Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: New Stupidity Record
This one will be short.
In an unprecedented display of willful ignorance, stupidity, ideologically-Dadaist-dialectic, and self-character assassin, the Honorable Representative Barney Frank (D, MA), just sent a letter to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack, asking them to loosen lending regulations. Current regs, according to the official Bizzaro-World poster boy, may be “too onerous” and he (and some attorney) are asking the lending institutions to “make appropriate adjustments.” (For those of you who’ve been in a coma for a few years, he and his cohorts did this once already, several years ago, which brought on the real estate/housing bubble, it’s consequent bursting, and helped fuel the currently raging recession.)
How soon we forget, eh?
In a related story, US citizens from around the country are saying that if Frank is re-elected yet again by the brain-dead state of Massachusetts, plans to put the state up for sale will be implemented. (Dubai is making back-channel inquiries).
Personally, I say we give the thing away. It’s not worth anything as is, and it is substantially smaller than the county I live in. We won’t miss the real estate. Besides, who’s gonna pay money for a state that keeps electing Frank and Kennedy?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
IGM Judicial Racism
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel (especially wise Latina women)
Fr: W. Leavitt, white male
Re: Judicial Racism
6-26-09
While pursuing the Drudge Report this evening and watching a Scrubs rerun, I came across a particularly disturbing quote from an ostensibly intelligent woman. Here’s the quote:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.
And who belongs to this vapid, vaporous, valueless vitriol? No, not Jennifer Lopez, nor Jessica Alba, nor Cameron Diaz, and it wasn’t Harry Reid ( who is neither a woman nor Latina, but he is the king of saying stupid things) and it isn’t even Carla, that fun-loving heart-of-gold nurse on Scrubs who is Dominican, thank you very much, not Puerto Rican.
It was Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotamayor.
I know knowing else about her, nor, at this point, do I care to. How is it that people of a certain, shall we say . . . persuasion? Can get away with this kind of crap? For that matter, how is it that someone who has espoused this sentiment—in public no less—is even nominated for a position more responsible than Federal Emergency Response Nose-Picker?
Which characteristic are we to believe will give her the superior life experiences apparently genetically withheld from “white males?” Or would it be both “woman” and “Latina?” And how does one make such a comparison? Her life experiences versus, mine, or yours or anyone else’s? How do we judge relative merit for such a tenuous, internal, subjective evaluation? Whew! Good thing we’ll have someone on the bench with just those skills. Because according to Sotamayor her future colleagues ain’t got it. Except maybe Thomas—she wasn’t clear on the status of black males.
At this point we hardly need to mention that other quote she gave us when talking about the court;
“this is where policy is made.”
Really? The courts? And here I thought that was what congress was for. I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to set more policy. It has worked out so well in the past, don’t you think?
In a civilized society, where politically correct extremism was not the order of the day, she would get her face slapped for such an outlandish, offensive, and utterly racial statement. Sure, the same goes for me too, but when do I ever say anything outlandish or offensive?
Now, someone might be upset over my evaluation of Miz Sotamayor’s foolishness, claiming I’m over-reacting, or not playing nice. Please. I’m not cutting her one ounce of slack. She said it, she deserves to be hammered for it. No one cuts me any slack. You people are ruthless! You don’t see all the replies I get. (It’s okay though. I can take it. In fact I love it.)
And let’s not make the mistake of believing that only certain, very rare people have what it takes to sit on that bench. I publicly challenge Sonia right now to a duel. Give me a nice office, a six-figure salary and a couple of law clerks from BYU (just to make it fair), and my best buddy Dever, and I will write opinions on all the cases the court sees while she is sitting on it. We’ll let the audience of “American Idol” decide who writes the better opinion. No contest. And mine would be funny too.
But seriously, someone—preferably a white male—should hire an attorney (Female and Latina) and sue this woman for defamation, slander and racial profiling, not to mention a possible hate-crime. Obviously I won’t because, you know, I just don’t care, and I wouldn’t be believable. But someone with a good reputation, someone involved and passionate, sincere and caring. I’m thinking Mr. Blood. You go big guy. Git ‘er!
To: All Personnel (especially wise Latina women)
Fr: W. Leavitt, white male
Re: Judicial Racism
6-26-09
While pursuing the Drudge Report this evening and watching a Scrubs rerun, I came across a particularly disturbing quote from an ostensibly intelligent woman. Here’s the quote:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.
And who belongs to this vapid, vaporous, valueless vitriol? No, not Jennifer Lopez, nor Jessica Alba, nor Cameron Diaz, and it wasn’t Harry Reid ( who is neither a woman nor Latina, but he is the king of saying stupid things) and it isn’t even Carla, that fun-loving heart-of-gold nurse on Scrubs who is Dominican, thank you very much, not Puerto Rican.
It was Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotamayor.
I know knowing else about her, nor, at this point, do I care to. How is it that people of a certain, shall we say . . . persuasion? Can get away with this kind of crap? For that matter, how is it that someone who has espoused this sentiment—in public no less—is even nominated for a position more responsible than Federal Emergency Response Nose-Picker?
Which characteristic are we to believe will give her the superior life experiences apparently genetically withheld from “white males?” Or would it be both “woman” and “Latina?” And how does one make such a comparison? Her life experiences versus, mine, or yours or anyone else’s? How do we judge relative merit for such a tenuous, internal, subjective evaluation? Whew! Good thing we’ll have someone on the bench with just those skills. Because according to Sotamayor her future colleagues ain’t got it. Except maybe Thomas—she wasn’t clear on the status of black males.
At this point we hardly need to mention that other quote she gave us when talking about the court;
“this is where policy is made.”
Really? The courts? And here I thought that was what congress was for. I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to set more policy. It has worked out so well in the past, don’t you think?
In a civilized society, where politically correct extremism was not the order of the day, she would get her face slapped for such an outlandish, offensive, and utterly racial statement. Sure, the same goes for me too, but when do I ever say anything outlandish or offensive?
Now, someone might be upset over my evaluation of Miz Sotamayor’s foolishness, claiming I’m over-reacting, or not playing nice. Please. I’m not cutting her one ounce of slack. She said it, she deserves to be hammered for it. No one cuts me any slack. You people are ruthless! You don’t see all the replies I get. (It’s okay though. I can take it. In fact I love it.)
And let’s not make the mistake of believing that only certain, very rare people have what it takes to sit on that bench. I publicly challenge Sonia right now to a duel. Give me a nice office, a six-figure salary and a couple of law clerks from BYU (just to make it fair), and my best buddy Dever, and I will write opinions on all the cases the court sees while she is sitting on it. We’ll let the audience of “American Idol” decide who writes the better opinion. No contest. And mine would be funny too.
But seriously, someone—preferably a white male—should hire an attorney (Female and Latina) and sue this woman for defamation, slander and racial profiling, not to mention a possible hate-crime. Obviously I won’t because, you know, I just don’t care, and I wouldn’t be believable. But someone with a good reputation, someone involved and passionate, sincere and caring. I’m thinking Mr. Blood. You go big guy. Git ‘er!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
IGM Shaky-Pants Dems
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Political Analyst
Re: Shaky-Pants Dems
4-26-09
It turns out that the House Democrats scheduled a high-profile global warming hearing for the 24th, at which they brought in the Big Gun, Al “Shaky Pants” Gore, to testify before some committee or other. Al’s an international expert on global warming, as we all know, since he spent half his life learning how to grow tobacco and then became a Senator so he could invent the Internet. It’s a good thing we have dedicated, knowledgeable people like Mr. Gore to scare the pants off us. Al was to the guest celebrity and testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last Friday.
Representative Joe Barton (Rep-Texas), ranking Committee member apparently didn’t get the memo about curtailing free speech and invited someone from the other side of the debate to appear as well, so as to get an even-handed report. Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was asked to come and deliver an opposing view with mitigating evidence, which seemed appropriate and sensible to everyone involved. Until he actually showed up. Monckton was not informed of the decision to refuse his testimony until after he had arrived in DC.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
This is the Limey talking now, not me. And it’s not like Lord Monckton is a stranger to Washington; he has testified before, as well as at the dreaded IPCC. He is a well-respected expert, especially on the political and economic issues related to climate change.
I guess he didn’t have a very good opinion of Gore’s decision to not allow a dissenting voice. I say this because of the following quotes.
“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.
That’s pretty funny, a Brit lecturing us on the Constitution. Or was he just lecturing the Democrats?
Waxman took the brunt of Monckton’s ire since he was the one who made the announcement.
But my favorite Monckton quote is this one:
“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows thttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhat, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained.
That’s just good fun, isn’t it? Of course, the Republicans are just as bad. If the tables were turned we can be sure they would be nixing someone for daring to disagree with the party line. I just like it when someone else picks on poor old AlGore. I’m sure he’s a nice man—well, harmless at least—even if he is a pompous wind-bag and narcissistic demagogue. Now-a-days, no one but the worst of the rabid libs will even listen to him. Conservatives laugh at Al while Liberals are embarrassed by him. Except for the usual suspects, like Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Waxman, et al.
Meanwhile, the climate will continue to fluctuate with little notice of us humans. And we will continue to adjust. It’s a wonderful life, ain’t it?
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Political Analyst
Re: Shaky-Pants Dems
4-26-09
It turns out that the House Democrats scheduled a high-profile global warming hearing for the 24th, at which they brought in the Big Gun, Al “Shaky Pants” Gore, to testify before some committee or other. Al’s an international expert on global warming, as we all know, since he spent half his life learning how to grow tobacco and then became a Senator so he could invent the Internet. It’s a good thing we have dedicated, knowledgeable people like Mr. Gore to scare the pants off us. Al was to the guest celebrity and testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last Friday.
Representative Joe Barton (Rep-Texas), ranking Committee member apparently didn’t get the memo about curtailing free speech and invited someone from the other side of the debate to appear as well, so as to get an even-handed report. Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was asked to come and deliver an opposing view with mitigating evidence, which seemed appropriate and sensible to everyone involved. Until he actually showed up. Monckton was not informed of the decision to refuse his testimony until after he had arrived in DC.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
This is the Limey talking now, not me. And it’s not like Lord Monckton is a stranger to Washington; he has testified before, as well as at the dreaded IPCC. He is a well-respected expert, especially on the political and economic issues related to climate change.
I guess he didn’t have a very good opinion of Gore’s decision to not allow a dissenting voice. I say this because of the following quotes.
“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.
That’s pretty funny, a Brit lecturing us on the Constitution. Or was he just lecturing the Democrats?
Waxman took the brunt of Monckton’s ire since he was the one who made the announcement.
But my favorite Monckton quote is this one:
“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows thttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhat, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained.
That’s just good fun, isn’t it? Of course, the Republicans are just as bad. If the tables were turned we can be sure they would be nixing someone for daring to disagree with the party line. I just like it when someone else picks on poor old AlGore. I’m sure he’s a nice man—well, harmless at least—even if he is a pompous wind-bag and narcissistic demagogue. Now-a-days, no one but the worst of the rabid libs will even listen to him. Conservatives laugh at Al while Liberals are embarrassed by him. Except for the usual suspects, like Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Waxman, et al.
Meanwhile, the climate will continue to fluctuate with little notice of us humans. And we will continue to adjust. It’s a wonderful life, ain’t it?
Friday, March 20, 2009
IGM Domestic Terrorism
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, neophyte domestic terrorist
Re: Domestic terrorism
Jay Nixon, Governor of Missouri, recently issued a secret report to law-enforcement and related agencies in his state, through the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which smears about two-thirds of the population of the country, naming them (us, me) as potential domestic terrorists.
The list includes: Ron Paul supporters, people who have knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and people who display political bumper stickers as potential domestic terrorists.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists, [and] the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.
Interestingly, the governor failed to mention Jihadists, Islamic Radicals, Bader Meinhoff, the Golden Path, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the KKK, the Black Panthers, the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and about two hundred others—I checked.
Do you believe this guy? According to Jay’s definition, I am a domestic terrorist on nearly every count. I own guns, I own gold, we display the flag on every appropriate occasion, I like Ron Paul, I have a nodding acquaintance with the Constitution, I understand that I am in fact a member of Nevada’s militia, I oppose both the North American Union and the New World Order, I belong to a “fundamentalist” religious organization, I listen to talk radio (while not mentioned in the report, I feel this was merely an oversight) and I like the occasional bumper sticker—my favorite of which is “I loathe and despise redundancy,” which I saw stuck to both sides of a bumper. Nice, huh?
I am surprised to find myself on a secret list, if not by name then certainly by temperament. I think of myself as pretty patriotic, then find out that the “patriot movement” is on the list. Bother. Now all of you will have to watch me night and day, which makes your jobs harder since you were already tasked to watch for anything unusual, out of the ordinary, or swarthy.
My one consolation is that I am in good company, which includes George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders, all of whom were radicals, insurgents, and treasonous. They were not terrorists, however. Not in the sense of my own above mentioned list which only includes people who kill innocents at random for the purpose of causing actual terror.
The Governor is one of many well-intentioned idiots who have misplaced his sanity in favor of political correctness. I am confident that the Bush administration did not prevent several dozen actual, active, terrorist plots from occurring in this country over the last seven years by keeping a sharp eye on flag-waving, bumper-sticker wearing, constitutionalists. But that’s just me.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, neophyte domestic terrorist
Re: Domestic terrorism
Jay Nixon, Governor of Missouri, recently issued a secret report to law-enforcement and related agencies in his state, through the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which smears about two-thirds of the population of the country, naming them (us, me) as potential domestic terrorists.
The list includes: Ron Paul supporters, people who have knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and people who display political bumper stickers as potential domestic terrorists.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists, [and] the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.
Interestingly, the governor failed to mention Jihadists, Islamic Radicals, Bader Meinhoff, the Golden Path, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the KKK, the Black Panthers, the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and about two hundred others—I checked.
Do you believe this guy? According to Jay’s definition, I am a domestic terrorist on nearly every count. I own guns, I own gold, we display the flag on every appropriate occasion, I like Ron Paul, I have a nodding acquaintance with the Constitution, I understand that I am in fact a member of Nevada’s militia, I oppose both the North American Union and the New World Order, I belong to a “fundamentalist” religious organization, I listen to talk radio (while not mentioned in the report, I feel this was merely an oversight) and I like the occasional bumper sticker—my favorite of which is “I loathe and despise redundancy,” which I saw stuck to both sides of a bumper. Nice, huh?
I am surprised to find myself on a secret list, if not by name then certainly by temperament. I think of myself as pretty patriotic, then find out that the “patriot movement” is on the list. Bother. Now all of you will have to watch me night and day, which makes your jobs harder since you were already tasked to watch for anything unusual, out of the ordinary, or swarthy.
My one consolation is that I am in good company, which includes George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders, all of whom were radicals, insurgents, and treasonous. They were not terrorists, however. Not in the sense of my own above mentioned list which only includes people who kill innocents at random for the purpose of causing actual terror.
The Governor is one of many well-intentioned idiots who have misplaced his sanity in favor of political correctness. I am confident that the Bush administration did not prevent several dozen actual, active, terrorist plots from occurring in this country over the last seven years by keeping a sharp eye on flag-waving, bumper-sticker wearing, constitutionalists. But that’s just me.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt Crypto-Planetologist
Re: Malthusism . . . again
Food and energy shortages will create 'perfect storm', says Prof John Beddington
Here we go again. This is the headline in the UK Telegraph today. Professor Beddington is predicting doom and gloom over yet another resource-crisis.
The demand for resources will create a crisis with dire consequences, Prof Beddington predicts.
He gives us until 2030 before the ceiling collapses.
Demand for food and energy will jump 50 per cent by 2030 and for fresh water by 30 per cent, as the global population tops 8.3 billion, he is due to tell a conference in London.
This is exactly what Thomas Malthus told the British Government in the early 1800’s. His theory is famous and is being proven wrong consistently. The idea simply will not die. Basically, both Malthus and his latest acolyte, Beddington, preach the same gospel; that rising populations will always outstrip our ability to grow food, find potable water and mine resources. And yet, since the industrial revolution, the exact opposite has consistently occurred. None of these prophets of doom—and there have been a lot of them—have ever taken into consideration the other side of the coin. Only R.B. Fuller had bothered to do that, and his conclusions have proven accurate since the thirties. They are this: Humans will always, through innovation and discovery, find ways to be more efficient in all they do. His thesis is that as organisms, our role in the universe is order, organization, which is anti-entropic and allows us to continually do ever-more with ever-less. Moore’s law is the perfect example; every 18 months integrated circuits go through another revolution, doubling the number of transistors, increasing speed and efficiency, and dropping in price. During Malthus’s time one farmer could feed about ten people. Today—in the First World, one farmer feeds thousands, in the States its hundreds of thousands. The planet has enormous stores of fresh water—we just have to have the will to go after it. We plant more trees than we harvest every year, worldwide. And on and on. Fuller does not abolish the many challenges we face any more that Malthus predicts our demise from them, but the fact is, as a species, we face them and are geniuses at overcoming them.
There are things that could destroy us, destroy life. Catastrophic events beyond our control, like errant comets and gamma ray bursts within a thousand light years. (but they would have to be aimed right at us) Political posturing, bickering, and partisanship can certainly do it, but lack of resources never will. We have the whole solar system to exploit, and yes, that is the correct word—look it up. Nuclear holocaust will not do it—there are not enough bombs in the world to destroy human life, much less all life, despite the continuing rhetoric contrary to that opinion. One major volcanic eruption has more destructive force than the entire arsenal of nuclear weapons. And personally, I don’t think radical changes in the global climate will ever destroy us either. It could get bad, change things, kill millions, but we’d survive and eventually thrive again.
Despite centuries of being proven wrong, the naysayers like Malthus and Ehrlich and their ilk still insist on spouting their silly nonsense, and they make names for themselves and often lots of money from it. But the human race prevails. The human experience continues to validate itself, despite everything we try that screws things up. Think positive. Be reasonable. Be a good influence in your sphere and husband the resources for which you are responsible. If we all do that we will create a veritable paradise. And we will do it without having to compromise our standards of living—maybe our willful pursuit of hedonistic pleasure, but that won’t be a bad thing, will it?
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt Crypto-Planetologist
Re: Malthusism . . . again
Food and energy shortages will create 'perfect storm', says Prof John Beddington
Here we go again. This is the headline in the UK Telegraph today. Professor Beddington is predicting doom and gloom over yet another resource-crisis.
The demand for resources will create a crisis with dire consequences, Prof Beddington predicts.
He gives us until 2030 before the ceiling collapses.
Demand for food and energy will jump 50 per cent by 2030 and for fresh water by 30 per cent, as the global population tops 8.3 billion, he is due to tell a conference in London.
This is exactly what Thomas Malthus told the British Government in the early 1800’s. His theory is famous and is being proven wrong consistently. The idea simply will not die. Basically, both Malthus and his latest acolyte, Beddington, preach the same gospel; that rising populations will always outstrip our ability to grow food, find potable water and mine resources. And yet, since the industrial revolution, the exact opposite has consistently occurred. None of these prophets of doom—and there have been a lot of them—have ever taken into consideration the other side of the coin. Only R.B. Fuller had bothered to do that, and his conclusions have proven accurate since the thirties. They are this: Humans will always, through innovation and discovery, find ways to be more efficient in all they do. His thesis is that as organisms, our role in the universe is order, organization, which is anti-entropic and allows us to continually do ever-more with ever-less. Moore’s law is the perfect example; every 18 months integrated circuits go through another revolution, doubling the number of transistors, increasing speed and efficiency, and dropping in price. During Malthus’s time one farmer could feed about ten people. Today—in the First World, one farmer feeds thousands, in the States its hundreds of thousands. The planet has enormous stores of fresh water—we just have to have the will to go after it. We plant more trees than we harvest every year, worldwide. And on and on. Fuller does not abolish the many challenges we face any more that Malthus predicts our demise from them, but the fact is, as a species, we face them and are geniuses at overcoming them.
There are things that could destroy us, destroy life. Catastrophic events beyond our control, like errant comets and gamma ray bursts within a thousand light years. (but they would have to be aimed right at us) Political posturing, bickering, and partisanship can certainly do it, but lack of resources never will. We have the whole solar system to exploit, and yes, that is the correct word—look it up. Nuclear holocaust will not do it—there are not enough bombs in the world to destroy human life, much less all life, despite the continuing rhetoric contrary to that opinion. One major volcanic eruption has more destructive force than the entire arsenal of nuclear weapons. And personally, I don’t think radical changes in the global climate will ever destroy us either. It could get bad, change things, kill millions, but we’d survive and eventually thrive again.
Despite centuries of being proven wrong, the naysayers like Malthus and Ehrlich and their ilk still insist on spouting their silly nonsense, and they make names for themselves and often lots of money from it. But the human race prevails. The human experience continues to validate itself, despite everything we try that screws things up. Think positive. Be reasonable. Be a good influence in your sphere and husband the resources for which you are responsible. If we all do that we will create a veritable paradise. And we will do it without having to compromise our standards of living—maybe our willful pursuit of hedonistic pleasure, but that won’t be a bad thing, will it?
IGM The spendulus Package, AIG, etc
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, sore loser
Re: AIG, the spendulus package, other oddities
I had something in mind when I started this, but the sheer magnitude of topics, the plethora of criticisms available, makes it difficult to know where to begin. So I’ll just do what I always do; write whatever comes to mind. I suppose we’ve all been following this AIG bonus story and how congress and the president are screaming about the money being given away to employees after AIG received billions of dollars in bail-out money. Fair enough. I have always been skeptical of the sums of money given to CEO’s and top executives. It makes one suspicious that rather than being a reward for excellent work, it is just a system for spreading the wealth—which is a plank in the current administrations platform. They just don’t like it when they don’t get their cut. It should be done ‘democratically’, not through a good-old-boy system. It looks like Ed Libby is doing his best to save that company, but with all this help from the government AIG is doomed.
I do have a problem or two with the current righteous indignation being displayed by some of the people on Capitol Hill. Barney Frank is calling for investigations, indictments, and is working on a bill that would require those at AIG receiving bonuses to return it—as if Congress has any right to do such a thing in the private sector—like it or not, AIG has done nothing illegal, or even unusual. Another bill, already endorsed by our own Harry “dingy harry” Reid, would require a tax on all corporate bonuses of 90%--yes someone is actually introducing that. And you though the whole “socialism” thing was just hyperbole.
By the way, everyone knew three months ago that AIG, long before they were given bail-out money, was going to be handing out the bonuses—bail-out or not—because they told everyone about it and that they were contractually obligated to do so. Remember contracts? Remember how upset we were when the state of Nevada decided to cut our salaries this year despite our contract? So now they are all lining up to posture about their indignation. This almost rises to the level of hypocrisy . . . .
And what about all those people (3 that I know of) who were working for Fanny and Freddie and got their shares of 100 million dollars in bonuses before they were tagged to be part of the current administration? Shall we mention Barney and Harry and Chris and Nancy again, and how they were knowingly culpable in propping up Freddie and Fanny long after it was known—and they had been warned—that those lending institutions were going to fail? (We will not mention that criminal Bush and his administrations repeated attempts to get someone to do something about the impending bursting of the bubble).
Then we have our President comparing Tim Geitner to our first Sec Tres., Alexander Hamilton. That took guts. Isn’t Geitner the one who couldn’t figure out what he owed taxes on? And got that huge bonus from Freddie and/or Fanny? Who else would you pick to run the Treasury? Al Capone comes to mind; at least he’s dead and couldn’t do any damage.
All this outrage and anger and name-calling by congress is laughable. They caused the problem in the first place, and are making it worse now. It takes a lot of chutzpah to shoot someone in the head in front of witnesses, then call a press conference demanding an investigation and vowing to find out who is responsible. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that passing a law requiring a 90% tax on bonuses isn’t going to help fix the problem.
A new poll has more people saying they would vote Republican over Democrat for the first time in over two years—that didn’t take long. It’s only by two points, but the change is significant all things considered. Congress had better watch their backs, if you know what I mean. And now they’re crying over all the pork in the spendulus package—you know, the one nobody had time to read—demanding investigations, etc., when it’s their pork. Is anyone else reminded of the Keystone Cops in all of this? It’s going to be fun watching what is rapidly becoming the country’s most amateurish leadership in history as they continue to break their own records for incompetence and ignorance. Not that any of us are keeping score.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, sore loser
Re: AIG, the spendulus package, other oddities
I had something in mind when I started this, but the sheer magnitude of topics, the plethora of criticisms available, makes it difficult to know where to begin. So I’ll just do what I always do; write whatever comes to mind. I suppose we’ve all been following this AIG bonus story and how congress and the president are screaming about the money being given away to employees after AIG received billions of dollars in bail-out money. Fair enough. I have always been skeptical of the sums of money given to CEO’s and top executives. It makes one suspicious that rather than being a reward for excellent work, it is just a system for spreading the wealth—which is a plank in the current administrations platform. They just don’t like it when they don’t get their cut. It should be done ‘democratically’, not through a good-old-boy system. It looks like Ed Libby is doing his best to save that company, but with all this help from the government AIG is doomed.
I do have a problem or two with the current righteous indignation being displayed by some of the people on Capitol Hill. Barney Frank is calling for investigations, indictments, and is working on a bill that would require those at AIG receiving bonuses to return it—as if Congress has any right to do such a thing in the private sector—like it or not, AIG has done nothing illegal, or even unusual. Another bill, already endorsed by our own Harry “dingy harry” Reid, would require a tax on all corporate bonuses of 90%--yes someone is actually introducing that. And you though the whole “socialism” thing was just hyperbole.
By the way, everyone knew three months ago that AIG, long before they were given bail-out money, was going to be handing out the bonuses—bail-out or not—because they told everyone about it and that they were contractually obligated to do so. Remember contracts? Remember how upset we were when the state of Nevada decided to cut our salaries this year despite our contract? So now they are all lining up to posture about their indignation. This almost rises to the level of hypocrisy . . . .
And what about all those people (3 that I know of) who were working for Fanny and Freddie and got their shares of 100 million dollars in bonuses before they were tagged to be part of the current administration? Shall we mention Barney and Harry and Chris and Nancy again, and how they were knowingly culpable in propping up Freddie and Fanny long after it was known—and they had been warned—that those lending institutions were going to fail? (We will not mention that criminal Bush and his administrations repeated attempts to get someone to do something about the impending bursting of the bubble).
Then we have our President comparing Tim Geitner to our first Sec Tres., Alexander Hamilton. That took guts. Isn’t Geitner the one who couldn’t figure out what he owed taxes on? And got that huge bonus from Freddie and/or Fanny? Who else would you pick to run the Treasury? Al Capone comes to mind; at least he’s dead and couldn’t do any damage.
All this outrage and anger and name-calling by congress is laughable. They caused the problem in the first place, and are making it worse now. It takes a lot of chutzpah to shoot someone in the head in front of witnesses, then call a press conference demanding an investigation and vowing to find out who is responsible. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that passing a law requiring a 90% tax on bonuses isn’t going to help fix the problem.
A new poll has more people saying they would vote Republican over Democrat for the first time in over two years—that didn’t take long. It’s only by two points, but the change is significant all things considered. Congress had better watch their backs, if you know what I mean. And now they’re crying over all the pork in the spendulus package—you know, the one nobody had time to read—demanding investigations, etc., when it’s their pork. Is anyone else reminded of the Keystone Cops in all of this? It’s going to be fun watching what is rapidly becoming the country’s most amateurish leadership in history as they continue to break their own records for incompetence and ignorance. Not that any of us are keeping score.
IGM Pending Environmental Doom
Inter-Galactic-Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Glaciologist
Re: Pending Environmental Doom
In an article last night I found an interesting claim. It was on some site called Yourstateline.com, which I’ve never heard of and probably didn’t want to, but the headline intrigued me. It says:
Rise in Sea Temp Could Melt W. Antartic Ice Sheet
The more astute among us will notice they misspelled ‘Antarctic’. We all misspell stuff all the time but one would think that a commercial website headline might have been spell-checked.
The first line of the article says the following: (Oslo) -- A nine degree rise in sea temperature could melt the West Antarctic ice sheet.
Naturally my curiosity was piqued since no one has been talking about multi-degree ocean-temp. rises since Al “Captain Planet” Gore and his spurious documentary debut. I thought, “do these people know how long a nine-degree spike in ocean temperature would take?” Then they told me—the process would take “thousands of years”. So . . . what’s the point of telling us that? This is a non story. Yes, if the Antarctic ice cap were to melt (thousands of years from now due to a completely hypothetical warming trend) it would change the landscape of the planet and rearrange the coastlines globally. So what? Geologically speaking, that happens all the time.
But then the entire debacle-of-a-story became clear in the last line of the brief “article.”
The nine degree trigger for collapse is based on a computer model.
They do love their computer models, don’t they? (Actually, I do too, I just can’t help making fun of them when they take this stuff so seriously.)
Anyway, take a breath and relax. There is no imminent danger of the Ross Ice Shelf disappearing. At least not for the next four years—it wouldn’t dare vanish on Obama’s watch.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Glaciologist
Re: Pending Environmental Doom
In an article last night I found an interesting claim. It was on some site called Yourstateline.com, which I’ve never heard of and probably didn’t want to, but the headline intrigued me. It says:
Rise in Sea Temp Could Melt W. Antartic Ice Sheet
The more astute among us will notice they misspelled ‘Antarctic’. We all misspell stuff all the time but one would think that a commercial website headline might have been spell-checked.
The first line of the article says the following: (Oslo) -- A nine degree rise in sea temperature could melt the West Antarctic ice sheet.
Naturally my curiosity was piqued since no one has been talking about multi-degree ocean-temp. rises since Al “Captain Planet” Gore and his spurious documentary debut. I thought, “do these people know how long a nine-degree spike in ocean temperature would take?” Then they told me—the process would take “thousands of years”. So . . . what’s the point of telling us that? This is a non story. Yes, if the Antarctic ice cap were to melt (thousands of years from now due to a completely hypothetical warming trend) it would change the landscape of the planet and rearrange the coastlines globally. So what? Geologically speaking, that happens all the time.
But then the entire debacle-of-a-story became clear in the last line of the brief “article.”
The nine degree trigger for collapse is based on a computer model.
They do love their computer models, don’t they? (Actually, I do too, I just can’t help making fun of them when they take this stuff so seriously.)
Anyway, take a breath and relax. There is no imminent danger of the Ross Ice Shelf disappearing. At least not for the next four years—it wouldn’t dare vanish on Obama’s watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)