English Empire: Result of Bad Food?

Paul writes:

There are advantages to not having a food culture. I have always claimed that the reason England conquered half of the world is that Englishmen were seeking a decent meal. The English sailor would sit down to a meal of overcooked and greasy meat and vegetables and think, I need to go conquer a country that knows how to prepare a decent meal.

The Italians, on the other hand, dined very handsomely and stayed at home.

Iron Chef, Family Edition

We've all seen that cheesy Japanese TV show (and it's equally cheesy American spinoff) where top chefs compete to whip up amazing dishes in an hour.

That's all fine and good, but as a practical matter, Iron Chef is as valuable to a parent as trying to learn tire rotation tips by watching NASCAR pitstops.

So I propose a new spinoff: Iron Chef Family.

Same basic format, with the array of Iron Chefs and a weekly guest challenger, but from there the rules would be a bit different.

Instead of the mystery ingredient being rare Peruvian sea cucumber, eye of newt or whatnot, ICF would have everyday items like 'hamburger meat', 'broccoli' or 'whatever's on sale that day at Safeway'.

Then would come the *real* challenge: preparing in an hour a meal using everyday ingredients that one could serve to a typical family. No soux chefs, blast chillers, 5 megawatt electric skillets or 'mixologists'. Just a stove, knives, a sink, maybe on special occasions (if they've been good) a blender and a microwave. Oh, and did I mention that the chef has to also get the dishes washed and put away within the hour?

Then would come the judging. Two families of four. Mom, dad and the 2.2 kids would judge the meals. Scoring would be on taste, nutrition, balance (did the chef put out an entree, a starch AND a vegtable?) and most importantly: did the kids eat it?

Iron Chef is great for the fancy restaurant crowd with their huge fully-staffed kitchens. But you want to impress me? Make a great meal that everyone will eat in an hour. Hell, if it tastes good enough, I'll throw in an extra 30 minutes to let him square away the leftovers.

Heck, just watching the Chairman scream "Hamburger Helper!" while revealing the secret ingredient might make the entire show worthwhile.

The Fall of Empire

Talk about reporting your own death:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/12/business/20090312-papers-graphic.html


I find this another interesting example of the *huge* social changes that the internet has brought. Digital cameras have devastated (for now, at least) professional photography, all the way from High Fashion and Advertising to the mall photo booth. Job outsourcing has within a few years devastated domestic employment as any "information job" can be run from "anywhere". Finance and Wall St. have exploded with the ability to suck money from anyone with cash and an internet connection. Online sales have put major pressures on "Brick and Mortar" retailers. Medical, political, the list goes on and on.

We all remember the power of William Randolf Hearst. Strange how the seemingly unrelated invention of "The Internet" has brought these huge and powerful institutions to their knees. They can't even sell the newspapers now... the entire business or even the paper its printed on. Remarkable.

P.S. I predict TV will be the next media victim. In the next 10-15 years, we'll see broadcast TV and many "cable" TV shows go the way of the payphone. (Cue post on the remarkable social re-working brought about by the mobile phone!)

So... Do We Have Free Healthcare Now or What?

For decades Republicans have warned that free healthcare for all would lead to economic collapse, the onset of high taxes, unemployment, frozen equity markets, just to name a few.


So.... we got all that. Where's my free healthcare? I'm still getting bills.

We're totally in the crapper. Did we lose a war or what?

Oh, right. We did. We lost to ourselves.

Saving the Rich

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:00 PM, XX wrote:
There needs to be a examination of the cost of government compared to the output of it's citizens. When Gov't expenses go to high, taxes go up, workers are likely to balk at improving their income.

It will cease to be an issue, because we are approaching 50% of our voters not paying any federal tax. That means they will decide to increase taxes on those who do pay. Notice how "the wealthy" are now paid less and less. Now it's about $250K. In a previous Democratic administration, a Millionaire was someone that earned a million dollars in their life time.

Ah, another Red Herring. "If you raise taxes too high, people will just refuse to work."

This reflects an *aggregious* mis-understanding of the tax code.


Let's say, for example that you make $100. Let's say that the tax rate is 40% up to and including $100, and 50% for $101 and up.

So, when you make $102, what is your tax?

A) $102 * 0.5 = $51
B) ($100 * 0.4) + ( $2 * 0.5 ) = $40 + $1 = $41


We have a *staged* tax system. The answer is 'B'.



I've not heard of a single extremely-rich person (we used to call them "millionaires") that's in it for the money. I doubt there's a single one that says, "You know, I've made enough money, why don't I stop for a while?" or "You know, if I make over X, it'll just send me into the next tax bracket. No thanks."

The only people we hear talking about this is A) Republican talking heads B) People who *want* to be millionaires, but don't even understand the basics of finance enough to become rich, let alone millionaires.

Show me one instance in which Warren Buffet said, "No more money for me! I don't want to be in the next tax bracket."

Rich people will turn all sorts of tricks to avoid paying taxes. They may *defer* income into "down" years or whatnot, but I'd like to see one case of a truly "rich" person refusing the opportunity to make money because it would kick them into the next income tax bracket.

I never cease to get amusement out of middle-class Republicans that will bend over backwards to screw themselves in order to save "the rich" money.


A much better avenue of attack would be chasing down that 50% that doesn't pay taxes.


Lemme propose a test:

Let's say someone approaches you on the street and says, "If you give me a nickel, I'll give you $250k, but you must give 75% of it to a random passer-by."

Do you accept or no?



A final point. I *used* to be in the $250,000 bracket. I'll *gladly* pay whatever tax Obama wants rather than continue to "save tax money" under the W administration. I'm tired of this "American's don't want to work (because taxes are too high)" bullshit.

My thoughts exactly:

The Cunning Realist

That Would Have Worked Out Well

Anyone seen any recent calls for Social Security private accounts?

The stock market crash has shown how catastrophic private accounts would have been, and who would have really benefited from them. Would the government have allowed the Bear Stearns and Lehman outcomes had the Social Security system been chock full of those stocks? Remember, both were former blue chips, the sort of companies that proponents of private accounts insisted any new system would be limited to. The same for Citi, AIG, Fannie Mae, and others. How much pressure would the Fed and Treasury have felt -- and what more would have been done -- to keep those afloat and/or out of penny stock land?

That pressure would have been exerted by millions of unpaid but highly effective lobbyists: people emailing and calling Washington, demanding that their Social Security money -- and so the stocks, the companies, and the executives -- be saved. Corporate bondholders would have loved it, since the Social Security system effectively would have become a massive safety buffer. Would "nationalization" even be considered if it meant destroying part of Social Security?

Private accounts are dead now, so it's a bit of a moot point. But I wonder how many of those who both supported them and genuinely object to the prevailing bailout ethos ever thought this through.

Krugman: Nonrival and Nonexcludable

Krugman at NY Times

What should government do? A Jindal meditation

What is the appropriate role of government?

Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that.

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.

Republicans Keep Forgetting Who Created This Mess

Andrew Sullivan

Which party added over $32 trillion to future unfunded liabilities, turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, and endorsed indefinite nation-building at a simply staggering cost in two of the most intractably divided non-countries in the world? Which party asserted "near-dictatorial" powers for the executive, the priority of the will of the leader over the rule of law, and a mantra, in the words of the most "conservative" vice-president in memory, that "deficits don't matter." Which party described prohibitions against torture "quaint" and presided over the most reckless, and irresponsible period in American finance since the 1920s?

Republicans Keep Forgetting Who Created This Mess

Andrew Sullivan

Which party added over $32 trillion to future unfunded liabilities, turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, and endorsed indefinite nation-building at a simply staggering cost in two of the most intractably divided non-countries in the world? Which party asserted "near-dictatorial" powers for the executive, the priority of the will of the leader over the rule of law, and a mantra, in the words of the most "conservative" vice-president in memory, that "deficits don't matter." Which party described prohibitions against torture "quaint" and presided over the most reckless, and irresponsible period in American finance since the 1920s?

Of Drug Dealers and Liars

Both drug dealers and Liars put themselves in the most peril when they consume their own product.

Economic Depression - Republicans Blame Moon

My racquetball coach (an ex Marine) used to "award" us penalties. When I asked why he was "awarding" me penalties, he replied, "You earned them."


I'm agnostic. I don't think Republicans are any better or worse than the Democrats. They're all politicians. A necessary evil.

BUT

The current batch of Republicans have had almost totally unopposed rule of this land for 6, arguably 8 years.

They fucked it up. Not only that, but they fucked it up *BIG* time.

The current batch of republicans and their sycophants, tin-hats and fan boys need to go sit in the corner and STFU.

They aired their ideas. They had 6 years to implement them. We're reaping what they sowed.

Everybody but the current batch of Republicans, their mouthpieces and their fan-boys know it. For those who don't realize who's responsible for the mess Republicans made, please continue to blame it on the moon or whomever else was there at the time... just do it quietly. Trust me, nobody wants to hear *why* Republicans failed. Nobody cares who they want to blame. Nobody.

We're living the results of the promised Republican economy. Path to hell being paved, whatever.

Republicans like military references. Here's one: it happened on the Republican watch. Man up, stop blaming others for Republican mistakes and please, STFU.

Sit tight, let the next group of idiots try their hands at it. Then you can pick up your cloak of virtue and start swinging the sword of righteousnous at whoever will listen. Until then, grow up, find some humility (you now, the "family values" kind) and sit in the corner quietly.

If there are any more Republican "ideas" , please don't include me on the distribution. I've still suffering the last batch of them.

What Reagan Actually Said About Government

SJ Mercury News

Opinion: Ronald Reagan wouldn't recognize these conservatives

By Mickey Edwards
Posted: 01/27/2009 07:03:38 PM PST

In my mind's eye, I can see President Ronald Reagan perched on a cloud and watching all the goings-on down here in his old earthly home.

Rolling his eyes and whacking his forehead over the absurdities he sees, he's watching his old political party twist itself into complex knots, punctuated by pauses to invoke "the Gipper's" name.

It's been said that God would be amazed by what his followers ascribe to him; believe me, Reagan would be similarly amazed by what fervent admirers cite in their desire to be seen as true-blue Reaganites.

On the premise that simple is best, many Republicans have reduced their operating philosophy to two essentials: First, government is bad (it's "the problem"); second, big government is the worst and small government is better (although because government itself is bad, it might be assumed that small government is only marginally preferable).

Government is "... us

This is all errant nonsense. It is wrong in every conceivable way and violative of the Constitution, American exceptionalism, freedom, conservatism, Reaganism and common sense. In America, government is "... us.

What would Reagan think of this? Wasn't it he who warned that government is the problem?

Well, permit me. I directed the joint House-Senate policy advisory committees for the Reagan presidential campaign. I was part of his congressional steering committee. I sat with him in his hotel
Advertisement
room in Manchester, N.H., the night he won that state's all-important primary. I knew him before he was governor of California and before I was a member of Congress.

Let me introduce you to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, who spent 16 years in government, actually said this: "In the present crisis," referring to the high taxes and high levels of federal spending that had marked the Democratic administration of President Jimmy Carter, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Reagan then went on to say: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work."

Government, he said, "must provide opportunity."

He was not rejecting government, he was calling — as President Barack Obama did at his inauguration — for better management of government, for wiser decisions.

This is the difference between ideological advocacy and holding public office: Having accepted partial responsibility for the nation's well-being, one assumes an obligation that goes beyond bumper-sticker slogans. Certitude is the enemy of wisdom and, in office, it is wisdom, not certitude, that is required.

How, for example, should conservatives react to stimulus and bailout proposals in the face of an economic meltdown? The wall between government and the private sector is an essential feature of our democracy. At the same time, if there is a dominant identifier of conservatism — political, social, psychological — it is prudence.

If proposals seem unworkable or unwise — if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investments; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de-facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions — conservatives have a responsibility to resist.

But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job — Reagan again — to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent, and more antithetical to true conservatism, than to do nothing.

The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush and Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party; it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.

Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought to be cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems.

Rejection of ideas

By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater's speeches in the mid-1960s, or to Reagan's in the 1980s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen.

Last year's presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.

Over the past several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.

And, watching, I suspect Reagan is smacking himself on the forehead, rolling his eyes and wondering who in the world these clowns are who want so desperately to wrap themselves in his cloak.


Mickey Edwards, a former congressman from Oklahoma, is a lecturer at Princeton University"s Woodrow Wilson School and author of "Reclaiming Conservatism." He wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.

Chrysler vs. $25B

Just as a friendly reminder, the current CEO of Chrysler is Bob Nardelli. The same Bob Nardelli that actually got ran out of Home Depot a few years back for sending their business into the ground. He got a $210M severance for his troubles. Caused quite an uproar a few years back.

I'm sure that bailout money will be well spent, no?

Quotes on Truth

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Marcus Aurelius

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill

Proverbs are always platitudes until you have personally experienced the truth of them.
Aldous Huxley

The truth knocks on the door and you say, go away, I’m looking for the truth, and it goes away. Puzzling.
Robert M. Pirsig

One fool will deny more truth in half an hour than a wise man can prove in seven years.
Coventry Patmore

People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true.Truth does not do as much good in the world as the semblance of truth does evil.
Duc de La Rochefoucauld

More at The European Rationalist

W as Cause of Mortgage Collapse

Lots of you "dead enders" still deny W had any role in the Mortgage Collapse. For you and others that like things spelled out, the "liberally biased" AP goes the distance:

AP - US diluted loan rules before crash

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

"These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages," David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

Many of the banks that fought to undermine the proposals by some regulators are now either out of business or accepting billions in federal aid to recover from a mortgage crisis they insisted would never come. Many executives remain in high-paying jobs, even after their assurances were proved false.

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:

_Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

_Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

_Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

_Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

_Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.

Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.

"In hindsight, it was spot on," said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending.

Federal regulators were especially concerned about mortgages known as "option ARMs," which allow borrowers to make payments so low that mortgage debt actually increases every month. But banking executives accused the government of overreacting.

Bankers said such loans might be risky when approved with no money down or without ensuring buyers have jobs but such risk could be managed without government intervention.

"An open market will mean that different institutions will develop different methodologies for achieving this goal," Joseph Polizzotto, counsel to now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, told U.S. regulators in a March 2006.

Countrywide Financial Corp., at the time the nation's largest mortgage lender, agreed. The proposal "appears excessive and will inhibit future innovation in the marketplace," said Mary Jane Seebach, managing director of public affairs.

One of the most contested rules said that before banks purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes. Some bankers now blame much of the housing crisis on brokers who wrote fraudulent, predatory loans. But in 2006, banks said they shouldn't have to double-check the brokers.

"It is not our role to be the regulator for the third-party lenders," wrote Ruthann Melbourne, chief risk officer of IndyMac Bank.

California-based IndyMac also criticized regulators for not recognizing the track record of interest-only loans and option ARMs, which accounted for 70 percent of IndyMac's 2005 mortgage portfolio. This summer, the government seized IndyMac and will pay an estimated $9 billion to ensure customers don't lose their deposits.

Last week, Downey Savings joined the growing list of failed banks. The problem: About 52 percent of its mortgage portfolio was tied up in risky option ARMs, which in 2006 Downey insisted were safe — maybe even safer than traditional 30-year mortgages.

"To conclude that 'nontraditional' equates to higher risk does not appropriately balance risk and compensating factors of these products," said Lillian Gavin, the bank's chief credit officer.

At least some regulators didn't buy it. The comptroller of the currency, John C. Dugan, was among the first to sound the alarm in mid-2005. Speaking to a consumer advocacy group, Dugan painted a troublesome picture of option-ARM lending. Many buyers, particularly those with bad credit, would soon be unable to afford their payments, he said. And if housing prices declined, homeowners wouldn't even be able to sell their way out of the mess.
...

Sarah Palin's "Fear"

Scott Horton at Harper's

In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin told the crowd that an Obama presidency would present the specter of a socialist state in which fundamental American freedoms are undermined.

...

Does Sarah mean a state:

* That snatches its victims off the street, denies them all form of legal process and whisks them away to secret “blacksites” where they can be tortured using all the techniques described in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon?
* That arrests and prosecutes its political adversaries for imaginary crimes so as to eliminate them from the running in election cycles in which they could do some damage?
* That destroys the careers of professional military men because they got promotions under a prior regime and therefore considers them disloyal?
* That believes it can detain and hold its enemies forever without any charges or any evidence against them, denying them access to courts to prove their innocence?
* That constantly manipulates the population’s fear whenever its public popularity slips and elections begin to approach?
* That believes that it can make no errors, and that those who point to its errors are traitors?
* That systematically spies on millions of its citizens in direct violation of a criminal statute which forbids such surveillance?
* That signs new laws with its fingers crossed in the form of signing statements, so that no one knows whether the laws—or any part of them—will actually be enforced?
* That lies to its people about threats from abroad in an effort to build popular support for a series of wars and then cites the existence of those wars as a reason to suppress dissent?
* That nationalizes the debt of predatory capitalists so they suffer no punishment for their misconduct and then nationalizes major financial institutions, converting the nation’s free market system into a socialism in which crony capitalists are a privileged elite?

Sarah, you have no need to fear the future.

The Monkey Analogy

Once upon a time, in a place overrun with monkeys, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.

The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them.

The man bought thousands at $10 and as supply started to diminish, they became harder to catch, so the villagers stopped their effort.

The man then announced that he would now pay $20 for each one. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again. But soon the supply diminished even further and they were ever harder to catch, so people started going back to their farms and forgot about monkey catching.

The man increased his price to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so sparse that it was an effort to even see a monkey, much less catch one.

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys for $50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on his behalf.

While the man was away the assistant told the villagers, 'Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has bought. I will sell them to you at $35 each and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.'

The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys. They never saw the man nor his assistant again, and once again there were monkeys everywhere.

Welcome to Wall Street

CodeWeaver Frustration

Love this:

Codeweaver.com

Press Releases
CODEWEAVERS' SOFTWARE FREE FOR DOWNLOAD THANKS TO GEORGE W. BUSH AND FALLING GAS PRICES
Giveaway Triggered in CodeWeaver's Great American Lame Duck Presidential Challenge; "We take full responsibility for global economic collapse," says CEO

SAINT PAUL, Minn. (October 27, 2008) – The catastrophic cratering of the global economy, falling gas prices and President George W. Bush's recent executive activities have indirectly prompted Saint Paul gadfly software developers CodeWeavers, Inc., to provide free software for every American on Oct. 28, company officials reluctantly announced today.

In July, CodeWeavers – whose software lets Mac OS X and Linux users run Windows programs without having to Microsoft for a Windows OS license – launched the Great American Lame Duck Presidential Challenge (lameduck.codeweavers.com) to encourage President Bush to make the most of his remaining days in office by accomplishing a major economic or political goal by January 20, 2009.

The goals focused on President Bush making specific positive accomplishments in areas such as the economy, home values, the stock market, the war on terror and other key issues. Specifically, one goal called for President Bush to help down bring average gasoline prices in the Twin Cities to $2.79 a gallon.

On Monday, Oct. 14, gas prices in Minneapolis and St. Paul did just that.

"That morning, I was filling my tank at Big Steve's Gas Palace in St. Paul," said Jeremy White, president and CEO of CodeWeavers. "I had just finished my morning corn dog and 64-ounce Dr. Pepper when I looked at the pump and noticed gas was at $2.79. I screamed ‘Woohoo,' then I yelled ‘Oh, crap!' as I realized every American can now have my software for free. Kind of upsets my fourth quarter revenue projections..."

White admits this is not how he foresaw the Challenge unfolding.

"I launched the campaign to inspire President Bush to make the most of his final days in office. Who knew that our Challenge would have this kind of impact on the country?" White said. "On the other hand, who knew that the economy would implode, causing oil demand to drop into the abyss and gas prices to plummet as well. Clearly, investigating Bear Stearns, AIG and those guys is misplaced – CodeWeavers is responsible for this mess. So it's free software for all!"

How to Get the Free Software
On Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008, any one visiting the CodeWeavers' Web site (www.codeweavers.com) will be given a deal code that will entitle them to one free copy of CodeWeavers' award-winning CrossOver software. Each copy comes complete with support.

"I realize that by giving away all my software, I've caused horrific damage to my company's bottom line," White said. "In fact, our vice president of sales wretched Starbucks all over his shirt when he learned the news. But, I figure, the way the economy is going, in a few months everyone might be out on the streets, wearing potato sacks and standing in line for squirrel soup, so why not?"

White also noted that if other Great American Lame Duck Presidential Challenge goals are met, CodeWeavers will once again provide free software. Goals include:

* Return the stock market to it's 2008 high
* Reduce the average price of a gallon of milk to $3.50
* Create at least one net job in the U.S. this calendar year
* Return the median home price to its Jan. 1, 2008 level
* Bring Osama Bin-Laden to justice

About CodeWeavers

Founded in 1996 as a general software consultancy, CodeWeavers today focuses on the development of Wine: the core technology found in all of its CrossOver products. The company's goal is to bring expanded market opportunities for Windows software developers by making it easier, faster and more painless to port Windows software to Mac OS X and Linux. CodeWeavers is recognized as a leader in open-source Windows porting technology, and maintains development offices in Minnesota, the UK and elsewhere around the world. The company is privately held. For more information about CodeWeavers, log on to www.codeweavers.com.

The Sanctity of Religion Amendment

On the way to a ballot box near you:




California Proposition 3 - The Sanctity of Religion Amendment

Due to the popularity of Proposition 8, the Sanctity of Marriage amendment, California will be introducing next year the Sanctity of Religion amendment to the California constitution.

Proposition 3 is simple and straightforward. It states simply that "Judaism is the only religion that is valid or recongnized in the state of California."

Voting YES on Propostion 3 does 8 simple things:

It restores the definition of religion to what God originally meant.

It overturns the outrageous decisions of activist judges and politicians that ruled that other cults call themselves a religion.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that other cults are the same as the one, original, traditional religion and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of the other, newer cults but to face mandatory compliance regardless of their religious beliefs.

It will increase funding for math education in our schools.

Please vote YES on Proposition 3, coming to your town November 2009.

Sub-Prime Crash

Remember when we all sat around and laughed when Japan invested in billions of dollars of US commercial real-estate? Remember how funny it was to watch the market decline and see the smug Japanese lose billions?

Weren't those the days?

Good times.