Well, it's mostly good news actually. Daily PUMA has EXPANDED the two right columns of this blog to give better highlighting to the PUMA blogs. The Wider columns should also increase how long each PUMA article remains near the top of the column. (It's a mathematical, longitudinal distance thing).
The bad news is the center column had to be shrunk and now has to have all the individual video clips readjusted. At the moment the time to do that cannot be found.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Reflecting on Team Sports and how they prepare us for our adult social interactions.
I have this nagging suspicion that being part of a team sport, and then being able to walk away from the game afterwards without either being indifferent to the experience, nor so passionate that one remains emotional about the outcome for far too long, can lead one to developing healthy relationships later on in life.
If a team sport has creaed an environment in which the players work with their teammates for the best result while caring about the outcome, yet once the game is over are able to move on, that person is setting themselves up for a lifetime worth of terrific social interactions.
It is quite the irony to think that something as nebulous as playing a team sport may actually have a huge impact later on in life when it comes to dealing with others in a variety of social situations, but I think there is a correlation.
If a team sport has creaed an environment in which the players work with their teammates for the best result while caring about the outcome, yet once the game is over are able to move on, that person is setting themselves up for a lifetime worth of terrific social interactions.
It is quite the irony to think that something as nebulous as playing a team sport may actually have a huge impact later on in life when it comes to dealing with others in a variety of social situations, but I think there is a correlation.
Monday, February 23, 2009
BETTY JEAN KLING, LOUIS RODAS UPDATE, URGENT INFORMATION, CALL TO ACTION !!!
Here is a link to Betty Jean Kling's blog with an important update regarding Louisa Rodas. One Last Kiss Goodbye.
I dearly hope that Betty Jean Kling has made an official, WRITTEN request to Kessler asking for at the very least, supervised visits so Louisa won't be so alone all the time.
Being on the other side of the country, DailyPUMA does not know the inner workings of what is going on, but denying a mother a chance to visit her struggling to survive daughter, a victim of domestic violence and a shot gun blast to the face and brain, just does not seem to make sense under most circumstances.
You can send a postcard, get well card, or balloons to LOUISA RODAS - PATIENT, Kessler Rehabilitation, West Orange Campus, 1199 Pleasant Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052
But PLEASE READ BETTY JEAN'S BLOG ARTICLE One Last Kiss Goodbye. FOR THE FULL STORY.
IF YOU SENT IN A POSTCARD, OR GET WELL CARD, PLEASE POST IN THE COMMENTS SECTION THAT YOU DID. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR REAL NAME OR ANYTHING.
I dearly hope that Betty Jean Kling has made an official, WRITTEN request to Kessler asking for at the very least, supervised visits so Louisa won't be so alone all the time.
Being on the other side of the country, DailyPUMA does not know the inner workings of what is going on, but denying a mother a chance to visit her struggling to survive daughter, a victim of domestic violence and a shot gun blast to the face and brain, just does not seem to make sense under most circumstances.
You can send a postcard, get well card, or balloons to LOUISA RODAS - PATIENT, Kessler Rehabilitation, West Orange Campus, 1199 Pleasant Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052
But PLEASE READ BETTY JEAN'S BLOG ARTICLE One Last Kiss Goodbye. FOR THE FULL STORY.
IF YOU SENT IN A POSTCARD, OR GET WELL CARD, PLEASE POST IN THE COMMENTS SECTION THAT YOU DID. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR REAL NAME OR ANYTHING.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Can MSNBC continue to cover Barack Obama Speeches day after day?
Barack Obama was speaking recently and MSNBC was providing a live feed and I noticed a few "cheerers" in the back of the room that seemed to be obvious plants. How long can MSNBC and Barack Obama continue to sponge off of each other?
Did MSNBC show George Bush live, everyday and everywhere he went? Is it plausible that Barack Obama will continue to make live, daily televised appearances to the merriment of MSNBC? I guess I just can't believe it can keep up for his entire term in office without a backlash occurring.
Did MSNBC show George Bush live, everyday and everywhere he went? Is it plausible that Barack Obama will continue to make live, daily televised appearances to the merriment of MSNBC? I guess I just can't believe it can keep up for his entire term in office without a backlash occurring.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Decoding the New York Post Chimpanzee Cartoon.
Some people view The New York Post Chimpanzee Cartoon by Sean Delonas as racist, others seem to think that calling the cartoon racist is just another example of people looking for publicity.
Perhaps what is throwing people off is not the cartoon, but the cartoon caption. The cartoon caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," does not fit the cartoon images.
The cartoonist appears to have juxtaposed three completely unrelated events while creating the cartoon, and strangely enough, forgot to actually add one of those three elements into either the cartoon or the caption. Those three elements include the stimulus bill, the chimpanzee that was recently shot and killed, and the Geico Caveman slogan, "So easy even a caveman could do it."
Where I think the cartoonist went wrong was thinking of the Geico Caveman commercial slogan, but forgetting to incorporate it into the caption or the cartoon. If the chimpanzee on the ground had instead been the Geico Caveman with a stimulus document on his chest, and the caption read, "So easy even a Caveman thought he could write it", there probably would have been far fewer complaints of racism, because we've all seen the Caveman commercials.
Or, keeping the cartoon exactly as is, the caption could be changed to, "his stimulus bananas never arrived"... The powerful message being that the stimulus package is not going to reach anywhere near enough people to be useful. Again, no racism message. Or, the caption could have read, "He got his stimulus package check today, but all he really wanted was bananas". Whats the point of fixing the roads if the cars driving on them aren't made in america, aka, the chimp got his check, but could not find local bananas to buy.
The fixation over the IMAGE within the cartoon, rather than the CAPTION, points to a disturbing societal trend of caring more about image rather than verbal content. If simply changing the caption can eliminate the cartoon's presumed racist angle, then why isn't anybody up in arms over the lack of verbal cleverness and clarity by the cartoonist?
Am I upset, yes, because I can't draw. I'm upset that I get ideas but can't draw them, yet someone who knows how to draw, but can't think cleverly, is able to get their sterile and unfunny message out to a big audience.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Bailout Noise and Stimulus Package Succeeds in Obfuscating the Real Heart of the Matter.
Barack Obama wants to reprise the role of the Grinch as he throws 1/2 trillion dollars from his sleigh (not counting tax cuts), back to the very people who were robbed in the first place.
Oh wait a minute, the Grinch did a much better job of returning the stolen goods to those who actually were robbed. I suppose one could say that the robbery happened under George Bush, and that Barack Obama is just picking up the pieces and "redistributing" the lost wealth as best he can.
Whatever your view of the sub-prime mortgages that first fueled, then fooled, then unspooled the economy, the one thing that stands out, and that is conveniently ignored by the elite of our society is...overnight increases in home mortgage payments that rise more than 10% are unethical, will, and did crash & burn the economy.
Instead of sub prime mortgage programs that wildly spike at the five year mark, what if the homeowners monthly payment started going up at the five year mark by just one percent (not the interest rate, but the monthly payment plus one percent, then the next month the monthly payment plus 2 percent) each month when the subprime loans vested after five years? What would have happened? Customers would have had their own built in "bailout plan" in the form of TIME.
If subprime loans SLOWLY ESCALATED the customer would have had PLENTY of TIME to sell their home if they found they could not keep up with the increasing payments.
Rather than force homeowners out of their home practically overnight, the homeowner could easily have had another six months to five years to sell their home WHILE STILL MAKING THEIR MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO THE BANKS!
Sub-prime borrowers would have made educated guesses as to how long they could afford their slowly escalating mortgages, and would have been much more likely to sell their homes in a timely fashion without being desperate when they did it. Just as importantly, the homeowner would have continued making their payments. Instead, as structured, the sub prime mortgage five year spike resulted in many homeowners simply giving up and even walking away from the home.
A SLOW ESCALATION in the monthly mortgage payment would have been a more responsible method for both stimulating the economy without it collapsing almost overnight. I believe somebody should go on trial over the design of the sub-prime mortgage program. Millions of consumers in the US and elsewhere had their sub-prime loans converted to foreclosure simply because the overnight price escalation was an abomination they could not afford.
Homeowners who bought into sub prime loans, in many instances were lured there by bankers and other money people who told them they would be foolish to not invest in a home purchase if the cost to own was not that much higher than renting. Add in the lure of rising home property values, and in most instances this was no different than entrapment.
Yes, it is possible that the sub prime mortgage industry was a plot to first falsely escalate both the economy and real estate values, and then cause the almost immediate foreclosure and LOSS of EQUITY to practically everybody in the country. Meanwhile, Credit Card Debt now remains at a record all time high as a ratio of credit card debt to total home equity in the United States. The banks appear to have won every which way even as they clamored for more bailout money.
The banks have really made out a lot better than the media tends to report. There seems to be a latent desire to scarlet letter law abiding citizens so they can be taxed and charged excessively in the future,because of past sub-prime mortgage failures. "Oh, you had a subprime loan that turned into a foreclosure? Well, you'll have to pay a penalty in the future for our fraudulent and unfair subprime loan scam that heavily contributed to your practically overnight foreclosure in the past".
Will anybody enact a law that limits how quickly a home mortgage payment can escalate from one month to the next? The sub prime loan swindlers not only got away with the past sub prime mortgage scam, they also have been given bailout money for the next great swindle as well, and the consumers that were victimized by the sub-prime loan received a scarlet letter stamped on their forehead that will cost them dearly the next time they attempt to purchase a home or buy a car.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
John Ziegler's Documentary, "Media Malpractice", Good News, Bad News?
I have mixed feelings about John Ziegler's documentary "Media Malpractice", primarily because it has not been released yet and I don't know what is in it.
(Edit update - Hey, RumpRoast gave my opening line an award. Probably deserved too. lol, I still haven't seen the video as of Oct. 19th, 2009, but I do want to.)
Here are my hopes about Media Malpractice. Mr. Ziegler was really able to demonstrate how the media and the democratic party worked against Hillary Clinton to give the race to Barack Obama, and that Hillary Clinton will end up looking like the real winner who was literally robbed of the democratic nomination by the united but unethical actions from several different, but connected sources.
Here are my concerns. The film is going to focus more on Sarah Palin and less on Hillary Clinton. My second concern is that Mr. Ziegler's use of PUMA blogs for critical information may have been underutilized or under acknowledged. For now, the above is speculation, it will be interesting to see what made it into Mr. Ziegler's final cut and if any PUMAs or PUMA blogs get credited.
However, the strange thing is it may not matter whether PUMA's are credited or not in Mr. Ziegler's documentary. If PUMA's are credited, that could feel very validating and somewhat empowering. If PUMA's are not credited, yet Mr. Ziegler comes up with his own examples of media bias that favored Barack Obama over all others, this will further validate PUMA talking points about the 2008 primaries and beyond.
I think the media, led by Keith Olbermann, definitely excreted a form of georacism against the state of Alaska and Sarah Palin. Part of the reason this georacism was accepted was because Alaska is comprised of primarily white people. According to the media, white peopl can't be the victim of georacism, especially when it is the media slinging the disparaging remarks, Keith Olbermann, take a bow.
The cynical side in me thinks the doc will be more about Sarah Palin because Palin is more likely a shooting star still rising and therefore there is more to gain by sucking up to the future rather than setting the past straight. I do hope I'm wrong.
Here are my hopes about Media Malpractice. Mr. Ziegler was really able to demonstrate how the media and the democratic party worked against Hillary Clinton to give the race to Barack Obama, and that Hillary Clinton will end up looking like the real winner who was literally robbed of the democratic nomination by the united but unethical actions from several different, but connected sources.
Here are my concerns. The film is going to focus more on Sarah Palin and less on Hillary Clinton. My second concern is that Mr. Ziegler's use of PUMA blogs for critical information may have been underutilized or under acknowledged. For now, the above is speculation, it will be interesting to see what made it into Mr. Ziegler's final cut and if any PUMAs or PUMA blogs get credited.
However, the strange thing is it may not matter whether PUMA's are credited or not in Mr. Ziegler's documentary. If PUMA's are credited, that could feel very validating and somewhat empowering. If PUMA's are not credited, yet Mr. Ziegler comes up with his own examples of media bias that favored Barack Obama over all others, this will further validate PUMA talking points about the 2008 primaries and beyond.
I think the media, led by Keith Olbermann, definitely excreted a form of georacism against the state of Alaska and Sarah Palin. Part of the reason this georacism was accepted was because Alaska is comprised of primarily white people. According to the media, white peopl can't be the victim of georacism, especially when it is the media slinging the disparaging remarks, Keith Olbermann, take a bow.
The cynical side in me thinks the doc will be more about Sarah Palin because Palin is more likely a shooting star still rising and therefore there is more to gain by sucking up to the future rather than setting the past straight. I do hope I'm wrong.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Bill Clinton asked to not cross Picket Line.
No on Prop 8 advocates urge Bill Clinton not to Participate.
Bill Clinton is supposed to speak this Sunday (see link above) at a hotel in which the hotel owner donated 125,000 dollars towards the passage of Prop 8. From what I understand, Bill Clinton's reason for speaking is that it was an organization that hired him to speak, not the hotel.
Ideally, a list of whom Prop 8 is targeting should be given to Bill Clinton or his people so in the future he can make his decisions on where he speaks with more information.
Did the gay community really back Hillary Clinton during the democratic campaign? I seem to recall that around 10%, maybe even as high as 15% of all democratic delegates were gay, yet when it came time to fight for Hillary, I just don't recall any delegate group fighting for Hillary, gay or otherwise.
Bill Clinton is supposed to speak this Sunday (see link above) at a hotel in which the hotel owner donated 125,000 dollars towards the passage of Prop 8. From what I understand, Bill Clinton's reason for speaking is that it was an organization that hired him to speak, not the hotel.
Ideally, a list of whom Prop 8 is targeting should be given to Bill Clinton or his people so in the future he can make his decisions on where he speaks with more information.
Did the gay community really back Hillary Clinton during the democratic campaign? I seem to recall that around 10%, maybe even as high as 15% of all democratic delegates were gay, yet when it came time to fight for Hillary, I just don't recall any delegate group fighting for Hillary, gay or otherwise.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Is a Blog a blog if there is no way to contact the blog owner?
Is a Blog a blog if there is no way to contact the blog owner? Would love to get feedback. Should DailyPUMA include any blog that doesn't have any mechanism for either being able to reply to a blog article OR contact the blog author via email? Just asking.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Taking all the fun out of Stimulation, even when we're still paying for it anyways.
It just dawned on me what bugs me most about the stimulus package. I would much rather see congress give out 300, three billion dollar stimulus checks over a years time, then do it all at once. Suddenly the flaw of the stimulus program is exposed.
300, three billion dollar stimulus checks would be the equivalent of two a day if we factor in how many days a year congress is actually in session. Um, maybe even three a day! Clearly it would take congress a week to two weeks to approve each 3 billion dollar check, and if one factors in that some bills won't be approved right away, we see that congress can only give away so much money, so fast, and do it in a responsible fashion.
Why can't all the stimulee's out there make a case as to why their program deserves immediate attention. and money? Why can't all the projects that might be eligible for funding get their project in order in a coherent, realistic and rapid manner as soon as possible so they can get their cut? Why can't stimulus equal incentive?
Are we possibly headed for a situation where the government will be so anxious to hand out money that they will practically be begging organizations to take the money and run? We should be grateful that car sales are down 40%. Why do we want people buying old school gasoline technology when we should be spending money fast tracking lighter weight transportation that also converts the suns rays to battery power?
I am intrigued by the UCLA plastics / photovoltaic research currently going on. The UCLA photo voltaic plastics research program could actually be a cornerstone towards any new breakthrough in weaning americans off of gasoline.
People need to survive on less money right now so that science and industry can maneuver society towards superior modes of transportation. This is why allocating all of that stimulus money all at once is not the way to go. Let society come forward with their proposals. Governments need to call a time out when it comes to taxation and interest rate charges being assessed on their own citizens.
Instead of figuring out ways to loan citizens more money, lets figure out ways to get people to reduce the debt they already owe without just writing it off as a bad debt. Let the people of this country help guard the stimulus package money. Calling a credit card interest rate time out for all americans interested in paying down their debt would require that bankers sit on their assets and not continue to charge outrageous interest rates on the one trillion in credit card debt.
Perhaps UCLA comes forward and asks for 250 million dollars in research for their photo voltaic plastics research projects. Would it be so bad to hire two hundred and fifty out of work people, pay them a stipend of 3,000 a month, and have their job be to monitor how that 250 million dollars is being spent? Some may say, well that's only one new job per million dollars. Wrong, that is just one job to help supervise the spending of each million dollars.
UCLA would be spending to purchase materials, conduct tests, have prototypes made, etc. The end result could be closer to one new job for every 100,000 dollars spent. That is probably an acceptable ratio, and the end result will then feed Michigan with entire new types of vehicles to build.
This is the type of cross pollination that needs to be going on. Use the Western Sun to accelerate plastic photovoltaic research, then use that technology in Michigan to create jobs for the new age of cars. Trying to revive a tired old economic system all at once will reduce money that could be going towards real progess.
300, three billion dollar stimulus checks would be the equivalent of two a day if we factor in how many days a year congress is actually in session. Um, maybe even three a day! Clearly it would take congress a week to two weeks to approve each 3 billion dollar check, and if one factors in that some bills won't be approved right away, we see that congress can only give away so much money, so fast, and do it in a responsible fashion.
Why can't all the stimulee's out there make a case as to why their program deserves immediate attention. and money? Why can't all the projects that might be eligible for funding get their project in order in a coherent, realistic and rapid manner as soon as possible so they can get their cut? Why can't stimulus equal incentive?
Are we possibly headed for a situation where the government will be so anxious to hand out money that they will practically be begging organizations to take the money and run? We should be grateful that car sales are down 40%. Why do we want people buying old school gasoline technology when we should be spending money fast tracking lighter weight transportation that also converts the suns rays to battery power?
I am intrigued by the UCLA plastics / photovoltaic research currently going on. The UCLA photo voltaic plastics research program could actually be a cornerstone towards any new breakthrough in weaning americans off of gasoline.
People need to survive on less money right now so that science and industry can maneuver society towards superior modes of transportation. This is why allocating all of that stimulus money all at once is not the way to go. Let society come forward with their proposals. Governments need to call a time out when it comes to taxation and interest rate charges being assessed on their own citizens.
Instead of figuring out ways to loan citizens more money, lets figure out ways to get people to reduce the debt they already owe without just writing it off as a bad debt. Let the people of this country help guard the stimulus package money. Calling a credit card interest rate time out for all americans interested in paying down their debt would require that bankers sit on their assets and not continue to charge outrageous interest rates on the one trillion in credit card debt.
Perhaps UCLA comes forward and asks for 250 million dollars in research for their photo voltaic plastics research projects. Would it be so bad to hire two hundred and fifty out of work people, pay them a stipend of 3,000 a month, and have their job be to monitor how that 250 million dollars is being spent? Some may say, well that's only one new job per million dollars. Wrong, that is just one job to help supervise the spending of each million dollars.
UCLA would be spending to purchase materials, conduct tests, have prototypes made, etc. The end result could be closer to one new job for every 100,000 dollars spent. That is probably an acceptable ratio, and the end result will then feed Michigan with entire new types of vehicles to build.
This is the type of cross pollination that needs to be going on. Use the Western Sun to accelerate plastic photovoltaic research, then use that technology in Michigan to create jobs for the new age of cars. Trying to revive a tired old economic system all at once will reduce money that could be going towards real progess.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Jake Tapper asks the White House about the mysterious Ethics List.
Thanks to The Real Barack Obama Blog for finding this
Ethics rule number 1,
For maximum flexibility, don't reveal list of ethics.
Ethics Rule number 2,
Refer to rule number one.
Ethics Rule number 3,
Are you still here?
Ethics Rule number 4,
It is not ethical to waste the presidents time with non-pertinent
ethics questions.
Ethics Rule number 5,
If you don't have another question, please allow someone else a chance.
Ethics Rule number 6,
Just Go Away, Please.
Ethics Rule number 7,
Just Go Away.
Ethics Rule number 8
Just Go.
Ethics Rule number 9
So, have you found a new press plane to travel on?
Ethics Rule number 10
The ethics list doubles as a bib for your wagyu steak.
http://www.DailyPUMA.com
Ethics rule number 1,
For maximum flexibility, don't reveal list of ethics.
Ethics Rule number 2,
Refer to rule number one.
Ethics Rule number 3,
Are you still here?
Ethics Rule number 4,
It is not ethical to waste the presidents time with non-pertinent
ethics questions.
Ethics Rule number 5,
If you don't have another question, please allow someone else a chance.
Ethics Rule number 6,
Just Go Away, Please.
Ethics Rule number 7,
Just Go Away.
Ethics Rule number 8
Just Go.
Ethics Rule number 9
So, have you found a new press plane to travel on?
Ethics Rule number 10
The ethics list doubles as a bib for your wagyu steak.
http://www.DailyPUMA.com
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolfe Absolve Hillary Clinton For her Iraq War Vote without even realizing it, Amazing.
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Richard Wolfe of Newsweek engaged in an incredible exchange during Keitho's Friday night show. (Feb. 06, 2009) The hidden message behind their discourse was so profoundly counter to the harrassment that they lathered on Hillary Clinton during the democratic primary race least year, right around the first of February of 2008.
Here is the excerpt that DailyPUMA has transcribed from last nights show. After you read it the first time, I'll explain how to decode the hidden message lurking within.
Keith Olbermann
Time to call in our own political analyst, Richard Wolfe. Good Evening Richard.
Richard Wolfe
Good Evening Keith.
Keith Olbermann
All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.
Richard Wolfe
Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the economic numbers, which we just saw today those terrible unemployment numbers. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....
Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be unhappy, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of spending is gonna be inthere, but, in the end, the economic pressure, the political pressure from this president is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with this bill. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head. - END OF QUOTE
----------------------------------
Mr. Wolfe is basically saying that the democratic senators really have no choice regarding the stimulus package vote, "whether they like it or not, it's gonna happen". Now, think back to the possibly paid off protestors during last years democratic presidential campaign that would follow Hillary Clinton around and scream at her for voting yes for the war in Iraq.
I'm going to take Richard Wolfe's own words, and by REPLACING JUST A HANDFUL OF THEM, the comment sounds exactly like justification for supporting George Bush going to war in Iraq.
----------------------------------
Keith Olbermann
All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.
Richard Wolfe's comments, when applied to the vote on the Iraq War.
Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the ongoing terrorism threat, which we just saw those terrible numbers, 3000 dead. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....
Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be nervous, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of the war plan is in there, but, in the end, the pressure to stop terrorism before it comes to the U.S. again, the political pressure from president Bush is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with the Iraq war vote. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head.
-------------------------------------------end of slightly altered quote.
I barely changed the passage, yet word for word it could have been used by Wolfe to describe why the Iraq war vote was going to pass.
One could try and argue that, well, Wolfe is talking about the party that is in power, that they are the ones in lock step with their own president. However, that argument falls apart because George Bush was saying, back me, we are in danger of another act like the World Trade center collapse if we don't fight the war outside of the United States. Factor in the argument that the troops in Afghanistan could be outflanked if Iraq was ignored, and the democrats were basically there to support the president.
Blaming Hillary Clinton for George Bush's war was lame. Has a senator ever stopped a war? But suddenly the first woman candidate can only run and be accepted if she had stopped George Bush's war? What kind of a load is that?
Olbermann and Wolfe chastized Hillary Clinton for voting yes on the war in Iraq during the early stages of the 2008 democratic campaign race and used it as a reason why she could not be president of the United States.
This was just another in a series of planned out anti Hillary smokescreens to discredit her campaign. As more and more of these plots come to light, it sure looks like a planned conspiracy from within the democratic party and the media to elevate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
Will we ever find out if any of those anti Hillary protestors who claimed she could not be president because of her yes vote on the war on Iraq, were paid off? Olbermann and Wolfe sure appear to have been.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Fixing Infrastructure DOES NOT stimulate the economy, it actually does the opposite.
When it comes to "infrastructure" spending, unless a road, bridge, electrical line, or sewage system's collapse is imminent, not spending on infrastructure can actually stimulate the economy faster.
Instead of government prematurely fixing infrastructure, let the private sector know which potholes are not going to be filled so private investors can invest in alignment shops, tire stores, car repair bays, and build the repair shops on both sides of the potholes. Even rims and hubcap places will experience terrific economic stimulation if infrastructure is just left as is and assuming general safety is not being compromised. This will save the government billions on unnecessary infrastructure repairs, and many many new car repair businesses will crop up as a result of LESS infrastructure spending.
One key to a useful stimulus program is to stimulate the consumer to get the consumer to want to pay to fix things that they own that break, including their cars. Another aspect to not going crazy on infrastructure repair is to motivate the consumer to go out and buy a new, "stronger car" that comes with a pothole protection plan. (I bet some car manufacturer will now come up with such a program)
Flying road debris may also stimulate cars into being repainted more often. The less roads that are fixed the more overall stimulation is created, it's how the west was won.
The key to capitalism has never been about efficiency, it's always been about filling the needs of people in need. If we prematurely fix roads and bridges while they still work, we are just increasing the country's long term debt via this bailout bill while simultaneously hurting all aspects of auto maintenance and auto manufacturing.
Better roads mean people's cars will last much much longer than they currently do. Plus, those extra automobile fix it shops that were going to be built near the potholes, the people those new businesses were going to employ, and the taxes that these businesses were all going to pay, never happened because all the roads were fixed instead.
One pothole making machine can do a whole lot more economic stimulating than one hundred construction people fixing an unbroken road ever could.
"But, but, you can't be serious". Well, consider this a "Modern Proposal".
Assuming that infrastructure repair means the timely maintenance of roadways, bridges, electrical and sewage lines and has been done on an annual basis following a logical maintenance schedule, than it really should be business as usual and no stimulus program is needed for infrastructure at all....
....unless, the overall rate of yearly infrastructure deterioration has been occurring at a much greater rate than it was being repaired all along???
If the government is behind on its infrastructure repair maintenance schedule AND the economy is tanking as well, then clearly the government didn't spend wisely over the past few decades on infrastructure, and instead diverted infrastructure funds to pad their own pet projects in ways we'll never know. "If you don't have the money to do infrastructure right the first time, how are you going to have the money to do infrastructure correctly, later?" I would suggest that using taxpayer money to give roadways a new coat of asphalt before it is necessary, is not a way to stimulate the economy.
Fixing only the neediest bridges and roads is all that is needed for infrastructure, and that infrastructure money should already have been allocated within the yearly budget anyways. "What, you mean money that was supposed to go to annual infrastructure maintenance was being diverted to other projects? Really???" So the government now wants to borrow even more money to do the work that should have been being done all along anyways???
Just who wants to stimulate a bunch of politicians now, when it appears they have used prior years budgets to stimulate their own needs rather than fix infrastructure at the proper yearly maintenance level? I don't.
I hope you can understand that as silly as this blog article seems, everything in it is the truth, and that is why we have a MUCH BIGGER problem related to how to run a worldwide economy without it being stimulated by wasteful spending and inefficiency.
Instead of government prematurely fixing infrastructure, let the private sector know which potholes are not going to be filled so private investors can invest in alignment shops, tire stores, car repair bays, and build the repair shops on both sides of the potholes. Even rims and hubcap places will experience terrific economic stimulation if infrastructure is just left as is and assuming general safety is not being compromised. This will save the government billions on unnecessary infrastructure repairs, and many many new car repair businesses will crop up as a result of LESS infrastructure spending.
One key to a useful stimulus program is to stimulate the consumer to get the consumer to want to pay to fix things that they own that break, including their cars. Another aspect to not going crazy on infrastructure repair is to motivate the consumer to go out and buy a new, "stronger car" that comes with a pothole protection plan. (I bet some car manufacturer will now come up with such a program)
Flying road debris may also stimulate cars into being repainted more often. The less roads that are fixed the more overall stimulation is created, it's how the west was won.
The key to capitalism has never been about efficiency, it's always been about filling the needs of people in need. If we prematurely fix roads and bridges while they still work, we are just increasing the country's long term debt via this bailout bill while simultaneously hurting all aspects of auto maintenance and auto manufacturing.
Better roads mean people's cars will last much much longer than they currently do. Plus, those extra automobile fix it shops that were going to be built near the potholes, the people those new businesses were going to employ, and the taxes that these businesses were all going to pay, never happened because all the roads were fixed instead.
One pothole making machine can do a whole lot more economic stimulating than one hundred construction people fixing an unbroken road ever could.
"But, but, you can't be serious". Well, consider this a "Modern Proposal".
Assuming that infrastructure repair means the timely maintenance of roadways, bridges, electrical and sewage lines and has been done on an annual basis following a logical maintenance schedule, than it really should be business as usual and no stimulus program is needed for infrastructure at all....
....unless, the overall rate of yearly infrastructure deterioration has been occurring at a much greater rate than it was being repaired all along???
If the government is behind on its infrastructure repair maintenance schedule AND the economy is tanking as well, then clearly the government didn't spend wisely over the past few decades on infrastructure, and instead diverted infrastructure funds to pad their own pet projects in ways we'll never know. "If you don't have the money to do infrastructure right the first time, how are you going to have the money to do infrastructure correctly, later?" I would suggest that using taxpayer money to give roadways a new coat of asphalt before it is necessary, is not a way to stimulate the economy.
Fixing only the neediest bridges and roads is all that is needed for infrastructure, and that infrastructure money should already have been allocated within the yearly budget anyways. "What, you mean money that was supposed to go to annual infrastructure maintenance was being diverted to other projects? Really???" So the government now wants to borrow even more money to do the work that should have been being done all along anyways???
Just who wants to stimulate a bunch of politicians now, when it appears they have used prior years budgets to stimulate their own needs rather than fix infrastructure at the proper yearly maintenance level? I don't.
I hope you can understand that as silly as this blog article seems, everything in it is the truth, and that is why we have a MUCH BIGGER problem related to how to run a worldwide economy without it being stimulated by wasteful spending and inefficiency.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
It Appears the Best Man for the Job was a Woman, Barack Obama's Daschle Mistake was actually preempted by Nancy Killefer's Decision to step down.
Barack Obama offers Nancy Killefer a newly created position called "federal government's chief performance officer", and she realizes the way to get chief performance is for her to resign because of past payroll tax issues.
Tom Daschle, who was nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, resigns shortly thereafter.
Barack Obama apologizes for not doing a better job of "vetting" Mr. Daschle. Barack Obama's supporters laud Barack's honesty and willingness to take the blame.
Are we to believe that Mr. Daschle was not properly vetted? Really? Or, is it more reasonable to assume that Barack Obama knew about the tax issue, felt it was not that big of a deal, and went ahead with his selection of Tim Daschle? If that is the case, then that means it took the bravery of Nancy Killefer resigning to get Mr. Daschle to see the light and resign as well.
Do I really have to listen to Barack Obama supporters once again cheer Barack Obama for his willingness to take the hit even as they ignore nor thank Nancy Killefer for her willingness to step down before the payroll tax issue grew in scope?
--------------------------------------------------
I wonder if the issue here is not that laws are being broken, but that these politicians seek to move upward with their careers without apologizing first, and then waiting to see if public opinion will forgive them before they go into the upgrade pool.
Tom Daschle, who was nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, resigns shortly thereafter.
Barack Obama apologizes for not doing a better job of "vetting" Mr. Daschle. Barack Obama's supporters laud Barack's honesty and willingness to take the blame.
Are we to believe that Mr. Daschle was not properly vetted? Really? Or, is it more reasonable to assume that Barack Obama knew about the tax issue, felt it was not that big of a deal, and went ahead with his selection of Tim Daschle? If that is the case, then that means it took the bravery of Nancy Killefer resigning to get Mr. Daschle to see the light and resign as well.
Do I really have to listen to Barack Obama supporters once again cheer Barack Obama for his willingness to take the hit even as they ignore nor thank Nancy Killefer for her willingness to step down before the payroll tax issue grew in scope?
--------------------------------------------------
I wonder if the issue here is not that laws are being broken, but that these politicians seek to move upward with their careers without apologizing first, and then waiting to see if public opinion will forgive them before they go into the upgrade pool.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders (Independent) Vermont, let the DailyPUMA cat out of the bag.
Update - April 11, 2016. The reason I do not support Bernie Sanders in 2016 is in the seven years since this article was first written I don't think he ever really came up with anything that would actually help consumers reduce their own debt. Instead Mr. Sanders railed against Wall Street when the more viable solution was to help consumers struggling to get out of debt. End of Update.
I have predicted for the last two years that the economy was going to tank, I even wrote two websites over two years ago warning of the theft of money from the american consumer by the Banks and Wall Street. Credit-Card-Cap.com and Credit-Protector.com
Both Websites expose financial methods that loaning institutions have used to rob americans of billions upon billions of dollars.
Tonight (February 3rd, 2009), Rachel Maddow had Bernie Sanders on, a Vermont INDEPENDENT congressman who said something of real substance.
Here is the transcript of a crucial part of the Rachel Maddow, Bernie Sanders interview. I personally transcribed it, please link to it if you like (versus just cutting and pasting it) as it took quite a while to transcribe.
Rachel Maddow
If this executive pay cut can be done well, can be done without loopholes and it works, what's next on the agenda? Do you think in terms of making sure that the bailout money that is already committed, because the bailout money is already outflowing, that it should, can be used in a less exploitive, less immoral way?
Senator Bernie Sanders
Well Rachel, this is the problem with this issue, is, it is so big, that nobody can get their hands on it. It is not just 700 billion dollars, as you know the fed has lent out 2.5 trillion dollars. The president is probably going to ask for more top money.
The fed, we think, is going to lend out trillions more. So what we need to do, among many other things, is we need to figure out a way that we do more than get back to where we were a couple of years ago, by making the institutions stable.
If the taxpayers of this country are putting such a huge amount of money into financial institutions, we need financial institutions that are gonna be beholden to the needs of ordinary americans and not go back to where we were... (as in a couple years ago.)
For example, Just one example. Right now, we're bailing out banks which are charging american taxpayers 25 or 30 percent interest rates on their credit cards. Does that make sense to anybody?
We're giving banks money and they're not telling us how their spending it. We're trying to loosen up credit in america, they're not doing it.
Sanders went on to talk about actually prosecuting the richest people on the planet who may have performed misdeeds that have led to the current situation, and wondered if the justice department was up to the task prosecuting those who are culpable.
Now, I have been advocating an interest free paydown of all credit card debt on my WallStreetChange blog. Bernie Sanders has just said the exact same thing I have been saying about credit card debt. Credit Card Interest charges are suffocating the life support out of the economy and it makes no sense to give the banks more money if they cannot pass the savings on to the consumer in any way.
Barack Obama needs to be funding research and completion of photovoltaic plastics which would do two things at the same time. Photovoltaic plastics lighten the weight of all cargo carriers that travel by ground or water, which instantly improves the efficiency of any battery powered systems because of the lighter weight. Plus, the photovoltaic technology imbedded into the plastic means that the cargo carriers are actually rergenerating part of their own energy even as they travel! Because the carrier's weight has been reduced, whatever is regenerated will power the carrier that much farther.
Let the consumer sweat the smaller stuff. The one trillion dollars in credit card debt is producing 250 billion dollars a year in new interest charges. The republicans want a huge tax cut, the democrats want to give money out, those two ideas merge together if the consumer is given a reasonable way to pay down their own debts via zero percent credit card interest rates to those who desire to pay down their debt.
I have predicted for the last two years that the economy was going to tank, I even wrote two websites over two years ago warning of the theft of money from the american consumer by the Banks and Wall Street. Credit-Card-Cap.com and Credit-Protector.com
Both Websites expose financial methods that loaning institutions have used to rob americans of billions upon billions of dollars.
Tonight (February 3rd, 2009), Rachel Maddow had Bernie Sanders on, a Vermont INDEPENDENT congressman who said something of real substance.
Here is the transcript of a crucial part of the Rachel Maddow, Bernie Sanders interview. I personally transcribed it, please link to it if you like (versus just cutting and pasting it) as it took quite a while to transcribe.
Rachel Maddow
If this executive pay cut can be done well, can be done without loopholes and it works, what's next on the agenda? Do you think in terms of making sure that the bailout money that is already committed, because the bailout money is already outflowing, that it should, can be used in a less exploitive, less immoral way?
Senator Bernie Sanders
Well Rachel, this is the problem with this issue, is, it is so big, that nobody can get their hands on it. It is not just 700 billion dollars, as you know the fed has lent out 2.5 trillion dollars. The president is probably going to ask for more top money.
The fed, we think, is going to lend out trillions more. So what we need to do, among many other things, is we need to figure out a way that we do more than get back to where we were a couple of years ago, by making the institutions stable.
If the taxpayers of this country are putting such a huge amount of money into financial institutions, we need financial institutions that are gonna be beholden to the needs of ordinary americans and not go back to where we were... (as in a couple years ago.)
For example, Just one example. Right now, we're bailing out banks which are charging american taxpayers 25 or 30 percent interest rates on their credit cards. Does that make sense to anybody?
We're giving banks money and they're not telling us how their spending it. We're trying to loosen up credit in america, they're not doing it.
Sanders went on to talk about actually prosecuting the richest people on the planet who may have performed misdeeds that have led to the current situation, and wondered if the justice department was up to the task prosecuting those who are culpable.
Now, I have been advocating an interest free paydown of all credit card debt on my WallStreetChange blog. Bernie Sanders has just said the exact same thing I have been saying about credit card debt. Credit Card Interest charges are suffocating the life support out of the economy and it makes no sense to give the banks more money if they cannot pass the savings on to the consumer in any way.
Barack Obama needs to be funding research and completion of photovoltaic plastics which would do two things at the same time. Photovoltaic plastics lighten the weight of all cargo carriers that travel by ground or water, which instantly improves the efficiency of any battery powered systems because of the lighter weight. Plus, the photovoltaic technology imbedded into the plastic means that the cargo carriers are actually rergenerating part of their own energy even as they travel! Because the carrier's weight has been reduced, whatever is regenerated will power the carrier that much farther.
Let the consumer sweat the smaller stuff. The one trillion dollars in credit card debt is producing 250 billion dollars a year in new interest charges. The republicans want a huge tax cut, the democrats want to give money out, those two ideas merge together if the consumer is given a reasonable way to pay down their own debts via zero percent credit card interest rates to those who desire to pay down their debt.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Judges Blurring the wrong line regarding Proposition 8.
Excellent Radio discussion on Dec. 15th, 2008 about Prop-8 Protesting Strategies from the John & Ken Show, KFI-640 AM. A MUST LISTEN for anyone involved in Proposition 8.
I think judges are making a mistake by blurring the line between making a donation to a human being, and making a donation to a ballot measure proposition.
Link - Judges rule full donation disclosure is acceptable.
When it comes to donating to a politician, I think donation disclosure makes sense. A donation to a politician can mean an ongoing alliance, so keeping this a secret does not seem ethical. Some political contributors donate to more than one politician, and may have even donated to a politician that didn't become the nominee. These two scenarios help blur the line as to how someone may have voted.
I like blurring the line when it comes to finding out how someone voted simply because our whole voting system is based on the privacy of a voting booth, and frankly, caucus style of voting just doesn't seem to cut it. However, donations made to people should be documentable, it just seems logical to do so.
Regarding donation disclosures and ballot measure propositions, a ballot proposition, once voted on, cannot be approached later on for additional favors. Favors maybe initiated by the people involved in enforcing or spending money as it relates to a proposition, but the proposition itself is not a human being.
Donations made to a proposition is probably going to represent the way that contributor voted on that issue. I've never made a donation to a ballot proposition because after the vote has been tallied, the losing side can try to overturn the result in court. Why would I ever donate money to any proposition ballot measure knowing that the result can be overturned by a judge after the fact, and I don't even get my money back!
I am in favor of voting in the privacy of a voting booth, yet having people know how I voted anyways by how I contributed on a ballot measure seems to supercede the privacy of voting in a voting booth. I've now been given another reason to never donate to any ballot measure in the future.
Prop 8 lost because Gavin Newsome made a short speech in which he stated, "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not".
That is not the way to win friends and influence people. This quote by Newsome was gleefully played over, and over, and over by the proponents of Prop 8. Newsome was against Proposition 8, yet the Pro 8 side used his quote in their ads. I find it ironic that an opposing side can take someone's comment without mentioning in the ad that Newsome was against Prop-8. I sometimes think that the laws are too lax in certain areas of the law when it comes to political advertising.
I wish people would focus on why Prop 8 lost rather than try and witch hunt people who may have been reacting to Gavin's over the top statement, (see youtube video, plus a news story, of Gavin's famous comment, below).
Prop-8 won because they played what I call the Gavin Newsome commercial several hundred times before the Nov. 4, 2008 elections.
The juxtaposition of Gavin Newsome twice stating "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not" bookending a boring but scholarly looking middle section was a powerful one two three punch that certainly swayed many people who hadn't decided which way to vote yet.
This news clip explores the quote heard the world... News Clip about "Whether you like it or not". My opinion that Gavin's sound bite was the difference maker is also held by others in the media. This article includes two such links, one to the news clip, and the John and Ken Radio Show link.
Was it ethical to play the clip of Gavin Newsome over and over and over, when the original speech only happened once? This gets into a very sticky area of freedom of speech. I think it is manipulative in a dishhonest way to take one portion of one speech, and literally play it so many times that people can't stand the clip and mistakenly believe that Gavin Newsome is saying it over and over.
Publicizing ballot measure donation disclosures will just make it harder for future ballot measures to get donations.
I think judges are making a mistake by blurring the line between making a donation to a human being, and making a donation to a ballot measure proposition.
Link - Judges rule full donation disclosure is acceptable.
When it comes to donating to a politician, I think donation disclosure makes sense. A donation to a politician can mean an ongoing alliance, so keeping this a secret does not seem ethical. Some political contributors donate to more than one politician, and may have even donated to a politician that didn't become the nominee. These two scenarios help blur the line as to how someone may have voted.
I like blurring the line when it comes to finding out how someone voted simply because our whole voting system is based on the privacy of a voting booth, and frankly, caucus style of voting just doesn't seem to cut it. However, donations made to people should be documentable, it just seems logical to do so.
Regarding donation disclosures and ballot measure propositions, a ballot proposition, once voted on, cannot be approached later on for additional favors. Favors maybe initiated by the people involved in enforcing or spending money as it relates to a proposition, but the proposition itself is not a human being.
Donations made to a proposition is probably going to represent the way that contributor voted on that issue. I've never made a donation to a ballot proposition because after the vote has been tallied, the losing side can try to overturn the result in court. Why would I ever donate money to any proposition ballot measure knowing that the result can be overturned by a judge after the fact, and I don't even get my money back!
I am in favor of voting in the privacy of a voting booth, yet having people know how I voted anyways by how I contributed on a ballot measure seems to supercede the privacy of voting in a voting booth. I've now been given another reason to never donate to any ballot measure in the future.
Prop 8 lost because Gavin Newsome made a short speech in which he stated, "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not".
That is not the way to win friends and influence people. This quote by Newsome was gleefully played over, and over, and over by the proponents of Prop 8. Newsome was against Proposition 8, yet the Pro 8 side used his quote in their ads. I find it ironic that an opposing side can take someone's comment without mentioning in the ad that Newsome was against Prop-8. I sometimes think that the laws are too lax in certain areas of the law when it comes to political advertising.
I wish people would focus on why Prop 8 lost rather than try and witch hunt people who may have been reacting to Gavin's over the top statement, (see youtube video, plus a news story, of Gavin's famous comment, below).
Prop-8 won because they played what I call the Gavin Newsome commercial several hundred times before the Nov. 4, 2008 elections.
The juxtaposition of Gavin Newsome twice stating "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not" bookending a boring but scholarly looking middle section was a powerful one two three punch that certainly swayed many people who hadn't decided which way to vote yet.
This news clip explores the quote heard the world... News Clip about "Whether you like it or not". My opinion that Gavin's sound bite was the difference maker is also held by others in the media. This article includes two such links, one to the news clip, and the John and Ken Radio Show link.
Was it ethical to play the clip of Gavin Newsome over and over and over, when the original speech only happened once? This gets into a very sticky area of freedom of speech. I think it is manipulative in a dishhonest way to take one portion of one speech, and literally play it so many times that people can't stand the clip and mistakenly believe that Gavin Newsome is saying it over and over.
Publicizing ballot measure donation disclosures will just make it harder for future ballot measures to get donations.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Kentucky hit hard by Ice Storm, 700,000 homes have been without power for a few days now.
Here is a link, Kentucky slowly thawing.
I feel badly that somehow, either I missed the news over the past few days about Kentucky's worst ice storm ever, or because of the economy, it being Super Bowl week, and tributes to Barack Obama during the Super Bowl, maybe Kentucky was minimized and that is why I missed it? I didn't mean to turn this into a Barack Obama topic but, did coverage of Kentucky's worst ice storm ever suffer because of the Super Bowl, and tributes to Barack Obama, and bailout talks?
Did Bruce Springstein mention Kentucky during the super bowl half time special, or would that have offended the other countries that watch the super bowl and are having their own problems? Anyways, 100 dollar steaks from Japan celebrating the ridiculous bailout bill for passing gas in the house of representatives where it faced a monopolistic vote is not my idea of a "victory".
Oh yeah, Barack lost Kentucky to Hillary Clinton by a huge, huge margin. No 100 dollar steak for you Kentucky.
I feel badly that somehow, either I missed the news over the past few days about Kentucky's worst ice storm ever, or because of the economy, it being Super Bowl week, and tributes to Barack Obama during the Super Bowl, maybe Kentucky was minimized and that is why I missed it? I didn't mean to turn this into a Barack Obama topic but, did coverage of Kentucky's worst ice storm ever suffer because of the Super Bowl, and tributes to Barack Obama, and bailout talks?
Did Bruce Springstein mention Kentucky during the super bowl half time special, or would that have offended the other countries that watch the super bowl and are having their own problems? Anyways, 100 dollar steaks from Japan celebrating the ridiculous bailout bill for passing gas in the house of representatives where it faced a monopolistic vote is not my idea of a "victory".
Oh yeah, Barack lost Kentucky to Hillary Clinton by a huge, huge margin. No 100 dollar steak for you Kentucky.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
A New Breed of "Blog", Madame Secretary, comprised of hundreds of former government employees now out of power, run by Newsweek, Gasp.
I guess operation Blog Swarm is in full run mode. Madame Secretary, a blog grudgingly listed on DailyPUMA, purports to follow everything Hillary. Yet it is also a blog bankrolled by our friends at Newsweek. You know, the rag that has Jonathan Alter at the helm, who regularly appears on Keith Olbermann's show to make fun of people who talk respectfully of Hillary Clinton. PROOF.
Creepy aspects to Madame Secretary include naming where Hillary Clinton is set to go. Normally the news reports where somebody has been, or reports where they are just as it happens. There is a safety aspect to this type of news reporting when it involves politicians. But I guess when it comes to Hillary Clinton, it's ok to telegraph where she may or may not be going several days in advance.
Creepy aspects to Madame Secretary include naming where Hillary Clinton is set to go. Normally the news reports where somebody has been, or reports where they are just as it happens. There is a safety aspect to this type of news reporting when it involves politicians. But I guess when it comes to Hillary Clinton, it's ok to telegraph where she may or may not be going several days in advance.
And, I guess it's ok to not only telegraph where Hillary Clinton is going, but also to have ads such as the one just below...
Isn't that special.There are several title tabs on Madame Secretary, and each tab reveals a whole nother blog, and a whole nother cadre of writers. I found SHADOW GOVERNMENT TAB somewhat insulting, considering that it is close to Arianna Huffington's Shadow Convention in name. Huffington and George Soros propped up the shadow convention several years ago in preparation for their assault on Hillary Clinton in the 2008 elections.
Here is their own, partial description of Shadow Government, In parliamentary democracies, the "shadow government" is a group of like-minded policymakers who have served in government before and who now find themselves outside of it. In that spirit, this is a blog about U.S. foreign policy, written by people who've made it before. Our commentary and analysis will reflect our experience in government and the practical knowledge we've gleaned from it (not always the easy way). We'll discuss foreign policy with an intimate familiarity of the imperfections and complications, the trade-offs and unintended consequences that are a fact of life when dealing with the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be. And we'll approach the many hard problems facing the United States today with an appreciation for the limits of our nation's power, but also for its enduring potential to shape events for the better.
Whose paying all of these political journalists who used to work in Washington, or still do, to operate this blog? Their annual budget must easily hit several millions of dollars. Um, a little financial disclosure on where the money is coming from for this obviously money losing venture, please.
Here is their own, partial description of Shadow Government, In parliamentary democracies, the "shadow government" is a group of like-minded policymakers who have served in government before and who now find themselves outside of it. In that spirit, this is a blog about U.S. foreign policy, written by people who've made it before. Our commentary and analysis will reflect our experience in government and the practical knowledge we've gleaned from it (not always the easy way). We'll discuss foreign policy with an intimate familiarity of the imperfections and complications, the trade-offs and unintended consequences that are a fact of life when dealing with the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be. And we'll approach the many hard problems facing the United States today with an appreciation for the limits of our nation's power, but also for its enduring potential to shape events for the better.
Whose paying all of these political journalists who used to work in Washington, or still do, to operate this blog? Their annual budget must easily hit several millions of dollars. Um, a little financial disclosure on where the money is coming from for this obviously money losing venture, please.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A possible backlash to the Lilly Ledbetter Law? Does anyone even know what it does?
What if an employer would prefer a male for a job opening because every once in great while, something somewhat heavy or clunky has to be moved and the employer feels more comfortable having a man do it? In the past, the employer would have to weigh that relatively trivial situation against the fact that men were being paid more than women. An employer might say to themselves, I'd rather hire a woman at lower pay than pay more for a man just so that man can lift a heavy box or do some other heavy lifting once a month.
So the new problem could become, if all things are now equal, the man may suddenly have an advantage over a relatively trivial issue. If the employer MUST pay everyone the same, then why not hire the male and get the advantage of having a heavy lifter available in a pinch?
I would have handled the equal pay issue in a different manner. I would have first closed the gap to no more than an initial 10% difference in pay. This in itself is an immediate victory for woman as the pay gap was significantly larger than 10%, perhaps as high as 22%. This 10% difference could only be in place for 3 months, after three months the pay rate would then have to equalize.
Additionally, I would make it illegal for all the men to be paid more than the highest paid woman. So if there were 10 employees, it would be illegal for the five women to be the five lowest paid positions. These ideas would make the pay differences so much closer than it currently is, while also not necessarily giving a male any preference because of perceived greater strength.
Assuming the Lilly LedBetter law actually influences or forces employers to pay their employees equally, (and I'm not sure the initial hype accurately depicted what this law is about), Equal pay may subliminally encourage an employer, all things being equal, to hire a man instead of a woman.
So the new problem could become, if all things are now equal, the man may suddenly have an advantage over a relatively trivial issue. If the employer MUST pay everyone the same, then why not hire the male and get the advantage of having a heavy lifter available in a pinch?
I would have handled the equal pay issue in a different manner. I would have first closed the gap to no more than an initial 10% difference in pay. This in itself is an immediate victory for woman as the pay gap was significantly larger than 10%, perhaps as high as 22%. This 10% difference could only be in place for 3 months, after three months the pay rate would then have to equalize.
Additionally, I would make it illegal for all the men to be paid more than the highest paid woman. So if there were 10 employees, it would be illegal for the five women to be the five lowest paid positions. These ideas would make the pay differences so much closer than it currently is, while also not necessarily giving a male any preference because of perceived greater strength.
Assuming the Lilly LedBetter law actually influences or forces employers to pay their employees equally, (and I'm not sure the initial hype accurately depicted what this law is about), Equal pay may subliminally encourage an employer, all things being equal, to hire a man instead of a woman.
Is MSNBC coaching its anchors to all have the same talking points, is that ethical?
There is a certain cohesiveness to MSNBC that I find eerie. It seems as if all the on air hosts promote the same talking points all day long. It is as if they all attend a special meeting at the beginning of each day, are told what the talking points of the day are, and then they all follow them.
Some of you may say, "well duh, of course they do that". I would say, unduh, that it is unethical to do that. The promotion of an unbending and synchronized political philosophy that is virtually the same amongst all of the anchors points to a channel that is not a news channel, but a propaganda promotion channel.
Is FoxNews television different? Yes. Fox anchors all have viewpoints that wouldn't really be confused with their fellow anchors, they may primarily be from the conservative viewpoint, but on any specific point, they don't all agree with each other.
MSNBC's coverage of Blagojevich borders on the embarrassing. MSNBC will superficially mention Blagojevich's Canadian prescriptions impeachment charge, then immediately say that there were other impeachment points worthy of impeachment and removal from office. Well, even if there were other more valid impeachment charges, the Canadian Prescription issue should NOT have been one of the charges that was brought forth. MSNBC chose to rationalize the Prescription impeachment charge by saying there were other valid charges, so it didn't matter.
How can anyone think it is sane to charge Blagojevich with impeachment for allowing Illinois residents the ability to get low cost prescriptions from Canada, especially when other state governors have already done it! How can anyone trivialize the effort to give elders free bus rides in those horrible Chicago winters? Just ask MSNBC, they'll gladly ridicule anything and everything that Blagojevich ever did, because they were most likely instructed to do so.
To this day, all MSNBC anchors still insist that John McCain was wrong back in September of 2008 for wanting to stop the debates so that he could focus his attention on the bailout proposals. If anyone were ever to go back over MSNBC's coverage of the original bailout votes, it would reveal some of the all time worst coverage for its slantedness of such a crucial event at such a critical time in our history.
Rather than admit to the world that MSNBC completely botched their coverage of the bailout votes back in September of 2008. MSNBC will forever paint John McCain as the fall guy for treating it as an incredibly important event. It is this kind of MSNBC media group think mind blather that I fear as we go forward as a nation.
Jessica Simpson is in the news for gaining a few pounds, but is that the real story here?
There is linkage to Jessica's past which may have caused her alleged weight gain to become a news story today. When Jessica Simpson was first announced as Daisy Duke of the Dukes of Hazzard movie, her body became her number one ally.
Slow motion shots of Jessica with her bare midrift fully exposed as she slow motion sauntered towards the camera were regularly shown on television, and then in the movie, and were money shots designed to both legitimize Jessica Simpson as a sculpted princess, and create buzz for the Dukes of Hazzard movie at the same time. When the Dukes of Hazzard movie went to DVD, even more slow motion shots of an abful Jessica could be seen in the commercials promoting the Dukes of Hazzard DVD.
Since then, Jessica has been linked with professional football quarterback Tony Romo, another reminder that Jessica is indeed a jock, or a jockette. Jessica used her body to power ahead her movie career, and therefore it becomes inevitable that when there is a change in her physique, it will become news.
I am curious if Jessica ever paid any kind of a significant homage or appreciation to the original Daisy Duke, Catherine Bach. Catherine Bach's performance as Daisy Duke in the original Dukes of Hazzard's television show no doubt helped keep the embers burning all these years. Of all the characters on the original Dukes of Hazzard TV show, perhaps it was Daisy Duke, Boss Hoggs, and Enos that were the most popular characters.
I am pretty sure Catherine Bach, just 25-30 years removed from the original Dukes of Hazzard television series, received a mere pittance of compensation back then compared to what Jessica Simpson received for her part in the movie version of the Dukes of Hazzard. I presume that Catherine Bach was probably not involved in the movie version, other than for a possible opportunistic photo op or two to promote the movie, and Jessica Simpson. It is a bit twisted that the original Daisy Duke can do no better than hype the new Daisy Duke. Dare I suggest that actor reparations are in order?
If Jessica didn't feel it necessary to tithe back to Catherine Bach in any way, (and I don't know if she did or not), then why should I feel sorry for a financial opportunist's weight gain being publicized in the media? Especially when the media plays down Catherine Bach's real contribution involving the creation of the Daisy Duke character.
As time goes on, I believe it's less and less about who is in the news at any given moment in time, and more and more about who is being forgotten. Is the story of Jessica's weight gain the real story here, or is the real story how Catherine Bach blazed a financial trail for Jessica Simpson to strut through. Will Jessica Simpson ever properly thank Catherine Bach for making the Daisy Duke role so memorable that Jessica could make a LOT of money 25 years later?
Catherine Bach, take a bow for helping get Jessica Simpson super rich, I wish there was something in it for you to.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
I LIKE BLAGO! BLAGO's Rachel Maddow show interview was spectacular!
Click here for most recent DailyPUMA article.
Wow, I really like Blago! Probably the easiest politician to listen to, ever! Blago's quote of Martin Luther King was tremendous.
Wow, I really like Blago! Probably the easiest politician to listen to, ever! Blago's quote of Martin Luther King was tremendous.
"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " -MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
According to Maddow, if Barack Obama raises 10 million dollars to help retire Hillary Clinton's debt, that is not trading services, whereas if Blago tries to get a public benefit by trading the senate seat, that is trading services.
They're the same thing. Well, maybe not exactly the same thing, but close enough.
I think somebody on Barack's side went after Blago because Blago would have made a solid presidential candidate 4 years from now. Blago would have had Iowans eating out of his hand.
How dare Blago try and get free public transportation service for seniors! How dare Blago try and get low cost drugs from Canada for all Illinoians, just like several other governors of other states have already done. How dare he!
According to Maddow, maybe not all 13 charges are valid, but SOME are! Since when is it ok to pad the number of impeachment indictments with the idea that at least one will stick?
IT IS NOT OK TO IMPEACHMENT PAD!
Talk about abuse of power by the Illinois congress. sheesh. The Illinois congress will be more corrupt than ever if they actually think it was ethical to come up with 13 impeachment charges against Blago just to make sure at least one sticks. These are typical, spineless, lawyer politician tactics that employ Dick Cheney buckshot methods to make sure they get at least one charge to stick.
Laughing at Republicans, it's good for the soul from time to time.
I would like to suggest that even though PUMA's may not like Barack Obama, PUMA's don't necessarily need to embrace every Republican rant against Barack Obama, either.
When Barack Obama told the Republicans that "I won" not you, that should have been a PUMA moment to smile at the whiny Republicans who don't seem to understand they lost the election and have yet to accept their fate. The same snotty, snide and sneaky Barack Obama tactics that helped spawn the PUMA movement are now coming home to roost towards the Republicans.
If the Republicans hadn't been so smugly pleased when Hillary Clinton was betrayed by her own party, perhaps they'd be dealing with someone who might not rub them the wrong way as much, Hillary Clinton. (especially if they had outed the ridiculousness of the caucus contest results.)
While Rush Limbaugh said he hopes Barack Obama fails, I would like to be better than Rush and point out the errors that both democrats and republicans will inevitably make, and avoid automatically siding with anybody who opposes Barack Obama.
When Barack Obama told the Republicans that "I won" not you, that should have been a PUMA moment to smile at the whiny Republicans who don't seem to understand they lost the election and have yet to accept their fate. The same snotty, snide and sneaky Barack Obama tactics that helped spawn the PUMA movement are now coming home to roost towards the Republicans.
If the Republicans hadn't been so smugly pleased when Hillary Clinton was betrayed by her own party, perhaps they'd be dealing with someone who might not rub them the wrong way as much, Hillary Clinton. (especially if they had outed the ridiculousness of the caucus contest results.)
While Rush Limbaugh said he hopes Barack Obama fails, I would like to be better than Rush and point out the errors that both democrats and republicans will inevitably make, and avoid automatically siding with anybody who opposes Barack Obama.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Super Bowl Bans Infidelity Ad.
Kudos to the National Football League for having and using their control to prevent the same advertiser from running infidelity ads during the Super Bowl. Should I presume that local networks all over the country don't get any local ad time during the super bowl, or if they do, they won't run the infidelity ad, locally? (I purposely haven't mentioned the advertiser to avoid promoting them.)
Several months ago I was watching the Television show Cheaters and almost fell out of my chair when a commercial promoting infidelity was shown. I actually emailed Cheaters and asked them about this apparent conflagration, here was Cheater's response. "
"Alessandro:
Thank you for contacting Cheaters. Cheaters is a nationally and internationally syndicated TV show, which means our ad revenues are split between local stations and ourselves. Cheaters does not control who advertises in the station’s portion of the ad time. Best regards and thanks again, we hope this helps answer your question. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns." end of email message.
It will be interesting to see if the infidelity ad makes it on the air via local commercial programming that presumably is run during the Super-Bowl between the national ads.
Several months ago I was watching the Television show Cheaters and almost fell out of my chair when a commercial promoting infidelity was shown. I actually emailed Cheaters and asked them about this apparent conflagration, here was Cheater's response. "
"Alessandro:
Thank you for contacting Cheaters. Cheaters is a nationally and internationally syndicated TV show, which means our ad revenues are split between local stations and ourselves. Cheaters does not control who advertises in the station’s portion of the ad time. Best regards and thanks again, we hope this helps answer your question. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns." end of email message.
It will be interesting to see if the infidelity ad makes it on the air via local commercial programming that presumably is run during the Super-Bowl between the national ads.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Encouraging News about Louisa!
Please see the comments section for Betty Jean's latest message about Louisa.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
New Message from Betty Jean Kling about Louisa Rodas
Edit update - Sept. 11, 2010. Here is the latest information on Louisa Rodas and Betty Jean Kling. You can help by writing a letter on Louisas and Betty Jeans behalf.
Edit update - Jan. 27, 2010. Here is a link for updated information on Betty Jean Kling and Louisa Rodas.
Betty's Message is in the comments section directly below.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Ona Kalima's Fantastic YouTube Video, "Burn it Down", Taken Down by YouTube Gestapo.
Ona Kalima's wonderful "Burn it Down" video has been taken down by YouTube. I am looking for the appropriate YouTube contact info to try and get this situation fixed. Having some slobbering, beer swilling emasculated numbskill simply flag the video to stop it from being shown is another form of violence against woman.
Here is Ona Kalima's response to my offer to try and help her get the video back up on YouTube, "Thank you for writing to me. I am in the middle of moving, but was getting ready to write to you for help. I received an email that stated that my video had been removed for violating the community guidelines. I looked to the guidelines and couldn't see any I had violated. HELP! We had gotten up to nearly 7,000 views and now we have to start from scratch. I was starting to receive a lot of hate-oriented comments about being a "communist dyke" and stuff like that--what do you think??"
Any suggestions on who to contact at YouTube would be greatly appreciated. Please leave them in the comments section or send them to me at contact@dailypuma.com
Edit Update, here is the info
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Gasp, I never thought I'd say that.
Even though I am involved with DailyPUMA, I have been one of those PUMA's who thought the whole Barack Obama Citizenship issue was a non issue. I was convinced that since Barack Obama was born on US soil, he IS A US CITIZEN. I had no idea what natural born citizen meant, I thought it was just some foofy phrase full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
But then I read the wikipedia natural born citizen, entry. It took me a few readings spread out over a couple of days for me to understand what natural born citizen meant. Our founding FATHERS (with my apologies to those of American Indian descent) did not want american born citizens eligible to become president if their parents (actually just the father) were not at the very least naturalized citizens of the United States.
A child born to foreigners on American soil would still be a naturalized citizen, but the child would not be a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be either president or vice-president. Should this child grow up and have children with another US citizen, those children would be natural born. This is all very logical. Natural Born means the birth is a natural result of two naturalized citizens living in the United States and then having a child.
But what if only one parent is a Naturalized US citizen? Does it matter which parent is a naturalized US citizen when it comes to determining if a child born on US soil or territories is either a naturalized citizen, or, a natural born citizen? According to the World Book 1962 edition, Before 1922, a women's citizenship usually changed with that of her husband. Ergo, the founding Fathers were referring to the father being a Naturalized US citizen for his son or daughter to be a natural born citizen.
when the constitution was established the Founding FATHERS didn't seem to think that women were completely equal to men. Our Founding FATHERS accepted slavery and did not allow slaves or women the right to vote, a sign they were being very protective of who could vote on important issues such as the presidential race.
Wikipedia presents an interesting case study...
Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886), 21st president of the United States, might have been born in Canada.[21] This was never demonstrated by his political opponents, although they raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign. He was born to a U.S.-citizen mother and a father from Ireland who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.
The key to this passage is
"a father from Ireland who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen."
Even though Chester Garfield's mother was already a US naturalized citizen, it wasn't until Garfield's father became naturalized that Chester Arthur could lay claim to being a natural born citizen.
If Chester Arthur was born in the United States, but his father had never become a US citizen, Chester Arthur would NOT have been eligible to BE (not run for, but be) either president or vice president of the United States irrespective of his mother's citizenship.
While objections were being raised over where Chester Arthur was born, the biggest issue appears to be establishing who the heck his father's allegiance/citizenship was with. This is key to the entire issue. If Dad's citizenship matters in determining natural born status for Chester Arthur even when Arthur's mother was a U.S. citizen, then it also matters when defining Barack Obama's citizenship status as well.
Don't think for a minute that if a foreigner came to America, implanted his seed in an american female naturalized citizen, and then left after a couple of years without ever establishing any kind of a bond or loyalty to the United States, that our founding FATHERS would consider that child a natural born citizen. The child would be a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
Otherwise, were Osama Bin Laden to sneak into the U.S. and impregnant a US naturalized female, the child could grow up to be president one day, the natural born citizen law was put into effect by our founding fathers to prevent men who were not loyal nor living in the United States from fathering children who could one day be president.
Barack Obama IS a naturalized citizen, he is NOT a natural born citizen because of his father lack of naturalized citizenship.
Isn't it ironic that in the mid 90's Barack Obama himself appears to have ignored his dying mother so he could promote his political career and also fly to Bali to finish his long delayed first book about his sperm donor father. Yet now Barack Obama must COMPLETELY depend on his mummy's citizenship in an effort to declare himself a natural born citizen.
Not only did Barack Obama Sr. never become a US citizen, Barack Obama Sr. would eventually become a Kenyan Political consultant, which would absolutely result in Barack Obama NOT being eligible for natural born citizenship. Political operatives from other countries CANNOT create a natural born citizen in the United States irrespective of the mothers U.S. natural citizenship, they can however help create a naturalized citizen of the United States who in turn can birth natural born citizens..
The Barack Obama "Bro's before Ho's" unofficial campaign theme should be extinguished by the fact that Barack Obama's father was NOT a naturalized US citizen and therefore Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, a fact that should elicit some chuckling from Alice Walker and other politicians whom in the past have been disqualified from competing against Barack Obama, by Barack Obama for technical reasons far less egregious than not being a natural born citizen.
Lets just hope the Supreme Court is not afraid to do the right and constitutionally lawful thing before Barack Obama is sworn into office.
Are there any US presidents whose father was NOT a naturalized U.S. citizen? If there have not been any presidents prior to Barack Obama who had a non naturalized U.S. citizen for a father, than Barack Obama's father would be the first, and would lend credence to the idea that clearly Barack Obama IS a naturalized citizen but NOT a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be either president or vice president of the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers
Serious Customers Welcome.
10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?
