Ranchers.net's Bull Session

Political Bull :: Legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity

Author: hypocritexposer
Subject: Legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:44 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 0

Quote:

February 09, 2010
Obama on the legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity
James Lewis
Quote from the Washington Post:

"This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity," said senior adviser David M. Axelrod. "He does have an incisive mind; that mind is always put to use in pursuit of tangible things that are going to improve people's lives."

Hmmm... should we be impressed?

What is astonishing --- what's mind-boggling --- but explains a lot --- is that:

1. Lawrence Tribe, always mentioned as the next Supreme Court nominee, would lend his name to such utter sophomoric moonshine, thereby exposing himself to ridicule from the entire Harvard Faculty, and screwing up his chances to ever get to the Court.

2. That Obama himself would fall for it --- as the elected chief honcho of the Harvard Law Review! (Although it may explain why nothing he wrote ever got published).

3. That David Axelrod, supposed PR genius, would cite this arrant nonsense as a point IN FAVOR of his boss.

4. That a WaPo reporter would publish it in a recitation of why the man in the White House is sane after all, even while expecting the Democrats in Congress to commit political suicide for the greater glory of Obama.

5. That some editor at the WaPo allowed it to pass, in spite of the fact that everybody with any scientific background is laughing their heads off as this juicy bit of news is buzzing around the web.

And yet, and yet... there it is. It's an "admission against interest" in legalese, and therefore all the more credible.

I conclude that:

1. The President and his inner circle are unbelievably ignorant about science and technology, not to mention the legal implications of Einstein (of which there are exactly none).

2. This Administration is just as scientifically illiterate and brain-suckered as its wholehearted support of the Global Warming Fraud would lead one to believe.

3. That the official Illuminati of the Left have now indoctrinated THEMSELVES so that they believe their own superstitions --- where previously all that just seemed to be another cynical ploy.

4. That we are therefore much worse off than I had previously imagined, because our leadership in Washington DC is not just cynical and mendacious, but objectively ignorant beyond belief.

5. That the Global Warming Fraud actually reflects the genuine beliefs of the Best and the Brightest that the liberal elite has on offer.

6. Ugh!!!

_________________
�every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.� (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Political Bull :: Dear Mr. President: I'm planning on moving to Mexico

Author: hypocritexposer
Subject: Dear Mr. President: I'm planning on moving to Mexico
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:50 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 0

_________________
�every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.� (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Coffee Shop :: 7 Year Old

Author: OldDog/NewTricks
Subject: 7 Year Old
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:48 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 0

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/7-year-old-sings-national-anthem/40945200
_________________
Put America First

Don�t make me come down there! - The Creator

George Orwell once said
�If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear�.

Ranch Talk :: RE: Summer grazing of steers

Author: Silver
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:44 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 3

My experience is that grassers are bought high on rancher optimism and sell in the realities of the market place in the fall. I think the only way to make a reasonably consistant dollar on grassers is to raise them yourself if you have the hay to winter them and the grass to summer them. Just my thoughts.

Ranch Talk :: RE: shaver beef blend

Author: Silver
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:40 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 21

PureCountry wrote:

Highly mongrelized cows - I would expect performance, but not consistency across the calf crop

I get a kick out of people that assume 'mongrelized' cows must be inconsistant. That may be true with a poor management system, but with a poor management system even the 'pure' herds are uneven.
Of course, maybe my 'mongrelized' herd is inconsistent by your standards.

Coffee Shop :: Boycott Yellow Tail

Author: OldDog/NewTricks
Subject: Boycott Yellow Tail
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:39 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 0

Boycott Yellow Tail

http://blog.beefmagazine.com/beef_daily/2010/02/04/yellow-tail-wine...
_________________
Put America First

Don�t make me come down there! - The Creator

George Orwell once said
�If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear�.

Ranch Talk :: RE: shaver beef blend

Author: Silver
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:24 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 21

peacecountry wrote:

thanks everybody for the imfo.moosemen is only about 15 hours away from here.have some family there. silver what part of bc do you hale in hows the pine beetle treeting you.

Fortunatelty not a lot of pine trees in my area, many of the pine we have are now red.
I am in the North Peace area, west of Fort St. John. Where are you at?

Ranch Talk :: RE: What is a "good" cow?

Author: Grassfarmer
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:58 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 63

And this twistedness is based on the assumption that the cattle cycle still exists / will continue to exist and can be somehow predicted to allow you to buy/sell at the right times. I guess a few heifer calves bought in the cheap after 2003 will have reared a few calves and been culled by now without ever seeing the high cycle.
To be sure of hitting some highs as well as lows you need some longevity. That 1986 model I culled before Christmas likely saw a few turns of the wheel What was '86 like anyway was it a high or low cycle?
_________________
www.luingcattle.com

Ranch Talk :: RE: What makes a good maternal bull?

Author: Grassfarmer
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:40 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 5

Yes, I agree - you will note that I did say in my post about the masculine crest in the mature bulls - what is often lacking in these bulls we have used was particularly hind quarter development.
FH your comment about keeping them hidden was spot on - I was discussing that with my friend and we have both experienced that - the bull that wasn't good enough to go to the sale so was sold privately and bred better daughters than the show ring champions that made the big money. I'll tell you that has happened time and again in our breed in the last decade - it really makes me wonder if the wrong ones are being selected most of the time.
_________________
www.luingcattle.com

Ranch Talk :: RE: What makes a good maternal bull?

Author: Faster horses
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:33 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 5

Exactly!!!!!!!

Rito 054 is a fairly modern bull that comes to mind,
He was a 3/4 brother to Rito 2100. He never had the
phenotype of 2100, he was smaller almost every where,
including the rear quarter, but 054 daughters were
stunning females. 2100 daughters were pretty darn
plain, and many had bad udders.
_________________
"God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference."

Ranch Talk :: RE: What makes a good maternal bull?

Author: Northern Rancher
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:24 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 5

Masculine bulls throw feminine daughters!!!

Ranch Talk :: RE: What makes a good maternal bull?

Author: Faster horses
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:21 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 5

You know the old saying, when sitting in the church pew, the women
touch at the hips and the men touch at the shoulders...

I've known this for a long time. Thats why Angus was such a maternal
breed. Look at Charolais, Limousin, etc. Those cattle had muscle because
they were used as draft animals in the old country, France, etc. They
were dual purpose animals, bred for pulling and meat, not bred for
maternal characteristics. I've maintained for a long time, when you
put that bigger hip on an angus you lose the maternal.

I guess everyone buys them because they look better.

The ranch we bought in W. Montana was owned by a registerd hereford
man. They tell a story about a bull he owned that he pretty much tried
to keep hidden, but he got wonderful daughters out of this bull. He
was a bull that was bigger in the front. The owner of the bull
maintained that structure showed masculinitiy. He and I visited about this more than once. He knew cattle.
_________________
"God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference."

Ranch Talk :: RE: What is a "good" cow?

Author: Dylan Biggs
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:21 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 63

RSL wrote:

For simplicity let's say you buy replacements. A cow bought at the low of the cattle cycle costs less and produces over the peak of the cycle. A cow bought at the peak, costs more and has her calves at the low part of the cycle. If you strictly look at profitability without additional context, the cow purchased at the low of the cycle will have an easier chance of making more lifetime profit. That is why i think the stuff in the first part of this thread are important considerations.

Sounds like a contradiction to me, the cow at the beginning of the thread was a "good" cow. The cow in your example was "less" good but because she produced during the high of the cycle she was better than her good counterpart bought at on the flip side. But just think how much better you could do with the good cow all the way through because the good cow at the beginning of the thread produced for at least 9 to 10 years. That is why you agree with the first part of the thread.

Ranch Talk :: RE: What makes a good maternal bull?

Author: Northern Rancher
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:18 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 5

I doubt I'd use bulls made like that in the first place to be honest.

Political Bull :: Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency

Author: hypocritexposer
Subject: Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:12 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 0

Quote:

Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Sunday, Feb 07 2010, 9:54AM

Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce has written a granularly informed insider account about those who hold the keys to the inner most sanctum of Obama Land -- Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.

It's a vital article -- a brave one -- that interviews "dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington".

Most are unnamed because the consequences of retribution from this powerful foursome can be severe in an access-dependent town. John Podesta, President of the powerful, adminstration-tilting Center for American Progress, had the temerity and self-confidence to put his thoughts publicly on the record. But most others could not.

Mark Schmitt, executive editor of the liberal magazine American Prospect, wrote that "Luce has written what seems to me the best and most succinct rundown of what's gone wrong in the White House, with particular attention to the role of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel." But some of the big aggregators out there -- Mike Allen at Politico and ABC's The Note among others -- didn't give Luce's juicy and lengthy essay any love.

Why not? Allen is a good friend of mine and tries to keep a good balance between tough-hitting political stuff but also goes out of his way to give strokes to those in the White House he can -- particularly "Axe" -- who is a regular in Mike's daily Playbook. I try to do the same to be honest and have a particular thing for Bill Burton's wit and was pleased to see Rahm Emanuel giving David Geffen rather than Rick Warren lots of hugs during the Inauguration eve fests.

But this Luce piece is unavoidably, accurately hard-hitting, and while many of the nation's top news anchors and editors are sending emails back and forth (I have been sent three such emails in confidence) on what a spot-on piece Luce wrought on the administration, they fear that the "four horsepersons of the Obama White House" will shut down and cut off access to those who give the essay 'legs.'

But in the too regularly vapid chatter about DC's political scene, serious critiques of the internal game around Obama not only deserve review on their own merits but have to be read -- because Obama is not winning. He is failing and people need to consider "why".

Any serious survey of the Obama administration's accomplishments and setbacks over the last year has to conclude that the administration is deeply in the red.

If current trends continue, this once mesmerizing Camelot-ish operation will be be seen in the history books as the presidential administration that -- to distort slightly and inversely paraphrase Churchill -- never have so many talented people managed to achieve so little with so much.

The entire article needs to be read, but to set the stage here is the beginning of Ed Luce's portal into the heart of today's Obama machine:

Quote:

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: "A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again."

Just over a year into his tenure, America's 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington's ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons - from Mr Obama's decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president's inability to convince voters he can "feel their [economic] pain", to the apparent ungovernability of today's Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington - most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office - each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people - Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama's brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans - like the president. And barring Richard Nixon's White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

"It is a very tightly knit group," says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. "This is a kind of 'we few' group ... that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep."

John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama's Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

To hit some of the later highlights, Luce speaks with political giants 'inside' the Obama tent who suggest that Rahm Emanuel lost track of the importance of communicating to the public about health care, despite some success in legislative deal-making. While Luce doesn't explicate this topic, I would also suggest that Rahm pulled the plug on shuttering GITMO, which had a good plan on paper, but was unwilling to move the political wheels to get that done -- not understanding that this was a key pillar of progressive political support for Obama.

The article goes on to document how people like Health Secretary and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius were kept off television -- along with others like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Add to this others that Luce does not name -- including important voices like Paul Volcker and Austan Goolsbee on Obama's economic team, who saw their public voices choked off by a media-dominating Lawrence Summers with support from Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel.

In a particularly cutting depiction of Emanuel, Luce writes:

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. "I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet," says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. "If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them."

I will never forget when Rahm Emanuel laughingly responded well within earshot of several national media (and this blogger/writer) at an Inaugural bash to an inquiry if Emanuel was enjoying putting Tom Daschle on the basement floor of the White House in a non-descript office pretty far from the President. Emanuel joked back glibly that Daschle had to be happy with any office in the White House because "any square inch of real estate inside the White House -- no matter where it is -- is more valuable than anything outside it."

Compare this flippant meanness and hubris to the tone of Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's depiction of the campaign in Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory and one couldn't imagine more different worlds. Plouffe describes a campaign with a "no assholes" rule -- one where good policy would be pursued -- not just what was a winning political hand.

Luce's brief paints a picture of even a well-meaning, policy-focused "Obama the man" being warped out of shape by "Obama the team." Recounting some of the antics during Obama's November China trip, Luce recounts:

Quote:

The same [dismissal of his key policy advisers in lieu of his political entourage] can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama's November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president's side.

The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama's "G2" visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama's inner circle had any background in China. "We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president," says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. "It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China."

One wonders why Valerie Jarrett was on the trip in any case. As head of public engagement for the White House, it would seem she should have a rather full plate meeting the demand of the many groups around the United States that want to feel like they are connecting with and being heard by the Obama White House.

I see Valerie Jarrett a lot -- often at Georgetown's power crowd restaurant, Cafe Milano.

In fact, one night when I was at the annual gala dinner of Jim Zogby's Arab American Institute -- an important evening for leading figures from the Arab-American community to connect with the Washington political establishment -- Jarrett was on the docket to be the major keynote speaker of the entire night.

Jarrett, however, had to modify her schedule because of what she said were "urgent duties that were calling her back to the White House right away" and so she gave a few minutes of laudatory comments toward the Arab American community before most people were in their seats between reception and sitting down for dinner. My hosts that evening said that they were mainly interested in hearing her and asked me if I wanted to depart with them for Cafe Milano. I said sure -- and wow -- there Ms. Jarrett was.

Maybe she did stop at the White House between the JW Marriott and the Georgetown hot spot. That was possible -- but it would have had to be a nano-second drop by.

Compare this to President Bill Clinton giving the major keynote remarks in March 1995 at the Nixon Center's opening conference in Washington at the Mayflower Hotel when Clinton came early for a VIP reception, stayed for the entire sit down dinner, gave a 90 minute long speech, and mingled with folks after.

People can tell when you are focused on them in a serious way -- and when you are giving them a cursory glance.

There are things that happen in politics -- and Valerie Jarrett does have important duties and a schedule that is probably always in constant flux -- so I don't want to take my critique too far.

But one thing essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists -- including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) -- would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang's tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.

President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read the Luce piece. Be honest about what is happening. Read Plouffe's smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to the House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod -- but balance him with someone like Plouffe, and get back to putting good policy before short term politics.

Set up a Team B with diverse political and national security observers like Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Brent Scowcroft, Arianna Huffington, Fareed Zakaria, Katrina vanden Heuvel, John Harris, James Fallows, Chuck Hagel, Strobe Talbott, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others to give you a no-nonsense picture of what is going on.

And take action to fix the dysfunction of your office.

Otherwise, the Obama brand will be totally bust in the very near term.

-- Steve Clemons

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/02/core_chicago_te/
_________________
�every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.� (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))