I discovered this wonderful piece of news while browsing Andrew Sullivan's blog.
I work in medical research myself, and I tell you, the amount of science and discovery that will be gained in the decades ahead because of increased understanding of genetics will astound us.
...
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Dogs and Seances Instead of Corporate Welfare Investigation?
The amount of analysis over Obama's brief and rather inconsequential press conference yesteday is rather annoying.
Annoying because there was more focus on a marginal PR event, than there was about the strange situation going on with the American car companies. We just handed 25 billion dollars to the American car industry, and a mere 30 days later, all three companies are crying they are already broke again and require more welfare?
Can a qualified journalist please investigate this kind of chicanery? Isn't it possible these bailout packages are rewarding companies who continue to cry the loudest? What is this? Anti-capitalism, where the poorest most inefficient companies on the block get the most money and capital?
And why was this kind of question not asked, instead of questions about dogs, mutts or strange jokes about seances?
Look, I thought Obama handled his press conference well, but the left blogs are proclaiming the conference as some kind of political triumph, and the right blogs are claiming it is proof that our president-elect is a disaster. Michelle Malkin claimed the press conference was proof we just elected Homer Simpson president.
Can someone please shut up the whackos and wing-nuts and find out why all these companies are suddenly so cash poor, that they require a second bail out just 30 days after receiving the first?
Somewhere in the middle of this partisan-cacophony lies a possibility that companies are getting rewarded for squandering their bailout money, and then turning around asking for more. A little less opinion, and a lot more journalism from our media and blogs would be nice.
Does anyone have additional blogs, sites or data on the current situation with the auto-industry?
...
Annoying because there was more focus on a marginal PR event, than there was about the strange situation going on with the American car companies. We just handed 25 billion dollars to the American car industry, and a mere 30 days later, all three companies are crying they are already broke again and require more welfare?
Can a qualified journalist please investigate this kind of chicanery? Isn't it possible these bailout packages are rewarding companies who continue to cry the loudest? What is this? Anti-capitalism, where the poorest most inefficient companies on the block get the most money and capital?
And why was this kind of question not asked, instead of questions about dogs, mutts or strange jokes about seances?
Look, I thought Obama handled his press conference well, but the left blogs are proclaiming the conference as some kind of political triumph, and the right blogs are claiming it is proof that our president-elect is a disaster. Michelle Malkin claimed the press conference was proof we just elected Homer Simpson president.
Can someone please shut up the whackos and wing-nuts and find out why all these companies are suddenly so cash poor, that they require a second bail out just 30 days after receiving the first?
Somewhere in the middle of this partisan-cacophony lies a possibility that companies are getting rewarded for squandering their bailout money, and then turning around asking for more. A little less opinion, and a lot more journalism from our media and blogs would be nice.
Does anyone have additional blogs, sites or data on the current situation with the auto-industry?
...
Minnesota Recount Chicanery Starts Soon
Recounts are just so ugly. Here in Washington, State our "recount" crisis during the Governor race just a few years ago, ended in chicanery and a lot of meddling by both parties to incluence the recount.
Now Minnesota is about to have their own recount debacle, this one over a senatorial seat.
Let me be clear: I loathe Al Franken.
I've listened to his radio show, I read his book and he's a jerk. He hides behind the "satire" to say irresponsible things about his opponents, or indeed anyone who dares contradict his narrow point of view. He's the kind of liberal, many of us independents loathe, because he's more focused on demonizing the other side of the political spectrum, than he is about offering solutions, researching facts, or providing real leadership.
His opponent in Minnesota is a very weak counter-proposal to be honest, and really the independent candidate that is running in this race, would have probably received my vote.
However, despite all this, Franken is right, in that he deserves to have the ballots recounted. In fact, he doesn't just deserve it, the law demands he gets a recount. So on this issue, Franken and I agree.
My only word of warning is, watch how quickly the recount is politicized, and watch how much the recount skews the current totals. Recounts are a huge mess, and all kinds of tricks and games come into play, and both the left and right make no apologies in warping, skewing and altering the final totals for their cause.
When a recount triggers, I wonder if it would behoove us all, to simply have an entirely new vote instead? Perhaps, the candidate list should be trimmed to the top 2, so that those who voted for the third and fourth candidates are now forced to choose, similar to the "run off" vote that Georgia will go through in a few weeks.
This would seem to me, to be a more fair way to resolving a race this tight, otherwise ballots suddenly go missing, or suddenly appear (as they have already), or suddenly polling officials claim they "mistyped" their results; and what we get is more about legal manuevering and tricks, than actually determining who the people voted for.
...
Now Minnesota is about to have their own recount debacle, this one over a senatorial seat.
Let me be clear: I loathe Al Franken.
I've listened to his radio show, I read his book and he's a jerk. He hides behind the "satire" to say irresponsible things about his opponents, or indeed anyone who dares contradict his narrow point of view. He's the kind of liberal, many of us independents loathe, because he's more focused on demonizing the other side of the political spectrum, than he is about offering solutions, researching facts, or providing real leadership.
His opponent in Minnesota is a very weak counter-proposal to be honest, and really the independent candidate that is running in this race, would have probably received my vote.
However, despite all this, Franken is right, in that he deserves to have the ballots recounted. In fact, he doesn't just deserve it, the law demands he gets a recount. So on this issue, Franken and I agree.
My only word of warning is, watch how quickly the recount is politicized, and watch how much the recount skews the current totals. Recounts are a huge mess, and all kinds of tricks and games come into play, and both the left and right make no apologies in warping, skewing and altering the final totals for their cause.
When a recount triggers, I wonder if it would behoove us all, to simply have an entirely new vote instead? Perhaps, the candidate list should be trimmed to the top 2, so that those who voted for the third and fourth candidates are now forced to choose, similar to the "run off" vote that Georgia will go through in a few weeks.
This would seem to me, to be a more fair way to resolving a race this tight, otherwise ballots suddenly go missing, or suddenly appear (as they have already), or suddenly polling officials claim they "mistyped" their results; and what we get is more about legal manuevering and tricks, than actually determining who the people voted for.
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)