Club Monaco Discovers New Shade of Gray

Club Monaco set the fashion world abuzz when it announced that its Winter 2008 line will be based on a new shade of gray it recently discovered in its Toronto fashion lab. The new shade has been trade marked as Gréy. The announcement swept through the high fashion houses like storm clouds and even three days after the anouncement it is still a topic that industry insiders say is being talked about. Club Monaco's chief designer Marcus Deuteranopia said of the new shade, "This season's new line will be entirely based on Gréy, it will be the new face of Club Monaco." Many fashion insiders heralded Club Monaco's announcement with praise and astonishment. French designer Jean-Paul Gaultier when told of the the new shade of gray remarked, "C'est impossible!" When he was subsequently told it was Club Monaco who had announced it he exclaimed, "Ah, Club Monaco! C'est possible!"

Gréy marks the one hundred and seventy fourth shade of gray discovered by Club Monaco. When Deuteranopia was asked how Gréy would change Club Monaco he replied, "We see Club Monaco as a pyramid, we have black and white at the base upon which everything is built upon. However, with Gréy we now have the ability to build the pyramid to the dark side of the moon, which we believe will be revealed to be a very similar shade as Gréy."

Although Club Monaco has mostly been showered with praise there has been limited criticism from a few vocal fashion cynics. One such cynic, writing for the National Post remarked, "This so called Gréy is nothing but a play on the same tones and styles that Club Monaco has been peddling since its inception." Although the critics have been few and far between Deuteranopia still addressed them, "No, I completely disagree with the critics, Gréy is fresh, it is young, it is hip. I have so much confidence in Gréy that I believe Gréy could be the new black."

Descrepency in New Orleans and Israeli Funding a Matter of Economics Claims Whitehouse

Today the White House dismissed criticism regarding the discrepancy between funds allocated to rebuild New Orleans after hurricane Katrina and funds sent to Israel for defense, saying it comes down to a simple matter of economics. Using the White House's own numbers $6.4 billion have been allocated to rebuild New Orleans since the deadly hurricane. While this week the White House announced plans to send $30 billion to Israel in defense aid. This lead to an outcry across the county claiming this was an unfair allocation of funds. Not so, responded the White House press secretary Tony Snow, "The difference is in New Orleans we are spending money to provide clean water supplies, food, reconstruct adequate shelter and city infrastructure. The money we are giving to Israel is for guns, bullets, tanks, helicopters and planes. Clearly these implements of war are more expensive than food, water and shelter. So, we need allocate the funds appropriately." Snow went on to say, "It is government policy that every person in New Orleans needs access to eight cups of clean drinking water per day. So far that has been costing $0.25 per day, per person. While, on the other hand, in Israel each tank fires on average eight rounds per day. Each of those rounds costs $300. Do see now why there is a difference?" Snow was then asked a question regarding the major expenses in New Orleans that go beyond relatively cheap human necessities, like rebuilding the New Orleans dike system, he again dismissed the concerns citing economics. Snow said, "Yes, we realize there are major expenses in New Orleans, but there are also major expenses in Israel. We have already ear marked $1 billion for rebuilding the levee system in New Orleans, or more precisely a "wall" to keep out water. However, again, this is where economics come into play. The "wall" being built in New Orleans is only to keep out water. While the wall Israel is building is meant to keep out people, a much more cunning adversary than mere water. That is why we have ear marked $5 billion for the wall in Israel."

Many Democrats initially opposed the plans to send the funds to Israel, but most have changed their tune. Foremost, most of the money that will be given to Israel will be spent on American made war materials. The current administration has ensured that those contracts go to factories located in Democratically controlled areas. This makes voting against a bill that will keep jobs in their area political suicide for a Democrat. In addition, many Democrats realize the delicate balance the United States maintains in the Middle East. If large amounts of money are cut off from Israel the large amounts of money already sent to Israel's neighbors, like Egypt and Jordan, could put the entire military situation in the Middle East out of whack.

The bill is expected to pass unanimously in Congress.