18
May
I have decided to take this blog in a different direction. My original intent was to have various authors in the field contribute their thoughts on events occurring in the economic world. That hasn’t panned out to my satisfaction. What I’d like to do now is take this in the direction of the lay person’s opinions on what I see occurring in the economic world. There probably won’t be any major breakthroughs here, but, the intent is that maybe some people in the economic world can see things from the other side.
I would love thoughts and contributions from those in the economic field as this thing evolves.
I’m sure at that point the staff member pointed Ms. Ramey in the direction of the multi-culturally impaired. It was the door with the sign that read "Whites Only".
( Thanks to Rigoletto for the initial story. )
17
May
From Powerline blog:
I honestly won’t totally disagree with Ms. Nooyi’s assessment. If all the fingers were exactly the same, the hand wouldn’t function that well now would it? That "pointer" Ms. Nooyi refers to is actually the nose picker, it usually stinks. The pinkie never hurts because it’s almost never used. The ring finger is the finger that signals to the world you’re beholden to someone else. We prefer freedom. The thumb is the one that gets hurt the most. It dangles aimlessly off to the side and doesn’t function quite the way the rest of the fingers do. I’m fine being the middle finger. It gets all the pussy while the other fingers just sit and watch.
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for this interesting tidbit:
I did a piece on Howard Dean shortly after he took over the DNC. I came to this conclusion then:
My prognostication? The Democrats, under Dean’s very public leadership, will take one more beating in 2006 and Dean will be gone with a Clinton successor taking his, and the party leadership’s place.
The only thing I might have gotten wrong is the timing. They may not be willing to wait until 2006.
That’s according to Fox. So far there’s no retraction at Newsweek.com. In fact, the same garbage is still there. In fact, this is still their synopsis:
What they resent is when media blasphemes their religion for the sake of selling magazines. Think about this for just one second Evan Thomas, were there any rioting BEFORE your bogus story? Think about that and then think about what you have written targeting Westerners. Put that in perspective of the lives lost and why they were lost. Your attitude has gotten people killed and seriously hurt the efforts of those soldiers who had already lost their lives in Afghanistan.
Evan Thomas doesn’t need to be in his position at Newsweek. Newsweek should have immediately retracted the story as soon as they knew it had problems with accuracy and THEN verified it. Better yet, they should have made sure it was accurate in the first place. Newsweek needs to clean house from the very top. There is something bad wrong there.
The first paragraph I’m fine with. However, Fox then takes it a step further and cites "more than 200" Members have co-signed. When I checked that with govtrack.us, I only got 3. I double checked it with thomas.gov and got the same 3. Now, don’t get me wrong, I support this bill 100%. The EU is failing to deal with this situation very well. The UN has rendered itself useless in the matter. Nothing seems to be getting the attention of the mullahs who want nuclear weapons. Granted both Thomas and Govtrack rely on information given to them in a timely manner, I’m guessing neither has received updated info on the bill. If they are right and Fox is wrong, there NEEDS to be 200 co-sponsors and this bill NEEDS TO PASS ASAP. What it does is basically force President Bush to get sterner. I know he can do that. I know he probably wants to do that. But, I can see his being a little gun shy after the flap over Iraq. If he’s "forced" to do it, he will.
Contact your Congressman and tell them to support H. R. 1743.
The only “facts” that matter at this point is Newsweek got the story wrong and it caused a LOT of harm. If they are willing to apologize for getting it wrong, they should very publicly retract the story and fire the authors of the story as a sign to the world that they don’t believe the story was accurate.
The only thing worse than the story itself is the response to it by Newsweek.
16
May
Simple words from Newsweek. They regret they "got any part" wrong. This is what they got wrong.
Particularly, this is what John Barry got wrong:
In simpler words, because the "official" did not say it was false, Barry ASSUMED it was true.
In another article in 2003, Barry wrote in Newsweek:
Most all of that testimony was discredited as well. Barry does point out the conflicts in that article tho. But, why even publish it?
Bottom line, Barry is reckless with his information and insensitive to the impact of what that recklessness might do. John Barry does not need to be writing for a national publication. If Newsweek was serious in their "apology", they would agree with me. If not, they need to start being distributed with all the other shock magazines in grocery stores.
This is a farce:
JOINT RESOLUTION
To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.
He then goes on a LONG list of abuses and broken treaties with the Indians by the US government. He praises the Indians and derides the government he represents.
I’m not going to dismiss some of the atrocities that occurred to the Indians hundred years ago and past. What makes this bill a farce is the last two lines:
Nothing in this Joint Resolution–
(1) authorizes or supports any claim againstthe United States; or
(2) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.
In other words, it’s nothing but words. That’s pandering, Brownback. Give them another casino and I’m sure they’ll appreciate it more.
Rigoletto39 of The Motley Fool somehow noticed a very distinct correlation between the people that voted to protect gangsters in my rant against Cynthia McKinney and the members of Congressional Progressive Caucus. The members that voted to protect gangsters are bolded.
| Member, Position | Proposed | Enacted |
% Enacted |
| Dennis Kucinich, Co-Chair | 54 | 0 | 0% |
| Barbara Lee, Co-Chair | 69 | 0 | 0% |
| Lynn Woolsey, Vice-Chair | 53 | 0 | 0% |
| Peter DeFazio, Officer | 77 | 3 | 4% |
| Jesse Jackson, Jr, Officer | 43 | 0 | 0% |
| Major Owens, Officer | 45 | 0 | 0% |
| Bernie Sanders, Officer | 61 | 0 | 0% |
| Hilda Solis, Officer | 25 | 2 | 8% |
| Neil Abercrombie, Member | 32 | 0 | 0% |
| Tammy Baldwin, Member | 36 | 0 | 0% |
| Xavier Becerra, Member | 33 | 1 | 3% |
| Corrine Brown, Member | 21 | 2 | 10% |
| Sherrod Brown, Member | 41 | 4 | 10% |
| Michael Capuano, Member | 33 | 0 | 0% |
| Julia Carson, Member | 31 | 0 | 0% |
| William "Lacy" Clay, Member | 18 | 2 | 11% |
| John Conyers, Member | 95 | 0 | 0% |
| Danny Davis, Member | 63 | 1 | 2% |
| Rosa DeLauro, Member | 68 | 0 | 0% |
| Lane Evans, Member | 71 | 1 | 1% |
| Eni Faleomavaega, Member | 30 | 4 | 13% |
| Sam Farr, Member | 25 | 2 | 8% |
| Chaka Fattah, Member | 20 | 1 | 5% |
| Bob Filner, Member | 89 | 0 | 0% |
| Barney Frank, Member | 86 | 1 | 1% |
| Raul Grijalva, Member | 13 | 0 | 0% |
| Luis Gutierrez, Member | 56 | 1 | 2% |
| Maurice Hinchey, Member | 47 | 2 | 4% |
| Sheila Jackson-Lee, Member | 113 | 0 | 0% |
| Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Member | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Marcy Kaptur, Member | 88 | 1 | 1% |
| Tom Lantos, Member | 92 | 4 | 4% |
| John Lewis, Member | 26 | 3 | 12% |
| Jim McDermott, Member | 45 | 0 | 0% |
| James P. McGovern, Member | 41 | 3 | 7% |
| George Miller, Member | 84 | 5 | 6% |
| Jerry Nadler, Member | 87 | 2 | 2% |
| Eleanor Holmes Norton, Member | 77 | 4 | 5% |
| John Olver, Member | 12 | 1 | 8% |
| Ed Pastor, Member | 12 | 2 | 17% |
| Donald Payne, Member | 38 | 0 | 0% |
| Nancy Pelosi, Member | 32 | 0 | 0% |
| Bobby Rush, Member | 37 | 2 | 5% |
| Jan Schakowsky, Member | 37 | 0 | 0% |
| Jose Serrano, Member | 55 | 0 | 0% |
| Pete Stark, Member | 102 | 0 | 0% |
| Bennie Thompson, Member | 20 | 0 | 0% |
| John Tierney, Member | 22 | 0 | 0% |
| Tom Udall, Member | 62 | 2 | 3% |
| Nydia Velazquez, Member | 29 | 1 | 3% |
| Maxine Waters, Member | 64 | 0 | 0% |
| Diane Watson, Member | 21 | 3 | 14% |
| Mel Watt, Member | 14 | 1 | 7% |
| Henry Waxman, Member | 40 | 1 | 3% |
| 2585 | 62 | 2% |
Pretty amazing "correlation" dontcha think? I have no clue how Rigoletto figured that one out so fast, but he seems to have his finger on the pulse of the Progressive Caucus. I recognized a few names on the list as well, and got this theme in my head of futility. So, I got some figures from govtrack.us and superimposed it on the members of the Progressive Caucus. Cumulatively they have sponsored 2,585 bills since 1999, and have gotten 62 passed. That’s a staggering 2% rounded up. 25 of the 54 members have never gotten a single bill passed since 1999. None. That list includes none other than Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democratic Leader of the House. I’m sure Cynthia McKinney will be in that caucus as well as soon as some radical Muslim pays her fees..
Now, the reason I did that is because I have been making the argument that the Democrat heads-that-be have hijacked the common Democrat Party and have used it for their own agenda. I think Ms. Pelosi and the Progressives pretty well sum it up. They can’t get anything passed, and they vote against obviously horrible PR legislation en masse. Go ahead Nancy, do the right thing. Quit the charade and quit the Democrat Party and call it what you are, the Progressive Party. A few more years of this type of leadership and their won’t be a national Democrat Party for her to quit.
