John Ransom
Recommend this article

Too, you might have missed the article from the Associated Press where the Postmaster General says that they “image” all the mail.

I don’t know what “image” means to you, but to me, without even using the dictionary, it’s a verb that means: to take pictures of.

So, let me refresh your memory from the AP:

The Postal Service takes pictures of every piece of mail processed in the United States — 160 billion last year — and keeps them on hand for up to a month.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said the photos of the exterior of mail pieces are used primarily for the sorting process, but they are available for law enforcement, if requested.

I know, I know: You’re latching on to that “primarily for sorting process” phrase the AP uses and substituting “scan” for the word “picture” to convince yourself that the Loyal Democrats aren’t spying.

Which is more proof that amazing things happen when let your LAST best-president-of-the-United-States-ever redefine oral sex as no sex whatsoever, under any circumstances.

“I want you to listen to me,” he said, “I’m gonna say this again. I did not have sex with that woman.”

Gee, from there to here in less than 20 years?

Here’s the give away in the AP article that the “images” kept by the USPS are all about spying: “The automated mail tracking program was created after the deadly anthrax attacks in 2001,” writes the AP, “so the Postal Service could more easily track hazardous substances and keep people safe, Donahoe said.”

Glad to know that they created a system to track us and keep us safe so that they could use it mostly for other purposes.

But here’s the biggest giveaway: Do you really think the Post Office is so smart that they would actually create something that automatically puts zip codes on envelopes when they could hire thousands to do it for more money?

I didn’t think so either.

It’s the United States Post Office…come on.

They have a union. ‘Nuff said. 

Barskor wrote: Lol you are using the pathetic unionized crony capitalist stupidly produced Gump mobiles as examples privet micro companies without government enslavement funding have been producing far better vehicles greater performance ability to travel through the worst winter offers as electric has better torque and if you spent you tax return on Solar, Geothermal Sterling generators or wind power using air scoops & the bertoil effect you would be free of centralized power companies & gas companies with an ever reducing environmental foot print as three times standard energy storage can be done with Iron Sulfur batteries that cost a third the price of lithium batteries. - Liberal Democrats Propose to Outlaw Gas-Powered Cars by 2040

Dear Comrade Barskor,

I have no idea what you are talking about. But thankfully, neither do you.

Now go punch in and image all that mail.

Nathan wrote: Although I agree that any idea to mandate the use of anything is moronic, I always wonder why people take so much time to denigrate electric cars. The problem with the electric car is not so much that it is a bad idea. It is that you have companies where the best engineers are mechnical, and they are trying to deliver an electric engine. To highlight this fact, see the latest car of the year, The Tesla S. They are only going to get better, faster and with more range after this one. You too will be driving an electric car in twenty years not because somebody is making you, but because you couldn't possibly dream of using anything else. - Liberal Democrats Propose to Outlaw Gas-Powered Cars by 2040

Dear Comrade Nathan,

Well first your basic premise that people spend a lot of time denigrating electric cars is mistaken. It takes me very little time, actually, to denigrate electric cars. There is tons of data out there that makes it easy to denigrate electric cars without a lot of effort.

But there are other reasons to denigrate electric cars.

First, it’s fun. Second, it’s easy. Third, the whole family can do it.

Know how kids today play that game slug bug? They see a Volkswagen Bug and the first one to see it gets too punch their seatmate in the arm while shouting out the color of the car?

Well when I was growing up we played Volt jolt.

In those days, back in the 1970s, Cadillacs came with cigarette lighters for every passenger. On long car trips we kids spent our time trying to spy Chevy Volts on the road. The first one to spot a Chevy Volt got to take the finger of their seatmate and stick it in the electrical receptacle for the cigarette lighter, while crying out the color of the car. It was kind of a Volt test-drive if you ever got into a crash in one.

To this date, my nearsighted sister hates to take long car rides with the family.

Ha, ha, ha!

And by the way I don’t really denigrate electric cars as a whole generally speaking. I denigrate the Chevy Volt.

Tesla, for example, is a case in point. I hope Tesla is very, very successful at creating electric cars for people who have way too much money and not enough brains. Were I rich, I too might take advantage of every person’s prerogative to spend money on whatever it is that they want regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Just like BMW owners do.

But my main criticism about electric cars right now is this: I don’t want my tax dollars subsidizing cars that are not commercially viable without my money. I actually believe that my money is much more valuable in my pocket.

It’s more valuable to me, it’s more valuable to the economy, and it’s probably more valuable even to Obama when my money is in my pocket.

Just because he’s too stupid to understand that doesn’t make Obama right.

I too look confidently to the day when the electric car makes sense economically.

But it won’t be my children to benefit. It will probably be my children’s children’s children who will benefit from that.

In the meantime I will say about electric cars in general what I have said about the Chevy Volt specifically: alternative energy vehicles, especially electric, are amenity purchases for the metro-testicled.

Lester_Greenfield wrote: John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance

What associates, bachelors,masters, or PHD degrees do you own?  What does Chicago's (Obama's neighborhood) statistical data regarding murder and crime have to do with finances?- Obama to Martha's Vineyard as Chicago Crime Burns

Dear Comrade Greenfield,

I see you’ve pulled the old liberal trick of “What’s your degree in that makes you such a great expert?”

People who work in finance come from varied background.

I was a sportswriter previously- that’s how I broke into writing- and I’m still proud to be a member of the Football Writers Association- I’m am also an associate member of the Naval Intelligence Professionals. But had you consulted a host of biographical data available-like this website- you would know a few other things about me.

As I told another reader, genetically speaking, I’m an exact copy of both Koch Brothers. We wouldn’t want that to get around. So I’m keeping those records in the same fireproof box that the Obama administration keeps his college transcripts.

Before joining Townhall, I was both a political consultant and a writer. I wrote mostly about the stock market. My father was a banker. His father was a banker.

Starting in 1994, I followed in my family’s tradition and I worked as an investment executive to several NYSE-member investment firms. I was also a recruiter for one of the largest independent contractor broker-dealers in the country. I co-founded a small boutique investment firm, which was sold eventually for a nice profit- and I worked for a merchant banker.

I’ve filed 10Ks and 10Qs for public companies, and conducted a hostile takeover of a bank; I rescued a federally-insured financial institution- using NO taxpayer money- by helping to raise private money.

For years, I’ve worked as a consultant to a number of businesses in Colorado on business plans, marketing, and acquisitions.

I don’t have an advanced degree in anything. I studied Russian Language and Literature at the University of Maryland and am, somewhat, working on a Master’s degree in Writing- when I have time, which I have had rarely in a few years.

I also like camping in the mountains, horses, cognac and fishing. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis. 

I think the better question to be asking is this: do you honestly believe that there is no connection between crime and finance?

You’re much more liberal than I thought possible. 

RJonesy wrote: John, There you go again, using Repubs statistics. No matter what, the President is always wrong. What about the deficit decreasing? You never comment on that.- Obama to Martha's Vineyard as Chicago Crime Burns

Dear Comrade Jonsey,

Yo, Comrade Jonesy: you may have missed the part where the statistics come from the Chicago Tribune, not the Republican National Committee. The last time I checked the Chicago Tribune endorsed Barack Obama for president twice.

As to the declining deficit, I would credit Obama if he had anything to do with that decline. But when you don’t actually submit a budget it’s very difficult take credit for the work other people are doing.

I know that won’t stop Obama from pretending like he has something to do with the declining deficit, but that also won’t change the truth that he has nothing to do with the declining deficit.

The deficit is declining right now because outside forces, including the Republican Congress, have imposed upon Obama at least minimal fiscal discipline.

You need only consult Obama’s budget proposals to understand that if he had his way we would be running bigger deficits than ever before.

scott s. wrote: The problem with this article is it doesn't take into account that the BEA has done what they call a "comprehensive revision" to the National Income and Product Accounts effective 31 July. So all the historical numbers for GDP have to be refigured using the new definitions. That makes comparisons difficult. -The Top 7 Lies of Obam-a-CON-omists… So Far

Dear Scott,

Yes, and the problem with readers is that they don’t seem to understand that I have limited space within the confines of a column. I can’t expose every revision to previous revisions that were already revised to begin with.

But I will say this much: Your observation that the revisions to GDP make comparisons difficult is likely the point of the revisions to GDP in the first place.

I believe that I have mentioned this elsewhere in other columns.

And that just goes to show you that you should be reading my columns every single day and sometimes twice a day

Pete329 wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the Federal Reserve is a part of the federal government. Can anyone confirm this? -The Top 7 Lies of Obam-a-CON-omists… So Far

Dear Comrade Pete,

I think that this is a rumor that was started by the United States Postal Service.

The Federal Reserve banking system is the creation that is jointly owned by the private banks that are members of the Federal Reserve system and Congress.

But the ownership by the member banks, which really is just a fig leaf creating the fiction that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, in reality only legally entitles member banks to a dividend from the central bank.

Constitutionally speaking, the Federal Reserve banking system, because it has been delegated the authority to coin money, a function that was enumerated in the Constitution of United States to Congress, must be a part of the government otherwise it would no longer be constitutional, in my opinion. I don’t believe that Congress has the authority, under the Constitution, to delegate one of its enumerated powers to a private entity.

This is in some part why the chairman of the Federal Reserve testifies from time to time before Congress. This allows Congress to say that they are exercising oversight authority over the Federal Reserve banking system.

As could be observed about the Post Office, I know of no private American corporation where the chairman is appointed by the president of United States.

So you will find comrades out there who claim that the Federal Reserve system is private. Yet, come on: who you kidding?

The government calls the shots.

Dickathome wrote: Discounting old projections proves nothing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is increasing. Arctic ice is melting, as are glaciers all over the world. High temperature records are being broken every year. The oceans are getting warmer and rising. If this is not global warming, what is? Watch a NOVA TV program called "Earth from Space." It shows how very accurate measurements have been taken for the last 30 years of many aspects of every part of the surface of the land and oceans, plus below ground and oceans surfaces. Accurate measurements have also been made of the atmosphere from the surface to above the atmosphere. -Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice, Haircuts

Dear Comrade Dick,

Spoken like a true idiot.

The only thing that matters about so-called global warming is the power to predict what will happen in the future. And so far those predictions have largely fallen flat.

"There's a lot of differing data [about global warming],” quips Dennis Miller, “but as far as I can gather, over the last hundred years the temperature on this planet has gone up 1.8 degrees. Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable? I could go back to my hotel room tonight and futz with the thermostat for three to four hours. I could not detect that difference."

Here’s some advanced reading from the blog Watts Up With That? debunking climate models and sea ice while noting that global warming has stopped all together: 

We’ve illustrated in a number of posts over the past few months that the climate models prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5thAssessment show no skill at being able to simulate:

§  Global Land Precipitation & Global Ocean Precipitation

And we recently illustrated and discussed in the postMeehl et al (2013) Are Also Looking for Trenberth’s Missing Heatthat the climate models used in that study show no evidence that they are capable of simulating how warm water is transported from the tropics to the mid-latitudes at the surface of the Pacific Ocean, so why should we believe they can simulate warm water being transported to depths below 700 meters without warming the waters above 700 meters?

The climate science community may believe they understand “the fundamental physics of the Earth system”, but the performance of their models indicate their understandings are very limited and that they have a long way to go before they can “make projections of its evolution”. If they can’t simulate the past, we have no reason to believe their projections of what the future might hold in store.

VLadilyich wrote: Why on Earth, would an article in a blog that touts journalistic integrity, with the headline "Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice" carry the lead graphic of the Antarctic? Penguins only live at the South Pole). -Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice, Haircuts

Dear Comrade Vlad,

Ah, you must be an angry, South Pole elf.

I’m not a blogger; I’m a columnist. One would think that a reader who touts journalistic integrity would know the difference.

The reason why I picked that picture with the penguin at the South Pole is because I knew some dweeb with way too much time on his hands—yes, I’m looking at you Vlad-- would mouth off about it.

Also, we at Townhall are shooting for something much higher than “journalistic integrity,” which is an oxymoron today.

We call it integrity.

It’s something journalists generally known nothing about.

tbrennan55 wrote: Just how deranged is this character? The evidence of the ice shelves are shrinking in the arctic is overwhelming. It is an easy thing to measure. It's an easy thing to acutally watch. The ocean level is increasing. Temperature is increasing every year. What more do you need to show the world that Global warming is real? ). -Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice, Haircuts

Dear Comrade TB,

I’m very deranged.

But that doesn’t mean that I’ll go along with global warming hysteria.

More about that later but for now, I have to go do other things liberals find deranged, like obey the constitution, exercise my First and Second Amendment rights, go to church and fire up my outdoor BBQ and fireplace with green energy, renewable fuels, also known as wood.

I love the smell of burning wood in the morning. It smells like victory.

That’s it for this week,

V/r,

JR

Recommend this article

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance.