Ramblings

Once again, I'm just plain deliquent in posting... So, let's just free-form:

> MJ - I know he was a great entertainer, but the spectical of his death was just an overkill. I must have been one of the four people surfing cable TV looking for something other than MJ. I don't have much to say about his troubles. I think everyone can agree that he was a troubled soul, but I still wouldn't let my children near him no matter how innocent he was.

> Sarah Palin -I don't know WHAT to think of her. I think she really does march to her own drum beat and I like that. However, her resignation speech was one of her worst. It just ramble and didn't quite make sense. With all the frivolus lawsuits draining her family resources (I think I read during the `08 race that her wealth was less than $500,000 and that was mostly tied to her home), I can see why that alone would be enough to say 'screw this!'.
I really hope she doesn't run in `12 cuz that would be a disaster. Let's hope she's still as feisty in `20 as she is now. Love her independent streak and would love to back her even if I don't agree with her totally. I'm just sooo tired of all the negative press about her!! MSNBC is just amazing with the pitbull attitude towards her. Disagree with her politics but do it civilly.

> Obama picture in G8 - Don't know if any of you saw the picture floating about showing Obama and Sarkozy appearing to eye the nice ass of a 16 year old memeber of a delegation. The still photo looks great!! and quite convincing. See ALL men are hounddogs!!



HOWEVER... if you see the video of the scene, you can see that he is glancing down in anticipation of assisting the young lady behind him (black blouse). Now Sarkozy is a different matter, it show him clearly checking the young one out!! But to hear all the talking heads, it was just another example of skewed "journalism". Now, I'm no fan of the big O's policies, but when things are taken out of context, it shows just how bad things can get and BOTH sides are guilty.

> Sotomayor - next Supreme Court justice. I can't dispute her qualifications and think she deserves to be appointed. I think she'll get 86 votes. My point on this is while Repubs may disagree with her opinions, they don't dispute her judical judgement. This cannot be said of the Dems when faced with the same choice. They threaten a filabuster just to make a political point. Shamefull, just shamefull.

> Joe Biden - God love him, cuz I sure do!! Talk about loose lips ... he's always so entertaining!! Never a dull moment when he's in front of a microphone.

> Iranian protests - I was glued to Nico Pitney's Huff Post blog. I feel for them and hope the can achieve their freedom from the mullahs.

That's all for now.

Peace

Cap and Trade (Tax)

Boy, isn't this fun...
Ok, so we're now on the hook for the Dem's version of environmental engineering. One the environmentalist don't like and one that will become the largest tax increase in US history. This MAY be the undoing of the Dem domination in the Congress in 2010. It may (hopefully) usher them out of majority in the next election.

We should all expect our taxes to increase, but more sublime will be the cost passed on by manufacturers as their costs increases.

The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020. And the legislation gives electric utilities, coal plants, energy-intensive manufacturers, farmers, petroleum refiners, and other industries special protections to help them transition to new, less-fossil fuel-intensive ways of doing business.

Does anyone believe we can be at an 83% decrease by 2050 without a "Manhattan Project" style revamping of our energy? I hope this can happen, but no leadership has offered direction. So, we, as the middle class, will have to pay for this extravagance.

The worst of all this is the fact NO ONE read the 1300 pages -plus 3:00a amendments- of the bill. So much for transparency....

Iran

I went to high school for a couple of years at University High in west LA during the late `70s. This was at the height of the Iranian/Persian migration and knew quite a few Iranian students. We would sit around and smoke and talk about their plight. It was amazing. They didn't like the Shah but were terrified of what was to come. They were good people. So, like the Armenians, I've always watched with some interest on their travails.

So, I've been glued to the Huff Post's live blog by Nico Pitny. It's riveting...

Saturday will be the turning point after Khomeini's Friday prayer speech. Will they or won't they turn out... I hope they do.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

US Bonds found in Italy

I know I've been delinquent in blogging and have missed so much. I hope to have more on the Iran election later, but first this just jumped out at me.

If the bonds are real, it's more then all but three nations holding US bonds. If the are counterfeit, then talk about diluting our currency...

Italian prosecutors were trying to establish yesterday whether US bonds with a face value of $134 billion seized from two alleged smugglers were real or counterfeit.

The bonds were found when the two men — said to be Japanese but as yet not identified — were arrested while attempting to cross into Switzerland from Italy by train at the frontier town of Chiasso this month. Prosecutors in Como said that the two men had hidden the bonds in the false bottom of a suitcase.

Police said that Chiasso was a notorious crossing point for currency and bond smugglers but the sums involved this time were “colossal”. The amount of $134 billion would place the two travellers as the fourth most important investors in US debt, well ahead of Britain ($128.2 billion) and just behind Russia ($138.4 billion).

The bonds were described as being 249 US Federal Reserve bonds each worth $500 million, plus ten Kennedy bonds with face values of $1 billion, in addition to various other types. Police said that the two men had stayed at a hotel in Milan last Tuesday. Instead of taking the express train to Lugano, they had boarded a slow commuter train from a suburban station to attract less attention.

Although Switzerland and Italy adhere to the Schengen accords on frontier-free travel, customs officers from both sides who still watch travellers became suspicious, Italian reports said.

Police said that there was cause for concern even if the bonds turned out to be forgeries, since it would amount to a counterfeiting scam “on an unprecedented scale”.

Seattle Sounders' Keller

I've bought into the Seattle Sounders soccer team! Lock stock and goalie! Being an avid fan of the Braclays Prem League (commonly known as the English Prem League), I watch matches every weekend on FSC. The quality of MLS is well below that of the BPL which is to be expected. The BPL is the superior league in the world.

The joy now felt in Seattle by the 28,000 season ticket holders is unprecedented in MLS. The NW has been a hot bed of soccer for many years, but now it is expressed with fullt financial authority.

Here's an article on Kasey Keller which should warm the ol' cockles of the heart:

SEATTLE -- Bottom line: If you're a soccer fan living in America, you're doing yourself a great disservice if you don't make an attempt to take in a Seattle Sounders FC game. The overwhelming fan support, the sold-out crowds, the insane noise level inside Qwest Field -- it's enough to bring a tear to one's eye, as it did for MLS commissioner Don Garber.

Most affiliated with Major League Soccer expected a successful beginning for an expansion team with this kind of powerful ownership structure (many thanks, Seattle Seahawks) playing in the Emerald City. But few could have guessed the avalanche of noisy crowds the Sounders are getting in what has turned into perhaps the greatest homefield advantage in MLS history.

Count iconic goalkeeper Kasey Keller among the shocked -- and that's saying a lot. During a hugely successful 17-year career in England, Spain and Germany, Keller played in front of some of the loudest, most feverish crowds in the game. He always wanted to end his storied career -- which includes four World Cup appearances with the U.S. national team -- back in his home state of Washington. But never in his wildest dreams did he think Seattle conceivably could be the best market in MLS.

The Sounders are a surprising 4-2-0 just six weeks into the season and are in second place in the Western Conference. Perhaps even more impressively, they've only allowed three goals, and zero with their captain tending net.

SI.com caught up with the 39-year-old legend shortly after the Sounders' 2-0 victory over San Jose here this past Saturday, a game in which, by the way, Keller set a record by playing 389 consecutive minutes without conceding a goal to start a season. One of the best-spoken and most intelligent athletes you'll ever come across, he discussed his expectations for Seattle and had some strong words on what he believes U.S. national-team players deserve from MLS.

SI.com: Did you ever expect the support to be like this?

Keller: No. I knew that Seattle should have had an MLS team years ago. I knew there was a fan base here. But at no time did I ever think we're going to have 28,000 sold out or that we'd win our first three games without conceding a goal. It's our dream start. To be able to come home and finish my career in this atmosphere has been huge. Nothing would have been worse after experiencing the things I've experienced all over Europe and then to come home and hear crickets at games. This has been phenomenal. It very much reminds me of that European environment.

SI.com: After seeing this, are you sort of wondering what took MLS this long to get here?

Keller: Totally. At the same time, there's no good in hurrying something up just because you want to stick it in there. Timing could not have been better for this franchise. With the Sonics leaving, it left some openings in talk radio and in local TV sports coverage. Once they were able to see it was going to be done the right way, you had radio franchises bidding for the rights. In other cities, you couldn't give it away. When I got red-carded earlier this month, it was the talk of the town on sports-talk radio. That's cool. That's the way it should be.

SI.com: We talked in spring of 2007 right after Germany's Borussia Mönchengladbach cut you loose and you said you were too old to sit out a season to wait for an expansion team in Seattle. Yet that's what you ended up doing after one season back in England.

Keller: That was an interesting situation because 'Gladbach asked me to sign early on. And I just didn't think I could be motivated if the team got relegated. I can't just do something because of a check. I had a bunch of offers and I was being very picky. At the last minute, Fulham came along with the chance to move back to London. I had a tremendous run at the end of the year to keep the team up and have that experience. And then I had to make another decision: Do I stay there and maybe not play, maybe be a backup, maybe go back to Tottenham, drop down a division or two, go back to Europe? It was hard.

My kids are 11 years old and now they're in their fifth school in their fourth country. If I'm going to drag them around a bit more, it's got to be the right situation. Then it was even tougher when I committed to this team because it was, OK, do I take that little time off and be here from Day 1? Or do I come back in the middle of July? After that first game [a nationally televised 3-0 win over New York in front of 32,523], my wife said to me, "You know, it would have been a huge shame to have missed that experience." I fully agree that the choices have fallen into place.

SI.com: Would you have signed on no matter who the owners were?

Keller: No. I could tell from early on this group had it. Having the Vulcan organization, which owns the Seahawks -- let's be honest, what are we striving to be in this sport? We're striving to be on par with the NFL. We know we have to accept what our place is. But at the same time you have to have an ownership group that's forward-thinking, that's saying, we want to be in a stadium that holds 30,000 people. Hopefully at some stage it becomes 40,000 and 50,000. My experience in this sport is on that NFL level in Europe. Knowing that was what the aspiration was in what they were trying to achieve made it that much simpler.

SI.com: Over the past two years, you, Brian McBride, Eddie Lewis, Bobby Convey and Gregg Berhalter all have come home to MLS. That's five members of the '06 World Cup team. How big is that for the league?

Keller: That's key because we still are not quite as respected as much as I think we should be in our own league. Before I went to Fulham, I had an offer to come home and I had an offer to go to Romania that was three times what MLS was offering. At the same time, MLS has no problem paying a Mexican $2 million. That's the thing that still frustrates me. The better the Americans can do when they come home from Europe, hopefully the more respect they'll have from the ownership group and the fans to pay them what they deserve.

I had a conversation with a prominent coach here when I was on-again, off-again to coming home and he basically told me that I "owed it to the sport" to come home and play. I had to fight for everything I possibly could in Europe and now I have to fight twice as hard to come home and get a contract? That's not right. Look at the way the Dutch do it -- they understand. Ajax and PSV Eindhoven know they can't keep a hold of their homegrown stars. Someone like Phillip Cocu, who leaves PSV for Barcelona, wins everything under the sun, and what does PSV do when he's done there? They open their arms and say, "We might not be able to pay you what Barcelona can, but we're not going to pay you a fifth of what we're going to pay this Brazilian guy." It just doesn't work that way because the respect is there for him and what he has done. There are little things that need to change here.

SI.com: Six weeks into your first season, what do you think of the quality of MLS?

Keller: There's no question that it's in a great position. What we need now is to try to bump up that salary cap a little bit more, first of all, to reward those guys who do well. Too many times have I heard, "Hey, great season, but we don't think you have any options so we're actually going to lower your salary." That can't happen. At the same time, understand your place. No, you're not going to go compete with Chelsea. But the little bit more money you can pay, the little bit more quality player you're going to get.

SI.com: How close are we to catching up with Europe?

Keller: Twenty to 50 years. The NFL in 2009 is not what it was in 1959. You can't think after 14 years you're going to go compete with 120 years of history. It just doesn't work that way. But what you can do is steadily grow. And sometimes you have to take that little risk. When I first got to England in the early '90s, the Premier League was not what it is today for one major reason. That's because Rupert Murdoch paid a whole lot of money and started a TV company called Sky, bought the Premier League and gambled a big fortune. With that, the TV contracts shot through the roof and the clubs were able to pay more money to get the best players in the world away from Italy and Spain. Sometimes you have to make a commitment and hope that the more franchises we have like Seattle, the better it's going to be. It's a better game to watch on TV when it's a better game to watch in person.

SI.com: Do you see yourself staying here long enough to experience the Pacific Northwest rivalry with expansion teams in Vancouver and Portland in 2011?

Keller: That's why I've been hinting at maybe playing that one more year after my contract expires, to be a part of that. And to get as much stick as I'll get in Portland, having played in college and one year professionally down there. It'll be a lot of fun. We'll see how the body feels, we'll see how I'm playing. I could see myself squeezing another year out.

SI.com: Do you hope to be part of this organization after you hang 'em up?

Keller: That was a big part of the conversation I had in coming back. I said at my introductory press conference, I would love to be to this franchise what Franz Beckenbauer is at Bayern Munich, to go into coaching and into the back room and then still be here 30 years later.

Ahmadinejad and the Two State Solution

I'm going to pull completely from Barry Rubin's article on Ahmadinejad's responses to George Stephanopoulos' questions on the Two State Solution in the Middle East. However, I can't say I'm surprised on Mr. Madman's response. Since he denies the Holocaust, I can't ever imagine him allowing the existance of Israel, as Barry also noticed. I can't imagine a more vile person leading a country... Until Hamas agrees to the two state solution by agreeing to Israel's right to exist, nothing will ever change.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC. He knew what he was saying but others want to insist on refusing to understand him.

First the relevant exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide….
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that's fine.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel's existence, Iran will as well?
AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask them. But I'm asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?....
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.

And how did the Israeli online service of Yediot Aharnot newspaper, YNet News, play this? Here’s the headline: “”Ahmadinejad 'fine' with two-state solution.”

Well, not exactly. He refused to say that. All Ahmadinejad said was that he would support what the Palestinian people decided. What does that mean?

First, he personally believes that they would never accept a two-state solution so there’s nothing to worry about in that respect.

Second, of course, he knows that Hamas would never agree to such a thing and Hamas already controls how people vote in the Gaza Strip. One might presume that if a referendum was held there, the vote would be “100 percent” against a two-state solution. In addition, Hamas and others opposing a two-state solution would get between 30 and 70 percent of votes in the West Bank. A lot of Fatah supporters would also vote against it. The exact numbers aren’t important because whether the number is the higher or lower figure such a proposition would always be defeated.

Third, any two-state solution would only be made by Fatah. Iran supports Hamas. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority were to make a deal with Israel, Tehran would still back Hamas in overthrowing that government, using the deal to portray its rival as treasonous. Once Hamas took over the state of Palestine, it would tear up all the agreements and invite in the Iranian military.

So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.
But Ahmadinejad also put a little bomb in the interview which no one seems to notice. Let me repeat one of his answers:

AHMADINEJAD; “Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?“

What’s he saying here? “All Palestinian lands” might sound like saying the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem to Western ears, but everyone in Iran and among the Palestinians knows this means: all of Israel plus all the territories it captured in 1967.

So here’s what the Iranian president is saying: Suppose the Palestinians vote that they want all of Israel, would the United States accept that? The answer, of course, is “no” and so, Ahmadinejad is saying: I’m the one in favor of democracy and you’re against it.

(According to him, of course, Israelis have no rights to a state so they don’t get to vote.)

Ahmadinejad has built his own career on regarding the West as extremely stupid, cowardly, and easy to fool. Many or most of his colleagues in the Iranian regime agree with him.

I could write at this point that the one exception was when in the mid-1980s the United States was appearing ready to attack Iran unless it ended the Iran-Iraq war. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did so but I think he was misreading American intentions (albeit to the credit of U.S. policymakers in pulling off that bluff).

Still, I’m tempted to say that up to now that the Iranian leaders’ assumption has never proven to be wrong.

h/t augean stables

Halliburton vs. GE

Glad to be back!!!! Sorry, but haven't been in the mood to blog. Although, there's been a shit load of crap to blog about. I know it's been a couple of months and I've chosen to pass on commenting. Obama's admin has been a worthy subject as has been MSNBC's abject 'reporting' of the new administration. But how do you quantify crap . . . Lord knows the rabid Left tried during the Bush admin. And this was rightly so! After all, crap is crap. But what is so righteous is when the Left is called out on their righteousness by the Right!!

Look, Halliburton was the poster child of the Right's military industrial complex during the Bush admin. Now guess who is the poster child of the Left's eco industrial complex?? Well, that'd have to be the fine folks at General Electric!! While they push the eco agenda, they gather government chits on eco credits!! Who is going to benefit from the 'cap `n trade' more than GE with their wind turbine program??

And where is the Left on this corporate sponsorship of government programs?? Silent of course...

The Right has many faults, but the Left has them too. They just refuse to own up to them....

Hamas and the U.N.

Well, new router is in place and I'm back!!

Ok, so now we hear about some Hamas atrocities directly from the U.N.

JERUSALEM – A U.N. spokesman says Hamas police in Gaza have seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.

Spokesman Christopher Gunness says Hamas police raided a U.N. warehouse in Gaza City on Tuesday evening. He says police snatched 3,500 blankets and more than 400 food parcels.

The aid is vital now because Gazans are facing hardship after Israel's three-week military offensive against Hamas.

Hamas has ruled Gaza since it seized control of the territory in 2007. Gunness said Wednesday this is the first time Hamas has seized U.N. aid.

Israeli officials have charged that the militant group routinely confiscates supplies meant for needy Gazans.

A Hamas government spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

But wait there's more!!

Seems the supposed Israeli bombing of the U.N. school wasn't what it was alleged. Remember, the Israelis, at the time, said they were fired upon by Hamas, but no one believed them. Well, it now seems it was all true! Of course, that's because the U.N. says so....

The United Nations has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza city of Jabaliya last month hit a school run by a UN agency.

"The humanitarian coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school," the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in its latest weekly update on the situation in Gaza.

It stressed that its initial report of the January 6 incident correctly stated that Israeli shells hit outside the school run by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA, but that it later referred to "the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabaliya."

The Israeli military initially said its forces had responded to hostile fire from within the UN school but later reportedly retracted that statement.

The attack sparked widespread outrage in the midst of Israel's deadly offensive in Gaza

I do believe the principle of the United Nations is noble. However, it's be usurped and rendered impotent by the chamberlains and the rampant anti-American attitude. This with all the money the US provides...too bad.

h/t LGF

Mother of All Quagmires

Sorry for the slow blogging. I've had router issues.

Once again Michael Totten has written an excellent expose on the Middle East. There is no easy answer to the Israel/Palestinian issue.

Posting

Sorry for the lack of postings, have been having router problems.

Quick thoughts:

Israel is pounding the shit out of Gaza. Good! They need to pound Hamas. I've seen YouTube vids of the heroic Hamas fighters using children as shields as well as firing rockets from schools. Sorry, but can't link due to router problems.

Obama's inauguration - I'm filled with hope. I want to see what this man can do!! I may not have voted for him, but I still wish him to succeed. Bush was a wanker. He may have protected us from a security prospective, but he was not a true conservative. His 'compassionate conservatism' was nothing but bunk...

Premier Club Rock Bands

EPL Talk has a cool entry on if Premier clubs were rock bands. As luck would have it, my two favorite clubs (Chelsea and Newcastle United) also are matched with two of my most fav bands!!

• Arsenal - The Gunners used to be on top of the world, but no matter how gifted they are, they still feel like REM to me. Lots of talent but they’re never going to be as big as they once were.
• Aston Villa - Martin O’Neill, himself from Northern Ireland, would feel right at home with The Undertones, the Northern Irish band best known for the song “Teenage Kicks.” While they’re not teenagers, Villa has plenty of youth talent such as Ashley Young, James Milnar, Isaiah Osbourne and Curtis Davies.
• Blackburn Rovers - The heavy metal sound of Motorhead is a perfect accompaniment to Blackburn’s rough and tumble style of play. It makes you wonder if Motorhead’s “Ace Up Your Sleeve” tour was named for Blackburn’s own “ace,” aging striker Robbie Fowler.
• Bolton Wanderers - It’s appropriate that Bolton is synonymous with Metallica. “Enter Sandman” is an appropriate title for watching Bolton apply their physical tactics which can quickly become boring to watch.
• Chelsea - If the Blues move from Stamford Bridge to Battersea, then Pink Floyd would be the best resemblance to Chelsea. But if a move isn’t on the cards, then the closest thing to the Chelsea of the 1970’s would be the Sex Pistols, who routinely hung out at boutique shops on the trendy Kings Road near Chelsea’s home.
• Fulham - While not a rock band per se, Blur’s bass player Alex James is a massive Fulham supporter.
• Everton - The most famous rock star synonymous with Everton is the one and only Paul McCartney, a self-confessed Toffees supporter.
• Hull City - What do Hull City and Faith No More have in common? One hit wonders.
• Liverpool - Most neutral fans continue to be awestruck by the amazing football anthems that emanate from Anfield stadium on Merseyside. The only rock band that gets strangers singing as much as Liverpool fans do is Queen, creator of several rock anthems. Plus, like Liverpool, they were big in the late seventies and early eighties.
• Manchester City - With a song called “Champagne Supernova,” who else but Oasis would be a perfect fit for City, especially since the band members are already massive fans.
• Manchester United - There are few football clubs who are as big worldwide and as polished as U2. It often seems that they can’t do any wrong. Alex Ferguson is Bono, saying whatever he wants whenever he feels like it. Both United and U2 seem indestructible.
• Middlesbrough - Middlesbrough supporter and rocker Chris Rea is best known for the aptly named single “The Road To Hell.”
• Newcastle United - Did AC/DC lead singer Brian Johnson pick Newcastle as his favorite team, or was it the other way around? AC/DC’s song titles seem made for Newcastle United. Consider “It’s A Long Way To The Top,” “Ballbreaker” (a tribute to Joey Barton?), “Moneytalks” (Mike Ashley), “Highway to Hell” and “The Razors Edge” (on the precipice of relegation).
• Portsmouth - The Pompey squad features seven Frenchmen, and players from Cameroon (Lauren), Iceland (Hermann Hreiðarsson ), Senegal (Papa Bouba Diop), Nigeria (John Utaka and Kanu), Croatia (Niko Kranj?ar), Scotland (Richard Hughes ), Wales (Richard Duffy), Mali (Djimi Traoré), Ireland (Marc Wilson) and Canada (Asmir Begovic). If Portsmouth was a rock band, they’d be Motley Crue.
• Stoke City - When you think of Stoke’s Rory Delap, you have to think Cheap Trick.
• Sunderland - If Sunderland was a rock band, it’d be the Eurythmics fronted by guitarist and Sunderland supporter Dave Stewart.
• Tottenham Hotspur - Genesis’s lead singer and drummer Phil Collins is reportedly a massive Spurs fan.
• West Bromwich Albion - Tony Mowbray’s side this season hasn’t been playing like worldbeaters, but they have the world’s greatest guitarists, Eric Clapton, as one of their fans. Clapton played a concert for skipper John Wile’s testimonial year back in 1982 and draped an Albion scarf across his guitar on the back sleeve of his album “Backless.”
• West Ham United - Any investor considering a buy-out of West Ham United should heed the song title “Run to the Hills” by Iron Maiden whose band leader Steve Harris is a massive Hammers fan.
• Wigan Athletic - It’s only fitting that the best known band from Wigan, The Verve, have a discography with an album titled “A Northern Soul” and song titles such as “Lucky Man” and “Bitter Sweet Symphony.” “Lucky Man” could have been written about Paul Jewell after he helped the club escape relegation. And the chorus of “Bitter Sweet Symphony” with the lyrics “I can’t change, I can’t change” could sum up the mood of the town of Wigan who seem rooted to their rugby league roots instead of coming out in droves to watch their local football team.

Veteran's Day

Thank you to all who serve or have served to keep the nation free.

High Cost of Education - Why?

When I went to college, starting in 1980, the cost was a bargain compared to today. In 1980, I think it cost about $1000 a year. I enjoyed college sooo much I wound up going for seven years!! Of course, I didn't go for education but went to party my ass off. I was not very productive... I majored in sex, drugs and rock and roll. It's truly amazing I survived to become such a productive member of society.

For some time now, we've heard about the increased cost of higher education. How it's increased over the years.

For the 2000-01 academic year, annual prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board were estimated to be $7,621 at public colleges and $21,423 at private colleges. Between 1990-91 and 2000-01, prices at public colleges rose by 23 percent, and prices at private colleges increased by 27 percent, after adjustment for inflation.

And how it's eaten into the median family income:

Tuition has risen 126 percent (after inflation) since 1984 and is eating up an ever-growing chunk of family incomes. In 1984, the tuition and fees at a public, four-year college was just 4.8 percent of the median family income; today it's 9.5 percent.

These stats are from almost a decade ago and the increase is far greater today.

• The cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at public four-year universities has increased 52 percent, from $8,439 in 2000-2001 to $12,796 in 2006-2007 (in current dollars); and
  

• The cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at private four-year universities has increased 37 percent, from $22,240 in 2000-2001 to $30,367 in 2006-2007 (in current dollars).

We've heard about Obama's desire to provide affordable higher education to the masses:

we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

[...]

Finally, Obama says he will create a tax credit that would ensure the first $4,000 of a college education is free for most Americans.

This sounds great. I'm not exactly sure how he's going to pay for it all with the tax credits. But I can guarantee you the cost of higher education explode of the government winds up paying for everyone's college expenses. It's just economics. The universities will begin to inflate the fees knowing the government will payout. When the money finally runs out, where will we be left...

Now here the jest of this post.

Have any of you looked at the endowments of the major universities? Here's a definition of endowment:

Dictionary: endowment (ĕn-dou'mənt)
n.

1. The act of endowing.
2. Funds or property donated to an institution, individual, or group as a source of income.

Notice the phrase 'source of income'. It amazes me our higher learning institutions are charging outrageous tuitions while hoarding vast sums of money. Harvard's endowment in 2007? It's $34.6 BILLION dollars !! That's $1,456,940 per student (2006)!! Yale? How about $22.5 billion!! Public systems are not as fortunate, but let's not feel too sorry for them. The University of Texas has an endowment of $15.6 billion, University of Michigan has $7.1 billion...

I find it truly amazing all the major universities have such a vast pool of money they are accumulating while raising the cost of tuition at such an inflated rate. Where's the outcry from the Democrats? Why aren't they targeting their excesses? Could it be because the campuses are their playground?

I'm not for playing Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor (or Obama's desire to 'spread the wealth'). So I'd like to be consistent. But what's the difference between high class executives getting such high salaries while their workers earn such meager wages and high class universities gorging on such exorbitant endowments (not to mention high faculty salaries) while placing their student body in such debt? Where is the common good in this?

Until the Democrats address such inequities, I'll judge them to be insincere and in the pocket of the intelligentsia just as the Republicans are in bed with the corporate oligarchy.

Either way both parties have become our plutocracy, our ruling elite...

peace

Madness at White Hart Lane

At the beginning of the Barclay's Premier League ( formerly the English Premier League), the hot teams were Tottenham Hot Spurs and Aston Villa. I picked them to place 6th with Villa in 5th and qualifying for UEFA. While Villa currently reside in 6th on the table, Tottenham dwell in last with an unbelievable 2 pts!! They've looked horrible!! They lost Keane to (hated) Liverpool and Berbatov to (evil) ManU, so they lost the heart of their scoring and it shows this season with only 4 goals and a -6 goal differential.

So after shafting manager Martin Jol last season, they've now dismissed Juande Ramos and are trolling after Portsmouth's Harry Redknapp. As good as ol' Harry is, I don't think he can save them from relegation. Only Southhampton ever fended off relegation with so few points.

The Guardian has an interesting take on the cause of the Hot Spur's woes. Seems Garth Bale is a jinx! I thought he was a promising young Welsh left back. I went so far as to pick him in a fantasy league for a bit. But the numbers just don't lie:

With Bale P: 15 W: 0 D: 6 L: 9 F: 19 A: 30 GD: -11 Pts: 6

Without Bale P: 32 W: 11 D: 9 L: 12 F: 53 A: 45 GD: +8 Pts: 42

peace

Obama's too late for Iran

Much has been said about Obama insisting he never said he'd talk to Iran (or other 'bad' nations) without preconditions, although there's tape of him saying just that during a Democratic 'debate'.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

But what is truly amazing is his stand may be for naught. Seems the fine leaders of Iran have other ideas like preconditions for us!! How about the U.S. leaving the Middle East and to stop supporting Israel!!

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.

It is the Americans who are in dire need of reestablishing ties with Iran, he underlined.

Iran is not obliged to reestablish ties with the U.S., he said.

"If they take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared," he said.

It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in U.S. attitude, he underlined.

Well, it's good to know someone is clear on where they stand...

Debate and Election

Took in the debate tonight. I've come to the conclusion this election is Obama's lose. His command of presence and eloquence is so superior to McCain it's not even funny. He's a natural where as McCain is surly and just not charismatic.

I think Obama was the designated victor tonight. He was just smooth and more in command. McCain, I'm sure, tried to be personable but failed. A side note - if I still drank, I'd love to play a drinking game with McCain's "my friends". We'd all be plastered after an hour and a half....

In reviewing the post-debate pundits, the consensus seems to be a clear Obama victory. There wasn't much McCain could do to close the gap and sure enough nothing happened to change it. As could be predicted, CNN and MSNBC clearly sided with Obama while Fox went with McCain. Have I mentioned recently how much I can't stand Keith Olbermann? He just makes my hair stand on end. He's as bad as Hannity but tries to pass himself off as a newsman. I just have a hard time watching him without gagging.

So, let's get ready for an Obama administration. It will be interesting and I hope it is a successful one. However, my biggest fear is an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic congress will run roughshod with a Progressive agenda on par with the New Deal era. If they enact all their desires, we will embark on a Socialist path with more government intrusion and dubious economic policies.

As much as I'm a political junkie, I think I'll have to abstain and just watch some baseball. I think it's only going to turn nasty and I just don't want to watch how ugly it's going to get.

Peace

Biden's Lack of Charity and Other Thoughts

Well, Palin's tax returns were released on Friday. The Palin's earned only $166,080 for 2007. I think that's kinda low for a two income family where one happens to be a governor of a state, but then I don't know how much Todd worked in 2007 if he was the primary care giver of the family since she was in Juneau. Either way, this shows they truly are a middle-income family.

I'd heard how much (or how little) the Biden's had given to charity a couple of weeks ago and was aghast at how little it was. They've given only $3,690 to charity since 1998!! This in spite of earning $284,000 in 2006 and 2007 alone. Only $3,690 for the last 10 years?!?!? I'm insulted!! Here is a man who is eagerly, willing and wantonly, planning on using MY taxes to redistribute America's wealth and yet he is unwilling to use his own money to assist those less fortunate than him. I guess he feels his taxes are enough of a personal commitment. So much for his Catholic faith of providing for the poor. I guess his belief of taxes being patriotic is his new faith:

“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,” he said.

It reinforces the belief that Democrats just don't get how many Americans feel. We'd rather give our money to charities of our own choice than to give it to Government for them to dole out. Sad, just sad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Watched the VP debate on Thursday after a colonoscopy...talk about joy! I came in with questions about Palin after her interview with Katie Couric. The bits I saw were disturbing. Let's say some of the luster was lost. I began to question her readiness. There's no doubt she's set to be a major political player, but I was beginning to think it was a bit too soon.

However, after watching the debate, my fears were allayed. Don't get me wrong. She's still extremely green and has a lot to learn, but the foundation is there for her to be a power player. She held her own and sounded competent. She had a couple gaffes like that wacky expanding of the VP powers and mis-stating the commander in Afghanistan, but not nearly as bad as Biden's claim of the UN peacekeeping forces (at the behest of France and US) pushing out Hezbollah, his backing of 'clean' coal or that Obama never said he'd meet Iranian leader without preconditions. It's a shame Palin didn't pounce on these and nail him on them.

But I'm growing weary of this silly season and to think we have four more weeks of this nonsense.

Peace

Policy, Not Race

Here's an article by Ross Balano in the KC Star which outlines my thoughts on voting for Obama.

So the race card has been played again this election; nothing new about that either. Democrats do it every election cycle. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend race.

Now again, if you aren’t liberal, you must be some kind of racist, right? After all, there’s no other reason why anyone would not vote for Obama, correct?

So let me get this straight. With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you don’t want higher taxes, you might be a racist.

If you think we should drill for more domestic oil, you could be a racist.

If you believe we should secure the borders, you might be a racist.

If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life or winning the war on terror, you just might be a racist.

Heck, if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be a racist.

I, for one, am tired of this old routine.

Let me be very clear: The problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Rather, it has to do with positions, beliefs and associations and the lack of any substantial experience that would qualify him to be president.

As I've mentioned before, my objection to voting for Obama comes clearly from not agreeing with his policies and nothing else. I happen to think he's the epitome of Cool.

Although I've seen several articles on a national scale posit the belief that if you don't vote for Obama, it MUST be because you're racist and worse, watch out if he loses. All hell will break loose, because it must have been stolen from him...Bullshit. I don't vote for Buddhists, because they're Buddhists. I don't vote for Texans, because they're Texan. I don't vote for whites, because they're white and I don't withhold my vote just because a candidate is not white. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. There will be Crackers out there who will not vote for Obama just because he's black, but also there will be others who DO vote for him just because he IS black. All of these people are ill informed and ignorant.

I feel fortunate to have friends on both sides who are not so shallow. We've had discussions on this topic and I'm glad to say we've all moved to a better place where color is not a factor to judging a person's merit.

Please, be informed and vote on merit. If America wants to vote in a Dem, then let it happen. We'll survive (although God help us if both the President AND Congress are Dems . . .). Obama is a good man, just not my cup o' tea.

Peace.

Debate 092608

OK, I'm back...

I've refrained from blogging during the lonnnnng political season because it's been just that, lonnnnng. How I wish we were limited to no more than six months of campaigning. I'm a political junky but man, this has been tiring. And we're not even going to bring up the Sarah Palin issue. (maybe later!)

So I watched the debate. I came in thinking McCain was going to be in trouble. He's old... He's a curmudgeon. Yet, he held himself together without blowing up. I think he scored points on the economy by pointing out Obama's earmarks. I'm still wondering how Obama is going to cut taxes on 95% of America, those under 250K while increasing spending by billions of dollars. Does he expect 5% of America to pay for all that? Quite frankly, I don't believe him.

I've heard how the middle-class has been shrinking for the past 10 yrs. Has no one thought that it's shrinking because to "upper-class" has increased? From what I've read, the lower class has shrunk along with the middle class. So, where do these people go....

Back to the debate. I think Obama shows he's a bright man. He's in charge of the facts and a very good 'debater'. McCain's strength is his experience, especially in foreign policy and military issues. Obama's very personable while McCain is not.

As I've discussed with friends, I'd be honored to vote for Obama if I shared his beliefs. I think he's a good man, but I've studied him and truly believe he's not for me. Being a Libertarian, I feel he's for increasing Government's intrusion into our lives. McCain at least shows an inclination to get Government off our backs.

I don't think I'll have a candidate I'll be truly satisfied for years to come...

Now, a bit about the post debate discussion - I normally watch MSNBC and Fox. I applaud MSNBC's move of getting Olberman off as the face of these programs. I watched him on both conventions as truly was revolted. While I do think Fox is more on the conservative side, besides their 'opinion' talking heads, I think they can be some what objective. During this 'silly' season, MSNBC has shown me that they really are on the left. Olberman has tried to portray himself as next Edward R. Murrow but he's so in the pocket for the Dems that I have to disregard anything he says, just like Hannity. But at least Hannity doesn't try to portray himself as a 'newsman'...

Anyway, the post script on MSNBC has been mixed. Matthews has been a bit harsh, repeatedly leading on how McCain didn't look at Obama. how troll like McCain was and bringing up a load of 'talking points' that Obama missed. On Fox, the scooped MSNBC by having Bidden on right after the debate. Wallace tried to 'get' him on the experience issue but Bidden adroitly deflected the issue. I just can't wait for Maddow...not!! I can tell you how she's going to spin it... wanna bet?

Overall, I think McCain has to consider this a victory since he came in as an 'underdog' when it comes to debating. He scored some points while not blowing up. Obama scored some point by his knowledge and his skill.

Man, I can't wait for this to be over...

Financial Bailout

As I've mentioned before, I have little or no sympathy for those who've mortgaged their lives for a better house while those of us who have sacrificed with smaller dwellings saved and worked for a better life. While I've always questioned the massive payout clauses to departing CEOs, I've never begrudged them anymore than I would a sports athlete or movie celebrity. It's what the market pays out. Shareholders are ultimately responsible for those golden parachutes just as fans are responsible for the sport salaries.

I do scoff at the political gamesmanship currently en vogue in Washington. Democrats are aghast at what's happened even though their leadership was in charge of 'oversight' while the present administration's laissez faire only contributed to the nod-nod-wink-wink of the money shell game. All are culpable and yet we are left holding the bag.

I still don't know how I feel about bailing out the financial crisis. Being a Libertairian, I feel failure is the best medicine. We don't have a significant debt since we've made a conscious effort to live within our means, but we'd still feel the pain caused by those frivolous buffoons. And yet...I'd be willing to suffer if it righted the ship.

Below is an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson, pls enjoy:

Dr. Frankenstein's Wall Street

By Victor Davis Hanson

When the mortgage bubble burst, Americans were "shocked" at how many Wall Street buccaneers had been gambling in a vast pyramid scheme with someone else's money. Paper fortunes were made buying and selling questionable sub-prime mortgages on the silly assumption that such gargantuan inside profiting would always expand -- even as the number of homebuyers able to buy overpriced properties was shrinking.

Now after the recent crash in sub-prime mortgages and the stock of several investment firms, a trillion dollars in "assets" could be nearly worthless. An already indebted American government must restore some sort of trust to banks and markets by either printing money or borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors to guarantee loans.

All that remains of this Ponzi scheme is the election-year blame game. Republicans charge that important financial firewalls were dismantled by the Clinton administration while insider liberal senators got shady campaign donations in exchange for aiding Wall Street. Democrats counter that the laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Republicans for two decades encouraged financial piracy while tax policy favored the rich speculator over the middle-class wage earner.

But no one dares to ask what really drove the wheeler-dealer portfolio managers. Who re-elected these shady politicians of both parties? Who fostered the cash-in culture in which both Wall Street profit mongering and Washington lobbying are nourished and thrive? We citizens did -- red-state conservatives and blue-state liberals, Republicans and Democrats, alike. We may be victims of Wall Street greed -- but not quite innocent victims.

Let me explain. The profiteering was not just the result of a few thousand scoundrels on Wall Street or in Washington, as greedy and as bonus-hungry as many of them no doubt were. Look at the housing market as a sort of musical chairs in which everyone profited as long he grabbed a seat when the music stopped. Then those left standing -- with high-priced loans and negative equity when the crash came -- defaulted and stuck taxpayers with debt in the billions of dollars. But until then, most owners who had sold homes cashed out beyond their wildest dreams.

Thousands of dollars in past profits are still in sellers' bank accounts or were spent on their own consumption. If the shaky buyer at the bottom of the pyramid should not have borrowed to buy an overpriced house, then the luckier seller higher up hardly worried that the cash-strapped fool was paying him way too much with unsecured borrowed money.

We created the cultural climate for this shared madness. Television shows advised how to "flip" a house after putting in cosmetic improvements. Real-estate seminars and popular videos convinced us that homes were not places to live in and raise a family but rather no different from piles of chips on a Vegas table.

We created the phony populist creed that everyone deserved to own a house. So lawmakers got the message to relax lending standards in service to "fairness." But Americans forgot that historically nearly four in 10 of us aren't ever ready, or able, to sacrifice for a down payment, monthly mortgage bills, home maintenance and yearly taxes -- and so should stick to renting.

The problem went way beyond real-estate fantasies. Five-percent interest as a return on our money was once considered pretty good -- especially inasmuch as a factory or farm on the other side of the banking equation could not really stay in business paying 10 percent in interest to banks for its necessary borrowing.

But soon retirement-account holders and institutional investors began to expect as a given 7, 10 -- and even 20 -- percent "return" on their portfolios. Wage earners and professionals alike compared the glossy brochures that appeared in the mail, and then jumped to this 401(k) investment or that mutual fund to "maximize" retirement portfolio earnings.

How Wall Street managers, eager for more multimillion-dollar bonuses, planned to deliver on their promised sky-high returns no one asked. But it often proved to be more by hook-and-crook shell games than by financing new productive businesses or by extending credit for the production of real goods in vital plants.

In a larger sense, this zeal for quick profits and easy money reflected an oblivious too-good-to-be-true culture in which we drove larger cars but demanded more oil drilling from everyone except ourselves. We expected both expanded government entitlements and lower taxes.

Our government borrowed ever more money from foreign creditors, because it was a collective reflection of our own profligate financial habits. Of course, we should reform Wall Street and Washington -- and punish severely the crooks in both places. But Americans should remember that Frankenstein was not the name of the monster but of its creator.