"Those who continue to believe that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and subsequent tsunam....Lehman, Merrill were junk. They knew, hedges knew they were done two years earlier. At least. Ditto many other greedhead companies. Sorry, you are factually in error.Since Continental Illinois, the first Chrysler bailout ( and not paid back, propaganda aside ), Long-Term Capital Management all established moral hazard, that too big to fail companies could keep the upside and distribute the downside costs to the public at large.Comment Posted By Paul On 17.02.2010 @ 18:23
My opinions have a simpler basis - if the science of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is so certain, why do the core promoters (Hansen, Briffa, Jones et al) tell so many lies? Why do they conceal the base data? Why do they conceal the operation of their models? Why do they seek so actively (as a group) to suppress alternate views of the science from individuals with equal or even better skills? That is not 'science', it is advocacy.Comment Posted By Paul On 2.02.2010 @ 18:10
I'm a corporate manager with a specialist skillset in data acquisition/validation and projective modelling. I recognise many of the 'methods' used by this core group as games I have played to get support and especially funding - selective presentation of data, use of supportive time slices and so forth. Creative but justifiable if you don't look too closely.
However, in the case of the 'core science' of CAGW, I also see many outright and deliberate lies that in no way could stand up to a competent systems review.
No one who ever had to justify their expenditures to even a vaguely competent Board would get away with such distortions. What we have in CAGW is the meeting of a group of scientists desperate for funding with a group of well-funded bureaucrats in search of relevance.
It is the existence of the United Nations, of bureaucrats spending other people's money without independent checks and balances, which is responsible for this boondoggle. It has allowed a simple matching of supplicant with sponsor to be magnified by a sensationalist media, and a whole host of carpetbaggers, into the literal crime against humanity that CAGW has become.
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2009/10/84-only-winning-nobel-prizes-for-peace.htmlComment Posted By Paul On 10.10.2009 @ 12:49
Just wish that the Republicans would advocate for reforms to occur closer to the people. At least, they could call attention to the fact that the Obama administration is thwarting state plans to insure more people:
http://www.gopideas.com/~gopideas/page/obama-denies-hoosiers-subsidized-health-insuaranceComment Posted By Paul On 5.09.2009 @ 21:22
Ironically, after my post I realized, " let him without sin cast the first stone"
On one side MJ is demonized as a pedophile ( put down so we can feel better)...
On the other, he is put up on a pedastal, essentially worshipped as a pop star...
In the end only God knows the truth & he will judge MJ - & the rest of us as well...
We are all "sinners in need of a savior"
We will reap what we sow
Judgement (getting what we deserve) for those that have judged.
Mercy (not getting what we deserve)for the Merciful.
Grace (getting what we do not deserve)for the Gracious.
So far the majority here (including me) are guilty of being judgemental & self righteous...
Is it a commentary on MJ or really a reflection of our own hardened hearts / sinfulness & idolatry???Comment Posted By Paul On 7.07.2009 @ 00:12
Finally, a ray of reality, in the midst of, a "media storm of adoring MJ fans".
It seems to me, that if a person was poor and acted the way MJ did, they would be labled crazy, a lunatic & yes "A Pedophile".
Very simply & shortly incarcerated - lacking the crack legal teams that MJ & yes - OJ could afford.
In reality, MJ was wealthy financially, so instead many choose to see him an eccentric celebrity, a victim who missed his childhood and a pop icon to be worshipped, as a false idol (wealth & fame)...
Is it comedy?
Is it a tragedy?
Or is the real truth to be found, somewhere in the middle???Comment Posted By Paul On 6.07.2009 @ 22:12
I feel your line of thinking misses the point of Beck's popularity. He is popular for his core message of freedom and liberty and small government, not because he's sometimes way out there.
http://organizedexploitation.blogspot.com/2009/04/glenn-beck-and-extreme-radical-right.html#commentsComment Posted By Paul On 9.04.2009 @ 09:04
Rick, I tried to send you an email, but the link to that under "Contact Me," shows your invitation to use the "handy form below," following which, there is no handy form - only blank space that doesn't register attempted typed text. Have you removed the email channel to contact you?
When I upgraded the Wordpress platform, the contact form went screwy. There's no fix I'm told because the form is a plug in that was designed for an older version and the author hasn't bothered to fix it in newer versions.
ed.Comment Posted By Paul On 21.02.2009 @ 11:30
I pretty much "shot my wad" over at American Thinker, where your blog post was published. I've not disagreed with you before, Rick, but I do on this one. I'm glad I'm not the only older guy here who knows very well that monkeys and apes was a very commonly used metaphor for Black folks - so I totally agre with you, Mike Reynolds.
Many of the thoughts expressed here are absolutely "spot on." But they're addressing our (Conservatives') well known and often expressed objections to this administration and its intents. They're not really addressing the cartoon. Rick, I felt your historically correct comments on who actually wrote the stimulus bill, etc., are also missing the point. Whether naively, or disingenuosuly, they represent a rationalization in an effort to nullify the effect of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons, who are only racist extortionists. But it makes us no better then they, if we act oblivious and non-chalantly defend a cartoon, the "gut" impression of which is ubiquitously and immediately apparent to Blacks and Whites - maybe only of an older generation who witnessed far more widespread and ugly discrimination against Black Americans, than some of our younger conservative commenters.
Murdoch realized this as well. He wasn't capitulating to Sharpton; he was honestly admitting that cartoon was really a nasty ressurection of a nasty metaphor for Black folks.Comment Posted By Paul On 21.02.2009 @ 11:13
Since you are referencing the prior roles of the bit actors in these episodes, I noticed that the guy who played Bill Guarnere in Band of Brothers plays an advisor to the President.
edComment Posted By Paul On 12.01.2009 @ 14:19