Well, if you haven't seen it, look below. Representative Patrick Kennedy's rant is a classic. All over the Web, of course. There are so many things wrong with this rant I don't know where to start. First of all, the tone is a turn-off. His hoarse, scratchy voice doesn't do it for me. The accusatory pointing isn't working either. Also, factually, I don't know what he's getting at. Is he saying the American people don't have access to information about the wars? That's certainly not true. Maybe he's translating his dislike of two or three very specific "members of the media" as the "National Press Corp." Maybe as a member of Congress  he can point to all the folks in the room -- on both sides of the aisle -- as the source of the problems, rather than the media.

As I've been in the media industry nearly all my life, I understand spin. And I'm continually fascinated by how the mainstream media often "buys the spin" when they report technology stories. No better example than how they all piled on Cisco's new router announcement this week, often just quoting the press release as fact. Here at the Rayno Report we embark in a battle against the spin. in the interest of truth, let's take you through the Cisco story again and show you who's right and who's wrong. Here's a prime example of what's wrong: This terrible piece of journalism in AOL's DailyFinance: "Cisco Unveils Its New Superfast Network Router." The headline is hilarious, it could pass as an Onion piece. And the story that follows is pathetic, almost  a pure regurgitation of the press release. Do some analysis folks! pick up the phone! I quote from the story: "Networking giant Cisco (CSCO) on Tuesday unveiled a new network router it says 'will forever change the Internet and its impact on consumers, businesses and governments.'" That's the lead. If you parse it, it's really just Cisco's own subjective propaganda, there are no factual statements in the lead.  The reporter, Sam Gustin, has made the press release the story. He's handed control to Cisco.

Sometimes, covering the news makes me nauseous. It doesn't help that all over the Web, there are hundreds of sycophantic bloggers embracing tech-company spin. Of course, often, the companies might have something legitimate to say. but more often than not it's just propaganda. This week's, slathering, sycophantic barrage came on the Google Apps Marketplace, announced yesterday. From the Google blog: "Every day, thousands of businesses choose the cloud. More than 2 million businesses have adopted Google Apps over the last three years, eliminating the hassles associated with purchasing, installing and maintaining hardware and software themselves." Ewww. Can I just point out one thing? Google makes almost ZERO money on cloud applications! Despite all the hype over "cloud-based services" and "open, free apps," Google hasn't made a dime on this. Google should just admit it likes to hand out free stuff to generate more adwords traffic, that's their business model! Anyway, now that I've got that off my chest, let's move on to other news:

• House bans earmarks for for-profit companies (The Washington Post). Wow! You mean, Congress might actually try to do something logical? But the Repubs might have a point -- why not ban all earmarks?
• Time to ramrod through financial reform, I guess (L.A. Times). That can't be good.
• Google's in talks with China (Los Angeles). Not sure if it wants the Mu Shu pork or Chicken Chow Mein.
• Bing is gaining marketshare from Yahoo (Business Insider). Don't you love a nasty fight for second place?
• Telecom mogul Carlos Slim is now the world's richest man! (BusinessWeek). Bill Gates, now a pathetic number two, seen doing shots of tequila in Redmond.
• The Papandreou Offensive (BusinessWeek). I just thought that was a great headline. I didn't actually read it.
• Florida floreclosures rise again (Bizjournals.com). In other news, Dunkin' Donuts is still making donuts.
• Caterpillar might build excavator facility in the U.S. (Reuters). They should think about putting it in Washington. A lot of stuff to excavate there.
• The IRS has $1.3B in unclaimed taxes (WalletPop). Well, good luck, I know I'm not getting any of it.
• They've discovered an all-black penguin in Antarctica (Yahoo Green). Can you believe there's a site called "Yahoo Green." That's funny, Yahoo.
• New battery charging method could improve recharge times (Technology Review). Apply an oscillating electric field to the anode of a lithium battery and the recharge time drops dramatically! Why didn't I think of that?
• Apple to support iPhone multitasking (TG Daily). Now your wife will be able to talk on the phone, drive the car, and tell you to take out the garbage at the same time!
• A bunch of Wizard of Oz remakes are bouncing around Hollywood (L.A. Times). No confirmation of whether Alan Greenspan is involved in the financing.

I have been catching up on some data and news stories about the beleagured venture capital industry.  A continuing shakeout in the industry means that fewer venture-capital firms are in the market with less money, meaning tougher terms for startups. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this will change any time soon unless we get some gigantic IPOs to pay back all the funds. Yes, you can read some success stories about M&A and wins from a few of the major, top-tier firms. But that's just a small percentage of the industry. In sum total, most venture capital funds have had crappy performance over the last 10 years and many of them are shutting down. According to this Wall Street Journal article, the number of venture-capital firms shrunk from 1,023 to 794 from 2005 to 2009. And they're raising less money. 125 venture funds in the U.S. collected $13.6 billion last year, down from 203 funds that raised $28.7 billion in 2008, according to the Journal.

Yesterday, I was liquidating stocks and buying S&P puts to protect my remaining position. I will continue to do so today. I will probably go from 80% invested to 40% invested. The remaining stocks I own will have reasonable P/Es and they will be hedged with S&P puts.  Two charts have got my attention. First, the recent marginal new highs in the indices have been accompanied by lower volume. I just don't see as much enthusiasm in the rally anymore, and there is certainly not large amounts of institutional buying. Secondly, the chart formation is a scary double-top. We rallied back to the January high of 1150 in the S&P, but now it looks like we're failing again. I will remind readers that the correction after the January high was particularly nasty. I would not be surprised to see some as big, or bigger, now. The second chart goes back to my earlier point: Where's the money going to come from? Yes, it's tricky to game this market, because the Wizard of Oz can always print money. But ideally a rally needs real cash to survive, it's the fuel of the stock market. Unfortunately, much of this fuel has been the cheap financing from the government that's fueling short-term bets by investment banks and traders on Wall Street. But they've bought the asssets, and the money is borrowed, so they want to sell higher to pay it back. The stronger, longer-term money has also been used up: mutual funds. As demonstrated by the chart below, it turns out that mutual fund cash levels are returning to all-time lows. Remember, mutual fund cash levels rose in the crash of 2008, allowing them to come into the market in 2009 and help fuel the rally. That cash has now been almost entirely deployed. Where's the new money going to come from? Unfortunately, I think this is a bad picture for the market. If the mutual funds start liquidating the stocks they've piled into over the last 12 months, the tide will turn quickly.  It's why I'm selling any of the stocks I made money on in the last few months and why I'm hedging the rest.