<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Rusted Sky</title>
      <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/</link>
      <description>You just keep on trying 
till you run out of cake.
</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:21:16 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Well, I&apos;m boggled.</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><a title="io9 - Movie Based On Asteroids Game Will Boggle Your Mind - asteroids movie" href="http://io9.com/5306576/movie-based-on-asteroids-game-will-boggle-your-mind">io9 - Movie Based On Asteroids Game Will Boggle Your Mind - asteroids movie</a>

Though Hollywood excels in making plotless movies, the sale of Asteroids to Universal breaks new ground. The people who are bringing you GI Joe this month are about to make a movie about a triangle shooting a bunch of blobs.</blockquote> Come to think of it, even w/no plot, it might do pretty well...

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/07/well_im_boggled.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/07/well_im_boggled.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:21:16 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Makes you wonder...</title>
         <description><![CDATA[When you're a political party - you would, I think, want an attractive figurehead.  You'd want leadership that's at least SOMEWHAT charismatic and memorable.

And, let's face it - the Democratic Party's been falling down on the job in that respect.  There's no visible figurehead at this point, nobody that actually is the 'face' of the Democratic party like Obama and Pelosi.  And the faces that are being put UP on the news representing Republicans...

Sigh.  It's a bit odd that Sanford's now the 'face' of the Republican party.  Bizzare, isn't it?

Think quickly - who, aside from McCain, would you picture as being emblematic of the Republican party?  Gingrich?  Cheney?  Bush? (Well, the last two aren't exactly major players in the political scheme of things now...)

How about Palin?

Oh, wait - we can't use her...<blockquote><a title="" href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/01/mccain-camp-praising-sanford-trashing-palin/">McCain's Camp Praises Sanford and Trashes Palin?</a>

There something wrong, very wrong, when Sarah Palin, a bright, shining light for conservatives remains the prime target of the existing Washington machine, while Mark Sanford and other hypocritical liars are serenaded as getting a raw deal by the very public daughter of a defacto leader of the party.</blockquote> I'm really starting to think that the subculture inside the DC Beltway's so toxic and so dedicated to maintaining the status quo that they can't see the damage that's being inflicted by the petty games they play.

Let's see - McCain lost, so it couldn't be he was out-charismaed by Obama and outmaneuvered by the Chicago political machine writ large in ACORN's tactics - no, far better to blame 'Caribou Barbie' for the loss.

Frankly, I think if it hadn't been for her he'd have lost by a much wider margin.  I felt a lot better about voting for McCain because he picked her as a running mate.

The Republican Party badly needs to reinvent itself - and clean out a lot of the entrenched deadwood.  It needs new ideas, it needs new faces.   (And so does the Democratic party.  Really, who would you rather listen to all day - Pelosi or Palin?)

But hey - what will actually happen is most likely the status quo staying quo - because nobody wants to upset the system that gives them their goodies...

J.
 ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/07/makes_you_wonder_5.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/07/makes_you_wonder_5.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:02:13 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Cracks in the wall...</title>
         <description><![CDATA[It's interesting looking at the expressions on the faces in this video.  <blockquote><a title="RealClearPolitics - Video - CBS, Helen Thomas Challenge Gibbs On &quot;Controlled&quot; Town Hall Meeting" href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/01/cbs_helen_thomas_challenge_gibbs_on_controlled_town_hall_meeting.html">RealClearPolitics - Video - CBS, Helen Thomas Challenge Gibbs On &quot;Controlled&quot; Town Hall Meeting</a>

CBS' Chip Reid and Helen Thomas double teamed Robert Gibbs today at the daily press briefing on the "tightly controlled" town hall meeting President Obama will hold on health care. Gibbs kept saying lets have this discussion AFTER the meeting. Helen Thomas accused the White House of "controlling the press." She said almost all White House/Obama events are "prepackaged." She accused the White House of not "having any answers."</blockquote>Chip Reid was getting a bit exasperated at the stonewalling by Robert Gibbs.  Gibbs was treating it all as a joke.  Helen Thomas was, by my estimation, getting pretty annoyed at how Gibbs was dancing around the question.

I think she'd better be careful, though.  Puppets are replaceable - and I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear she's 'retired' in the next couple of months.  She's asking question that aren't in the script.

This video is an interesting look at what we're not being told.  I'm wondering if the press corps is starting to think they've grabbed the wrong end of the rope...

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/07/cracks_in_the_wall.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/07/cracks_in_the_wall.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:14:10 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>They keep using that word.  I do not think they know what it means.</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><a title="Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich - WSJ.com" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html">Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich - WSJ.com</a>

With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the <strong><em>"fair"</em></strong> way to close his state's gaping deficit.</blockquote>You ever notice that when 'fair' enters the picture, other considerations just seem to vanish?

Oddly enough - the rich are vanishing also.  You see, they're not fixed resources like a coal mine or an oil well - they're living, mobile, and have the resources to pack up and bug out when conditions get unfavorable.

I don't think it's much of a coincidence that California, New Jersey, and New York are all losing people, (pardon, losing <strong><em>productive</em></strong> people...) while the economic state in Illinois and Delaware could best be described as 'iffy'.

Well, we'll see - but I think that the states that do this will end up losing more than they're gaining.  Perhaps they ought to try cutting back the expenses instead of 'soaking the rich' for a quick buck.

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/soak_the_rich_lose_the.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/soak_the_rich_lose_the.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:05:37 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>That ain&apos;t chicken feed...</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><a title="The Associated Press: $50M in stimulus will help fish farmers buy feed" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9enRb6BS9WdduDT5wvI_JnsQi6QD98PC5B00">The Associated Press: $50M in stimulus will help fish farmers buy feed</a>

OSAGE BEACH, Mo. (AP) — The United States is about to spend $50 million in stimulus money on fish food to help fish farmers who have been struggling since feed prices jumped 50 percent last year.

The money could provide algae to nourish clam and oyster larvae along the Pacific coast, fill the bellies of tilapia in Arizona and feed catfish, trout and gamefish in the Midwest and South.  (<em>Note the <strong>'could' </strong>there?</em>)

Supporters say many fish farms are in already poor areas. They say the money will help keep the farms going and preserve jobs in areas hard hit by the recession and lacking other industries.

Much of the money is likely to end up in Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas — the nation's largest catfish producers. Catfish accounts for one-third of the nation's $1.4 billion aquaculture industry.</blockquote> So the stimulus is going to feed fish.

Sigh.

We've got some real winners in Washington these days, don't we?

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/that_aint_chicken_feed.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/that_aint_chicken_feed.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:02:28 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Obama to Country: &quot;Please cut your own throat.&quot;</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Realistically, that's what it's amounting to.<blockquote><a title="Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill - Yahoo! News" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill">Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill - Yahoo! News</a>

WASHINGTON – Hours after the House passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to show courage and follow suit.

The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate, and Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to ratchet up pressure on the 100-seat chamber.

"My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth."</blockquote> There's a contradiction between economic growth and taxing the hell out of the country in the guise of 'investing in clean energy'.

The Club for Growth has 15 reasons to be against this.

1. An extra 'tax' on energy of about $3000/yr/family.  Don't know about you, but I'd rather use that money on something else.

2. Makes the recession worse, costing millions of jobs and devasting the economy.

3. In some years, the national energy tax will cost about 2.5 million jobs.

4.  Rural areas get screwed, money will go to CA, WA, and NJ.  Big surprise, eh?

5. Emissions reductions (remember, the real cause of all this?) won't be reduced... if the rest of the world doesn't sign on.  And China won't.

6. Spain's tried this.  2.2 jobs were destroyed for every 1 'green' job created, and 9 out of 10 of THOSE were temporary.

There's others - but the real reason that this is so beloved -

<blockquote> "Bloated Bureaucracy: The bill establishes a myriad of new federal agencies intertwined between at least 21established agencies with the mission of reallocating trillions of taxpayer dollars in a supposedly fair and efficient manor. According the U.S <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/media/pdfs/waxmanmarkey.pdf">Chamber of Commerce </a>(PDF), the bill will impose 397 new federal regulations that require traditional agency rulemakings."</blockquote>In essence, Obama - in a time of recession - is asking the country to voluntarily commit economic suicide.

And the reason - to help curb 'global warming' seems to be kind of moot at this point.  (Never mind the fact that the science is far from settled, and we may be in for global COOLING for the next decade or more, due to a low-output period from the sun...)  All this bill does is shuffle money around to a point where it can be skimmed out of the system, and then in ten years when nothing's been done, the economy's cratered, and energy prices are through the roof, the 'progressives' (a name which seems to be <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597150183556945.html#articleTabs%3Darticle">completely contrary to their actual results</a>)  will insist that MORE sacrifices need to be made, that MORE must be demanded from the 'rich' - which will probably be anyone who is actually still employed by that point.

Hope for change, baby.  That's about all we're going to have left.

Obama's got a grand vision for the US.  More and more it seems like he wants a pretty corpse in a coffin, something he can point at and go "Doesn't it look healthy?" while not even paying attention to the fact it's no longer alive and kicking...]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/obama_to_country_please_cut_yo.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/obama_to_country_please_cut_yo.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:52:25 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Too much for too few.</title>
         <description><![CDATA[You ever really look at the numbers on health care?  Sure, there's the ancedotal - folks with no insurance losing everything when hit with massive medical bills... but realistically how many are affected like that?  You don't get a sense of the numbers - instead, you get a sense of urgency to cover everyone without exception.

And it doesn't make sense.  <blockquote><a title="Kudlow's Money Politic$ on National Review Online" href="http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGE5OWFjYWU1OWNhOTMxNzAxYzQ1ZDFlMTdhN2QyNzU=">Kudlow's Money Politic$ on National Review Online</a>

It looks like President Obama’s big-bang health-care reform is going down to defeat. This is good. But my question is why do we need it at all? According to a recent ABC News/USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. That could mean up to 250 million people are happy. So why is it that we need Obama’s big-bang health-care overhaul in the first place?

There’s more. According the U.S. Census Bureau, we don’t have 47 million folks who are truly uninsured. When you take college kids plus those earning $75,000 or more who chose not to sign up, that removes roughly 20 million people. Then take out about 10 million more who are not U.S. citizens, and 11 million who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but have not signed up for some reason.

So that really leaves only 10 million to 15 million people who are truly long-term uninsured.</blockquote>And we're looking at a cost of $1.6 trillion to institute nationalized health care, to get these people covered.

That works out to - if the upper bound of 15 million is met - about $106k over ten years to insure the people who are uninsured, unless I'm dropping a digit or two.  Call it $10k/yr, just to round things neatly.

A quick search online gives rates running from about $200/month to $700 a month, depending on coverage.  Or, less than $10k/year.

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just give those 15 million a health credit card?  Or, if they're already using EFT for state benefits, to let them use their welfare card for medical also?

Hey, I like to spend money as well as the next guy (especially when faced with lots'o'stuff as at MicroCenter) but I do like to get decent value for the money... and let me tell ya, having the government handle things ain't the way to go...

So tell me again why we must create a massive new health bureaucracy?

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/too_much_for_too_few.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/too_much_for_too_few.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:46:49 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Dismantling the Future.</title>
         <description><![CDATA[At one time, the future was seen as a glowing place, enabled by natural scientific progress.  But since the '60s, I think, there's been an institutional distrust of honest science by our political elite - to the point where the conclusions are reached and then the 'science' is found that supports it.  Over at <a title="Historic parallels in our time: the killing of cattle -vs- carbon ｫ Watts Up With That?" href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-parallels-in-our-time-the-killing-of-of-cattle-vs-carbon/#comments">Historic parallels in our time: the killing of cattle -vs- carbon - Watts Up With That?</a>, the parallel is drawn with the voluntary slaughter of all the animals the Xhosa depended on for sustenance, and the destruction of all their stocks of grain, and the destruction of the tools they needed for agriculture, at the behest of a 15 year old girl's dream.

Needless to say, the herds of cattle, supplies of food and tools that were supposed to magically appear once all the animals were slaughtered never appeared.  The population dropped from 105k to 26k, with between 45-50k dead and the rest moving elsewhere.<blockquote>Western civilization now stands on the brink of repeating the experience of the Xhosa. Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, Europe and North America have enjoyed the greatest prosperity ever known on earth. Life expectancy has doubled. In a little more than two hundred years, every objective measure of human welfare has increased more than in all of previous human history.

But Western Civilization is coasting on an impetus provided by our ancestors. There is scarcely anyone alive in Europe or America today who believes in the superiority of Western society. Guilt and shame hang around our necks like millstones, dragging our emasculated culture to the verge of self-immolation. Whatever faults the British Empire-builders may have had, they were certain of themselves.

Our forefathers built a technological civilization based on energy provided by carbon-based fossil fuels. Without the inexpensive and reliable energy provided by coal, oil, and gas, our civilization would quickly collapse. The prophets of global warming now want us to do precisely that.</blockquote> That may not be their intention - but that's what would happen.  'Good intentions' don't make for good results - they come from a combination of good intentions, good ideas, good planning, good preparation and good implementation.  And the eco-luddites are lacking in 5 out of the 6 - you pick your favorites...<blockquote>Like the prophet Mhlakaza, Al Gore promises that if we stop using carbon-based energy, new energy technologies will magically appear. The laws of physics and chemistry will be repealed by political will power. We will achieve prosperity by destroying the very means by which prosperity is created.</blockquote> And it boggles my mind that some folks just can't see that.  They seem to believe there's some sort of 1 to 1 equivalence between a windmill and a coal-fired power plant - building one means you can decomission the other with no net loss.

But it's like comparing a hand flashlight with a couple of AA batteries to a 1kw halogen bulb.  You're NOT going to get the same amont of light out of the two.  

And then you even see the 'green' alternatives blocked by the 'well meaning' eco-luddites - in solar power plants being cancelled because they'll change the local microclimates.  Shade, after all, is something to be avoided in the desert!

And the ones pushing hardest for this stuff are the ones least affected.  You can't really persuade me that Pelosi, Reid and Feinstein are ever going to be seriously bothered by any of the 'policies' they support - so aside from the elitism and the feeling of power that's shoving what we DON'T want (higher gas prices, higher energy prices, higher prices for darn near everything) what do THEY get out of it?

Do they realize what they're bringing down on everyone else?

Do they even care?

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/dismantling_the_future.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/dismantling_the_future.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:00:56 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Surprising, isn&apos;t it?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><a title="Obama Walks Back Promise On Keeping Your Private Insurance » The Foundry" href="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/19/obama-walks-back-promise-on-keeping-your-private-insurance/">Obama Walks Back Promise On Keeping Your Private Insurance » The Foundry</a>

Less than 24 hours after Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner questioned the veracity of President Obama’s persistent claim that, under his health care proposals, “if you like your insurance package you can keep it”, the White House has begun to walk the President’s claim back. Turns out he didn’t really mean it.

According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.”</blockquote> Yeah - that's pretty much what's expected - but to make it even better... <blockquote>How’s that for change you can believe in?

Depending on how the public plan is designed in Congress, millions of Americans would lose their existing coverage. By opening the public plan to all employees and using Medicare rates, the Lewin Group, a nationally prominent econometrics firm, has said that the public plan could result in 119.1 million Americans being transitioned out of private coverage, including employer based coverage, into a public plan. With employers making the key decision, millions of Americans could lose their private coverage, regardless of their personal preferences in this matter.</blockquote>Hope and change, baby.  Hope and change.

Hope the change isn't going to be something we can't live with, hope we'll be able to roll things back in the '10 and '12 elections.  Because the way things have been going, it's going to be difficult to recover.

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/surprising_isnt_it.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/surprising_isnt_it.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:42:19 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>If you&apos;re looking for news from Iran,</title>
         <description><![CDATA[You may have oticed the coverage is getting a trifle sparse.  That's because of (a) a communications blackout and (b) the expulsion of darn near all Western journalists and (c) a clampdown on internet activity (which I realize is a subset of (a), but what the heck.

If you're looking for info - <a title="TehranBureau.com (TehranBureau) on Twitter" href="http://twitter.com/TehranBureau">TehranBureau.com (TehranBureau) on Twitter</a> is still updating.  Also, their <a href="http://tehranbureau.com/">main site</a> has a good bit of information.  Plus, phone lines still work - which means faxes are still possible, so check out the <a href="http://iranfax.org/">IranFax</a> sites on <a href="http://iranfax.wordpress.com/">occasion</a>.

Plus, <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/">Ace of Spades</a> has updates.  Things are a real mess over there -  but just because there's no news doesn't mean nothing is happening...

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/if_youre_looking_for_news_from.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/if_youre_looking_for_news_from.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:12:00 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>When the Doc knocks your plan...</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><a title="Obama's Doctor Knocks ObamaCare - Forbes.com" href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/obama-doctor-knocks-obamacare-business-healthcare-obamas-doctor.html">Obama's Doctor Knocks ObamaCare - Forbes.com</a>

David Scheiner, an internist based in the Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park, has a diverse practice of lower-income adults from the nearby housing projects mixed with famous patients like U.S. Sen. Carol Mosely Braun, the late writer Studs Terkel and, most notably, President Barack Obama.

Scheiner, 71, was Obama's doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House; he vouched for the then-candidate's "excellent health" in a letter last year. He's still an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but he worries about whether the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress will actually do any good, particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care," Scheiner says.</blockquote> I'm pretty sure he doesn't.  But that's not really an issue, is it?   Like it or not, Obama's going to try to ram through HIS ideas, no matter the cost.

We've elected a king - or someone who would be king if he could.  I imagine things will get worse before they get better.

J.


]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/when_the_doc_knocks_your_plan.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/when_the_doc_knocks_your_plan.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:54:50 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Grab it quick, before the marks catch on!</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><a title="My Way News - Democrats to push through banking overhaul quickly" href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090618/D98T16I80.html">My Way News - Democrats to push through banking overhaul quickly</a>

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic leaders have committed to enacting by the end of the year the biggest regulatory revision to the U.S. financial system since the 1930s - an undertaking so ambitious it has some lawmakers worried about missteps.

"We have to evaluate it, weigh it, slow it down and make sure we do it right," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee. "Because if we don't, we will pay dearly."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was expected to outline the administration's plan on Thursday before the Senate panel and the House Financial Services Committee.</blockquote>"Because if we don't, we will pay dearly."  Like we aren't going to be paying dearly NOW?  

It makes me wonder just what the hell they're playing at.  Do they see the economy as a shiny toy they can disassemble, throw the parts in a  bucket, and rebuild later if the whim strikes?  Or something they can just chop chunks off of and expect things to work better?

They need to stop meddling with it, give it a chance to stabilize and, if need be, heal.  But you know the thing that really scares me about this article? <blockquote>The proposal was well-received among Democrats on Capitol Hill, who said it would prevent another round of bank bailouts and protect consumers from predatory lending practices.

"We regard this as very pro-market," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who chairs the House Financial Services Committee.  "Unless you have investors that are well-protected, you don't have a market."

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said there would be "some debate," but "I think we're all seeking the same results."</blockquote> And what's that, Sen. Dodd?  You in as an autocratic aristocrat, with the peasants properly kowtowing to your whims?  

That Barney Frank thinks this is a good idea pretty much guarantees it isn't.  I hope it fails.

But did you ever notice the irony of having government pass laws creating a bureaucracy that's going to be doing something it already had a system in place to do? 

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/grab_it_quick_before_the_marks.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/grab_it_quick_before_the_marks.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:22:21 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>And for a bit of humor...</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<a title="YouTube - World's Shortest Slasher Flick" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1_NY4n2rg0&feature=related">YouTube - World's Shortest Slasher Flick</a>

Oddly enough - it's a commercial!

J.


]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/and_for_a_bit_of_humor.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/and_for_a_bit_of_humor.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:54:32 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>I haven&apos;t been posting much on Iran...</title>
         <description><![CDATA[There's too many other sites like <a title="Gateway Pundit" href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/">Gateway Pundit</a> that have been covering what's going on there.

But what the heck, I'll put in my 2 cents worth...

Simply?  It's a mess.  You've got two candidates fighting it out - literally.  Ahmadinejad's no prize at all - but the other guy's record's pretty iffy also.  Either way, the real control resides in the mullahs over there - whoever ends up as President will still be their mouthpiece.

And I wonder when the Iranian people are going to realize that?

Now - some are criticising Obama on his lack of a forceful response... but I'm thinking he's taking the right tack on this.  They don't need distractions at this point, and anything he'd come out with would be seen as (a) the public policy stance for the US and (b) something for the current regime in Iran to rally the people against, and (c) a real break from his usual rabid avoidance of making any hard decisions.

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out and who ends up in charge.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the people deciding the mullahs would make decent hemp-supported streetlight decorations, for those jokers have been nothing but bad news for Iran for the last three decades.

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/i_havent_been_posting_much_on.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/i_havent_been_posting_much_on.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:12:10 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Power grab?  Or wise management?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><a title="Obama Proposes New Agency to Police Lenders, Protect Consumers - Political News - FOXNews.com" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/obama-proposes-new-agency-police-lenders-protect-consumers/">Obama Proposes New Agency to Police Lenders, Protect Consumers - Political News - FOXNews.com</a>

WASHINGTON -- Setting up a certain fight with big business, President Obama is proposing a new regulatory agency to police lenders and protect consumers in credit, savings and other banking transactions .

The consumer agency and a newly empowered Federal Reserve will be two of the central elements of a broad overhaul of the financial regulatory system that the president will announce on Wednesday, officials said.</blockquote>The way the government's been going, I find it hard to believe they're actually looking to the long run.  Instead, it seems much more like a "Let's grab what we can while we can" sort of smash and grab, like you'd see in thugs looting a jewelry store in a mall then running out.

But wait - it gets worse.<blockquote><a title="Sources: Senate Health Overhaul Costs Hit $1.6 Trillion - Political News - FOXNews.com" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/sources-senate-health-overhaul-costs-hit-trillion/">Sources: Senate Health Overhaul Costs Hit $1.6 Trillion - Political News - FOXNews.com</a>

Jolted by cost estimates as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Democrats agreed Tuesday to scale back planned subsidies for the uninsured and sought concessions totaling hundreds of billions of dollars from private industry to defray the cost of sweeping health care legislation.

At the same time, key Democrats disagreed openly among themselves over a proposed tax on health insurance benefits to pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured.</blockquote> Nice to see even DEMOCRATS are saying the spending is too much.  

Now if they'd just act like they believe it.

J.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/power_grab_or_wise_management.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.rustedsky.net/2009/06/power_grab_or_wise_management.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:50:13 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
