If your name rhymes with Lacey, you’re married to a dude named Peterson, and he likes to fish………….. RUN!

Funny as hell piece on Glenn Beck this morning. Tying copper named Peterson who it looks like offed two wives, the latest named Stacey, to the other Peterson who offed his wife Lacey and now resides up North in SQ Hotel.

One guy called in and said his name was Gacey, and had to go to wife’s family named Peterson and they don’t fish but they were HAVING fish……. Should he worry?

I started blogging during Scott Peterson trial (SF Bay Area Board – just too liberal for me – made even this one with all it’s flaming libs look like Atilla the Hun’s Board) so this struck me as even more funny.

This cop back east is something else BTW. He was out last night on his driveway filming the film crews with a little camera. He is such a crack up!

Guilty as hell IMO! What do you think?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." 

~Theodore Roosevelt.

Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, geopolitics and civilization.

Sunday´s
Opinion

Chávez is killing a cash cow
By Ana Campoy y David Luhnow

Wall Street Journal reporters Ana Campoy and David Luhnow write about how Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is selling pieces of CITGO in the U.S. in orden to down size Venezuela's PDVSA assest in the U.S. and fund its popular social programs.

In 1997, one of every 10 gallons of gasoline U.S. drivers bought came from a Venezuelan-owned refiner, Citgo Petroleum Corp. That year, a student at Oxford University wrote a thesis saying Citgo was cheating Venezuela's people by investing too much in the U.S., and should send more cash home.

The student, Juan Carlos Boué, drew scant attention until four years ago, when Venezuela's populist president, Hugo Chávez, took control of the state oil apparatus. Today, Mr. Boué is an influential member of Citgo's board. And Citgo, which Venezuela bought two decades ago to market its hard-to-refine heavy oil, now has a different focus: feeding cash to Mr. Chávez's program to build socialism in Venezuela.

In recent years, while other U.S. refiners have invested heavily to take advantage of historically wide profit margins in the business, Citgo has been slimming down. It has slashed its investment and sold off U.S. assets, most recently by agreeing last week to shed a unit that turns crude oil into asphalt. In keeping with Mr. Boué's nostrums, Citgo has sent the extra money to its sole shareholder, the Venezuelan government. Citgo has raised its annual dividend to more than $2 billion, from $225 million in 2000.

The changes at Citgo are altering the U.S. fuel landscape. Citgo owns 5% of U.S. refining capacity, a significant chunk at a time when U.S. demand for fuel is growing faster than domestic production, and no new refinery has been built in three decades. Citgo's production will stagnate, adding to pressure on pump prices and fuel imports.

Citgo's U-turn mimics changes at its corporate parent, Petróleos de Venezuela SA, known as PDVSA. Mr. Chávez has staffed the national oil company with political allies and spends some $14 billion a year of its profits on social programs. Shorn of investment, PDVSA has seen its oil output plunge.

The strategy also contrasts with those of some other national oil companies, such as Saudi Arabia's and Brazil's, which invest heavily in both production and refining.

Citgo declined to reply to questions about its strategy. Neither PDVSA nor Venezuela's Ministry of Energy and Mines responded to requests for comment. Mr. Boué, who is 41 years old, said in an email that "an objective is certainly to maximize dividends, but never at the expense of the integrity of the operations." Speaking of Venezuela's ownership of Citgo, he said, "During 20 years we put in huge amounts of money without receiving anything in return."

Rest of article is here:

what do you think about this?

Does it worry you?

http://www.metacafe.com/wat...

larger view

I love this.....................

http://foolishpleasurestudi...

Don't count on dollar's value

Batch Data Processor | Monday, Nov 12 2007 8:20 PM

Last Updated: Monday, Nov 12 2007 8:24 PM

Much has been written about the bursting real estate bubble gripping the nation, especially California, with I dare say more to come. Keep in mind, the real estate bubble is merely a sub-bubble that nurses off the all encompassing credit bubble, which developed steam in the 1970s and 1980s, and truly hit stride in 1995.

In support of this statement, readers need only review the growth in this period of various money supply and credit creation rates vs. GDP.

So I thought it might be a worthy exercise to consider the following. Cast aside momentarily the mortgage/subprime quagmire and consider the retail side of the matter, namely home prices. What might the house built in 1974 -- three bedroom, two bath, 1,900 square foot and priced at $25,000 -- be selling for today if we had sound money? Perhaps a novel concept to most, but this nation grew and thrived with sound money from birth until around 1910 to 1915.

To answer my own question, I would hazard a guess of around $15,000 as the present day value of the house under these conditions. After all, it is 30-plus years old and a deprecating asset. Hence, it must decrease in real value. This of course is subject to adjustment were the beach closer than in 1974 or the general quality of life improved here. I conveniently omit any such likelihood on both counts.

What we are left with, while not intended as scientific analysis, is the stark reality of purchasing power debasement of the once mighty dollar and on a fairly massive scale. What might the above mentioned house, given adequate upkeep and maintenance, sell for in this market? Maybe $300,000, having flirted with $400,000 last year. You get the picture.

A little discussed yet prevalent factor in the modern-day practice of marketplace price discovery is that not only the perceived utility of a product/service/investment is determined. Additionally, the value of the money at that moment is factored into the equation.

I contend that the asset inflation of recent years stocks, bonds, real estate, collectibles demonstrates that loss of purchasing power is mature and advancing rapidly, albeit still in a stealth like manner.

I can state with absolute certainty that due to the interest involved on the inflated price (coincidently in this case, simple interest, 6.5 percent of $300,000 is $15,000 annually) any attempt to increase the purchasing power of money via scarcity leads to debt default. Given the scale of the monster created, the fuse of a debt bomb of unfathomed magnitude has been lit by the currently perculating mortgage crisis that may only be diverted by accelerating debasement. Note: diverted not resolved.

My purpose here is to suggest that investors and pensioners who hold a nest egg of stocks, bonds and real estate and are counting upon these assets for a comfortable retirement may wish to take notice. Given the magnitude of money debasement along with its rate appearing to increase, projections regarding money's real value are an illusion.

Andy Wahrenbrock of Bakersfield is a financial adviser. Community Voices is an expanded commentary that may contain up to 500 words. The Californian reserves the right to reprint commentaries in all formats, including on its Web page.

Interesting how some on the “Left” are so eager to jump on the “Bash Bush Bandwagon” that they’ll resort to the old sailor’s maxim: “Any port in a storm”!

Yesterday I was posting some reality about Bush’s Rancho @ Crawford and the Random’s, etc. were typically piling on about how Bush’s place couldn’t possibly be more “green” than the Pontificating Puffball Algore’s (which it is BTW), when ProPete weighed in with the fact that Bush is “afraid of real horses”. Actually, I think Random, in one of his random drive-by’s had allowed that bush didn’t like horses, ergo could not be a “real cowboy”.

The thing that was really interesting to me about this however, was that Pete used the word of that paragon of righteousness in government and morality, Vicente Fox. Now if I can say anything bad about Bush (and I can and have said several bad things about the man) it is his choice of “friends”. When he said he looked in Putin’s eyes and saw a man he could trust – that was a sign. The man can’t “read” people. When he has sided with Fox over the years on immigration, etc. that was another sign. Again, the man cannot judge character.

But if there is anyone thing that is the primary causal factor in our problems with our friends South of the border, it is that the government in Mexico is so damn corrupt that it forces its people to go North looking for some way to make some money for sustenance. They certainly can’t get a fair shot there.

And it is because of the Vicente Fox’s who hold all the wealth, creating a society so polarized between haves and have nots that the majority of the populace fall into the poverty class who have to choice but to go North looking for work. There is a very very upper class and a “middle class” – also very small – of bearcats and Federales, etc. – and a huge lower class most of whom exist at a poverty level. Thank you Vicente!

But look at how eager the aptly named No one = noone(isagainstthelaw), Random=randomly darting in and out to stick his diminutive picadors into the hide of the much maligned Bush, when Pete resorted to the utilization of his “friend” Vicente Fox to call Bush a windshield cowboy who was afraid of his “big palomino”.

Fox is a pontificating vituperous vavoso (saw him on O’Rielly) and one of the most corrupt people on the planet, yet the “Lib Lefty Socialist Anti-War Bush Bashing Minions” cannot wait to pile on ol’ George with Vicente the Vavoso’s help.

<most strak military salute I can muster>

to all the vets on the board..........

<most strak military salute I can muster>

larger view

Hillary Clinton faces sensational claims from another woman in Bill's past

Last updated at 10:12am on 7th November 2007

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign faced damaging allegations yesterday from one of the women who claim to have been groped by former president Bill.

Kathleen Willey suggests in a new book that the former First Couple could have been involved in her husband Ed's death.

Willey, a former White House aide, alleges a campaign of slander and intimidation has been waged against her by Hillary since she made the sex assault allegations.

Scandal?: Hillary Clinton said recently she was glad she had stood by Bill

Her book "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton" details what she says are the threats made against her by the Clintons and their allies.

The most damaging allegation concerns the apparent suicide of her husband Ed in 1993.

He died from a gunshot wound to the head on the day Willey claimed she was sexually assaulted by Clinton in the Oval Office.

Willey insists her husband's death was murder and not suicide.

In an interview published on a US news website to coincide with the book's publication she says she has "suspicions" the Clintons were involved.

Asked by a reporter from World Net Daily if the Clintons were involved in her husband's death she replied: "I do have my suspicions. Yes."

A spokesman for Mrs Clinton's Democratic campaign refused to make any comment last night on the allegations.

Claims: The cover for Kathleen Willey's book

Willey also claims the Clintons were behind a burglary at her home in Virginia four months ago when she says thieves tried to steal the manuscript of the book after excerpts were serialised in a magazine.

Willey, 57, was working as a volunteer in the White House when she said Clinton assaulted her.

According to Willey, during a meeting in the private study off the Oval Office, Clinton embraced her, kissed her on the mouth and fondled her breast. She also claimed he placed her hand on his crotch.

Clinton denied ever assaulting Willey in the incident which allegedly took place five years before the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Willey never gave evidence to a Clinton's impeachment trial after some members of the House and Senate refused to allow her to testify.

On the same night the alleged assault took place in November 1993, Willey's husband Ed died from a single gunshot wound.

The Virginia lawyer was over £300,000 in debt and had embezzled money from a client.

He left a suicide note in which he apologised for running up the debts, and also a $100 lottery ticket for his wife.

Willey claims in her book that the autopsy on her husband failed to show it was suicide.

She says the coroner told her he died from a shot fired by a right-handed person, while her husband was left-handed.

Willey also claims her husband's death bore striking similarities to that of Vince Foster.

He was a deputy White House counsel and close friend of Hillary who committed suicide in 1993.

Willey says she wrote the book because of misunderstanding about what had happened. She said: "There is so much misinformation out there. I now have the opportunity to set the record straight."

Why does it seem that all the people who have been on this board railing against the Bush Administration for their usage of “water boarding” are not only non-combatants, but non- service members (former or current) as well.

This is not to say that there are not exceptions to this. Of course, I have mentioned a well known “water boarding detractor”  – John McCain. McCain has been subject to harsh methods of interrogation both in training by our people, and by our enemies. I think he is wrong in this area but I do respect his particular perspective. That is at least more than I can say for most of those who have such strong opinions regarding “extreme methods of interrogation” (what they refer to as “torture”) who have no actual experience with enemy combatants or even serving in our military in defense of this country and its citizens.

There is an obvious disconnect here. Almost to a man, those who have been in combat against our enemies or at least have served in our military, favor “water boarding” and other “reasonably extreme” methods of interrogation. Those, whose “experiences” in war and its artifices and exigencies thereto, have come from movies or books, oppose these methodologies.

I have to wonder why that is? And, further, what this really means in the context of this entire argument? I think I know, but……

A dog is "der Hund"; a woman is "die Frau"; a horse is "das Pferd"; now you put that dog in the genitive case, and is he the same dog he was before? No, sir; he is "des Hundes"; put him in the dative case and what is he? Why, he is "dem Hund." Now you snatch him into the accusative case and how is it with him? Why, he is "den Hunden." But suppose he happens to be twins and you have to pluralize him- what then? Why, they'll swat that twin dog around through the 4 cases until he'll think he's an entire international dog-show all in is own person. I don't like dogs, but I wouldn't treat a dog like that- I wouldn't even treat a borrowed dog that way. Well, it's just the same with a cat. They start her in at the nominative singular in good health and fair to look upon, and they sweat her through all the 4 cases and the 16 the's and when she limps out through the accusative plural you wouldn't recognize her for the same being. Yes, sir, once the German language gets hold of a cat, it's goodbye cat. That's about the amount of it.

- Mark Twain's Notebook