I received a reply to a post I put up so I thought I should clarify a few things. Here is this persons reply followed by my response.
Anonymous said...
If you are so concerned about people spreading the Gospel then why are you advertising a movie made by a militant ATHEIST! Atlas Shrugged and Ann Raynd are strongly ATHEIST!!
Wow notice all the exclamation points? Calm down zealot, love thy neighbor.
First of all Ayn Rand has been dead since the 1980's so she did not make this movie, but yes it is a movie based upon her book Atlas Shrugged. I would guess that you have not read nor have seen the movie. Knowing that Ayn Rand was an atheist one can most definitely see her make a weak case against the existence of God. However the movie makes no reference to these parts. A believer, especially one that can tolerate other views, can read the book and strongly relate to the characters ideas of free-market capitalism, individualism, and an out of control, far-reaching, over-bearing government, one that is destroying our way of life here in America.
I dare say that the only type of free-speech that you are concerned with is the kind that protects you and what you believe is right and that you would be quite comfortable silencing people of a different religion, people of no religion, and atheist. That is not the America I am after or know. Would you have silenced Thomas Paine who, at best was a deist, but dramatically helped this country in the Revolutionary War.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself," Thomas Paine.
Let us remember that our forefathers came here escaping religious persecution for their beliefs. Would you bring it back, persecuting those that do not agree with you? Our ancestors were not free to practice their religion how they saw fit. Now you want to return to a society where free speech, and freedom of religion is no more?
What I am concerned with is "every form of tyranny over the mind of man," (Thomas Jefferson). That means the tyranny of you and your intolerant views as well as those forms of tyranny that seek to silence all free people. "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it," (Thomas Paine).
So should I be concerned with a cop or a state that seeks to silence a man that is preaching the bible when he has every right to do so? Yes I should be concerned about that. It is a violation of our LAW. We have or had free speech in this county. We could peaceably assemble. I am sure you are against what happened to that man preaching the Bible also. Should I be concerned with a cop or a state that seeks to silence a man that is preaching atheism? Yes I should be concerned about that also. Would you be? Or would you be glad the state shut him up? The atheist had every right to free speech that the religious man had and every right to peaceably assemble. Sorry that you want to interpret the LAW in your own little intolerant way but that is not the basis of a free society, maybe you should wise up.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
I will not apologize for the fact that I can tolerate all forms of free-thinking individuals even the ones I do not agree with. I am quite aware that some peoples rigid belief systems require them to shackle and silence others but I stand for every ones freedoms, liberties, and every ones own individuality. Maybe you want to silence me also for the fact that I put up a blog post advertising the movie Atlas Shrugged I don't know. Maybe instead of posting a quite ignorant comment you could petition Google to shut down my site or write your congressmen to try and shut me up, the way you want to silence all that do not agree with you.
"Almighty God hath created the mind free," Thomas Jefferson once said. "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."
I hope that this answers your question as to why I am so concerned about someones rights being violated and why I am also tolerant enough and smart enough to support a book and a movie that I can comprehend without shutting my brain off when I get to a part I do not agree with. Perhaps you should bust out of the little bubble you have created for yourself and support and stand up for all people's freedoms, religious or otherwise, or one day you may find yourself persecuted and shackled. It only takes one step into tyranny before the other foot follows and then where do you think you and your religion will be when the state, once again, tells you what you should believe. Where will you run to then? What country? I myself want to save this country of ours and see it restored to its former glory because America is still the last, best hope on the globe.
"...it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson
I will pray for you and your understanding of true freedom.
God Bless
Friday, April 29, 2011
Just Another Cop Story To Make You Sick
Man Arrested Outside Calif. DMV for Reading His Bible Out Loud
When Mark Mackey, a member of the local Calvary Chapel, showed up to the DMV office in Hemet, CA on February 2, he had a goal: read the Bible and introduce those waiting in line to the “gospel of Jesus Christ.” And for about 15 minutes he was successful. That is until a California Highway Patrolman took the Bible from his hands, arrested him, and told him he was guilty of preaching to a “captive audience.”
And it was all caught on video:
According to reports, Mackey wasn’t the only one arrested. Pastor Brett Coronado and Edmond Flores, Jr., who were accompanying him, were also taken into custody.
A press release from the group Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is representing the men in a lawsuit, says the men were arrested for “impeding an open business” under Penal Code Section 602.1(b). But, the group calls the justification under that statue a stretch.
“The charge of ‘impeding an open business’ was enacted in large part to protect businesses against protestors who block the doors of an open business,” the release says. “At the time of the arrest of these men, the DMV was closed, and they were standing at least fifty feet away from the entrance.”
“This is an abuse of power on the part of the CHP,” said Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “The arresting officer could find no appropriate penal code to use when arresting these men. The purpose of the arrests appears to have been to censor them.”
A closer look at the Penal Code Section 602.1(b) may, at first glance, cause even more outrage for those such as Monk who are upset by the case. According to section c-1 of the law, the “preachers” would seem to have been okay if they were from a union:
(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.
But according to Lt. Michael Soubirous of the San Gorgonio Pass CHP Station, which oversees the Hemet area, the men were arrested because they didn’t have a permit.
“The whole thing is, when you go to the DMV, you are not allowed to do any other business,” Soubirous told the Banning-Beaumont Patch. He said a permit is required on state property for anything other than the intended business.
“We would have granted them a permit to go out and preach,” Soubirous explained. “There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest…We don‘t inhibit people’s right to free speech–we regulate it.”
Despite the arrests, the district attorney has not pursued criminal charges. Still, Advocates for Faith and Freedom is going through with its lawsuit.
“Whether this was an intentional violation of our clients’ constitutional liberty or whether this was an act of ignorance on the part of the CHP, (I'm guessing the later), this lawsuit is important in order to preserve the liberty to read the Bible aloud on public property without fear of criminal prosecution,” said Robert Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom.
From The Blaze.com: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-arrested-outside-calif-dmv-for-reading-his-bible-out-loud/
When Mark Mackey, a member of the local Calvary Chapel, showed up to the DMV office in Hemet, CA on February 2, he had a goal: read the Bible and introduce those waiting in line to the “gospel of Jesus Christ.” And for about 15 minutes he was successful. That is until a California Highway Patrolman took the Bible from his hands, arrested him, and told him he was guilty of preaching to a “captive audience.”
And it was all caught on video:
According to reports, Mackey wasn’t the only one arrested. Pastor Brett Coronado and Edmond Flores, Jr., who were accompanying him, were also taken into custody.
A press release from the group Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is representing the men in a lawsuit, says the men were arrested for “impeding an open business” under Penal Code Section 602.1(b). But, the group calls the justification under that statue a stretch.
“The charge of ‘impeding an open business’ was enacted in large part to protect businesses against protestors who block the doors of an open business,” the release says. “At the time of the arrest of these men, the DMV was closed, and they were standing at least fifty feet away from the entrance.”
“This is an abuse of power on the part of the CHP,” said Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “The arresting officer could find no appropriate penal code to use when arresting these men. The purpose of the arrests appears to have been to censor them.”
A closer look at the Penal Code Section 602.1(b) may, at first glance, cause even more outrage for those such as Monk who are upset by the case. According to section c-1 of the law, the “preachers” would seem to have been okay if they were from a union:
(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.
But according to Lt. Michael Soubirous of the San Gorgonio Pass CHP Station, which oversees the Hemet area, the men were arrested because they didn’t have a permit.
“The whole thing is, when you go to the DMV, you are not allowed to do any other business,” Soubirous told the Banning-Beaumont Patch. He said a permit is required on state property for anything other than the intended business.
“We would have granted them a permit to go out and preach,” Soubirous explained. “There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest…We don‘t inhibit people’s right to free speech–we regulate it.”
Despite the arrests, the district attorney has not pursued criminal charges. Still, Advocates for Faith and Freedom is going through with its lawsuit.
“Whether this was an intentional violation of our clients’ constitutional liberty or whether this was an act of ignorance on the part of the CHP, (I'm guessing the later), this lawsuit is important in order to preserve the liberty to read the Bible aloud on public property without fear of criminal prosecution,” said Robert Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom.
From The Blaze.com: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-arrested-outside-calif-dmv-for-reading-his-bible-out-loud/
Thursday, April 28, 2011
'Atlas Shrugged' Producer Promises Two Sequels Despite Terrible Reviews, Poor Box Office
The critics are "revitalizing me with their outrageousness," John Aglialoro, who spent $10 million of his own money on the film, tells THR.
The man who says he spent $10 million of his own money to bring Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 to the big screen vowed Wednesday to go through with his plans to make the next two installments, even though critics hate the movie and business at movie theaters has fallen off a cliff.
In fact, said John Aglialoro, the co-producer and financier, it's the monolithic view from critics that say the movie stinks that is motivating him to make Parts 2 and 3, he told The Hollywood Reporter.
And he defended his film Wednesday by accusing professional film reviewers of political bias. How else, he asks, to explain their distaste for a film that is liked by the audience? At Rottentomatoes.com, 7,400 people gave it an average 85% score.
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, though, gave the movie zero stars, and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave it one. A dozen others were equally dismissive.
"It was a nihilistic craze," Aglialoro said. "Not in the history of Hollywood has 16 reviewers said the same low things about a movie.
"They're lemmings," he said. "What's their fear of Ayn Rand? They hate this woman. They hate individualism.
"I'm going to get a picture of Ebert and Travers and the rest of them so I can wake up in the morning and they'll be right there. They're revitalizing me with their outrageousness."
Aglialoro said he had to scale down his ambition for the film to be in 1,000 theaters this weekend, so it will likely be closer to 400. During its opening weekend, the movie took in $5,640 per screen but then only $1,890 in its second. Through Wednesday, the film had grossed $3.3 million since opening April 15.
Aglialoro acknowledged that spending almost no money on marketing and relying almost entirely on the Internet and talk radio -- a strategy he boasted of a week ago -- was ineffective in the long run.
"You really need to spend millions to get the message on TV screens," he said. "If I want Part 2 to open on 1,500 screens, I need to decide if I want to spend $10 million on TV commercials."
He also is considering partnering with a major studio for the next two installments, as he may do for international distribution on Part 1.
He said he's sticking to his plan to release Part 2 on April 15, 2012, and Part 3 on April 15, 2013, though gathering the same talent and crew might be a problem.
"The critics killed it so badly that agents may tell their clients they shouldn't be associated with this thing," he said. "I've got to give it to the critics. They won this battle, but they will not win the war. The message has been told in Part 1, and it will be told in Parts 2 and 3."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/atlas-shrugged-producer-promises-two-182714
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Atlas Shrugged - Now in Theaters
If you wanted to see this movie get up off your butts and go do it. It needs all of our support or it's not going to make it.
A Quote
The past shows unvaryingly that when a people's freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in the silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all.
Richard Weaver, 1962
Richard Weaver, 1962
Free Market, Ya Right
And this is why we are paying $4.00+ for a gallon of gas.
Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans
By Dan Springer
Published April 25, 2011
FoxNews.com
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it’s carrying only one-third its capacity.
“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”
The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes.
“EPA has demonstrated that they’re not competent to handle the process,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “So if they’re not competent to handle it, they need to get out of the way.”
Murkowski supported budget amendments that would have stripped the EPA of its oversight role in Arctic offshore drilling. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.
Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/
Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans
By Dan Springer
Published April 25, 2011
FoxNews.com
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it’s carrying only one-third its capacity.
“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”
The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes.
“EPA has demonstrated that they’re not competent to handle the process,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “So if they’re not competent to handle it, they need to get out of the way.”
Murkowski supported budget amendments that would have stripped the EPA of its oversight role in Arctic offshore drilling. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.
Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/
Monday, April 25, 2011
China Planning on Cutting US Reserves by Two-Thirds?
BEIJING, April 23 (Xinhua) -- China should reduce its excessive foreign exchange reserves and further diversify its holdings, Tang Shuangning, chairman of China Everbright Group, said on Saturday.
The amount of foreign exchange reserves should be restricted to between 800 billion to 1.3 trillion U.S. dollars, Tang told a forum in Beijing, saying that the current reserve amount is too high.
China's foreign exchange reserves increased by 197.4 billion U.S. dollars in the first three months of this year to 3.04 trillion U.S. dollars by the end of March.
Tang's remarks echoed the stance of Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central bank, who said on Monday that China's foreign exchange reserves "exceed our reasonable requirement" and that the government should upgrade and diversify its foreign exchange management using the excessive reserves.
Meanwhile, Xia Bin, a member of the monetary policy committee of the central bank, said on Tuesday that 1 trillion U.S. dollars would be sufficient. He added that China should invest its foreign exchange reserves more strategically, using them to acquire resources and technology needed for the real economy.
Tang also said that China should further diversify its foreign exchange holdings. He suggested five channels for using the reserves, including replenishing state-owned capital in key sectors and enterprises, purchasing strategic resources, expanding overseas investment, issuing foreign bonds and improving national welfare in areas like education and health.
However, these strategies can only treat the symptoms but not the root cause, he said, noting that the key is to reform the mechanism of how the reserves are generated and managed.
Editor: yan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/23/c_13842843.htm
The amount of foreign exchange reserves should be restricted to between 800 billion to 1.3 trillion U.S. dollars, Tang told a forum in Beijing, saying that the current reserve amount is too high.
China's foreign exchange reserves increased by 197.4 billion U.S. dollars in the first three months of this year to 3.04 trillion U.S. dollars by the end of March.
Tang's remarks echoed the stance of Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central bank, who said on Monday that China's foreign exchange reserves "exceed our reasonable requirement" and that the government should upgrade and diversify its foreign exchange management using the excessive reserves.
Meanwhile, Xia Bin, a member of the monetary policy committee of the central bank, said on Tuesday that 1 trillion U.S. dollars would be sufficient. He added that China should invest its foreign exchange reserves more strategically, using them to acquire resources and technology needed for the real economy.
Tang also said that China should further diversify its foreign exchange holdings. He suggested five channels for using the reserves, including replenishing state-owned capital in key sectors and enterprises, purchasing strategic resources, expanding overseas investment, issuing foreign bonds and improving national welfare in areas like education and health.
However, these strategies can only treat the symptoms but not the root cause, he said, noting that the key is to reform the mechanism of how the reserves are generated and managed.
Editor: yan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/23/c_13842843.htm
Dollar Crash
Don't Like a Weak Dollar? Might as Well Get Used to It
By: Jeff Cox
CNBC.com Staff Writer
Weakness in the US dollar, which is causing everything to go up—including gas prices, food and stocks—is unlikely to go away soon as a selling frenzy hits the currency market. The greenback is approaching pre-financial crisis lows and threatening to smash through its all-time low when measured against the world's predominant national currencies.
A combination of factors accounts for the weakness, with the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies, huge national debts and deficits and the consequential possibility of a debt downgrade because of the financial mess in Washington leading the way.
In short, as trader Dennis Gartman noted Thursday, "the rout of the US dollar" is in full effect. "Panic dollar selling is setting in," Gartman, a hedge fund manager and author of "The Gartman Letter," wrote in his daily commentary. "This may carry farther than any of us dream of or, worse, have nightmares of."
Rick Bensignor, chief market strategist at Dahlman Rose in New York, said the dollar index, which measures the greenback against a basket of select other global currencies, has scant technical support "that has any meaning" between its present level and the historical low of 70.70. Some economists believe that a weak dollar is contributing heavily to the surge in prices at the pump, with one speculating that gas could reach $6 a gallon or beyond by summertime, given certain conditions.
Food prices also are on a steady climb higher. In both cases, a weak dollar is at least somewhat to blame as it drives commodities, which are priced in dollars and therefore cheaper and more attractive to speculators in the global marketplace.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42703813
By: Jeff Cox
CNBC.com Staff Writer
Weakness in the US dollar, which is causing everything to go up—including gas prices, food and stocks—is unlikely to go away soon as a selling frenzy hits the currency market. The greenback is approaching pre-financial crisis lows and threatening to smash through its all-time low when measured against the world's predominant national currencies.
A combination of factors accounts for the weakness, with the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies, huge national debts and deficits and the consequential possibility of a debt downgrade because of the financial mess in Washington leading the way.
In short, as trader Dennis Gartman noted Thursday, "the rout of the US dollar" is in full effect. "Panic dollar selling is setting in," Gartman, a hedge fund manager and author of "The Gartman Letter," wrote in his daily commentary. "This may carry farther than any of us dream of or, worse, have nightmares of."
Rick Bensignor, chief market strategist at Dahlman Rose in New York, said the dollar index, which measures the greenback against a basket of select other global currencies, has scant technical support "that has any meaning" between its present level and the historical low of 70.70. Some economists believe that a weak dollar is contributing heavily to the surge in prices at the pump, with one speculating that gas could reach $6 a gallon or beyond by summertime, given certain conditions.
Food prices also are on a steady climb higher. In both cases, a weak dollar is at least somewhat to blame as it drives commodities, which are priced in dollars and therefore cheaper and more attractive to speculators in the global marketplace.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42703813
Buy Buy American Pie
Brett Arends' ROI
April 25, 2011, 7:20 p.m. EDT
IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end
Commentary: China’s economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016
BOSTON (MarketWatch) — The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.
For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.
And it’s a lot closer than you may think.
According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.
Put that in your calendar.
It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in Washington right now. It raises enormous questions about what the international security system is going to look like in just a handful of years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their privileged status as the liabilities of the world’s hegemonic power.
According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fund’s website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy.
Most people aren’t prepared for this. They aren’t even aware it’s that close. Listen to experts of various stripes, and they will tell you this moment is decades away. The most bearish will put the figure in the mid-2020s.
But they’re miscounting. They’re only comparing the gross domestic products of the two countries using current exchange rates.
That’s a largely meaningless comparison in real terms. Exchange rates change quickly. And China’s exchange rates are phony. China artificially undervalues its currency, the renminbi, through massive intervention in the markets.
The comparison that really matters
In addition to comparing the two countries based on exchange rates, the IMF analysis also looked to the true, real-terms picture of the economies using “purchasing power parities.” That compares what people earn and spend in real terms in their domestic economies.
Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and rising.
Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s.
Naturally, all forecasts are fallible. Time and chance happen to them all. The actual date when China surpasses the U.S. might come even earlier than the IMF predicts, or somewhat later. If the great Chinese juggernaut blows a tire, as a growing number fear it might, it could even delay things by several years. But the outcome is scarcely in doubt.
This is more than a statistical story. It is the end of the Age of America. As a bond strategist in Europe told me two weeks ago, “We are witnessing the end of America’s economic hegemony.”
We have lived in a world dominated by the U.S. for so long that there is no longer anyone alive who remembers anything else. America overtook Great Britain as the world’s leading economic power in the 1890s and never looked back.
And both those countries live under very similar rules of constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and the rights of property. China has none of those. The
Victor Cha, senior adviser on Asian affairs at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me China’s neighbors in Asia are already waking up to the dangers. “The region is overwhelmingly looking to the U.S. in a way that it hasn’t done in the past,” he said. “They see the U.S. as a counterweight to China. They also see American hegemony over the last half-century as fairly benign. In China they see the rise of an economic power that is not benevolent, that can be predatory. They don’t see it as a benign hegemony.”
The rise of China, and the relative decline of America, is the biggest story of our time. You can see its implications everywhere, from shuttered factories in the Midwest to soaring costs of oil and other commodities. Last fall, when I attended a conference in London about agricultural investment, I was struck by the number of people there who told stories about Chinese interests snapping up farmland and foodstuff supplies — from South America to China and elsewhere.
Equally to the point, here is what this means economically, and for investors.
Some years ago I was having lunch with the smartest investor I know, London-based hedge-fund manager Crispin Odey. He made the argument that markets are reasonably efficient, most of the time, at setting prices. Where they are most likely to fail, though, is in correctly anticipating and pricing big, revolutionary, “paradigm” shifts — whether a rise of disruptive technologies or revolutionary changes in geopolitics. We are living through one now.
The U.S. Treasury market continues to operate on the assumption that it will always remain the global benchmark of money. Business schools still teach students, for example, that the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury bond is the “risk-free rate” on money. And so it has been for more than a century. But that’s all based on the Age of America.
No wonder so many have been buying gold. If the U.S. dollar ceases to be the world’s sole reserve currency, what will be? The euro would be fine if it acts like the old deutschemark. If it’s just the Greek drachma in drag ... not so much.
The last time the world’s dominant hegemon lost its ability to run things singlehandedly was early in the past century. That’s when the U.S. and Germany surpassed Great Britain. It didn’t turn out well.
Full Article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bombshell-age-of-america-about-to-end-2011-04-25?pagenumber=1
April 25, 2011, 7:20 p.m. EDT
IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end
Commentary: China’s economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016
BOSTON (MarketWatch) — The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.
For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.
And it’s a lot closer than you may think.
According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.
Put that in your calendar.
It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in Washington right now. It raises enormous questions about what the international security system is going to look like in just a handful of years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their privileged status as the liabilities of the world’s hegemonic power.
According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fund’s website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy.
Most people aren’t prepared for this. They aren’t even aware it’s that close. Listen to experts of various stripes, and they will tell you this moment is decades away. The most bearish will put the figure in the mid-2020s.
But they’re miscounting. They’re only comparing the gross domestic products of the two countries using current exchange rates.
That’s a largely meaningless comparison in real terms. Exchange rates change quickly. And China’s exchange rates are phony. China artificially undervalues its currency, the renminbi, through massive intervention in the markets.
The comparison that really matters
In addition to comparing the two countries based on exchange rates, the IMF analysis also looked to the true, real-terms picture of the economies using “purchasing power parities.” That compares what people earn and spend in real terms in their domestic economies.
Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and rising.
Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s.
Naturally, all forecasts are fallible. Time and chance happen to them all. The actual date when China surpasses the U.S. might come even earlier than the IMF predicts, or somewhat later. If the great Chinese juggernaut blows a tire, as a growing number fear it might, it could even delay things by several years. But the outcome is scarcely in doubt.
This is more than a statistical story. It is the end of the Age of America. As a bond strategist in Europe told me two weeks ago, “We are witnessing the end of America’s economic hegemony.”
We have lived in a world dominated by the U.S. for so long that there is no longer anyone alive who remembers anything else. America overtook Great Britain as the world’s leading economic power in the 1890s and never looked back.
And both those countries live under very similar rules of constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and the rights of property. China has none of those. The
Victor Cha, senior adviser on Asian affairs at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me China’s neighbors in Asia are already waking up to the dangers. “The region is overwhelmingly looking to the U.S. in a way that it hasn’t done in the past,” he said. “They see the U.S. as a counterweight to China. They also see American hegemony over the last half-century as fairly benign. In China they see the rise of an economic power that is not benevolent, that can be predatory. They don’t see it as a benign hegemony.”
The rise of China, and the relative decline of America, is the biggest story of our time. You can see its implications everywhere, from shuttered factories in the Midwest to soaring costs of oil and other commodities. Last fall, when I attended a conference in London about agricultural investment, I was struck by the number of people there who told stories about Chinese interests snapping up farmland and foodstuff supplies — from South America to China and elsewhere.
Equally to the point, here is what this means economically, and for investors.
Some years ago I was having lunch with the smartest investor I know, London-based hedge-fund manager Crispin Odey. He made the argument that markets are reasonably efficient, most of the time, at setting prices. Where they are most likely to fail, though, is in correctly anticipating and pricing big, revolutionary, “paradigm” shifts — whether a rise of disruptive technologies or revolutionary changes in geopolitics. We are living through one now.
The U.S. Treasury market continues to operate on the assumption that it will always remain the global benchmark of money. Business schools still teach students, for example, that the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury bond is the “risk-free rate” on money. And so it has been for more than a century. But that’s all based on the Age of America.
No wonder so many have been buying gold. If the U.S. dollar ceases to be the world’s sole reserve currency, what will be? The euro would be fine if it acts like the old deutschemark. If it’s just the Greek drachma in drag ... not so much.
The last time the world’s dominant hegemon lost its ability to run things singlehandedly was early in the past century. That’s when the U.S. and Germany surpassed Great Britain. It didn’t turn out well.
Full Article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bombshell-age-of-america-about-to-end-2011-04-25?pagenumber=1
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Another Police Officer On The Wrong Side Of The Law
Things like this seem to be happening more and more these days. This is what happens when police officers think that they are above the law coupled with a serious God complex. This police officer should lose his job, including any kind of pension he may be "entitled" to. You know pensions that he reaps from the people of Las Vegas just like the person he just beat the crap out of. So here it is straight to all the policemen out there, well you know all the dumbass policemen out there, not the ones that actually know their job and do it well: We the citizens have every right to video tape you the numb-skull police officer at any time, at any place as long as it does not interfere with your investigation. You the numb-skull police officer are suppose to serve and protect us the citizens. You are not suppose to serve and protect the interest of any city, town, county, state, or federal government. You the numb-skull police officer are a public employee with us the citizens as your employer. You have no expectation of privacy while on duty. So with that rant let me get to the video and the story both brought to you by:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/exclusive-police-beating-of-las-vegas-man-caught-on-tape-120509439.html?viewAllComments=y&c=y
By Mike Blasky
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
When Mitchell Crooks checked out of the county jail last month and checked into a Las Vegas hospital, the 36-year-old videographer knew he had a fight on his hands.
His face was bloodied and bruised. His $3,500 camera had been impounded by police, and he faced criminal charges for battery on a police officer.
One month later, things have changed for Crooks.
The Clark County district attorney's office has dropped all charges, and Crooks has retained an attorney of his own. The Metropolitan Police Department has opened an internal investigation into the Las Vegas police officer, Derek Colling, who Crooks says falsely arrested and beat him for filming police.
And his camera -- which captured the entire March 20 altercation between Crooks and Colling -- has been returned.
CAUGHT ON TAPE
The words are friendly enough, but the tone is tense:
"Can I help you, sir?" Colling asks from his patrol car after parking it in front of Crooks' driveway and shining the spotlight on Crooks.
"Nope. Just observing," Crooks responds, fixing his camera on the officer.
Crooks had for an hour been recording the scene across the street from his home in the 1700 block of Commanche Circle, near East Desert Inn Road and South Maryland Parkway, where officers had several young burglary suspects handcuffed and sitting on the curb.
As Las Vegas crimes go, the activity was fairly boring. Crooks wanted to use his new camera, and he figured his neighbors would like to see the suspects' faces.
When Colling loaded suspects into the back of his car and drove in a circle through the cul-de-sac, Crooks said he thought police were leaving. Then the officer stopped his car.
"Do you live here?" Colling asks.
"Nope," Crooks says.
Colling steps out of his patrol car.
Crooks said he now regrets not telling the officer that he was in fact standing in his own driveway. He realizes his response seemed cheeky, but he said the officer made him nervous. Colling walks toward Crooks, left hand raised.
"Turn that off for me," Colling orders.
"Why do I have to turn it off?'' Crooks responds. "I'm perfectly within my legal rights to be able to do this."
The officer repeats the command several times; each time Crooks reiterates his right to film.
"You don't live here," Colling says, now close to Crooks.
"I do live here!"
"You don't live here, dude."
"I just said I live here!"
As Crooks backs away, Colling grabs him by the shoulder and throws him down. On the ground, Crooks grabs the camera and turns it toward his face.
Colling's leg then enters the video frame. Crooks says he believes that was the kick that broke his nose.
The camera records the sound of Crooks screaming. He said that's when Colling was punching his face.
"Shut up!" Colling yells. "Stop resisting!"
YOU'RE IN A WORLD OF HURT,' OFFICER SAYS
In his arrest report Colling wrote that Crooks grabbed his shoulders "and attempted to take me to the ground. I in turn took him to the ground."
At Clark County Detention Center, Crooks was booked for battery on a police officer and obstruction of justice. He was released from jail the next day. On March 26, the Review-Journal reported on his case. Four days later all charges were dropped.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent said he dismissed the charges because the police report was vague.
"I asked for a more definite description of the battery because battery requires a violent touching," Laurent said. Police never provided that information.
Crooks said he always believed he'd be vindicated, but after police returned his camera he knew he had proof.
"I was confident I was doing the right thing, but I was excited they (the DA's office) weren't wasting any time, and that somebody was smart enough to know I was acting within the law," he said.
Crooks said the incident looks worse on tape than he remembered.
What bothered him the most, he said, was Colling's attitude after he was placed in handcuffs.
"Why did you do that? I live here," Crooks is heard pleading on the tape.
"You just told me you didn't live here," Colling says. "You live right here, in this house?"
Crooks asks for paramedics. Colling tells him to shut up and follow orders.
"If you fight again, dude Hey, if you (expletive) fight again, dude, you're in a world of hurt. You hear me?
"You're not in charge here, buddy. You hear me?"
Colling mocks Crooks' labored breathing.
"Oh yeah, buddy. Hey, when you don't do what I ask you to do, then you're in a world of hurt. Then you're in a world of hurt. Aren't ya? Huh?"
Crooks was later diagnosed with a deviated septum and a chest wall injury. Crooks believes his ribs were broken, but never got X-rays that could prove it.
ACLU LAWYERS SAY OFFICER WAS WRONG
Allen Lichtenstein, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, reviewed Crooks' video and said Colling was clearly in the wrong. Officers are trained to avoid escalating situations, but Colling initiated the incident and created a physical confrontation without provocation, he said.
"It raises serious questions about whether the officer used good judgment and whether he was properly trained," Lichtenstein said. "Those questions require answers."
Police have no expectation of privacy, and it's perfectly legal to film officers as long as it does not interfere in their investigation, he said. Colling erred in claiming that Crooks was trespassing. By law, only a property owner or resident can make a trespassing complaint, Lichtenstein said.
"Even if the officer didn't think he lived there, that doesn't mean he didn't have permission to be there,'' Lichtenstein said. "In the video I heard, that question was never asked."
Crooks' attorney, David Otto, on Thursday sent police a statement from Crooks, along with a demand for $500,000 to cover Crooks' medial care, pain and suffering.
Colling had no legitimate reason to approach Crooks that night, Otto wrote.
"Officer Colling was aggravated that a citizen should have the audacity to video tape, him -- a Las Vegas Metropolitan Patrol Officer,'' Otto wrote. "Officer Colling decided to use the fear and terror of his physical ability to beat Mr. Crooks into submission -- to teach Mr. Crooks and, by example, all citizens and residents of the Las Vegas Valley."
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie declined comment, saying the internal investigation remains open. Colling remains on duty, and Crooks has declined requests to be interviewed by detectives.
The suspects in Colling's patrol car may have witnessed the event and given statements to detectives, but their names have not been released. Police said they were not arrested or booked, so their names are not public record.
Crooks said he doesn't want to talk to detectives.
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Neither Colling nor Crooks are strangers to controversy.
Colling has been involved in two fatal shootings in his 5½ years as a Las Vegas police officer. In 2006, he and four other officers shot Shawn Jacob Collins after the 43-year-old man pulled a gun at an east valley gas station.
In 2009, he confronted a mentally ill 15-year-old Tanner Chamberlain, who was holding a knife in front of his mother and waving it in the direction of officers. Colling shot him in the head.
Both shootings were ruled justified by Clark County coroner's juries.
Crooks made headlines in 2002 when he videotaped two Inglewood, Calif., police officers beating a 16-year-old boy. One officer was fired and criminally charged but was not convicted after two trials ended with hung juries. The incident strained race relations in Southern California -- the police officer was white, the teenager black.
Crooks first tried to sell that tape and then declined to give it to prosecutors. He was then jailed on old warrants from unrelated drunken driving and petty theft charges. Civil rights advocates decried it as retribution.
In 2003 he moved to Las Vegas, where he makes a living, among other things, shooting video for nightclubs, and says he kept out of trouble right up until the night he met officer Colling.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Government To Sell GM Stock?
Government
Gov’t Looking to Sell its GM Stock — A Potential Loss of Over $11 Billion
The U.S. government is currently biggest owner of General Motors stock. It was a condition of that company’s bailout in 2009. So when you hear that the government is looking at selling off all its stock, that may seem like a good thing. Until you read what the Wall Street Journal put out today. Mainly, that GM stock is currently at about $30 and in order for the government to break even it needs to sell its shares at about $53. And then you read that despite the over $11 billion loss that would ensue, the Obama administration might do it anyway this summer. Why? Because 2012 is an election year.
The WSJ explains:
The U.S. government plans to sell a significant share of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. this summer despite the disappointing performance of the auto maker’s stock, people familiar with the matter said.
A sale within the next several months would almost certainly mean U.S. taxpayers will take a loss on their $50 billion rescue of the Detroit auto maker in 2009.
To break even, the U.S. Treasury would need to sell its remaining stake—about 500 million shares—at $53 apiece. GM closed off 27 cents a share at $29.97 in 4 p.m. trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, hitting a new low since its $33-a-share November initial public offering.
“Planning for the sale of our remaining GM stock is still at an early stage, and the IPO lock-up does not expire until late May,” a Treasury spokesperson said. “At that point, we will consider all of our options, based on our twin goals of protecting taxpayers’ interests and exiting as soon as practicable.”
Shares have been hurt by rising fuel prices, industry production disruptions and management turnover. At Monday’s price, and taking into account shares sold during the IPO, taxpayers would lose more than $11 billion on the rescue if the government dumped the rest of its stake now.
Government officials are willing to take the loss because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker, the people familiar with the matter said. A summer sale makes it more likely Treasury could sell all of its stake in GM by year’s end, avoiding a potentially controversial sale in the 2012 presidential election year.
Government-owned industries fly in the face of conservative economics, for sure. And many conservatives would like nothing more than to see the “g” in GM once again mean “General.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/govt-looking-to-sell-its-gm-stock-a-potential-loss-of-over-11-billion/
Gov’t Looking to Sell its GM Stock — A Potential Loss of Over $11 Billion
The U.S. government is currently biggest owner of General Motors stock. It was a condition of that company’s bailout in 2009. So when you hear that the government is looking at selling off all its stock, that may seem like a good thing. Until you read what the Wall Street Journal put out today. Mainly, that GM stock is currently at about $30 and in order for the government to break even it needs to sell its shares at about $53. And then you read that despite the over $11 billion loss that would ensue, the Obama administration might do it anyway this summer. Why? Because 2012 is an election year.
The WSJ explains:
The U.S. government plans to sell a significant share of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. this summer despite the disappointing performance of the auto maker’s stock, people familiar with the matter said.
A sale within the next several months would almost certainly mean U.S. taxpayers will take a loss on their $50 billion rescue of the Detroit auto maker in 2009.
To break even, the U.S. Treasury would need to sell its remaining stake—about 500 million shares—at $53 apiece. GM closed off 27 cents a share at $29.97 in 4 p.m. trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, hitting a new low since its $33-a-share November initial public offering.
“Planning for the sale of our remaining GM stock is still at an early stage, and the IPO lock-up does not expire until late May,” a Treasury spokesperson said. “At that point, we will consider all of our options, based on our twin goals of protecting taxpayers’ interests and exiting as soon as practicable.”
Shares have been hurt by rising fuel prices, industry production disruptions and management turnover. At Monday’s price, and taking into account shares sold during the IPO, taxpayers would lose more than $11 billion on the rescue if the government dumped the rest of its stake now.
Government officials are willing to take the loss because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker, the people familiar with the matter said. A summer sale makes it more likely Treasury could sell all of its stake in GM by year’s end, avoiding a potentially controversial sale in the 2012 presidential election year.
Government-owned industries fly in the face of conservative economics, for sure. And many conservatives would like nothing more than to see the “g” in GM once again mean “General.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/govt-looking-to-sell-its-gm-stock-a-potential-loss-of-over-11-billion/
Monday, April 18, 2011
Man Made Global Warming
So you still crazy enough to believe in man-made global warming? Don't worry you are not the only one.
Global warming must be true, Charles Manson believes in it. Killer breaks 20-year silence on 40th anniversary of gruesome Sharon Tate murders
Crazed cult leader Charles Manson has broken a 20-year silence in a prison interview coinciding with the 40th anniversary of his conviction for the gruesome Sharon Tate murders - to speak out about global warming. The infamous killer, who started championing environmental causes from behind bars, bemoaned the 'bad things' being done to environment in a rambling phone interview from his Californian jail cell. 'Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378178/Charles-Manson-breaks-20-year-silence-40th-anniversary-gruesome-Sharon-Tate-murders.html#ixzz1Jw6t8iDK
Global warming must be true, Charles Manson believes in it. Killer breaks 20-year silence on 40th anniversary of gruesome Sharon Tate murders
Crazed cult leader Charles Manson has broken a 20-year silence in a prison interview coinciding with the 40th anniversary of his conviction for the gruesome Sharon Tate murders - to speak out about global warming. The infamous killer, who started championing environmental causes from behind bars, bemoaned the 'bad things' being done to environment in a rambling phone interview from his Californian jail cell. 'Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378178/Charles-Manson-breaks-20-year-silence-40th-anniversary-gruesome-Sharon-Tate-murders.html#ixzz1Jw6t8iDK
45% of Households Pay No Federal Income Tax
There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. "It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_on_re_us/us_no_taxes Just a thought here but if you have no player in the game do you care what the outcome is? Would you want to "fix" our country and its problems if you didn't pay income tax or actually got more money back than you put into the system?
U.S. Gov't Agency Plans $2.84 Billion Loan for Oil Refinery—In Colombia Monday, April 18, 2011 By Terence P. Jeffrey (CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, is now planning a $2.84-billion loan for a massive project to expand and upgrade an oil refinery--in Cartagena, Colombia. The money would go to Reficar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ecopetrol, the Colombian national oil company. “This is part of a $5.18 billion refinery and upgrade project in Cartagena, Colombia supplying petroleum products to the domestic and export markets,” the Export-Import Bank said in a statement. The U.S. government-controlled bank says the $2.84-billion in financing it plans to undertake will be the second largest project it has ever done. The largest was $3 billion in financing for a liquid natural gas project in Papua New Guinea. The statement released by the bank said that on April 7 the bank’s presidentially-appointed board of directors had “voted to grant preliminary approval for a $2.84 billion direct loan/loan guarantee” for the Colombian refinery project. Export-Import Bank Spokesman Phil Cogan told CNSNews.com that the bank could not say at this time how much of the $2.84 billion would be directly loaned to the Colombian refinery company and how much would be in loans guaranteed by the bank--although he expected it to be a combination. “It is conceivable it could be all a direct loan,” said Cogan. “Right now it is set up so that the board could do either a complete direct loan or a combination of direct loan and guarantee. That hasn’t been determined yet.” Since December, the bank has also approved almost $880 million in other loans and loan guarantees to Reficar’s parent company, Ecopetrol. So, in total, if the new $2.84 billion in loans is finalized, the Columbian national oil company and its wholly owned subsidiaries will have received $3.72 billion in financing backed by a U.S.-government-controlled entity within a span of five months. “Just last February and December the Bank approved nearly $880 million in export financing to help finance the sale of goods and services from various U.S. exporters to Ecopetrol S.A., Colombia's national oil company,” Export-Import Bank President Fred P. Hochberg said in the bank’s statement announcing preliminary approval of the refinery loan. Export-Import Bank Spokesman Cogan stressed in an interview that although Reficar is wholly owned by Ecopetrol it remains a separate entity, and is considered as such for Export-Import Bank financing purposes In its 2009 annual report, Ecopetrol says “we became 100% owners of Reficar, the company in charge of carrying out the Cartagena Refinery modernization plan.” In its ordinary procedure for financing projects of this magnitude, the board of the Export-Import Bank votes its preliminary approval, notifies Congress of that preliminary approval, then waits five weeks before voting final approval of the deal. This allows members of Congress to comment on the planned financing project. “The Reficar transaction is subject to congressional notification, with a final vote anticipated approximately 35 days following the expiration of the notification period,” says the bank’s press release on the loan. When asked if Congress can veto the loan, Ex-Im Spokesman Cogan said, “No.” The public-policy rationale for the $2.84 billion loan for the Colombian oil refinery project is the same as the rationale for all Export-Import Bank loans to foreign interests: to create jobs in the United States. “The transaction will help create or sustain over 15,000 American jobs for a total of four years,” says the bank’s statement about the loan. Spokesman Cogan says the bank calculates the jobs created or sustained by a loan or loan guarantee by using a formula that estimates how much money spent buying U.S. exports in a particular industry it takes to create a job. If the $2.84 billion loan to Reficar to expand and upgrade its Colombian refinery creates or sustains the 15,000 jobs in the United States that the bank believes it will create or sustain that would work out to $189,333 per job. According to the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), 95 percent of the gasoline purchased by U.S. consumers is refined inside the United States, meaning that expanding the gasoline refining capacity of Colombia is unlikely to have a significant impact on the supply of refined gasoline in the Untied States. Also according to NPRA, the last time a new oil refinery was built in the United States was 1993, when a small facility was built in Valdez, Alaska. The last time a new large oil refinery was built in the United States was 1976, says NPRA. Older U.S. refineries, however, have been upgraded and expanded in recent years. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-plan-284-billion-loan-oil-refinery
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Looks Like A Good Start
Box Office: Tea Party-Fueled “Atlas Shrugged” Makes Respectable Debut
by Peter Knegt
Rocky Mountain Pictures released “Atlas Shrugged, Part I” on 299 screens this weekend, receiving a fair but not overwhelming response from audiences. The tepidly reviewed film is based on Ayn Rand’s final novel, which details a dystopian United States that collapses as government asserts control. It has received significant backing by Tea Party groups, with FreedomWorks, the Tea Party-allied group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, among the groups supporting the film. And according to weekend estimates, the result of their efforts was a respectable $1,676,917 gross, averaging $5,608 per theater (given its conservative audience, today’s Palm Sunday is expected to affect its numbers).
“We were very optimistic about how it was going to perform,” the film’s producer Harmon Kaslow told indieWIRE over the phone today. “And it’s performing to our expectations. The responses that we’re getting at the theaters gives us a enormous amount of optimism. We are looking to expand significantly in the next few weekends.”
Kaslow said he’s unsure of how wide “Shrugged” will go just yet but said “it could be as many as 1,000 screens.” He also said the film played best in places where there was “community-level support from various groups” and that “a lot of radio personalities really helped get the word out.”
Kaslow singled out Atlanta, Nashville, Portland and New York as markets where theaters took in five figure grosses, and noted that the bottom twenty theaters really “dragged things down.”
“Those are just markets we weren’t able to organize on a community level,” he said. “But knowing what we know now we think we can really push forward in the coming weeks.”
Putting “Shrugged”‘s numbers into context was Roadside Attractions’ release of Robert Redford’s “The Conspirator.” On an aggressive 707 screens - one of the widest openings for a film in the distributor’s seven year history - the film nearly matched “Shrugged”‘s per-theater-average even though it was on more than twice the screens. The film took in an estimated $3,924,000, averaging $5,500.
by Peter Knegt
Rocky Mountain Pictures released “Atlas Shrugged, Part I” on 299 screens this weekend, receiving a fair but not overwhelming response from audiences. The tepidly reviewed film is based on Ayn Rand’s final novel, which details a dystopian United States that collapses as government asserts control. It has received significant backing by Tea Party groups, with FreedomWorks, the Tea Party-allied group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, among the groups supporting the film. And according to weekend estimates, the result of their efforts was a respectable $1,676,917 gross, averaging $5,608 per theater (given its conservative audience, today’s Palm Sunday is expected to affect its numbers).
“We were very optimistic about how it was going to perform,” the film’s producer Harmon Kaslow told indieWIRE over the phone today. “And it’s performing to our expectations. The responses that we’re getting at the theaters gives us a enormous amount of optimism. We are looking to expand significantly in the next few weekends.”
Kaslow said he’s unsure of how wide “Shrugged” will go just yet but said “it could be as many as 1,000 screens.” He also said the film played best in places where there was “community-level support from various groups” and that “a lot of radio personalities really helped get the word out.”
Kaslow singled out Atlanta, Nashville, Portland and New York as markets where theaters took in five figure grosses, and noted that the bottom twenty theaters really “dragged things down.”
“Those are just markets we weren’t able to organize on a community level,” he said. “But knowing what we know now we think we can really push forward in the coming weeks.”
Putting “Shrugged”‘s numbers into context was Roadside Attractions’ release of Robert Redford’s “The Conspirator.” On an aggressive 707 screens - one of the widest openings for a film in the distributor’s seven year history - the film nearly matched “Shrugged”‘s per-theater-average even though it was on more than twice the screens. The film took in an estimated $3,924,000, averaging $5,500.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Go See Atlas Shrugged
Great movie go see it.
After more than 50 years, Ayn Rand’s seminal novel and ode to free market capitalism “Atlas Shrugged” is finally hitting the big screen this weekend, in the first of a planned trilogy of movies. Independently produced and distributed by entrepreneur John Aglialoro, chairman of UM Holdings Inc, the film “Atlas Shrugged, Part 1″ was budgeted under $10 million and includes a cast of little-known actors (newcomer Taylor Schilling stars as the powerful female industrialist Dagny Taggart). At one time, Algialoro, who optioned the book’s rights 18 years ago, had struck up a partnership with Lionsgate Films to make a version of the movie, possibly as a TV miniseries for the new EPIX cable outfit.
But when the project dragged on without getting the green light, Algialoro turned to entertainment attorney and executive producer Harmon Kaslow to get the film made quickly before the rights to the book reverted back to the Ayn Rand estate. Shot in just 26 days and completed several months later, the entire film’s creation, from green light to this week’s release, took about a year, according to Kaslow. Reaching out to conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute, FreedomWorks and Tea Party groups, the filmmakers are actively courting a target audience that they believe Hollywood would not so willingly endorse. “We’re lucky that the relevance of the book to what’s going on today has steadily increased over time,” says Kaslow, referring to some conservatives who believe that the Obama Administration has emphasized government solutions to economic problems.
“So that’s made the film more accessible and more embraced by the various political factions that prescribe to Ayn Rands’ philosophy. And we haven’t resisted their embracing it.” “That’s a big distinction between our releasing the film and Hollywood,” continues Kaslow. “What would a studio have done? Would they have premiered the trailer at the Conservative Political Action Conference? Would they have allowed the Cato Institute and Reason and FreedomWorks and Tea Party groups to directly email their members? Would they work closely with them? Or be afraid to because they think it would alienate other audiences?” While advance interest in the film may be high among the film’s conservative base, reviews have been terrible. For example, Rotten Tomatoes lists more than 5,000 user ratings with a total of 86% saying they “like it,” while the critics’ average is a disastrous 7%. (Only two movies, “Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son” and “The Roommate” rate lower.)
“We expected that the critics would have a fear of embracing this film,” says Kaslow. “We knew that there was a substantial likelihood that they would not view the film as to whether we got the message right, but would look at it comparing it to what Hollywood would have done. I don’t think our audience is persuaded at all by those reviews.” “It’s somewhat analogous to the family-based film market,” he continues. “Most family based films are not subject to review, because they know that that audience is all about the message. And if the message is right, they’ll give you a hall pass if the production values weren’t as high. And if we get criticized for the dialogue, most of it has been taken right out of the book. So, in a sense, they’re criticizing the literary nature of the work.” According to Kaslow, the second and third parts of the film are in the active planning stages, with the second part scheduled to go into production this June for release on April 15, 2012, and the third to follow the same timeline the following year.
“The green light decision is ultimately John’s,” says Kaslow. “If we learn there is no commercial interest in the film, I doubt there will be a second or third one. But at this point, we’re the third most ticketed film on Fandango, so I don’t have any reason to believe that we won’t be successful.” As conservatives working within a film industry that he believes tilts liberal, Kaslow says their peers may look them at a little askance. “Up until recently, they haven’t given us any credibility, but I don’t think they perceived as a threat,” he says. “But in my inbox, I’m now getting requests from important and recognizable people to see this movie. I think we’re now on their radar screens. And at the end of the day, they’re capitalists and they want to make as much money as they can, and if they see us as a way to do that, they’ll be our friend.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/15/will-conservatives-make-atlas-shrugged-a-hit/
In "Atlas Shrugged," it's 2016 America. The Dow has fallen below 4,000, gasoline prices are through the roof and infrastructure is falling apart. High-speed rail looks like the future. Government denounces selfish corporate interests and concerns itself mainly with dividing the dwindling wealth. The subjects the film deals with are fascinating, important -- and almost completely ignored at the movies. Even "The Social Network," the most acclaimed business movie of last year, placed the building of one of the world's most valuable companies in the background of a personality dispute and some whining about club membership. "Atlas Shrugged" wants to start an argument with you, to force you to (in Rand's often-repeated words) "check your premises."
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/rand_old_time_for_ayn_adherents_yK8YmADIKXJ6ARzqRpPotN#ixzz1JfAQB8xf
After more than 50 years, Ayn Rand’s seminal novel and ode to free market capitalism “Atlas Shrugged” is finally hitting the big screen this weekend, in the first of a planned trilogy of movies. Independently produced and distributed by entrepreneur John Aglialoro, chairman of UM Holdings Inc, the film “Atlas Shrugged, Part 1″ was budgeted under $10 million and includes a cast of little-known actors (newcomer Taylor Schilling stars as the powerful female industrialist Dagny Taggart). At one time, Algialoro, who optioned the book’s rights 18 years ago, had struck up a partnership with Lionsgate Films to make a version of the movie, possibly as a TV miniseries for the new EPIX cable outfit.
But when the project dragged on without getting the green light, Algialoro turned to entertainment attorney and executive producer Harmon Kaslow to get the film made quickly before the rights to the book reverted back to the Ayn Rand estate. Shot in just 26 days and completed several months later, the entire film’s creation, from green light to this week’s release, took about a year, according to Kaslow. Reaching out to conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute, FreedomWorks and Tea Party groups, the filmmakers are actively courting a target audience that they believe Hollywood would not so willingly endorse. “We’re lucky that the relevance of the book to what’s going on today has steadily increased over time,” says Kaslow, referring to some conservatives who believe that the Obama Administration has emphasized government solutions to economic problems.
“So that’s made the film more accessible and more embraced by the various political factions that prescribe to Ayn Rands’ philosophy. And we haven’t resisted their embracing it.” “That’s a big distinction between our releasing the film and Hollywood,” continues Kaslow. “What would a studio have done? Would they have premiered the trailer at the Conservative Political Action Conference? Would they have allowed the Cato Institute and Reason and FreedomWorks and Tea Party groups to directly email their members? Would they work closely with them? Or be afraid to because they think it would alienate other audiences?” While advance interest in the film may be high among the film’s conservative base, reviews have been terrible. For example, Rotten Tomatoes lists more than 5,000 user ratings with a total of 86% saying they “like it,” while the critics’ average is a disastrous 7%. (Only two movies, “Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son” and “The Roommate” rate lower.)
“We expected that the critics would have a fear of embracing this film,” says Kaslow. “We knew that there was a substantial likelihood that they would not view the film as to whether we got the message right, but would look at it comparing it to what Hollywood would have done. I don’t think our audience is persuaded at all by those reviews.” “It’s somewhat analogous to the family-based film market,” he continues. “Most family based films are not subject to review, because they know that that audience is all about the message. And if the message is right, they’ll give you a hall pass if the production values weren’t as high. And if we get criticized for the dialogue, most of it has been taken right out of the book. So, in a sense, they’re criticizing the literary nature of the work.” According to Kaslow, the second and third parts of the film are in the active planning stages, with the second part scheduled to go into production this June for release on April 15, 2012, and the third to follow the same timeline the following year.
“The green light decision is ultimately John’s,” says Kaslow. “If we learn there is no commercial interest in the film, I doubt there will be a second or third one. But at this point, we’re the third most ticketed film on Fandango, so I don’t have any reason to believe that we won’t be successful.” As conservatives working within a film industry that he believes tilts liberal, Kaslow says their peers may look them at a little askance. “Up until recently, they haven’t given us any credibility, but I don’t think they perceived as a threat,” he says. “But in my inbox, I’m now getting requests from important and recognizable people to see this movie. I think we’re now on their radar screens. And at the end of the day, they’re capitalists and they want to make as much money as they can, and if they see us as a way to do that, they’ll be our friend.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/15/will-conservatives-make-atlas-shrugged-a-hit/
In "Atlas Shrugged," it's 2016 America. The Dow has fallen below 4,000, gasoline prices are through the roof and infrastructure is falling apart. High-speed rail looks like the future. Government denounces selfish corporate interests and concerns itself mainly with dividing the dwindling wealth. The subjects the film deals with are fascinating, important -- and almost completely ignored at the movies. Even "The Social Network," the most acclaimed business movie of last year, placed the building of one of the world's most valuable companies in the background of a personality dispute and some whining about club membership. "Atlas Shrugged" wants to start an argument with you, to force you to (in Rand's often-repeated words) "check your premises."
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/rand_old_time_for_ayn_adherents_yK8YmADIKXJ6ARzqRpPotN#ixzz1JfAQB8xf
Friday, April 15, 2011
SWAT Attacks Home School Mom for Refusing to Force Med Child
This is what happens when people sign marriage certificates and have kids
Article by: Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com April 14, 2011 Detroit mother Maryanne Godboldo faces multiple felony charges and is being held on $500,000 bond after a 10-hour standoff with a heavily armed police SWAT team. Godboldo was protecting her 13-year-old daughter from unnecessary medication ordered by the state. Godboldo’s daughter was born with a defective foot that required amputation of her leg below the knee, which led to Maryanne becoming a stay-at-home mother after her birth, according to Health Impact News Daily. Despite her handicap, the child swam, sang, danced and played the piano. However, as the home schooled girl approached middle school age, she apparently wanted to start attending public school, and therefore had to “catch up” on immunizations the state insists are required under color of law. SWAT police descend on mother’s apartment, reportedly using a tank. According to her aunt, Penny Godboldo, the girl suffered an adverse reaction to the immunizations. “She began acting out of character, being irritated, having facial grimaces that have been associated with immunizations,” Penny told the Detroit News. Maryanne Godboldo sought help from the Children’s Center, an organization claiming to help families with at-risk children. Godboldo told relatives the medications ordered by the doctor worsened symptoms, including behavioral problems. When Godboldo refused to give her child the prescribed medication, Child Protective Services became involved. CPS obtained a warrant to remove the girl, but Maryanne reportedly refused to surrender the child to the state. Police claimed Godboldo discharged a firearm in her apartment during the stand-off and that is when the SWAT team was called in. Maryanne’s attorney, Allison Folmar, claims her client never shot at police in a report in the Voice of Detroit, which reports that the police sent the “Detroit Special Response Team (SRT) officers who descended on the home with a tank and assault weapons. Video footage shows individual officers staking out the house, taking cover behind trees with their weapons, as in a military operation,” reports Health Impact Daily News. The Detroit News reports that Godboldo has an excellent reputation in her community, and during the 10 hour standoff many people from the community offered to help with the negotiations, including ministers and community activists. Wayne Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas finally convinced Maryanne to surrender with a promise her daughter would be turned over to a relative. Family members, however, say the girl was grabbed by the state regardless of the promise. Maryanne Godboldo was arraigned before 36th District Magistrate Sidney Barthwell Jr. on charges of firing a weapon in a dwelling, felonious assault, resisting and obstructing an officer, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Her bond was set at $500,000. “I’m shocked by the amount of the bond. I never dreamed it would be set so high and she wouldn’t be free to care for her daughter,” said an outraged Deborah Thomas. Maryanne Godboldo calls for Obama to intervene and have her child returned. “Child Protective Services was trying to force her child to take a dangerous medication, Risperdal, against her will. We have been able to get a court order signed by [Wayne County Circuit Court] Judge Richard Skutt, staying the administration of this drug, which is not approved by the FDA in such cases. That’s why they put her in Hawthorne, so they could dope her up,” family attorney Allison Folmar told the media. The Godboldo case is yet another example of CPS working in league with the police in order to kidnap children. Godboldo was obviously an excellent mother and not a threat to the police. The fact they sent a tank to her apartment is more evidence that the state will react in a violent knee-jerk fashion when its authority is challenged.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/swat-attacks-home-school-mom-for-refusing-to-force-med-child.html
Article by: Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com April 14, 2011 Detroit mother Maryanne Godboldo faces multiple felony charges and is being held on $500,000 bond after a 10-hour standoff with a heavily armed police SWAT team. Godboldo was protecting her 13-year-old daughter from unnecessary medication ordered by the state. Godboldo’s daughter was born with a defective foot that required amputation of her leg below the knee, which led to Maryanne becoming a stay-at-home mother after her birth, according to Health Impact News Daily. Despite her handicap, the child swam, sang, danced and played the piano. However, as the home schooled girl approached middle school age, she apparently wanted to start attending public school, and therefore had to “catch up” on immunizations the state insists are required under color of law. SWAT police descend on mother’s apartment, reportedly using a tank. According to her aunt, Penny Godboldo, the girl suffered an adverse reaction to the immunizations. “She began acting out of character, being irritated, having facial grimaces that have been associated with immunizations,” Penny told the Detroit News. Maryanne Godboldo sought help from the Children’s Center, an organization claiming to help families with at-risk children. Godboldo told relatives the medications ordered by the doctor worsened symptoms, including behavioral problems. When Godboldo refused to give her child the prescribed medication, Child Protective Services became involved. CPS obtained a warrant to remove the girl, but Maryanne reportedly refused to surrender the child to the state. Police claimed Godboldo discharged a firearm in her apartment during the stand-off and that is when the SWAT team was called in. Maryanne’s attorney, Allison Folmar, claims her client never shot at police in a report in the Voice of Detroit, which reports that the police sent the “Detroit Special Response Team (SRT) officers who descended on the home with a tank and assault weapons. Video footage shows individual officers staking out the house, taking cover behind trees with their weapons, as in a military operation,” reports Health Impact Daily News. The Detroit News reports that Godboldo has an excellent reputation in her community, and during the 10 hour standoff many people from the community offered to help with the negotiations, including ministers and community activists. Wayne Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas finally convinced Maryanne to surrender with a promise her daughter would be turned over to a relative. Family members, however, say the girl was grabbed by the state regardless of the promise. Maryanne Godboldo was arraigned before 36th District Magistrate Sidney Barthwell Jr. on charges of firing a weapon in a dwelling, felonious assault, resisting and obstructing an officer, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Her bond was set at $500,000. “I’m shocked by the amount of the bond. I never dreamed it would be set so high and she wouldn’t be free to care for her daughter,” said an outraged Deborah Thomas. Maryanne Godboldo calls for Obama to intervene and have her child returned. “Child Protective Services was trying to force her child to take a dangerous medication, Risperdal, against her will. We have been able to get a court order signed by [Wayne County Circuit Court] Judge Richard Skutt, staying the administration of this drug, which is not approved by the FDA in such cases. That’s why they put her in Hawthorne, so they could dope her up,” family attorney Allison Folmar told the media. The Godboldo case is yet another example of CPS working in league with the police in order to kidnap children. Godboldo was obviously an excellent mother and not a threat to the police. The fact they sent a tank to her apartment is more evidence that the state will react in a violent knee-jerk fashion when its authority is challenged.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/swat-attacks-home-school-mom-for-refusing-to-force-med-child.html
Monday, April 11, 2011
How Do You Like Those Red-Light Cameras Now?
I told you this stuff was coming and here is the first story on it.
Cameras in Boston Can Show Inside Your Home:
Boston officials had hoped to have aerial and street-level photos taken across about four square miles of the city this winter using infrared cameras that would show heat loss in the city homes. Officials planned on sharing the photos and analysis with homeowners, and were hoping the findings would increase enrollment in efficiency programs and also create business opportunities. But, the project hit a snag when the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts raised concerns that the infrared cameras would reveal information about what’s going on inside the homes. Sagewell’s cameras can take up to 20,000 images of homes per day. Despite the concern, towns outside of Boston have not had any problems with the program. Utilities and environmental groups from Springfield and Hamilton are in the process of initiating the same project in their communities.
Cameras in Boston Can Show Inside Your Home:
Boston officials had hoped to have aerial and street-level photos taken across about four square miles of the city this winter using infrared cameras that would show heat loss in the city homes. Officials planned on sharing the photos and analysis with homeowners, and were hoping the findings would increase enrollment in efficiency programs and also create business opportunities. But, the project hit a snag when the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts raised concerns that the infrared cameras would reveal information about what’s going on inside the homes. Sagewell’s cameras can take up to 20,000 images of homes per day. Despite the concern, towns outside of Boston have not had any problems with the program. Utilities and environmental groups from Springfield and Hamilton are in the process of initiating the same project in their communities.
It's Coming For Us All
That's right big government is coming for us all and it is starting with our kids, you know to get them use to the idea. Take a look at this article. Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn't allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren't fans of the policy At the public school Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria. Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices. "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common. A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals. "While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom." Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch. At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad. "Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something." "(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't." But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food." At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain. "The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children. Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices. "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry. "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda." For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk," education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. "Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids' lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out of pocket to most parents! There is no chance the parents would stand for that." Many Little Village students claim that, given the opportunity, they would make sound choices. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story?page=1
New Link Added
I have added a new link to the "Get Invovled" section for the website American's For Prosperity. It's a great website for keeping you informed about all the government actions that you care about from city to state to federal. I urge everyone to sign up. http://americansforprosperity.org/national-site
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)