Climategate - the science is not settled...

The blubberman (well, he calls himself "Whaleoil" so...), and a great range of other right whingers (by my count the first 60 at least of the sites picked up by Google on the topic if you put 'NASA Bounoua "Forrest Hill"' as the search) have picked up on a recent paper from NASA. You can find the NASA summary of the article here.

In the Blubberman's case, he has lighted his confirmation bias on an article from The Register. So, nothing original there, I guess.

But not only is the Blubberman selective in what he has clipped from The Register article, The Register itself has been equally selective in its extract from the NASA synopsis of the Bounoua and Hill paper.

As a direct instance, the following paras have been omitted completely, with the last para quoted below pointing out the limitations of the research to date.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate

So, Blubberman, your usual half truths and truthiness huh!

On Right Wing Politics in New Zealand -

The most “right wing” of NZ’s right wing political parties is a small group represented in Parliament by 5 MPs. The party stems from what was originally called ”Association of Concerned Taxpayers”; now known just as ACT.

The party was started by a group led by two of the more right wing movers out of David Lange’s Labour (left Wing) government by then Finance Minister Roger Douglas and Minister of Rail (as I recall) Richard Prebble.

The party’s representation in Parliament is based entirely on the fact that the Leader (the Rhinohide) is an electoral MP (as distinct from List). That, and the fact that they polled nationally some 4% of the total vote at the last General Election has given them 5 places around the table and a good part of the current Government.

I must be honest. I am not in any way a supporter of ACT. Realistically they are no more than a bunch of opportunistic self-promoting wallies – but then isn’t that what “politician” means? To give a f’rinstance their current Policy on the shape and form of the government of NZ -

Constitutional Framework
Action: Strengthen. Adopt Tax Payers Bill of Rights. Pass Regulatory Responsibilty Act. Return to privy council. Hold referendum of MMP voting system.
Benefit: Makes democracy more democratic. States spending capped, taxes kept low. Hard to make bad laws like the EFA. Free access to best judicial minds from a population of 58 million. People get long-overdue say on how they like MMP.

Sounds great, huh! So, let’s take a look at the “Action” –

“Adopt Tax Payers Bill of Rights” – whatever that means. Go find out if you want. I think that they favour flat tax rates.

“Pass Regulatory Responsibility Act.” Interesting one this, given that they have just supported the introduction of a Bill to “fast-track” the work needed in Christchurch (post-earthquake), which said Bill includes extensive Regulatory powers to the Ministers involved. Essentially, this gives the Government the right to make fiat law, within the structures of the Statute that will come out the other end of the process. So, there y’go. Instance one of great words being spoken by weasels.

“Return to privy council”. No I don’t think that they mean a convocation in the gents at the top end of The Terrace. I think they mean “Privy Council” – an august and highest Court in Britain. So they want to sell justice as part of our silverware, like so much else of NZ that they want to part with.

“Hold referendum of MMP voting system”. Now, I have to admire their political chutzpah on this item. I am quite certain that a good part of their party support comes from those who (like my #1son) believes that MMP is death and destruction to democracy and wishes for a return to FPP. The smile on my face as I type that is broad because, if it were not for MMP, ACT would have at the very most one member in the House. He would not hold anything like a balance of power. He would be a dim shadow of the last two (and quite missed in some respects) “third party members” under FPP, Bruce Beetham, and Gary Knapp (who I knew well and who had the most inappropriate nickname) who both originated in the (equally marginal) Social Credit Party. They were preceded by one Vern Cracknell (also SC), who achieved a heck of a lot for his electorate; primarily because the government of the day wanted to get the electorate back into their own (National Party) hands. Beetham and Knapp were nowhere near as successful.

“…democracy more democratic”? If the Rhinohide had his way… well just look at his approach to the Ministry he holds; autocratic and dictatorial.

“State spending capped…” See previous paragraph.

“Hard to make bad law like [Electoral Finance Act]”? How can I say this gently Rhino. Look in the mirror. What do you see? There is no question in my mind that you and ACT would not differ from any other parliamentary party in power. If expediency calls, then the law will be made; with or without consultation; with or without advice. That is the nature of politics in this country. No matter how you might try to argue otherwise, that is a truth that applies to your Party as much as any other. “Why” will be explained below.

“Free access to the best judicial minds…” Hey folks, this is the party that promotes and praises “user pays” and capping government spending. But when it comes to Justice, they propose that NZ should free-load on the British Justice system? Tui billboards spring to mind – “Yeah, Right!”

“…get a say on how they like MMP”? OK Rhinohide. I for one luvit! Why? Because it puts idiots like you and Boscowen and Garrett in Parliament where you can show the world just what “Right Wing Politics” really means.

That comes by way of introduction.

The present government is propped by two minor parties, ACT being one and Maori Party the other. I feel sorry for the Maori Party; they have been well and truly dicked by the Nats, and for some strange reason seem totally unaware of the fact. Perhaps it has something to do with the anaesthesia of political power? That aside…

During this past six months, ACT has been showing signs of suffering the kind of damage recently visited on Christchurch. Liquifaction of support, crumbling brickwork, failing infrastructure; and none of it due in any way to the impact of the outside world. Well, I must agree that the Rhinohide will blame “the left-wing dominated media” for his woes (well, I mean to say, it worked for George, why not me). In truth, that is about all he has to work with.

It began with the dust-up between Rhino and Heather (Pass The Duster) Roy. The detail goes a lot further down, I suspect, than the latter having her Ministerial mail read by the former. It ended with one of Rhino’s mates – Boss Cawan – replacing Roy as Deputy Leader of the Party.

Now that might seem a little bit trivial, but what has become apparent is that the Parliamentary Caucus comprises two clear camps – Rhino, Boss and Garrett on the one hand and Douglas and Roy on the other; 3-2 in favour of Rhino.

Now in the past week, another of the number has come under fire.

It transpires that ACT’s spokesman on Justice, “three-strike” law, and strong supporter of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, David Articulated Garrett has a conviction for assault ($10 contributed to His Majesty King Tupou IV of Tonga and conviction) and has appeared before a NZ Court on charges (which I hasten to say did not result in penalty or conviction despite his admission that they were true) of obtaining a Passport under the name of a dead infant – as done by The Jackal and, more recently, MOSSAD.

So now the Rhino has a problem, a veritable dilemma.

On the one hand he has an MP with “shadow Ministerial” responsibilities including one of the more important pieces of recent Government legislation who has a minor criminal conviction plus some quite idiotic law-breaking history.

However, if Rhino were to “do the right thing” and shed that said MP, then the next in line (Articulated Garrett being a List MP) is very likely not a Rhino supporter. Then, suddenly, the vote in Caucus becomes 2-3.

Oh, Dear!!! The next few weeks promise to be interesting indeed.

On Predatory States...

One of the distinct drawbacks of a very wet weekend is that it allows far too much time for thinking. To be honest, this and another topic have been exercising the ol' probligo grey mush for the past few weeks, several different drafts have been written, considered and discarded in that time.

The first in these topics is the vexed question of Israel.

I am NOT going to debate it here, again, ad nausem...

Israel, as far as I am concerned, deserves everything its enemies can provide it. "Deserves" simply because of its attitude, its approach, and total lack of humanity. So too, come to think of it, do some of their friends.

Israel's enemies too, deserve the consequences of much of what happens.

As I have said previously so many times, there is no right in the Levant. There is only wrong.

In this latest stoush, there are two things which could be done, both of which would do nothing more than illustrating the futility in trying to resolve the problem.

The first is the idea of an independent inquiry into the Israeli navy boarding vessels in international waters. the thought that an enquiry could be led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer (past NZ PM, international law expert etc etc) did have its attractions. He is a man of great honesty, of great ability and a very judicious mind.

But for all the good that such an enquiry would do, Geoff, I am sure that the UN could find it a whole lot cheaper and a danged lot more effective to give you and several assistants a good long vacation somewheres a lot more pleasant. One thing is certain, any inquiry not carried out by the Israelis will carry as much weight for the Israelis as the whistling in the wind of a skeleton on the gibbets at Notting Hill.

The second idea was proposed by a Turkish MP; Deputy Prime Minister if I recollect. He proposed that the Turkish government should make a similar delivery of aid to Gaza, carried by the Turkish Navy.

Now this has very considerable potential in my mind. It would rank with NZ sending its navy to Mururoa in protest against the French wiping their nuclear arse-n-all in our back yard. But just think about it. I am sure that the Gazan government members could leave their rocket launcher alone for long enough to send an invite to the Turks for a goodwill naval visit to a Gazan port.

In reality, I suspect that some "very good friends" ( of both Turkey and Israel) will pursuade them that it would not be a good idea, and nothing will come of it.

What is far more likely is that the more unruly elements in Lebanon will once again make that small provocation that results in Israel losing its military nuts in both South Lebanon and Gaza.

ps yes there have been several minor edits to this - all on the one day.

The Predatory US...

Had a weekend up in Opo, where lack of 'net access - and lack of desire as well - prevented the recording of a number of events ranging from weather and the trivial to the more important.

The weather was crap, the trivial was finding a very pissed cockroach on the dregs of a kahlua drink.

The more important was the news that some petty little bureaucrat was criticising as "potentially illegal" the US use of UAV's in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

First thing to be said is that at last the US military machine and administration is showing a measure of strategy and sense.

The so-termed "war against terror" is and has never been anything other than an "assymetric war". That fact alone should have ruled out the use of the traditional "send in the US Cavalry". However the US, led by its cowboy administration, preferred the idea of the cavalry charging over the hill to save the day; or to up-date the image somewhat, "sending in the Marines" to secure territory by charging over the countryside.

Despite the fact that some 30% of the casualties to the Predator raids have been civilians, the numbers of non-combatants killed have been measured in tens rather than hundreds.

The "excuse" that the US did not have this technology available washes not. How long did the US have the U2, before the US public knew of it (courtesy of the Russians)? What other technologies already exist within the US armoury that are also unknown?

No, this is and always has been an assymteric war.

This is how you fight it. What a shame it took eight years, two Presidents, and thousands of dead to realise that.

What price salvation now, mate?

I was doing a quiet browse around the Wonderland yesterday lunchtime and followed a couple of threads which arose from a story I had come across about 6 months back. It was a story of, not by, Geoffery Chaucer - the man best known for "The Canterbury Tales" and "The Parliament of Fowles". Among the early links thrown up by google was this - to a discussion of the "The Pardoner's Tale".

Having so much wealth to distribute among the faithful, the Church used to insure its repartition through means of certain people who went about, authorized by official letters, offering to good Christians some particle of the heavenly wealth placed at the disposal of the successors of St. Peter. They expected in return some part of the much more worldly riches their hearers might be possessed of, and which could be applied to more tangible uses than the "treasury." The men entrusted with this mission were called sometimes quæstors, on account of what they asked, and sometimes pardoners, on account of what they gave.

Does not the name of these strange beings, whose character is peculiar to the Middle Ages much more than that of the friars, or any of those whom we have just studied, recall the sparkling laugh of Chaucer, and bring back his amusing portrait to the memory? His pardoner describes himself:

"Lordyngs, quod he, in chirches whan I preche,
I peyne me to have an hauteyn speche,
And ryng it out, as lowd as doth a belle,
For I can al by rote which that I telle.
My teeme is alway oon, and ever was;
Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas."

In the pulpit he leans to the right, to the left, he gesticulates, he babbles; his arms move as much as his tongue; it is a wonder to see and hear him.

"I stonde lik a clerk in my pulpit,
And whan the lewed people is doun i-set,
I preche so as ye have herd before,
And telle hem an hondred japes more.
Than peyne I me to strecche forth my necke
And est and west upon the poeple I bekke,
As doth a dowfe, syttyng on a berne;
Myn hondes and my tonge goon so yerne,
That it is joye to se my businesse.


* * * * *

I preche no thyng but of coveityse.
Therfor my teem is yit, and ever was,
Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas."

and again -

These quæstores, or quæstiarii as they were officially called, were, so says Boniface IX., speaking at the very time that the poet wrote his tales, sometimes secular priests and sometimes friars, but extremely impudent. They dispensed with all ecclesiastic licence, and went from hamlet to hamlet delivering speeches, showing their relics and selling their pardons. It was a lucrative trade, and the competition was great; the success of the authorized pardoners had caused a crowd of interested pardoners to issue from the schools or the priory, or from mere nothingness, greedy, with glittering eyes, as in the "Canterbury Tales": "suche glaryng eyghen hadde he as an hare;" true vagabonds, infesters of the highroads, who having nothing to care for, boldly carried on their impostor's traffic. They imposed it, spoke loud, and without scruple unbound upon earth all that might be bound in heaven. Much profit arose from this; Chaucer's pardoner gained a hundred marks a year, which might easily be, since, having asked no authority from any one he gave no one any accounts, and kept all the gains to himself. In his measured language the Pope tells us as much as the poet, and it seems as though he would recommence, feature for feature, the portrait drawn by the old storyteller. First, says the pontifical letter, these pardoners swear that they were sent by the Court of Rome: "Certain religious, who even belong to different mendicant orders, and some secular clerks, occasionally advanced in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, affirm that they are sent by us or by the legates or the nuncios of the apostolic see, and that they have received the mission to treat of certain affairs, ... to receive money for us and the Roman Church, and they go about the country under these pretexts." We find in the same manner that it is Rome whence Chaucer's personage comes, and he is always speaking against avarice:

"a gentil pardoner


* * * * *

That streyt was comen from the court of Rome


* * * * *

His walet lay byforn him in his lappe,
Bret-ful of pardoun come from Rome al hoot."


* * * * *

"What! trowe ye, whiles that I may preche
And wynne gold and silver for I teche,
That I wil lyve in povert wilfully?


* * * * *

For I wol preche and begge in sondry londes,
I wil not do no labour with myn hondes,


* * * * *

I wol noon of thapostles counterfete
I wol have money, wolle, chese, and whete."

OK, so let us Tardis forward about 600 years...


Over the past few weeks there has been an increasing raruraru in the media here following the walkout of Pastor and a good part of his congregation from the Brisbane (QLD) branch of the Destiny Church.

Since then it seems everyone and their grandmother's dog has been on the bandwagon, culminating in this gem -

Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki says his $1 million-plus home and $75,000 car are "not much" of a reward for decades of clean and righteous living and taking his message to the masses.

In an interview with broadcaster Willie Jackson on Radio Live yesterday, Bishop Tamaki, who was accompanied by church spokesman Richard Lewis, said his expensive car and $1.25 million home at Maraetai in Manukau City were just reward for living right and working hard.

He said he had never been on a benefit, nor had it been in his mind that ministering to the church, which has a membership of 7000, was a vocation people took to make money.

"My wife and I have lived right, we don't drink, smoke, we haven't wasted our money, we have got some wisdom behind us," he said. "Shouldn't we have a house and a car by now?"

Asked if his approach was too extravagant and lavish and if his dress style was too brazen, Bishop Tamaki said: "I kinda like me.

"I figured really early in life I'd better get to like me first or it would be an ugly situation," Bishop Tamaki said.

"But that's not pride. I'm confident. At the same time, I'm honoured and I'm humbled to be used of God in this measure."

But a former high-ranking Destiny member told the Weekend Herald he and others left because people were hearing less about Jesus Christ and hearing more about the church's leader.

The man, who has since joined another church in Auckland, had a close association with Bishop Tamaki but left after the two clashed over their theological differences.

"You want people to focus on the content of what you're saying, so when the finance, the glitz and the lifestyle take precedence over what you are saying, all people are seeing is the bling," he said.

"What they didn't hear much about was about being good, caring Christians and sure, the pastor shouldn't be riding a Raleigh 20 bike, but there's a fine line and if you want to reach more people you have to tone things down.'

The man said he could understand his former colleague Pastor Andrew Stock's reasons for walking out of Brisbane's Destiny Church this week allegedly because of concerns over the church's covenant.

This whole story has at its base the practice of tithing members.

Nothing has changed in 600 years?

Now I must, must, must go read "The Parliament of Fowles".

I just can not help wondering...

... how many of those who promote the "conspiracy" about Obama's birth certificate would recognise the very direct parallel with those who promoted the "wag the dog" conspiracy that Bush and co engineered 9/11.

Sad, really!

Swine flu...

I’m sorry, but when I come across any headline in ol’ Granny Herald (page 3) like the one announcing that a scientist in the US has “discovered” that the Swine Flu bug originated in NZ it just makes me cringe more than somewhat.



A quick probligo review…



Scientist makes announcement that SF originated in NZ.

What is the basis for this “discovery”? Something to do with the fact that the virus carried by a group of Auckland students (of whom 3 were actually infected and a further 4 “developed symptoms”) had close DNA links to the outbreak in Mexico. Now, the student party had been in Mexico for a couple of weeks practising their Spanish in amongst with the locals; right?

And, I just guess that it is totally logical that one of their number (remember 3 came back with SF-like symptoms after 2 weeks in Mexico) had caught a stray virus from the biological warfare division of ESR in Wellington; right? Before the group left for Mexico; right? So we can safely assume that that one student has infected some one hundred or so people in a wide area of Mexico; right? And even more in the US as a result!!



Not just that, but in the intervening month or so, there have been another 9 or 10 potential cases of SF in NZ. That means that NZ must be a real hot-bed of infection arising from the biological warfare division of ESR. Not only that, but NZ has been actively toting the disease into Australia!! So effective has that campaign been that there are well over 1,000 confirmed cases of SF in Australia, a cruise liner tied up for several days with a quarantine flag flying (that at least was fact), and the locals have started beating up on Indian students (perhaps mistakenly thinking that they are Maori).



In the meantime, the scientist who started this whole miasma has suddenly recanted; raising the obvious questions – why did he say it in the first place, and why has he recanted?

An American scientist says he was misquoted as saying the swine flu virus originated in "either New Zealand or China".

The director of Louisiana State University's division of biotechnology and molecular medicine, Gus Kousoulas, had been quoted as saying: "We think it [swine flu] began in New Zealand or China."

But he subsequently told the New Zealand Science Media Centre: "The statement was based on early phylogenetic analysis of available sequences. It was misquoted.

"There is no basis currently to support a New Zealand origin. While we still do not know the true origin, a US or Mexico origin is more likely," he added.

Equally obvious as the questions is the answer – he has been paid his 30 pieces of silver by ESR and their friends. This germ warfare experiment in Wellington is so highly secret, and so dangerous, that even the Americans are sworn to highest secrecy from Obama on down.



Well, I had to get him into the picture somewhere given the extreme US rights panic and dismay that the guy might be in the process of turning the US into a success; sorry, successful communist state. I am not going to debate that one here simply because it ranks as much as the idea that ESR are responsible for SF.



Mind you, if the ESR is looking for experimental subjects there are a number of people around here who would sing their praises – starting with the Jonkey – if they were to approach Dr Richard Worth and offer him his 30 pieces for a good ol’ dose of the SF.



A good start to the foil hat season, I have to say.

Legitimate protest? Or mob rule?

Auckland has its “Harbour Bridge”, a miniscule equivalent of the Golden Gate, or perhaps one of the Manhatten Bridges.

For the past few years there has been a campaign to provide for bicyclist and foot access to the bridge. A proposal for a maintenance access to be upgraded for the purpose was declined as too expensive – around $1.5 million and the security (of users) too difficult to provide. There was then, and still is from time to time, considerable heat in the debate.

Today there was to have been a “protest walk” from Auckland to the North Shore. The requisite applications were lodged and declined. So, the protesters lined up as arranged and eventually “broke through” police there to stop them.

The news this afternoon has the organizer and leader of the protest telling Auckland that while they are “sorry” for any inconvenience caused to people using the Bridge legitimately, “it was all the fault of the Road Transport Authority for preventing the legitimate and right to protest by walking the bridge".

But NZTA says the protesters will not get what they want any sooner.

Mr McDonald says there are plans to provide access for bikes and foot traffic, but it will be 30 years before it is complete.

This is what the same section of the bridge (looking in the opposite direction) looks like at rush hour...

giving some idea of the magnitude of the "problem". (the news photo from today is looking back down the four lanes on the left side of the bridge in the second photo.)

OK, so normally I would side with "legitimate protest". This time, no.

What is more, I do not particularly care if they do have to wait about 30 years. There are far more important public transport projects to be undertaken before the Bridge is opened to foot and cycle traffic. Projects such as; light rail to the Airport, reinstating rail access to Fergusson Wharf, public transport that does not presume everyone works in the CBD.... And perhaps by the time we are through the next 30 years we will have run out of oil.

So is it legitimate protest? Legitimate use of civil disobedience?

Or is this another instance of mob rule?

What can I say?

One might remember from last year the fulminating over the totally ridiculous, unilateral, and idiotic little piece of legislation dreamed up by Auntie Helen; the one that masqueraded under the title of the "Electoral Finance Act". As a piece of political suicide it was perfect.

It does, however, have its humourous side. I missed this one, my wife drew it to my attention, so it must have been a particularly bad day for me...

Thanks to the Herald for the photo, taken without permission...

The story is that Mr Green is an operatic singer, a teacher of music, politically active, and a member of the Green Party. His hedge, in its sculptured form, has been there for some years. But that did not stop some little minded idiot from referring it to the Electoral Commission as an illegal electoral advertisement.

Faced with ruling on the somewhat bizarre case of a green hedge pruned by a Green Party member called Mr Green, the Electoral Commission has, for want of a better word, hedged its findings.

The commission has made no determination on a pre-election complaint from a member of the public that the hedge on the Auckland property of opera singer Richard Green constituted an election advertisement under the since defunct Electoral Finance Act.
...
His hedge is no ordinary hedge. He has pruned it to display the word "Green" in two-metre high letters - something the singing teacher says he has done for the past eight years to make it easier for students to find his house on what is a busy street.

On politically motivated personality assassination...

TF has posted up another of “those” emails. Fascinating one this time that quotes (almost in full) an “article” published by a gent who I will not honour with further publicity here. Well, that may be a little difficult as I am going to link to a couple of his ‘net pages...

Here is Snopes on the email that TF has publicised.

Now, Snope’s pages are protected so I can’t quote directly but they do link to the article written by Sam Vaknin. It differs little from the email quoted by TF. Actually, if you read it it could equally if not more so be applied to the immediate past President and most particularly to his cohorts of loving supporters. Remember all of the “left-wing-media-bias” wailing from the likes of the right?

At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc.

And again...

Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression.

Sound familiar?

And how about this?

The narcissistic leader fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.

Remember the "I talk to God every night"? Though honest reflection would apply that fragment more to Cheney than to GWB. After all he was the one that "denied" himself the earthly pleasures collected through the good offices of Halliburton Corp.

“Fascinating” stuff!! What sport! What brilliance!!

Until, as Snopes suggest, you dig a little deeper.

The contents of this website are not meant to substitute for professional help and counseling. The readers are discouraged from using it for diagnostic or therapeutic ends. The diagnosis and treatment of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder can only be done by professional specifically trained and qualified to do so.
The author is NOT A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL.

In other words, the validity of the email, the original article, are of as much validity as the mindless prognostications of the probligo.

Does that mean I should be famous?

How the banking system "works"...

Well, I guess that sometimes things just fall into my lap. Seems too that this is one of those occasions.

First, the outgoing (jumping if not pushed) “bankers” apologised to a Parliamentary committee. Interesting that the only printed reports exclude one of the more pertinent points. At the end of the tv report on the late news last night, each of the four was asked what banking qualifications they had. One claimed a Harvard degree in business administration should be qualification enough, one was a lawyer and the other two claimed (I think, as the responses were somewhat muffled) “experience” as their primary qualification.

But it gets worse. The “whistle-blower” is someone who does get it. And don’t for a moment think that the processes involved and the analysis in the US would be any different – they would not.

A sampler –

In my view, as an experienced risk and compliance practitioner, the problem in finding the real cause of the banking crisis is being made more complex than it needs to be.

...

- But let’s start with the cause and this fairly obvious proposition: even non-bankers with no “credit risk management” expertise, if asked (and I have asked a few myself), would have known that there must have been a very high risk if you lend money to people who have no jobs, no provable income and no assets.

If you lend that money to buy an asset which is worth the same or even less than the amount of the loan and secure that loan on the value of that asset purchased and, then, assume that asset will always to rise in value, you must be pretty much close to delusional? You simply don’t need to be an economic rocket scientist or mathematical financial risk management specialist to know this. You just need common sense. So why didn’t the experts know? Or did they but they carried on anyway because they were paid to do so or too frightened to speak up?

...

- In simple terms this crisis was caused, not because many bright people did not see it coming, but because there has been a completely inadequate “separation” and “balance of powers” between the executive and all those accountable for overseeing their actions and “reining them in” i.e. internal control functions such as finance, risk, compliance and internal audit, non-executive Chairmen and Directors, external auditors, The FSA, shareholders and politicians.

He’s been reading my mail!!

- When I was Head of Group Regulatory Risk at HBOS, I certainly knew that the bank was going too fast (and told them), had a cultural indisposition to challenge (and told them) and was a serious risk to financial stability (what the FSA call “Maintaining Market Confidence”) and consumer protection (and told them).

- I told the Board they ought to slow down but was prevented from having this properly minuted by the CFO. I told them that their sales culture was significantly out of balance with their systems and controls.

- I was told by the FSA, the Chairman of the Audit Committee and others that I was doing a good job.

...

after I was dismissed and to prove just how seriously HBOS took risk management, I was replaced by a new Group Risk Director who had never carried out a role as a risk manager of any type before. The individual concerned had primarily been a sales manager and was a personal appointment of the CEO against the initial wishes of other Directors

...

- I am quite sure that many many more people in internal control functions, non-executive positions, auditors, regulators who did realise that the Emperor was naked but knew if they spoke up they would be labelled “trouble makers” and “spoil sports” and would put themselves at personal risk.

Read the whole thing – it makes the blood curdle.

And, as I said at the start, do not imagine that there will be any difference if the truth ever emerges from Merrill Lynch or any of the other American banks being bailed out.

Let’s start the process by having all of these (hopefully ex-) employees forfeit their personal stock holdings to the government.

On "near death experiences"...

There is a small item over at TF's place about traffic offences, speed limits, red-light cameras etc.

I dropped the note that (amongst other relative but more mundane things) I have had three "near death" experiences while driving. I thought that I would give a brief description of each, not to brag at all about any aspect but to illustrate just how much on a knife edge we are on the roads.

First, going sideways on a gravel road in a Mini (the original 1960's style). Cause? Poor observation on my part. We had been following another car on a gravel road for some 20 minutes. I knew the road well and knew exactly where I could get past and out of the dust. The problem was that I did not notice as I pulled out to overtake that there was a ridge of gravel about 8" deep up the middle of the road - left by the road grader. Minis being what they were, the front wheels went through the ridge but the back wheels didn't. Going sideways at 60mph within 2 feet of another car is not exciting...

Second, losing traction at speed on a lifting corner. You know the kind of thing, you are going round a bend where the road is going uphill then as you go round the road starts going downhill. Cause - stupidity, driving far too fast for the corner.

Third, skating through four lanes of heavy traffic with no rear suspension. Cause - bad luck. Driving at 65mph and I hit a 3/4" square bar, probably about 2ft long. The bar got tossed into the rear suspension, bending the lh suspension arms into a "U" shape and causing the car to turn violently to the right (we drive "Keep left" so guess where I was heading). I managed to get the car to turn left when I had already crossed one lane of opposing traffic - there was no centre barrier - and heading back to the correct side of the road. Someone was looking out for me as I passed into the only gap in the opposing traffic and out again without hitting anything or anyone. I think that TF would say "Praise the Lord" but I was just far too busy getting the car onto the side of the road and stopping it to think much past the original Aussie/Kiwi cuss-word...

Get Rich Quick Scheme No.673...

I opined several times during the past few days that the only failing of any economic system is the people in it.

As an illustration (linked through header) -

Wellington City Council staff were not required to remove a large, unidentified lump of greasy substance from a south coast beach today -- locals did it for them.
The lump apparently washed up at Breaker Bay during the weekend and once word got out that it could be valuable ambergris -- an excretion from whales that is used to make perfume -- locals started pillaging it.

...

"We went out there this morning and there were people sort of lunging at it with spades and sharp implements trying to chop pieces off so they could make off with it and make their fortunes," he said.

"Whether people are now going to try and pass it off on TradeMe as highly valuable ambergris remains to be seen."

However, the lump was cylinder shaped as if it had been manufactured and the general consensus was that it was in fact lard or cooking fat.

'Nuff said...

A weekend roundup...

The weekend started with Herald running a series of articles on the probablility of a "dirty election". Not that the election might be won fraudulently (in the direct sense) but the emergence of the "dirty trick brigades". Think, if you are American, of the SWIFT boat saga in the last elections or Richard Nixon and Watergate for extreme parallels.

Rochelle Rees' background with the Labour Party was revealed by bloggers yesterday after news stories she was behind a ploy to ensure Mr Key's website link was the first to appear when people searched for "clueless" on Google.

Yesterday, National leader John Key said it was another example of petty attacks on him by Labour.

Link to the Labour Party or not is not the issue here. The real issue is the denigration of the electoral process.

The second theme was run by the business pages of Sunday Star Times. The headline "Gluttons Table Set by Central Banks" was a good hook to a Gareth Morgan analysis of the weeks' crises in the international finance markets.

If you think that global financial "crises" seem to be happening with increasing frequency, congratulations - you're right.
...
It was back in 1996 that Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who was really at the centre of the liquidity flood, declared the sharemarket was suffering from "irrational exuberance".

The market ignored his warning and it wasn't till two years later, in 1998, that it suffered its first setback. When hedge fund manager Long Term Capital made some wrong bets and was staring down the barrel at bankruptcy, the US central bank decided this institution was too big to fail and organised a consortium of investment banks to absorb its assets.

The Long Term Capital episode was the first big indication that the financial system was getting sick. If a single institution that was only four years old was too big to fail without bringing the US financial system down, then something was wrong with the system. But it would get worse.

Nice to have the 20/20 now, but let's follow a bit further...

Oh oh! Here's the problem. Central banks, and the Fed in particular, have become so addicted to the need for economic growth each year that they have sacrificed a tenet of sound central banking. It seems they no longer care whether lending by banking is within prudential bounds.

Indeed, it is their effective prudential supervision that they have sacrificed at the altar of this newfound, but ultimately false, belief - that you can have continual economic growth and low inflation. This shows a surreal confidence in the private sector's ability to constantly deliver sufficient productivity gains so that inflation isn't an issue, plus deliver more income to everyone in the economy year after year.

Not covered here, but a strong echo of the 1929 crash - which was fuelled in part by the fervor for stock - any stock - as long as it earned more than the money borrowed to buy it.
Also in the same section this morning was this news item.

Now I spoke of "derivative trading" in my last bit on the subject.

In the past two weeks billions of dollars have vanished as the shares in Australia's Macquarie Group have fallen 45 percent, America's Morgan Stanley 47%, Goldman Sachs, 35 percent.

Their plummeting stocks appear to be following other financial giants into the abyss, as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and HBOS suffered such meltdowns they were forced to sell to rivals.

Bear, which hit trouble in March, was acquired by JP Morgan Chase in May. Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday and its core businesses were acquired by British bank Barclays the following day. Merrill Lynch is now owned by Bank of America after watching its shares dive 38% in less than a week. HBOS went to fellow British bank Lloyds TSB on Thursday after its shares fell 40% in a matter of days.

The screaming headlines say these institutions were victims of a financial meltdown as their dangerous punts on speculative debts turned septic.

There's another story and it's not pretty either.

Sydney-based Macquarie Group believes it is the victim of a concerted campaign to manipulate its share price and Australia's market regulator has started an inquiry into allegations that short-sellers who profit from falling shares are spreading false rumours.

Now hang on a sec!! What's this? Spreading false rumours to create loss in value on specific stocks?

An inquiry immediately announced by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission was echoed by New York attorney-general Mario Cuomo, who announced on Thursday a probe into possible illegal short selling in financial stocks.

"This investigation will not only encompass short-selling of Lehman Brothers and AIG but also short-selling in other companies that may be occurring, like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs," he said.

In Australia, short-sellers are required to report their positions to the stock exchange daily. "Clearly some haven't been doing that," said one market source.

OK, so what is "short selling"?

TO "short sell" you first borrow someone else's stock. You sell it on the open market. You then wait for the value of that stock to fall. Then you buy back the same stock - at hopefully a considerable gain. The apparent risk is that the stock does not fall - which is where the dirty tricks brigade come in to play.

But, it gets worse -

In practice, in Australia only "naked" short sales are being reported to the exchange - these are deals where the short seller has not yet borrowed stock. A legal ambiguity means "covered" shorting, where the seller has borrowed shares, is not reported to the ASX. As a result, no one knows how big those positions are.

Say WHAT? Selling stock you don't own, or haven't even borrowed yet?

Executives at Bear Stearns believe they were the victims of just such a calculated attack by short sellers. In a detailed exploration of the fall of Bear published last month, Vanity Fair journalist Bryan Burrough uncovered signs of deliberate efforts to undermine confidence in the firm.

He quotes a senior executive at a rival firm: "If I had to pick the biggest financial crime ever perpetuated, I would say, Bear Stearns."

Proving someone was behind the Bear collapse, or any other share price death spiral, is tough. The firms that are targeted are vulnerable precisely because they are highly leveraged and it may be easy for a short seller to point to evidence supporting their negative view of a stock.

You betcha it would be. Super tough.

The article concludes -

CRACKDOWN

UNITED STATES: September 18 - New York attorney-general Mario Cuomo announces probe into alleged illegal short selling of shares in giant investment banks Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and insurer AIG. Short selling is a share trading strategy where a trader borrows shares and sells them on market in the hope they can be bought back more cheaply later. September 17 - Securities & Exchange Commission bans "naked" short selling, in which traders sell stock without first arranging to borrow it.

UNITED KINGDOM: September 18 - The Financial Services Authority bans all short selling in financial companies until January 16. It said anyone creating a net short position in a financial sector company is "engaging in behaviour that is market abuse [misleading behaviour]."

AUSTRALIA: September 17 - Australian Securities & Investments Commission announces extension of inquiry into market manipulation and false rumours, citing specific alleged false rumours against Macquarie Group.

Anyone hearing stable doors being slammed on empty stalls?

And Roundup? Very popular here in the agricultural community for some years. There was a bit I caught during the the week on the use of glyphosphate on roses imported from India to stop their propagation in this country, and just how easy it was to do just that.

It just gets sadder and sadder...

This actually appeared as a small para side-page in Granny Herald on Saturday. This is the first mention I have found on the net...

U.S. to Sell Bunker-Busting Bombs to Israel

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz


(IsraelNN.com) The U.S. government has agreed to sell 1,000 satellite-guided "mini-bunker-buster" bombs to Israel. Meanwhile, a U.S. Defense Department official on Friday hinted at informal nuclear defense arrangements with Israel.

Boeing's Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-39 bomb, weighing in at just 113 kilograms (250 pounds), was developed for penetrating fortified targets located underground. The U.S. decision to sell the munitions to Israel was somewhat of a retreat from a refusal last week to supply the IDF with the more powerful two-ton GBU-29 bunker-busters, despite earlier commitments to do so. In 2005, the Bush administration authorized the sale of 100 GBU-29s to Israel in a proposed deal worth around $30 million. The currently approved deal will be worth a total of $77 million.

Hey, now let's just measure these two deals up.

Deal 1 - 100 2000lb bombs for $30M = $150 per lb
Deal 2 - 1000 250lb bombs for $77M = $308 per lb

Hey, Israel!!!! You is getting done! Like a dinner!!

And let us not forget the reason for the sale either...

On the (late) expiry of a political "career"...

Y'know, if ever you needed to feel sorry for a politician - if ever you could feel sorry for a politician - it would have to be Winnie the Pooh in his increasingly vain (and that is a good word to use) attempts to stay on top of the water. There was a time when people believed (I am NOT one of this group; my true opinion of Winnie the Pooh would be at best libellous) that the man could walk on the water and notr even get his feet wet!!

His appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs raised a few eyebrows, but, apparently in Winnie's universe that appointment is not "a bauble of state".

Let's try some tryptichs of what is going on at the moment...

"vile, malevolent and wrong" - Winnie's thoughts on the SFO's investigation of donations to NZ First.

"bluster, bombast and bullshit" - the Pooh defence.

"fear, loathing and panic" - Auntie Helen's "behind the doors" view.

"due, care and deliberation" - the public face of Auntie Helen.

"bubble, toil and trouble" - the three blue witches (for those who do not follow think "The Scottish play", a blasted heath, the downfall of Macbeth, the jonkey, the rhino hide, and the english master).

"I know nothing!" Winnie the Pooh's second line of defence.



Any other contributions welcome... :D

The pre-election warm-up...

Sometime in October or Early November, Auntie Helen will (unless in the interim she can by some miracle change our "Constitution") be taking a limo trip to Government House (official residence of the GG) to tender her resignation as PM and to announce the intention for the General Elections to be held on a date not later than two months hence.

As in 1939, the troops are already gathering and lines being drawn in the sand. As in 1939, the propaganda machines are cranking up. As in 1939, the deep covert structures are being put in place.

But that is as far as I can take that parallel to WW2. Doesn't really work for me either... but to pass onward.

Already shots have been fired between most parties and NZ First. Of course, as Winnie is a coalition partner to both sides, both are being very careful to pull their shots. Auntie Helen aiming very short of the mark, and the Jonkey aiming far to the left in the hope that Auntie Helen might cop a stray one. The only one aiming for Winnie is in fact the YellowJacket and he can afford to as ACT's only claim to fame at the moment is Rodney the YellowJacket himself. As is his wont, Winnie is fighting fire with fire.

On the left side of the street, the government seems to be keeping its head well below the horizon. Now that is not a position that Auntie Helen would enjoy; it tends to limit the view of the outside world (that is now less important, has been for at least the past two years...), and it tends to leave the jacksie open for well-aimed boots. Thus far, she and the party have been lucky in that the boots have been flailing in the other side of the ruck with the inexperience of the Nats tight five clearly being put on show.

And that takes us across the street to the Jonkey's lot. They had a party last weekend, with much back-slapping and pre-match ra-ra-ing in the hutch. Trouble was that a weasel got into the hen-house and several of the roosters got bitten. Great series of stories for TV3 - whoever their informant might be.

On this last point, this is the one thing about NZ politics of which I have a serious dislike. I have been pointing the bone in recent times at the US Presidential race, and in particular some of the more dishonest (as I see it) tactics being used by both sides. It is shaping up little different here as well. Last time it was the Exclusive Brethren and their relationship with Brash Donnie that lost the election for the Nats, and resulted in the ignominious disappearance from the scene of Donnie himself.

This time around, the Nats are being very careful to NOT release any policy. That way, they can not be accused of having been given a mandate to do "A" when they end up in government and do "B" (the exact opposite to "A"). Oh, the lollies are already under the Christmas Tree. We can see the packet, but at the moment it is still in the plain brown wrapper so we can't tell at the moment whether we are being offered toffees, acid drops, or condoms.

Some of the other presents have been half unwrapped:

Like the half billion dollar broadband implementation. Will I see that in Opo? Not likely. Most up there use cell-phones rather than landlines so the minimum 500 line exchange probably does not exist.

Like the multi-billion dollar investment in "infrastructure". Well I mean to say... what the F*** is "infrastructure" when a politician uses the word. I suspect it likely means the same as "restructuring" in Iraq - a snack-line for the buddies, servings in direct proportion to their party contributions.

But the most entertaining, the most enterprising of the lot, is some young wally who bought his way into the Party and proceeded to "interview" some of the hats who were floating around. What he asked was quite "innocent", relating to the three major points of difference between Nats and Labs; nuclear issues, family support, and the sale of public corporations. Three of the senior hats (so far) have ended up on TV3 as a result. Quite embarrassingly so in the case of the Englishman. Flustered rustlings of secret papers in the wings behind the Jonkey as he heehawed his way through an on-the-spot interview.

Amazing what can be done these days through the medium of the humble cellphone.

On the principles of greed...

The first rumbles were back in May 2005, prompting the probligo to put this out.

Now at that time, and the reason for selecting “Four Prominent Bastards”, the big fear back then was the impact of Freddie Mac (yes I mis-typed “Mae” at the end) on the investment community, and the likelihood of the collapse of both Freddie and Fannie.

Then in December last it was raised again, following the Bush “rescue plan”.

Now as I understand it, the idea of the rescue plan was to “support” those who were in danger of default on their loan, with the intent of protecting the investments made to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

But in fact, the malaise runs much deeper, as can be seen in this country.

In the increasing “investment products” of recent times come the “Portfolio Investment Entity” (PIE). Now these little sweeties for the hopeful rich are the product of a tax law change effective 1 October last year. Essentially they differ from the more traditional Unit Investment Funds in that the capital gain in a PIE is not taxed, whereas the capital gain is a fundamental of the UIF and hence is taxable as “income”. From Herald –

What is PIE?
A PIE (Portfolio Investment Entity) is a tax effective managed fund. They range from "on-call" cash management accounts to funds that invest in assets such as fixed interest, property and shares. PIEs do not tax capital gains on New Zealand and most Australian shares (as is the case with conventional managed funds), and tax on income from New Zealand dividends and cash investments is capped at 33 per cent (falling to 30 per cent on 1 April), or 19.5 per cent if that is your marginal tax rate.
This means that by investing in a PIE, effectively investors receive more interest. If a return of 10 per cent is taxed at 39 per cent, the tax-paid return is 6.1 per cent. If that same return is taxed at 33 per cent, the tax paid return is 6.7 per cent.

So, what is the connect between Freddie, Fannie and PIE? In very large part it is the nature of the backing investment for the deposit to the fund. I invest $100k in a PIE at 9% interest. The PIE invests my money in suitable securities that will cover the 9% interest plus a suitable “administrative income” (which I would pay as part of the cost of belonging to the UIF). So, it has led to promotions like the following –

What is it called and what sort of savings product is it?
UDC Finance's Term Maximiser Fund is a managed fund under the new portfolio investment entity (PIE) tax rules.

What is the company behind it?
UDC is a subsidiary of the ANZ National Bank. It is New Zealand's largest finance company, and lends solely on plant and machinery.

Who is the target market?
UDC says it suits people in retirement, nearing retirement or saving for a particular goal.

What return does it offer?
Its opening rate is 9 per cent annually, with interest paid quarterly. For investors on a 39 per cent marginal tax rate, this is the equivalent of 10.68 per cent under the PIE regime.

...and so on

How strong a stomach do you need for it?
Mild. This term fund doesn't have a Standard & Poor's rating. However it invests in UDC's debentures, which have an investment grade AA rating from Standard & Poor's.

OK!! Now that really is interesting; for this reason. I found this Mary Holm column dating from 2003 while looking for (confirmation bias warning) the line of connection between the various elements that need to be covered.

Q. Re borrowing at 6.1 per cent and investing at 8.28 per cent - interesting opinion from you in last week's column, in that you seem to be advising us to pay scant attention to 23 of the Herald's 24 investment adverts!

However, Mary, please don't resign on principle, as we always enjoy your words of wisdom.

On a more serious note, we would appreciate your comments on our approach to offerings with G6 ratings.

We're in our late 70s, with well over half a million in savings etc.

About 50 per cent is in Kiwi Bonds, 40 per cent is in the main banks, and 10 per cent is in G6-type investments.

Those include $50,000 in capital secured deposits with Capital & Merchant, covered by Lloyds of London Mortgage Indemnity and Mortgage Impairment Insurance Policies.

We two antiques hope you will advise us. Stay young!


A. I'm trying to. But then I get letters like yours that seem to imply that I should write with half an eye on the advertisers. That's enough to age any journo! Seriously, though - and not because of any pressure from anyone - I'm not dismissing investment in higher-interest products.

But they are considerably riskier than banks. Go in with eyes open.

For the benefit of those who don't know what a G6 rating is, Bondwatch is a service which rates finance company investments - from G1, safest, to G8, riskiest.

Of a G6 rating, Bondwatch says: "Ability to meet current obligations dependent upon favourable economic and/or business conditions. Concerns about security over the longer term."

I should add, though, that your Capital & Merchant capital secured deposits pay lower interest than the "investment deposits" discussed last week. So they are almost certainly somewhat safer.
...

As I said last week, I know little about the company. But I wouldn't put that much in any single company of that type.

Sure, the wording about Lloyds, insurance and so on sounds comforting. But I don't know what it means. Do you?

Too often, when things have gone wrong with similar investments in the past, words like that - along with "secured" and "guaranteed" - didn't amount to much.

Sage advice, especially when lined up against the findings of the various Receivers and Liquidators appointed to the failures in the “investment industry”.

But the link I wanted is proving elusive. At least one of the failed investment companies was in fact fronting for another, parent company, and the investments of the funds received were almost exclusively in that parent company. The specific example I was seeking was a company seeking investments in NZ, offering interest at 8% interest plus. The investments were passed to the parent, an Australian property development company which had several times (as I hear it) been running very close to the wind with marginal developments in Queensland and NSW. The Receiver, appointed during last year, has announced that investors will get back only 40% of their investments and likely less than that.

Now the link between Mary Holm’s article, failed investment companies, through to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, and finally to PIEs is the nature of the backing investment to my money. Go back to the Herald article that defines PIE and you will see that they are “funds that invest in assets such as fixed interest, property and shares.” And the question has to be asked “What fixed interest, property and shares?” In the case of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae it is becoming clear that they were being regarded as lenders of last resort; they picked up loans which no one else was prepared to take on board, but which had in some way (second, third and fourth mortgages perhaps?) been secured against property.

At this point one has to wonder just what manner of need or desire would have prompted a person to take out secured borrowing against their property. Was it for the initial property purchase? Or was taken out subequently as security for the purchase of a car, or boat, or holiday? Even worse, was the secured borrowing taken as a margin investment in an opportunity that offered a higher rate of return; borrow at 8% and invest at 10%.

So, a bank holds a “fixed interest” paper with the property as security in the form of a second or third mortgage. The true property value might cover 105% of the first mortgage. What a risk if the second mortgage defaults! Particularly if the second mortgage is for 20% of the property value! The borrower might well be able to cover the repayment at present but come two or three years’ time things can change dramatically. So the bank hedges its risk by selling the mortgage paper to one of its personal investment arms – the PIE system – or Freddie or Fanny.

Without belabouring that any further, there is another solution. Perhaps the loss from the failed “investment” should head in the other direction; not to the mum and dad investor at the bottom of the PIE, but to the originator of the investment paper, the ones who (please pardon the pun here) are holding the crust.

If a bank, or finance house, has made a bad investment that is where the risk should return. It should not (as has been the case thus far) be the mum and dad investors who have been (quite unknowingly) sold a PIEce of worthless paper.

If a retailer has sold a $5000 plasma screen to a family with an annual income of $30,000 then it is that retailer who accepts the loss when the HP falls over. That gives the retailer some specific rights, and he also takes the very specific risk of the failure. If the HP is factored to a finance house, that is done most oftenly “with recourse”.

I will leave that thought hanging. It gives good indication of the failings I see in Freddie and Fannie. It gives a good lead to what I see as the solution for their failing. From Forbes –

NEW YORK (Thomson Financial) - U.S. stocks fell further Friday after U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson indicated that a bailout of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was not on the horizon.

...

'Today, our primary focus is supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form as they carry out their important mission,' Paulson said in a written statement. 'We appreciate Congress' important efforts to complete legislation that will help promote confidence in these companies.'

Fannie Mae was last down 43% at $7.55 and Freddie Mac was shedding 47% at $4.27, paring earlier losses to $6.68 and to $3.89, respectively.

And in the matter of "greed", Al the Old Whig I think it was put out the idea some while back that "greed is good". Al, I agree. But at some point one has to accept the inevitable bout of indigestion.

Given the eternal, unending...

... peregrinations through that most fundamental law of US democracy otherwise known as the the Second Amendment, I recommend this line of antique and up-to-the-second weaponry.

My personal favourite just has to be The Goliathon 83 Infinity Beam Projector

"Bad karma"

I can not help but wonder if, as Sharon Stone is recorded as having said, the Chinese earthquake was the consequence of "bad karma" then what is she going to say about the floods in Cedar Rapids, and the earthquake in Japan.

And please, TF, do not get me wrong. I have as much sympathy for the victims of these latter examples of nature at work as I had for the earthquake in China.

This is about the colossal stupidity of that Stone(d) woman.

Nothing else.