My Letter to The Economist (they didn't publish it)

SIR:  In Down to Earth you write that "Some of the best minds of this generation" are Investment Bankers.  Are these the same geniuses described later in Spring Break?  First, they run a transparent scam to fleece tax collectors.  Clever, but far from rocket science, ( an "odd ritual") and of zero benefit to society.

But then, they get really clever.  Most people holding a huge loan that needed to be repaid within a week would put it someplace exceedingly safe.  No, not the "best minds" at AIG.  They invested in risky and illiquid bonds.  Actually, worse than invested.  They leveraged the risk: "used the cash it accumulated as collateral to invest in risky and illiquid mortgage bonds."  What could possibly go wrong?  How could the "best minds" miss the risks?  When it tanked, all at a cost of $182 Billion to U.S. taxpayers.

Sorry, these are not "best minds".  Best minds invent, discover, or develop things of benefit to mankind.  These bankers have irresponsible antisocial criminal minds scheming to get rich quick while fleecing the rest of us.

Sincerely,

Morgan Conrad

Montara, California

This is not a Spin Doctor, this is a Spin Nobel Prize for the New York Times

Check out the headline, White House Pushes to Revive Legislation Protecting Reporters.

After his own Justice Department trampled the First Amendment by seizing AP phone records, today the administration, including Eric Holder, who supposedly runs the Justice Department, proposed a revival of the "Free Flow of Information Act".

BTW, the headline isn't coming from the White House.  It's coming from their house organ, the New York Times, which has proven to be in complete alliance with the White House throughout the recent scandals.

The Freedom to Receive NO Information Act

The ACLU recently filed a Freedom of Information Act requesting government policies pertaining to text messages.  The response was fifteen pages, entirely redacted.  Yes, you heard that right, entirely redacted.

ABC News Article

NY Times Article

GGNRA reveals it priorities

A recent letter (and reply) in the Half Moon Bay Review, concerning the GGNRA's recent anti-dog policies, (here's a recent and fairly balanced article) is revealing.  The GGNRA reply says

The decisions to temporarily permit or restrict areas for dogs until the Dog Management Plan is complete were based primarily on conversations with the equestrian community regarding conflicts between horses and dogs...

I'm sorry, I have no issues with the local equestrian community, indeed, some of my close friends are equestrians :-) , but why the heck do equestrians take the primary lead in determining dog policy???  That's even more insane that the actual dog policies.

You can rest assured that there are many many more dog owners that horse owners.  But, apparently, the horse owners, who are much more organized, have figured out which government officials to bribe with campaign donations.