Yo Ho Yo Ho - Oh Crap!
FNC
U.S. Navy unveils new high-tech ship it says can chase down pirates off the coast of Somalia faster and more aggressively than previous vessels. | PHOTOS | VIDEO• Pentagon to Create Force for Digital Warfare
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
• Pentagon to Create Force for Digital Warfare
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Obama Taxman Cometh
Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I�m the taxman,
Yeah, I�m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I�m the taxman,
Yeah, I�m the taxman.
(if you drive a car, car;) - I�ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit;) - I�ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold;) - I�ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet.
Taxman!
'Cause I�m the taxman,
Yeah, I�m the taxman.
Don't ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
'Cause I�m the taxman,
Yeah, I�m the taxman.
Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I�m the taxman,
Yeah, I�m the taxman.
And you're working for no one but me.
Taxman!
Monday, March 09, 2009
Mormon TV: Harvard video goes viral
A 20-year-old Harvard junior from Idaho has captured the attention of Mormondom with the slow viral spread of a six-month-old video (above) in which she explains her faith to journalist Sally Quinn.
The bloggernacle, as Mormon wags call the extensive network of Mormon bloggers, is abuzz over Rachel Esplin's poised handling of a series of questions about whether she wears sacred undergarments, how she responds to allegations that Mormonism is a cult, how she views the role of women in her church, and what her relationship is with Jesus. "For more than 20 minutes, Rachel's delivery was as unstoppable as the incoming tide,'' gushed MormonTimes. "What is fascinating about this video is the aplomb with which Rachel answers the questions,'' writes Krista at Glass Half Full. "I feel very inadequate now!" blogged Chels of the McGees. And Mark Towner, who blogs as The Captains Spyglass, called the video, "Something every Latter Day Saint Member needs to watch and contemplate."
The video is not exactly a clip from the Colbert Report or the Daily Show -- it's 21 minutes long, without a joke in sight. But the video appears to have captured the attention of Mormons, who tend to be highly attentive to and concerned about how they are perceived in the broader culture. The fascination seems to be in part because of Esplin's youth, and in part because she is at Harvard, which, of course, remains a symbol of the mainstream elite.
Esplin, from Blackfoot, Idaho, is the president of the Harvard Latter-day Saint Student Association. She is also an East Asian Studies major who is planning to get married this summer and expects to graduate in December; she hopes eventually to go to law school. Earlier today I called her to ask her about the video, which is posted on the web site of Harvard Hillel, where the panel on which Esplin appeared took place. Here's a partial transcript of our conversation:
Q: What has happened since the video was posted in September?
A: It's been pretty crazy. I didn't even send it to my family members, but my mom found it by Googling my name, and it just started getting e-mailed around. Some BYU professors started showing it and forwarding it, and then a lot of people told me they watched it in seminary or at family home evening.
Q: Why do you think people are so interested in this particular video?
A: I think people latched onto the fact that I'm 20, and haven't been on mission, and haven't been to the temple yet. And I think Harvard is part of it -- there's a significant LDS presence here, with 50 undergrads, and 50 or 60 at the law school, and some at the business school -- and Mormons have a history at Harvard back to the late 1800s, and a couple of our apostles went to Harvard, so in addition to Harvard being Harvard in the world at large, in the LDS community it has a particular significance.
Q: How has this impacted you?
A: It has been a really strange feeling. I know interfaith discussions like this are happening all over, so it's strange that mine has become so popular, and it's something it didn't necessarily merit. But it's helped me realize that doing things like this, and finding ways to encourage others to do so, is significant. Last spring I organized a "Meet the Mormons" panel at Harvard, and it was a good event, and now I'm working with the LDS Association president at MIT to help other schools do similar events.
A: There are a few different goals. We believe it's just a good way to show our religion, to show we love everyone, and that we're interested in learning about other people and hope others will learn about us. And this was born out of a time when our religion was in the news a lot, with Mitt Romney and other factors -- a lot is written about us in the media, and it's not all true, so there's a desire to clarify misconceptions. And then, I guess I believe in the idea that one of the best ways to help build our church is to establish friends who are not in the church.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
A day of Faith
Something every Latter Day Saint Member needs to watch and contemplate.
Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 3. Rachel Esplin from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Report demonstrates new investments in education and science timely
Written by Craig A. on February 25th, 2009
The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.
President Barack Obama, February 25, 2009
The New York Times has a story on a new report showing the United States has slipped over the past decade when it comes to innovation. 
While the United States remains sixth overall, it ranked dead last in terms of improvement in its score from 1999 - the present. It is troubling indicators like this President Obama was drawing our attention to in last night’s speech when he stated "Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. An yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education."
In light of today’s Information and Technology and Innovation Foundation report, the President’s call for a new commitment to education, research and development, and a new energy efficient economy couldn’t have been more timely. It is indeed "time for America to lead again" and I am confident we will.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Can this be the answer? WOW
If this really works, This could end our dependence on Oil to fuel our cars.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Stirba today announced that the Supreme Court's unanimous decision today in Pearson v. Callahan
1/21/09 - Stirba today announced that the Supreme Court's unanimous decision today in Pearson v. Callahan, argued to the Supreme Court by Peter Stirba, is likely to have sweeping implications in favor of government officials in the area of qualified immunity in defense of federal civil rights actions.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Top 5 Internet Defamation Law Blogs
Even though things have been going really well here at the California Defamation Law Blog, I even realize that there are plenty of other good blogs about internet defamation out there, and, only a limited number of people interested in learning about defamation. This has been a worry of mine for some time now.
But no more. Today I made a decision to recommend my favorite blogs about online defamation even if I lose a few readers. Bear in mind that some of the following blogs discuss other topics in addition to internet defamation.
Here we go, in no particular order.
1. Technology & Marketing Law Blog - This blog is written by Eric Goldman, an associate professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. This is the first place I go if I want to know the latest on defamation cases related to RipoffReport.com. I also like Eric's coverage of section 230 cases.
2. Citizen Media Law Project - Jointly affiliated with Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the Center for Citizen Media, CMLP's mission is to educate others about online speech. CMLP has a great database called "Legal Threats," which has detailed descriptions of current defamation cases, often including the complaint. This is definitely a good site for the pro-defendant point of view.
3. Dozier Internet Law On Defamation - John Dozier is an experienced Internet lawyer and a definite authority regarding defamation law.
4. Internet Defamation Law Blog - The name says it all. I read this blog to stay current on section 230 decisions.
5. Internet Cases - Written by Evan Brown, an Internet lawyer in Chicago, this blog clearly covers much more than defamation. But what's great about it is that Evan writes detailed posts with insightful commentary. His commentary on the Roommates decision was particularly good.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Internet Defamation Gets Noticed
Too many bloggers are unaware of the dangers they face when they write a new post or comment on another blog. For reasons I've discussed before, bloggers mistakenly believe that all speech is protected by the First Amendment, when in fact several forms of speech are not, including defamation as an example.
This is why I'm glad that Seth Godin posted "Don't Get Sued," which sheds light on this important problem. Godin writes: "Before you write something negative about another person, you need to realize that the casual nature of your post doesn't protect you from a lawsuit." Well-said. I would add that you should especially be careful when making negative remarks about a business because businesses are more likely to sue you (or least threaten legal action) to protect their reputation.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Defamation and False Light here in Utah
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. Or an untruthful oath.[1] "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]
Sunday, January 25, 2009
AP IMPACT: Lobbyists skirt Obama's earmark ban
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 9 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.
They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.
The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.
There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as "ready to go" jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.
The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out.
"'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."
It won't be in legislative language that overtly sets aside money for them. That's the infamous practice known as earmarking, which Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to nix for the massive stimulus package, expected to come up for a House vote this week.
Instead, the money will be doled out according to arcane formulas spelled out in the bill and in some cases based on the decisions of Obama administration officials, governors and state and local agencies that will choose the projects.
"Somebody's going to earmark it somewhere," said Howard Marlowe, a consultant for a coalition working to preserve beaches.
Lobbyists are hard at work figuring out ways to grab a share of the money for their clients, but the new rules mean they're doing so indirectly — and sometimes in ways that are impossible to track.
Congressional earmarks have had a bad name since the 2004 scandal that sent superlobbyist Jack Abramoff to prison and earned the congressional spending committees a new nickname: "The Favor Factory."
Obama, who campaigned promising a more transparent and accountable government, is advocating a system that will eventually let the public track exactly where stimulus money goes through an Internet-powered search engine. In addition, Democratic lawmakers have devised an elaborate oversight system, including a new board to review how the money is spent.
But none of that will happen until after the bill becomes law. Even critics of the earmarks system acknowledge that specifying projects upfront offers some measure of transparency.
"We hate earmarks, but at least it's a way of tracking where influence is had," said Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "There is a challenge now that projects will be added behind closed doors without a paper trail."
Indeed, some lawmakers hearing from local groups say they're doing their own lobbying of governors and state and local officials who could have say-so over the funds.
"I've talked to my governor and suggested some things I think are important in our area," said Republican Rep. C.W. Bill Young, who represents St. Petersburg, Fla. "He knows what the needs are."
Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor of Arizona suggested it's not entirely accurate to say there will be no earmarks in the measure. "There are and there aren't," Pastor said. "A lot of it depends on what the formula looks like."
For instance, the House measure, which includes $358 billion for road, water and energy programs among others, gives priority to transportation projects in high-unemployment areas that could be begun and completed quickly and that state and metropolitan transportation authorities have included in their long-term plans.
In California, Buffa, now board chairman of the Orange County Transportation Authority, said he's changed his strategy from asking for specific projects to pleading for more favorable general guidelines, including more money for infrastructure projects overall and a formula that lets cities — not states — decide how to spend it.
His organization has enlisted Potomac Partners, a large firm that specializes in lobbying for project spending, to help.
In most cases, lawmakers know exactly which projects in their districts can benefit from the money, even though the legislation won't spell them out. State and local officials have released lists of projects that could start quickly and be completed within a few years.
In Orange County, they include freeway improvements and the Placentia Metrolink station. The American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, which is pushing for more water projects to be funded, wants repair and restoration of beaches from Sandy Hook, N.J., to Newport Beach, Calif.
Members of Congress are privately outlining their priorities, too.
"Everybody's making their list and checking it twice," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader. "You are inevitably going to have a lot of projects that are not going to pass the smell test."
Some groups are careful not to get too specific, fearing that public scrutiny could draw unwelcome attention to projects easily caricatured as special-interest goodies, such as a 2007 earmark for spinach growers that found its way into an Iraq war spending bill or the now-infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.
The United States Conference of Mayors released a 300-plus-page list of some $150 billion in "ready-to-go" projects that quickly became fodder for criticism. It included money for the Miami water park, which McConnell has ridiculed publicly, and a skate park in Portland, Maine.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials was more guarded about its list of 5,000 projects totaling $64 billion. No specific projects were mentioned — just the number in each state and an overall dollar amount — making it impossible for lawmakers, advocacy groups or members of the public to criticize any one item.
Peter J. "Jack" Basso, an association executive, said it's up to states to decide what goes on their "ready-to-go" wish lists, but that the projects must meet rigorous tests including clearing environmental reviews.
"We really rely on them to pick things that, frankly, are not bridges to nowhere," Basso said.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The Minnesota Recount Folly: We've Been Down That Road
How the Democrats 'won' the Washington governor's mansion in 2004.
By TRENT ENGLAND
Olympia, Wash.
Sorry Minnesota, but the sequel is never as good as the original.
For those who watched the Washington State governor's race recounts in 2004, the ongoing recount drama in Minnesota is just another rehash of the same script -- albeit for a U.S. Senate seat that might put Democrats one vote away from a filibuster-proof majority.
Four years ago in Washington, Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire lost the first count, lost the recount, and then won a second, highly dubious recount by 133 votes. In Minnesota, where Sen. Norm Coleman is defending his seat against comedian-turned-candidate Al Franken, the first count showed Mr. Coleman up 725 votes. Today, thanks to another dubious recount, Mr. Franken is apparently in the lead.
Razor-thin margins like these put election systems to the test. As the old proverb goes, they are a crisis and an opportunity. Yet the crises keep coming and the opportunities continue to be squandered. It's time to learn the lessons of the recount wars and address the systemic flaws in our election processes. Indeed, the price of a continued decline in voter confidence is too troubling for most Americans to comprehend.
In Washington's 2004 gubernatorial election, at least 1,392 felons illegally voted, 252 provisional ballots were wrongly counted, and 19 votes were cast from beyond the grave, according to Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges's opinion in a case brought by Dino Rossi, Ms. Gregoire's Republican opponent.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Election workers in King County (where Seattle is located) "enhanced" 55,177 ballots to make it easier for tabulating machines to read them -- even though the county had failed to establish written procedures as required by state law. In some cases, individual election workers modified voted ballots using black felt markers and white-out tape while observers were kept at a distance that prevented meaningful observation. Nine separate times, King County "discovered" and counted unsecured ballots.
Nevertheless, Ms. Gregoire lost to Mr. Rossi by 261 votes.
An automatic recount reduced Mr. Rossi's lead to just 42 votes. The Gregoire campaign demanded a state-wide hand recount, a time-consuming and expensive process that state law says the challenger must pay for (if the result changes, the challenger is reimbursed). Big labor unions joined with far-left groups like MoveOn.org to put up the money for Ms. Gregoire's third-time's-the-charm ballot shuffle.
During the recount process, five counties found new, uncounted, unsecured ballots and added them into their totals. King County officials admitted publicly that ballot reconciliation reports were falsified in an attempt to conceal variations between the number of votes counted and the number of voters who voted (two elections workers were disciplined as a result).
By the end, 3,539 votes more than the number of voters who voted were tabulated. Four other swing counties provided an additional 4,880 mystery ballots. Ms. Gregoire was the victor by a margin of 133 votes.
That margin -- 133 votes -- happens to be the same number of ballots that Minneapolis election officials are currently missing. The initial vote tally in one Democrat-leaning precinct counted 133 more ballots than officials have been able to find for the Senate recounts. The Minnesota canvassing board decided on Dec. 12 to allow Minneapolis simply to ignore the recount and go with the original number. This provided a 46-vote boost for Mr. Franken, about the same as his current projected lead. The board also "requested" that counties reconsider rejected absentee ballots, a new and novel part of the recount procedure that is also expected to favor Mr. Franken.
Something is wrong when a victorious candidate owes more thanks to vote counters than to voters. Such was the case in Washington in 2004, and Minnesota is poised to follow in its footsteps in 2008.
It need not be this way. After 2004, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation produced a 42-page report offering a dozen solutions. While a few were implemented, most were simply ignored by officials content to cross their fingers and hope the next close election is in someone else's jurisdiction.
Some reforms are simply educational and cultural; others are fundamental and essential. Election officials need to understand current federal and state laws and regulations governing the entire election process, including recounts. Those responsible for elections must also inculcate a culture of compliance among election staff, including temporary staff hired at election time.
From the moment they are printed, ballots should be isolated and guarded and their chain of custody recorded. Officials with rule-making authority are responsible for establishing processes that clarify how ballots are to be handled, stored, counted, and, if necessary, recounted.
Most important to maintaining and increasing public faith in elections is improving openness, especially leveraging Internet technology to make anyone a potential election observer. The Minneapolis Star Tribune's project to put all 6,700 contested ballots in the Senate race on the Web, so people can compare their own judgments to those of the canvassing board, is but one example. Election officials who have nothing to hide should be putting as much as possible online as quickly as possible.
Citizens and the media might also take a closer look at some of the individuals and organizations involved in monkeying with and even overturning elections. Both Mr. Franken and Ms. Gregoire were endorsed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- Acorn -- a group under investigation in several states for suspected voter registration chicanery.
The man overseeing the Senate recount, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, was also endorsed by Acorn, and his election campaign in 2006 was funded in part by something called "The Secretary of State Project." This latter group, founded by MoveOn.org's former grass-roots director, exists solely to install far-left candidates as secretaries of state in swing states.
Close elections will always stir controversy. They will often require recounts to validate the results. Yet the Washington and Minnesota recounts offer cautionary tales. The democratic process is too important to be disregarded until a virtual tie forces us to pay attention. Regardless of which candidates win our elections, the voters -- not the vote counters -- should win every time.
Mr. England is director of the Citizenship and Governance Center at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Fix is In, Utah legislators keep getting elected, here is why
The problem here in Utah nobody, especially elected officials want to admit is the fix is in here in Utah. This goes both ways for the Democrats and the Republicans so this is not directed at either party.
There is turnover in the legislature to be sure, but it is controlled by the very elected officials that are leaving office.
Having been on the “inside” of the Republican Party all my life, I have never seen a more “the fix is in” system anywhere else in the country other than maybe Illinois.
An elected state Representative here in Utah (from either party) needs only a handful (about 50) friends and neighbors to keep happy and re-elected as delegates each two years to stay in office. The State Senators only need about 100 delegates every four years, and the Federal guys need 700-1500 delegates. The caucus system here in Utah can and will continue to be gamed by skilled operatives.
The other concerning issue here in Utah is their really is no true turnover in the legislature. When an elected official decides to leave the legislature, they essentially hand pick their replacement and just before their term is up they “retire”. The local county party holds a special caucus meeting of the delegates in that district. Usually this is only attended by “diehard” party people and those “friends” of the retiring legislator. The retiring legislator then in the caucus meeting introduces their handpicked replacement to all the delegates, and then “nominates” them when the meeting is called for a vote. I would say a nearly 100% success for this strategy is used by those elected officials. These caucus meetings may have only a handful of people, sometimes less than 10 delegates. So the fix is in.
Then these hand picked replacements are sworn into office and become the incumbent for the next election cycle allowing then to receive the mothers milk of elections, lobbyist money. It is almost impossible to replace an incumbent elected official in this state. Both sides know this and take advantage of this to maintain their seats in the Legislature.
The only way this will change is for the citizens of Utah to create an easier access to the ballot.
Having lived in Washington State and Alaska the election process seems to be a more open choice for the people to decide, not the hard line left or right.
Look at how moderate Republicans are treated here in Utah, even elected ones. You are a RINO if you do not agree 100% with the power brokers within the party, especially on the issue of vouchers.
As long as our current system decides the election on caucus night, nothing will change. Our elected officials don’t want it changed for obvious reasons, so what to do?
What chance does any candidate that is fiscally conservative but socially moderate have in ever receiving the nomination from either major party here in Utah, especially in Salt Lake City? How about zero, nada, zilch.
The third parties here in Utah all have some kind of issue that drives them. The Green party is the environment. The constitution party is even more right wing than the GOP.
So what to do? You can’t get a constitutional amendment before the voters without it passing the Legislature, so we again have no say in how we elect our officials.
This is why the need for a Unaffiliated Party of Utah. If candidates were allowed to run unaffiliated without having to obtain thousands of signatures, they could run against each other for a place on the general election ballot to be decided on the primary election. Both of the other major parties would be unaffected, and voters would actually have several choices other than the two major parties to choose from.
What a novel idea, actually letting the voters of Utah select the best candidate regardless of party affiliation.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Regulators Spring Into Action Against Naked Short Sellers. Or not. December 7th, 2008 by Patrick Byrne
As is explained in numerous pieces in DeepCapture, there are many cracks in the settlement system, one of them being the DTCC’s Continuous Net Settlement system, or CNS. I am highly confident that the federales (at least, the SEC) are not permitted to explore the other cracks, that the failures to deliver that they see within the CNS are thus but a small fraction of all that exist, and that, therefore, trying to gauge the depth of the naked short selling problem from the level of FTD’s in the CNS is like trying to guess the condition of an automobile from the level of water in its radiator.
But it’s a start. Given that the CNS system is the one place the SEC can look, and might be able to do something about, it is instructive to see how well they are cleaning up unsettled trades there. Towards that end, DeepCapture has analyzed the data that the SEC released last week. These graphs show their fine progress in that regard.
Full Story www.deepcapture.com/category/data/
Monday, October 06, 2008
Financial Plan that makes sense !
If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.
With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1000.
With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left.
If you had purchased $1000.00 of Delta Air Lines stock you would have $49.00 left.
If you had purchased United Airlines , you would have nothing left.
But, if you had purchased $1000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling refund you would have $214.00.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.
This is called the 401-Keg Plan.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
President's market rescue plan
SALT LAKE CITY, Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) chairman and CEO Patrick M. Byrne comments on President Bush's September 24, 2008 speech outlining the President's market rescue plan.
Dr. Byrne commented: "This bailout is necessary to save the bacchanal that is our US financial system. However, at the core of the administration's plan is the assumption that Wall Street is worth saving. It is not. For years Wall Street has bossed Washington, DC around like they're hired flunkies, while preying on Main Street businesses and investors. The federal government should use this opportunity to extract from Wall Street concessions that could never be extracted were Washington in its customary subordinate position.
"If American taxpayers are to bailout the Power Elite, they should attach conditions. Taxpayers should share in any upside, and gaping flaws in the current system should be fixed. Towards that end, I believe that any bailout legislation should include at least the following protections:
1. Taxpayers need to share in the upside if the bailout works, to compensate them for the risk that the administration is forcing them to take. This could be accomplished through warrants on shares in the firms being bailed out, such as those Mr. Buffett extracted from Goldman Sachs.
2. The government should impose a tax on those that benefit most from bailout -- Wall Street itself. Perhaps a 0.25% transaction tax on all securities trades is in order? Such a tax would be insignificant to investors, while be largely borne by those that are merely speculators - including those that churn trades in an attempt to manipulate the markets.
3. Bailout or none, the government must fix underlying problems in our capital market. The fixes includes:
a. Reforming our stock settlement system so that trades actually settle promptly, precisely as Congress stipulated in 1934. This can be accomplished by putting in place a market-wide mandatory pre-borrow requirement (like the SEC did in the 30-day July 15, 2008 emergency order that protected the 19 financial institutions);
b. Creating the obligation that if a naked short seller fails to deliver a share, the broker-dealer must force a mandatory buy-in (as is done in civilized countries, such as Canada);
c. Tracking trades cradle-to-grave (rather than net blocks of trades against each other), so that it is obvious who the naked short sellers are and the total amounts they are stealing;
d. Providing regular, timely disclosure of when and how many shares have failed to deliver;
e. Enforcing the rules, including significant monetary penalties and jail time.
"Keynes said that an ocean of productivity can support a bubble of speculation, but an ocean of speculation cannot support a bubble of productivity. Washington has been captured by speculators at the expense of producers. I have long been talking about systemic risk and potential financial crisis (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIHw7C73s3E for a three- minute video from as early as October 2005). I am proposing specific steps to fix the system. For those that agree with these fixes which protect Main Street Americans, I ask you to sign the electronic petition at http://mainstreetamericans.info."
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Who Hates Sarah Palin?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
By Greg Gutfeld
According to many in the media, we truly have discovered someone worse than Hitler — and it's Sarah Palin.
Head to any left-wing blog or even CNN for that matter and you'll find the zaniest of conspiracies -- froth that even a dude with rabies would find unseemly.
So how can one person create so much bile among folks who claim to be the most tolerant in the universe? I mean, liberals are the good people: They're open-minded, caring and of course, fair.
But somehow, a Republican lady in her 40s is exempt from this treatment. Perhaps, she truly is the devil in a dress, a ghoul that eats children and pollutes the planet and possibly beats Barack Obama, the patron saint of every customer buying wheat germ in bulk at GNC.
But I know the real reason why every single elitist media type is terrified of her. They've never met her. And by "her," I don't mean Sarah Palin. I mean "her", an actual normal woman with a bunch of kids, an average husband and no desire to watch "The L Word."
She's scary to these folks the way Wal-Mart is scary to them: Both are alien to someone who blogs about their chakras. They won't go there, because they've never been there.
To them, hating Sarah Palin is a symptom of larger bigotry against the rest of us, the normal. If they saw her at a party, they would wonder how she got in. She's the anti-Obama, the anti-New York Times, the anti-everything that Tim Robbins loves, which is why I love her — and you should too.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.
Greg Gutfeld hosts "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" weekdays at 3 a.m. ET. Send your comments to: redeye@foxnews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)