Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One report attributed to Reuters at the NYT fish wrap and a similar one at Reuters report the IPCC will be investigated by an independent board of review. Each report is slightly different yet share some text and the titles are not the same. Given the scam proportions of AGW and the IPCC this raises suspicion this blog will deal with right now as no time is available for further investigation. But it can make you wonder. Was the NYT taking a little creative license with the report?

Moving to the real problem, how do you convince the public everything is above board when you make a claim that irregularities related to scientists will be investigated by other scientists? Who cares if you claim they are independent? The ones under investigation were described that way too!

This blogger, for one, would like to report on at least one example where confidence is high that so-called scientific evidence on AGW is correct. As much as this issue smells of scam any skeptic worth their criticism would expect at least one example of scientific truth regarding global warming. Everything being false or fabricated is no more believable than everything being correct.

Okay, let’s go back to the report…..

“It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October.

“The report will go there for adoption,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a UNEP conference in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian island of Bali, where environment ministers have been meeting this week.

It would appear that the powers-that-be within the United Nations are simply seeking vindication by any means in advance of the next scam meeting. It is not difficult to believe those in lesser industrialized nations and the third world view the AGW issue as a great strategy for sabotaging their more successful counterparts. Launch initiatives like those suggested by Al Gore and his crew to destroy the economies of ‘rich’ nations to even the playing field.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Crushing debt and mounting deficits in the face of a fragile recovery, if in fact there is one, adds to concern about the liberal agenda and out of touch POLS in Washington as well as at the state and local level. Tea parties and other outspoken critics have raised the ante for November 2010 midterm elections while being attacked by entrenched power brokers in the culture of corruption.

President Obama’s frequent reminder that we must pass ‘health insurance reform’ and other agenda items of the Democratic party are at odds with the report presented here expressing his belief that ‘deficit spending is unsustainable.’

One consistent feature of The One’s rhetoric blames the whole mess on problems that he ‘inherited.’ It has been stated on this site before that candidate Obama knew exactly what lay before him in his pursuit of the highest office in the land. At some point Mr President you must accept responsibility for the leadership role you now have. Do not pre-empt your agenda’s likely failure by putting the weight on someone else. Your agenda succeeds or fails on its own merits or lack of same.

One can almost hear his 2012 concession speech. I had a dream. To change the foundation of this nation into my own image and likeness but Bush sabotaged my plan.

Some have said authorizing a government ‘commission’ to oversee debt and deficit reduction attempts is simply a way to remove political risk from elected officials and place it on a group of bureaucrats. Whatever the strategy we don’t need another government commission for anything. Simply have the stones to reduce spending, taxes and the growth of government. But then that notion runs counter to any liberal agenda. That supports the opinion on why this commission was born.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Confronts US Debt as More Americans File for Jobess Benefits
18 February 2010
Michael Bowman | Washington

President Barack Obama announced a bipartisan commission on Thursday to tackle mounting U.S. federal budget deficits that economists say imperil the nation’s economic future. The president acted to correct America’s long term fiscal imbalances while short term economic signals point to a bumpy recovery after a deep recession.

President Obama says he inherited massive budget deficits and a staggering national debt when he entered office, and that he has had to incur even more debt to combat a financial crisis and prevent a prolonged economic recession from becoming a depression.

But he is quick to add that deficit spending is unsustainable.

“Without action, the accumulated weight of that structural deficit, of ever increasing debt, will hobble our economy,” Mr. Obama said. “It will cloud our future and it will saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden.”

Mr. Obama spoke at the White House, where he signed an executive order creating a bipartisan commission that will craft solutions to bring federal spending in line with tax receipts.

Standing behind the president were the two men who will lead the panel - Democrat Erskine Bowles, who served as White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration, and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming.

“I am asking them [Erskine and Simpson] to produce clear recommendations on how to cover the costs of all federal programs by 2015 and to meaningfully improve our long term fiscal picture,” Mr. Obama said.

More than half of federal spending goes to so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security for retirees, and medical subsidies for the poor and the elderly. Cutting such programs is politically unpopular.

National defense consumes another large portion of the budget, and is difficult to rein in during a time of war.

President Obama has proposed a freeze on the remainder the federal budget, beginning next year. But a limited freeze along will not eliminate a deficit that exceeded $1 trillion last year and is projected to do so again this year.

Congress rejected creating a budget commission of its own that would have been empowered to draft fiscal solutions and to compel the legislature to consider its recommendations.

Meanwhile, fresh signs of weakness emerged in the U.S. labor market that analysts say point to a slow economic recovery. The number of newly-laid off workers filing for unemployment benefits stood at 473,000 last week - 31,000 more than the previous week.

Global Insight chief economist, Nariman Behravesh:

“After substantial progress in fixing or at least improving the jobs situation, we seem to have backtracked a little bit,” Behravesh said. “This is not so unusual. When you reach a turning point [in the economy after a recession], the progress is not uniform - two steps forward, one step back. And I think that is what we are seeing - the one step back.”

At the same time, a broad measure of future economic vitality, the Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators, rose for the 10th consecutive month, but at a slower pace than in previous months. And spiking energy costs caused U.S. wholesale prices to rise 1.4 percent in January - double what many economists had anticipated.

The following images are from Congressman Eric Massa’s House website. Can we ‘ask Eric anything?

Yup, another day, another scandal in the nation’s capitol. Some reports suggest the right is downright giddy about this one. And reports from left-leaning sources are quick to suggest the differences between this and other similar scandals. But the most telling is from the the blog at TIME named ’swampland.’

The fifth of five reasons given for why Massa’s potential scandal is different from Mark Foley’s in 2006 is provided here.

Massa’s a Democrat and not held up to the same “family values” standards that Republicans hold themselves up to. Those standards make even the rumors of homosexual affairs deadly (Larry Craig, Mark Foley), whereas Barney Frank survived his scandal.

The question for Eric Massa:

Are the allegations true?

The question for Democrats in general:

Is it true that Democrats do not hold themselves to standards described in the swampland reference provided here?

Even though components of the Democrats’ agenda suggest the answer it would be interesting to hear or read a response from the Dems.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

Nothing like singleness of purpose to inspire others by demonstrating that hard work and determination lay the foundation for success. Who better to display those attributes than the King of Altruism, the man who invented the internet and is deeply devoted currently to saving our planet, Al Gore.

Last weekend with continued support from the NYT fish wrap former US Vice-President Al Gore presented an op-ed once again extolling the virtues of his own personal crusade. To express his concern for those who reject his money making venture this political doormat and newly minted snake oil salesman offered the following sentiment:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.

But just as Mr Gore’s incompetence derailed his bid for President of the United States in 2000 it once again exposes his worldwide scam to profit from a crisis of his own making. Not an unusual strategy for a liberal. Attempt to create panic, fool the willing and laugh all the way to the bank in your corporate jet while criticizing others for destroying the planet.

Some more of Mr Gore’s ‘phrases’ will be supplied here demonstrating his folly. Of course libs will object to out of context use but then they are free to follow the link, search for the phrase and read the whole laughable thing for themselves. Why make everyone else suffer through Gore’s feeble pitch for his own wealth building scheme.

From Mr Gore:

-It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate… (read the rest for yourself)

-But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes.

-Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location.

In each of the examples above Mr Gore admits his case for AGW is flawed. He has drawn an absolute conclusion from vague, ambiguous or simply flawed data. And on that thin or non-existent evidence he expects the world to act on his recommendations. His position for personal gain from investments and partnerships points to the hypocrisy of his quest.

Hey Al, if you want to make a boatload of money on eco=business knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to buy what you’re selling, literally. The financial turmoil of the last few years and what may last for some time is nothing compared to the economic destruction your holy war would cause if we let it. Your money connection to your environmental crusade betrays your claim of genuine concern. As does your personal choices for producing the carbon mess you describe. You’re simply not believable. Nor are your cronies in the pseudo-science game. They’re in it for the money too.

Are there problems to solve with regard to ecology and the environment? Certainly there are. And good folks have been quietly working on them for a long time without the help from Al Gore’s personal search for the Holy Grail. Gore’s personal agenda will do more to harm those efforts than any other source. When you lose the public trust through selfish motivation support for otherwise noble endeavors declines.

Thanks for nothing, Al Gore.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, it is interesting that Gore chose the word ‘enterprise’ to describe science.

The mainstream media has fallen on hard times. You may recall it being the subject of another list of targets to ‘bailout’ as Washington politicians continue to spend money we don’t have. But it is understandable they would not want the only collective voice supporting their nonsense to disappear. How else would they be able to quote writers as their only argument in favor of that which is largely opposed?

This post is inspired by a random survey of articles in the first week of this year and has been hanging around in a bookmark file for some time. It had come to the decision point of write about it or delete it. And with a post here on the idea of using sources with no names entitled ‘Under Condition of Anonymity’ writing about it seems fitting.

The article from the LAT by James Rainey, ‘Freelance writing’s unfortunate new model’, did its job of drawing a reader’s attention. From that point it is anyone’s guess if that condition remains. His lament that tough times for the mainstream media translate into tough times for writers, freelance or otherwise, seems obvious. Talk about a case for trickle down economics. If the business supporting incomes for individuals encounters some degree of failure how are they to continue as before? If the business loses money so will those depending on it for an income. This ain’t rocket science.

After noting less than impressive opportunities for freelancers Rainey expresses the real reason this article stayed in the bookmark file this long.

What’s sailing away, a decade into the 21st century, is the common conception that writing is a profession — or at least a skilled craft that should come not only with psychic rewards but with something resembling a living wage.

Why? Where is it written that a skill you may have should provide a living wage? It is not necessarily true that if you build it they will come. And it follows that they may not be willing to pay for it. The problem may be the result of the audience or market realizing the product or service is not what it once was and are no longer as interested in paying for the privilege of using it.

Rainey suggests compensation for writing may have hit bottom. And he adds that little attention has been given to it ‘outside the trade.’ Is he aware that there has been a recession as well as troubling times for most economies around the world? His timeframe is a fair match for similar problems faced by just about everyone else. The economy stinks and money’s tight.

The last word for Rainey’s article (from here) suggests he may have it backwards. The quality and quantity of what passes for journalism in the mainstream media and elsewhere may be the real reason for hard times in the writing trade. An inability to deal effectively with a changing market and allowing public criticism of bias to be ignored may be the real cause.

As for what we will be missing if the trend he describes continues Mr Rainey might want to consider that ship has already sailed. Had journalism remained in the media hard times for the industry may have been avoided.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What a ridiculous arrangement this is. And its widespread use is even more laughable. Those accepting this questionable practice would like you to ignore the obvious drawbacks. Like how useful is information provided by someone without the stones to disclose their identity? Or the ‘journalistic’ sin of avoiding the scrutiny of full disclosure? All this practice does is raise more questions for the skeptical and attempt to place value on gossip. Something all too common in media reports these days.

Media organizations lament the rise of citizen journalism and the fall of their business model. As more and more newspapers and other mainstream media outlets lose advertising dollars to support their enterprise criticism is misplaced. Many blame the internet and free resources rather than to perform an introspective analysis focusing on lack of integrity.

So how common is the practice of using anonymous sources? A Goole search of the phrase ‘condition of anonymity’ delivers a results count of twelve and a half million. In Google news, the phrase ‘they spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information’ returns over five thousand hits.

Never mind the results available in these searches is tiny compared to the stated total (who could review milions of results?). The point is the practice as well as ‘media’ willingness to use it is more telling than any report including it. Citizen journalism may be suspect but that is a given. The role of the ‘fourth estate’ was to provide a source of objective information to the public. The failure to meet that standard is nothing new. There are many accounts demonstrating that fact throughout history.

So what’s the real reason mainstream media is failing? It’s obvious. They are no longer believable. At least citizen journalism, e.g., the blogosphere, provides passionate accounts on virtually any topic to promote discussion and foster further investigation.

Something lost on those allowing the demise of journalism in traditional sources.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If a tax is involved you can rest assured the entire strategy is flawed. The most altruistic intention is betrayed when the word ‘tax’ is included. Taxes are a curse on citizens and job one of corrupt political agendas.

In the United States, for all practical purposes as well as political folly, taxes are collected to pay for the expenses of running a government. When the taxes are collected for the purpose of funding the government’s ‘limited’ role as defined by the founding documents there is little objection. It is political agenda using these funds for their own purposes that inflames public outrage. The report featured here is a classic example of what ‘tax’ should not support. The agenda is not part of government’s role.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From the report the following excerpt exposes two flaws.

Grover Norquist of anti-tax advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform shares that sentiment, calling the bag fee just another tax on consumers.

“The politicians want to have a tax on bags. The fact that they want to try to call it a fee tells you they’re liars as well as tax increasers.”

The Anacostia Watershed Society says the goal is not to raise money, but to change behavior. Washington city officials expect to raise three or four million dollars this year to help clean up the Anacostia River, and they predict that eventually there will be fewer bags and less trash in the waterways of the U.S. capital.

Changing behavior is not governments’ role. And Norquist is exposed again in the following report from Michelle Malkin.

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement (Michelle Malkin)

Watch the video and use these notes to understand the self-interest and folly of the religion of peace.

-There’s a limit
-I cannot do this job
-if you live in the United States you are already an infidel
-it’s not our job to do that
-we are here… because we have better opportunities here….
-….not fair to this community….

This vid and the phrases listed above betray what Muslims claim is unfair and that they pose no threat to others. The tired old excuse of being in the US for ‘opportunities’ is the great liberal myth. To express sentiments designed to exploit the guilt of weak minds residing within their target area Muslims work the ‘po lil ol me’ fallacy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nothin’ like celebrity damage control to demonstrate what is really important to them. Money, sex and politics may rank as the top subjects leading to a bankrupt moral compass but it seems a bankrupt financial future is more the concern of one celeb.

Money, sex and politics are featured in the trifecta of both John Edwards and Mark Sanford. Tiger Woods does not get honorable mention for excluding politics. The scheduled event described below will likely be seen for what it is. An attempt to woo advertisers who abandoned the Woods’ brand after his multiple falls from grace.

Question for the day: What is the worst thing you ever did?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

and here’s the brief report from VOA from which the post title is taken.

The agent of world number-one Tiger Woods says the American golfer will end nearly three months of silence on Friday, when he speaks publicly for the first time since revelations of his marital infidelity.

Agent Mark Steinberg said Wednesday that Woods will speak to a small group of reporters and friends at 11 a.m. EST, at the clubhouse of the TPC Sawgrass golf course in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Woods is expected to talk about his past, his future plans and to apologize for his behavior.

The appearance will come in the middle of the first big event of the year, the Accenture Match Play Championship, which got under way Wednesday in Marana, Arizona.

Accenture was the first sponsor to drop Woods when the scandal first broke.

Even though many countries throughout the world largely blame the US for what was called the global financial crisis the greed responsible and regulatory incompetence that enabled excessive risk in financial markets has its roots where most massive failures do; the legislative halls of the US Congress and other such institutions around the planet. Those countries citing the US as responsible for their crippling losses are as guilty as anyone for gladly participating while everything was working out in that house of cards.

International criticism and commentary aside there have been other suggested culprits throughout the long history of actions leading to the economic problems Americans now face. Senator Chris ‘Countrywide’ Dodd as well as sputtering Congressman Barney Frank are but two politicians connected to the banking industry. There are many more who helped themselves to the profits available in the mortgage industry during the run up to disaster and one such person is none other than Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff. The President’s choice for Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, also has dirt on his hands from his tenure at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

During the initial reporting on such matters over the last couple of years the mortgage portion of the crisis included criticism that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for much of what happened. It was suggested that financial institutions were forced to extend credit for housing that borrowers were not likely to pay back.

Another culprit receiving criticism in recent years was the Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC. In the past this site featured press releases from the SEC describing the results of legal action against various types of fraud in the financial markets. Almost exclusively the outcome involved what essentially was profit sharing between the offenders and the government. Rather than ever seeing jail time the perps were merely barred from engaging in business in the financial markets and paying some amount of money to the SEC that no doubt came from the ill-gotten gains.

Testimony by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker has focused attention on what may be the single largest reason for problems in banking and Wall Street. The Banking Act of 1933 also known as Glass=Steagall was enacted to avoid problems within the banking industry that occurred then and are remarkably similar to what happened lately. Over the years various parts of the ‘act’ were repealed and some are calling for restoration of those limitations now.

You can do a search on the topic at your favorite engine. You will likely find information about the original safeguards and a repeal history. In addition, HR4375 is a bill sponsored by a Democrat and co=sponsored by nine more plus a Republican. The bill seeks to restore some of Glass-Steagall. Also Senators McCain and Cantwell are in the news claiming to want the same thing or something similar.

This story and the items mentioned above point to the central theme of this post. Political rhetoric and ‘after the fact’ reactions are all too common. It is the evidence that proves what most of us already know about government and those who run it. They govern poorly allowing events to occur that could have been prevented. Where were all these people before the problems referenced here took place? Certainly most of them were in office before the so-called global financial crisis emerged.

The author of this blog supports restoring common sense in government. Like most expressing a personal preference for conservative principles and adhering to our nation’s founding documents Congress and the rest of government is encouraged to concur. And if in this particular case wisdom dictates restoring Glass-Steagall to its original form, please do.

It seems logical to accept the following idea. If the current economic turmoil is in fact the worst since the Great Depression and none has occurred since Glass-Steagall until certain portions of it were repealed then restoring the original legislation is prudent.

It would be helpful to all involved if those in government could produce a series of consecutive actions that can be applauded universally as successful and impressive. At least then citizens could be reassured that it IS possible for government to do something right. There is currently little evidence to suggest that is the case.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Without presenting some of the information provided in an article from The Economist, to avoid having your eyes glaze over, the following excerpt may some it up.

Most troubling of all is the continued failure of economic growth to benefit the labour market. Employment fell by over 300,000 jobs during the last three months of 2009, despite strong expansion in GDP. The first quarter of 2010 is unlikely to show as big an output gain, suggesting that the pace of improvement in employment may be slowing, even as regular job growth has yet to return. And the situation may be more dire still; initial jobless claims have grown in recent weeks, indicating that what momentum there was in labour markets has been lost.

And leave it to one of Obama’s economic gurus, Larry Summers, to spin the situation in a liberal form. He says the American economy is experiencing “a statistical recovery and a human recession”.

That’s liberal-speak for we present numbers that minimize the problem and portray continued losses in employment as a ‘human recession.’ How comforting. The report indicates 41% of the unemployed have been so for 27 weeks. How does that translate into it ’s all Bush’s fault? Those losses came within Obama’s first year in office.

I can hear the liberal response already. However, libs should understand that regardless of the degree to which the previous administration or anyone else contributed to an economic downturn, then candidate Obama campaigned that his hope and change would fix what’s wrong. He knew then what he would face if elected. It is folly to now say that the failure of his agenda is someone else’s fault.

That is why the overwhelming demand from the public, aka voters, is to return to the basics. Stop spending. Stop borrowing. Live within our means and take common sense steps toward recovery. Enough with the political agenda that only serves the ambition of politicians.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Honda Motor Co said it will recall another roughly 378,000 vehicles in the U.S. to fix potentially faulty airbag systems that are linked to at least one known fatality and 11 injuries in the U.S.

The expanded recall brings to more than 826,000 vehicles the number of Honda and Acura models covered by a series of airbag system recalls that began in 2008.

The company said some airbags in its older vehicles deploy with too much pressure, and send metal fragments flying into the car.

Never liked airbags and never will. And even though potential user injury is a common complaint and has been for years the current report trumps the previous worries generally limited to smaller or older passengers.

Nanny state proponents wonder why so many oppose government intervention claimed to be on behalf of the public. Here’s a good example. Or should we accept the risk of shrapnel from airbags along with other known and unknown hazards?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Once again the economic media darlings weigh in. Paul Krugman deserves his lefty description. This is a man who would be a natural for NASCAR; circular motion always moving to the left. And like NASCAR races, each lap is a repeat.

In a column of his last week, Fiscal Scare Tactics, Krugman makes his case with something as appealing to liberals as bashing Bush. That is, bashing Bush. When they’re not bashing Bush they’re bashing Bush or something about Bush.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

‘…even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency’ is exactly the point, Mr. Krugman. For all the disdain elites and political power brokers have for ordinary citizens my fellow ‘commoners’ and I do understand clearly at least one element of this topic.

The following are some things that increase and rarely, if ever, decrease.

-The US national debt
-The US budget deficit
-Taxes
-the size of government
-the pay for those in government including elected representatives
-entitlements
-those receiving entitlements
-legislation that spends taxpayer dollars
-the amount of money borrowed by the government
And did I mention taxes?

Mr Krugman: Continuing to spend money we don’t have is a bad idea. And yes, it is an idea that is not new. That’s the problem. Not like their should be a learning curve on this issue. Spending what you don’t have is what caused much of our current problems. And the agenda(s) being pushed in DC are tantamount to the Madoff ponzi scheme.

Obama-speak, et al (translation): We are taking more of your money (tax dollars) to spend on things we want that will benefit you in the long run.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme to rival Madoff. And where is he currently residing?

And from another media darling comes the following:

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’ “

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

The key ‘economic’ word here being ‘agenda.’ And the attitude of those now governing toward those being governed is as much a part of an economic discussion as anything else. Since it is the dollars of those governed that those now governing plan tu use for their agenda. And the problem is, to pay for it, requires borrowing into the next millennium and continuing to pay for it long after that.

This is why liberals bashing the Tea Party citizens is an idea as bankrupt as their agenda. There is a piece at the Boston Herald from a ‘fellow’ at the Heritage Foundation that should make Mr Krugman cringe.

If spending jumps $12,000 per household, taxes must eventually rise. The president would make a large down payment on that with a $2 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Yet that would still leave the government running up $8.5 trillion in deficits over the decade, setting the stage for even larger and more damaging broad-based tax hikes later.

Ominously, economists close to the White House suggest that a value-added tax of 15 percent and 20 percent is eventually possible to finance Obama’s agenda.

By doubling the national debt over pre-recession levels, he’d push America toward a tipping point - where rising debt levels will become too large for global capital markets to absorb. This could trigger a financial crisis, an interest-rate spike and tax hikes.

And it still comes down to that nothing new concept Mr Krugman alluded to in his column. We cannot continue to spend what we don’t have. Everyone can understand that.

And to couple another item with Mr Krauthammers’ commentary comes the following brief item Charles Hurt at the NY Post. In a small amount of space Mr Hurt condenses the sanity of tea party nation those plain words for plain folks like us, down here, near the voting booth.

These people have come from all across the nation for the first National Tea Party Convention to denounce not just President Obama and the Democrats, but Republicans and all of Washington for getting infected with the same voracious and parasitic plague spawned by big-government liberalism.

Read the rest, it won’t take long and anyone can understand it. Even those lowly voters who have the audacity to raise a loud voice in opposition to leaders with a hearing problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Could it be that foreign carmakers are developing an Achilles heel? No doubt American automakers have taken it on the chin for some time. And much of that is their own doing. But with the advent of Government Motors courtesy of the Obama administration and other related developments one thing seems clear.

Ford Motor Company has faired better than its American competitors. For a review of current accomplishments of note beyond not taking a government bailout check these links on the Ford story.

Ford Market Share and Sales Increase

Ford F-Series Does It Again

Ford Sweeps Awards

Ford Wins Technology Award

2011 Ford Focus Debuts

They may not be killer but then they’re not being killed either. Can you say that about GM or Chrysler? No.

So what can be said about the recent Toyota debacle stemming from ‘foot feeds’ from CTS? While it is causing a serious setback for Toyota it would seem Ford has limited exposure.

Ford Suspends Assembly of Van in China Over CTS Pedal

CTS-built pedal assemblies were used in 1,663 Transit Classic vans made by the [Ford] venture with Jiangling Motors Corp. in Nanchang, China, said Said Deep, a spokesman for Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford. The venture began using the CTS part in December for the vans, which are sold only in China, he said today in an interview.

GM, Ford, Chrysler, Hyundai and probably others are offering incentives to lure Toyota customers to their products. It likely won’t do much for GM and Chrysler but for Ford it may be all upside.

So the question is repeated given other developments in the recent past. Are foreign carmakers developing an Achilles heel? Here are the older reports about foreign car company setbacks given the so-called global financial crisis.

Losses Strike Three Japanese Auto Makers from February 2009

Auto makers have been left with little choice but to scale down production and shed jobs as sales in the U.S., Europe and Japan stumble to lows not seen in decades.

Japan Lifts Auto Forecasts

The upgraded forecasts coincide with data from the Japan Automobile Dealers Association showing that Japan’s auto sales for October jumped 12.6%, the third straight monthly increase, highlighting the improving business environment for domestic auto industry.

Okay, so it may have been just a blip in the typically mistake-free Japanese auto industry. But to have the anomaly of this significant recall so soon after may be systemic. Failures of the American auto industry may be contagious.

A learning curve initiated by earlier American failures may give them a leg up if the Japanese companies fall victim to their own set of problems from this point forward. But these lessons are hard learned by over-confident corporate leadership in the land of golden parachutes and bailouts. Ford Motor Company may be the exception.

Stanford Mattheew
MoreWhat.com