ctjcad, i mean politicians are all the same. they are ran by their supposedly humdinger mouthpiece handyman. MetalOrange
This is what i mean by the current U.S. commander-in-chief.. ..and his administration has a totally different agenda, is clueless abt what the U.S. is up against and has no interest in a war..(not even a mention in any major mainstream media).. http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-...11d25-Hero-Navy-SEALs-to-be-tried-for-assault (over a bloody lip) ========================================================== Hero Navy SEALs to be tried for assault November 25, 6:25 AM Three US Navy SEALs (Sea, Air, Land special operations) who captured a top terrorist in Iraq are being rewarded not with medals and commendations but with a court martial to answer criminal charges stemming from allegations that they assaulted their prisoner. The three non-commissioned officers -- Petty Officers Matthew McCabe, Julio Huertos and Jonathan Keefe -- captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, who is alleged to have been responsible for ordering the murder and mutilation of four contract workers, two of whom were later hung from a bridge in Fallujah. The incident shocked Americans in 2004 and a special operations team was dispatched to capture the killers and their leader. According to Fox News national security correspondent Catherine Herridge, the SEALs succeeded in capturing Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber." Abed reportedly later told investigators he was punched by his captors causing his lip to bleed. "The three suspects, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial," according to Fox News Channel. "Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers," states the report. Charges against the three SEALS include dereliction of duty, failure to safeguard a detainee, assault, and making false statements. The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on December 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged, according to Fox News. "All clear thinking Americans should be outraged. Is this how we treat our protectors? Is this justice?" asks a former NYPD detective and US Marine. "Let me get this straight: we're trying a guy -- a foreign terrorist -- who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 in a civilian court, but we're going to try three war heroes in a military court over a bloody lip?" adds political strategist Mike Barker. The SEALs' court martial is scheduled for sometime in January, 2010. The four civilian workers murdered by Abed were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Abed's terrorists then burned the bodies and dragged them through the city streets. Finally, they hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph. SEALs are superbly trained in all environments, and are the master's of maritime special operations. They are required to utilize a combination of specialized training, equipment, and tactics in completion of special-ops missions. A tactical force with strategic impact, their training includes unconventional warfare, direct action, combating terrorism, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, information warfare, security assistance, counter-drug operations, personnel recovery and hydrographic reconnaissance. Although personnel comprise less than one percent of U.S. Navy personnel, they offer big dividends on a small investment. SEALs' proven ability to operate across the spectrum of conflict and in operations other than war in a controlled manner, and their ability to provide tactical intelligence offers military and political decision makers immediate and virtually unlimited options in the face of rapidly changing crises around the world. The most important trait that distinguishes Navy SEALs from all other military forces is that SEALs are Maritime Special Forces, as they strike from and return to the sea. Their stealth and clandestine methods of operation allow them to conduct multiple missions against targets that larger forces cannot approach undetected.
Uncertainty We had a interesting discussion in the office earlier over this econ subject. In stock market term, it is call Beta, in Actuarial and Stats term it is call variance. No matter what people in the fields call, it is uncertainty in the future. The problem right now is consumers (with money right now) do not know what their future looks like. So they keep the money in the bank or cash in case they need it in the future. Investors are uncertain about the future of economy, so they keep the money on the sideline so they can jump in once they know the light at the end of tunnel is actually the end or it is a freight train coming at you. then you make a decision on your move. However, BO is not giving people any confidence on the future. Is is good? Is it bad? Is he the savior or the anti Christ. We are so screwed...
even quants don't know how to figure it out. yeah theories and applications are easy. what works isn't. bummer!
Another summit. ..this time a Job Summit hosted by BO and Joe "Plugs" Biden... And he's still asking "What's the best way to spur the economy & bring down unemployment?".. Guess what, i think the best solution is for both of them to get outta the way. Get government outta the way. Maybe they should resign. Maybe BO should go and find out who leaked or hacked the CRU's server before next week's Hopeandhagen conference??. what do you think, silentheart??..
minor correction, beta is a degree of volatility. In stock trading, future uncertainty is secondary. If traders understand the beta of that stock, they can still make money, even tho they know nothing about the business or managment of that company or commodity u r rite on the saving part, amercians are uncertain about the future so they save more. He's neither of those 2 entities, he's just someone bigger's little helper
Thank you for the correction Master Cooler. No wonder I am not making enough in stock market for another ski trip to Calgary... Ms. Heart would like to go to Van in late March...
Speaking of the job summit.. Quiz question: Which presidential administration has the lowest percentage of cabinet secretaries with entrepreneurial experience?... Answer: see below... (no wonder our silentheart keeps on writing "We are so screwed").. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/cab...-private-sector-experience-lowest-since-1900/ ========================================================== Cabinet Secretaries with Private Sector Experience Lowest Since 1900 Guest Column | By Editors of FamilySecurityMatters.org | December 1, 2009 A fascinating chart, said to be from a JP Morgan research report, breaks down the percentage of presidential cabinet members who had experience in the private sector, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt's administration in 1900 up to the Obama administration today. As is expected, presidents do not know everything. Therefore, they surround themselves with advisors to whom they can turn for advice on everything from defense issues to how to keep the economy humming. According to The Enterprise Blog, the chart includes ... secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security - 432 cabinet members in all. As you can see, since 1900, John F. Kennedy had the lowest percentage, coming in between 25 and 30 percent - until today, with the Obama administration not even hitting 10 percent. What does this tell us? Kenneth Anderson, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, notes that it is not clear whether the Defense Secretary is included in this accounting, nor can we be sure what constitutes private sector experience. Yet with our economy in a tail spin, it's fascinating to note the extremely small percentage of private sector advisors surrounding President Obama. Obama himself has no private experience either, unless there is some burger flipping in his past we don't know about. He went from college to law school, to community organizing, to the state senate, to the national senate, to the White House. In one sense, people who have spent their entire careers either in academia or government sectors don't have to live in the "real world." Protected by tenure once they get through the probationary period, it doesn't matter if their ideas don't always pan out or if their work is sub-par. They still get paid, they still receive scheduled bonuses, and when they retire, they receive the pensions they were promised. They may have lots of great ideas, but whether or not those ideas actually work is another story. Think of the DMV: despite employees who provide poor service with poor attitudes, they are there until the pension kicks in. The upset customer is merely a blip in their existence, nothing to get too worried about. Not so in the private sector (not counting unionized labor). Thomas Sowell notes, "people...are paid for productivity." If you don't produce, you aren't kept on the payroll. This applies to the "lowly" cashier as well as to the corporate CEO. Let us not forget that politicians are not trying to solve our problems, but theirs: "of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2. Whatever is No. 3 is far behind." Sowell also notes that a result of tenure at universities is that "the faculty can run the university for its own best interests, regardless of what that does to students." If business owners completely disregarded the needs and wants of their customers, they would soon be out of business. Does it not then make sense that academics who make the move to government see government as a playground for their ideas and policies regardless of what that does for the citizen and taxpayer? Not to mention that in the world of academia, failed hypotheses and ideas have little impact on real life. But those same hypotheses applied to the general public have very real consequences. Are these the kind of people we want overpopulating high positions in government?
No problem; have always been and will be (hopefully, unless he does a "Tiger")! Being commander-in-chief is not the only job for a President. It is definitely one of the top requirements but not necessary(IMO). There can be tons of debate on how it can done better but at the end of the day, if anyone thinks they can do this job better, they are delirious! No matter who comes into power there will be pros & cons, thats just the way it is. Do you think you approved of all the descision that your parents made (for you) but most of the time it all worked out okay, didnt it?
well, B.O. election platform is pulling troops out and many have voted based on this premise. Your parents analogy is bogus. Parents do things out of love. Politicans do things out of power, control and money. I guess u embrace more governments.
Hmm.. - No comment on Tiger W. comparison. IMO, that's a personal problem. However, if it's like Billy Clinton, then i'll be shaking my head (BC lied under oath and abused his presidential power). - Being an ex-military serviceman might not be necessary but it helps with one of those gut decisions esp. in the struggle the U.S. is currently up against. Imagine this, if the right decisions are not made about this war, decisions about the economy and immigration and health care will make very little difference. I'm sure you or I would much rather have a Commander-in-Chief who at least understands how the military works (if such is capable of understanding). - Yes, i know there can be many debates from all sides on the war issue. And time will tell. That's why his plan and his speech shows he's trying to appease to everyone (pro, anti and neutral). At the end, he doesn't satisfy anyone (probably even the Afghans who he hopes will pick up the responsibility). I heard a lot of people complain and put the blame on W for not focusing his effort in Afghan, instead in Iraq, and missed the chance to capture OBL in the last 8 yrs (and i somewhat concur). Well, this is BO's chance and, IMO, as i mentioned already, he should focus his effort in capturing OBL and his top commander. Go into Pakistan and find OBL. Worse comes to worst, if the U.S. captures OBL and decides to leave Afghanistan, at least he'll accomplish 1 of the 2 objectives and will be known for capturing the most wanted man since pre 9/11. Instead, he's continuing the fight in Afghanistan, fighting against a group of corrupt govt/people. who will probably resurrect themselves once U.S. is out (as planned by BO). In essence, U.S. will be wasting their time, money & lives even more. I know it's probably all talk and smoke and mirrors (lots of politics involved) but, imo, it's a bad strategy for U.S. to go in and pull out within 1 yr (like you mentioned it's lame); further, lives will be lost even more. Of course, if the war goes as planned by 2011 and BO gets re-elected, he stands a good chance of possibly ordering more troops. IMO, this war is not an 18-months war (at least realistically not winnable within that time period). Realistically, if the U.S. wants to see any result from this, they might have to stay in Afghanistan for a long time (even after BO's term). Can the U.S. stomach that? Transformation of that country doesn't happen overnight, let alone over 18 months. Unless BO really is serious abt his plan, like silentheart mentioned, to do a "cut and run" plan. - I understand there will be pros and cons whenever someone comes in power. In your opinion, and from what you've seen and observed, do you think there will be more pros or cons in this war?? - Abt the parents using decisions comparison, cooler stole my thunder. But i understand, eventhough it's been a long while already, i know parents do have a tendency to want to get involved in their children's livelihood. And i've to be frank, i would say only some of their decisions have worked out. Now, i'm on my own.
I am just wondering. Is Broke Owebama an ADHD kid or something? He seen to have problem to focus on taking care 1 item at time. The great US presidents always able to figure out what is the most pressing issue and fix that problem first and fix it right. For BO, it is the econ last week. This week, it is the global warming. Next week is the health care. Next month is the war. then everything just go through the cycle again with nothing done. Yes, we can tackle multiple problem at the same time. However, how many do you expect to get done and done right? Zilch, Nada, Null, Zero, Not a thing...
^^It sounds like BO is at Hometown Buffet..^^ ..after 1 round of those is done, he'll come back for the 2nd round...
Cap and Save Jobs. Assessing the Stimulus October 31, 2009 · The current administration has unveiled an entirely new metric for measuring the success of stimulus spending. Rather than claim credit for “creating” jobs, they have focused on jobs that were “created or saved” by the stimulus. This, of course, is a preposterous notion. How do we know that a job was saved? The idea of transparent reporting from the government is welcome, but transparent reporting is only part of the problem. What precisely is the definition of a “saved” job? This might seem a bit facetious, but bear with me. Suppose that a municipality receives money to pave a road. They hire a private firm to do the job. The firm was planning on laying off (we’ll say) 10 workers. However, given the new job, the firm keeps those 10 men on payroll. This seems pretty straightforward. It’s not. These 10 workers might be kept on the payroll until the completion of this job and let go thereafter. Does this still count as a job saved? How long does the person have to remain employed for it to be considered a job “saved”? Near as I can tell, this doesn’t factor in to the decision-making. Consider another example. Suppose that a state or municipality announces that they are going to lay off teachers or police officers. If stimulus funds keep these individuals employed, this is considered a job that was saved. However, how do we know that state and local governments weren’t, at the very least, exaggerating the number of individuals that were going to lose their jobs in a ploy for more stimulus money? Of course, all of this ignores the financing. The government doesn’t have money, it must borrow and tax in order to spend money. Thus, any metric of job creation measures gross job creation, but what we are really concerned with is net job creation. With that being said, the number that has been released regarding the “saved or created” jobs was estimated to be between 640,329 and 1 million jobs. That means that the stimulus has cost between $160,000 and $250,000 per job. (Jared Bernstein calls that “calculator abuse.”) White House officials have been quick to mention that these numbers do not include jobs that were saved or created through the temporary tax cuts. As I have mentioned numerous times on the blog, temporary tax cuts don’t work. John Taylor has documented this fact for the last two rebate checks. Thus, it would seem that including the cost of these tax cuts would actually inflate the cost per job. Ultimately, I am not entirely sure what we are to get from the “jobs saved or created” metric. There doesn’t seem to be any true objective way to quantify such a thing. Regardless, based on the data on jobs and growth up to this point, one can hardly conclude that the stimulus has been successful. UPDATE: John Taylor breaks down the GDP numbers and concludes that the “stimulus did not fuel GDP growth.”** ------------------------------------------------------ my comments: even if the stimulus did save a bunch of automotive plant (dead end) jobs (which i have seen it in canada as well), these saved jobs don't last long, 1 to 3 years max. until the next crises or next bailout. Bailing out losers never pays out. If growing small businees owners or some entreprenuers gotten 250k each, they would have created way more jobs, real long term jobs. **Instead, the good running companies have to compete with gov't supported loser companies, making good companies harder to compete domestically and internationally.
Year 2009 in review and the "hopeful signs??" at the end of 2009.. ..has somewhat reminded me of the Great Depression in the 1930s-40s. Yes, there are a few similarities between now & then. Let's see, at that time, after the 1st yr, the stock market somewhat rebounded and everyone thought it's the end. Jobs/economic data also improved a bit and everyone thought the economy is coming back. Well, little did they know, it wasn't until 4 yrs later, that the whole country felt its effects. It turned out, that Great Depression & the downturn lasted for the next 10 yrs. And it seems, from what i've been reading and listening on the news media, that's what it seems to be like now. Are we heading in that same direction as in the 30s-40s?.. ..anyway, here's a toast to all the hardworking, faithful & loyal BCers. That, despite the economy, hopefully everyone will have a cheerful and joyful Christmas and will spend quality time w/family, friends and loved ones. Who knows what will hold next yr?!?! And, lastly, thank goodness, for a change, Prez BO is finally gone away to do his hula dance in Hawaii and we won't see his mug on tv for the next 2 weeks!!!..
Which one will do BO in? 1) Bomb (on the plane or wall street?) 2) Inflation (it is coming, fast and furious?) 3) Unemployment (Higher and higher?) 4) Housing market (Going down again?) 5) All of the above and more?
^^Hmm..^^ ..i see choice no.2, 3 & 4 are related to the economy? If so, i think i'll choose economy as the key, and yes, those 3 could very well happen in the next 3 yrs and is usually the main factor leading to a presidential election (on the other hand, BO still got a bit of time to see an improvement in the economy before his next campaign). About the recent airline bomb plot, thankfully it didn't turn out to be a major disaster (BO escaped the harsh criticism in that one, imo).
#1 might happen oneday cos US is a huge country to monitor against a very determined opponent. #2, 3 and 4 plus deficit and more, more deficits further increasing the current USD12trillion IOUs to a point where the debt threshold hits the wall and implodes...with a debt of this size and growing, spurred on by the unwavering appetite of BO administration for more debts, the USA will never regain the glorious 'golden mountain' years....reason why the US greenback is worth anything is because CHN/Jap is propping it up and the world has yet to find a currency to replace the USD...I would not be surprised to see 'the fall of the American empire' in my lifetime...I am just pessimistic.
