Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Cavendish 'still bitter' about Olympics
British sprinter Mark Cavendish is still bitter about being denied a medal at the Olympic Games this summer, he told The Guardian Saturday. After winning four stages at the Tour de France, the Team Columbia star quit the race, giving up a chance to challenge for the green points classification jersey, in order to prepare for the Beijing Games.
Cavendish was due to race the Madison with Bradley Wiggins, a pairing which was successful at winning the World Championship in March. But while every other British track racer went home with a medal, Cavendish was denied when he and Wiggins failed to make the winning move and came in ninth place.
"I was pissed at Brad after the Olympics," Cavendish said. "But if he's made to train for four kilometres for sure he's not going to be good at 50 kilometres [in the Madison]. They [British Cycling] were all about the team pursuit. In training they would ignore me while they timed the pursuiters. They trained so much for that they forgot the Madison. Well, they didn't forget, they didn't give a shit. I felt massively let down and I'm still bitter now."
'The biggest regret of my career is quitting the Tour. I was fighting for the green jersey. I could have potentially won on the Champs-Élysées. I made a commitment to the track team and they didn't give anything back."
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Thanks to skinnsyki.com for the awesome photos. I think Bruce managed to capture the only time I successfully rode through the sand all day! Shoutout to the Woods Production, excellent job with the course, I especially liked the chalk lines, first time all year I didn't take a wrong turn. Thanks to all the cheers I heard all year, and thanks to the officials.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Do you think that these contributers are looking for "change"?
McCains 2 biggest blunders: Palin and supporting the federal financial Bailouts. He could have differentiated himself from Obama by opposing the Financial Bailouts. That would have been more "maverick" than supporting Bush. It worked for Bachmann, I think that helped her overcome her diarrhea mouth.
Do you think George Bush is at home looking in the mirror saying "what have I done"? I doubt it, that would require thought, reflection, integrity, insight, humility, of which he has none...
I'm among the 1-2% who didn't vote for the major parties. This quote helps explain:
"Liberty is the natural condition of the people. Servitude,however,
is fostered when people are raised in subjection. People
are trained to adore rulers. While freedom is forgotten by
many there are always some who will never submit."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
IS THIS the end of American capitalism? As financial panic spread across the globe and governments scrambled to contain the damage, reality seemed to announce the doom of U.S.-style free markets and President Bush's ideology. But this is wrong in two ways. The deregulation of U.S. financial markets did not reflect only the narrow ideology of a particular party or administration. And the problem with the U.S. economy, more than lack of regulation, has been government's failure to control systemic risks that government itself helped to create. We are not witnessing a crisis of the free market but a crisis of distorted markets.
It's true that the Bush administration has stood for light regulation of capital markets. But it did not invent this approach. By the middle of the last decade, experts across the spectrum believed that U.S. financial institutions faced outmoded restraints on their ability to innovate. Thus, the Clinton administration, supported by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, refused to tighten regulations on financial derivatives, memorably dubbed "financial weapons of mass destruction" by Warren Buffett. The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era law separating commercial banking and investment banking, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
We'll never know how this newly liberated financial sector might have performed on a playing field designed by Adam Smith. That's because government interventions of all kinds, from the defense budget to farm supports, shaped the business environment. No subsidy would prove more fateful than the massive federal commitment to residential real estate -- from the mortgage interest tax deduction to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Federal Reserve's low interest rates under Mr. Greenspan. Unregulated derivatives known as credit-default swaps did accentuate the boom in mortgage-based investments, by allowing investors to transfer risk rather than setting aside cash reserves. But government helped make mortgages a purportedly sure thing in the first place. Home prices seemed to stand on a solid floor built by Washington.
Government support for housing was well-intentioned: Homeownership is a worthy goal. But when government favors a particular economic activity, however validly, it must seek countervailing control to ensure the sustainable use of public resources. This is why banks must meet capital requirements in return for federal deposit insurance. Congress did not apply this sound principle to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; they were allowed to engage in profitable but increasingly risky activities with an implicit government guarantee. The result was that taxpayers had to assume more than $5 trillion of their obligations. Contrast U.S. experience with that of Canada, where there is no mortgage interest deduction and the law requires insurance on any mortgage over 80 percent of a home's purchase price. Delinquency rates at Canada's seven largest banks are near historic lows.
The new capitalist model that emerges from this crisis must operate according to more consistent principles. The Fed should set interest rates with the long-run value of the dollar in mind. Government must be more selective about manipulating markets; over the long term, business works best when it is subject to market discipline alone. In those cases -- and there will and should be some -- in which government intervenes on behalf of social goals, its support must be counterbalanced with taxpayer protections and regulation. Government-sponsored, upside-only capitalism is the kind that's in crisis today, and we say: Good riddance.