Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Friday, October 23, 2009
Until tomorrow

 

 

We interrupt our regular programming to bring you this special bulletin:

The Friday piece will be posted on Saturday morning. Hope to see you here then.

Posted by Dick Polman @ 10:26 AM  Permalink | 67 comments
Comments   
Posted 10:47 AM, 10/23/2009
jmc
I'll be watching cartoons.
Posted 10:55 AM, 10/23/2009
NEPhilly
***"The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as (economist Douglas) Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joi nt Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest," she said. Palin was referring to an op-ed Holtz-Eakin wrote for the Wall Street Journal; you may remember he was the chief economic adviser to John McCain during the presidential campaign. We wanted to know if she (Palin) was right that the taxes on 'Cadillac' plans would hit people who make less than $200,000 the hardest....Back to Palin: She said that according to the Joint Committee's report "those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest" by the excise tax. We want to emphasize that the tax will affect only a minority of taxpayers. But Palin is right that of the taxpayers it does affect, a majority make less than $200,000, according to the Joi nt Committee analysis. It turns out a lot of regular Joes and Janes have those 'Cadillac' plans. We rate her statement Mostly True.*** http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/21/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-health-care-reform-taxes-middle-class/
Posted 11:14 AM, 10/23/2009
hows that hope & change working out?
I have a preview of the column: Republicans bad, democrats good. It's Bush's fault. Nothing can get passed because republicans, who control nothing, keep blocking it.
Posted 11:20 AM, 10/23/2009
NEPhilly
Reading up on Holdren. ***In 1980, Holdren, Ehrlich and Stanford colleague John Harte picked a basket of five commodities--chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten--that they were sure were going to rise in price as they became increasingly scarce. They drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Holdren, Ehrlich and Harte the same quantities of five metals that could be purchased for $1,000 10 years later at 1980 prices. If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. Simply put, the combined real prices of the metals selected by Holdren and his colleagues fell by more than 50% during the 1980s, confirming cornucopian claims that the supply of resources over time becomes more abundant, not scarcer.*** http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/03/holdren-obama-science-opinions-contributors_0203_ronald_bailey.html
Posted 11:23 AM, 10/23/2009
NEPhilly
***Also near the beginning of his career, Holdren introduced in 1971--with his colleague and perennial population-alarmist, Ehrlich--the concept of the I=PAT identity. Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology. All of which are supposed to intensify and worsen humanity's impact on the natural world. History shows that the I=PAT identity largely gets it backward. Population is at worst neutral, while affluence and technology actually promote environmental flourishing. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests more expansive.***
Posted 11:35 AM, 10/23/2009
NEPhilly
$787 Bil doesn't buy as much as it used too & the dems up for election next year better hope Ms. Romer is wrong:) ***Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer told Congress Thursday that the administration's stimulus plan had given ... a boost to the economy but would diminish in impact over the next year, AP reports. AP: " Romer … said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. Romer said spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010."***
Posted 12:09 PM, 10/23/2009
anonymous
Is this a plot on the part of the liberal media to force Americans to spend some of their valuable weekend time reading propaganda for Obama's Socialist agenda?
Posted 12:22 PM, 10/23/2009
PicassoArt
Oh my, whatever will CD75 do until then ... wait, let me guess: what he always does: WhackWhackWhackWhackWhack
Posted 12:23 PM, 10/23/2009
JimR
Hows that hope & change working out?, funny and probably true, but I have a preview of the responses: butwhatabout Michael Moore - he makes liberal movies....and Obama is a - socialist, communist, facist, nazi, illegal alien (pick one) who is bent on implementing a secret liberal agenda to nationalize health care, etc...And on it goes.
Posted 12:35 PM, 10/23/2009
potus
NEPhilly tells friends he writes for the paper.
Posted 12:36 PM, 10/23/2009
the stupid does burn
RE-EDUCATION CAMPS! DEATH PANELS! BIRTH CERTIFICATE! CHANGE MY DIAPER!!!
Posted 12:42 PM, 10/23/2009
the stupid does burn
"President Bush was in Canada yesterday to speak at a luncheon of the Montreal Board of Trade. Approximately 300 protesters gathered outside the venue, blowing plastic horns, throwing shoes, and burning the former president in effigy. The Vancouver Sun reports on what happened during Bush’s speech: Inside the regal Fairmont Queen Elizabeth Hotel, a relaxed-appearing Bush spoke with very few regrets about some of the most controversial moves of his presidency. “I am confident that I made decisions based on principle, that I made calls as best I could, and I did not sell my soul,” Bush told an audience of about 1,000 men and women at the $400-a-seat steak luncheon. Bush also said that he regretted appearing in front of a “Mission Impossible” sign in 2003 during an address about the Iraq war. Of course, the sign actually said “Mission Accomplished.” Maybe “Mission Impossible” would have been more appropriate."
Posted 12:42 PM, 10/23/2009
schnail
Wait! More unrelated press clippings from me!!! ****London, Oct 23 (ANI): Olivia Newton-John has said that she feels sorry for Britney Spears being constantly in the limelight because the amount of press coverage received by stars nowadays is unprecedented. The 61-year-old actress was propelled to stardom after her turn in 1978 movie Grease and graced the covers of magazines worldwide. And Newton-John is grateful that she refused to take her pin-up status seriously at the time, and claims the decision kept her grounded. But she pities Spears, who found fame as a teenager in the late 1990s. “The poor girl. She has lived in a time where the paparazzi reign and we didn’t have that problem at all. We’d have occasional intrusion, you know I had a few incidents, but it was nothing like it is now,” The Daily Express quoted her as telling Britain’s Attitude magazine. “I don’t think you realise it (early fame) until you look back because it doesn’t really feel like reality in the time. I never really took it too seriously, which is healthy,” she added. (ANI)**** I am not making this up!!! http://trak.in/news/olivia-newton-john-feels-sorry-for-britney-spears/16259/ Take that, NEPhilly!
Posted 12:44 PM, 10/23/2009
still_independent
NEPhilly: you seemed to miss some more stuff on Holdren from that article 'Holdren now apparently recognizes the power of human creativity to solve environmental problems by means of technological progress and economic growth. In his 2006 inaugural lecture as the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he noted, "Advances in technology help meet basic human needs and drive economic growth through increased productivity, reduced costs, reduced resource use and environmental impact, and new or improved products and services." '... I'm only posting this to play devil's advocate. I do think he was extremely misguided back in the 70's and early 80's.... As an aside, for a contributor to Forbes, the author seems to have a very poor (or intentional) misunderstanding of commodities pricing. He attributes the drop in the 80's solely to increased supply, ignoring demand (there were some recessions in there). Remember a few years ago when copper went through the roof? People were braking into under-construction houses and stealing wiring. Farmers were loosing massive irrigation equipment. that was all demand driven during the housing boom (ahh, rmember those good old days?) ... Oil is going up right now, and it's got little to do with supply (which is up) OR demand (which has been fairly steady).
Posted 12:46 PM, 10/23/2009
still_independent
schnail : point taken. well played, sir.
67 comments | View All Comments | View All By Latest
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.

Advertise Here