| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Chris Matthews | ||||
| ||||
Read More......
This post sums up the results of a Diplomacy game I have been playing by e-mail since January 2009. More information about the Diplomacy hobby can be found at The Diplomacy Pouch.
I posted last week that I am proud of my daughter. That post noted that she has signed on to join the navy as an Aviation Structural Mechanic (AM), and it described the job. She prefers to enter the Navy in as a Hospital Corpman; however, there are no openings for that slot. Unless the needs of the Navy change, she is slated to ship out for Boot Camp in Great Lakes at the end of October, and if she can make it through, then go to A-school in Pensacola to learn the AM rating.
Here is a clip of Congressman Alan Grayson (D. Fl) cross-examining Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Grayson hones in on a Fed Balance Sheet entry showing that the Fed loaned over $500 Billion to foreign central banks.This amount is ten times the size of the entire State Department budget. Publicly elected lawmakers proposed and debated over 100 amendments to the State department budget. That’s how democracy is supposed to work -- not through secret deliberations in which 12 unelected bankers trample on Congress’s Constitutional authority to appropriate funds, approve treaties, and coin money.http://grayson.house.gov/
Any Federal reserve bank may, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, purchase and sell in the open market, at home or abroad, either from or to domestic or foreign banks, firms, corporations, or individuals, cable transfers and bankers’ acceptances and bills of exchange of the kinds and maturities by this chapter made eligible for rediscount, with or without the indorsement of a member bank.12 U.S.C. § 253 (emphasis added).
This is my second reality check post as we approach the college football season. Read my first post here.
Below are some pictures painted down at Garden City Beach (SC) earlier this month. These are pretty crappy pictures. However, I can think of very few better activities than sitting on the beach painting with watercolors. There is a breeze that helps the paint to dry, and it is just a great environment for watercolors. Without further ado, here are the crappy watercolors.
ESPN Reporter Erin Andrews is in the news for a coworker's publication of a surreptitiously taken, nude video. The video was shot through a hotel peephole. Andrews was alone in her room when he shot the tape. The coworker invaded Andrews privacy and must be brought to justice.
Here is an interesting clip featuring South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Last week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint made it pretty clear why the opponents of health care reform are fighting so hard. As he told a special interest attack group, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Here's how the President responded:The reality of it is that Senator DeMint has it right here.
Think about that. This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake.
With Congress only days away from finalizing their plans for reform, it's time to stand up with the President and fight back against this disastrous brand of old-style politics. So we need as many people as possible to publicly support the President's principles for health care reform and call on Congress to act.
Before the first full votes in Congress, we'll publish the signatures in newspaper ads across the nation, to make sure your voice is heard.
Watch President Obama's full response, then add your name in support of reform. Or if you've already signed, please forward this message to every one of your friends and neighbors so they can join you.
This post looks at the results of socialized medicine in Canada.we wanted to ensure that everyone would have access to health care, regardless of their ability to pay. Also, because the Health Insurance Act was part of a whole — there was Bill 65 respecting health services — we wanted a thorough reform. We wanted access to health care to be as equal as possible everywhere in Quebec, regardless of place of residence, regardless of financial circumstances . . . .As stated in the opinion, “There would be a reduction in human resources in the public plan because many physicians and other health care professionals would leave the plan out of a motive for profit.”
Not only is it common knowledge that health care in Quebec is subject to waiting times, but a number of witnesses acknowledged that the demand for health care is potentially unlimited and that waiting lists are a more or less implicit form of rationing (report by J.‑L. Denis, Un avenir pour le système public de santé (1998), at p. 13; report by Y. Brunelle, Aspects critiques d’un rationnement planifié Waiting lists are therefore real and intentional.(1993), at p. 21).The witnesses also commented on the consequences of waiting times. One orthopedic surgeon, Eric Lenczner, testified the usual waiting period for orthopedic surgery was approximately one year. He provided evidence the wait created risk that patient's injuries will become irreparable. Dr. Lenczner also stated that many patients on non‑urgent waiting lists for orthopaedic surgery are in pain and cannot walk or enjoy any real quality of life. Another physician, Edwin Coffey, corroborated that testimony and stated persons with chronic arthritis waiting for a hip replacement may experience considerable pain.
My son Nathan and I tried out a two-player board game called Hammer of the Scots. A picture of the box is shown to the left.
The game uses "block" style to simulate the conflict. A picture of a couple typical blocks is shown to the right. The numbers on them indicate the movement and combat capabilities.
The English get a lot of reinforcements in the game; however, the reinforcements are difficult to keep supplied, especially as they are maneuvered far to the north or the Highlands. The map to the right shows the board from the south.The Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful and secretive institutions in Washington, long considered beyond the reach of lawmakers. But now, as details emerge of how the Fed secretly doled out more than a trillion dollars during the financial crisis, a rare bipartisan movement in Congress demands that the Fed be held accountable.
As he lobbied heavily for passage of the first February $900 Billion stimulus Bill--later enacted and signed into law--President Obama stated, "there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems . . . ." B. Obama, Washington Post, The Action Americans Need (Feb. 5, 2009). FoxNews Report (Feb. 6, 2009).
While serving as the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the Obama Administration's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner approved a no-bid contract to BlackRock Financial Management.Now, the Fed is giving Blackrock another huge contract. It is charged with the management of toxic mortgage backed security assets that the Federal Reserve aquired during the bailouts of wealthy Wall Street organizations. Ironically, it was the current Chief Executive Officer of Blackrock who created and sold the first of these poisonous derivatives to the Federal government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve's contract with Blackrock places the fox at the door to guard the hen house. Bernanke's claims of firewalls in this video are bogus assertions aimed at the naive.
1. The big doozy: Eighty-five percent of the carbon permits will not be sold at auction — they will be given away to utility companies, petroleum interests, refineries, and a coterie of politically connected businesses. If you’re wondering why Big Business supports cap-and-trade, that’s why. Free money for business, but higher energy prices for you.
2. The sale of carbon permits will enrich the Wall Street investment bankers whose money put Obama in the White House. Top of the list: Goldman Sachs, which is invested in carbon-offset development and carbon permissions. CNN reports:Less than two weeks after the investment bank announced it would be laying off 10 percent of its staff, ***Goldman Sachs confirmed that it has taken a minority stake in Utah-based carbon offset project developer Blue Source LLC. . . . “Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the U.S. is growing rapidly,” said Leslie Biddle, Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman, “and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk.”3. With its rich menu of corporate subsidies and special set-asides for politically connected industries, Waxman-Markey has inspired a new corporate interest group, USCAP, the United States Climate Action Partnership — the group largely responsible for the fact that carbon permits are being given away like candy at Christmas rather than auctioned. And who is lined up to receive a piece of the massive wealth transfer that Waxman-Markey will mandate? Canada Free Press lists:Alcoa, American International Group (AIG) which withdrew after accepting government bailout money, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Chrysler LLC (which continues to lobby with taxpayer dollars), ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, General Motors Corp. (now owned by the Obama administration), Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Inc., National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, NRG Energy, Inc., Pepsico, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens Corporation, World Resources Institute, Xerox Corporation.One major group of recipients of the free money being given to industry in the form of carbon permits are the electric utilities, represented in Washington by the Edison Electric Institute. Along with the coal and steel businesses, the utilities are positioned to receive a huge portion of the carbon permits — some of which will be disguised as measures for consumers — and have become one of the nation’s highest-spending lobbies, working to ensure that their interests are served by cap-and-trade.
Another day, another Obama cover-up.Read More......
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained internal EPA e-mails that show the agency willfully and recklessly disregarded scientific data that undermined the bureaucracy’s global warming zealotry.
This information is especially relevant as Congress rushes to pass the cap-and-trade nightmare on Friday.
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman has notified the EPA and requested that the internal communications and suppressed study be released to the public and added to the public record. Will another whistleblower be disappeared? Note especially this warning to the dissenting scientist: “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
Read:
CEI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated within EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.
CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the docket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.
The emails, attached hereto, consist of the following:
1) a March 12 email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbidding him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues;
2) a March 16 email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. The email notes the quantity of peer-reviewed references in the study, and defends its inclusion of new research as well. It states Mr. Carlin’s view that “the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in
the technical literature.” It goes on to point out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” (Emphases added);
3) a March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” (Emphasis added);
4) a second March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, dated eight minutes later, stating “ I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”
Mr. McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Mr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to EPA’s proposed position. This raises several major issues.
A. Incompleteness of the Rulemaking Record: The end result of withholding Mr. Carlin’s study was to taint the Endangerment Proceeding by denying the public access to important agency information. Court rulings have made it abundantly clear that a rulemaking record should include both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded.” Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 (1976).
B. Prejudgment of the Outcome of the Endangerment Proceeding: The emails also suggest that EPA has prejudged the outcome of this proceeding, to the point where it arguably cannot be trusted to fairly evaluate the record before it. Courts have recognized “the danger that an agency, having reached a particular result, may become so committed to that result as to resist engaging in any genuine reconsideration of the issues.” Food Marketing Institute v. ICC, 587 F.2d 1285, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
C. Violations of EPA’s Commitment to Transparency and Scientific Honesty: Finally, the emails suggest that EPA’s extensive pronouncements about transparency and scientific honesty may just be rhetoric. Shortly before assuming office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared: “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Jan. 23, 2009, link. See also Administrator Jackson’s April 23 Memo to EPA Employees, “Transparency in EPA’s Operations”. These follow the President’s own January 21 memo to agency heads on “Transparency and Open Government”. And in an April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the President declared that, “under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.
For these reasons, we submit that EPA should immediately make Mr. Carlin’s study public by entering it into the Endangerment docket, and that it should either extend or reopen the comment period in this proceeding to allow public responses to that study. It should do so, moreover, while publicly pledging that Mr. Carlin will suffer no adverse repercussions from agency personnel. Mr. Carlin is guilty of no wrongdoing, but the tenor of the emails described above suggests he may well have reason to fear reprisals.
Read all the e-mails here.
Do your congressional reps know about this? Tell them: 202-224-3121.
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1353/1261352791_02837d3c48_t.jpg "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
