Wednesday Reading and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:29:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Some things I'm glad I read today:

BeliefNet has a new interview with Barack Obama about his religion and multi-culturalism.

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters on the blogosphere's role in the Tweety Effect. Jane Hamsher says, More Boehlert, Less Bai. And Atrios adds,
"It is encouraging that occasionally "The Left" can make some noise and actually get a response. A few years ago it just felt like we were just screaming into the vacuum."

Crooks and Liars and Gleen Greenwald on the new FISA shenanigans.

Sunday Times of London columnist Matt Rudd criticizes travel to the United States:
"Traveling to the US offers experiences like nowhere else on earth...Nowhere else can a visitor expect such a spirit-crushingly frosty reception. A preflight e-interrogation, epic queues at immigration, thin-lipped questioning from aggressive border guards, and an outside chance of a rubber-gloved rectal rummage are all part of the fun. So, if Chertoff & Co. want to tighten Fortress America further, it's time we considered other more welcoming holiday options. Such as Iran or North Korea."

The New York Daily News reports 20 of Brooklyn's drug cops have been suspended for taking "sex, drugs and cash from junkies and dealers." More here.

More...

News on the investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys and those missing White House e-mails in the context of Alberto Gonzales' 12 hour stall at the beginning of PlameGate.

Last week, the White House filled in some of the gaps to the official story related to this high-profile scandal. In a federal court filing, the White House said it routinely "recycled" backup tapes that housed administration emails between 2001 and October 2003, meaning it does not have a record of emails that may have been sent and received by some administration officials pertaining to the Wilson leak, the occupation of Iraq, and other historic events for a period of two years. The revelation came minutes before midnight on January 15, in response to a lawsuit filed by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

< Obama and Political Hardball | What Obama Should Say In His Victory Speech Saturday Night >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Wednesday Reading and Open Thread | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Drugs and corruption. (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by lilybart on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:02:00 AM EST

I might be less hostile to drug laws if it wasn't always the regular person who goes to jail, while cops and judges and government officials facilitate the drug trade all over the world.

Just another reason why drugs should be decriminalized. If someone wants to spend their days in a filthy dark building sleeping off heroin, that is their choice.

Human beings are in a tough spot. We have evolved to be conscious and aware of the fact that we will die, life seems meaningless without some religious fairy tale to believe, so if we like to get high once in awhile, SO WHAT?

: I couldn't be less hostile..... (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:25:15 AM EST

towards drug laws. I don't see what we get out of it except corruption, tyranny, and wasting tons of money.
I do see what Brooklyn narcs get out of it....free sex from prostitutes. At least somebody wins, eh?

Shifting gear here... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by ctrenta on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:02:01 AM EST

... I'm surprised no one has brought up the 935 false statements made by the Bush Administration after September 11, 2001. That's pretty astounding, don't you think? It was also conducted by the Center for Public Integrity so you gotta give it some serious consideration!

Huffington Post has the lowdown. Check it out.

: we're all waiting (none / 0) (#8)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:06:31 AM EST

for the 1,000 mark?

A catalog of Bush lies about Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:08:09 AM EST

A catalog of false statements published today-The War
Card

The White House had no comment- other than "it was the collective judgement..."

That's... (none / 0) (#28)
by desertswine on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST

935 lies limited to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That's not counting other categories of lying,ie.
the environment, energy policy, the justice dept, etc. The list of lies must be in the tens or even hundreds of thousands.

Worst and most deceptive administration ever.


Big Lizard does a great job of (none / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:15:15 PM EST

deconstruction and exposing the BS and bias. Here's an example:

Here is that section from the report itself, from their database of "false statements;" it's a perfect primer on the anatomy of a falsehood:

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

This one is instructive to deconstruct:
What they say: "In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: 'Sure.'"
What they mean: Rumsfeld asserts that relationships exist between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
What they say: "[A]n assessment... found an absence of 'compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.'"
What they mean: The later assessment found that there were relationships, but they did not rise to the level of military alliances.
What they say: "[A]n earlier DIA assessment said that 'the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.'"
What they mean: Before we found out the nature of the relationships, we did not know the nature of the relationships.
If you can find that Rumsfeld's statement (1) -- which evidently consisted of the single word "Sure" -- is falsified by either (2) of (3), please take to the comments and explain it to the rest of us... because to me, laboring under the disadvantage of having been intensely trained only in the lesser rhetorical art of mathematical logic, they appear to be able to exist in the same 'hood without bothering each other.

The lapping up of such shoddy logic by the authors reflects very poorly on the Left.


Looks like Lizard breath needs to get his money (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:57:45 AM EST

back from what ever "close before striking" school he attended and received training in mathematical logic. Every mathematician I ever knew would flunk him (and my ex was a mathematician as was his parents).

He doesn't understand English or logic.

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure."

This is called an unqualified affirmative response.

In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda."

Absence of compelling evidence is more than a mere qualification. No evidence to support his unqualified assertion.

This

What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

is a qualification. This at least is murkier than No evidence.

An unqualified response when there was no evidence of a relationship. It was misleading and it was intended to mislead. Had Rumsfeld been concerned with the truth and concerned not to mislead, when asked he should have said We believe there Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists; but the evidence is mixed, and we acknowledge that. Of course, its hard to say evidence is mixed, when there is no evidence.

That of course would have led to questions. Rumsfeld didn't want to answer those questions. So he gave an unqualified answer because he intended to mislead.

Lets ignore the no evidence issue for a moment and go to the murkier statement and pretend the no evidence report did not exist.

At best had Rumsfeld been concerned with the truth and concerned not to mislead, when asked he should have said We believe there Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists; but the evidence is unclear, and we acknowledge that. But he intended to mislead.

The great Allan Sherman observed that lies are stronger than truth. Take one percent truth mix in 99% lie. Result - a lie. Take 99% lie, mix in one percent truth. The result- lie.

Hope this helps.


Parse away but the lizard dude (none / 0) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST

scored a direct hit.

There was a connection. Even Fitzpatrick said there was.

And we know you believe everything he says.


BTW - And as you know (none / 0) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:02:01 PM EST

the qualifier is the word "compelling."

From your people.

"In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: 'Sure.'"

The fact that it was later found to not be compelling merely points out that Rumsfeld was correct, and the relationship was not at the military level. It was an agreement to work jointly.

Even Fitzpatrick told the 9/11 commission about that.

If the CIA had wanted to say "no evidence," they would have said no evidence..


And the opposite of compelling? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST

No compelling evidence is damning enough. Rummy still failed to qualify his statement. His was a clear unambiguous yes, when the truth was neither clear nor unambiguous.

The only one parsing is you and lizard breath, the graduate of the "close cover before striking school".

Face it, they lied us into a war.


So you now admit that (none / 0) (#73)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:16:20 PM EST

Rumsfeld was accurate.

Well, that is progress. Congratulations.


I don't know how you got that from what I wrote (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:48:43 PM EST

you must be high


: lol (none / 0) (#79)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:49:44 PM EST

No compelling evidence is damning enough. Rummy still failed to qualify his statement. His was a clear unambiguous yes, when the truth was neither clear nor unambiguous.
hehe
That's as slick as grease on a door knob.
Look at the context.

You forgot (5.00 / 0) (#51)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:50:22 PM EST

what you said in the post I was answering?

Damn, talk about memory problems.

Second thing to go, I guess.

: Second thing to go?? (1.00 / 0) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:06:11 PM EST

I'll let your personal experience speak.

Who in the world is Matt Rudd?? (1.00 / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:14:08 AM EST

So, if Chertoff & Co. want to tighten Fortress America further, it's time we considered other more welcoming holiday options. Such as Iran or North Korea."

Hmmmmm. Being the easy going type that I am..... I am hopeful that Matt Rudd stays in England... I certainly don't want him to be offended by security procedures designed to prevent another 9/11... Those TV pictures of people jumping to their death kind of bothered me. Even better, maybe he actually will take a year or so long visit to Iran or North Korea. I mean I am sure they will fawn over him at his arrival..

Perhaps he can visit the site of the US embassy that the radical Moslems attacked in '79, or if he goes farther east he can have a double ration of food that two children would otherwise have received..... I mean, what's a starving child or two between friends??

We could be raking in the tourism..... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by kdog on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:28:37 AM EST

dollar right now with our currency being so weak....but we'd rather stick a finger up your bum. Makes sense.


Some things in life (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST

should not be for sale. Security happens to be one of them.


Or Freedom.... (none / 0) (#20)
by kdog on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM EST

Freedom shouldn't be for sale either....how much does a TSA anal inspector make anyway? How about the anal inspection supervisor and department head? And who got the rubber glove contract?


kdog (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST

If you don't have security you can't be free. If you can't be free to own and enjoy your property, to travel and work in public places without fear of attack then you have nothing.


I don't see.... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM EST

where the harassing of tourists improves my security any.

The world is a dangerous place where a violent whack-job can snuff you out at any moment....and I'm ok with that.

Our over-reachuing security measures are illusions meant to make us merely feel safer.


: No one is harassing anyone (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:26:33 PM EST

This whiner is going through the same procedures that everyone else does. He basically is just an "Amercia" beater. But don't worry, he'll be nice as soon as he needs us.

Actually, it sounds very (none / 0) (#30)
by jondee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:07:30 PM EST

much like it has been for sale. But then, what isnt with these people. Their own mothers possibly. Maybe. Maybe not.


Many years ago, someone said (none / 0) (#32)
by Nowonmai on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:46:32 PM EST

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Now I know if something doesn't directly touch or effect you, you couldn't 'give a flip' about.

There is a world of difference between airport security and sadistic rudeness. Of course, I wouldn't expect you know know the difference seeing as it doesn't directly effect you.


You make things up (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:04:04 PM EST

And where did Matt Rudd say anything about sadistic?? He complains of long lines, aggressive questions, computerized checks....

And despite what you might want to believe, anal examinations are proceeded by an arrest, probable cause and a judicial order.

Now toddle of screaming that we must have no borders, no security, no protection because it might discomfort someone who has no right to come here except with our permission.

And answer the questions I asked potty mouthed milehigh about the others who also live in this country.


Made things up (none / 0) (#39)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST

or simply recalling personal experience?

hmmmmmm


: Huh? (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:24:05 PM EST

Again, if it doesn't effect you it doesn't exist (none / 0) (#52)
by Nowonmai on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:52:35 PM EST

You make things up

You'd like to think so.

gives baby his bottle


Show me where (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:57:07 PM EST

Matt Rudd used the word sadistic, or even implied it.

As I said, you make things up.


ok, (none / 0) (#55)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:06:48 PM EST

words of one syllabl.. oops

she has been outside the US and knows people who have come in to the US

This means that she has memories of her own and of her family and friends who have tried to come into the US

do you read the words that are coming out of my keyboard?

do you understand this extremely hard concept"

It is harder than calculus, I know.


If she had wanted to speak of her (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:33:44 AM EST

personal experience she should have said so. The subject was Matt Rudd's whining.

Now, perhaps you can clean your keyboard?? There is a world of confusion circling around it.


there is so much confusion around my keyboard (none / 0) (#70)
by Jen M on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:17:41 AM EST

what does open thread mean again?

You apparently believe you never change the subject?

Oh I forgot. You can't even keep track of your last post.


: If she had wanted to change the subject from (none / 0) (#71)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:51:19 PM EST

what was shown on the post she could have easily written.... "In my personal experience."

Ahhhh.... (none / 0) (#76)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:36:44 PM EST

You're such a delicate little flower.


yes (none / 0) (#6)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:54:19 AM EST

being nasty and impolite to people will do so much to enhance security.


His base complaint is about (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST

the increased security.


like (none / 0) (#16)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST

Nowhere else can a visitor expect such a spirit-crushingly frosty reception.


: heh (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:49:06 AM EST

If you don't like a place, don't go.

Get out much? (none / 0) (#15)
by Joe Bob on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST

Have you traveled abroad recently?

I can confirm that entering the United States is a grim experience, and I have the benefit of being an American citizen. If you would like to experience the phenomenon for yourself I would recommend flying into Newark International. You'll be sure to get the full effect that way. Especially for people coming to this country for the first time, I'm sure it's a glorious first impression.


: First impressions are often wrong (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:55:29 AM EST

I give you Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as examples.
And I once commented that I found it easier to get into the Soviet Union that back into the US.
So what??
Border security is border security.
But if you truly think it is keeping people out, maybe we should set some up along our southern border and see if that helps keep the illegal aliens out..

Kind of bothered you.. (none / 0) (#27)
by jondee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:46:54 PM EST

Hey, at least your stocks performed well afterwards.

Broken eggs, omelets and all that..Right, Jim?


And your point is??? (none / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:07:09 PM EST

: That you trying to sell (none / 0) (#68)
by jondee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM EST

anyone on the idea that the economy is "booming" because you (allegedly) did well is like the guys who jumped into the lifeboats in drag saying that all-in-all they'd be happy to take another trip on the Titanic. And about as public spirited.

Even shorter (1.00 / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM EST

Your display of such nastiness is typical of too many on the Left, and the Right. It is a shame that people such as you are let on the Internet. You contribute nothing to the debate and are incapable of rational thought.

Uh, actually the comment was not made to Jen. (1.00 / 0) (#63)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:03:52 PM EST

Would you please keep up and address your snark's about the subject in question, not a bystander??

hehe

Uh, one more time (1.00 / 0) (#74)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:22:39 PM EST

The response was made to milehighhawkeye's comment which was deleted.

Is there something about that you are incapable of understanding? Of course since you always come in late to do some ankle biting I can see your ignorance in this matter.

I have some of "those folks" Naval Aviation and other branches of the service as my clients during the tax season,

Do you think the fact that you have accepted money from people you insult is an excuse? Actually, it just makes it worse.


: Distortions and more (1.00 / 0) (#78)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:47:22 PM EST

One more time. The comment wasn't about Jen. So I have no idea as to why you think it is about her.
The insult you made was specific in name.
yadda yadda and hehe

BTW (1.00 / 0) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:09:11 PM EST

I won't quote my remark about respect, out of deference to PPJ's feelings..........

How about those folks out there protecting you??

The fact that you don't want to touch (none / 0) (#24)
by Dark Avenger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:59:30 AM EST
...People will think either I'm crazy or used to be in Naval Aviation, and I don't know which one is worse.

A MILESTONE DAY (none / 0) (#5)
by Loftlore on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:54:17 AM EST

January 23rd 2008
America passed an important marker the other day. Monday, January the 21st, marked the beginning of President Bush's last year in office. A year from now a new President will be sworn in. The legacy of George W. Bush matches almost exactly the issues of the coming campaign.
The President was granted nearly all of his neo-con wishes. He looted the Treasury in order to give the wealthiest top 1% of Americans 50% of his tax cuts. Representative Miller of Michigan's 10th Congressional District voted YES on those tax windfalls. The President wanted to go to war on Iraq. Rep. Miller voted YES. She has voted YES on every Iraq-related expenditure. President Bush asked Americans to believe that trading our Constitutional rights would make us safer. As a consequence we are LESS safe. Rep. Miller voted YES on making the Patriot Act permanent. We now know that this has allowed the Bush Administration to spy on Americans. Rep. Miller's voting record is in nearly perfect alignment with the President's Economic agenda. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce scores Rep. Miller at 97% compliance with Bush and his big business base. Rep. Miller called herself a "George W. Bush Republican"!
What will Americans be left with when this final year is exhausted? The economy is in crisis. America bleeds blood and treasure onto the sands of Iraq. Will any of this change? Will Rep. Miller change her neo-con ways? Point: Rep. Miller has chosen to endorse Rudy Giuliani for President. Rep. Miller is, in fact, Giuliani's chair for his Presidential campaign in Michigan. Clearly that hasn't worked out so well for Rudy. It's hardly been a feather in Rep. Miller's cap either. On a recent airing of Chris Matthews' "Hardball" program, one pundit called Giuliani the "worst neo-con" of all the Republican candidates.
What kind of reception can Miller expect in a NEW Democratic Congress alongside and working with a NEW Democratic President? It isn't going to be pretty. Voters and politicians have long memories!
Rep. Miller cannot moon-walk away from her voting record or her choices. The stewardship of President Bush and Rep. Miller over this nation's economy has been abysmal. It will be a long time before the harm neo-cons have done to America's reputation is repaired. Bush will be leaving. Our national nightmare will be drawing to a close. How many pieces of political shrapnel will remain embedded in the body-politic when Bush leaves? Whatever the answer to that question, we must see to it that Representative Miller does not return to Congress. If she does, Rep. Miller will be a Bush neo-con legacy.

please don't bold your comments. (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:07:41 AM EST

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!! (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST

The stewardship of President Bush and Rep. Miller over this nation's economy has been abysmal.

I was just looking at my annual return on investments since 2003.... 11.56%....

Perhaps you should consider getting into the market.. unless you think you can retire on social security..


It takes alot of manure (none / 0) (#24)
by jondee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:08:07 PM EST

to make that cotton grow tall.

Why no TL on your list of "favorite blogs" pp? You've spent more time here in the last few years than Larry Craig spends trolling airport mens rooms.


I have asked for permission (1.00 / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:13:26 PM EST

Contribute $20 to TalkLeft and I will let you read it if she doesn't mind. (She hasn't responded.)

And thanks for dropping by Tall Cotton. Please leave a comment if you like. I'm thinking of starting a "Dummy of the Week" award post.


As soon as (5.00 / 0) (#67)
by jondee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:40:12 PM EST

someone finds anything there worth commenting on.

I have to admit, that bit about Obama not being Presidential enough because of his "name" (ethnicity? skin color?) and the fact that he has the audacity not to wear a flag in his lapel shows off the sheer depth and scope of your thinking to such an extent that I wonder why you never bother to share such rare nuggets as that with us here.

Dont save it all for the Minutemen and Birchers.


: josdee (1.00 / 1) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:14:32 PM EST

You don't keep up.
And I understand that you would find Tall Cotton too literate.
But you still are invited, I need a "Dummy of the Week" winner.
Hussein Obama's removal of his lapel flag was covered in TL and I made a less than favorable comment.

Actually the article (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:44:37 AM EST
"is reporting on the spreading of lies and does a pretty good job of dispelling them.
It left out his removal of the US flag collar pin, widely discussed on TL, and in this matter:"

Obama has denied a separate charge: that he does not hold his hand to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. This rumor stemmed from a photo that was taken while the national anthem was being played.
failed to mention that whatever, everyone else was standing at attention with their hands over their hearts. He was not.
It also includes a favorable comment by the head of CAIR without mentioning that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Fund affair. If what you claim was true that would have been an excellent "guilt by association" shot.

And what was that return, (none / 0) (#25)
by scribe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST

prior to 1/1/08?

12 percent?
15 ?

Or, did you mirror Deadeye's move to Euro-based (and non-subprime founded) investments a year or two ago? I heard he's made a pile the last couple weeks, betting against the US.


: Since you asked... (none / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:25:18 PM EST

since 03 11.56% annual... I got almost 100% out of the market in 3Q 2000 after becoming convinced that the Internet bubble was going to do some serious damage to what I had been invested in, the tech field..But I made some nice money... hard not to in the 90's...
Between then and 2003 the market was up/down, I think with a low of around 7700, twice... The tax cuts started working and I went back in. Remember that I'm a ROF so I am mostly risk aversive except for my "gambling stocks."
And no, I didn't get out at the high in 2000. Wish I had....
And no, I didn't do the EU thing. At the end of the day the EU market, as you note, is very much controlled by the bureaucrats, more so than ours, and bureaucrats do weird things that have no basis in the "world."
BTW - the close today for the DJIA was a +298...

Barack Obama believes God tells him (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:00:52 AM EST

what to do. So does George W. Bush.

Got to love that... (none / 0) (#21)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:00:34 PM EST

..."rubber-gloved rectal rummage"

I guess the author should be thankful. That kind of exam usually comes with a hefty co-pay here in the good ole USA.

Come visit for the prostate exam and stay for the looney wingnuts!

I repeat (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:59:29 PM EST

His complaints are about the procedures.

If he doesn't like them, he should stay home.

I take it you missed his list (none / 0) (#29)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM EST

of alternate vacation spots and the travel agencies that British can use to avoid US like the plague.

Should make you happy, no furriners coming here even for tourism.


If Matt Rudd (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:07:11 PM EST

doesn't want to play by our rules, then he should use his list.

Why do you want to kiss the ring of every person in the world that criticizes the US?

Where did you learn it??


why do you think (none / 0) (#38)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM EST

every non us citizen in who ever lived is a slimebucket?

see, I can to the ad absurdum too.


You're making things up....again (none / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:05:45 PM EST

Having spent quite a bit of time living outside the US in a variety of countries I look at non-US folks as "people." Good, bad and all flavors in between.

When I have gone to their countries I didn't complain about their laws, customs and culture.

I expect the same when they come here.

I hope that concept isn't too difficult for you, but it probably is.


and my kissing rings (none / 0) (#44)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:19:27 PM EST

Is not making things up

You can do it but I can't?

You can dish it out but can't take it?

"boo hoo hoo
boo hoo hoo"

Is that what you are saying?

"boo hoo hoo, poor me"


: This is what I was referring to (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST

why do you think (none / 0) (#38)
by Jen M on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:22:10 PM CST
every non us citizen in who ever lived is a slimebucket?
I forgot how specific I must be when answering you.

Not for nothing but (none / 0) (#31)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:18:15 PM EST

entering the country through Newark and LA has been less than pleasent since at least 1980, in my experience.

I think if we could maintain security while also making the process more pleasant, that would be a good thing.

Agreed. Especially Newark. (1.00 / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:19:52 PM EST

But I still think the author was just looking for a horse to beat. Bad mouthing the US remains quite popular in certain circles in England and Europe.


And in certain circles in the US as well. (none / 0) (#50)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:38:52 PM EST

Especially in Newark, I think the shear unrelenting volume would make me thin-lipped and short-tempered very quickly.

Thankfully I've never had to work a job like that.


: I ran a customer service group for (none / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:02:14 PM EST

a while.... The best thing you can do is rotate people between jobs and have more breaks.