Monday, January 10, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, January 10, 2011


Let's start this week off with a bit of cheery "Kinky" Van Halen...


Oh... breakfast...???
A bit of hammy, cheesy, egg salad with a couple cups of java.

Lunch...??? Healthy Choice "garden vegetable" soup (yeah, yeah... with some cheddar cheese grated in and a few cheddar goldfish thrown as crackers...) followed by a few Trader Joe's Rosemary Raisin Crisps with butter.

4:30 p.m. - A nice juicy crisp apple!

5:30 p.m. - Broccoli and hummus.

6:45 p.m. - A salad of lettuce, tomato, pickle slices, green olives, cheddar cheese, pepperoni, and diced chicken breast with mayo as dressing.

9:30 p.m. - A slice of apple pie
"topped" with half an Eskimo pie washed down with a glass of milk.

10:30 p.m. - A few rosemary raisin crisps.

11 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7082BL20110109

The United States will need to come to terms with the fact that its prevalence in the world is fated to come to an end, Jorgenson said. This will be difficult for many Americans to swallow and the United States should brace for social unrest amid blame over who was responsible for squandering global primacy, he said.

* THE GENTLEMAN BEING QUOTED IS DALE JORGENSON, HARVARD ECONOMIST.

To hear a number of prominent economists tell it, it doesn't look good for the U.S. economy, not this year, not in 10 years.

* THAT'S THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE!

Leading thinkers in the dismal science speaking at an annual convention offered varying visions of U.S. economic decline, in the short, medium and long term.

* PERHAPS IF POLITICIANS START OF CHANT OF "USA! USA" THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM...

(*SMIRKY SMILE*)

In the long run, the United States must face up to inevitably being overtaken by China as the world's largest economy. And it may have missed a chance to rein in its largest financial institutions, many of whom remain too big to fail and are getting bigger.

* OH, PLEEESE...! "MISSED A CHANCE" MY ASS! THE DEMS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH DODD-FRANK; THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO FOSTER FURTHER GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY.

Harvard's Martin Feldstein said he believes the outlook for U.S. economic growth in 2011 is less sanguine than many believe. First, the boost to growth from government spending will be drying up this year, he said. Renewal of expiring tax cuts is no more than a decision not to raise taxes, and the impact of one-year payroll tax cut is likely modest, he said. "There's really not much help coming from fiscal policy in the year ahead," he said. Woes from the dire situations of state and local governments may actually be a drag on growth, he said.

* YA THINK...?!?! (*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

MIT's Simon Johnson put it more bluntly, saying the damage from the financial crisis and its aftermath have dealt U.S. prominence a permanent blow. "The age of American predominance is over, the (Chinese) Yuan will be the world's reserve currency within two decades."

William R. Barker said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70919N20110110

Beijing is [our] country's largest creditor, holding more than $900 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds.

William R. Barker said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers

Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

* SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT SOME OF THESE BASTARDS, FOLKS? THEY WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS... SPECIAL PROTECTIONS; THEY HOLD THEMSELVES ABOVE THE CITIZENRY THEY CLAIM TO "SERVE."

* I SAY NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES BEYOND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THEM. A THREAT TO A FEDERAL OFFICIAL OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS A THREAT TO ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN - WITH THE SERIOUSNESS IT DESERVES; NO MORE, NO LESS.

Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president.

* HEY BOBBY BOY... IF YOU WANT THE SAME "PROTECTIONS" AS THE PRESIDENT, THEN IN 2012 CHALLENGE BARAK OBAMA AND IF YOU WIN YOUR PARTY'S NOMINATION AND THEN THE ELECTION... WELL... YOU'VE GOT IT, BUD!

(*SMIRK*)

"The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge."

* THE PRESIDENT IS CHIEF OF STATE AS WELL AS HEAD OF GOVERNMENT YOU MORON.

(*SMIRK*)

* SERIOUSLY... HOW DO THESE UNDEREDUCATED HALFWITS MAKE IT TO THIS LEVEL...???

William R. Barker said...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/maryland/2011/01/council-hold-retreat-resort-outside-county

The Prince George's [Maryland] County Council is spending $10,000 to $15,000 for a two-night retreat on the Eastern Shore this week.

Ingrid Turner, [a Democrat,] chairwoman of the County Council, said she chose to spend more money on this year's retreat, even as the county faces a $77 million shortfall next fiscal year, to help council members "avoid distractions."

* HMM... I WONDER IF OUR FRIEND DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN BOB BRADY OF THE PREVIOUS NEWSBITE WOULD OBJECT TO ME CALLING FOR INGRID TURNER TO BE TARRED AND FEATHERED?

(*SMIRK*)

"We wanted to be able to focus," she explained, "and if you get far enough away where you're not getting the day-to-day calls, you can really focus and concentrate."

* A CONFERENCE ROOM IN THE COUNTY'S GOVERNMENT BUILDING WITH THE PHONES DISCONNECTED WOULDN'T DO...???

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH ARROGANCE, SELFISHNESS AND IRRESPONSIBILITY TO THIS EXTENT? OBVIOUSLY THE REJOINDER IS "THROW HER OUT OF OFFICE," BUT WHAT IF HER DISTRICT IS GERRYMANDERED SO AS TO MAKE HER BASICALLY IMPERVIOUS TO POLITICAL DEFEAT?

The council's two-night retreat will begin Monday...at the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa & Marina in Cambridge.

* NICE...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576068332459947012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

Facebook raised $500 million last week, but the only people who could invest were the wealthiest private clients of Goldman Sachs.

(*SMIRK*)

[T]he fault lies with Washington, not with Goldman Sachs, Facebook or Silicon Valley.

Regulations arising from the bust that followed the dot-com boom of the late 1990s caused the collapse of the IPO market. Congress and regulators made it harder for companies to go public. If they do go public, Sarbanes-Oxley forces managers to spend time on audits and accounting that is better spent developing new products and services.

Under the banner of "fair disclosure," public-company executives are also barred from giving analysts deep briefings on their businesses. The intent was to level the playing field against analysts at banks, but the result is fewer expert analysts covering companies, reducing information available to markets even from publicly traded companies.

"The increased costs of being public have helped exclude ordinary people from the ability to own the stars of the future," Illinois law Prof. Larry Ribstein wrote on his blog last week. "Rules designed to make the markets safe for ordinary investors have ended by excluding them.

* DRY, BORING STUFF? PERHAPS. BUT, FOLKS, YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF HOW THE "GAME" WORKS.

* POLITICIANS SAY ONE THING, AND THEN EITHER DELIBERATELY OR VIA THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES LEAVE THE DOOR RIGHT OPEN FOR GOLDMAN SACHS AND THE LIKE TO FURTHER DISTORT MARKETS VIA THEIR USE OF CONCENTRATED WEALTH AND FAVORED ACCESS.

(*SIGH*)

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576067711214735834.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

The recent attempt by House Republicans to bring constitutional deliberation to Congress has been roundly mocked - by Democrats, law professors and pundits.

"When I went to law school they said the law's what a judge says it is," California Rep. Henry Waxman recently explained.

* EXPLAINED APPROVINGLY... (*SMIRK*) (*FROWN*)

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts termed it an "air kiss" to the tea party.

* YES... (*SNORT*)... BECAUSE WHO BUT MEMBERS OF THE "TEA PARTY" WOULD EVER RESPECT OUR NATION'S HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND? (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne labeled the Constitution an "abstraction" preoccupying the GOP.

(*SIGH*)

Article VI provides that all of our elected and appointed officials in both federal and state government "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

The president takes a special oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

These oaths [are meant to] reaffirm the constitutional language and structure that require each branch to take seriously the constraints of the Constitution.

(*NOD*)

Contrary to popular belief, and the beliefs of some lawyer-congressmen, the Supreme Court does not maintain a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. The court has an important role to play in reviewing the constitutionality of legislation and executive branch action, of course. But it cannot and should not exercise this power alone. The political branches also have an obligation to support the Constitution by ensuring that their actions are within their constitutional authority.

(*NOD*)

Congress, however, has largely yielded the field of constitutional interpretation. Although it may make findings demonstrating that a law is within the Commerce power or the Spending power, it rarely engages in sustained debates about the constitutionality of particular legislation.

(*SADLY NODDING*)

In the early years of the republic, most constitutional decision-making occurred in Congress and the White House. Members debated the constitutionality of great issues such as the National Bank. Indeed, even after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the National Bank, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill to renew the bank on constitutional grounds. His veto message eloquently explained the rationale:

"The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision."

* UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, PEOPLE; PRESIDENT JACKSON WASN'T SAYING THAT EACH PERSON'S "UNDERSTANDING" WAS AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER PERSONS. NO. INHERENT IN JACKSON'S LOGIC WAS THAT EACH PERSON'S ANALYSIS MUST BE A TRUE GOOD FAITH ANALYSIS BASED NOT UPON PERSONAL SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT ACTION BUT INSTEAD BASED UPON RESEARCH AND GOOD-FAITH INTERPRETATION OF THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WRITERS AND RATIFIERS CONCERNING THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF OF CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE WHEN ADDED AT THE TIME IT WAS MADE LAW OF THE LAND.

The Constitution is not an abstraction to be consulted by lawyers and judges alone. House Republican efforts to reintroduce it to congressional deliberation will only make the document stronger and more relevant to a government of the people.

* ONE HOPES... ONE PRAYS...

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576066192958395176.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Bernie Madoff pretended he was getting 8% returns on his clients' investments - and he's in jail for running a Ponzi scheme.

As former chancellor of the New York City public schools, I learned that one of the options the city pension plan offered teachers and administrators guaranteed an 8.25% return, regardless of what the investments actually earned in the market.

In fact, throughout the country public-employee pension plans have been massively underfunded, often pretending, like Madoff, that they'd get 8% returns forever, even if they didn't get them in reality.

* FUNNY HOW JOEL KLEIN IN THIS WSJ OP-ED ECHOES ARGUMENTS I'VE LONG MADE HERE ON MY LITTLE BITTY BLOG. (*SMIRK*)

Whether the investment returns are there or not, defined-benefit pensions require the government to pay retirees a predetermined amount for life.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*) (*DEEP SIGH*)

[T]oday a teacher in New York City can retire with an annual pension of $60,000 (or more) that is exempt from state and municipal taxes...

* ...EVEN AS NEW YORK CITY SINKS FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO DEBT.

* BTW, WHY TAX EXEMPT? HOW IS THAT PAYING ONE'S "FAIR SHARE?"

While irresponsible, this kind of behavior makes good political sense. After all, people run for office in the short run, and money spent now - rather than put aside in a pension reserve - is more likely to garner votes. As one legislator recently told me, "When budgets are tight, as they often are, we simply kick the can down the road by underfunding pension obligations."

* "ONE LEGISLATOR..." FOLKS. AGAIN. NO ONE IS CALLING FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST THIS LEGISLATOR... BUT WHAT IS TO BE DONE IN A GERRYMANDERED SYSTEM TO RID OURSELVES OF PEOPLE LIKE THIS?

To cover the underfunded pension obligations to teachers and other public employees, cities and states have little choice but to divert money from what would otherwise be their operating budgets. And since schools make up a big part of those operating budgets, education will get significantly shortchanged as we make up for past underfunding.

* AND THE LEGISLATORS WHO DELIBERATE ENGAGED IN THIS PONZI SCHEME... THEY'LL RETIRE WITH BIG, FAT PENSIONS.

(*SHRUG*)

This problem won't go away soon. There are lots of current retirees who must be paid, lots of people now working who have earned some part of their pensions, and, in many states, it is legally dubious whether current workers can have their pensions adjusted even prospectively. Consequently, no matter how you slice it...

* ...WE'RE SCREWED.

Defined-benefit pensions helped bring the once-vibrant U.S. auto industry to its knees. The promised benefits just proved too costly. In that industry, such pensions are mostly a thing of the past. Global competition eventually demanded as much.

Alas, the same kind of pensions are now hollowing out public education.

* FORGET HOLLOWING OUT "PUBLIC EDUCATION" - THEY'RE HOLLOWING OUT OUR ENTIRE PUBLIC SECTOR! THIS PROBLEM APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT WORKERS MORE OR LESS ACROSS THE BOARD!

(*HEADACHE*)

William R. Barker said...

http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-232020-turkeys-number-one-enemy.html

Once Turks thought that Turkey was located in a very hostile environment and was surrounded by enemy nations.

Now things seem different; they think that the threat to their country comes mainly from afar, the United States.

* THIS IS NOT GOOD, PEOPLE!

A recent public opinion survey conducted by MetroPOLL on the threat perception of the people of Turkey rings alarm bells. According to the poll, 43% of people feel threatened by the US and 24% by Israel, while only 3% regard Iran as a threat and 2% Greece.

* MAY I REMIND YOU, FOLKS, THAT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA WAS ELECTED IN NOVEMBER 2008...??? (IT'S NOW JANUARY 2011...)

William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1816:toward-sensible-monetary-policy&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=1

* BY THE HONORABLE RON PAUL (R-TX)

I am pleased that I will be chairing the Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, which has oversight of the Federal Reserve.

Not surprisingly, since my chairmanship was announced, apologists for the Fed have been recycling the old canard about how increased transparency threatens the Fed’s so-called "political independence."

* LET'S REVIEW WHAT THE FED HAS DONE WITH THIS SO-CALLED "POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE..."

We only recently learned that the bankers at the Fed were able to use the latest financial crisis to bail out Wall Street cronies and foreign central banks with billions of dollars that were created and wasted, instead of appropriated and voted on by representatives of the people.

* RECALL...

The Fed and its supporters in Congress vehemently fought even this small bit of transparency and without this one-time provision in the financial reform act forcing disclosure, we would still not have this information. Indeed, we are [stilll largely] in the dark on so much of what the Fed has done. This is extremely dangerous for our country, yet this power and secrecy is defended as some kind of public good, which is patently ridiculous.

(*NOD*)

Our government is based on a system of checks and balances. With no check on the Fed, it is no surprise it has thrown the economy wildly off balance.

The solution is not to re-inflate the bubbles the Fed created, or to continue to devalue the currency, or to throw billions at failing banks and corporations. The solution is to return sanity and freedom to monetary policy.

(*NOD*)

Forcing the entire country to use a medium of exchange that is subject to the whims of elite bankers and their cronies on Wall Street is not sanity. Hoping that an unchecked, all-powerful, behemoth banking cartel will solve any economic problem is not sanity.

(*NOD*)

If “political independence” erodes the purchasing power of the currency by 98%, destabilizes the economy with radical booms and busts, all while increasing unemployment and tipping us ever closer to hyperinflation, perhaps it is time to try a little transparency and accountability instead.

* WHILE PAUL OVERSTATES THE DECLINE IN PURCHASING POWER OF THE DOLLAR AND FAILS TO DEFINE "HYPERINFLATION" AS OF THE 1970's VARIETY, HIS POINT IS CLEARLY VALID.

Make no mistake: the Fed is not truly independent of political pressure. Its chair is appointed by the president...

* THE PRESENT CHAIRMAN APPOINTED FIRST BY THE INCOMPETENT BUSH AND THEN REAPPOINTED BY THE INCOMPETENT OBAMA.

However, even if it was politically independent, it is not independent of the influences of Wall Street. One only has to look at the revolving door between the Fed and the big banks to know that. Disclosures on TARP funds confirm this.

(*NOD*)

Congress has a duty, albeit a neglected one, to exercise oversight of the Fed.

* HEAR! HEAR!

It is nothing short of cruel and criminal for Congress to stand idly by while the life savings of Americans are inflated away... It is high time Congress insist on getting complete information on what the Fed has been doing, and for whom.

William R. Barker said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136849-house-dem-calls-for-beefed-up-security-special-treatment-by-tsa

* YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THIS ONE, FOLKS...! (*SNORT*)

A top House Democrat [wants to] change how members of Congress are screened at airports.

(*SQUINTING*)

“I really believe that that is the place where we feel the most ill at ease, is going through airports,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who serves as assistant minority leader in the House, said on "Fox News Sunday."

(*TAPPING MY FOOT*)

“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else,” he said.

(*SPUTTERING*)

“Well, the fact of the matter is, we are held to a higher standard in so many other areas, and I think we need to take a hard look at exactly how the TSA interact with members of Congress.”

* HELD... TO... A... HIGHER... STANDARD...??? CAN WE ALL SAYING IT TOGETHER: C*H*A*R*L*I*E... R*A*N*G*E*L...

* HEY... REMEMBER WHEN BARNEY FRANKS' BOYFRIEND WAS RUNNING A WHOREHOUSE OUT OF FRANKS' HOME...???

(*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... JUST GOOGLE "CONGRESSIONAL SCANDALS". (*SIGH*) THE SHIT THESE DIRTBAGS GET AWAY WITH BOGGLES THE MIND!

Noting that local law enforcement were installed outside his South Carolina home after the attack on Giffords, Clyburn said the House may need to “beef up the funding” for individual members’ budgets so they can coordinate improved security arrangements with local police.

* OH... NO... YOU... DON'T...!!!

* FOLKS... CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS SHIT...?!?!

William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_en_tv/us_obit_winters

Dick Winters, the Easy Company commander whose World War II exploits were made famous by the book and television miniseries "Band of Brothers," has died in central Pennsylvania. He was 92.

Winters died last week after a several-year battle with Parkinson's disease, longtime family friend William Jackson said Monday.

An intensely private and humble man, Winters had asked that news of his death be withheld until after his funeral, Jackson said. Winters lived in Hershey, Pa., but died in suburban Palmyra.

The men Winters led expressed their admiration for their company commander after learning of his death. William Guarnere, 88, said what he remembers about Winters was "great leadership."

"When he said 'Let's go,' he was right in the front," Guarnere, who was called "Wild Bill" by his comrades, said Sunday night from his south Philadelphia home. "He was never in the back. A leader personified."

"He was a good man, a very good man," Guarnere said. "I would follow him to hell and back. So would the men from E Company."

Another member of the unit living in Philadelphia, Edward Heffron, 87, said thinking about Winters brought a tear to his eye.

"He was one hell of a guy, one of the greatest soldiers I was ever under," said Heffron, who had the nickname "Babe" in the company. "He was a wonderful officer, a wonderful leader. He had what you needed, guts and brains. He took care of his men, that's very important."

Winters talked about his view of leadership for an August 2004 article in American History Magazine.

"If you can," he wrote, "find that peace within yourself, that peace and quiet and confidence that you can pass on to others, so that they know that you are honest and you are fair and will help them, no matter what, when the chips are down."

When people asked whether he was a hero, he echoed the words of his World War II buddy, Mike Ranney: "No, but I served in a company of heroes."