A Bear Market

… for some Bull:

Anyone who was a founding member at 1 dollar has now lost 90% of their investment.
Tough noogies for them.
In other news, Zimbabwe dollars are still selling for higher value than CCX CFI’s on Ebay.
I wonder if this fellow might have to drop his price for the domain name? Maybe he’d take a barter deal for some CCX instruments?


Things don’t look good
for Carbon Credits … or for Hockey Sticks.

If you value free speech …

… then get on over to BCF and do your part.

The CHRC has mounted a Kamikaze effort to defend the odius Section 13 (1). It is imperative that we ask those organizations who support 13 (1)’s repeal to seek Intervenor Status in the upcoming judicial review of Warman v. Lemire .

Do your bit, write the organizations listed below, where appropriate ask if they plan to seek official status at the judicial review, offer to assist if at all possible with a donation. Nag Harper, nag Nicholson nag your MP, nag the members of the Justice Committee. Send a letter to the editor of your local daily, or write your favourite columnist.

The 2016 Me Olympics

In a failed attempt to sway the the IOC’s selection committee into awarding Chicago the 2016 Summer Olympics, which went instead to Rio de Janeiro (see Paul’s vid below), the ever-grinning Barack Obama landed in Copenhagen yesterday to deliver a four-“I” plea:

“I’ve come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reasons I chose Chicago nearly twenty-five years ago – the reasons I fell in love with the city I still call home.”

Michelle Obama plied the “wife of I” gambit:

“I was born and raised on Chicago’s South Side, not far from where the Games would open and close,” she said.

(….)

Michelle Obama talked about her late dad who suffered from multiple sclerosis.

Alas, someone in Brazil’s delegation once lived in Rio, and had a great-uncle with angina.

The umbrella vs. the (coming) mushroom cloud?

Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post:

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

— French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom…

…Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused…

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ‘spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”..

John Robson in the Ottawa Citizen:

…the American president, on the weekend, spoke of sanctions as an alternative to diplomacy rather than a component of it. As for Frederick the Great’s “diplomacy without force is like music without instruments,” it’s a tune they cannot carry.

Last Thursday, the hapless Gordon Brown uttered two revealing fatuities. First, “The level of deception by the Iranian government and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments will shock and anger the entire international community.” Second, there is “no choice but to draw a line in the sand.”

By “the entire international community” he means not actual governments but high-minded post-modern liberals like himself who think words are deeds and therefore use them in highly inappropriate ways. For instance calling vacuity “pressure.”..

…The Iranian government is building nuclear weapons so it can blow the Jews off the face of the earth, and our leaders have neither the spine to act nor the wit to perceive their own shameful paralysis. It’s that bad.

Like this?


18th March 1940: British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940) walking across the Horse Guard’s Parade, Buckingham Palace on his seventy-first birthday. Photo: Davies/Topical Press Agency/Getty Images.

And there’s a Canadian connection.
X-posted.

Digging and Filling Ditches

“Shovel ready project” before stimulus money
Road%20before.jpg
And after stimulus money
Road%20new.jpg
Now one would think, one WOULD THINK that the classic;
“If the government pays workers $30,000 to dig a ditch, but then another $30,000 to refill that same ditch back up, it records $60,000 in GDP.”
would show that it is improvements in standards of living that matter, not bean-moving-accounting tricks to boost GDP figures.
But when you’re Barack Obama and the representative whose district this “stimulus” package was in (Nancy Pelosi), don’t confuse us with facts and common sense and just plain FREAKING REALITY.
You can thank the Major for doing the research and homework on this one. I strongly advise pouring a drink before reading it because it is just gut wrenching the waste he’s found.

Reader Tips

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite
Radio
. Tonight, for your delectation, here is an apparently rare
version of Chilliwack performing Crazy Talk in 1974 (2:51).

Paraphrasing from the associated blurb…

This track was issued in Canada in November of 1974 on Goldfish 110, and was produced by Terry Jacks. Compared to the LP version and the mix available on CD, this version is overdubbed with extra drums, guitars and effects, parts of Bill Henderson’s vocal are redone, and editing was done to rearrange the order of the verses. It has never been included on an album or reissued on CD.

Note that the she in this song is a dangling pronoun reference,
which is always good for a bit of philosophy, or at least fun.

Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.

“What a concept! Guess what? Not government-run”

Universal health care that works:

Swiss Health Care Thrives Without Public Option

…along with lower costs and the freedom to choose doctors come bigger bills for individual patients. On average, out-of-pocket payments come to $1,350 annually…

…Then there are the hefty prices of the insurance policies themselves, which can top 14,000 Swiss francs a year for a family of four in Zurich, or about $13,600…

Per capita income in Switzerland is some US$41,000, so for that family the yearly insurance total of $13,600 is not that great a burden–remember only a very small portion of their taxes is going to health care (I’m ignoring other payments).

While in Canada that family of four represents some C$22,000 in health care costs–70% of that is public. Per capital public expenditure here is some $3,700 ($120 billion divided by 33 million). So taxes of $15,000 are needed for that family. Bingo! Roughly the same total for the four people (ignoring private expenses in Canada) but through insurance for the Swiss–and they have a much better system.

Now this methodology is hardly precise. But clearly Canadians pay a whole of taxes to get a system that is getting ever closer to the breaking point. Yet we are at the same time prevented from buying insurance for privately-provided “essential” services (you’re allowed to do that in Britain, which really helps). Why the insistence on doing something poorly through government when, as the Swiss show, it can be done very well privately?

The thing is Canadians won’t expand their consciousness beyond fixating on the evils of the dastardly American system. Look east, people. Earlier:

Health care debate: Inconvenient facts

Conservatives kiss health care reform good-bye

Update: Canadians might also look at the, gasp!, French and Dutch systems. Rip off those flippin’ blinkers (I imagine the Québécois do know something about France, which might just explain some of their greater willingness to accept private provision of services than most of the RoC, B.C excepted).

Reader Tips

Welcome to the Wednesday (EBD) edition of SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, we feature a musical tribute to the northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, which together comprise the region known as New England.
Please don’t feel embarrassed on the performer’s behalf about his evident insecurity; he will surely, over time, lose his stage fright and gain more self-confidence.
Here then, without further ado, painfully-introverted Massachusetts native Jonathan Richman forces himself on stage to sing his self-penned tune I Love New England.
He’ll be fine. Follow his lead and force your Reader Tips onstage in the comments.

Mickey I.: The voice no longer worth leaning forward to hear

Further to Publius’ excellent post,

Whisper the Iggy

one hasn’t seen the Mickster actually make a clever point since his effort at risorgimento. The sad thing is that before his return he did seem to have “principles” of an intellectual sort. Now he has none. He’s degraded himself in a most pitiful fashion. Earlier at Daimnation! (link city alert!):

The Second Coming of Mickey I. is in…

X-posted.

The Final Battle: Circling the Wagons Around Rosedale

The federal Liberals’ chief organizer in Quebec recently resigned after Michael Ignatieff overruled his decision about a particular nomination battle. Denis Coderre, who is still sitting as the Liberal MP for the Montreal riding of Bourassa, made clear that his decision to resign was propelled by his anger about the Toronto-centric nature of Ignatieff’s inner circle, which Coderre referred to as the “Toronto palace guard.”

“The message delivered by these recent events is as follows: ‘If you want to have your way in Quebec, you just have to bypass the Quebec officials in the party, going instead to the inner circle from Toronto.’ “

Torontonian Susan Delacourt, writing in The Toronto Star, suggests – cue the tiny violins – that Toronto is being singled out in a way no other city would be, and that a federal leader with an inner circle comprised of people almost exclusively from, oh, say, Calgary, would not face such criticism:

“It is hard to imagine anyone taking to a podium to denounce the preponderance of Montrealers working in politicians’ offices – a fact of life stretching back decades in Ottawa – or Calgarians, for that matter.”

Actually, what’s hard to imagine is the possibility that there would ever be a preponderance of Albertans in any federal leader’s inner circle; it’s easy to imagine the widespread denunciations that would surely follow. Here’s a – non-imaginary – statement from Michael Ignatieff himself:

“(Stephen Harper) is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks.”

Take special note of his use of the word “and,” through which he makes clear that he is referring not just to “Calgary think tanks” but also to the the city – the people – of Calgary. Fortunately for Ignatieff he can get away with it, because he and his inner circle are not formed or shaped by any particular regional ideology or viewpoint. Yes, make no doubt, my friend, that as Michael Ignatieff spelunks further and further into the political catacombs of the downtown GTA – where the CBC bunker also happens to be located – he will find not a regional ideology, but rather this great country we call Canada.
(*cough cough*)

The New York Times: That’s just your opinion

On September 10th a now-famous video was released showing an Acorn official explaining to a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute how to submit fake tax forms and how best to procure illegal benefits for some “very young” girls they wished to bring in from another country to work as prostitutes. Within hours the story was all over the blogosphere and Fox News; the following day a flood of news outlets including the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, ABC News online and even MSNBC began covering the story, and over the next several days the Boston Globe and others weighed in.
The uber-Democrat New York Times, though, remained silent as the days passed; even when the US Senate voted to cut off all federal funding to Acorn they didn’t see fit to mention it. Finally, six days late, the NYT published an article headlined “ Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn.” The piece fairly screamed between the lines of resentment at having to publish a story so unhelpful to the Obama Administration, and began not with the gist of the story but with editorial context meant to mitigate the damaging information they were about to reluctantly provide:

“For months during last year’s presidential race, conservatives sought to tar the Obama campaign with accusations of voter fraud and other transgressions by the national community organizing group ACORN, which had done some work for the campaign…”

This tone continued: “Conservative advocates and broadcasters were gleeful”; the Acorn tape was “the latest scalp claimed by those on the right who have made no secret of their hope to weaken the Obama administration..” “Conservatives believe that they have hit upon a winning formula for such attacks: mobilizing people to dig up dirt, trumpeting it on talk radio”; a quoted member of a liberal think tank said conservatives were using “McCarthyite” tactics and “harping on minor failings and distorting records.” “This is dangerous stuff,” he added.
Several days ago, after prolonged criticism of the NYT, Public Editor Clark Hoyt finally gave the reason for the NYT’s blackout: turns out they simply hadn’t been watching the news:

“Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was ‘slow off the mark,’ and blamed ‘insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.’ She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media.”

Ah, that explains it: the Senate’s decision to cut off funding to Acorn was actually just an assertion made by members of the “opinion media“, and the statements coming out of the mouths of Acorn officials on that tape were merely the opinions of conservatives.

Navigation