ala typical Chicago political hacks. And when the author states that "you’ve graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force," I somewhat disagree, because I don't think the president's graduated at all.
While it's true that the president has arrived in a position that's light years above his political origins, I don't think he's grown an iota of an inch in stature, capability or maturity and is still the same old empty suit, except that the fabric's now much more expensive.
And that's where the author perhaps gave the president too much credit, because I think he made an over-assumption based on his own success. Coming from a home where his father was a plumber in the South Bronx who emigrated with his wife from Poland, the author was the first family member to earn a college degree. He credits utilizing a good public education system, attending PS 75, Morris High School and Hunter College (all in The Bronx, NY) and his parents’ constant prodding as the foundation for his later business and personal success.
So, here we have a guy (the author) who grew within the system by taking advantage of the opportunities afforded him (such as free education,) then went out and became a success in a twenty-five year career with Goldman Sachs. He later opened his own firm, which today manages $3.5 billion in assets. He also mentions that he gives back to the community in appreciation of what's been afforded him on a regular basis, although he mentioned no specifics.
As far as the president's concerned though, I don't get the sense that he feels that anyone who has less should strive to fend for themselves, as did the article's author, but instead should resent those who succeed and demand their support, particularly through increased taxes.
But, perhaps, it's all a matter of perspective as far as the author's concerned and maybe he's assuming everyone works as hard as he does to make a success of themselves. And because he accepts hard work and dedication as givens in all of us, maybe he doesn't realize that many people don't even try at all to succeed and gladly take all they can from those who do. And the one's who do the very least and take the very most all seem to be politicians, especially the one at the top of the heap.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/29/2011
Read an article on Fox News this morning highlighting many quips, comments and retorts Barney Frank made over the years. According to the author, Chad Pergram, Frank's intelligence and facile wit helped separate him from his colleagues, making him a unique character among them and his image was such that he needed only one name: Barney. Yet, everyone knew who he was.
To prove his point the author's first illustration of Frank's glibness came at a hostile town hall meeting about health care reform in August, 2009. A woman in the audience held up a picture of President Obama depicted as Adolph Hitler, and challenged Frank by asking, "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported?"
Frank responded "in kind" according to the author by asking, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" His response drew both cheers and jeers from the audience, and then he went on: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table!"
Now from my perspective, after reading the exchange, the article's author may think Frank's glib or clever, or perhaps quite amusing, but to me he's a political hack dodging a question from a citizen with an opposing opinion. And I believe it's also much of the story of Frank's political life. He, and many others like him, take iron clad positions on any number of issues and then cut off discussion once their minds made up.
As for me, I have no problem with politicos lining up on any side of an issue they choose, and really don't care about their opinions because I have my own. But, I don't believe disrespecting or insulting dissenters is particularly clever, in fact it's what third graders do in school yards. However, most of those kids eventually grow up.
So I guess we're back to the same old situation where a guy in Congress who has a tenth of a brain is light years smarter than the rest of the members. And the article I highlighted today just provides further confirmation that the vast majority of those holding office (and those who report on them) are dumber than stones.
That's it for today folks.Adios
To prove his point the author's first illustration of Frank's glibness came at a hostile town hall meeting about health care reform in August, 2009. A woman in the audience held up a picture of President Obama depicted as Adolph Hitler, and challenged Frank by asking, "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported?"
Frank responded "in kind" according to the author by asking, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" His response drew both cheers and jeers from the audience, and then he went on: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table!"
Now from my perspective, after reading the exchange, the article's author may think Frank's glib or clever, or perhaps quite amusing, but to me he's a political hack dodging a question from a citizen with an opposing opinion. And I believe it's also much of the story of Frank's political life. He, and many others like him, take iron clad positions on any number of issues and then cut off discussion once their minds made up.
As for me, I have no problem with politicos lining up on any side of an issue they choose, and really don't care about their opinions because I have my own. But, I don't believe disrespecting or insulting dissenters is particularly clever, in fact it's what third graders do in school yards. However, most of those kids eventually grow up.
So I guess we're back to the same old situation where a guy in Congress who has a tenth of a brain is light years smarter than the rest of the members. And the article I highlighted today just provides further confirmation that the vast majority of those holding office (and those who report on them) are dumber than stones.
That's it for today folks.Adios
Monday, November 28, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/28/2011
Gee Whiz! Today, Barney Frank who's been in Congress since 1980, said today he's not running for re-election in 2012. His reason is "redistricting has made it too strenuous to continue to campaign."
So, maybe he's the first in what hopefully be a long line of others who see the handwriting on the wall, and rather than lose in a landslide next year, bow out gracefully now. I'd list some of the legislation he's responsible for that's causing our economy to tank, but there's not enough room in this blog to even start typing out the horror show he's either directly or with others created.
But he's another intellectual elitist with a first class educational pedigree who knows what's best for businesspeole and the economy although he's never really had a real job in his life. In fact, if you let he and Dodd alone together long enough regarding financial legislation,the U.S would soon be the largest non-functional parking lot in the world.
So, obviously, I'm not saddened by his coming departure next year but would feel even better if he gave us all a holiday gift and simply left office tomorrow.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
So, maybe he's the first in what hopefully be a long line of others who see the handwriting on the wall, and rather than lose in a landslide next year, bow out gracefully now. I'd list some of the legislation he's responsible for that's causing our economy to tank, but there's not enough room in this blog to even start typing out the horror show he's either directly or with others created.
But he's another intellectual elitist with a first class educational pedigree who knows what's best for businesspeole and the economy although he's never really had a real job in his life. In fact, if you let he and Dodd alone together long enough regarding financial legislation,the U.S would soon be the largest non-functional parking lot in the world.
So, obviously, I'm not saddened by his coming departure next year but would feel even better if he gave us all a holiday gift and simply left office tomorrow.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 27, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/27/2011
Still nothing much in the news, but I caught a few minutes of Ed Wallace's show on Fox. And he must read this blog too, because the subect his panel of experts was discussing was the Gingrich/Bachmann flap over illegal immigration.
Kristol said, however the debate winds up, he doubts millions of illegals will ever be deported because they've built lives here, have homes, familys, etc. since they've arrived, which is pretty much in line with the amnesty Gingrich wants to give them.
What interested me though, was not so much the illegals themselves, because I'm sure there are plenty of upstanding folks in their ranks just like any other group in society. But my focus is on the law. Because either we have laws or we don't, and either people obey them at will or not. But, if diobedienece is alright in this case, why not in any other way you can think of?
So, I don't think illegals should be deported because of who the folks are, I think anyone who breaks laws should be subject to whatever consequences are involved. And if that's not the case, but instead people can choose which laws they want to obey, tomorrow I'm parking my car on the sidewalk because it's closer to the front of my favorite store.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Kristol said, however the debate winds up, he doubts millions of illegals will ever be deported because they've built lives here, have homes, familys, etc. since they've arrived, which is pretty much in line with the amnesty Gingrich wants to give them.
What interested me though, was not so much the illegals themselves, because I'm sure there are plenty of upstanding folks in their ranks just like any other group in society. But my focus is on the law. Because either we have laws or we don't, and either people obey them at will or not. But, if diobedienece is alright in this case, why not in any other way you can think of?
So, I don't think illegals should be deported because of who the folks are, I think anyone who breaks laws should be subject to whatever consequences are involved. And if that's not the case, but instead people can choose which laws they want to obey, tomorrow I'm parking my car on the sidewalk because it's closer to the front of my favorite store.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 26, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/26/2011
I think it's pretty amazing that when the holidays arrive, it seems that either nothing important happens anywhere, or nobody cares because they've all got better things to do.
And as I type this, an idea occurred to me. Why not have more holidays declared, perhaps once or twice a week. That way folks would be otherwise occupied, leave each other alone, and the world would be better for it. Simply having Congress shut down makes life far simpler and worthwhile.
But since there's not much going on, I really had to scrounge around to find something to blog about. And what I found isn't really important, but does confirm one of my earlier entry's this week in which I said now that Gingrich's topping some polls I didn't think it would be long before competitors began digging up his less than stellar past.
And just today, Michelle Bachmann stood by her claim that he supports "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, digging up a letter the former House speaker signed nearly eight years ago, after he said she was "misrepresenting."
Gingrich, who said at a Republican presidential primary debate that the U.S. should afford some illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status, has now "clarified" that he only wants to open that door for some illegal immigrants who have been in the country 25 years or more.
In an interview with Fox News, Bachmann cited a 2004 letter Gingrich co-authored supporting then-President George W. Bush's immigration plan. The letter applauded Bush's proposed guest-worker program, while endorsing "paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America." The letter, published in The Wall Street Journal, praised Bush for recognizing that "those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave."
Now, I really haven't much interest in what either Bachmann or Gingrich have to say about anything, ever. And frankly, I doubt either either one will win any kind of nomination. My only point in the matter is that the situation is evidence of my original thought, that sooner or later Gingrich's history will be exposed and broadcast, and he'll be shown as the two-bit phony loudmouth political hack he is.
In the meantime though, he'll get another fifteen minutes and Bachmann will keep milking hers. And as for me I'll just sit here waiting for something important to happen somewhere else because neither of today's subjects are worth the keystrokes.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
And as I type this, an idea occurred to me. Why not have more holidays declared, perhaps once or twice a week. That way folks would be otherwise occupied, leave each other alone, and the world would be better for it. Simply having Congress shut down makes life far simpler and worthwhile.
But since there's not much going on, I really had to scrounge around to find something to blog about. And what I found isn't really important, but does confirm one of my earlier entry's this week in which I said now that Gingrich's topping some polls I didn't think it would be long before competitors began digging up his less than stellar past.
And just today, Michelle Bachmann stood by her claim that he supports "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, digging up a letter the former House speaker signed nearly eight years ago, after he said she was "misrepresenting."
Gingrich, who said at a Republican presidential primary debate that the U.S. should afford some illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status, has now "clarified" that he only wants to open that door for some illegal immigrants who have been in the country 25 years or more.
In an interview with Fox News, Bachmann cited a 2004 letter Gingrich co-authored supporting then-President George W. Bush's immigration plan. The letter applauded Bush's proposed guest-worker program, while endorsing "paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America." The letter, published in The Wall Street Journal, praised Bush for recognizing that "those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave."
Now, I really haven't much interest in what either Bachmann or Gingrich have to say about anything, ever. And frankly, I doubt either either one will win any kind of nomination. My only point in the matter is that the situation is evidence of my original thought, that sooner or later Gingrich's history will be exposed and broadcast, and he'll be shown as the two-bit phony loudmouth political hack he is.
In the meantime though, he'll get another fifteen minutes and Bachmann will keep milking hers. And as for me I'll just sit here waiting for something important to happen somewhere else because neither of today's subjects are worth the keystrokes.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, November 25, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/25/2011
I haven't come across the reason yet, but apparently there was some kind of glitch in the protesters plan to block folks from entering major retailer's stores today.
According to Fox News, by early afternoon on Black Friday some retailers are already calling this year one of the best in recent history. Some 152 million shoppers are expected to visit stores seemingly unfazed by the slumped economy.
Additionally, unless I missed it, the protesters had no plan to disrupt on-line sales which are expected to produce another promising season this year, up 39% from last year. Mobile traffic, the number of consumers using a mobile device to visit a retailer’s site, reached a high of 15.2%, up 6.45% year-over-year, while the number of people mobile shopping grew to 11.09%, almost triple from 2010.
IBM said, “Thanksgiving 2011 proved to be a banner shopping day for online retailers.”
So I guess the protesters don't have a lot of technology in their tents, or hand-held devices. And from what I've seen, most of their hand-held devices are signs containing considerable numbers of mis-spelled words and threats to various sectors of society. However, most of the folks that are in those sectors may have missed the admonitions coming from the Wall Street anti-everything squad because they were either out buying stuff from retailers in person, or downloading deals on the net.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to Fox News, by early afternoon on Black Friday some retailers are already calling this year one of the best in recent history. Some 152 million shoppers are expected to visit stores seemingly unfazed by the slumped economy.
Additionally, unless I missed it, the protesters had no plan to disrupt on-line sales which are expected to produce another promising season this year, up 39% from last year. Mobile traffic, the number of consumers using a mobile device to visit a retailer’s site, reached a high of 15.2%, up 6.45% year-over-year, while the number of people mobile shopping grew to 11.09%, almost triple from 2010.
IBM said, “Thanksgiving 2011 proved to be a banner shopping day for online retailers.”
So I guess the protesters don't have a lot of technology in their tents, or hand-held devices. And from what I've seen, most of their hand-held devices are signs containing considerable numbers of mis-spelled words and threats to various sectors of society. However, most of the folks that are in those sectors may have missed the admonitions coming from the Wall Street anti-everything squad because they were either out buying stuff from retailers in person, or downloading deals on the net.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, November 24, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/24/2011
To provide reassurance that those protesting on Wall Street are clueless as to how the U.S. economy works they now have a new campaign idea called "Occupy Black Friday."
According to Fox News, their objective is to enlist supporters to boycott just about every major retailer, and quite a few mid-sized ones, the day after Thanksgiving. They're urging folks to demonstrate against the top retail stores,including everything from Wal-Mart to Target to Dick's Sporting Goods and Dollar Tree.
The protesters say "The idea is simple, hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts, their profits," and state that Black Friday is the "one day where the mega-corporations blatantly dictate our actions."
So, if I understand their position, protesters are saying that major retailers have somehow gained control over the minds of the public and are forcing us to line up at their stores whether we choose to or not. And if that's really true, I'm really impressed because I thought it was the price wars, special sales offers and huge selections of merchandise that brought most folks in. However, none of that seems to matter now, because that's not what does it...the answer's actually mass hypnotism.
Consequently, if I was a protester and had nothing at all to do with my time, I'd do some really intensive research and find out how all this mass hypnosis works. And then I'd apply it to get myself hired, whether an employer wanted me or not. And that way, I'd probably be still wasting time and taking up space, but at least I'd be making a couple of bucks.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to Fox News, their objective is to enlist supporters to boycott just about every major retailer, and quite a few mid-sized ones, the day after Thanksgiving. They're urging folks to demonstrate against the top retail stores,including everything from Wal-Mart to Target to Dick's Sporting Goods and Dollar Tree.
The protesters say "The idea is simple, hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts, their profits," and state that Black Friday is the "one day where the mega-corporations blatantly dictate our actions."
So, if I understand their position, protesters are saying that major retailers have somehow gained control over the minds of the public and are forcing us to line up at their stores whether we choose to or not. And if that's really true, I'm really impressed because I thought it was the price wars, special sales offers and huge selections of merchandise that brought most folks in. However, none of that seems to matter now, because that's not what does it...the answer's actually mass hypnotism.
Consequently, if I was a protester and had nothing at all to do with my time, I'd do some really intensive research and find out how all this mass hypnosis works. And then I'd apply it to get myself hired, whether an employer wanted me or not. And that way, I'd probably be still wasting time and taking up space, but at least I'd be making a couple of bucks.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/23/2011
Spent another day or so getting my new computer system up to speed, and now there's a very bright light at the end of the tunnel which I really don't think is another train.
But I just took a break to scan the web and news stations only to find out that everything's pretty much the same. In last night's debated, according to pundits, Newt did very well, especially by taking a harder line on illegals. And that should do him well with the conservative base. What's more he's jumped to the top of several important polls.
The only problem he has is, however, that he's got more baggage than a fully loaded 757 and nobody's really taken any hard shots at him yet, either in the press or from rival candidates. So, my gut feel is that things are quite likely to change. Because he's got a couple of little problems that are hard to overcome. He's arrogant, narrow minded and extremely impressed with himself which is why, I guess, he thinks he can talk his way out of anything.
But, this guy isn't Bill Clinton, doesn't have the same kind of style and isn't capable of patting you on the back and telling you jokes while he's picking your pocket, robbing you blind and hustling your wife. Consequently, I really think Gingrich's wheels will fall off fairly soon.
Then again, it's almost Thanksgiving and most of us will get a couple of days of rest and relaxation, except for those who attend family gatherings where some of the folks carry guns. And maybe this year I'll fulfill a thought I've had for years which entails renting a plane and flying over DC dropping gravy, because if there aren't more turkeys in that town than anywhere else on earth...I'd like to know where that other place is.
That's it for today folks.
Happy Thanksgiving
Adios
But I just took a break to scan the web and news stations only to find out that everything's pretty much the same. In last night's debated, according to pundits, Newt did very well, especially by taking a harder line on illegals. And that should do him well with the conservative base. What's more he's jumped to the top of several important polls.
The only problem he has is, however, that he's got more baggage than a fully loaded 757 and nobody's really taken any hard shots at him yet, either in the press or from rival candidates. So, my gut feel is that things are quite likely to change. Because he's got a couple of little problems that are hard to overcome. He's arrogant, narrow minded and extremely impressed with himself which is why, I guess, he thinks he can talk his way out of anything.
But, this guy isn't Bill Clinton, doesn't have the same kind of style and isn't capable of patting you on the back and telling you jokes while he's picking your pocket, robbing you blind and hustling your wife. Consequently, I really think Gingrich's wheels will fall off fairly soon.
Then again, it's almost Thanksgiving and most of us will get a couple of days of rest and relaxation, except for those who attend family gatherings where some of the folks carry guns. And maybe this year I'll fulfill a thought I've had for years which entails renting a plane and flying over DC dropping gravy, because if there aren't more turkeys in that town than anywhere else on earth...I'd like to know where that other place is.
That's it for today folks.
Happy Thanksgiving
Adios
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/22/2011
'Nother day, but made huge progress. One more major program to transfer to my new computer system and I'll be a happy camper.
But it seems that I'm not the only one who's hasn't gotten anything productive done in the past few days, however, I've got an excuse...I had no functioning computer system. Congress on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do almost all of the time, has thousands of folks helping them and still accomplishes zero.
Because now it looks like the Stupid..oops, did I type "Stupid," I meant to type "Super" Committee. Sorry. But anyway, it looks like that bunch of clowns on the committee, whatever you choose to call it will come to no agreement. And the reasons for its failure are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably political.
So once again we have a group of folks who care nothing about what's good for their country, they only care about their constituents and their own re-elections. So, if the U.S. can't pay its bills nor balance its budget it doesn't matter to them at all.
Yet, as I keep mentioning more and more often, I think they've gone too far this time around, and too many folks are very upset by how this committee's acted to date. Which means that fortunately for us all, the huge deficit might be around for longer than we all hoped, but these congressfolks aren't going to stay around at all thanks to all of us voters.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
But it seems that I'm not the only one who's hasn't gotten anything productive done in the past few days, however, I've got an excuse...I had no functioning computer system. Congress on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do almost all of the time, has thousands of folks helping them and still accomplishes zero.
Because now it looks like the Stupid..oops, did I type "Stupid," I meant to type "Super" Committee. Sorry. But anyway, it looks like that bunch of clowns on the committee, whatever you choose to call it will come to no agreement. And the reasons for its failure are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably political.
So once again we have a group of folks who care nothing about what's good for their country, they only care about their constituents and their own re-elections. So, if the U.S. can't pay its bills nor balance its budget it doesn't matter to them at all.
Yet, as I keep mentioning more and more often, I think they've gone too far this time around, and too many folks are very upset by how this committee's acted to date. Which means that fortunately for us all, the huge deficit might be around for longer than we all hoped, but these congressfolks aren't going to stay around at all thanks to all of us voters.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, November 21, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/21/2011
As mentioned yesterday, I'm in the process of setting up a new computer system and am finding out that not only haven't things improved regarding software upgrades, many of the program transfers have gotten worse.
It seems to me that part of the problem is that simple programs have grown into huge behemoths over time. And while today's computer storage capacities are immense, and CPU's process faster, there's so much data in downloads and on disks it increases the chances of problems and conflicts immeasurably.
But, as always, I've got to hand it to the marketeers in the computer business. Because as sure as I'm sitting here, buried in wires, disks, keyboards, mice, jotted notes and contact numbers for vendors, they've all got answers to every one of my problems. The only thing is that what they tell you for free isn't really very much, but, if I want to spend a few more bucks, they've got all the answers I'll ever need.
So, in a nutshell, what's really needed to successfully upgrade a system, is a chart with the phone numbers of your hardware and software vendors, and just to be sure you get exactly what you need, memorize your attorney's direct dial access.
That's it for today6 folks.
Adios
It seems to me that part of the problem is that simple programs have grown into huge behemoths over time. And while today's computer storage capacities are immense, and CPU's process faster, there's so much data in downloads and on disks it increases the chances of problems and conflicts immeasurably.
But, as always, I've got to hand it to the marketeers in the computer business. Because as sure as I'm sitting here, buried in wires, disks, keyboards, mice, jotted notes and contact numbers for vendors, they've all got answers to every one of my problems. The only thing is that what they tell you for free isn't really very much, but, if I want to spend a few more bucks, they've got all the answers I'll ever need.
So, in a nutshell, what's really needed to successfully upgrade a system, is a chart with the phone numbers of your hardware and software vendors, and just to be sure you get exactly what you need, memorize your attorney's direct dial access.
That's it for today6 folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 20, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/20/2011
Today's entry has got to be quick, and frankly, I almost forgot to log in because I just received a new computer and upgraded to Windows 7. I've been using Microsoft since the original DOS, have installed several versions of Windows over the years, and one thing remains consistent, I've never had a smooth upgrade yet, including this one.
And despite how many times I've done this, and how much Microsoft promotes that it's now easier than ever to upgrade, either I'm totally inept or they're not being honest. For, example, I thought I was smarter by now and called them before I purchased. I even contacted some of my most important software vendors. Everyone said it's a snap, all I have to do is click on an icon and easily transfer data.
Well, now it's twenty-four hours since my system arrived, and a couple of programs actually function. However, I've got ten more that don't and can't even switch over my email. Because everyone I spoke to in advance forgot to tell me that 7's a 64 bit program and doesn't communicate with anything that isn't...which happens to be all my stuff.
So, I'm going to stop typing now and keep on calling technicians and software vendors and maybe by midweek I'll have got this nightmare finished. And who knows, maybe this entry will actually post.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
And despite how many times I've done this, and how much Microsoft promotes that it's now easier than ever to upgrade, either I'm totally inept or they're not being honest. For, example, I thought I was smarter by now and called them before I purchased. I even contacted some of my most important software vendors. Everyone said it's a snap, all I have to do is click on an icon and easily transfer data.
Well, now it's twenty-four hours since my system arrived, and a couple of programs actually function. However, I've got ten more that don't and can't even switch over my email. Because everyone I spoke to in advance forgot to tell me that 7's a 64 bit program and doesn't communicate with anything that isn't...which happens to be all my stuff.
So, I'm going to stop typing now and keep on calling technicians and software vendors and maybe by midweek I'll have got this nightmare finished. And who knows, maybe this entry will actually post.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 19, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/19/2011
For most of my life, I've spent considerable time playing various sports. Baseball, football, competitive swimming and diving, years and years of golf (if you consider it a sport, because I'm not sure I do.) But overall I think I played more basketball than any of the others.
Aside from playing hoops as often as possible, I also followed the pro's, rooting avidly for the NY Knicks. To this day I still believe their 1970 NBA championship team was the brightest group of people to ever take the court, and there's not an intellectual slouch in the bunch.
Forward, "Dollar" Bill Bradley, went on to the U.S. Senate from New Jersey. Center, Willis Reed, became the General Manager & Vice President of Basketball Operations for the New Jersey Nets. Another forward, Dave DeBusschere, wound up as Commissioner of the American Basketball Association. Guard, Earl "The Pearl" Monroe, later served as a commentator for Madison Square Garden and as commissioner of the New Jersey Urban Development Corporation.
Another forward, Jerry Lucas, at retirement ranked fourth all-time in rebounds per game to Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Bob Pettit. After basketball, he took up a role as an educator and memory expert writing books and producing television programs on the subject. Three of his best sellers are, The Memory Book, co-written with Harry Lorayne, Ready, Set, Remember, the basis of many of his other writings, and Remember the Word, for memorizing portions of the Bible. His educational programs on image-based memory development are now being used in some Ohio school systems.
Then we have, Dick Barnett, another guard, who holds a PhD in education from Fordham University and is now retired from teaching Sports Management at St. John's University in New York. One more who played on that team was, Phil Jackson, who later became head coach of the Chicago Bulls, 1989 through 1998, winning six NBA titles (with a little help from Air Jordan). Then on to the Los Angeles Lakers, winning five NBA titles from 2000 to 2010. In total, he holds the record for most championships in NBA history as a player and a head coach.
Lastly, there's my personal favorite, "Clyde." Nicknamed after Bonnie's boyfriend, Walt Frazier was one of the smoothest, slickest dudes to ever take to the court. He stole the ball more often than anyone else I've ever seen, making ball theft an art form. For many years he held many Knick franchise records, such as: most games (759), minutes played (28,995), field goals attempted (11,669), field goals made (5,736), free throws attempted (4,017), free throws made (3,145), assists (4,791) and points (14,617).
As for me, I lost interest in the professional game about 15 years or so ago when the rules went out the window in order to permit higher scoring games. That's when guys like Michael Jordan could take as many steps as they wanted, because ref's rarely called walks on him. Added to that you have the thugs, especially no-talent blobs such as Barkley, who's more of a Sumo wrestler than NBA talent, and guys like Latrell Spreewell who came to the Knicks after trying to kill his coach P.J. Carlesimo at Golden State.
And then this morning I read an Associated Press article about how far the NBA has really sunk. Because it seems the Obama re-election campaign is using more than two dozen current NBA stars for a fundraising basketball game next month. Tickets range from $100 to $5,000 for courtside seats. The money will go to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account by the Democratic Party and Obama's re-election campaign.
The reason the article caught my attention was its illustration of how far the intellectual capacity of basketball pro's has sunk. Years ago, as I wrote above, the players were not only gifted athletes, they were extremely bright, their future endeavors proving that point.
But today's players, who are likely to miss this whole season due to a ridiculous strike, don't understand that even if they finally play some games, most people can't afford the price of NBA tickets. And the reason for that is, the administration's broken the fan's financial backs. Most don't have money for fuel or food, so how will they pay to attend games or even join the NBA cable networks?
Consequently, these basketball bozo's are going to donate their time, efforts and accomplishments to help re-elect the very same guy who's putting their league out of business by strangling the economy altogether. And I guess what all this goes to prove is that not only has the game gone down the tubes via relaxing rules, so have the player's IQ's.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Aside from playing hoops as often as possible, I also followed the pro's, rooting avidly for the NY Knicks. To this day I still believe their 1970 NBA championship team was the brightest group of people to ever take the court, and there's not an intellectual slouch in the bunch.
Forward, "Dollar" Bill Bradley, went on to the U.S. Senate from New Jersey. Center, Willis Reed, became the General Manager & Vice President of Basketball Operations for the New Jersey Nets. Another forward, Dave DeBusschere, wound up as Commissioner of the American Basketball Association. Guard, Earl "The Pearl" Monroe, later served as a commentator for Madison Square Garden and as commissioner of the New Jersey Urban Development Corporation.
Another forward, Jerry Lucas, at retirement ranked fourth all-time in rebounds per game to Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Bob Pettit. After basketball, he took up a role as an educator and memory expert writing books and producing television programs on the subject. Three of his best sellers are, The Memory Book, co-written with Harry Lorayne, Ready, Set, Remember, the basis of many of his other writings, and Remember the Word, for memorizing portions of the Bible. His educational programs on image-based memory development are now being used in some Ohio school systems.
Then we have, Dick Barnett, another guard, who holds a PhD in education from Fordham University and is now retired from teaching Sports Management at St. John's University in New York. One more who played on that team was, Phil Jackson, who later became head coach of the Chicago Bulls, 1989 through 1998, winning six NBA titles (with a little help from Air Jordan). Then on to the Los Angeles Lakers, winning five NBA titles from 2000 to 2010. In total, he holds the record for most championships in NBA history as a player and a head coach.
Lastly, there's my personal favorite, "Clyde." Nicknamed after Bonnie's boyfriend, Walt Frazier was one of the smoothest, slickest dudes to ever take to the court. He stole the ball more often than anyone else I've ever seen, making ball theft an art form. For many years he held many Knick franchise records, such as: most games (759), minutes played (28,995), field goals attempted (11,669), field goals made (5,736), free throws attempted (4,017), free throws made (3,145), assists (4,791) and points (14,617).
As for me, I lost interest in the professional game about 15 years or so ago when the rules went out the window in order to permit higher scoring games. That's when guys like Michael Jordan could take as many steps as they wanted, because ref's rarely called walks on him. Added to that you have the thugs, especially no-talent blobs such as Barkley, who's more of a Sumo wrestler than NBA talent, and guys like Latrell Spreewell who came to the Knicks after trying to kill his coach P.J. Carlesimo at Golden State.
And then this morning I read an Associated Press article about how far the NBA has really sunk. Because it seems the Obama re-election campaign is using more than two dozen current NBA stars for a fundraising basketball game next month. Tickets range from $100 to $5,000 for courtside seats. The money will go to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account by the Democratic Party and Obama's re-election campaign.
The reason the article caught my attention was its illustration of how far the intellectual capacity of basketball pro's has sunk. Years ago, as I wrote above, the players were not only gifted athletes, they were extremely bright, their future endeavors proving that point.
But today's players, who are likely to miss this whole season due to a ridiculous strike, don't understand that even if they finally play some games, most people can't afford the price of NBA tickets. And the reason for that is, the administration's broken the fan's financial backs. Most don't have money for fuel or food, so how will they pay to attend games or even join the NBA cable networks?
Consequently, these basketball bozo's are going to donate their time, efforts and accomplishments to help re-elect the very same guy who's putting their league out of business by strangling the economy altogether. And I guess what all this goes to prove is that not only has the game gone down the tubes via relaxing rules, so have the player's IQ's.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, November 18, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/18/2011
A couple of items caught my eye this morning, one on Drudge Report the other on the Weekly Standard's website.
According to Drudge, Karl Rove, now a conservative commentator and former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University on November 16. During his talk, Occupy movement protesters heckled him, but had nothing to say.
Rove responded, “If you don’t have the courage to stand here and then ask a question, you’re just showing your moral cowardice. He went on, “Do not be so arrogant and presumptive to think that you’re the only person who has a First Amendment right that needs to be heard. Who gave you the right to occupy America? Nobody.”
15 people were removed from the auditorium. No one was arrested. The university says they weren't students and that Hopkins was warned about this. But it seems the university didn't warn Rove.
I mention this incident because it's an offshoot of the situation in New York, where thousands of "protesters" amass on Wall Street daily, but none seem to have a valid reason or point. As for me, I think I clearly understand why they're all there. They've got absolutely nothing else they're qualified to do.
Then there was this item in The Weekly Standard regarding GE's filing a monstrous 57,000-page electronic federal tax return earlier this year, but not paying taxes on $14 billion in profits. Had the return been printed on paper it would have stacked 19 feet high.
House budget committee chairman, Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin, used the filing to make the case for corporate tax reform, saying "GE was able to utilize all of these various loopholes, all of these various deductions-it's legal." He noted that nine billion dollars of GE's profits came from overseas, outside U.S. tax law jurisdiction, and $5 billion in U.S. profits weren't taxed because GE utilized numerous deductions and tax credits, including tax breaks for investments in low-income housing, green energy, research and development, as well as depreciation of property.
I mention this because, in February 2009, Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chairman, was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America's economic downturn. While retaining his post at GE he's become, Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a newly named panel that President Obama's creating by executive order. Despite the fact that in July 2011 Immelt's General Electric announced it's in the process of relocating its X-ray division from Wisconsin to China. Immelt had previously referred to China as GE's "second home market".
What's more, since Immelt took over, GE's stock has dropped nearly 60%. He's also been recently criticized by Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly for business transactions between GE and Iran, the country which has reportedly been attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. O'Reilly went as far as to say, "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt". However, GE's website claims that the company stopped doing business in Iran in 2005, and finished all contracts by 2008.
So, when you sort it all out you have business as usual conducted by the White House. The president goes all over the country making speeches several times every day wherein he blames each and every mistake he's made on anyone or thing he can think of. Yet, when you look at the facts you find he's at the bottom of every pile of factual negative information you ever read through.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to Drudge, Karl Rove, now a conservative commentator and former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University on November 16. During his talk, Occupy movement protesters heckled him, but had nothing to say.
Rove responded, “If you don’t have the courage to stand here and then ask a question, you’re just showing your moral cowardice. He went on, “Do not be so arrogant and presumptive to think that you’re the only person who has a First Amendment right that needs to be heard. Who gave you the right to occupy America? Nobody.”
15 people were removed from the auditorium. No one was arrested. The university says they weren't students and that Hopkins was warned about this. But it seems the university didn't warn Rove.
I mention this incident because it's an offshoot of the situation in New York, where thousands of "protesters" amass on Wall Street daily, but none seem to have a valid reason or point. As for me, I think I clearly understand why they're all there. They've got absolutely nothing else they're qualified to do.
Then there was this item in The Weekly Standard regarding GE's filing a monstrous 57,000-page electronic federal tax return earlier this year, but not paying taxes on $14 billion in profits. Had the return been printed on paper it would have stacked 19 feet high.
House budget committee chairman, Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin, used the filing to make the case for corporate tax reform, saying "GE was able to utilize all of these various loopholes, all of these various deductions-it's legal." He noted that nine billion dollars of GE's profits came from overseas, outside U.S. tax law jurisdiction, and $5 billion in U.S. profits weren't taxed because GE utilized numerous deductions and tax credits, including tax breaks for investments in low-income housing, green energy, research and development, as well as depreciation of property.
I mention this because, in February 2009, Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chairman, was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America's economic downturn. While retaining his post at GE he's become, Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a newly named panel that President Obama's creating by executive order. Despite the fact that in July 2011 Immelt's General Electric announced it's in the process of relocating its X-ray division from Wisconsin to China. Immelt had previously referred to China as GE's "second home market".
What's more, since Immelt took over, GE's stock has dropped nearly 60%. He's also been recently criticized by Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly for business transactions between GE and Iran, the country which has reportedly been attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. O'Reilly went as far as to say, "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt". However, GE's website claims that the company stopped doing business in Iran in 2005, and finished all contracts by 2008.
So, when you sort it all out you have business as usual conducted by the White House. The president goes all over the country making speeches several times every day wherein he blames each and every mistake he's made on anyone or thing he can think of. Yet, when you look at the facts you find he's at the bottom of every pile of factual negative information you ever read through.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, November 17, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/17/2011
There seemed to be less of a turnout of Wall Street protesters this morning than they'd predicted, for what was promoted by them to be a huge march. 10,000 were supposed to amass, but only about a thousand actually showed up. Some quotes from a few of them follow:
One of then said, "If we don't have the park, we'll take the streets. If we can't take Wall Street, we'll take the side streets. We'll do it all day and all week."
Another claimed, "These are our streets! We are the 99 percent!" And then there was this quote from a guy named, John Tobacco, part of a group called the Wall St. Freedom Fighters, who said, "Enough is enough."
Rory Simpson, 29, describing himself as an itinerant activist made signs Wednesday evening. He said, ""We will get boots on the ground again.This is not over yet."
According to Fox News, "The group announced it would rally near the New York Stock Exchange, then fan out across Manhattan and head to subways, before gathering downtown and marching over the Brooklyn bridge. 'Resist austerity. Rebuild the economy. Reclaim our democracy,' the group wrote in a news release."
All of the preceding stuff got me to thinking about these folks again this morning. Because, frankly, after the first two or three days, I've ignored them since it's never been clear to me as to what their goal is, or what they're protesting about.
While I certainly understand that a huge number of them are deadbeats, who wanted to renege or otherwise dodge students loans they'd taken supposedly on their honor and good faith -the president's now letting them weasel out. Others are paid activists from unions, so I know why they're there too. And then there are groups of varying types of fascists, racists, gang-bangers and skinheads whose presence also makes sense, because they've nothing else to do. But, having listed all of the preceding, who are the others and what do they really want?
What made me think of the question of what the goal is, was the verbiage on their signs this morning. Because if they really do take over Wall Street, what will they do with it? Do they plan to run the exchanges by leaving their tents for the working day and running the massive electronic systems, making international stock trades, floating new issues and trading on the various floors?
And how about the guy whose sign reads "Enough is Enough"? He didn't go into much detail in his verbiage, so my query is: Enough of what? I could list a thousand things he might have had too much of, and might even agree with him if I knew what he meant. However, unfortunately for him, I doubt he knows what he's had enough of either.
Then there are the ones who shout "Resist austerity. Rebuild the economy. Reclaim our democracy," because I actually do understand their point. But someone ought to give them a map and some education because they're tents are in the wrong city. They should get themselves down to DC and protest outside the White House and Congress.
But if they actually do that, and want credit for their efforts they better do it quick. Because if the protesters don't get those bums out of government right now, the voting public's going to do it next November, once again doing the protester's work for them and carrying these cop-out, crying losers on their shoulders like always.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
One of then said, "If we don't have the park, we'll take the streets. If we can't take Wall Street, we'll take the side streets. We'll do it all day and all week."
Another claimed, "These are our streets! We are the 99 percent!" And then there was this quote from a guy named, John Tobacco, part of a group called the Wall St. Freedom Fighters, who said, "Enough is enough."
Rory Simpson, 29, describing himself as an itinerant activist made signs Wednesday evening. He said, ""We will get boots on the ground again.This is not over yet."
According to Fox News, "The group announced it would rally near the New York Stock Exchange, then fan out across Manhattan and head to subways, before gathering downtown and marching over the Brooklyn bridge. 'Resist austerity. Rebuild the economy. Reclaim our democracy,' the group wrote in a news release."
All of the preceding stuff got me to thinking about these folks again this morning. Because, frankly, after the first two or three days, I've ignored them since it's never been clear to me as to what their goal is, or what they're protesting about.
While I certainly understand that a huge number of them are deadbeats, who wanted to renege or otherwise dodge students loans they'd taken supposedly on their honor and good faith -the president's now letting them weasel out. Others are paid activists from unions, so I know why they're there too. And then there are groups of varying types of fascists, racists, gang-bangers and skinheads whose presence also makes sense, because they've nothing else to do. But, having listed all of the preceding, who are the others and what do they really want?
What made me think of the question of what the goal is, was the verbiage on their signs this morning. Because if they really do take over Wall Street, what will they do with it? Do they plan to run the exchanges by leaving their tents for the working day and running the massive electronic systems, making international stock trades, floating new issues and trading on the various floors?
And how about the guy whose sign reads "Enough is Enough"? He didn't go into much detail in his verbiage, so my query is: Enough of what? I could list a thousand things he might have had too much of, and might even agree with him if I knew what he meant. However, unfortunately for him, I doubt he knows what he's had enough of either.
Then there are the ones who shout "Resist austerity. Rebuild the economy. Reclaim our democracy," because I actually do understand their point. But someone ought to give them a map and some education because they're tents are in the wrong city. They should get themselves down to DC and protest outside the White House and Congress.
But if they actually do that, and want credit for their efforts they better do it quick. Because if the protesters don't get those bums out of government right now, the voting public's going to do it next November, once again doing the protester's work for them and carrying these cop-out, crying losers on their shoulders like always.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/16/2011
Yesterday, I focused on an article that mentioned how the president has disappointed many, if not most, of the kids who worked so hard to help elect him in 2008. And what's depressed them most is the state of the economy and the absence of jobs.
After I posted my entry I continued to think about the issue and jotted some notes for myself as a reminder for today's blog. Because it dawned on me that this guy in the White House is doing his very best to socialize the nation, redistribute wealth and penalize those in business. And in doing so, he's almost completely stifled the private sector, scared off new investment and introduced scads of legislation and regulation that blocks, impedes or discourages the hiring of additional people.
Now, none of the preceding is news to anyone who pays the slightest attention to reasons why businesses don't, won't, or can't hire more workers. However, I gave some more thought to the incredible situation that's been created. Because here we have a case where politicians and bureaucrats prevent a huge segment of the population from finding work -due to those very same bureaucrats determination to do businesses in- yet the bureaucrats themselves keep their jobs.
And that's why I concluded that these folks in government ought to be measured exactly the same way that folks in the real world are. Instead of a four year guarantee of employment, unless there's an impeachment and removal from office, their performance should be evaluated every week, month, and quarter as in business. And if positive results aren't there, they shouldn't be either.
I know in my own case, there were many times where I told my employer that I'd surely make my quota, I just needed more time. And their answer usually was something like: "That's okay, Mike. Take all the time you need to produce results. However, do it somewhere else because you're fired."
But, since politicians are job protected for particular terms in office, they don't get immediately blown out for miserable results. And in fact, they get chances to make speeches wherein they blame everyone else for their failures. Yet, if I went out on the stump and disparaged a company that axed me, I'd likely wind up in court and paying them huge sums for defamation.
So, in this case the president's still got his job, the country's still on it's way down the chute and he's in Hawaii making excuses for the dilemma. The only problem he has with that is, in delivering yesterday's blast of hot air to Hawaiians he mistakenly described his location as "Asia" while answering a question about budget cuts. But I guess when your whole life's a vacation from reality, it's not always easy to remember where you actually are.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
After I posted my entry I continued to think about the issue and jotted some notes for myself as a reminder for today's blog. Because it dawned on me that this guy in the White House is doing his very best to socialize the nation, redistribute wealth and penalize those in business. And in doing so, he's almost completely stifled the private sector, scared off new investment and introduced scads of legislation and regulation that blocks, impedes or discourages the hiring of additional people.
Now, none of the preceding is news to anyone who pays the slightest attention to reasons why businesses don't, won't, or can't hire more workers. However, I gave some more thought to the incredible situation that's been created. Because here we have a case where politicians and bureaucrats prevent a huge segment of the population from finding work -due to those very same bureaucrats determination to do businesses in- yet the bureaucrats themselves keep their jobs.
And that's why I concluded that these folks in government ought to be measured exactly the same way that folks in the real world are. Instead of a four year guarantee of employment, unless there's an impeachment and removal from office, their performance should be evaluated every week, month, and quarter as in business. And if positive results aren't there, they shouldn't be either.
I know in my own case, there were many times where I told my employer that I'd surely make my quota, I just needed more time. And their answer usually was something like: "That's okay, Mike. Take all the time you need to produce results. However, do it somewhere else because you're fired."
But, since politicians are job protected for particular terms in office, they don't get immediately blown out for miserable results. And in fact, they get chances to make speeches wherein they blame everyone else for their failures. Yet, if I went out on the stump and disparaged a company that axed me, I'd likely wind up in court and paying them huge sums for defamation.
So, in this case the president's still got his job, the country's still on it's way down the chute and he's in Hawaii making excuses for the dilemma. The only problem he has with that is, in delivering yesterday's blast of hot air to Hawaiians he mistakenly described his location as "Asia" while answering a question about budget cuts. But I guess when your whole life's a vacation from reality, it's not always easy to remember where you actually are.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/15/2011
I came across an article on the Drudge Report this morning, and I did a double take because it was a reprint from the New York Times, no less, the bastion of blind Liberalism. And I've always loved their credo: All that fits, we print.
The article's titled, Students Lose Zeal for Aiding Obama Again, and was written by a guy named Adam Nagourney. I mention it because it pretty much sums up the problems Democrats face when they actually encounter the real world and realize that all the hype, smoke and pap that's been shoved down their throats in school simply doesn't exist.
The article focuses on a young woman named, Emma Guerrero, and explains that to a great extent, the president's election campaign of 2008, was her life. She was one of a dozen volunteers who showed up at a campaign office every night, taking time from her studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She says that to be part of it all is still remembered as the most exciting period of her life.
But then she went on to state that “I don’t think I could do it anymore. That campaign was an amazing experience. But I don’t think I’m in the same mind-set anymore. He hasn’t really addressed the young people, and we helped him to get elected.”
What's more, the article reported that across Nevada, and in other states too, where young voters were the fuel of the Obama organization, voting for him two to one over John McCain, "the enthusiastic engine of the 2008 campaign has run up against the reality of a deadened job market for college students."
For me, the key word in the preceding paragraph is: "reality." Because I've never given a damn about politics, and certainly have never cared a whit about any politician and think that all of them are worthless parasites. However, they're the one's who have the power to control our economy and security because that's how our system works, ergo they've got considerable influence about things that truly affect my life.
Therefore, when a kid like this college student wakes up and smells the coffee that resonates with me. Because even though this farce in the White House has sold every one of us out, there are still plenty of brain-dead amoebae out there who can vote for him again. But, if jobless kids are now aware of why they can't find work -but really want to- we've got some hope.
Which also goes to prove another one of my firmest beliefs. Our education system may have gone down the tubes quite a few years ago, primarily thanks to the unions. But as these kids are finding out, the school of hard knocks is still providing the most valuable education. And I know it did wonders for me and have to believe it's best for everybody else.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The article's titled, Students Lose Zeal for Aiding Obama Again, and was written by a guy named Adam Nagourney. I mention it because it pretty much sums up the problems Democrats face when they actually encounter the real world and realize that all the hype, smoke and pap that's been shoved down their throats in school simply doesn't exist.
The article focuses on a young woman named, Emma Guerrero, and explains that to a great extent, the president's election campaign of 2008, was her life. She was one of a dozen volunteers who showed up at a campaign office every night, taking time from her studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She says that to be part of it all is still remembered as the most exciting period of her life.
But then she went on to state that “I don’t think I could do it anymore. That campaign was an amazing experience. But I don’t think I’m in the same mind-set anymore. He hasn’t really addressed the young people, and we helped him to get elected.”
What's more, the article reported that across Nevada, and in other states too, where young voters were the fuel of the Obama organization, voting for him two to one over John McCain, "the enthusiastic engine of the 2008 campaign has run up against the reality of a deadened job market for college students."
For me, the key word in the preceding paragraph is: "reality." Because I've never given a damn about politics, and certainly have never cared a whit about any politician and think that all of them are worthless parasites. However, they're the one's who have the power to control our economy and security because that's how our system works, ergo they've got considerable influence about things that truly affect my life.
Therefore, when a kid like this college student wakes up and smells the coffee that resonates with me. Because even though this farce in the White House has sold every one of us out, there are still plenty of brain-dead amoebae out there who can vote for him again. But, if jobless kids are now aware of why they can't find work -but really want to- we've got some hope.
Which also goes to prove another one of my firmest beliefs. Our education system may have gone down the tubes quite a few years ago, primarily thanks to the unions. But as these kids are finding out, the school of hard knocks is still providing the most valuable education. And I know it did wonders for me and have to believe it's best for everybody else.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, November 14, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/14/2011
It's said that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. And that's probably quite true. But, if knowing only a little is dangerous, what category of peril should be assigned to those who have no knowledge at all, yet are in positions to have influence over folks who are dumber than they are?
I'm reasonably certain that anyone who has ears, or who can read, is aware that there are very few people on the planet with a lower IQ than Chuck Schumer's. Nonetheless, he somehow or other attained public office. And fortunately for us, he either seems to maintain a low profile, or the media doesn't quote him very much. But, when his words do become public, they consistently confirm that he's useless.
This morning I read that he's now up in arms because stores don't clearly present their layaway fees to customers. According to him, "The ultimate cost of a layaway with a $5 fee can equal 40 percent interest over a month or two for many common purchases compared to the annual rates of most credit cards."
Now, I don't think you need a PHD in finance to realize that in order to figure out a rate of interest, you first need to know how much an item costs. Because if the purchase price is $12.50, the "interest rate" would indeed be 40% were you to be charged $5.00. However, if the item cost $150.00 the so-called "rate" would be .0333333%. On one costing $1000.00, a five dollar fee amounts to .005% and so on.
Consequently, the fees charged by retailers for layaways have nothing to do with interest at all. According to Brian A. Dodge of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, "It is a leap to suggest that $5 on a $100 purchase is twice the going rate on credit cards, which today averages 14.99 percent nationwide. Layaway is not credit, period. Layaway programs provide consumers with a responsible, low-cost alternative to credit cards that allow customers to buy an item that they want but the flexibility to pay for it over time without accumulating debt."
He went on to say, "These programs typically accommodate a segment of consumers who are either unable to or unwilling to access credit. They are remarkably simple and transparent. And unlike credit cards, the fees and terms never change."
Furthermore, the fees often cover the cost of handling layaway accounts, costs of keeping workers available to provide items when the layaway is paid off, and the cost of storing items for weeks and disrupting what could be a faster turnover. It can also become a legitimate "restocking fee," covering costs of items returned to the shelves if layaways aren't completed. Retailers also say the fees help reduce losses if uncompleted layaway items can't be immediately resold.
In other words, retailers view holiday layaway plans as an additional service, not as an income generating aspect of their businesses.
In closing, Schumer's words reflected, I think, the typical perspective of Democrat politicians unscathed by any experience whatsoever in any way related to any kind of business endeavor. He said, "The holiday season is supposed to be about giving and not taking, but these layaway programs are taking advantage of people and charging them outrageous interest rates, under the guise of making it easier and more affordable to shop."
And I guess that's exactly what you'd expect from a parasitic cypher who lives off the efforts of others. He want's to spread Christmas joy and happiness around by giving away retailer's hard-earned money and decreasing their chances of profits.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
I'm reasonably certain that anyone who has ears, or who can read, is aware that there are very few people on the planet with a lower IQ than Chuck Schumer's. Nonetheless, he somehow or other attained public office. And fortunately for us, he either seems to maintain a low profile, or the media doesn't quote him very much. But, when his words do become public, they consistently confirm that he's useless.
This morning I read that he's now up in arms because stores don't clearly present their layaway fees to customers. According to him, "The ultimate cost of a layaway with a $5 fee can equal 40 percent interest over a month or two for many common purchases compared to the annual rates of most credit cards."
Now, I don't think you need a PHD in finance to realize that in order to figure out a rate of interest, you first need to know how much an item costs. Because if the purchase price is $12.50, the "interest rate" would indeed be 40% were you to be charged $5.00. However, if the item cost $150.00 the so-called "rate" would be .0333333%. On one costing $1000.00, a five dollar fee amounts to .005% and so on.
Consequently, the fees charged by retailers for layaways have nothing to do with interest at all. According to Brian A. Dodge of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, "It is a leap to suggest that $5 on a $100 purchase is twice the going rate on credit cards, which today averages 14.99 percent nationwide. Layaway is not credit, period. Layaway programs provide consumers with a responsible, low-cost alternative to credit cards that allow customers to buy an item that they want but the flexibility to pay for it over time without accumulating debt."
He went on to say, "These programs typically accommodate a segment of consumers who are either unable to or unwilling to access credit. They are remarkably simple and transparent. And unlike credit cards, the fees and terms never change."
Furthermore, the fees often cover the cost of handling layaway accounts, costs of keeping workers available to provide items when the layaway is paid off, and the cost of storing items for weeks and disrupting what could be a faster turnover. It can also become a legitimate "restocking fee," covering costs of items returned to the shelves if layaways aren't completed. Retailers also say the fees help reduce losses if uncompleted layaway items can't be immediately resold.
In other words, retailers view holiday layaway plans as an additional service, not as an income generating aspect of their businesses.
In closing, Schumer's words reflected, I think, the typical perspective of Democrat politicians unscathed by any experience whatsoever in any way related to any kind of business endeavor. He said, "The holiday season is supposed to be about giving and not taking, but these layaway programs are taking advantage of people and charging them outrageous interest rates, under the guise of making it easier and more affordable to shop."
And I guess that's exactly what you'd expect from a parasitic cypher who lives off the efforts of others. He want's to spread Christmas joy and happiness around by giving away retailer's hard-earned money and decreasing their chances of profits.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 13, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/13/2011
At an APEC conference on Saturday, Boeing's CEO asked the president about looking at the world from a Chinese perspective and what they might consider as impediments to investing here.
In answering, I think the president maintained the consistency of his continual degrading of the nation he claims to lead. Here's what he said, "We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted -- well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America."
He later went on to say, "Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they've got to navigate not only federal rules, but they've also got to navigate state and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that's something that we want to encourage."
To a later question he went on: "The way I think about it is this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn't have that same competitive edge we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track. But I still wouldn't trade our position with any country's on Earth. We still have the best universities and scientists and best workers in the world. We still have the most dynamic economic system in the world. We need to bring all those things together"
As I read this stuff, I scratched my head in wonderment, trying to figure out if the guy really believes what he said, or if he's even more dishonest than I thought which would be practically impossible to achieve. Because, at the present time even American businesses don't want to be here and are making every effort to build plants, hire people and transfer operations overseas. And they're doing it precisely because the president's alphabet soup of agencies, such as the NLRB and EPA to name only two, are strangling operator's to the extent that they'll do practically anything to get out from under.
What's more, there's really no one in the administration, and that certainly includes the leader, who has a clue as to what makes businesses run, how to manage or incent them and worst of all, his bumbling underlings despise business folks to boot (except for the one's that throw taxpayers bucks to politically connected frauds and crooks like those at Solyndra.)
So, I've got to believe that the Chinese, or any other savvy foreign business investors, would never spend a dime here they don't have to so long as this administration's in power. And beyond that, they're far better off staying where they are and eating our lunch by selling us stuff, such as cars, appliances, electronics and you name it, especially because they don't have unions to contend with who'll rob them blind and force them to price their goods out of the market.
So, if the president wants to find out why foreign investors don't want to set up shop over here any more and what's the cause, all he really needs to do is look in a mirror. And as far as mirrors go, I think the best and cheapest one's come here from Korea.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In answering, I think the president maintained the consistency of his continual degrading of the nation he claims to lead. Here's what he said, "We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted -- well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America."
He later went on to say, "Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they've got to navigate not only federal rules, but they've also got to navigate state and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that's something that we want to encourage."
To a later question he went on: "The way I think about it is this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn't have that same competitive edge we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track. But I still wouldn't trade our position with any country's on Earth. We still have the best universities and scientists and best workers in the world. We still have the most dynamic economic system in the world. We need to bring all those things together"
As I read this stuff, I scratched my head in wonderment, trying to figure out if the guy really believes what he said, or if he's even more dishonest than I thought which would be practically impossible to achieve. Because, at the present time even American businesses don't want to be here and are making every effort to build plants, hire people and transfer operations overseas. And they're doing it precisely because the president's alphabet soup of agencies, such as the NLRB and EPA to name only two, are strangling operator's to the extent that they'll do practically anything to get out from under.
What's more, there's really no one in the administration, and that certainly includes the leader, who has a clue as to what makes businesses run, how to manage or incent them and worst of all, his bumbling underlings despise business folks to boot (except for the one's that throw taxpayers bucks to politically connected frauds and crooks like those at Solyndra.)
So, I've got to believe that the Chinese, or any other savvy foreign business investors, would never spend a dime here they don't have to so long as this administration's in power. And beyond that, they're far better off staying where they are and eating our lunch by selling us stuff, such as cars, appliances, electronics and you name it, especially because they don't have unions to contend with who'll rob them blind and force them to price their goods out of the market.
So, if the president wants to find out why foreign investors don't want to set up shop over here any more and what's the cause, all he really needs to do is look in a mirror. And as far as mirrors go, I think the best and cheapest one's come here from Korea.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 12, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/12/2011
I read an opinion piece, by some columnist or other on-line, regarding ways Rick Perry can overcome his memory lapse in the last debate, and the author made a very good point. He said the presidency isn’t about debating skills, it’s about running the nation. And I agree with him on that issue completely.
The author’s exactly right, the president’s job really isn’t about fencing with others via words and trying to score the most points. It’s a far more complex challenge than that and covers myriads of subjects. And as governor of Texas, Mr. Perry evidently did an outstanding job in the post. Having said that however, I think there’s more to this debating slip-up than just a forgetful moment.
The responsibility of presiding over the greatest nation on earth requires that the one in office have many governance skills, and the ability to deal with whatever issues arise, either by him or with the assistance of others. And as far as the performance of those things the leader takes on himself are concerned, the execution must be flawless, 24/7/365. And if that’s too high an expectation of one man, so-be-it, but that’s what the job entails.
Consequently, it’s obvious via results to date, along with comments Mr. Perry’s made in the past, that debating isn’t his forte and he’s more of a doer than talker, which is fine with me. But if that’s truly the case, he shouldn’t have taken the challenge on in the first place. Because I don’t think Mr. Perry’s debating mistake is what’s in evidence here. I believe his stepping up to something he clearly understood was beyond his capability shows a complete lack of good judgement.
So in this case, like so many things in life, it’s the little things that count and one‘s future conduct can be judged quite accurately by how they’ve behaved in the past. And that’s why Mr. Perry should have simply declined to debate in the first place and let folks judge his capability by other methods. Because what his flubbing makes me wonder is: How many other things he’s no good at would he try to fudge his way through and then laugh about them on Letterman after screwing them up as President of the U.S.?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The author’s exactly right, the president’s job really isn’t about fencing with others via words and trying to score the most points. It’s a far more complex challenge than that and covers myriads of subjects. And as governor of Texas, Mr. Perry evidently did an outstanding job in the post. Having said that however, I think there’s more to this debating slip-up than just a forgetful moment.
The responsibility of presiding over the greatest nation on earth requires that the one in office have many governance skills, and the ability to deal with whatever issues arise, either by him or with the assistance of others. And as far as the performance of those things the leader takes on himself are concerned, the execution must be flawless, 24/7/365. And if that’s too high an expectation of one man, so-be-it, but that’s what the job entails.
Consequently, it’s obvious via results to date, along with comments Mr. Perry’s made in the past, that debating isn’t his forte and he’s more of a doer than talker, which is fine with me. But if that’s truly the case, he shouldn’t have taken the challenge on in the first place. Because I don’t think Mr. Perry’s debating mistake is what’s in evidence here. I believe his stepping up to something he clearly understood was beyond his capability shows a complete lack of good judgement.
So in this case, like so many things in life, it’s the little things that count and one‘s future conduct can be judged quite accurately by how they’ve behaved in the past. And that’s why Mr. Perry should have simply declined to debate in the first place and let folks judge his capability by other methods. Because what his flubbing makes me wonder is: How many other things he’s no good at would he try to fudge his way through and then laugh about them on Letterman after screwing them up as President of the U.S.?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, November 11, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/11/2011
I had this thought this morning about George Washington and his desire to make ours a free country. I wasn’t there of course, but I’m told that he believed fervently in a few things like liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness.
And that got me to wondering if his intent was to provide folks with the opportunity to make something of themselves without an over-burdensome government on their backs, burying them with taxes. Or did he envision a nation where someone, like a farmer perhaps, went out and found some arable land, worked hard to make the acreage productive, and at the same time built another one for folks who, for whatever reason, couldn’t or wouldn’t build one for themselves?
And then, how about his army? Did he expect all his soldiers to carry guns, brave the elements and shoot the enemy at all costs, or was it okay with him if the weak, timid, tired and lazy stayed in the warmth of the barracks and said, “Wake me when it’s over, I’m not really up to it, okay? And by the way, if you take prisoners and treat them harshly, we’ll help send you to Leavenworth.”
And what if some government official later on came to him and said, “That house you built isn’t up to standard, what’s more you’ve got to tear it down because it’s not environmentally friendly and you owe us four thousand pence in fines?” Would our founding father have gone along with that, or would the assessor find himself pushing up daises?
And how about when he chopped down that cherry tree with an axe, and then was quizzed by his pop? He stepped right up and told the absolute truth.
So, looking back on all that, I’ve really got to wonder how it's all gone so far the other way. Where today we have so-called leaders who’ve done nothing but lie, cheat and steal their entire lives, refuse to defend their country themselves, contribute nothing at all to the nation and feed off everyone else.
And after reading this stuff back, I was going to remark that if GW could see what his nation's become, he’d probably shoot himself in frustration. But on second thought, that’s got to be wrong –because he’d likely mow down everyone one of those losers himself with a shotgun.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
And that got me to wondering if his intent was to provide folks with the opportunity to make something of themselves without an over-burdensome government on their backs, burying them with taxes. Or did he envision a nation where someone, like a farmer perhaps, went out and found some arable land, worked hard to make the acreage productive, and at the same time built another one for folks who, for whatever reason, couldn’t or wouldn’t build one for themselves?
And then, how about his army? Did he expect all his soldiers to carry guns, brave the elements and shoot the enemy at all costs, or was it okay with him if the weak, timid, tired and lazy stayed in the warmth of the barracks and said, “Wake me when it’s over, I’m not really up to it, okay? And by the way, if you take prisoners and treat them harshly, we’ll help send you to Leavenworth.”
And what if some government official later on came to him and said, “That house you built isn’t up to standard, what’s more you’ve got to tear it down because it’s not environmentally friendly and you owe us four thousand pence in fines?” Would our founding father have gone along with that, or would the assessor find himself pushing up daises?
And how about when he chopped down that cherry tree with an axe, and then was quizzed by his pop? He stepped right up and told the absolute truth.
So, looking back on all that, I’ve really got to wonder how it's all gone so far the other way. Where today we have so-called leaders who’ve done nothing but lie, cheat and steal their entire lives, refuse to defend their country themselves, contribute nothing at all to the nation and feed off everyone else.
And after reading this stuff back, I was going to remark that if GW could see what his nation's become, he’d probably shoot himself in frustration. But on second thought, that’s got to be wrong –because he’d likely mow down everyone one of those losers himself with a shotgun.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, November 10, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/10/2011
There was another Republican debate last night, which I didn't watch, but recaps say that this time around the candidates focused on their Democrat opposition instead of trying to shred each other.
Apparently, from what I've read, all contestants took pretty much the same approach and presented solutions and ideas that in summation are geared to unwind and reverse every single law, program and enactment of the current administration. And, as far as I'm concerned if any of them can actually do that, I really don't care which one it is. The only wish I have is that they do it quick while we still have some of our nation left.
There is one part of last night's show that I'm sorry I'm missed, however, because it seems that Rick Perry forgot one of the agencies he'd eliminate while listing three he'd close. He mentioned the departments of Commerce and Education, but couldn't recall the name of the Energy Department, which the recap said created an uncomfortable moment on the stage.
When I read about Perry's gaffe this morning, although he only had a lapse of the moment, I think it did a great deal to define his capability to be leader of the free world. Because I had this vision of his chairing a cabinet meeting and ordering the shutting down of what he believed was a worthless department, and then waking up a few nights later and asking himself "Now, which of those goldarned things did I tell them to shut down? Ah sure hope it wasn't Treasury or Defense."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Apparently, from what I've read, all contestants took pretty much the same approach and presented solutions and ideas that in summation are geared to unwind and reverse every single law, program and enactment of the current administration. And, as far as I'm concerned if any of them can actually do that, I really don't care which one it is. The only wish I have is that they do it quick while we still have some of our nation left.
There is one part of last night's show that I'm sorry I'm missed, however, because it seems that Rick Perry forgot one of the agencies he'd eliminate while listing three he'd close. He mentioned the departments of Commerce and Education, but couldn't recall the name of the Energy Department, which the recap said created an uncomfortable moment on the stage.
When I read about Perry's gaffe this morning, although he only had a lapse of the moment, I think it did a great deal to define his capability to be leader of the free world. Because I had this vision of his chairing a cabinet meeting and ordering the shutting down of what he believed was a worthless department, and then waking up a few nights later and asking himself "Now, which of those goldarned things did I tell them to shut down? Ah sure hope it wasn't Treasury or Defense."
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/9/2011
Saw an article in the Washington Post on-line this morning, regarding mortgage giant Fannie Mae. The government-controlled company said it lost $7.6 billion in the third quarter because low mortgage rates reduced profits and declining home prices caused more defaults on loans it had guaranteed. It's asking the federal government for $7.8 billion in aid to cover it's losses in the July-September quarter.
The government rescued Fannie Mae, and sibling Freddie Mac, in September 2008 to cover mortgage loan losses and since then a federal regulator has controlled their financial decisions.
But here's the part that interested me most: Taxpayers have spent about $169 billion to rescue Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis, while government estimates that the figure could reach up $220 billion to support the companies through 2014 after subtracting dividend payments. Fannie itself has received $112.6 billion so far from the Treasury Department, the most expensive bailout of any single company.
However, in the meantime the president unilaterally decided to give deadbeat students and others a break last week by reducing the term and interest rates on their outstanding government loans and other borrowing obligations. At the time, the president said his generosity would cost taxpayers nothing.
Now, aside from the fact that it's impossible for taxapayer's to suffer no financial impact because they're the one's who ultimately pay the government's bills, how many of these situations are taxpaying folks supposed to tolerate? Because in every single case they're paying for gross financial mis-management by unskilled bureaucrats, the ignorance and/or nonchalance of government appointed officials or simply paying the cost of those who are flat-out buying votes.
On the other side however, in yesterday's elections, except for a case or two, Republicans did quite well. So, maybe that's another confirmation of things I've been typing about for months and months. Because it seems that at this stage, even the most ardent Dem's understand that if things remain unchanged at the top, they too will soon be broke themselves.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The government rescued Fannie Mae, and sibling Freddie Mac, in September 2008 to cover mortgage loan losses and since then a federal regulator has controlled their financial decisions.
But here's the part that interested me most: Taxpayers have spent about $169 billion to rescue Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis, while government estimates that the figure could reach up $220 billion to support the companies through 2014 after subtracting dividend payments. Fannie itself has received $112.6 billion so far from the Treasury Department, the most expensive bailout of any single company.
However, in the meantime the president unilaterally decided to give deadbeat students and others a break last week by reducing the term and interest rates on their outstanding government loans and other borrowing obligations. At the time, the president said his generosity would cost taxpayers nothing.
Now, aside from the fact that it's impossible for taxapayer's to suffer no financial impact because they're the one's who ultimately pay the government's bills, how many of these situations are taxpaying folks supposed to tolerate? Because in every single case they're paying for gross financial mis-management by unskilled bureaucrats, the ignorance and/or nonchalance of government appointed officials or simply paying the cost of those who are flat-out buying votes.
On the other side however, in yesterday's elections, except for a case or two, Republicans did quite well. So, maybe that's another confirmation of things I've been typing about for months and months. Because it seems that at this stage, even the most ardent Dem's understand that if things remain unchanged at the top, they too will soon be broke themselves.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/8/2011
I just read a recap of the recent accusation against Herman Cain by a woman who says he made sexual advances toward her back in 1997. Apparently, this is the first time she's mentioned the issue publicly, although it took place 14 years ago.
The story got me to thinking because, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that the press always pursues, or elects to highlight, one side of these stories. And it always appears to side with the complainant who most often are women.
From what I read in the recap, the woman involved originally met candidate Cain at a meeting in Chicago, then she called him a month later asking for help because she'd just been laid off from her job with the NRA. He offered to assist her and the two went out for dinner to discuss the matter. And it was after a couple of drinks and dinner when he accompanied her back to her hotel that she says he got aggressive, going so far as putting his hand up her skirt and being sexually aggressive while they were still in his car. However, when she told him to stop, he did.
Now, obviously I haven't a clue as to what actually happened that night, and don't think that outside of the two people involved neither does anyone else. So what it all boils down to is another case of "he said, she said." And this is the part that always frosts me, because we always seem to get the same slant from the press who consistently take the side of the woman.
However, high profile, successful folks with some clout like Herman Cain, are always targets for women for a whole raft of different reasons. Some seek publicity, some want to latch onto power any way they can, others are excited by status, while "baseball Annie" types chase celebs and jocks just for the thrill. Still others see opportunities for other types of personal gain through threats like extortion or blackmail. And the list of reasons goes on and on and on.
Now I'm certainly not suggesting that any of the preceding is what happened that night in 1997, because I haven't even an iota of information about what really took place. Nonetheless, any of the scenarios is certainly possible.
And that's why I think that before anyone goes off the deep end in these situations and implies guilt without proof, which is usually done by the press, it would be much better for high-profile folks if the reporters actually had some facts.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The story got me to thinking because, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that the press always pursues, or elects to highlight, one side of these stories. And it always appears to side with the complainant who most often are women.
From what I read in the recap, the woman involved originally met candidate Cain at a meeting in Chicago, then she called him a month later asking for help because she'd just been laid off from her job with the NRA. He offered to assist her and the two went out for dinner to discuss the matter. And it was after a couple of drinks and dinner when he accompanied her back to her hotel that she says he got aggressive, going so far as putting his hand up her skirt and being sexually aggressive while they were still in his car. However, when she told him to stop, he did.
Now, obviously I haven't a clue as to what actually happened that night, and don't think that outside of the two people involved neither does anyone else. So what it all boils down to is another case of "he said, she said." And this is the part that always frosts me, because we always seem to get the same slant from the press who consistently take the side of the woman.
However, high profile, successful folks with some clout like Herman Cain, are always targets for women for a whole raft of different reasons. Some seek publicity, some want to latch onto power any way they can, others are excited by status, while "baseball Annie" types chase celebs and jocks just for the thrill. Still others see opportunities for other types of personal gain through threats like extortion or blackmail. And the list of reasons goes on and on and on.
Now I'm certainly not suggesting that any of the preceding is what happened that night in 1997, because I haven't even an iota of information about what really took place. Nonetheless, any of the scenarios is certainly possible.
And that's why I think that before anyone goes off the deep end in these situations and implies guilt without proof, which is usually done by the press, it would be much better for high-profile folks if the reporters actually had some facts.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, November 7, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/7/2011
I came across a commentary while browsing this morning which discussed a show that aired last night on Fox. Called "Stupid in America" it was hosted by John Stossel. The topic was the status of education in the U.S.
It caught my eye because, as regular readers of this blog must surely know by now, I have two separate and distinct opinions about our public educational system. On one hand, as a parent, I had very little regard for the quality of the schooling, feeling that curriculum's have been watered down, adapted and degraded over the years. Therefore, we always bolstered our kid's knowledge by supplementing the system's shortfalls ourselves at home.
According to the article, the host made the point that "School spending has gone through the roof and test scores are flat." Going on to state, "While most every other service in life has gotten faster, better, and cheaper, one of the most important things we buy -education- has remained completely stagnant, unchanged since we started measuring it in 1970."
The host thinks the stagnation's because "K-12 education is a government monopoly and monopolies don't improve."
On the other hand, the government-school monopoly claims: Education is too important to leave to the free market. "Competition may be okay for selling movies and cell phones, but education is different. Learning is complex. Parents aren't real "customers" because they don't have the expertise to know which school is best. They don't know enough about curricula, teachers' credentials, etc. That's why public education must be centrally planned by government "experts".
As for me, I think the quality of public education has actually diminished, primarily due, I believe, to unions which permit a continually lowering of educational standards because teachers themselves have job protection despite the fact that their own capabilities, knowledge and skills have reduced to practically nil.
Consequently, if the educators themselves are intellectually worthless, how can what they teach have any value at all? If you want proof of that premise, it's quite easy to do without even visiting a school. Just listen to one of those bozos try to make a point in a broadcast interview. The majority of them sound like morons, however I must say they do sound light years brighter than the union reps, most of whom majored in strong-arm tactics, picket line formations and throwing rocks at the press. So I guess it's no wonder that a considerable amount of the verbiage on their picket signs is mis-spelled.
Despite the preceding, as I noted above, there is something about public education I appreciate greatly. Because over my professional career in sales I competed with folks who'd gone through that system themselves. And as a result, since most of them knew practically nothing, had difficulty making their cases or sounding intelligible, it not only made my business life considerably easier, I had great fun winning deals from them regularly and enjoying practically guaranteed success.
But after all the give and take of last night's show was reported, and each side's opinion was thoroughly discussed, I think the last quote in the article summed it all up best. The words came from Albert Shanker, the teachers' union president who, years ago, first turned teacher's unions into a national political force. Here's what he said, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." And I think that pretty much sums public education up.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
It caught my eye because, as regular readers of this blog must surely know by now, I have two separate and distinct opinions about our public educational system. On one hand, as a parent, I had very little regard for the quality of the schooling, feeling that curriculum's have been watered down, adapted and degraded over the years. Therefore, we always bolstered our kid's knowledge by supplementing the system's shortfalls ourselves at home.
According to the article, the host made the point that "School spending has gone through the roof and test scores are flat." Going on to state, "While most every other service in life has gotten faster, better, and cheaper, one of the most important things we buy -education- has remained completely stagnant, unchanged since we started measuring it in 1970."
The host thinks the stagnation's because "K-12 education is a government monopoly and monopolies don't improve."
On the other hand, the government-school monopoly claims: Education is too important to leave to the free market. "Competition may be okay for selling movies and cell phones, but education is different. Learning is complex. Parents aren't real "customers" because they don't have the expertise to know which school is best. They don't know enough about curricula, teachers' credentials, etc. That's why public education must be centrally planned by government "experts".
As for me, I think the quality of public education has actually diminished, primarily due, I believe, to unions which permit a continually lowering of educational standards because teachers themselves have job protection despite the fact that their own capabilities, knowledge and skills have reduced to practically nil.
Consequently, if the educators themselves are intellectually worthless, how can what they teach have any value at all? If you want proof of that premise, it's quite easy to do without even visiting a school. Just listen to one of those bozos try to make a point in a broadcast interview. The majority of them sound like morons, however I must say they do sound light years brighter than the union reps, most of whom majored in strong-arm tactics, picket line formations and throwing rocks at the press. So I guess it's no wonder that a considerable amount of the verbiage on their picket signs is mis-spelled.
Despite the preceding, as I noted above, there is something about public education I appreciate greatly. Because over my professional career in sales I competed with folks who'd gone through that system themselves. And as a result, since most of them knew practically nothing, had difficulty making their cases or sounding intelligible, it not only made my business life considerably easier, I had great fun winning deals from them regularly and enjoying practically guaranteed success.
But after all the give and take of last night's show was reported, and each side's opinion was thoroughly discussed, I think the last quote in the article summed it all up best. The words came from Albert Shanker, the teachers' union president who, years ago, first turned teacher's unions into a national political force. Here's what he said, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." And I think that pretty much sums public education up.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, November 6, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/6/2011
While the president and Congress play political games at the expense of the public, and couldn't care less if nobody had jobs so long as they themselves kept their posts, this guy, Peter Morici, a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, wrote an interesting piece on the unemployment situation. I found it on Fox.
According to the professor, if you factor in discouraged adults and those working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is actually about 16.2 percent. If you then add in college graduates in low skill positions, like jobs at Starbucks, underemployment's even higher.
He says jobs were added in recent months and unemployment remained steady only because businesses have been foregoing opportunities to increase productivity. They haven't been investing in labor saving technology, which keeps the headline unemployment number from rising too much, however, it's also an "ominous" sign of recession. Because, ultimately, employers will slash payrolls to maintain profits, and that will foster new layoffs. Meanwhile, new unemployment claims continue to stay around 400 thousand per week.
But here's the part of his premise that interested me most. He says growth is weak and jobs are in jeopardy, because temporary tax cuts, stimulus spending, large federal deficits, expensive and ineffective business regulations, and increased health care mandates and costs don't address structural problems. These factors hold back "dynamic growth" and jobs creation. Additionally he factors in a huge U.S. trade deficit and dysfunctional energy policies.
He goes on to note that costs of oil and trade with China account for nearly our entire $550 billion trade deficit, saying the deficit alone is a tax on domestic demand that erases the benefits of tax cuts and stimulus spending. And that's because, dollars spent abroad for oil and consumer goods from China, that don't return to purchase U.S. exports, are lost purchasing power. Therefore, the U.S. economy is expanding at less than 1 percent a year instead of the 5 percent that's possible after emerging from a deep recession and with such high unemployment.
In summation he writes that, "without prompt efforts to produce more domestic oil, redress the trade imbalance with China, relax burdensome business regulations, and curb health care mandates and costs, the U.S. economy cannot grow and create enough jobs."
The reason I noted the professor's comments today is because I've been writing the exact same stuff in my entries for many, many months, but he did it more professionally and succinctly. But what he didn't include, and I always do, is that each and every element he noted that's causing our overwhelming economic problems have been specifically caused by the current administration with concurring support from Congress.
So here we have a treatise on how and why the strongest nation ever created has been economically devastated, I believe with purpose, and a list of what's needed to fix it. However, when the guy at the top is determined to destroy every iota of what's been accomplished by our spirit and drive, it makes difficult tasks even harder. And that's why I truly believe that next November the thud he lands with after being tossed out overwhelmingly by voters will be heard loud and clear worldwide.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to the professor, if you factor in discouraged adults and those working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is actually about 16.2 percent. If you then add in college graduates in low skill positions, like jobs at Starbucks, underemployment's even higher.
He says jobs were added in recent months and unemployment remained steady only because businesses have been foregoing opportunities to increase productivity. They haven't been investing in labor saving technology, which keeps the headline unemployment number from rising too much, however, it's also an "ominous" sign of recession. Because, ultimately, employers will slash payrolls to maintain profits, and that will foster new layoffs. Meanwhile, new unemployment claims continue to stay around 400 thousand per week.
But here's the part of his premise that interested me most. He says growth is weak and jobs are in jeopardy, because temporary tax cuts, stimulus spending, large federal deficits, expensive and ineffective business regulations, and increased health care mandates and costs don't address structural problems. These factors hold back "dynamic growth" and jobs creation. Additionally he factors in a huge U.S. trade deficit and dysfunctional energy policies.
He goes on to note that costs of oil and trade with China account for nearly our entire $550 billion trade deficit, saying the deficit alone is a tax on domestic demand that erases the benefits of tax cuts and stimulus spending. And that's because, dollars spent abroad for oil and consumer goods from China, that don't return to purchase U.S. exports, are lost purchasing power. Therefore, the U.S. economy is expanding at less than 1 percent a year instead of the 5 percent that's possible after emerging from a deep recession and with such high unemployment.
In summation he writes that, "without prompt efforts to produce more domestic oil, redress the trade imbalance with China, relax burdensome business regulations, and curb health care mandates and costs, the U.S. economy cannot grow and create enough jobs."
The reason I noted the professor's comments today is because I've been writing the exact same stuff in my entries for many, many months, but he did it more professionally and succinctly. But what he didn't include, and I always do, is that each and every element he noted that's causing our overwhelming economic problems have been specifically caused by the current administration with concurring support from Congress.
So here we have a treatise on how and why the strongest nation ever created has been economically devastated, I believe with purpose, and a list of what's needed to fix it. However, when the guy at the top is determined to destroy every iota of what's been accomplished by our spirit and drive, it makes difficult tasks even harder. And that's why I truly believe that next November the thud he lands with after being tossed out overwhelmingly by voters will be heard loud and clear worldwide.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, November 5, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/5/2011
This whole situation involving John Corzine and the business he tanked by investing in European markets got me to thinking. Because here's someone who made a huge fortune as a robber baron trader while leading Goldman Sachs, and then became Governor of New Jersey.
However, after assuming the governorship he decided that capitalism wasn't good for people because it permitted those who were successful to attain more for themselves than others. So he worked hard to socialize the system in his state and level the playing field by redistributing wealth.
Then he went out and ordered his driver to speed at 95 miles per hour on the Turnpike, because commoner's laws didn't apply to him. And shortly later, he found out that his constituents didn't exactly agree with his putting himself above the law while penalizing everyone else...so they booted him out of Trenton.
After I read the news about Corzine's recent business demise, and chuckled to myself, I gave the matter some further thought and re-confirmed my distaste and distrust of all these so-called liberal politician's. Because as you go down the list you realize that just about every one of the liberal leaders is very wealthy, either on their own or via marriage like that absolute phony, John Kerry.
Starting with folks like the president, who was born under a tree stump or in a swamp, or on a deserted island, nobody seems to know where he's from for sure, but somehow or other he glommed onto a lot of bucks before running for office. Then there are those like the Kennedy's who had dollars coming out of their ears from their bootlegger pop, or the Clinton's who sold books and made speeches to collect their payback for inside track deals.
So, when you take all the preceding into consideration, and think about what's really the truth about these hucksters and crooks, it becomes clear that every one of them, including all of the Hollywood left, expends their efforts trying to convince everyone else that greed is bad, socialism's good, and truly believes that the rule should apply to everyone but themselves. Because none of them become vehement liberals until after they've made out extremely well for themselves.
And that brings me back to Corzine who's motto seems to be: Well, I've made mine, so now let's all share yours.
That's it for today folks
Adios.
However, after assuming the governorship he decided that capitalism wasn't good for people because it permitted those who were successful to attain more for themselves than others. So he worked hard to socialize the system in his state and level the playing field by redistributing wealth.
Then he went out and ordered his driver to speed at 95 miles per hour on the Turnpike, because commoner's laws didn't apply to him. And shortly later, he found out that his constituents didn't exactly agree with his putting himself above the law while penalizing everyone else...so they booted him out of Trenton.
After I read the news about Corzine's recent business demise, and chuckled to myself, I gave the matter some further thought and re-confirmed my distaste and distrust of all these so-called liberal politician's. Because as you go down the list you realize that just about every one of the liberal leaders is very wealthy, either on their own or via marriage like that absolute phony, John Kerry.
Starting with folks like the president, who was born under a tree stump or in a swamp, or on a deserted island, nobody seems to know where he's from for sure, but somehow or other he glommed onto a lot of bucks before running for office. Then there are those like the Kennedy's who had dollars coming out of their ears from their bootlegger pop, or the Clinton's who sold books and made speeches to collect their payback for inside track deals.
So, when you take all the preceding into consideration, and think about what's really the truth about these hucksters and crooks, it becomes clear that every one of them, including all of the Hollywood left, expends their efforts trying to convince everyone else that greed is bad, socialism's good, and truly believes that the rule should apply to everyone but themselves. Because none of them become vehement liberals until after they've made out extremely well for themselves.
And that brings me back to Corzine who's motto seems to be: Well, I've made mine, so now let's all share yours.
That's it for today folks
Adios.
Friday, November 4, 2011
BloggeRhythms 10/4/2011
I haven't been too keen on Herman Cain, simply because I have concerns about a totally inexperienced novice assuming the Presidency of the United States, the most important job in the universe (except for my own, of course). However, I've written about his resume and his history's extremely impressive. He's been very, very successful at everything he's done thus far.
And then this morning, I saw some comments by Ed Wallace on Fox News, which got me to re-thinking. According to Wallace, polls now show that significant numbers of folks across the country are fed up with politicians completely, regardless of party, and that's why someone like Cain's doing so well, even slightly better than Romney, who has a business background himself.
After digesting that information and pondering some more, I realized that a guy like Cain might just be what the country needs right now, with a couple of provisos. Because if you compare his personal achievements to the incumbent's, it's obvious that Cain has much more proven capability and far more potential.
For starter's, the incumbent's never held a real job, never met a payroll and has lived a life totally dependent on a microphone, a programmed political agenda and tons and tons of BS. And the reason our economy's sinking is because he's not only clueless about how it's supposed to work, his only interest in businesses success is how much more he can clip them for tax-wise for redistribution to his base of pathetic whiners.
Now, one would think that the incumbent could quickly change things for the nation's better if he shored up his weaknesses with experts. Even Slick Willie figured out how to do that and got himself re-elected. But no, the guy in office now not only won't seek valid advice from others, lately he's devised several schemes to work totally alone and even avoid communicating with Congress.
So, what all the preceding does is help me to realize that there really is a good possibility that a newbie might very well be successful, provided he surrounded himself with first-class support in areas of weakness. Because there's little doubt he's head, waist and shoulders above the guy holding the job now, whether it be measured intellectually, experience-wise or success based upon personal merit.
Consequently, if the newbie runs the nation's economy the same way he ran his businesses, the chances for success are extremely good. And if he backs himself up with other's expertise from folks who really know what they're doing as did Clinton and W Bush, the nation should do quite well in those other departments too. The only real worry that would then remain about the economy, is that after the incumbent's departure there's still anything of it left to ressurect.
That's it for today folk's.
Adios
And then this morning, I saw some comments by Ed Wallace on Fox News, which got me to re-thinking. According to Wallace, polls now show that significant numbers of folks across the country are fed up with politicians completely, regardless of party, and that's why someone like Cain's doing so well, even slightly better than Romney, who has a business background himself.
After digesting that information and pondering some more, I realized that a guy like Cain might just be what the country needs right now, with a couple of provisos. Because if you compare his personal achievements to the incumbent's, it's obvious that Cain has much more proven capability and far more potential.
For starter's, the incumbent's never held a real job, never met a payroll and has lived a life totally dependent on a microphone, a programmed political agenda and tons and tons of BS. And the reason our economy's sinking is because he's not only clueless about how it's supposed to work, his only interest in businesses success is how much more he can clip them for tax-wise for redistribution to his base of pathetic whiners.
Now, one would think that the incumbent could quickly change things for the nation's better if he shored up his weaknesses with experts. Even Slick Willie figured out how to do that and got himself re-elected. But no, the guy in office now not only won't seek valid advice from others, lately he's devised several schemes to work totally alone and even avoid communicating with Congress.
So, what all the preceding does is help me to realize that there really is a good possibility that a newbie might very well be successful, provided he surrounded himself with first-class support in areas of weakness. Because there's little doubt he's head, waist and shoulders above the guy holding the job now, whether it be measured intellectually, experience-wise or success based upon personal merit.
Consequently, if the newbie runs the nation's economy the same way he ran his businesses, the chances for success are extremely good. And if he backs himself up with other's expertise from folks who really know what they're doing as did Clinton and W Bush, the nation should do quite well in those other departments too. The only real worry that would then remain about the economy, is that after the incumbent's departure there's still anything of it left to ressurect.
That's it for today folk's.
Adios
Thursday, November 3, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/3/2011
I'm not a big fan of NYC Mayor, Michal Bloomberg, because I think he's a bit too impressed with himself and tends to bully. Nonetheless, at least he agrees with me on one point.
In a panel discussion on Tuesday, he clashed with former Mayor, Ed Koch, when the subject of the Wall Street protests came up. Bloomberg defended the banks, saying "It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress." He himself was a former executive of a financial information company, at the event for business leaders.
In oppositon, Koch angrily called for criminal prosecutions of corporate executives, noting that major banks have been fined hundreds of millions of dollars. He asked, "What do you think they got fined for? Schmutz on the sidewalk? They beggared the people in this country. There's something wrong with a kid who steals a bike going to jail, and someone who steals millions paying a fine."
Now, I've always liked Ed Koch and thought he performed quite well as Mayor. However, he has a huge liberal bias and tends to play to crowds as if still running for office, consequently I think his contention was a little short of the mark. Because in one sense he's absolutely correct...there really is something wrong when those who steal millions of dollars get a slap on the wrist and a fine while bike thieves wind up in the slam.
However, what Koch is talking about is a small group of bankers who abused or broke the law, and yes it did involve millions of dollars. But what Congress has done regarding writing those laws and involving themselves in issues they clearly don't understand has cost folks trillions, with a "T."
What's more, now that the president's decided that even Congress doesn't give away taxpayer's money in large enough amounts or nearly fast enough to suit him, he's doing the job alone.
By unilaterally easing student loan payback terms and conditions and reducing mortgage obligations, he's building the framework for another financial collapse led by losses in federally backed investment, which is likely only a place to start. Because now that he's figured out how to circumvent Congress and the public, he can give away the whole country's hard-earned assets piece by piece by himself.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In a panel discussion on Tuesday, he clashed with former Mayor, Ed Koch, when the subject of the Wall Street protests came up. Bloomberg defended the banks, saying "It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress." He himself was a former executive of a financial information company, at the event for business leaders.
In oppositon, Koch angrily called for criminal prosecutions of corporate executives, noting that major banks have been fined hundreds of millions of dollars. He asked, "What do you think they got fined for? Schmutz on the sidewalk? They beggared the people in this country. There's something wrong with a kid who steals a bike going to jail, and someone who steals millions paying a fine."
Now, I've always liked Ed Koch and thought he performed quite well as Mayor. However, he has a huge liberal bias and tends to play to crowds as if still running for office, consequently I think his contention was a little short of the mark. Because in one sense he's absolutely correct...there really is something wrong when those who steal millions of dollars get a slap on the wrist and a fine while bike thieves wind up in the slam.
However, what Koch is talking about is a small group of bankers who abused or broke the law, and yes it did involve millions of dollars. But what Congress has done regarding writing those laws and involving themselves in issues they clearly don't understand has cost folks trillions, with a "T."
What's more, now that the president's decided that even Congress doesn't give away taxpayer's money in large enough amounts or nearly fast enough to suit him, he's doing the job alone.
By unilaterally easing student loan payback terms and conditions and reducing mortgage obligations, he's building the framework for another financial collapse led by losses in federally backed investment, which is likely only a place to start. Because now that he's figured out how to circumvent Congress and the public, he can give away the whole country's hard-earned assets piece by piece by himself.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/2/2011
As I've mentioned in many prior entries, I spent most of my career selling equipment financing and leasing services. And while there was significant opportunity regarding income in that endeavor, because the more you produced, the more you earned, the downside risk was huge as well. Because if you didn't reach or exceed your employer's sales expectations, you were out the door before you knew it.
For folks like myself, who accept the risks of having their compensation depend solely on their personal productivity, the possibility of failure looms continually. However, that's part of the equation, and if there were no real risks, there would be no chance for reward.
As time goes by, and if one is successful in sales, opportunities may arise to enter managerial ranks, providing the chance for even greater earnings, but also significantly raising chances of failure because now success depends on the performance of many others. But, for those who step up to the task, so-be-it, because that's how the system works.
Therefore, for someone like me who spends every day clearly understanding the rules and extremely aware of the perils of failure in the real world, I frankly have a very hard time understanding how poor performers survive in the workplace at all, regardless of their positions. Because from my viewpoint, they're either proficient or they're not, and if they're not...case closed, they should be gone without question.
And then, this morning I read this story: On Tuesday at a news conference, Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming said, “I am calling on the president of the United States to cancel those bonuses and explain to the American people, the taxpayers who bailed out Freddie and Fannie, why he continues to reward failure.”
He was talking about the president's permitting $12.8 million in bonuses that were approved for 10 executives at the government-seized mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to pay out, although the two entities received $170 billion taxpayer-funds in bailouts.
Politico originally reported $6.46 million in bonuses for the top five officers at Freddie Mac, including $2.3 million for CEO Charles E. Haldeman Jr., who's stepping down next year, and $6.33 million for Fannie Mae officials, including $2.37 million for CEO Michael Williams, for meeting modest goals.
White House aides say the president took a lead on cleaning up excessive compensation on Wall Street with the Dodd-Frank bill, but those provisions do not apply to Fannie and Freddie.
So, here we have another case of the administration not only protecting it's own, but boldly ripping off taxpayers again without compunction and throwing another twelve million of their dollars down the drain. And for someone like me, I simply don't understand it and have to ask, where does this lunacy stem from?
Because there's something very wrong when someone by the virtue of being elected can unilaterally decide to give away someone else's hard-earned money time and time again out of either sheer stupidity or with the intent of doing considerable financial harm. And for those who still have a few bucks left, they better hope next November arrives quickly, because fiscally, DC's become a bottomless pit.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
For folks like myself, who accept the risks of having their compensation depend solely on their personal productivity, the possibility of failure looms continually. However, that's part of the equation, and if there were no real risks, there would be no chance for reward.
As time goes by, and if one is successful in sales, opportunities may arise to enter managerial ranks, providing the chance for even greater earnings, but also significantly raising chances of failure because now success depends on the performance of many others. But, for those who step up to the task, so-be-it, because that's how the system works.
Therefore, for someone like me who spends every day clearly understanding the rules and extremely aware of the perils of failure in the real world, I frankly have a very hard time understanding how poor performers survive in the workplace at all, regardless of their positions. Because from my viewpoint, they're either proficient or they're not, and if they're not...case closed, they should be gone without question.
And then, this morning I read this story: On Tuesday at a news conference, Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming said, “I am calling on the president of the United States to cancel those bonuses and explain to the American people, the taxpayers who bailed out Freddie and Fannie, why he continues to reward failure.”
He was talking about the president's permitting $12.8 million in bonuses that were approved for 10 executives at the government-seized mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to pay out, although the two entities received $170 billion taxpayer-funds in bailouts.
Politico originally reported $6.46 million in bonuses for the top five officers at Freddie Mac, including $2.3 million for CEO Charles E. Haldeman Jr., who's stepping down next year, and $6.33 million for Fannie Mae officials, including $2.37 million for CEO Michael Williams, for meeting modest goals.
White House aides say the president took a lead on cleaning up excessive compensation on Wall Street with the Dodd-Frank bill, but those provisions do not apply to Fannie and Freddie.
So, here we have another case of the administration not only protecting it's own, but boldly ripping off taxpayers again without compunction and throwing another twelve million of their dollars down the drain. And for someone like me, I simply don't understand it and have to ask, where does this lunacy stem from?
Because there's something very wrong when someone by the virtue of being elected can unilaterally decide to give away someone else's hard-earned money time and time again out of either sheer stupidity or with the intent of doing considerable financial harm. And for those who still have a few bucks left, they better hope next November arrives quickly, because fiscally, DC's become a bottomless pit.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
BloggeRhythms 11/1/2011
A few months ago, I mentioned that I used to sit and chat with a guy pretty often at a local place, and our little talks covered a wide range of subjects. And since we were both usually well-informed and up to date regarding politics, it was a regular topic.
Sometimes our ideas and predictions, while simply conversation to us, turned out to be accurate to the extent that we thought the place we were in was bugged and movers and shakers were actually listening to us. Now naturally, we were well aware that it simply wasn't so, but we did get a lot of laughs between ourselves while we promoted our self-importance.
The reason I mention the subject today is that over the past few months I've noted here fairly often that I've never grasped the value or purpose of political debates, other than for those who like to watch pre-programmed performers smear each other with rhetoric. And I've stated very clearly that there's enough information around on every candidate establishing exactly what they're all about that if they debated forever, it would never change their stripes. But much more important, I think it's beyond ridiculously naive to believe whatever any politician says or tries to promise...so what's the point of listening to reams of campaign tripe?
And then this morning, I came across this item about comments Rick Perry made regarding his poor performance in Iowa. This is what he said: "We've got a great debater, a smooth politician in the White House right now, that's not working really good for America. If you want to know how someone is going to perform in the future, take a look at their past."
And this is from one of Perry's ads: "If you're looking for a slick politician or a guy with great teleprompter skills, we already have that -and he's destroying our economy. I'm a doer, not a talker. In Texas we created 40 percent of the new jobs in the entire country since June of 2009. And we cut a record 15 billion dollars from our state budget. Now they say we can't do that in Washington. We'll they're wrong, and they need to go."
So, my thought for today is, that maybe my pal and I really were being bugged way back when, and maybe those same folks are monitoring my blog right now. And if that's really the case, and my inputs actually help Mr. Perry win the oval office, do I get a cabinet post out of this? And if not, does anyone out there know where I should send him a bill?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sometimes our ideas and predictions, while simply conversation to us, turned out to be accurate to the extent that we thought the place we were in was bugged and movers and shakers were actually listening to us. Now naturally, we were well aware that it simply wasn't so, but we did get a lot of laughs between ourselves while we promoted our self-importance.
The reason I mention the subject today is that over the past few months I've noted here fairly often that I've never grasped the value or purpose of political debates, other than for those who like to watch pre-programmed performers smear each other with rhetoric. And I've stated very clearly that there's enough information around on every candidate establishing exactly what they're all about that if they debated forever, it would never change their stripes. But much more important, I think it's beyond ridiculously naive to believe whatever any politician says or tries to promise...so what's the point of listening to reams of campaign tripe?
And then this morning, I came across this item about comments Rick Perry made regarding his poor performance in Iowa. This is what he said: "We've got a great debater, a smooth politician in the White House right now, that's not working really good for America. If you want to know how someone is going to perform in the future, take a look at their past."
And this is from one of Perry's ads: "If you're looking for a slick politician or a guy with great teleprompter skills, we already have that -and he's destroying our economy. I'm a doer, not a talker. In Texas we created 40 percent of the new jobs in the entire country since June of 2009. And we cut a record 15 billion dollars from our state budget. Now they say we can't do that in Washington. We'll they're wrong, and they need to go."
So, my thought for today is, that maybe my pal and I really were being bugged way back when, and maybe those same folks are monitoring my blog right now. And if that's really the case, and my inputs actually help Mr. Perry win the oval office, do I get a cabinet post out of this? And if not, does anyone out there know where I should send him a bill?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)