I may be sad but I still have my sense of humor.
(248): I'm saying "I told...
7 minutes ago
First, the government is what is known as a “motivated seller.” By offering such a low stock price, the administration is essentially admitting that it has no place in running an auto company. While GM’s financial position is much better than it was when it should have gone bankrupt, the company’s finances are not great. A quick crunch of any of the numbers in the GM prospectus shows the company is not the healthy organization the politicos would have you believe. They have done a poor job running the company, even if they did save it from going under by ignoring the law and throwing billions of dollars at it. The sale prospectus even admits “our (that is, the government’s) disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting are currently not effective.” Hardly a ringing endorsement!Read the whole thing.
Second, they’re not the only ones in the game. The unusual bankruptcy settlement for GM granted a significant portion of the company to the United Auto Workers. The union is in this game too, even though it has no investment to recoup. The UAW is selling around 18 million shares, so it stands to gain about $500 million for its pension fund — at taxpayers’ expense.
Finally, just as with RailTrack, there is considerable political risk involved. If the feds could nationalize GM once, they can do it again. The company admits in its prospectus that “The UST [U.S. Treasury] (or its designee) will continue to own a substantial interest in us following this offering, and its interests may differ from those of our other stockholders.” It suggests that government might interfere in “The selection, tenure and compensation of our management; our business strategy and product offerings; our relationship with our employees, unions and other constituencies; and our financing activities, including the issuance of debt and equity securities.” Furthermore, the government has asserted sovereign immunity, meaning that the IPO is not subject to anti-fraud laws.
And making an even bigger mockery of the whole thing is the Administration’s claim of “post-acquittal detention power.” So the whole thing was just a show trial anyway. Ah, remember the fierce moral urgency of change? Apparently, it was the fierce moral urgency of show trials. But that doesn’t get Holder off the hook. He botched a show trial, after all . . .President Bush never attempted "post-acquittal detention power" and yet I haven't heard any "BusHitler" assclowns complain that Obama is doing something far, far worse. Typically hypocritical if you ask me.
When the history of the greatest pseudoscience fraud in history – aka “Climate Change” – comes to be written, no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC. That’s because, of all the numerous MSM outlets which have been acting as the green movement’s useful idiots, the BBC is the only one which is taxpayer-funded and which is required by its charter to adopt an ideologically neutral position.I like City Journal so here is this - Intellect and Influence in NYC
It is now obvious to me why the Obama administration continues to be so secretive regarding the DOJ’s New Black Panther Party decision. These documents show that not only was the New Black Panther Party decision shamelessly politicized by the Obama administration but also that Obama officials lied to cover up the scandal. These documents raise more questions about Attorney General Holder’s involvement as well.Lots of links to source documents. The proof is piling up that Holder, the DoJ, and Obama lied.
Here’s why Cisco Systems’ bad financial news last week should (maybe) scare the hell out of you.There's more. Read the whole thing and be afraid.
First, in case you missed it, here are the details of the announcement. On Thursday, Cisco stunned both the tech world and the stock market when it cut its sales forecast for the second quarter in a row. Worse, chairman and CEO John Chambers said that the company’s current situation is the result of outside forces beyond the company’s control – in particular, declining orders from cable companies and government agencies.
The market responded quickly and strongly to such depressing news from one of the linchpins of the U.S. economy: the Dow fell nearly 74 points, or 0.7 percent to close at 11,283.10. It could have been a lot worse – at one point in the day trading was down as much as 126 points.
Needless to say, Cisco stock was bloodied as well: it fell $3.97 (more than 16 percent) to $20.52. That instantly erased nearly $24 billion in worth from one of the world’s most valuable companies.
Still, having been buffeted by hard economic times for the last two years, the Cisco announcement was quickly assimilated as just the latest piece of bad news in what seems like an endless run of such bleak corporate announcements. What seemed at the beginning of last summer as the long-awaited start of a turnaround in the U.S. economy, now is beginning to feel like the beginning of a long malaise and a dishearteningly shallow recovery. Even the careful optimism coming from other tech bellwethers like Intel and Google (notably the across-the-board raises and bonuses at the latter) hasn’t been enough to raise spirits in the tech world.
And so, despite the Cisco announcement, both the stock market and the tech world ended the week about where it began, with an attitude of More of the Same. . .and awaiting that one message that will point which way the economy is going to go: towards recovery or a double dip; inflation or deflation, optimism or despair.
A misguided bill, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, may shut down farmer’s markets and “drive out of business local farmers and artisanal, small-scale producers of berries, herbs, cheese, and countless other wares, even when there is in fact nothing unsafe in their methods of production,” warns legal commentator Walter Olson at Overlawyered.Read the whole thing. I don't know whether to laugh or weep.