Print

[LuvTooGolf]

I'm really beginning to believe people have lost their minds concerning the Stock Market.  30,000 layoffs from Amazon and 20,000 from Google hit the news this week, along with the news from last week that auto lenders are in trouble, and the Stock Market soars.  I can't see how this isn't Alan Greenspan's infamous "irrational exuberance."  I'm not buying right now, other than what is being done for me in my state retirement plan and in my HSA.  I'm hoarding cash, if you can call the coupla grand a month I have to stash "hoarding", because I think a correction is coming.

I read somewhere today that the AI bubble is several times larger than the tech bubble was before it popped, and that a strong correction may indeed be on the way.

[LuvTooGolf]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

You know it is.

Actually, I really don't, and that's the point of this discussion.  I'm trying to understand where people draw lines between what is sacred and profane when it comes to the White House property.  People were very upset that Trump replaced the grass in the Rose Garden with a limestone patio.  But nobody was upset that Obama stuck basketball hoops on the tennis court and had basketball markings painted on it.  So are the grounds sacred or not?

I expect nobody here would disagree that the gutting of the interior of the White House and installation of a steel infrastructure under Truman was necessary, especially after a piano nearly fell through the second floor.  But how does that gutting square with what Kathleen Willey has called "the overwhelming history" that has been lost by knocking down the East Wing?  Is the history in the walls, or is it just hanging on the walls?  Because if it's in the walls, then every single presidential administration since John Adams has destroyed history by building and tearing out offices inside.  But if the history is hanging on the walls, or sitting on the floors, then why are we upset that a president has knocked down the walls to rebuild them? 

Also, when do the walls become historic?  The last time the East Wing was knocked down and rebuilt was 1942.  So is it after 50 years that a structure becomes historic?  80 years? Is a building immediately historic if it is erected on the White House grounds?

I'm not being flippant, I promise.  I really don't get where people put their boundaries, and clearly people have placed them in different places in their minds than I have.  So I'm trying to understand.

I think there is a degree of flippancy there, but the point is made. So I never heard this before, and I admit it may have to do with the media being more left-leaning. Therefore, it is difficult for me to comment if I don't know all the facts. In this case, I'll have to use my gut feelings and say that the President or someone on his staff has found yet another loophole.

I'm really not being flippant, T.  TD objects to the size of the ballroom, and while I don't, I can understand his reasoning.  That's something that makes sense to me. I'm still unclear what the heck Kathleen Willey is talking about when she refers to the "overwhelming history" of the East Wing.  I can't find any historic event that occurred in the East Wing.  It wasn't even the domain of the First Lady until 1977.  And I don't see how walls can have history in them in any real sense, and in any case the walls get futzed with every time there's a new president.  It's never crossed my mind what presidents do with the White House, whether Democrat or Republican.  But I'm listening, because it obviously crosses some people's minds.

I do confess that I think a lot of the outrage has to do with who the sitting president is, and that if Obama had done it, there wouldn't be the same outrage (except perhaps by Republicans). But I'm exploring it here because y'all tend to be more reasonable.

First of all, I don't appreciate being referred to as more reasonable. Second, I'm not too ashamed to admit that I have no idea who Kathleen Willey is. Is today her birthday? 

That would DEFINITELY be coinkydink of the day.

[LuvTooGolf]

I'm really beginning to believe people have lost their minds concerning the Stock Market.  30,000 layoffs from Amazon and 20,000 from Google hit the news this week, along with the news from last week that auto lenders are in trouble, and the Stock Market soars.  I can't see how this isn't Alan Greenspan's infamous "irrational exuberance."  I'm not buying right now, other than what is being done for me in my state retirement plan and in my HSA.  I'm hoarding cash, if you can call the coupla grand a month I have to stash "hoarding", because I think a correction is coming.

I read somewhere today that the AI bubble is several times larger than the tech bubble was before it popped, and that a strong correction may indeed be on the way.

Went searching trying to find it, and every headline I come across is some version of "The AI bubble is real, is it time to hoard cash?"

[razgueado]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

You know it is.

Actually, I really don't, and that's the point of this discussion.  I'm trying to understand where people draw lines between what is sacred and profane when it comes to the White House property.  People were very upset that Trump replaced the grass in the Rose Garden with a limestone patio.  But nobody was upset that Obama stuck basketball hoops on the tennis court and had basketball markings painted on it.  So are the grounds sacred or not?

I expect nobody here would disagree that the gutting of the interior of the White House and installation of a steel infrastructure under Truman was necessary, especially after a piano nearly fell through the second floor.  But how does that gutting square with what Kathleen Willey has called "the overwhelming history" that has been lost by knocking down the East Wing?  Is the history in the walls, or is it just hanging on the walls?  Because if it's in the walls, then every single presidential administration since John Adams has destroyed history by building and tearing out offices inside.  But if the history is hanging on the walls, or sitting on the floors, then why are we upset that a president has knocked down the walls to rebuild them? 

Also, when do the walls become historic?  The last time the East Wing was knocked down and rebuilt was 1942.  So is it after 50 years that a structure becomes historic?  80 years? Is a building immediately historic if it is erected on the White House grounds?

I'm not being flippant, I promise.  I really don't get where people put their boundaries, and clearly people have placed them in different places in their minds than I have.  So I'm trying to understand.

I think there is a degree of flippancy there, but the point is made. So I never heard this before, and I admit it may have to do with the media being more left-leaning. Therefore, it is difficult for me to comment if I don't know all the facts. In this case, I'll have to use my gut feelings and say that the President or someone on his staff has found yet another loophole.

I'm really not being flippant, T.  TD objects to the size of the ballroom, and while I don't, I can understand his reasoning.  That's something that makes sense to me. I'm still unclear what the heck Kathleen Willey is talking about when she refers to the "overwhelming history" of the East Wing.  I can't find any historic event that occurred in the East Wing.  It wasn't even the domain of the First Lady until 1977.  And I don't see how walls can have history in them in any real sense, and in any case the walls get futzed with every time there's a new president.  It's never crossed my mind what presidents do with the White House, whether Democrat or Republican.  But I'm listening, because it obviously crosses some people's minds.

I do confess that I think a lot of the outrage has to do with who the sitting president is, and that if Obama had done it, there wouldn't be the same outrage (except perhaps by Republicans). But I'm exploring it here because y'all tend to be more reasonable.

First of all, I don't appreciate being referred to as more reasonable. Second, I'm not too ashamed to admit that I have no idea who Kathleen Willey is. Is today her birthday? 

Heh. Kathleen Willey volunteered in the East Wing, and is most famous for accusing Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

But even THAT didn't allegedly occur in the East Wing, it allegedly happened in the Oval Office.

[A Friend of Charlie]

Connections
Puzzle #870
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟦🟦🟦🟦

[razgueado]

I'm really beginning to believe people have lost their minds concerning the Stock Market.  30,000 layoffs from Amazon and 20,000 from Google hit the news this week, along with the news from last week that auto lenders are in trouble, and the Stock Market soars.  I can't see how this isn't Alan Greenspan's infamous "irrational exuberance."  I'm not buying right now, other than what is being done for me in my state retirement plan and in my HSA.  I'm hoarding cash, if you can call the coupla grand a month I have to stash "hoarding", because I think a correction is coming.

I read somewhere today that the AI bubble is several times larger than the tech bubble was before it popped, and that a strong correction may indeed be on the way.

Went searching trying to find it, and every headline I come across is some version of "The AI bubble is real, is it time to hoard cash?"

Along with all the articles saying it's not smart to pull one's money from the market.  As Charlie Munger famously said, if you're not prepared to absorb a 50% correction, you're not prepared to be an investor.  That's true, and I'm not pulling any money out.  But I am stashing cash, because if this sucker contracts, I want to take advantage.

[razgueado]

Per our discussion.  This doesn't deal with history that may be in the walls, but does address the history hanging on the walls and sitting on the floors.

The White House Historical Association, btw, is not an Executive Branch agency, but a private non-profit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/white-house-historical-association-explains-east-wing-preservation/vi-AA1Pn5Hy?ocid=socialshare

[LuvTooGolf]

Wordle 1,592 5/6*

⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

[A Friend of Charlie]

Many many many extras.


Strands #604
“The write stuff”
🔵🔵🟡🔵
🔵🔵

[A Friend of Charlie]

Failed Sports Connection. Could only get Yellow and Green.

[Travellin Dave]

I'm really beginning to believe people have lost their minds concerning the Stock Market.  30,000 layoffs from Amazon and 20,000 from Google hit the news this week, along with the news from last week that auto lenders are in trouble, and the Stock Market soars.  I can't see how this isn't Alan Greenspan's infamous "irrational exuberance."  I'm not buying right now, other than what is being done for me in my state retirement plan and in my HSA.  I'm hoarding cash, if you can call the coupla grand a month I have to stash "hoarding", because I think a correction is coming.

  Agreed.  I don't see anything the supports the frenzy.