Ed Brayton responds to Krauze and Sternberg
Ed Brayton responds quite ably.
Posts
Quote of the day
8 hours ago
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Ed Brayton responds quite ably.
Kodak: Winds of Change
It definitely shows a company willing to acknowledge and poke fun at its past mistakes.
(Hat tip to Dave Palmer on the SKEPTIC mailing list.)
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Seasons Greetings!
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that the United States is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
(From mlaw.org.)
American financial scandal
Washington Post, Sunday, December 24, 2006; B06
The largest employer in the world announced on Dec. 15 that it lost about $450 billion in fiscal 2006. Its auditor found that its financial statements were unreliable and that its controls were inadequate for the 10th straight year. On top of that, the entity's total liabilities and unfunded commitments rose to about $50 trillion, up from $20 trillion in just six years.
If this announcement related to a private company, the news would have been on the front page of major newspapers. Unfortunately, such was not the case -- even though the entity is the U.S. government.
To put the figures in perspective, $50 trillion is $440,000 per American household and is more than nine times as much as the median household income.
The only way elected officials will be able to make the tough choices necessary to put our nation on a more prudent and sustainable long-term fiscal path is if opinion leaders state the facts and speak the truth to the American people.
The Government Accountability Office is working with the Concord Coalition, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation and others to help educate the public about the facts in a professional, nonpartisan way. We hope the media and other opinion leaders do their part to save the future for our children and grandchildren.
DAVID M. WALKER
Comptroller General of the United States
Government Accountability Office
Washington
(Hat tip to Sheldon Richman.)UPDATE: At Cafe Hayek, Robert Cote observes in a comment:
"Total liabilities is a red herring. While I share a deep concern for accounting and deficit, your totalling liabilities without also anticipating revenues is misleading. Besides, a huge component of those liabilities are entitlements; medical and retirement that I know for sure I'll never see. If I'm not going to see any then they aren't ruly liabilities now are they?"
UPDATE (January 17, 2006): Ed Brayton has chimed on on this subject.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Which historical lunatic are you?
Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.
Like John Wilkins and Afarensis, I got matched with Joshua Norton.
I was glad to make this match, since I've actually been interested enough in him as a historical figure to read his biography (and you can find some references to him on my discord.org web page).
Tagged with a meme
- Grab the nearest book...
- Name the book and the author...
Florence King, Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady (I just finished reading it a few days ago).
- Turn to page 123...
- Go to the fifth sentence on the page...
- Copy out the next three sentences and post to your blog...
I might have been attending an expensive private academy instead of a public school; there were only eight of us in the class--the minimum for forming a class--and all of us were girls. We began each class with a pep rally. "Mesdemoiselles, levez-vous!" the teacher would say, and we would rise and sing "La Marseillaise".[I've dropped the "tag three more folks" part...]
Friday, December 22, 2006
FCC Indecency Rules
UPDATE (June 4, 2007): The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in Fox Television Stations v. the FCC, and the FCC has decisively lost. Adam Thierer points out how the case could pave the way for completely removing the FCC's authority to regulate content for indecency. Susan Crawford reports on the content of the decision in the form of a letter to the FCC.
UPDATE (April 28, 2009): The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 2nd Circuit in a 5-4 ruling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
