#2
gromky, you can check for yourself. Just position your cursor over the headline without clicking - you should see the URL. (In Internet Explorer it displays at the bottom of the window. I don't have other browsers on this machine to check the location they use.)
If the URL ends in .pdf than you can avoid linking on it. If you still want to read the article, in Windows you can right click on it and choose the 'save target as' option to save the file directly to disk. Then open it at your leisure with the Acrobat reader, avoiding your browser entirely.
#3
tip: to avoid browser 'crashes when opening PDF files use: Foxit.
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/index.php
It's free and you need very little memory use to open a PDF file with it.
Posted by: Mike Hunt ||
04/28/2010 19:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's often done as a courtesy, especially when the content is either OT, slightly risque, full of essential graphics, etc.
Full text, on the other hand, can either be because the link is behind a subscription wall, anything less than full would be deceptive, or it is very transitory.
So that being said, I guess we're not intentionally trying to annoy--just the opposite.
#4
I'm with gromky on this one. i like to see more on the inside of a click-thru than just the headline viewable without going any further. i can understand the occasional limited post, but several and often in series is a disappointment. Sometimes i just skip 'em.
#5
Personally, I try to edit articles down to a few paragraphs, or if I just post the link (for any of the reasons cited by 'moose & others), I try to put a few sentence summary. But sometimes I don't have time - so it's whole article or just headline.
#6
Note that the Associated Press instituted a policy a while ago of going after any site that quotes from their articles. That's one reason for the link only posts here.
#7
I try always to check the articles. If it seems important enough, and I'm on my laptop, which had moderator capabilities (the desktop is supposed to, but in my end-use ignorance I can't figure out how to access it from there), I'll copy the key bits and paste them under the headline for y'all. I don't think this particular article rises to that level, though. Read the first three paragraphs from the article, which runs for four pages, and decide for yourselves.
ome of my best friends are gay but now I can go one better than that: one of them is HIV positive. But thats brilliant news! I told my friend when he spilled the beans the other day. Now I can go round claiming victim cred by association. And if anyone makes an Aids joke I can be, like, seriously offended and put on a solemn voice and say: Actually, you know, if you had an HIV positive friend like I do.... My friend agreed that being HIV positive was a very handy thing to be, in this respect. But on further consideration, we decided it would have carried more victim cred weight in the days before anti-retroviral drugs when a) it was a death sentence; and b) being gay won you many more oppressed-minority brownie points.
Personally I blame Ken Livingstone. Remember in his 1980s GLC days how shamelessly he courted the pink vote with his taxpayer-funded gay parades and lavish grants to any organisation run by crop-headed women with dungarees and CND badges? Well that all ended when he worked out there was more electoral mileage in shamelessly playing up to the prejudices of his Islamist constituents instead. And clearly, much as Ken might have liked it, you cant court both minorities at the same time: not when one of them thinks the only suitable fate for the other one is to be thrown off a high rock, hanged from a crane or buried under a wall.
Maybe theres some connection between these socio-political shifting tides and the fact that the majority of my most deeply sound right-wing friends (though not, I dont think, my new mate Lord Tebbit) are gay. Probably not: as far as I know they were all born right-wing, not made. Then again, when I put my Are gays turning more right-wing? hypothesis to one of them, he thought there was definitely something in it. Because we have one less layer of skin, were more sensitive to the way the winds blowing, he said.
I think you made the right call when you posted this one, tipper.
#9
AP instituted a policy to much fanfare, but have they implemented it? Has anyone heard of a move after the first week? I haven't read the amount of bitching I would expect if they were seriously implementing the announced policy.
Here is the primary risk of why front loading the US Treasury with ultra-short holdings is just asking for a capital markets/liquidity/solvency/sovereign crisis.
So far in April, the US Treasury has redeemed over $484 billion in Bills. That's nearly a half a trillion in mandatory cash outflows, interest payments aside.
In April the cash out for interest expense will likely be one twentieth of this. What people don't realize is that the Treasury in April was down to just $9 billion in cash.
Unless the UST can roll its debt not on a monthly but now weekly basis in greater and greater amounts, the interest rate doesn't matter. All it takes is one semi-failed auction and it's game over as hundreds of billions in bills become payable.
When one adds the redemptions on non-Bill Treasuries, and we get well over half a trillion in redemptions in April alone.
Roll issue aside, the UST issued a net $113 billion in debt in April, coupled with a gross cash burn of 27 billion for a net cash outflow in the month of $140 billion. Add the $120 billion or so in coupons in the last week of April (which likely won't settle until May), and the UST will have a $260 billion in cash burn in April.
#1
and the UST will have a $260 billion in cash burn in April.
Makes the Greek debt problem look like a tiny pimple on a 15 year old's pizza face. But I guess pointing that out makes me racist or ageist or sexist.
Posted by: ed ||
04/28/2010 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The way things are going right now, the USG is planning inflation spurts based on monthly debt monetization. What this means is that with no one buying US bonds, each month they print money to pay the previous month's debts, which converts directly to inflation.
Keep an eye peeled at retail stores. They will probably boost prices before each new monthly printing. This will be a cue as to how painful the "continuing resolution" federal budget is working out.
As things are right now, it would not be unlikely to have 25-50% annual inflation by years' end.
#5
JohnQC: It's a lot worse than that. In addition to actual expenditures, those birds in D.C. have been making insane promises, commitments, for the future, in the tens of trillions of dollars. And supposedly, these are "mandatory" spending that cannot be reduced.
They haven't just killed the golden goose. That thing is roadkill after a few weeks on the Interstate. Just a few dirty and decrepit feathers left.
#6
Economic depression or hyper-inflation, take your pick. Although the world will probably get both.
It's like watching a runaway train and being reassured that the train has brakes and will start to brake soon, while all the time the train gets faster and faster and is on the verge of derailing at any moment.
Unchecked Power: Having nothing to lose as they tumble toward November's electoral cliff, Democrats have gone into legislative overdrive. With the hangman ready, the condemned are ordering the whole menu.
The way things look right now, 2010 could go down in history as one of the biggest reversals of political power ever -- with even "safe" seats in big trouble.
Take Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the powerful pork-wielding House Appropriations Committee, who has held his seat since before man walked on the moon. He looks like a dead duck against a Republican challenge from a current county district attorney and MTV "Real World" alumnus named Sean Duffy -- who wasn't even born when Obey took office. "It's not a lifetime appointment," Duffy told the New York Times for a story on the numerous vulnerable Democrats who were once unbeatable.
But like Thelma and Louise when they knew the jig was up, the Democratic Congress has decided it might as well put the pedal to the metal and go over the precipice with a crash and a bang. Unfortunately, they've got an already pummeled economy in the back seat with them.
No one should misinterpret the rearranging of the cap-and-trade and immigration deck chairs on the Democrats' Titanic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want both -- bullying industry in the name of saving the planet and buying Hispanic votes with amnesty for illegal aliens.
As Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said over the weekend in reaction to moderate Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., angrily withdrawing his support on cap-and-trade, "We all believe that this year is our best and perhaps last chance for Congress to pass a comprehensive approach."
In talking up an immigration bill, Democrats are scrambling for more votes from their base, but all it will do is fan the flames of anti-Washington sentiment. We've been assured before that this problem is fixed -- that we'll have one last, big amnesty -- only to find still more millions of people here in violation of the law.
The big question is whether Republicans are smart enough to exploit the issue for what it is: an illustration of the divide between Americans who believe in the rule of law and politicians looking to import millions of new votes for their big-government agenda.
Then there's the massive financial industry bill being pushed by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. It further institutionalizes the too-big-to-fail policy and claims to "end bailouts" by making financial firms give $50 billion to the Treasury. As on health reform, you won't see any outstretched hands across the aisle as Democrats try to steamroll GOP opposition into yet another monster spending and regulatory law.
Count me skeptical. I'm with Krauthammer on this one: the GOP is way over-confident, and is seriously underestimating the impact of the Dems' superior money and organization (read: SEIU thugs).
Most importantly, the Repubs are likely to go into their usual oligarch mode and wind up being perceived as Wall Street's best friends forever. Only if and when the GOP renounces the moneyfiddlers-- when it makes it clear that it sides with real producers against arbitrageurs and 2-and-20 scammers, with small businessmen against crony mega-capitalists, with ordinary Americans against the private health insurance mafia-- only then will the GOP have a serious shot at taking back Washington.
Prediction: November's results will be decidedly underwhelming for the GOP.
As it stands, the GOP is part of the oligarchy. 'Dum to the Dems' 'Dee. Pox on both, etc.
#2
The Trunks may be overconfident but the Dems really do have the pedal-to-the-metal, with a non-binding vote on Puerto Rican statehood scheduled. That would pick up a lot of Hispanic votes.
#3
How well the Dems spin their financial regulatory reform bill and the Reps opposition to it will carry a lot of weight in the election. I heard an ABC AM radio news broadcast describing the Reps alternative bill as being "less muscular" and having "less protections for the consumer". If the Reps want control back they need to be organized and on message. I agree with lex that overconfidence could be a killer.
#7
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want both -- bullying industry in the name of saving the planet and buying Hispanic votes with amnesty for illegal aliens.
Nancy and Harry, both tawdry crooks more interested in trying to save their party rather than the country. Thelma and Louise heading for the brink.
#8
Republican leadership is too stupid to take advantage of this. Look at their support for turncoats and idiots lie Scozzofava, Specter, and now Charlie Crist who is going to backstab them and take millions with him by spending it on TV time so he will not have to refund it when he declares as an independent tomorrow.
Until the Tea Party chases away the upper crust of the GOP, it will remain the stupid party.
Posted by: No I am the other Beldar ||
04/28/2010 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think very little of someone who changes party because he/she is just a cheap opportunist. They don't have any principles. They are carpetbaggers that will glom onto any party (or none) that will have them and that allows them to get elected once again. I would not vote for such a person.
And if the Trunks had any brains at all, they would make another "Contract with America", including many of the ideals the Tea Party has proposed.
Or they could just refer to the Constitution for guidance and inspiration. And don't forget to use the original meaning for words like "regulation", etc..
Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.
But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:
The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.
It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.
One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).
Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.
One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."
You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.
Posted by: ed ||
04/28/2010 07:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Those extorted from by the US Government are overwhelmingly white.
#2
More important, they think demonizing whites will help them win in November. Since America is a strongly Caucasian nation, I think they are just digging themselves a deeper hole.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
04/28/2010 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Maybe Frozen Al,
But also remember the liberal whites are filled with cultural guilt. This just feeds into their own delusions.
Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed.
An ancient adage says: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." But apparently that is not sufficient for many among our educators, the intelligentsia or the media. They are busy poisoning the present by the way they present the past.
Posted by: ed ||
04/28/2010 07:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
