Brian Gongol
The sitting host is retiring voluntarily in a couple of months, and before he's gone they're going to have to find someone to keep the top show in the nation's 3rd-biggest market. It's significant because WGN does talk radio in a personality-oriented fashion rather than a political one. Their sister TV station does some unusually funny things with the news, too.
And that should come as no surprise -- but it's also a warning sign to the United States, which has ignored Latin America for too long. We've already seen how Communist Cuba has been an annoyance for half a century. There's no reason to let socialism spread even more.
The company still has hope -- but when they're looking for huge loans from the Federal government, there's reason for worry about the future. The US automakers have been plagued by short-term thinking. Any company anywhere in the world needs to have a long-term plan if it is to stay in business.
Which ought to serve as a potent reminder that New York City will be hit by a hurricane again someday, and that's going to be colossally expensive
Carmakers are getting $25 billion in cheap loans, in addition to all the other bailouts going on. How about some long-term business planning instead?
Why the rise of giant skyscrapers in China isn't necessarily a sign that people are living better lives
But President Bush told them he wouldn't support it
A state in India is trading fast-track processing of gun permit applications for vasectomies
...a lot of people -- particularly politicians -- are going to push hard for more regulations and greater government authority over financial exchange. But it shouldn't be overlooked that if markets in the United States and similar countries (like the UK) become sufficiently unattractive (either over-regulated or poorly-regulated), investment hot-shots are just going to find other places to trade. Dubai? Moscow? Shanghai? The opportunities could be vast for a market that applies just enough regulation to keep everyone honest, and no more. The real problem is that investors exercise little or none of their authority to demand real value for the money they pay to professional money managers and business executives. It's a classic case of the principal-agent problem: Money managers make money, even when the people who have invested with them do not. And executives with huge severance deals make money, whether the companies they lead are profitable or not. More good will come of making investment managers and business executives eat their own cooking than from anything we could entrust our politicians to do. After all, it's the politicians who have led us to a $9.6 trillion debt -- debt which would almost undoubtedly grow even more under a socialist-leaning administration that could be elected in November, particularly if people respond badly to the enormous (and probably over-reaching) bailout plan initiated by the Treasury Department.
Lots of parliamentary democracies have separate heads of state and heads of government. President Bush has been rather disappointing as a head of government -- particularly to those who believe in limited government -- but there are quite a few stories circulating about his personal virtues that make him sound like a fine ceremonialist.
On that note, Chrysler has announced it's going to have an electric car for sale by 2010.
Florida Representative Tom Feeney says he's "very concerned about a continued turn to the taxpayer every time some private entity makes a risky decision." Some are making the argument that the government could end up breaking even from the bailout -- or even making money from it. It may be possible...but that sure doesn't seem likely. After all, Warren Buffett (who's rather popular again) looked at the banking landscape in January and saw nothing he wanted to buy. (As it turns out, the Goldman Sachs situation has resulted in exactly that sweet deal Buffett was looking for.) So unless we're on the verge of a miracle -- or unless our financial regulators missed their true calling as magnate investors -- the idea of the taxpayer making money off the deal is probably a stretch. After all, one of our 100 sitting Senators and a major-party nominee for Vice President of the United States doesn't even know who was President when the stock market crashed in 1929.
A trip to Mars will take a long time, and it would be impossible to have the astronauts on board carry enough plain old food with them for the trip to be even remotely feasible. But by figuring out better ways to concentrate food and store it for long-term shipment, then it could become possible to make the trip practical. Coincidentally, that same research could help feed people on Earth who live in places where food is in short supply. Most food shortages in the world today are the result of human-caused problems, not nature. We produce enough calories for everyone to eat, but control over food supplies can be an extremely powerful weapon of war. If people were able to store food more reliably and cheaply, or if it were easier to move huge quantities of food to places where it's in severe need, then we'd be doing the right thing for humanity. And even though it sounds to Westerners like the kind of research that's only useful for people living in poor, remote countries, it's actually exactly the kind of research we need for ourselves, too. When people were stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, they needed food and not all of them got it; such disasters could happen again, and light, portable foods would be extremely useful. And on an even broader scale, the world's food supply is not enough to last for more than a few weeks in case of a real cataclysm...like, for instance, a volcanic eruption that disrupts the crop-growing season. It's happened before, and unless we have something at least a little bit like the meal in a pill of science fiction, we're not ready enough.
Topics: Getting even with bad management...the $700 billion bailout...getting control of our debt. And an audio highlight/podcast.

