My Photo

Recent Comments

COMMENTS?

  • We love comments, but they are treated like letters to the editor -- only some are permanently published. Comments may be depublished or edited if they contain profanity or personal attacks or if they include statements that are false, defamatory, unethical, immoral, or illogical. Rude or inappropriate comments or spam may result in a permanent website ban (comments auto-deleted), so don't do that. Thanks.
  • Google

Like This Blog?

  • Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to Google

    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Add to My AOL

  • Word of the Day

    This Day in History

    In the News

    Quote of the Day

    Spelling Bee
    difficulty level:
    score: -
    please wait...
     
    spell the word:

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

7 entries categorized "Financial"

May 08, 2008

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Which Tips REALLY Save the Most Gas?

Originally published on May 8, 2006: Which Tips REALLY Save the Most Gas?

Would you like to reduce how much gasoline you have to pay for by about one third? 

Depending on how you drive, that may be quite possible.

Edumunds.com has field-tested six different popular tips to save gas, and found a few surprises.  (Hat tip to Lifehacker)

The good news:  You can use your air conditioning!  It doesn't make that big a difference in your mileage after all, compared to turning off the AC and rolling down your windows.

The bad news:  You're going to have to drive more -- gingerly.  It really helps to avoid aggressive driving (lots of rapid acceleration and braking).  This was the single most important tip, producing average savings of 31%. 

Read the whole report here.

_______________________

If these tips save you money, please consider dropping a few dollars in my tip jar.  Thank you!

January 21, 2008

And Don't Forget to Seize Control of the Means of Production

By DemocracyRules

Hillary, unmedicated.  NYT interview:

Hillarybook2a

It's long and boring, but here is the gist:  She is skeptical about free trade and other aspects of a free-market economy...  she talks about irresponsibility in corporate America and the government.

She thinks income inequality is growing. "[F]rom 1946 to 1973, the pay of most workers rose steadily... the share of workers in labor unions grew, allowing workers to win raises and benefits that they can rarely win on their own".

She thinks technological change is bad because it "eliminated the need for many blue-collar jobs".  She thinks global trade is holding down wages. 

Her first priority is to increase taxes on the rich.  She thinks increasing high-end tax rates would increase revenue by $52 billion a year, which she would spend on various projects.

She wants to increase regulation.  "I just believe strongly that we are in great need of a total overhaul," she said, arguing that the Bush administration has outsourced too many functions and damaged the federal government’s competence.

She wants to fix mortgage problems by banning foreclosures and freezing interest rates on sub-prime mortgages.  She says she can "understand totally" the frustration of people who did not take out such loans and now wonder why the government would help those who did.  But she will do it anyway.

"[I]f you really believe you have to manage the economy," she said.

Go Fred!


September 20, 2007

Another Fake Bin Laden Video Swallowed Whole by Uncurious Print and Broadcast Media

Bin_laden_video_92007

So once again we have video "from Osama Bin Laden" that consists of old video of Bin Laden only (back to the partially grey beard), spliced with current audio of someone who claims to be Bin Laden.

The incurious, naive print and broadcast media once again uncritically report that Bin Laden is speaking in the "video," with no mention of the suspicious nature of this video or the two most recent Bin Laden videos in which the image of Bin Laden was frozen whenever the video referred to current events and there were multiple unexplained splices:

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden called on Pakistanis to rebel against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in a new recording released Thursday, saying his military's siege of a militant mosque stronghold makes him an infidel.

The storming of the Red Mosque in Islamabad in July "demonstrated Musharraf's insistence on continuing his loyalty, submissiveness and aid to America against the Muslims ... and makes armed rebellion against him and removing him obligatory," bin Laden said in the message.

"So when the capability is there, it is obligatory to rebel against the apostate ruler, as is the case now," he said.

Bin Laden's voice was heard over video showing previously released footage of the terror leader. The video was released Thursday on Islamic militant Web sites and first reported by Laura Mansfield, an American terrorism expert who monitors militant message traffic.

The message, titled "Come to Jihad," was the third from bin Laden this month in a flurry of videos and audiotapes marking the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

As I've mentioned before, it's possible that Bin Laden is not releasing current images of himself in order to conceal his current appearance.  In that case, he and Al Qaeda need to be called out on the cowardice of the supposed "Lion" and "Al Qaeda chief" Bin Laden.

The more likely scenario is that Bin Laden is dead -- and what's left of Al Qaeda is cranking out one fake video after another, giving their own pronouncements extra heft by putting them into the mouth of a dead man. 

Have the mainstream print and broadcast media analyzed the recent Bin Laden videos?  No. Have they interviewed experts on video fakery or experts in voice imitation?  No. At most reporters have asked one or two government officials whether the videos are genuine, and have taken at face value their off-handed dismissals or changes of subject.  Since when is uncritical acceptance of off-the-cuff reactions of public officials the standard for reliable journalism?  Only when it serves someone's political agenda. 

The most important political agenda should be the truth.

When it comes to ferreting out secrets of the West's war on terror, including programs to detect terrorists before they strike, the print media are all over it.  But Al Qaeda propaganda is passed along unblushingly without so much as an "allegedly" or "claimed" or "purportedly." 

Bin Laden video propaganda is poisonous and deadly stuff.  That is why it's being created and released.  It cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged.  If Bin Laden is alive, let him prove it.  Until it does, it should be assumed that he is dead and that presumption should be spread around the world.

Meanwhile, those who call themselves journalist still have a lot to prove themselves.  Based on their uncritical acceptance thus far of these recent Bin Laden videos known to contain multiple splices without even bothering to interview video forensics experts, the major print and broadcast media are demonstrating naivete to the point of foolishness.  They are also demonstrating themselves to be poorly informed and unreliable. 

How long can this foolishness go on?  Will the uncritical acceptance of fake Bin Laden propaganda videos continue for years, until reporters finally realize that Bin Laden has become implausibly old?

Surely there must be a few mainstream editors and reporters who will take a closer look at the latest Bin Laden videos and raise the question of whether Al Qaeda might be engaging in video fakery to keep its former leader "alive" past his expiration date.

Earlier:

July 18, 2007

If Al Qaeda Is "Evolving," Why Can't America's Iraq Strategy Evolve Too?

Here's what passes for the conventional wisdom on Iraq:  The war was badly planned and therefore is failing miserably.  As a result, America's only option is to fold up the entire operation and slink away, leaving the Iraqis to whatever bloodbath awaits them.  We've reached the point of no return; the war is irretrievably lost; and no amount of rethinking or redoubling of effort will make any difference.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:

Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.

"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.

Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.

The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."

"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."

Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?

Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."

But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States.  The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war.  Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.

Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer.  Nonsense.  Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.

What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight.  Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost.  The solution is quite simple:  Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.

In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal.  The margin of victory usually turns on one thing:  motivation.  If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts  and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.

By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.

Update:  Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

February 16, 2007

Congressman Who Stashed Cash in Freezer Gets Committee Appointment from House Dems

How bizarre.

Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson, who stashed $90,000 in cash in his freezer and who is facing a federal corruption probe, will get a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Do the leaders of the Democractic party in Congress have no shame?

Never mind. 

Their actions speak much louder than words.

October 04, 2006

Dow at New All-Time High

I love it.  The Dow is was at an all-time high yesterday, and is up again today.

I'd like to write more, but I've got some stocks to trade.

_________________________

Update:  I bought a few shares of OM Group earlier today (OMG) after it raised its earnings estimates and surged on high volume.  Buying a stock that has jumped in price is always a little risky because it may already have reached its peak and might be just be getting ready to correct itself with a sharp fall.  But so far OMG has been holding up today.  If it begins to lose ground, I'll sell.

I'm not a stock trading expert by any means, but I do read and recommend Investor's Business Daily.  Even if you're not involved in the stock market, it's a great paper for its editorial page and Michael Ramirez's editorial cartoon, as well as its "Leaders & Success" series (mini-biographies of successful people).   

By the way, IBD points out that the surge in the Dow is only part of the story.  The S&P 500 and the NASDAQ are not yet anywhere near their own earlier highs.  We'll just have to wait and see whether the Dow leads the entire market to higher ground.

May 31, 2006

Have You Put Your Finances on Autopilot?

Have you put your finances on autopilot?

Gina Trapani at Lifehacker has good advice on how to automate routine financial transactions like regular savings and monthly payments.  The advice is particularly useful if you're self-employed, but there are useful tidbits here for everyone.

The bottom line:  Let computers and automation help you.  They can make your life easier.

NEWS & BUZZ

DAILY CARTOON click to enlarge
ANDERTOONS.COM DAILY CARTOONS

WEBSITES TO EXPLORE

  • Blogroll Me!

    "New!" websites were updated within the last 6 hours

SUPPORT OUR ADVERTISERS

GINA COBB

  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog." (Jack Jones)
  • ". . . Gina Cobb is proof that not all lawyers deserve the death penalty." (Gringoman.com)(Gee -- thanks!)
  • "Let the charming and talented Gina Cobb show you how important rhetorical argument can be." (No-Pasaran.blogspot.com)