<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
Dear Joan,<br>
<br>
Once again, you misread me, but methinks thou doest protest too much. <br>
<br>
Getting personal is an entirely different matter. Not only do I make
Bob Marley a regular part of my listening pleasure, but I've made it
required listening for the entire hatch of little Budge muddlings. Of
course this requires me to listen to hours on end of <b>Korn </b>and <b>Slim
Shady</b>, but that's is a small price for providing a proper
education. At least I've been able to veto any listening of <b>Lil'
Kim</b> in my presence and I'm working on eradicating the homestead of
anything Jackson. If I had my way, however, I'd place a great deal
more of <b>The Crusaders</b> and <b>Mose Allison</b> on the menu, but
I don't usually get my way. Such is life when one cedes the bulk of
responsibility to one's better half. <br>
<br>
Regardless of either of our cases of acute infrequent dyspepsia, one
must wonder what exactly you think my background in quantitative
analysis has to do with being a stockbroker. Of course the use of the
word "stockbroker" as a pejorative is nothing new and I've found some
level in the refuge of the misconception. For the record "broker" is
the operative here as the $1 trillion hit to the economy in 2001 came
only two years after I began this most recent career. Prior to that I
was a professional curmudgeon, bit that's another story altogether. <br>
<br>
I'm relaxed too. In fact, my dear wife feels that if I relax much more
I may stop breathing altogether. <br>
<br>
I appreciate the concern, really I do. I'll be fine though.<br>
<br>
Dave Budge<br>
<br>
Joan Opyr wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midBAY10-DAV186598871EBD07FB812791C56A0@phx.gbl">
<div>Dear David,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Once again, you misread me. I'm beginning to suspect that
that's deliberate. <strong>The Economist</strong> did endorse Kerry
in 2004, but their endorsement, as they put it, was reluctant. Their
endorsement of Bush in 2000 was enthusiastic. They bought all that
horseshit about his being a uniter and not a divider, citing as
evidence Bush's record of working productively as a Republican governor
with the "Democrats" in the Texas legislature. Now, we all know that
Texas has a weak governorship, a holdover from Reconstruction, and that
Democrats down there are not much like Democrats in, say, California or
New York. As far as I can tell, Mr. Bush's job in Texas was to cut a
few ribbons, make nice with the real powers that be in Texas -- the
Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House -- and to sign 157
death warrants. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>The Economist</strong> never backed away from
its endorsement of Bush in 2000. Instead, through cock-up after
cock-up, they adopted a defensive posture re: Bush until their
reluctant switch to Kerry. (And, in their explanation of that switch,
they still felt obliged to say that they still believed they'd made the
right choice in 2000.) <strong>The Economist </strong>was gung-ho in
their endorsement of Bush's invasion of Iraq; they chose to "look on
the bright side" regarding his massive tax cutting program, his
appalling budget deficits, and his irresponsible and massive increases
in government spending, and they never failed to give the Bush
Administration the benefit of the doubt on Homeland Security, the
International Criminal Court, faith-based initiatives, and so on, and
so on. I grew sick of reading their increasingly lame defenses of
Bush's indefensibly bad policy, but, by God, I have read <strong>The
Economist</strong> every week since 1988. Why? Because its generally
well-written, if not always well thought-out, and that's more than I
can say for the majority of America's conservative rags. (Also, I
enjoy the book reviews, the obituaries, and the in-depth international
coverage. Good cartoons, too.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, I did notice that the reportage you cited was not from the
desk of <strong>The Economist</strong>. I may be stubborn, but I'm
not blind. Listen -- I hate to get personal, but do you need a martini
or a diazepam or something? I would never dream of promoting illegal
drug use (especially not on a list with such a nice Sheriff's
deputy among its membership) but I'm thinking a little puff on a big
fattie might go a long way toward restoring your previous good
humor. You need to relax, Dave. You need to go with the flow. Quit
smoking that bad Crossfire/McLaughlin Group stuff and start toking
up on the old Bob Marley. I'll provide the metaphorical rolling papers
by publicly and sincerely bowing to your superior statistical
knowledge -- all hail the stockbroker! No, really. I mean, what the
hell do I know? I never got past Mathematics of Finance. My interests
in college were girls, linguistics, girls, medieval literature, girls,
beer, and girls. Oh, and in addition to my Engish BA, I acquired
minors in French, genetics, and girls. My graduate work was, of
course, in Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, feminist theory, and girls.
(Finally got my priorities straight -- well, so to speak.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, Dave, you can't give me a demerit. I'm not a sorority
girl. Though I certainly rushed many sororities, none would take me --
at least not officially.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A-hem,</div>
<div><br>
Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment</div>
<div><a href="http://www.auntie-establishment.com">www.auntie-establishment.com</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>PS: On a cheerier note, those who are interested in The Auntie
Establishment & Brother Carl Show might want to check out our
updated webpage. Brother Carl and I have added a really fine painting
of ourselves . . . </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;">-----
Original Message -----</div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none; color: black;"><b>From:</b>
David M. Budge</div>
<div
style="font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Sent:</b>
Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:35 PM</div>
<div
style="font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>To:</b>
Joan Opyr</div>
<div
style="font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Cc:</b>
Vision2020 Moscow</div>
<div
style="font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [Vision2020] Body Count in Iraq</div>
<div> </div>
Dear Ms. Three-legged Mule, I agree entirely with your second
paragraph. I am not a regular reader of Economist but occasionally am
referred to their work. I cannot comment on any previous
prognostications they've made about Iraq.<br>
<br>
Allow me, with all due respect, to remind you of a few (perhaps
inconvenient) facts. First, this reportage was not from the editorial
desk of The Economist. Secondly, when the editors endorsed John Kerry
for president in 2004 they referred quite bluntly to Bush as
"incompetent" a week before this article was published. Accordingly, I
find little evidence that this article shows any "apologist" leanings
but I do well understand the statistics. Also, Human Rights Watch,
hardly a patsy for the Bush adminsitration, questioned the varacity of
the report<br>
<br>
Twain said "There are lies, damn lies, then there are statistics" (and
me with a not-so-insignificant education in quantitative analysis -
what was it? - "Don't try to teach your grandmother to such eggs"?" I'd
be glad to brag about my education if you wish, but I'm not inclined
to.)<br>
<br>
You get one demerit on credibility. I'll ignore it as blind bias.
Something that I am guilty of as well from time to time.<br>
<br>
Dave Budge</blockquote>
<br clear="all">
<hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a
href="http://explorer.msncom">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>