Hillary in India: 'Outsourcing Will Continue'

In comments that may cause her trouble back home, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton told political and business leaders in India over the weekend that she supports outsourcing U.S. jobs to the populous South Asian country, while acknowledging that it hurts American workers back home.

"Outsourcing will continue," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in New Delhi, one of several stops on her Indian tour last week.

Syrian backed Lebaneese government falls, Egypt calls for multi-party elections, Libya relaxes, what's going on? Oh NOO!!! IT's Democracy sprouting everywhere! Senator Kennedy, quick get the poison out and kill it quick!



Russian Ignorance is Scary Indeed!

Vladimir Putin, CBS News Loyalist

More Dutch Plan to Emigrate as Muslim Influx Tips Scales- America take notice!!!!!!!!! These are the enlightened Dutch who we all are told we must be like!

Top music labels try to raise prices for downloads


Arabiya TV Says Threatened Over Syria Broadcast

Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has caused an international incident after she criticized Iraq's leading candidate to become prime minister as a result of last month's historic election, prompting a sharp rebuke.

"Hillary Clinton, as far as I know, does not represent any political decision or the American administration, and I don't know why she said this," Dr. Ibrahim Jafari, who is expected to become prime minister, told the Times of London on Thursday.

"She knows nothing about the Iraqi situation," he added.

Bush assassin suspect suing U.S.?
Family of Muslim accused in plot blames America
Of course he'll win. If it's the opposite of common sense and decency, it will happen.
Left is right and up is down in our country these days, so of course he'll win the suit.


Conservative Blacks: Jesse Jackson Irrelevant WASHINGTON – It was not a good evening for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the NAACP, and the Congressional Black Caucus at the Heritage Foundation Thursday as a panel concluded these reputed icons "have utterly failed to provide moral leadership in the Black community and have become the tools for extremist political agendas."

Condoleezza Rice's Commanding Clothes

All The Detractor's Suck at Prognosticating the Economy (Liberal Poloticians Especially)

Why Terri Schiavo is pro-choice or: Kill the Innocent and Spare the Death-Row Criminals (the irony is lost on the perveyors of free-speech, compassion and tolerance).

CBS Hired Detective, Muzzled Rather

Dan Rather has apparently been told to keep his mouth shut when he leaves his anchor post on March 9, according to reporter Joe Hagan, writing in the Feb. 23 issue of the New York Observer.

CBS sources told Hagan that the disgraced anchor has been officially muzzled. On March 9, when he steps down as anchor of the "CBS Evening News," Hagan wrote, "he will be limited to seven controlled interviews with the press to avoid questions about the [Rathergate] scandal."

And now for a big DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Confession: Syria Behind Iraqi Terrorism BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The Syrian intelligence officer who appeared on the U.S.-funded Iraqi state television station had a stark message about the insurgency - he'd helped train people to build car bombs and behead people.

"My name is Anas Ahmed al-Essa. I live in Halab. I am from Syria," he said by way of introduction - naming what he said was his home in Syria.

"What's your job?" he was asked by someone off-camera. "I am a lieutenant in intelligence."

Then a second question. "Which intelligence?" The reply: "Syrian intelligence."

Americans Lose $68 Billion to Illegals
Finally, some common sense evaluation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fear and Loathing Commits Suicide
Most people grow wiser as they grow older. Some people just grow older.

Dean: Democrats will 'stand up for what we believe', reach out to evangelicals Who will then, laugh in his face!

.

AARP is LYING to it's paying Seniors

by Merrill Matthews
Posted Jan 27, 2005

AARP is spending millions of dollars to "educate" the public about President Bush's proposal to reform and strengthen Social Security. But is AARP telling seniors the truth about Social Security and the reform proposals?

The following are direct quotes from AARP publications, followed by quotes from government publications and people who actually know what they're talking about. You can judge for yourself.

AARP Claim #1: "Well, the fact is, the Social Security trust funds aren't just sound, they're building a surplus."

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. The money workers pay in from their 12.4 percent payroll (FICA) tax goes right back out to pay retirees. Currently, workers pay in more than the government needs to pay benefits, leaving a surplus, which is loaned to the federal government and used to pay other expenses. According to the trustees of the Social Security trust fund:

Under the intermediate (i.e., best guess) assumptions, the OASDI (the acronym for the Social Security trust fund) cost rate is projected . . . to increase rapidly and first exceeds the income rate in 2018, producing cash-flow deficits thereafter. Despite these cash-flow deficits, beginning in 2018, redemption of trust fund assets will allow continuation of full benefit payments on a timely basis until 2042, when the trust fund will become exhausted.

Translation: Social Security will have enough money coming from current workers to pay benefits until 2018. After that, it will need to redeem money from the trust fund (actually there are two Social Security trust funds, but for this paper we will consider them as one). But the federal government has borrowed and spent that money. To repay the trust fund it will have to find the money somewhere else, perhaps by drawing on other government tax revenue or borrowing it, or by cutting benefits.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Social Security does not exist in isolation. The other large federal entitlement program for seniors is Medicare, and it is facing even worse financial problems than Social Security. The status-quo crowd wants to say that these are two different programs and that the problems of Medicare don't affect Medicaid. True in a sense, but both programs will soon be drawing on tax dollars concurrently, putting a double strain on Congress to keep both funded. Just listen to Texas A&M University economist and Social Security trustee Dr. Tom Saving:

Some have argued that the financial problems of elderly entitlements will not arise until the distant future. In reality, we are dealing with those burdens right now. This year (i.e., 2004), for the first time in recent memory, Social Security and Medicare combined will spend more than the programs take in. This will require a transfer from the Treasury of 3.6% of federal income tax receipts. That figure will grow rapidly. In just 15 years, in the early stages of the baby boomers' retirement, we will be transferring more than 25% of federal income tax revenue to cover the funding needs of Social Security and all parts of Medicare. By 2030, more than half of all federal income tax revenues will be required to pay projected benefits of these programs under current law.

Now go back and re-read AARP's rosy scenario and ask yourself if it comes anywhere close to resembling the truth as explained by the trustees.

AARP Claim #2: "Last year, the Trustees invested what was a $165 billion Social Security surplus, buying special Treasury Bonds that are earning interest in the trust funds." and "For over two hundred years, in good times and in bad, these government bonds have paid off."

Yes, there are "special Treasury Bonds" created by the Social Security legislation. However, what AARP wants to do is convey an impression-by-association. The public is generally familiar with the Treasury Department's Series E bonds, and there are other types of government bonds. These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, and they can be can be redeemed by the holder and sold and traded on the open market.

But not Social Security's "special Treasury Bonds." They are by law "non-negotiable." No one but the government can buy and hold them. Here is how the Congressional Research Service (a government entity) explains them (1998):

When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.

Here's the point: AARP wants to convey the impression that the treasury bonds issued to Social Security are essentially the same as the bonds the government has been issuing for 200 years. They aren't, but that is not to say that the government won't make good on these bonds. However, redeeming them is going to cost taxpayers and the economy a lot of money. Institute for Policy Innovation Senior Fellow Peter Ferrara estimates that beginning in 2018, when Social Security starts paying out more than it takes in, until 2042, when the trust fund officially runs out, the government will have to come up with more than $5 trillion (in today's dollars) it doesn't have to in order to keep paying promised benefits.

Because of the heavy burden of meeting all those bond obligations, the government may effectively renege on the bonds through the back door by reducing promised benefits. Then it wouldn't have to cash in so many bonds.

AARP Claim #3: "Future generations must be able to rely on the same rock-solid guarantee of benefits that present retirees enjoy."

Does Social Security provide a "rock-solid guarantee"? The Social Security trustees have said -- indeed, have repeated their warning annually -- that the system cannot provide the current level of benefits past 2042. "Present tax rates would be sufficient to pay 73 percent of scheduled benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2042 and 68 percent of scheduled benefits in 2078."

So, the trustees say that the current level of benefits is unsustainable in less than 40 years, and that is assuming the government is willing and able to find the money to pay back the special bonds that must be redeemed to finance the funding shortfall between 2018 and 2042. Is that what you call "rock-solid"?

In fact, the most pressing current debate over Social Security reform is whether Congress should change the way Social Security indexes future benefits.

Currently, Social Security calculates an increase in benefits each year based on the rate of growth of average wages, known as "wage indexing." But there is a growing call -- including some from the Bush administration -- to switch to "price indexing," which would calculate future Social Security benefits based on the rate of growth of prices (i.e., inflation). In an economy where inflation is low and productivity continues to climb, wages grow faster than prices. So, indexing benefits to prices means that future retirees would get less money than they would under the current wage-indexing system.

How much less? USA Today recently ran a comparison from 1990 to 2004. The "maximum starting monthly benefit" in 1990, according to the article, was $1,085. By 2004 under the current system, the monthly benefit was $2,111. Had price indexing been imposed in 1990, that senior would have received only $1,587 in 2004 -- more than $500 a month less than under wage indexing (note: most current price-indexing proposals would not start until the future). If Congress did nothing to reform Social Security but change from wage to price indexing, future seniors will receive lower monthly benefits. Does that sound like a "rock-solid guarantee"?

Finally, the public should understand that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, no Americans -- not seniors, not current workers -- have a guarantee to anything from Social Security. In Fleming vs. Nestor, the Supreme Court said, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."

Moreover, here is how the Social Security Administration explains it in its section discussing Fleming vs. Nestor: "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right. . . . There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people [read AARP] to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law."

So, were Congress to decide to switch to price indexing as a way to cut benefits and preserve the system, no one could legally stop the action by claiming that they had a property right to the money. Of course, political pressure would make if very difficult for Congress to significantly cut Social Security benefits, much less eliminate the program. But it has the power to tinker with or even slash the benefits for some or all if it chooses.

Does that sound like a "rock-solid guarantee"?

AARP Claim #4: "The changes don't have to be drastic, and the guarantee Social Security provides is one worth strengthening, not replacing."

Well, the veracity of that statement depends on what one calls "drastic." According to the trustees, the current 75-year projection of Social Security's financial status shows a deficit.

This deficit indicates that financial adequacy of the program for the next 75 years could be restored if the Social Security payroll tax were immediately and permanently increased from its current level of 12.4 percent (for employees and employers combined) to 14.29 percent. Alternatively, all current and future benefits could be immediately reduced by about 13 percent. (Emphasis added.)

For example, according to USA Today, the maximum starting monthly benefit in 2004 was $2,111. Reducing it immediately by 13 percent, or $274, to $1,837 a month might not strike the highly paid executives at AARP as drastic, but a lot of seniors would see it as a big reduction in their monthly income. And that 13 percent reduction in benefits assumes the changes are implemented immediately. If Congress dallies on Social Security reform, the cost of fixing the system will rise and the cuts will have to be even deeper.

AARP Claim #5: "Some people have recommended taking some of the money people pay into the system and diverting it into newly created private accounts. Because less money would be flowing into Social Security, the guaranteed and inflation-adjusted lifetime benefits would have to be cut."

In fact, as the previous quotes from the trustees demonstrate, the benefits will have to be cut if Congress does nothing. Ironically, the only way to avoid either cutting benefits or raising taxes is to move to personal accounts. The reason is simple: the market pays significantly higher rates of return than current workers will receive from Social Security. Under the Ryan Sununu bill, as in any personal account plan, trillions of dollars of new funds are put into an expanded and modernized Social Security framework that includes the personal accounts, to ensure that all promised benefits are paid. These funds come from the much higher investment returns that would be earned through the personal accounts and from Federal general revenues not now used for Social Security.

By allowing workers to put roughly half of their 12.4 percent payroll tax into a personal account, the other half -- what might be called "old-program" funds -- remains to pay current retirees' benefits. That amount won't be enough to cover current benefits, so the government will have to borrow the difference.

But Congress has the power to cut what AARP calls "the guaranteed and inflation adjusted lifetime benefits" if it chooses, regardless of whether it implements a system of personal accounts. And it has the power to ensure that there are no benefits cuts even if it does reform Social Security.

AARP Claim #6: "Most of us would have to pay twice to create this new system -- first to keep our commitment to current retirees and again to pay into these private accounts."

Since the first generation of Social Security beneficiaries never paid once into the system, this claim sounds reasonable. But AARP knows that not one of the major reform proposals has anyone paying twice. They all propose to use only the current 12.4 percent payroll tax.

Suppose Congress passed legislation that allowed workers to redirect roughly half of their current payroll tax into a personal account, as the Ryan-Sununu bill would do (a proposal originally proposed by Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation). Six percent of a worker's income growing at market rates of return -- say, an average of 7 or 8 percent annually over the long term -- leaves the worker with more money at retirement than the whole 12.4 percent growing at 1 or 2 percent (which is about what Social Security will pay future retirees, if that much). According to the official score of the bill by the chief actuary of Social Security, after just the first 15 years under the Ryan-Sununu bill, workers would have accumulated $7.8 trillion in today's dollars in their personal accounts.

As time passes and those using traditional Social Security pass away, the money being paid into the system will pay off the debt. But no one will have to pay more than they currently pay in payroll taxes. And at some point in the future, when the trillions of dollars in unfunded liability have been paid, Congress may allow workers to keep the whole 12.4 percent or reduce their payroll taxes, or some combination thereof. Either way, it will be the largest tax cut in history.

Of course, doing an interest-rate comparison between the current Social Security program and what the market would provide is a little misleading, since the money workers pay in payroll taxes doesn't actually go into an account that earns interest. That's because Social Security is social insurance, not a retirement account. Workers pay in what Congress tells them, and they get what Congress lets them have.

But the point is that by using the power of the market over the long term, the current 12.4 percent payroll tax is enough to provide those who voluntarily choose the personal account system with more retirement money than they would have had under Social Security's scheduled benefits and pay off the $11 trillion unfunded liability.

AARP Claim #7: "In addition, private accounts are expensive. Just to switch to this new system could require $2 trillion or more in benefits cuts, new taxes or more debt."

Maybe it "could require" benefits cuts, new taxes or more debt, but it sure doesn't have too. Currently, the Social Security trustees say the program has an $11 trillion unfunded liability. That is money that the government will have to pay in benefits that it will not be getting in taxes. The government owes that money, whether it is actually on any accounting books or not. Moving to a system of personal accounts will not create any new debt; it simply accelerates the time the government will have to pay what it owes. That creates a cash flow problem in the short term, not "transition costs." So the country borrows that money and pays it back in the future with old-program payroll tax funds. No benefits cuts, no new taxes and no additional debt -- at least there don't have to be.

AARP Claim #8: "We should not be creating a system where some people win and others lose when it comes to Social Security."

Excuse me, but what planet does AARP live on? The current system is replete with winners and losers, and it is often because of their race.

Black and Hispanic Americans tend to live shorter lives than whites. Asian Americans tend to live longer than blacks, whites or Hispanics. Women tend to live longer than men. Higher-income people tend to live longer than the poor. If you live longer than average, as white women tend to do, you will be a Social Security winner. If you die early, you will be a Social Security loser -- especially if you die before retirement, because the money you have paid into the system does not become part of your estate (though you do get a paltry $255 death benefit, and you may get survivor benefits if you still have young children).

Of course, the first Social Security retirees were winners -- really big winners. They paid very little into the system and yet received years of retirement funds. Like Ida Mae Fuller. After paying the Security payroll tax for two years -- a total of $24.75 -- she received the very first Social Security beneficiary check in February 1940. It was for $22.54. Ida Mae lived to be 100 and received about $20,000. She was a Social Security winner.

But future generations won't be so fortunate. They will be paying in more and more and getting less and less. Part of the reason is the growing life span. But most of it is simple demographics -- the U.S. is not producing enough people to pay the promised level of benefits. According to Social Security trustee Dr. Tom Saving, "Due to the changing demographic structure and rising expenditures on medical care, the share of the nation's output consumed by the elderly will rise. It is this rising share of the economy, financed in large part by Social Security and Medicare transfers that will drive a growing tax burden."

Sounds like we already have a system that has produced winners and losers -- albeit, up till now, more winners than losers. Unless Congress acts soon, in the near future there will be more losers than winners -- a lot more losers. Either workers will have to pay in significantly more, making them losers, or seniors will have to settle for much less, making them losers. Or the country can move to a system of pre-funded personal accounts, so that everyone can be a winner.

AARP Claim #9: "At AARP, we have a number of good ideas on how to make the adjustments needed and would be glad to share them with you."

The fact is that AARP has really suggested only three ideas -- and not one of them is good.

• Raise taxes on current workers. It is becoming a commonplace in the public policy community that those with no new ideas fall back on raising taxes. AARP fits that description. It wants to raise the current cap on earnings from $88,000 to about $140,000. But why stop there?
  
  AARP wants to increases taxes on upper-middle income workers but leave high-income workers -- that would include AARP CEO Bill Novelli and the other AARP executives -- untouched above the $140,000 cap.
  
  Bold move there, Bill. Ding all of those middle-income workers, but let yourself get a free ride.
  
• Invest some of the current payroll tax surplus "so that it earns higher returns than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds." AARP likes to point out that the special Treasury bonds discussed above "aren't only safe; they're earning approximately 7 percent in annual interest." Here's an investing tip for AARP: if Social Security is earning a guaranteed 7 percent, that's about as good as the government would get in the stock market over the long term -- with no risk. So why change?
  
  If AARP really believes that by investing in the market the government can earn more than the current 7 percent guaranteed rate, why is it so opposed to letting individuals have that option with their own personal accounts?
  
  Or better yet, why not just encourage Congress to up the interest rate it pays to, say, 9 percent or 10 percent? Or 15 percent for that matter? As discussed earlier, no actual money changes hands in these transactions. So paying 10 percent on the money the government borrows from the trust fund will, on paper, postpone the day when the trust fund will be depleted and cost the federal government nothing, just as the current 7 percent actually costs the government nothing.
  
  But besides the blatant duplicity in AARP's proposal, there is a very good reason why allowing the government to invest that much money is a bad idea: The money will inevitability become a political rather than an economic tool. There would be tremendous political pressure on the federal government to invest in certain companies and industries that promote popular political goals, or to pull money out of companies and industries that don't toe the current political line.
  
  How do we know this? Because well over half of the states have already tried Economically Targeted Investments (ETIs) with state employee pension funds -- with very poor results.
  
  But if Congress really thinks it can create some type of quasi-public organization that can invest billions of dollars without problems, it might want to contact Franklin Raines, the recently fired CEO of Fannie Mae, the nation's largest mortgage finance company, for some advice.
  
• Make Social Security "truly universal" by forcing all current workers who are outside of Social Security into the federal system. This is what might be called the misery-loves-company reform. There are some 5 million workers outside of Social Security. In most cases they are state employees or public school teachers and are part of a separate state- or municipal-sponsored retirement fund. Liberals have had their eyes on these funds for years, hoping to absorb their assets in an effort to postpone Social Security's financial day of reckoning. But state employees have repeatedly resisted such recommendations. And rightly so. Why should their retirement security be hijacked by Social Security just so politicians can avoid dealing with the crisis?
  

Conclusion:

AARP has a lot to say about Social Security reform. The question is whether the organization is telling the truth. You have seen AARP's comments, along with those who really know what they are talking about. I know I have made up my mind. How about you?

Mr. Matthews Jr., Ph.D., is director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and a resident scholar for the Institute for Policy Innovation.

Gallup Poll Reveals Reagan Now the People's Choice

Americans Say U.S. Is Ready For Female President, Poll Says

POSTED: 1:12 pm EST February 22, 2005

ALBANY, N.Y. -- More than six in 10 voters believe the United States is ready for a woman president in 2008 and 53 percent of the voters think Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat, should try for the job, a nationwide poll has found.


Considering the rumours that VP Cheney will resign next year, leaving his office open for Secretary Rice, this certainly is interesting. Hold on to your seat Hillary, we've got a race!

Paris Hilton's cell phone hacked?

How Paris Hilton's little black book led to lots of little black looks

Condi to replace Cheney
next year?
Report: Vice president likely to step down 'due to his health'
Writes Wheeler: "Being a sitting vice president places Condi in an impregnable position for the GOP nomination in 2008 and sucks every breath of wind from Hillary's sails.


Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'
Panel says professor of human origins made up data, plagiarized works
figures! Over zealous crowd that they are.

Hillary: Let Ex-felons Vote (read: the more immoral and under-educated people we can get to vote, the better it is for the Dem.'s on election day)

In Honor of Black History Month (late, I know):

Grand Old Party
Blacks might be surprised to compare Republican history with the Democrats’

Top Black Dem: Dean Should Apologize

Can the court starve Terri to death?

By Frank Pavone

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y., Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Terri Schiavo is not dying. She has no terminal illness. She is not in a coma. She is not on life-support equipment. She is not alone, but rather has loving parents and siblings ready to care for her for the rest of her life. She has not requested death.


Did Moore Fib About Movie Profits?

Hollywood Vandals Brand Bush a Nazi

TOP 50: Prog Archives most popular titles(based on ratings > 30)
JETHRO TULLThick As A Brick
ANGLAGARDHybris
CAMELMoonmadness
YESClose to the Edge
GENESISSelling England By The Pound
GENESISFoxtrot
PAIN OF SALVATIONRemedy Lane
PINK FLOYDWish You Were Here
CAMELThe Snow Goose
GENTLE GIANTIn a Glass House
JETHRO TULLAqualung
KING CRIMSONIn the Court of the Crimson King
RUSHMoving Pictures
PORCUPINE TREEIn Absentia
CARAVANIn the Land of Grey and Pink
RUSHHemispheres
ARENAThe Visitor
YESFragile
DREAM THEATERScenes From A Memory Metropolis Part II
KING CRIMSONRed
QUEENSRYCHEOperation: Mindcrime
AYREONThe Human Equation
PINK FLOYDDark Side of the Moon
CAMELMirage
MARILLIONMisplaced Childhood
MARILLIONScript for a Jester's Tear
EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP)Trilogy
RUSHA Farewell to Kings
GENESISNursery Cryme
DREAM THEATERAwake
RUSHPermanent Waves
EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP)Brain Salad Surgery
GENESISThe Lamb Lies Down On Broadway
PORCUPINE TREELightbulb Sun
DREAM THEATERImages And Words
GENTLE GIANTOctopus
VAN DER GRAAF GENERATORPawn Hearts
PINK FLOYDMeddle
VAN DER GRAAF GENERATORStill Life
KING CRIMSONLarks' Tongues in Aspic
PINK FLOYDAnimals
YESGoing for the One
GENESISA Trick Of The Tail
YESYessongs
MARILLIONClutching at Straws
IQThe Seventh House
GENESISSeconds Out
YESThe YES Album
DREAM THEATERSix Degrees of Inner Turbulence
JETHRO TULLStand Up
Top 100

Oscar nominees lack pulling power. Passion Of The Christ would have pulled in a MUCH larger crowd.

GEFFEN UNLOADS ON HILLARY: 'SHE CAN'T WIN'

Singer Alanis Morissette wore a "nude suit" on stage at Canada's equivalent of the Grammys to complain about censorship in the US.
THEN
Becomes American citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yahoo! News - Philadelphia Judge Clears Anti-Gay Group of Hate Crimes

As any liberal can tell you, it's not results that count, it's intentions!

Human activities may have averted the next ice age.

Extreme Extreme Fullscreen
a really cool 360 degree tour of many wonderful things and places!

Earlier this afternoon, Bill Moyers called James Watt and "apologized profusely" for misquoting him and misrepresenting his views on the environment. Moyers says he will produce a written apology and think about ways to make the apology as public as the smear was. Congratulations, Mr. Watt.
Media alert, with lament: I was supposed to do the Kudlow & Cramer show this afternoon, but had to cancel due to illness, as noted below. Then the O'Reilly people called and wanted me to be on the Factor tonight to talk about the Bill Moyers story. I had to pass on that as well, but the good news is that the Trunk will be appearing on our behalf--another advantage of a group blog. So, watch for him tonight: the Trunk on the O'Reilly Factor.
And thanks very much to the amazing number of readers who wrote in to express concern and sympathy with my (not, really, all that serious) illness, and to suggest various remedies. The malt-based remedies, in particular, sound worth a try.

Bill Moyers smears ex-Reagan officialJames Watt says false quote used to cast him as religious nut.