I enjoy being an uncle to my nephews, one of whom is battling for the starting quarterback slot at Iowa State and another who is an up-and-coming chef, working in Nevada City, among the others. For the one, we fly the Cyclone flag out front.
Our young son also enjoys a tradition with his uncle (and their father): passing out Easter baskets in the neighborhood.
We dye about two dozen eggs, and my son gets up before sunlight to join his uncle. They hop into his truck (a tow truck, in fact), and they tool around to the (friendly) neighbors, dropping off a small basket of colored eggs. My son thinks it’s a hoot.
My wife and I get to sleep in — a rare treat. The Santa-like Easter Egg drop is becoming a family Easter tradition, an upside of living in a small town near your relatives.
Here’s a YouTube video of a boy named Victor dying eggs:
“Investors have popped the corks this year, but they’re not quite ready to drain the champagne. That’s the message of our latest Big Money poll, which finds nearly 60% of America’s money managers bullish about the stock market’s prospects through the end of the year, but muted in their expectations of how high stocks can rise from here.
“There are reasons for optimism, including evidence that the economic recovery is pressing forward and the unemployment rate is starting to fall. And there are reasons for concern, too, brought home most clearly last Monday by the news that Standard & Poor’s has taken steps that could result in the loss of Uncle Sam’s cherished triple-A credit rating if the nation can’t get its financial house in order. The markets relayed the mixed message last week, as stocks made a new post-crash high—while gold, the asset of choice among the anxiety-ridden, topped $1,500 an ounce.
“All things considered–and there is a lot to consider lately, from America’s towering deficit to Europe’s sovereign-debt woes to soaring oil prices–the outlook could be much worse. ‘The path of least resistance is upward,’ says Jacob Gottlieb, chief investment officer of Visium Asset Management, a New York hedge-fund manager with assets of $3 billion.”
The rest of the article is here. (A subscription is required, but I found it for free on a Google search).
KVMR has given George Rebane a platform to spew more one-sided analysis in the AtPac vs. county/Diaz lawsuit — on the evening news hour, no less. The hard right likes to call this the “Diaz case.” Why? Because it suits their political agenda.
Another assertion by Rebane that went unchallenged, because KVMR offered no counterpoint: “Conservative bloggers Russ Steele of NC Media Watch and my Rebane’s Ruminations supported Mr Pruett, and liberal bloggers along with the county establishment supported Mr Diaz.”
That’s a major error of omission: In fact, two conservative GOP supervisors, Ted Owens and Nate Beason, endorsed Diaz instead of his opponent, Pruett. Diaz was more qualified. AtPac also donated $1,500 to Pruett’s campaign. Pruett lost the race in every precinct.
But here’s the biggest hole of all — Rebane omitted a key detail regarding insurance in his rant about the county’s escalating legal bills (complete with inflated figures based on no evidence): “[Addendum] Since recording this commentary on 20 April, I had a conversation with a very professional and competent sounding county staffer involved with the case who was referred to me by CEO Rick Haffey. I asked a number of questions about the county’s risk management policy and resources in cases like this, especially as they involved errors and omissions insurance.
“It turns out that the county does have an E&O policy that covers such lawsuits, and the county has begun the process to tender a claim.” Rebane then goes on to downplay the insurance angle (again, without any hard evidence).
Too bad KVMR listeners — a much bigger audience than Rebane’s blog — didn’t get to hear that the county has E&O insurance.
George Rebane always proves the point that all radio analysis is not created equal. And KVMR owes its listeners more.
Where are the moderate Republicans on our county’s GOP Central Committee leadership? The Marks (Greg and Jeanne) and the Pruetts (Barry and Kim) are part of the Dan Logue and Tom McClintock political “family.” Greg Marks is a local representative for Logue, while Kim Pruett is a local representative for McClintock. Both Logue and McClintock are hard right, not moderate, Republicans. Is it any wonder that the hard right contingent in our blogosphere — led by Barry Pruett, George Rebane and Russ Steele — labels anyone to their left as “lefties”? No wonder they can’t discern “purple” from “red” — in a “blue” state no less. LOL.
Chairman — Richard Ulery
1st Vice Chairman — Carla Embertson
2nd Vice Chairman — Greg Marks
Secretary — Deborah Wilder
Treasurer — Barry Pruett
Past Chairman — Bill Neuharth
Director at Large — Kim Pruett
Officials — Representative
Tom McClintock — Maxine Robinson
Doug LaMalfa — Jennifer Saylor
Dan Logue — Jeanne Marks
Ted Gaines — Wade Freedle
“As Republicans and conservatives have scrambled to rally the support of the Tea Party movement, many have failed to take notice of some of the important inconsistencies implicit in the Tea Party message,” according to FrumForum.com. ” A recent New York Times/CBS poll reveals some interesting information about the movement and its fundamental ‘principles.’
“According to this poll, 91% of Tea Partiers want a smaller government with fewer services. Despite this hostility to big government, 62% of Tea Partiers believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worth the cost (apparently no one bothered to tell them that Social Security and Medicare are evil Godless socialist programs). This would suggest that in order to achieve fiscal sanity the Tea Party believes that spending cuts are to be implemented elsewhere within the vast expenditures of the federal apparatus. However when one examines their beliefs on paying down the debt, the result is somewhat troubling. When asked whether they preferred deficit reduction or tax cuts, 49% of Tea Partiers said they would favor tax reduction while 42% would prefer deficit reduction.
“So, tax cuts are preferred to debt reduction, and social security and Medicare are well worth the cost. This sounds less like a movement of mature fiscal hawks and more like one of whiny adolescents (who actually happen to be middle-aged) who want their current taxes lower and their future benefits higher. They are only concerned with fighting government spending that benefits other people and are desperately seeking to save their own precious benefits. They think the costs are well worth it and they have no intention of shouldering the burden themselves. These costs will be incurred by future generations whose taxes will be higher and whose benefits will be lower or nonexistent.”
The rest of the article is here.