Posts Tagged ‘donor’

Carbonite Dumps Rush Limbaugh As Sponsor, IMMEDIATELY Loses 8.5% Of Its Value

March 7, 2012

It’s our biggest loser program.  And the “winner” is…

CARBONITE!

Here’s the first half of the story, pointing out that it’s all right for Ed Schultz to call a conservative woman a slut, but Rush Limbaugh is evil for calling a liberal woman a slut:

Carbonite Drops Ads from Rush Limbaugh but Not Ed Schultz?
Sunday, March 04, 2012 11:04

The recent manufactured flap by the mainstream media had a new entrant recently. Carbonite, a company that provides online backup support and apparently hasn’t heard of DropBox, released a statement declaring the end of their sponsorship of the Rush Limbaugh Show following remarks by Rush in which he questioned the definition of the word “slut” as a result of recent testimony by feminist and world’s worst contraception shopper, Sandra Fluke.

CEO of Carbonite, David Friend, had this to say yesterday evening following an apology from Rush:

No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.

His contention that her decision to go on national television to talk about her sex life expenses is “courageous” aside, these are bold words from a man who clearly is attaching no ideology to the matter. Right? RIGHT? Well, that’s come into question by some. And by some I mean me.

You see, Carbonite is also the sponsor for a radio show you probably have not heard of, The Ed Schultz Show. Ed Schultz made a similar remark to Rush’s although his was less a question about the usage of the word (as it was for Rush) and more him just screaming that Laura Ingraham is a “right wing slut.”

But you know what they’re talking about? Like this right wing slut. What’s her name Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut…

Now I wonder why Friend’s daughters don’t’ come to mind here? Could this be a publicity stunt? Could they just be dropping sponsorship of Rush in an effort to gain some exposure to help their company get new customers? Because let’s face it, they’ll get more exposure from dropping Rush then they’ll ever get from keeping Shultz. And they could probably use it given that companies like DropBox have moved forward into advanced cloud backups and access while Carbonite seems hopelessly invested in remaining in the year 2006, but I digress.

I asked them on twitter and on FaceBook why the difference in treatment and so far haven’t gotten a reply.

In the twitter verse, fellow non-Carbonite user Amish Dude pointed me to one possible reason.

What’s this you ask? Oh, that’s a donation to Barack Obama’s campaign courtesy of OpenSecrets.org.

It’s all starting to make sense now isn’t it? He doesn’t mind Schultz because he agrees with him.

Enjoy obscurity Mr. Friend. I’m sure the trade of 20 million listeners vs 2 million listeners will be looked at as a super duper decision at your next shareholders meeting.

So that was late last week (Saturday) after the markets closed.  And then the markets opened and rewarded Carbonite for its heroic stand for its liberal ideology:

March 6, 2012 1:21 PM
Nasdaq stocks posting largest percentage decreases

NEW YORK — A look at the 10 biggest percentage decliners on Nasdaq at 1 p.m.:

Oncothyreon Inc. fell 39.8 percent to $5.06.

Zeltiq Aesthetics Inc. fell 30.2 percent to $7.75.

US Home Systems Inc. fell 13.5 percent to $10.53.

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals Inc. fell 12.8 percent to $15.21.

Nutri System Inc. fell 10.7 percent to $10.61.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. fell 10.0 percent to $8.74.

Gentiva Health Services Inc. fell 9.5 percent to $6.77.

LCA-Vision Inc. fell 9.5 percent to $6.57.

Burcon NutraScience Corp. fell 8.6 percent to $7.15.

Carbonite Inc. fell 8.5 percent to $8.37.

Carbonite won’t be seeing any business from me, either.  There are better outfits that DON’T insult my values to do business with out there these days.

Historically it’s only been the left that punished people with boycotts, because liberalism is fascism and fascists like to punish their victims.

I think it’s high time we borrow as many pages from the left’s playbook as we need to “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush” and start punishing the crony capitalist corporations that cravenly cave to Obama.

Solyndra As The LATEST Refutation Of Everything That Obama And Democrats Stupidly Stand For

September 10, 2011

The failure of liberalism is now clearly evident pretty much wherever you look.  Obama’s $862 billion Keynesian boondoggle of a stimulus was such an abject failure that he now says we need yet another $447 billion Keynesian boondoggle in order to save his scrawny ass from being to blame for the next Great Depression.  Obama told us that unemployment would be under 6.7% if we passed his last pork-laden stimulus with all its “shovel-ready jobs.”  Now he’s saying the same thing about his new future-failed boondoggle with “construction workers ready to get dirty.”  Next there was the abject failure of cash for clunkers, which merely served to get people who were already going to buy cars to buy them with huge sums of the American people’s money such that the auto market dwindled for months afterward.  Then there was Obama’s ridiculous mortgage foreclosure mitigation policy which has been an abject failure of gargantuan proportions by ALL accounts as the housing market continues to find new depths to the bottom of hell.  Now we get to see the next example of the failure of liberalism in action:

Solyndra’s bankruptcy: ‘Political catastrophe’ for Obama?
Obama nurtured the solar-panel maker with $535 million in his push to create green jobs. Now it’s kaput and its 1,100 employees are out of luck
posted on September 1, 2011, at 1:22 PM 

Best Opinion: Hot Air, Green for All, Moderate Voice

Solar-power startup Solyndra — one of the flagships of President Obama’s efforts to create green-energy jobs — has shut down, and plans to file for bankruptcy. Solyndra received $535 million in federally guaranteed loans to expand, and Obama once visited the company’s Silicon Valley factory to congratulate its workers on their bright future. But Solyndra says it just can’t compete with cheaper solar panels from China, and now its 1,100 employees are out of work. Is this a “political catastrophe” for Obama, or just a painful setback in the transition to clean energy?

Solyndra’s collapse proves Obamanomics has failed: This company was supposed to be part of Obama’s “green-jobs explosion,” says Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Now it’s “a poster child for the failure of his stimulus, his green-jobs push, and social engineering in general.” Obama said Solyndra would demonstrate the effectiveness of his economic policies, and it did — the company never made a profit, and instead of creating jobs, it sent 1,100 people into the unemployment line.
“Solyndra shuts its doors”

This is not Obama’s fault: “The investment our government made in Solyndra wasn’t a hand-out,” says Green for All. It was an attempt to “level the playing field” so Solyndra could compete with Chinese companies that receive up to 20 times more help from the state than U.S. firms do. This setback proves we need to invest more in “the inevitable green economy” — not less — unless we want to import our solar panels, batteries, and everything else from overseas.
“Statement on the announced closure of Solyndra”

Clearly, there were better ways to spend the stimulus: If Obama really wanted to create jobs, says Logan Penza at The Moderate Voice, he should have targeted companies based on their “ability to compete.” But he didn’t want to anger Democrats, so he saddled taxpayers with debt to help green companies that liberals can love. Obviously, the economy would have been better off if he had spent the money in ways that were “cost-effective instead of merely politically convenient.”
“The cost of politicized stimulus”

This is one of those great big giant “WE TOLD YOU STUPID DUMBASSES SO!” moments.

Go back to January of 2010, when Obama was giving yet another one of his endless pompous speeches talking about how he was going to save America by creating green jobs.  Here’s what we were predicting:

President Obama’s Clean Energy Renewable Power Turkey
Posted on 01/28/2010 by TonyfromOz

Last night in the President’s State Of The Union Address, he mentioned ‘Clean Energy’ ten times, also hyping up Renewable power.

I want you to picture this.

You buy a brand new car straight off the showroom floor.

Each day of the week you drive that car to work. Out of the five days in the week you do this, your brand new car will only achieve the task once. The other four days you have to rely on alternative transport.

So! Do you think you would be happy about that?

I don’t think so.

Renewable power, be it wind power or the two versions of solar power have this same reliability. 20%.

Twenty Percent.

But hey, please don’t believe me. Believe the same Government who wants to sink hundreds of billions of your dollars into this highly unreliable form of generating electrical power. That same Government releases highly detailed statistics every month detailing exactly how much electrical power is generated from every source.

So then let’s look at Wind power first.

The U.S. has recently taken over from Germany as the largest producer of electrical power from this source. This is a link to the Wikipedia site, which in actual fact is quite up to date with the total Nameplate Capacity power produced from this source. Scroll half way down the page to where the chart table is. It shows the installed Nameplate Capacity of Wind Power in the U.S. as 35,159 MegaWatts. (MW) This is around the equivalent of 17 large coal fired or nuclear power plants, which can produce 2000MW of Nameplate Capacity power. So it actually seems to be quite a lot of power really.

However, that’s not how the power is consumed. It is consumed in KiloWattHours (KWH), and I’ll refer to it in that manner because that’s how you will all see it on your electrical utilities bill.

To work out how much usable power is made available to consumers is an easy calculation, although it looks complex.

The formula is NP X 24 X 365.25 X 1000. NP is Nameplate Capacity. 24 for the hours in a day. 365.25 for the days in a year, leap year included, and then multiply by 1000 to convert from MegaWatts to KiloWattHours.

So for all the wind power in the U.S. the formula comes out like this.

35,159 X 24 X 365.25 X 1000 which comes to 308 Billion KWH, if those wind turbines were to run at their maximum all the time. Now, we all know that they don’t so just how much power do they produce.

This link shows that exactly, and these figures are as of January 15th from the Government’s own website for electrical power, The Energy Information Administration.

Scroll to the bottom left there. That figure is expressed in Thousand MegaWattHours, which is the same as Million KWH, so the figure is 64.144 Billion KWH

So, if the feasible maximum total power is 308 Billion KWH, and the actual power delivered is 64 Billion KWH, then the overall efficiency rate of delivery of actual power amounts to 20.7%. What that effectively means is that it is delivering power for just on five hours a day, or the same as for the car analogy I used above, one day in five.

So tell me. Are you happy with that?

To put it in further perspective, see the Nameplate Capacity is the same as for 17 large coal or nuclear plants I showed above. The actual power delivered is around the same power produced by only three and a half of those 17 plants.

Are you happy with that?

You may think I’m being selective, so let’s then look at Nuclear Power. It delivers its power at the efficiency rate of 93%. Even coal fired power delivers its power at close to 88% when referenced to Nameplate Capacity and using the same formula.

That delivered power of 64 Billion KWH amounts to only 1.6% of the total power consumed in the U.S. There is positively and absolutely no way, ever, that total will even closely approach the hoped for 20%, and you could try until 2050. It will never reach 20%.

Look on that same page at Solar Power. Even with all the advances made in Solar Power in the last few years consumption of power from Solar generated sources actually fell, but then, who would really notice. This total amount of power produced from both solar sources amounts to 733 Million KWH, or 0.02% of the total power consumed in the U.S. To put that into some context, this is the same amount of power produced from ONE coal or nuclear plant every FIFTEEN DAYS. That is for every solar power plant in the Country. Solar power is currently delivering its power at the efficiency rate of around 12 to 15% at the absolute best, or around 3 hours a day. Try as you might it’s no point filling up the Deserts in the South West and in Texas with solar panels or mirrors, because there is no way you can then transmit that power the vast distances to where it is needed the most, in the North East. How much power would have been produced over the last few months of snow and blizzards in that North East? Zero. In fact, building them in the North East will never happen because of that.

Are you happy with those figures from Solar power?

Add the solar to the wind, and the total still only comes to 1.62%. Almost nothing.

This is not some imaginary political point I’m trying to make. This is just a bald statement of the facts.

These renewable plants are in the vicinity of five to seven times more expensive to get to the power delivery stage than for any other plant. They are more maintenance intensive and they only last for a third to half the time as for a large coal or nuclear plant.

All that aside, that power delivery rate of only 20% at the absolute best should be enough to convince you that these things are next to useless. The only way they can even get off the ground is with the injection of huge amounts of money in the form of Government subsidies. The only thing that they can absolutely ensure is that the cost of electricity to the end consumer will be much more expensive.

The analogy about the car at the top of the post is a relevant thing to allude to. Would you as a consumer but a car that you KNOW absolutely is only going to work one time in five.

Why should the same thing not apply here with renewable power.

This is one great big turkey that is never going to fly, no matter how much money you throw at it.

Taking into account that 20% power delivery rate, that means you will just have to rely on getting the required power for the remainder of the time from those other sources, so in all reality, the construction of these wind plants and solar plants at an alarmingly ever increasing rate will not really result in the saving of all that much in the way of Carbon Dioxide emissions anyway, as those coal fired plants will have to stay running to provide power for the bulk of the time these so called renewable plants are just not even working at all.

You can construct another million of them, and that percentage will not change.

So when the President is given a standing ovation for mentioning ten times the phrase renewable power and clean energy, this is one turkey that will just never fly. He can hope and change all he likes, but nothing will change that 20% figure.

This is most definitely not B+ material, In fact, if this paper was marked, an F would be a fair result, and in fact even an F is probably too high, and thankfully, the only reason it does get an F instead of just being thrown in the rubbish bin unmarked is that he actually did mention nuclear power generation as an option.

Two further posts on the ridiculous spin being put out there regarding renewable power, both of these dealing with Wind Power.

Post 1. Salazar’s Wind Power: First Open Mouth, Then Change Feet

Post 2. More Political Spin On Wind Power

Obama’s corrupt energy boondoggle had about as much chance of actually succeeding as Karl Marx’s beatific vision of godless communism.

And we now know that this massive government “investment” into Solyndra was more of a political payback than anything else.  Donate to the Obama campaign and Obama will give you special access and make sure you get filthy rich with taxpayer money.  It’s a hell of a good scam unless you happen to be all the other American taxpayers.

Barack Obama is far worse than a mere fool.  He is a truly evil man.  He is the living embodiment of God damn America, and God will continue to damn America until we rid ourselves of the dangerous and deadly disgrace of liberalism.

Obama Ambassador Cynthia Stroum A Self-Aggrandizing Tyrant (In Other Words The Perfect Liberal)

February 8, 2011

One might argue that every president plays political games.  But Barack Obama ran with such a dogmatic self-righteousness that he would be “The One” to transcend this crap that his total pathetic failure to do so amounts to a major scandal.

Big Obama donor quits envoy job amid criticism
Posted: Feb 04, 2011 1:10 AM PST
Updated: Feb 05, 2011 1:10 AM PST
By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America’s ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum’s management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum’s case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy “has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador’s tenure,” said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. “At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities.”

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department’s inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. “The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business,” she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. “We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors,” he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

“The bulk of the mission’s internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style,” the report said. “She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction.”

“Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador’s actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal,” it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. “It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors.”

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum’s major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama’s campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama’s campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign’s money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them “the importance she attaches to the perquisites of” being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador’s residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador’s requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss “professional school” whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as “management meetings.” Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed “to use excess year-end funds” to buy items unless they are used in that year.

Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she “preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided.” The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher “reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds.” The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.

Liberalism = Abuse of Other People’s Money.

Cynthia Stroum ought to be held up as a quintessential liberal, as she is a total hypocrite who talks about how much she cares for the little people while running roughshod over them.  And her selection for an ambassadorship ought to be held up as a quintessential Obama appointment.  It is the paradigm of liberal hypocrisy.

John Edwards, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and every single Democrat in Bell, California are other recent examples of the complete disgustingness of liberalism.  And let’s not forget the pork emperor Barack Obama AND his empress wife Michelle, either.  These and many other Democrats personify the type of people who claim that private citizens aren’t entitled to keep their own money.

Liberals endlessly lecture Republicans as being “hypocrites” when they preach good moral values and then fail to live up to those good values with immoral personal conduct.  And, of course, that IS hypocrisy, no question about it.

But Democrats don’t just preach garbage that they themseleves don’t bother to live up to; they seize other people’s money and routinely hypocritically betray their own stated values using other people’s money to do it.

Just keep in mind that Republicans can’t steal your morality and spend it on their mistresses the way Democrats routinely do in their hypocrisy.

She shouldn’t resign; Obama should look for MORE self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing tyrants JUST LIKE HER so we can better see what Democrat rule is really like.