The Left has suggested that members of George Bush’s administration should be prosecuted for their role in sanctioning the physical coercion (waterboarding) of terrorists to extract information that could be used to prevent mass murders by other terrorists. The idea of prosecuting members of the previous Administration is highly reminiscent of Stalinist purges of previous regimes, royal families (Shakespeare’s Richard III comes to mind) who murdered every rival who might have a claim on the throne, and of course Napoleon’s extermination of Snowball’s followers in Orwell’s Animal Farm. Now, however, the Left has a serious embarrassment in the form of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the question as to what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it. The following cartoon should help Ms. Pelosi with what was once known as the Four-Step Nuremburg War Crime Alibi.

Now, Ms. Pelosi, repeat the following:

(1) “Es geschah nicht.” (“It didn’t happen.”)
(2) “Ich wusste nicht.” (“I didn’t know.”)
(3) “Ich war nicht dort.” (“I wasn’t there.”)
(4) “Ich folgt nur Auftragen.” (“I only followed orders.”)

We contended previously that membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership does not speak well of a company’s mission or strategy, although there are admittedly good performers on the list. This is because a well-managed corporation does not need government mandates to force businesses and individuals to buy its products (e.g. alternative energy sources, compact fluorescent lamps). As an example, if General Electric was up to the job of engineering cost-effective wind turbines and solar panels, it would probably not be able to make them quickly enough to keep up with demand even without tax credits to encourage their purchase. When Henry Ford engineered an affordable alternative to horses and their solid waste, he did not need government mandates to sell his product either.

As an experiment, we created a hypothetical stock portfolio that assumes the purchase of $1000 worth of each USCAP corporate member’s publicly traded stock on January 2, 2002. (It does not include Duke Energy, DUK, because there appears to have been a stock split of some kind, Shell Oil, which has multiple symbols, or NRG, which was not listed in 2002.) This gave us $18,000 in eighteen stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 10,073.40 and the Standard and Poor 500 closed at 1,154.67 on January 2, 2002. March 9’s closes were 6,547.05 (down 35%) and 676.53 (down 41.4%) respectively. Our hypothetical $18,000 worth of USCAP stock (18 companies) would be worth $10,555.58 (down 41.36%) on March 9. In other words, a portfolio of equally weighted USCAP publicly traded corporations underperformed the Dow, and just about equaled the S&P 500. Had we also purchased $1000 worth of former USCAP members Lehman Brothers and AIG, our $20,000 investment would now be worth about $10,556 or so, i.e. down 47 percent from January 2, 2002.

Disclaimers:
(1) We currently hold no stock positions in any of the companies in question. If we did, we would initiate a shareholder resolution to withdraw from USCAP.
(2) We are not experts in comparing stocks or portfolios; the following procedure describes our assessment to the best of our ability.

If you have access to Yahoo Finance, you can create a stock portfolio in the same manner to test assumptions about a given stock or group of stocks. Create a custom portfolio, look up the stock price on January 2, 2002 (or any other reference date), divide $1000 by that price, and enter the number of shares in the transaction record. This starts you off with $1000 worth of each stock as a basis. This allows you to assess the current value of the portfolio. Ours consists of: AA, BSX, CAT, COP, DD, DE, EXC, F, FPL, GE, GM, JNC, PCG, PEP, PNM, RTP, SI, XRX.

Our experiment confirms our opinion that USCAP’s publicly traded members, on average, underperform the rest of the stock market, which suggests that their management is, on average, below par. Good managers would make money the old fashioned way, per the old Smith Barney commercial; they would earn it through the delivery of cost-effective products and services instead of asking the government to force people to buy their products and services. Here are some of the companies that doubtlessly pull down the performance of the USCAP stock index, and in whose company the better performers might not wish to be seen:

AIG (former USCAP member) now on life support from the government.

General Electric: apparently not up to the job of engineering alternative energy products that are cost-effective for businesses and individuals to buy.

General Motors
(1) Unwilling and unable to control its health care costs by demanding that the hospitals that provide health care to workers and retirees implement quality systems to prevent medical errors and inefficiencies (an approach recommended by GM’s own industry association, the Automotive Industry Action group)
(2) Insists on pushing inventory onto dealer lots instead of making cars to order
(3) Tolerated the “job bank” in which extra workers are paid to do crossword puzzles or watch movies. The reason for the job bank is that, the instant you lay people off in response to productivity improvements, they stop improving productivity. You are, however, supposed to assign them to meaningful work (there is always plenty to do) instead of insulting them by paying them to stare at the wall.

Lehman Brothers (former USCAP member): wanted to trade in carbon emission credits as opposed to producing something of value to society. We do not see Lehman Brother’s collapse as any great loss to society or even, in the long run, the U.S. economy.

As stated by Kimberly Strassel’s “If the Cap Fits,”

There was a time when the financial press understood that companies exist to make money. And it happens that the cap-and-trade climate program these 10 jolly green giants are now calling for is a regulatory device designed to financially reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, and punish those that don’t.

Four of the affiliates–Duke, PG&E, FPL and PNM Resources–are utilities that have made big bets on wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power. So a Kyoto program would reward them for simply enacting their business plan, and simultaneously sock it to their competitors. Duke also owns Cinergy, which relies heavily on dirty, CO2-emitting coal plants. But Cinergy will soon have to replace those plants with cleaner equipment. Under a Kyoto, it’ll get paid for its trouble.

DuPont has been plunging into biofuels, the use of which would soar under a cap. Somebody has to cobble together all these complex trading deals, so say hello to Lehman Brothers. Caterpillar has invested heavily in new engines that generate “clean energy.” British Petroleum is mostly doing public penance for its dirty oil habit, but also gets a plug for its own biofuels venture.

Finally, there’s General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt these days spends as much time in Washington as Connecticut. GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

As a final note, let us not forget that Barack Cade (after Jack Cade from King Henry VI) Obama supports the agenda of using carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes to transfer money from manufacturing industries, utilities, and the public at large (which would be hit with higher costs for all forms of carbon-based energy) to USCAP’s fat-cat climate profiteers and other special interests, and from largely Red States with manufacturing industries to mostly Blue States with low per-capita energy use: low because most of the residents do not work in factories, and would not even set foot in a factory if they could possibly avoid it.

We reported previously that the U.S. Climate Action Partnership’s (USCAP’s) members include some of the country’s worst-managed corporations, as demonstrated by their need for government bailouts. These include former USCAP members AIG and Lehman Brothers, as well as government-dependent entities like General Motors and Chrysler. Our position is that companies that need government mandates to force people to buy their products or services contribute nothing to society, and they should not be in business. If General Electric, for example, cannot engineer cost-effective wind turbines and solar panels, and must instead get the government to require businesses and utilities to buy its products, it is a liability to the country and should not be in business. This message comes across clearly in Kimberley Strassel’s “If the Cap Fits,” from the Wall Street Journal.

GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

Americans are fortunately waking up to Barack Obama’s plans to raise prices for consumers and knife the unions and workers who helped elect him by imposing carbon taxes that would enrich special interests (USCAP members) while driving energy-intensive businesses offshore.

Kimberley Strassel’s “The Climate Change Lobby Has Regrets: Cap and trade is going to cost them” in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal describes the problem perfectly.

“People are learning,” says William Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which has been cautious about embracing a climate plan). “The Obama budget did more to help us consolidate and coalesce the business community than anything we could have done. It’s opened eyes to the fact that this is about a social welfare transfer system, not about climate.”

Truth is, any cap-and-trade system is a tax, even if Mr. Obama’s plan has only started to force business proponents to admit it. The government sets a cap on how much greenhouse gas can be emitted annually. Companies buy and sell permits that allow them to emit. Customers bear the price of those permits.

If Barack Obama succeeds in imposing a scheme to transfer wealth from middle-class Americans to fat-cat special interests while destroying wholesale the jobs of the workers and union members who elected him, voters will clean the Democrats out of Congress in 2010 with the only exceptions being those who vote against Obama’s carbon agenda.

During last year’s debate on Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D., Calif.) climate bill, he [Corker] offered an amendment to require rebates of all auction funds to American families. It helped kill the bill, as did a growing awareness among Midwest and Southern Democrats that the legislation would disproportionately hammer their industries and constituents.

Barack Obama may idolize Abraham Lincoln, but he is more like James Buchanan because carbon taxes would in fact re-create the economic differences that resulted in Southern secession with the roles being reversed this time. In 1860, the North was heavily industrialized while the South was agrarian, while today’s South and Midwest are industrialized while the North provides mostly financial services, coffeehouse liberals, and community activists. Strassel concludes,

Business leaders might do better to use this as an opportunity to kill the beast. They might get some credit for protecting their customers from what they are now, finally, admitting is a giant tax — in the middle of a recession.

We must all help educate the American public as to the fact that the “global warming” scare is exactly that: a scam with which to enrich fat-cat special interests, non-producing nonprofit groups that have to pay their staffs and directors to pretend to work, and foreign countries like China that will be happy to take our energy-intensive jobs. It differs little from the medieval scam of selling indulgences for sins, with Al Gore being the chief indulgence seller; he has made millions of dollars from “Earth in the Balance” and similar entertainment media. Meanwhile, it is becoming clearer every day that Barack Obama is the stock market’s real problem; investors have no confidence whatsoever that this community organizer will do anything but wreck what is left of the American economy and plunge the nation into economic collapse and even bankruptcy.

Banking problems and “toxic assets” are major contributors to the ongoing decline in the stock market, but it is quite likely that investors took them into account last year. The 800 pound gorilla in the living room that nobody seems to want to talk about consists of Barack Obama’s agenda (per his State of the Union Address) to impose taxes on all fossil fuels, or require users of fossil fuels to buy carbon offset credits from the modern counterparts of medieval indulgence peddlers.

As long as this agenda continues to menace the United States, investors are rightly reluctant to invest in American manufacturing, transportation, and other energy-intensive sectors. If, however, enough Senators (including Democrats from coal-producing and manufacturing states) pledged to vote against and filibuster Obama’s cap-and-trade agenda, it would restore investor confidence, break the downward momentum of the stock market, and set the stage for an economic recovery.

The stock market’s decline is obviously being driven by the fact that most Americans recognize that their new President (B.A. in political science, graduate degree in law, career as a “community organizer”) is totally incompetent in the fields of economics, business, and manufacturing. It is well known that it is far better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt, which Obama’s State of the Union speech did quite effectively. The stock market took a nose dive the next day because investors realized that this individual is totally clueless as to how the economy really works. Obama’s previous pledge to create five million “green” jobs reinforces this observation because most people know that economically viable jobs tend to create themselves. Henry Ford, for example, did not need a dime of Federal money to create an entire business sector, associated spin-off industries, and millions of well-paying jobs. Bill Gates did not need government mandates or assistance to create an entire new industry either.

Obama’s infatuation with “renewable” and “green” energy therefore underscores his total lack of competence, and Wall Street knows it. A solar or wind home system delivers after-tax income because electricity must be paid for with after-tax dollars. We researched such systems for our own home, and a solar system would need 30 years to pay for itself even with a 30 percent tax credit from the government. (Performance would admittedly be better in the Southwest, where there is more solar energy.) If someone could develop an economically viable solar system in the near future, they would do it because the resulting profits would be enormous. Wind turbines do somewhat better, but you need a place to put one. The fact that power companies and factories are not buying more of them, however, shows that they apparently cannot pass a Net Present Value analysis. In other words, Obama’s energy agenda is the product of fanciful wishful thinking as opposed to reality, and it is hardly surprising that no investor wants any part of American manufacturing until Congress puts this to rest for good.

Carbon taxes or cap-and-trade mandates would not even deliver the purported benefit of fewer greenhouse gases. Corporations could simply opt out of compliance by moving their smokestacks, all their carbon dioxide, and the high-wage jobs that go with the smokestacks to places like China that would be more than delighted to provide cheap energy. California has already turned itself into a business world pariah, and no entrepreneur in his right mind would invest money in that state. Obama’s energy policies would simply do for (or to) the entire country what California has already done to itself while knifing the blue collar workers and union members who helped elect him.

Kimberley Strassel’s “If the Cap Fits: Why our CEOs are warming to Kyoto” describes the Climate Action Partnership, whose membership pretty much speaks for itself. Many if not most of USCAP’s for-profit members need government support for their continued survival, while others are non-producers that need outside money to pay their employees and directors.

There was a time when the financial press understood that companies exist to make money. And it happens that the cap-and-trade climate program these 10 jolly green giants are now calling for is a regulatory device designed to financially reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, and punish those that don’t.

Four of the affiliates–Duke, PG&E, FPL and PNM Resources–are utilities that have made big bets on wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power. So a Kyoto program would reward them for simply enacting their business plan, and simultaneously sock it to their competitors. Duke also owns Cinergy, which relies heavily on dirty, CO2-emitting coal plants. But Cinergy will soon have to replace those plants with cleaner equipment. Under a Kyoto, it’ll get paid for its trouble.

DuPont has been plunging into biofuels, the use of which would soar under a cap. Somebody has to cobble together all these complex trading deals, so say hello to Lehman Brothers. Caterpillar has invested heavily in new engines that generate “clean energy.” British Petroleum is mostly doing public penance for its dirty oil habit, but also gets a plug for its own biofuels venture.

Finally, there’s General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt these days spends as much time in Washington as Connecticut. GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

We were not particularly sorry when Lehman Brothers went out of business, because it is clear that a company that needs government regulations to force people to buy its product (carbon caps) is a corporate welfare parasite that leeches off society while contributing little or nothing in return. Meanwhile, if General Electric was up to the job of developing economically viable solar panels and wind turbines, it would not need government mandates to compel people and businesses to buy them. Its membership in USCAP suggests that it is not up to the job, as reinforced by the 80 percent drop in its stock price from a high of about $40.

Here is a list of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership’s remaining members (noting that Lehman Brothers went bankrupt). Some appear well-managed, but the reader should also recognize the prominent losers: General Motors (on life support from the American taxpayer), Chrysler LLC (another basket case), and General Electric. Non-producers include the Environmental Defense Fund and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

There is an old saying, “Dance with the one that brought you.” Barack Obama must decide quickly whether he is on the side of the blue collar workers and unions that played a major role in his election, or on the side of the Climate Action Partnership, the modern counterparts of medieval indulgence peddlers, people who make millions of dollars from books and movies about global warming while their own carbon footprints are big enough for King Kong and Godzilla put together, and similar climate profiteers. If he does not side with the American worker and American investor very quickly, then Congress needs to make it clear that it will not support his incompetent and irresponsible energy policies.

You can take the ape out of the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of the ape.
Television Executive Accused of Beheading Wife Remains Jailed

A Muslim-American television executive who allegedly beheaded his wife days after she filed for divorce remains jailed without bail following a court appearance in western New York.

…Following multiple episodes of domestic violence, Aasiya Hassan filed for divorce on Feb. 6 and obtained an order of protection that barred her husband from their home, according to attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.

Militant “Islam:” the religion of domestic violence and (allegedly) beheading.

We will say up front that Obama’s actions subsequent to his election have been far less radical than we would have predicted (given the content of Dreams From My Father and Obama’s membership in a racist church). If, despite the very poor first impression he gave us during the campaign, he does a good job, we will acknowledge that he has exceeded our expectations.

Obama must realize in turn, however, that fundraising through rigged online lotteries (this one is legal because it provides a way to enter without making a donation) undermines his credibility and reinforces negative expectations. This is not, incidentally, the first time this has happened.

We received the following solicitation from Michelle Obama today.

Last week, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced that we’re bringing 10 supporters to Washington, DC for several days of Inaugural celebrations.

With the deadline coming up on Thursday, I’m pleased to announce the selection of the first grassroots supporter who will be attending the Inauguration.

Cynthia Russell from Newberry, Florida, and her guest will attend the welcome ceremony, Barack’s swearing-in, the Inaugural Parade, and our Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.

Cynthia is a builder and has been feeling the impact of the recent economic crunch. She wrote:

“I’m a single woman who has been building homes for over 18 years. I’ve supported myself and have been able to help out my mother from time to time. Now I find myself wondering how much longer I can hold on and be able to pay my bills and keep the doors open for business. Barack gives me hope. Hope that 2009 will truly bring change to Americans who find themselves in this mess with me.”

We need to select 9 more supporters like Cynthia, and I would love for you to be one of them.

Make your donation of $5 or more before midnight on Thursday, January 8th.

Supporters like you made this historic moment possible.

You gave your passion and hard work to this movement, and you brought millions of new people into the political process. Thanks to you, this campaign was open to more people than any in history, and we’re counting on you to do the same for the Inauguration.

You could be there to celebrate your amazing accomplishments and give a strong start to the change you fought so hard for.

Please make a donation of $5 or more and help us celebrate everything you did to make this day possible:

https://donate.pic2009.org/tickettohistory

Nothing could be better than having you there to be a part of this historic event.

Thank you for everything you’ve done to bring us to this moment,

Michelle

P.S. — The opportunity to be part of this historic event is open to everyone, regardless of whether you make a donation. Participate now by telling us what this Inauguration means to you.

Unlike a similar previous lottery that required a donation to enter, this one is certainly legal because the page on which you make the donation says, “If you’d prefer not to make a donation, sign up here and you could still be selected to attend the Inauguration.” Nonetheless, the ethics of announcing winners before the entry deadline means that not every entrant has an equal chance to win, and this reflects very badly on the incoming Presidential administration.

“Who will want to save them?” i.e. “Who wants to capture any alive?”
Mumbai: Doctors Shocked At Hostages Torture reports that the Islamic supremacist perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre tortured many of their hostages before murdering them. The article also says, however, that the Indians may have used what Kumbaya-singing Westerners might call “excessive violence” on the terrorists. The Islamic supremacists’ faces were “beyond recognition” and “One of the terrorists was shot through either eye.”

In other words, the terrorists got exactly what they deserved, and what the United States and Israel ought to give the perpetrators of 9/11 and Ma’alot respectively on a routine basis. The French use the term “pour encourager les autres”–literally “to encourage the others,” but more generally “as an example to others.” We stated more than 25 years ago that first aid for wounded terrorists should be limited to the cost of a single pistol cartridge.

Terrorists feel free to detonate nail bombs in synagogues and pizza parlors, orchestrate the 9/11 atrocity, cut off people’s heads, torture hostages, gun down children at Ma’alot, and shoot pregnant women in their bellies because they know that the Kumbaya-singing West will usually give them at most time in a relatively comfortable jail (e.g. Guantanamo, where prisoners gain weight and have access to first-class medical care), with an excellent chance of very early release. As an example, Israel released numerous terrorists in exchange for the bodies of Israeli soldiers, and at least one individual who was freed from Guantanamo resumed operations with a terrorist group.

The convicted terrorist who got life without parole at an American maximum security prison, and the Bali bombers who were recently executed by Indonesia, were four very unlucky exceptions to the general rule that terrorism carries no price tag. Piracy is meanwhile on the upswing because pirates are no longer hanged from the nearest yardarm as was once legal and customary.

The methods of the Roman Empire and Vlad Dracula were very effective in discouraging banditry and terrorism, but they would admittedly not pass muster under the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, there is no question that most terrorists would be deterred by the prospect of being treated as horrifically than their victims. They should be treated as completely outside civilized law, and with no protections under the Hague or Geneva Convention (which apply to uniformed combatants who conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war). It is said that General Pershing executed Islamic supremacist terrorists with bullets that had been lubricated with pig fat. This is something for hostage rescue teams to consider in the future; in retrospect, the Indians could have rubbed their bullets with pig fat before using them on the terrorists.

Punishment (or retaliation) that does not serve at least one of the following three functions is useless sadism: (1) correction of the perpetrator’s behavior, (2) prevention of future crimes by the perpetrator, and (3) deterrence of like-minded individuals. The actions of the Indian commandos fulfilled objectives (2) and (3) perfectly. The dead terrorists will never harm another innocent person, and other prospective terrorists will be deterred.

Meanwhile, India has given us a real-world alternative to the line, “What Would Jack Baeur Do?”: “Unko bachana kaun chahega?”

Retailers predict the economic equivalent of coal in their Christmas stockings. Who cares? As stated by Dr. Seuss’ Grinch, Christmas does not come from a store, and we encourage our readers to let the Grinch have Black Friday and the whole holiday shopping season. Young children can be taught the virtue of delayed gratification with the explanation that Santa Claus can bring them more if they wait until after Christmas. This is, of course, because the same amount of money can buy far more after Christmas.

Twenty or thirty years ago, there would have indeed been reason to care about holiday sales figures. The purchase of American-made goods would have enriched American workers and their employers, which would have in turn stimulated the American economy. The purchase of Chinese-made trash–and “trash” describes numerous personal experiences with it plus the well-known cases of poisoned pet food, contaminated heparin, and dangerous toys–stimulates China’s economy while it rewards importers for shipping American jobs offshore.

Consumers should also question the value of well-known brand names. As an example, Levi Strauss gained a reputation for manufacturing durable American-made denim work pants for miners. Dockers pants are now made in China, and we see no reason to pay designer label prices for Chinese-made commodities. Here are additional examples Chinese-made products:

• Promotional travel bags from Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, and Perry Ellis
• Woolrich
• Nautica
• Sharper Image (an upscale label)
• Numerous tools in hardware and home improvement stores; check the label before you pay a designer label price for a Chinese commodity.

In any event, if it’s made in China, it is essentially a commodity no matter whose label is on it. Our inclination is to tell the retailer, when we bother to tell him anything at all, “This might be a fair price for an American-made product but, since it’s made in China, we’re sure you can sell it for a lot less.” This brings us back to our original point; if you wait until December 26, you will find that the retailer can and must sell it for a lot less.

Consumers need to understand the relation between the retail supply chain and post-season sales. Chinese commodities are imported on container ships, so retailers must order large quantities. If the inventory doesn’t sell, the retailer must dispose of it at fire-sale prices to make room for the next large batch of Chinese-made junk (e.g. like the interactive dog toy we had to throw away after one use, when we discovered that a plastic noisemaker inside splintered into dangerous fragments when our dog chewed on it). It is meanwhile well known that retailers must clear away inventories of winter clothing to make room for spring styles, and the same applies to summer clothing in August.

Smart shoppers can and should game this system by waiting until the end of the season, when they can essentially dictate prices to the retailers. Retailers should realize in turn, however, that they can order smaller quantities of American (and admittedly Canadian and Mexican goods, because these sources are connected to us by road and rail) as needed. If they keep smaller inventories, and replenish them only in response to sales, they can hold prices steady.

We therefore encourage our readers to leave Black Friday’s traffic, crowds, and long lines to the suckers and marks who are willing to waste their time and money, and wait until December 26 to buy anything at all. (This is how we buy Christmas cards that retail for $20 or more per box, but drop 40% or more on Boxing Day; we just keep them for the next year.) Save time and gasoline, laugh at the traffic from the comfort of your home, and help the Grinch deliver little lumps of coal and a lot of red ink to all the companies that laid off American workers to ship their jobs to China.

Show young children the long lines that are backed up to see Santa Claus in the shopping mall. Tell them that Santa will be a lot less busy after December 25, so he and his elves will have time to bring them MORE gifts than he can deliver to the children who are in a hurry. When they grow old enough to understand how this works, they will themselves be smart consumers who know how to get as much value as possible for their money.

China sells melamine-contaminated products.

Got Melamine?