I am posting this because it is in the WSJ, which means that you can only access it for seven days after publication without paying.
Before that article, just a quick blurb. Who wants to finance a small nuclear power plant with me? I think we could pay off the debt in about 15 years, and that is 45 years of selling (carbon-free) power. My quick estimation suggests this thing would produce 900M - 1B kWh/yr.
WSJ link
President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.
A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
[The White House Fires a Watchdog] Associated Press
Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama.
Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.
At the end of May, Mr. Walpin's office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be "suspended" from receiving federal funds. The Corporation's official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin's office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California.
So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension.
The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation's findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals shown to have misused them.
Mr. Brown's office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin's office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama's top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown's office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he'd referred, he'd never been cut out in such fashion.
Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation's board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.
We've long disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congress designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars.
There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.
That's because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he'd be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.
White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.
Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior adviser."
If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The World Never Stops
You can't escape the goings on in the world, especially at such a critical time. This week we have GM officially entering bankruptcy (as if there were any doubt), a new nominee for the Supreme Court in (use your best accent with me, be sure to roll your R!) SONIA SOTOMAYOR, another weak treasury sale (potentially my next big topic), North Korea testing the resolve of the world (more sanctions? oooh, they're so scared...), and an oddly timed plea by the President for Congress to look at health care reform (let's hope they don't, or if they do, that you won't need to use it). I suggest trying to escape for a bit by taking in the National Spelling Bee. These kids are good. Though I have a problem with all of the "use the word in a sentence" sentences being 'funny.'
Monday, May 25, 2009
Why you have Monday Off...
My Grandfather is a Korean War Veteran. My other Grandfather is a Korean Conflict Veteran. One was in Korea, the other was close, but at the end of the day, I'm here today, and we should all remember the duty they served to us.
We don't have to work Monday because our nation sets aside this day every year to remember those that have died for our Constitution. Dying for our Consitutution means dying for what we believe in; dying for our liberty.
That's not something to be taken lightly.
We may celebrate it by frying a turkey, playing whiffleball, entertaining friends, and discussing our political perceptions, but all of that ought to be only the backdrop of the fact that we're able to do that in the first place.
I don't have the URL, but Obama, in his weekly Presidential address, implored upon us to remember what Memorial Day is all about.
I couldn't agree more.
We don't have to set aside our whole day, or say an entire Rosary, or even visit the grave of a veteran, but as we enjoy our three day weekend, let's set aside one drink, one shot, one moment, for a Veteran who believed so strongly believed in what America promises, that he or she died for the Constitution.
Let us remember he or she.
And let's not forget to continue to honor the sacrifice of that Veteran by keeping whole that same Constitution that ultimately governs this great land of America that we share.
We don't have to work Monday because our nation sets aside this day every year to remember those that have died for our Constitution. Dying for our Consitutution means dying for what we believe in; dying for our liberty.
That's not something to be taken lightly.
We may celebrate it by frying a turkey, playing whiffleball, entertaining friends, and discussing our political perceptions, but all of that ought to be only the backdrop of the fact that we're able to do that in the first place.
I don't have the URL, but Obama, in his weekly Presidential address, implored upon us to remember what Memorial Day is all about.
I couldn't agree more.
We don't have to set aside our whole day, or say an entire Rosary, or even visit the grave of a veteran, but as we enjoy our three day weekend, let's set aside one drink, one shot, one moment, for a Veteran who believed so strongly believed in what America promises, that he or she died for the Constitution.
Let us remember he or she.
And let's not forget to continue to honor the sacrifice of that Veteran by keeping whole that same Constitution that ultimately governs this great land of America that we share.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Puppetmaster
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052209dnbusgmobama.42f982c.html
Obama may soon send GM into bankruptcy
Obama may soon send GM into bankruptcy.
The head of the executive branch of our government may soon send one of the largest and oldest companies into legal protection to mask the additional lending of billions of dollars in an attempt to salvage the company from the depths of less-than-mediocrity and insolvency. Obama's way.
Billions of dollars of your money, and don't be mistaken that it is your money, in one way or another, will go into a company that produces vehicles that you may not own, and likely, ought not to buy. Just because the company is "American."
But by the way, let's not mention that this "American" company was recently reported to be shifting "more production of vehicles bound for the U.S. market to China, Mexico, South Korea and Japan, but will keep total imports at roughly one-third of all sales here."
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090509/AUTO01/905090337/1025/GM-plans-to-shift-overseas-production
The percentage of sales here will remain at one-third, they say, but think about this rationally. They are increasing production abroad, but hoping to keep the number of sales domestically at the same foreign-produced percentage. That simple math requires sales domestically to increase, along, of course, with an equal increase in domestic production.
But what happens if sales don't increase domestically? Production will be cut back, and which production will be cut first? The cheap foreign production in China, or the much more expensive production domestically?
Your "American" company will become less and less American. Or, your tax dollars will support domestic production of vehicles you don't want, only to support a businesss model that shouldn't be suriviving.
So what should happen to GM? I can't give you the answer, but Obama shouldn't either.
Not as long as he's in the position of the branch of government designed to execute that law of a different branch, rather than playing puppetmaster trying to save an American institution suffering from the failure of your and my lack of "dollar votes."
Obama may soon send GM into bankruptcy
Obama may soon send GM into bankruptcy.
The head of the executive branch of our government may soon send one of the largest and oldest companies into legal protection to mask the additional lending of billions of dollars in an attempt to salvage the company from the depths of less-than-mediocrity and insolvency. Obama's way.
Billions of dollars of your money, and don't be mistaken that it is your money, in one way or another, will go into a company that produces vehicles that you may not own, and likely, ought not to buy. Just because the company is "American."
But by the way, let's not mention that this "American" company was recently reported to be shifting "more production of vehicles bound for the U.S. market to China, Mexico, South Korea and Japan, but will keep total imports at roughly one-third of all sales here."
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090509/AUTO01/905090337/1025/GM-plans-to-shift-overseas-production
The percentage of sales here will remain at one-third, they say, but think about this rationally. They are increasing production abroad, but hoping to keep the number of sales domestically at the same foreign-produced percentage. That simple math requires sales domestically to increase, along, of course, with an equal increase in domestic production.
But what happens if sales don't increase domestically? Production will be cut back, and which production will be cut first? The cheap foreign production in China, or the much more expensive production domestically?
Your "American" company will become less and less American. Or, your tax dollars will support domestic production of vehicles you don't want, only to support a businesss model that shouldn't be suriviving.
So what should happen to GM? I can't give you the answer, but Obama shouldn't either.
Not as long as he's in the position of the branch of government designed to execute that law of a different branch, rather than playing puppetmaster trying to save an American institution suffering from the failure of your and my lack of "dollar votes."
Friday, May 8, 2009
You got Duped like Dirk
Dallas is a city of sports drama that never ends. Usually it's Cowboys related, but lately the other sports teams have been making headlines of their own. The Texas Rangers have a laundry list of players accused of taking steroids in the 90s, my beloved Stars signed an idiot who made an off color comment that brought out all the ire and hatred of his teammates in a fury that led to his being given psychiatric treatment and his being given away to another team, and Josh Howard of the Mavs disobeyed his coach and threw a birthday party during the playoffs last year, admitted to smoking weed in the offseason (only? yeah right), and was caught drag racing in the summer in North Carolina. Most recently, the girlfriend of star Mav Dirk Nowitzki was arrested as his home, with Dirk alledgedly reporting her to authorities after a private investigator he hired dug up dirt from her past. The woman claims to be pregnant as well, and this is all coming during a key playoff series that finds the Mavs down 2-0 to a team that is much better than they are.
Poor Dirk got duped by a con artist. Details are still coming out, but as of now it looks like he got involved with a chick with 8 or 9 different aliases and with arrest warrants outstanding for fraud and theft. Dirk's seems like a good guy who got duped, and I feel really bad for him. He fell for someone who wasn't at all what he thought, and who had devious, selfish intentions in mind behind a facade that was the complete opposite of all of that. A professional who's good at doing this can deceive even the most guarded and prepared of people, such as a professional athlete who is warned to be wary of people just like her.
It should come as no surprise, then, that well-intentioned, good people got duped by a presidential candidate who is a great, professional public speaker, making promises that just sounded so good the brain never got around to actually thinking about them, espeically at a time when public opinion and the media was simply tired of the regime in office and his act of good 'ol boy blumbering bufoon who was just a rich oil man from the wild west of Texas (it overshadowed whether people were in fact tired of his policy and whether they truly didn't like it). Obama was the perfect opposite of Bush. He marvelously, in his great way of speaking, made you believe that Bush blumbering idiot = Republican politics = John McCain. At a time when America was craving a poised human with a great gift of oration, Obama arrived. The autopsy is definitive on how you got duped.
But don't stay in the pit of "got'cha" and repeat the error that has us in the spin cycle of economic catasrophe. Start using your brain, and see the abuse of power and smoke and mirrors that Obama is playing. Start preparing yourself for the next round of oration and promises that began on election night, when Obama said it may take more than 1 term to accomplish his vision. See the deception at work:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-touts-17-billion-lot-of-apf-15176418.html?.v=24
The headline reads, "Obama touts $17 billion 'lot of money' budget cuts"
Most people will only read that headline. You probably didn't click the link, and if you did, probably didn't read the whole article. He's 'boasting of cutting or killing 121 federal programs in a belt-tightening he likened to that of most Americans in difficult times.' He's just like you and me, trying to cut back in these hard economic times. But you know what he's also doing? Proposing a budget that's going to add $1.2 TRILLION dollars to the Federal debt. The overall budget is $3 Trillion. He's outspending that great 'savings' from cutting back by over 70 times. It's simple math, and it's time to start reading between the lines and not be fooled by the man's words, or the headlines written by those who want to prop him up. I give this article credit for actually mentioning the other side of the story.
In another post I'll get to the disastrous consequences of such rediculous spending. I hope for Dirk's sake that that woman is not carrying his child, because then he has to deal with her for the rest of his life. We, though, are inheriting the child of irresponsible government, and spending that not only your children's children, or your children, but you and I will have to pay for. Remember this. You may have fallen for the rhetoric before, but you don't have to keep being romanced by it.
Poor Dirk got duped by a con artist. Details are still coming out, but as of now it looks like he got involved with a chick with 8 or 9 different aliases and with arrest warrants outstanding for fraud and theft. Dirk's seems like a good guy who got duped, and I feel really bad for him. He fell for someone who wasn't at all what he thought, and who had devious, selfish intentions in mind behind a facade that was the complete opposite of all of that. A professional who's good at doing this can deceive even the most guarded and prepared of people, such as a professional athlete who is warned to be wary of people just like her.
It should come as no surprise, then, that well-intentioned, good people got duped by a presidential candidate who is a great, professional public speaker, making promises that just sounded so good the brain never got around to actually thinking about them, espeically at a time when public opinion and the media was simply tired of the regime in office and his act of good 'ol boy blumbering bufoon who was just a rich oil man from the wild west of Texas (it overshadowed whether people were in fact tired of his policy and whether they truly didn't like it). Obama was the perfect opposite of Bush. He marvelously, in his great way of speaking, made you believe that Bush blumbering idiot = Republican politics = John McCain. At a time when America was craving a poised human with a great gift of oration, Obama arrived. The autopsy is definitive on how you got duped.
But don't stay in the pit of "got'cha" and repeat the error that has us in the spin cycle of economic catasrophe. Start using your brain, and see the abuse of power and smoke and mirrors that Obama is playing. Start preparing yourself for the next round of oration and promises that began on election night, when Obama said it may take more than 1 term to accomplish his vision. See the deception at work:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-touts-17-billion-lot-of-apf-15176418.html?.v=24
The headline reads, "Obama touts $17 billion 'lot of money' budget cuts"
Most people will only read that headline. You probably didn't click the link, and if you did, probably didn't read the whole article. He's 'boasting of cutting or killing 121 federal programs in a belt-tightening he likened to that of most Americans in difficult times.' He's just like you and me, trying to cut back in these hard economic times. But you know what he's also doing? Proposing a budget that's going to add $1.2 TRILLION dollars to the Federal debt. The overall budget is $3 Trillion. He's outspending that great 'savings' from cutting back by over 70 times. It's simple math, and it's time to start reading between the lines and not be fooled by the man's words, or the headlines written by those who want to prop him up. I give this article credit for actually mentioning the other side of the story.
In another post I'll get to the disastrous consequences of such rediculous spending. I hope for Dirk's sake that that woman is not carrying his child, because then he has to deal with her for the rest of his life. We, though, are inheriting the child of irresponsible government, and spending that not only your children's children, or your children, but you and I will have to pay for. Remember this. You may have fallen for the rhetoric before, but you don't have to keep being romanced by it.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Threats Behind the Smile
Welcome back to Racialblind. It's been a long absense, and in the meantime we've endured the historic inauguration, the first 100 days, and three prime-time press conferences.
I'm going to focus on a story that may only be beginning, or a story that nobody will ever hear about.
"Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats."
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5
The Obama Administration gave billions of dollars to the big 3 U.S. automakers in exchange for time to make plans about how they were going to save their companies. They were given a deadline, and the Administration put themselves in the position to decide whether the company's plans were acceptable or not. The problems here start with the 'lending' of money to the companies, but increase exponentially when the government puts themselves in a position to determine the fate of private enterprises.
More disturbing, though, are the scare tactics described in the article. Threats of political repercussions from the Obama administration as the means to achieve its ends. The administration's plan for Chrysler was determined long before its deadline, as it is for GM, whose deadline is next. Those involved in the negotiations from the administration merely had to make those plans happen, and they did it using political power plays. The threat to American's freedom is real and terrifying.
Even more terrifying is the prospect that the masses may never know what exactly is going on. Not just because of coverups by the administration, and the chilling of participants into silence, but because of the lack of an unbiased media to do the dirty work and investigate what's really going on. It's a dangerous machine right now, between the president in power, the balance of power in Congress, and the media propogating its message.
I'm going to focus on a story that may only be beginning, or a story that nobody will ever hear about.
"Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats."
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5
The Obama Administration gave billions of dollars to the big 3 U.S. automakers in exchange for time to make plans about how they were going to save their companies. They were given a deadline, and the Administration put themselves in the position to decide whether the company's plans were acceptable or not. The problems here start with the 'lending' of money to the companies, but increase exponentially when the government puts themselves in a position to determine the fate of private enterprises.
More disturbing, though, are the scare tactics described in the article. Threats of political repercussions from the Obama administration as the means to achieve its ends. The administration's plan for Chrysler was determined long before its deadline, as it is for GM, whose deadline is next. Those involved in the negotiations from the administration merely had to make those plans happen, and they did it using political power plays. The threat to American's freedom is real and terrifying.
Even more terrifying is the prospect that the masses may never know what exactly is going on. Not just because of coverups by the administration, and the chilling of participants into silence, but because of the lack of an unbiased media to do the dirty work and investigate what's really going on. It's a dangerous machine right now, between the president in power, the balance of power in Congress, and the media propogating its message.
Monday, November 17, 2008
How much time do we have?
Given the infrequency of posts here, I don't know how often the blog gets checked by its handful of users, but even though I have some ideas stewing, I don't have anything original from myself right now. I do want to put something up though, and so I'll post this from an e-mail chain I got earlier this year (I got it April 7th).
In light of bailouts and tax "cuts" (from the new President... which are really tax credits for the '95%' receiving them... which is essentially, then, another stimulus package... or for the cynical, is essentially welfare...), the message below is somewhat troubling. I don't know if the words will prove to be prophetic, but it certainly makes you think.
I know the analysis is of the 2000 election, but I'm pretty certain that the urban-voting phenomenon only got stronger in 2008...
I cannot verify the facts herein, but here is goes:
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
In light of bailouts and tax "cuts" (from the new President... which are really tax credits for the '95%' receiving them... which is essentially, then, another stimulus package... or for the cynical, is essentially welfare...), the message below is somewhat troubling. I don't know if the words will prove to be prophetic, but it certainly makes you think.
I know the analysis is of the 2000 election, but I'm pretty certain that the urban-voting phenomenon only got stronger in 2008...
I cannot verify the facts herein, but here is goes:
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)