Saturday, February 20, 2010

Arthur O'Sullivan, "Economics: Principles in Action"

Economics -
 Principles in Action

Arthur O'Sullivan, "Economics: Principles in Action"
Pearson Prentice Hall | 2006 | ISBN: 0131334832 | 592 pages | PDF | 146 MB

Economics: Principles in Action is a comprehensive high school economics program designed to help students of all abilities achieve a fundamental understanding of key economic principles and their application in the real world. Twenty key economic concepts - developed by The National Council on Economic Education and outlined in the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics - are introduced and reinforced throughout the program.

Joe Kausek, "The Management System Auditor's Handbook"

[piracy link]

The Management 
System Auditors Handbook

Joe Kausek, "The Management System Auditor's Handbook"
ASQ Quality Press | 2006 | ISBN: 087389670X | 432 pages | PDF | 60,1 MB

Meant for both new and experienced auditors, The Management System Auditor's Handbook provides a detailed and structured examination of the audit process. It seeks to address the whys of auditing, as well as the whats and the how to's.
Extensive focus is provided on auditing for effectiveness, in addition to conformance. Author Joe Kausek explains how to use your audit program to drive continual improvement and alignment throughout the organization through the identification of best practices and waste.  
A special chapter is devoted to the use of the internal audit program to verify deployment of the company’s strategic plan or Balanced Scorecard. Unlike other audit books on the market, this handbook seeks to give the auditor  sufficient understanding of the intent, techniques, and specific strategies for auditing, allowing for the development of an audit program that is uniquely fitted to the auditor’s industry, processes, and company culture.  
While many of the fundamental concepts of auditing apply to any management system audit, separate chapters have been devoted to the unique aspects of quality, environmental and health and safety management system audits. 
Standards addressed include ISO 9001:2000, ISO/TS 16949:2002, ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001, as well as insight on performing combined audits of these standards. Included on the accompanying CD-ROM are comprehensive electronic checklists that can be used to plan and guide the auditor in the evaluation of both the conformance and effectiveness of the management system to the corresponding standard’s requirements. These checklists, unique in both style and format, provide not only the questions to ask, but also the strategies and techniques for evaluating the auditee’s response. The checklists are an invaluable tool for both new and experienced auditors alike, and can be easily customized for the reader’ organization and industry

Friday, February 19, 2010



metal the gathering -


Monday, February 15, 2010

Canada to build Haiti government base, PM Harper says

Canada to build Haiti government base, PM Harper says

Haiti Rene Preval (L) and Stephen Harper at the Canadian army base
 in Port-au-Prince
PM Harper is on a two-day visit to Haiti
Canada will build a new headquarters for Haiti's government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced at the start of a two-day visit to the country.
Mr Harper said Canada would spend CAN$12m (£7.3m) on a temporary base after January's earthquake destroyed many government offices.
The base, made of prefabricated modules and inflatable shelters, is to house key ministries for up to a year.
Canada is the second biggest donor to Haiti after the United States.
"The establishment of a temporary government administrative base is an important step towards early recovery and reconstruction efforts," Mr Harper said in a statement released by his office.
He announced the new funding after meeting Haitian President Rene Preval and Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive in the capital, Port-au-Prince.
Many of the government buildings there - including the presidential palace - have lain in ruins since the 12 January quake.
The quake killed at least 217,000 people, including 31 Canadians, officials have said.
Also on Monday, at least three children were killed when part of a school collapsed in the northern city of Cap-Haitien.
A Haitian civil protection official told AFP news agency that a mudslide triggered by several days of rain had caused the collapse.
The government began allowing schools outside of hard-hit areas to reopen at the start of February.

Ammut, Great of Death, Eater of Hearts, The Devourer...

Ammut, Great of Death, Eater of Hearts, The Devourer...

by Caroline Seawright
Ammut (Ammit, Ahemait, Ammemet) was an Egyptian demoness. She was known as the 'Eater of Hearts', 'The Devourer' and 'Great of Death' because she was a demoness of punishment.
She had the head of a crocodile, the body of a leopard and the backside of a hippopotamus - all fierce creatures to the Egyptians. All man-eaters. It's no wonder that she was depicted as one who consumed the unworthy dead!
Of Ammut, an Egyptian papyrus (No. 9901) states:
    hat en emsuh; pehu-s em tebt her-ab-set em ma. the fore-part of a crocodile; her hind-quarters are those of a hippopotamus; her middle part [is that] of a lion.
In the The Book of the Dead, Ammut sat at the judgement of the dead in The Hall of Double Ma'at (when the deceased's heart was weighed on the scales against Ma'at), ready to devour the souls of the unworthy - the final death for an Egyptian! It has even been suggested that she was also a protector of Osiris, because of her position at the Judgement. She was also known as the 'Dweller in Amenta' or the 'Devourer of Amenta', the place where the sun sets. Amenta, as used by the Egyptians, was applied to the west bank of the Nile - Egyptian cemeteries and funerary places were all on the west. To the Egyptians, west was a direction linked to death. Amenta was also the name of the underworld - the place where Ra traveled during the night. Ammut, therefore, was not only a demoness of death, but a demoness of the underworld. In at least one papyrus, Ammut was depicted as crouching beside the lake of fire in the infernal regions of the underworld!
The The Book of the Dead is a selection of spells, designed to assist the deceased through the trials of the underworld. This also, of course, assists the dead to not get eaten by Ammut. The papyrus of Ani, in a speech made by the gods to Thoth, says:
    The Osiris [the scribe Ani], whose word is true, is holy and righteous. He has not committed any sin, and he has done no evil against us. The devourer Ammut shall not be permitted to prevail over him.

empirical data

Every doctrine of Truth is necessary to learn in the overcoming of the "Devourer" who is the deceiver of the whole earth.  To "come out of her", we MUST come out of all the lies and into the Truth.  This is fact!  So, I do not mean to minimize the importance of ANY Truth that is being revealed to us in this day.  However, when the dark times come, I have found that doctrine is of little value in my mind.  What is of value?  FAITH, and the correcting of the errors being wrongfully practiced in that realm!!!  Nothing else during the difficult times has ANY MEANING, for I have recognized that it is FAITH that brings and keeps us heading towards the oneness with Jah that Jahshuwah desires.  Unbelief makes us ONE with SATAN!!!

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Openly Fighting Over Obama

Matthews and Olbermann Now Openly Fighting Over Obama

In a "Special Report" on the president's question-and-answer session with Republicans last Friday, MSNBC's jock-sniffers Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow produced a museum-quality show:

MATTHEWS: Everybody agrees he could handle everything today. ...

OLBERMANN: It almost felt like watching the stories of John L. Sullivan, the 19th-century boxer, who would volunteer to fight anybody and everybody in the house and knock them all out. ...

MADDOW (imagining Obama thinking): You've brought a pet issue here, congressman, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, let me tell you 400,000 things about it, and invite you to continue the discussion with me later. ...

MATTHEWS: (T)oday showed me that we do produce probably the best candidate and best president we can in this system you can imagine in the world. ...

OLBERMANN: They had 140 players on the field and the other team had one guy and they lost to him. ...

MATTHEWS: You were so unbelievably hot, Mr. President! You blew away the other team!

OBAMA: Beat it.

MATTHEWS: OK, I'll go stand in my locker now.

Unlike the jock-sniffers, normal people watching the president's tete-a-tete with the Republicans only wondered why Obama always responds to imaginary arguments no one made, rather than the questions actually being asked.

That is Obama's signature move: Invent "people" who are "saying" ridiculous things and then encourage the audience to laugh at these made-up buffoons.

Since Obama's reformulations of Republican arguments are always absurd, no further response from him is necessary -- and none is ever forthcoming.

Thus, for example, Obama's description of Republican criticism of his plan to nationalize health care was that "this thing was some Bolshevik plot."

No. No one said it was a "plot," Bolshevik or otherwise.

Republicans' objection to national health care could be more accurately portrayed as follows: Obama's plan to nationalize health care was a terrible idea because it would turn over one-sixth of the American economy to Washington bureaucrats, who would run the system as competently as the federal government runs everything else, from airport security to the post office to FEMA.

How about responding to that argument? (And as long as Obama brought it up, can he explain which part of national health care the Bolsheviks would have objected to most strongly?)

This isn't how adults conduct serious political debates; it's how children argue with their parents. Don't have a cow! Liberals hide conservative arguments from the public like teenagers hide contraband from mother under the bed.

Repeatedly positing imaginary attacks by Republicans accusing him of a "plot," Obama said that "the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives."

Again, not a "plot" and certainly not "wild-eyed." The only person accusing anyone of "plotting" here is Obama accusing the GOP of plotting against him. I guess they don't teach irony at Harvard Law School.

If Obama is going to keep imagining others accusing him of "plots," could he provide just one example?

Republicans also did not accuse Obama of trying to "impose huge government in every aspect of our lives." Just the part of it that determines how long we get to live.

Continuing his fantasy battle with imaginary opponents, Obama said, "What you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

I gather Obama is incapable of responding to his opponents' actual argument, which is that he is proposing all sorts of things that would be very bad for America.

Since he pleads innocence only on the claim that he is doing "crazy stuff that's going to destroy America" -- an argument no one made -- apparently he's guilty as charged on the claim that he's merely doing very bad things to America.

Adopting the pose of limpid nonpartisanship, Obama repeatedly accused Republicans of horrible things using his peculiar straw-man technique.

He told Republicans he was "absolutely committed" to working with them, "but it can't just be political assertions that aren't substantiated."

Can Obama please name a single "unsubstantiated" political assertion by a Republican before wasting everyone's time by instructing Republicans to stop making them?

I can name a few from Obama!

How about the whopper he told about national health care not covering illegal aliens? Or the one about it not covering abortions?

Weeks after Obama made those unsubstantiated political assertions before a joint session of Congress, Democrats were in death-match battles with Republicans (and some moderate Democrats) who tried to exclude coverage for illegals and abortion from the very bills Obama said never contained such coverage in the first place.

How about Obama's claim in his State of the Union address last week that a recent Supreme Court ruling would allow "foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections"?

In the case Obama mentioned, the court overruled section 441a of the campaign-finance law, which had banned all corporate spending on elections. The case did not concern, nor did the court address, section 441e, which prohibits foreign corporations from making any "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in connection with a Federal, State or local election."

History will record that these remarks from his State of the Union address were the only case legendary barrister Barack Obama ever argued before the Supreme Court. And he lost.

Even when presented with a short, straightforward, simply stated question by Rep. Mike Pence, Obama couldn't help but to formulate a different question.

Pence asked: "Mr. President, will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?"

The question Obama wanted Pence to ask was: Mr. President, will you join Republicans in cutting taxes of billionaires?

Luckily, Obama's reformulation gave him an opening for a killer answer: "What you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffett."

Republicans should take that answer and run like a thief in the night! OK, let's cut taxes on everyone except billionaires. I'd even support a specific tax expressly on Warren Buffett. Now, son, how much will you give us for these magic beans?

If only Republicans could maneuver Obama into answering a question on abortion, we could probably get him to agree to ban all abortions -- except in the case of teenage girls who have been raped by their fathers. (This is how I assume Obama would rephrase the question.)

No conservative argues like this. To the contrary, we're morose that Nexis archives are not more complete, so we can't quote liberals directly more often.

Can't We At Least Get a Toaster?

Can't We At Least Get a Toaster?

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week ("The other Boston Massacre"), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to "fight" Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.

Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he'll put in charge of this task.

If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.

For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.

Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms' bets go bad on -- to name just three examples -- Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).

As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book Architects of Ruin: "Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books." With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs "risk-free Clintonian state capitalism."

Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early '90s. Any half-wit could see that "investing" in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.

But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme -- at least until Mexico defaulted.

With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton's White House decided the banks shouldn't be on the hook for their own bad bets.

Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect "everyone," by which I take it he meant "everyone in my building."

Larry Summers, currently Obama's National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers' current position in the Obama administration is "Great Depression czar.")

Republicans in Congress said "no" to Clinton's Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.

It's not as if this hadn't happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt -- Mexico claimed the money was "in my other pair of pants" -- leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.

As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years ... Wait, that never happened.

At congressional hearings on Clinton's proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.

So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund.

Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia -- all to save Goldman Sachs.

The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they're saving that for Obama's second term.

Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn't capitalism. It was "Government Sachs." As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers "ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires."

But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.

Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.

Why shouldn't Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.

With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.

But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.

Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama -- as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer's book.

On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.

Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.

But now Obama says he's going to "fight" Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he'll "fight" the trial lawyers.

As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats "regulate" Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.

Republicans should respond the way they always have: Support the free market, not looters and welfare recipients on Wall Street, especially the Democrats' friends at Goldman.


-view CSL mobile version -

Webring Translator Thingamajig

Well, you've scrolled to the bottom, press start and help CSL for free!