Fool’s News

With promises of reform and the end of earmarking and preferential treatment, how will McCain react to the fact that his brother called 911 because he was stuck in traffic.  And when he didn’t get a satisfactory response, he told the operator to “F*ck off!”  Classy, dude.

No wonder we haven’t heard much from brother Joe.

More.

What do you think Joe the Plumber would say about this?

The “maverick” team?!?!  That’s a joke.

While Sarah Palin talks about reforming the federal government and a return to a state where the government actually serves the people, she’s charging the state of Alaska for hotel stays and a airline flights for her three (3) daughters.

In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters’ 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. She also has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.

Palin justified – often after the fact - having the state pay for the travel of her daughters — Bristol, 17; Willow, 14; and Piper, 7 — by noting on travel forms that the girls had been invited to attend or participate in events on the governor’s schedule.  Since they are all under the age of 18, it is truly difficult to imagine what “official business” they could be participating in.

Indeed, some organizers of these events said they were surprised when the Palin children showed up uninvited, or said they agreed to a request by the governor to allow the children to attend.  After all, “When it’s the governor, you just make it happen,” “When it’s the governor, you just make it happen,” Janet Bartels said.

Here are some highlights:

-  costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race;

-  a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel;

-  in July, the governor charged the state $2,741.26 to take Bristol and Piper to Philadelphia for a meeting of the National Governors Association. The girls had their own room for five nights at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel for $215.46 a night; and

-  the children have traveled dozens of times with Palin on a state plane. For these flights, the total cost of operating the plane, at $971 an hour, was about $55,000, according to state flight logs.

Tony Knowles, a Democratic former governor of Alaska, said, “There was no valid reason for the children to be along on state business.  I cannot recall any instance during my eight years as governor where it would have been appropriate to claim they performed state business.”

Knowles said he brought his children to one NGA event while in office but didn’t charge the state for their trip.

Yeah, she’s all about reform.

Church of England’s Rev. Peter Mullen is coming under fire for comments he made in June of this year.  Though his comments from 4 months ago seem remote they are inflammatory.  He wrote on his personal blog:  ”Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan ‘Sodomy can seriously damage your health,’ their chins with ‘Fellatio kills.’”

Perhaps Rev. Mullen and his clerical brethren should be tattooed across their foreheads with “HYPOCRITE,” since most of them are.

Although the good reverend’s blog has been taken down, some cached versions are available.  I’ve tried to keep one here.

While Congress is frantically trying to pass the controversial $700 billion bailout of Wall Street (and some say America, too), I just read:

They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market.

Here.

How does that make any sense?  Isn’t this the very lax rules enforcement and rule changing that leads us back to where we are today?

Why shouldn’t companies devalue assets to reflect the then-prevailing market price?  This is just another way of permitting companies to artificially inflate the value of their assets vis-a-vis the current market value and, by consequence, the value of their companies themselves.

Why is this add-on praised?  Am I dense?

Just when you think that reason is returning to the legal system, this happens.