The main significance of the New Haven firfighter case is that it clearly shows leftists, and the mainstream media, for the racists they are. See yesterday's entry. Simply as legal precedent, the case is not that significant--EXCEPT as at least keeping leftists somewhat at bay in terms of turning our society into one where your rights are alsmost totally determined by your race and ethnic origin, and sometimes your sex, rather than yourself as an individual--an individual who, for the most part in this country, is of MIXED RACE and/or etnic origin. In other words, at least "white" people discriminated against still have the option of filing a lawsuit, and obtaining possible relief, even though "race" can still be a factor in government decisions and government influenced private decisions.
Yes, thisis yet another example of this blog being exactgly right, IN FORESIGHT. No, it was not hard to be right on this one, but this blog is the only place where you consistently see these "obvious" predictions actually made, IN FORESIIGHT. What did I telll you about this decision, before it happened? I told you the decision would be AMBIGUOUS, although most likely te white firefighters would win. That is exactly what happened.
As stated in yesterday's entry, the Constitution is colr blind. Nowhere does it mention "white" people, and since the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, it does not provide any reference to "slaves", except for abolishing slavery. It never did mention "black" people. But the Supreme Court has never followed the Constitution. First, it did not follow it by allowing states to put blacks in a "second class" status (segregation, and other laws assigning a race "label", and assigning "rights" based on race--just as modern leftists want to do). Well, the Supreme Court went right past "color blind", and the words of the Constituion, to start allowing people to be "assigned" on the basis of race to "remedy" past discrimination (busing, and general "class actioin" QUOTA rules, for example).
Thus, even in the absence of "past discrimination", the New Haven case did NOT decide to aplly the color blind language od the Constitution to require that our society be color bliind. Rather, the case was decided on narrow, statutory grounds without deciding the "Constitutional" question. That leaves the law in effect as it was: that race cannot be too BLATANT a factor in government decisions, but that you can use race (be a racist) so long as you DECEIVE on what you are really doing--so long as you disguise what you are doing to an extent that the courts can say race was not a "determinative" factor. This makes no logical sense, but it is the "compromise" the "moderates" have tried to use. The "compromise" is designed to avoid apllying the words of the Constitution to make us color blind, while at the same time avoiding endorsement of the leftist idea that it is okay to assign "rights" based on the GROUP you belong to, instead of on your rifhts as an individual. As is often the case with the "moderate" positon, it is a position that is untenable ni the long run. Eight justices essentially agree on that (the dissent, and the four members of the "conservative" bloc in the majority The only one who is in favor of this "compromise" is Anthony Kennedy, representing "moderate" Republicanism (as a philosophy).
That is what Anton Scalia said in his concurring opinion: that the Court would ultimately have to face the Constitutional issue of whether the Constitution is color blind. The court did not face that issue in the New Haven decision, and that made the decision only of limited importance (as statedm more of importance in keeping the liberal, "group rights" position at bay for awhile, rather than announcing a bold adopting of "color blind" as the princiiple of our Constitution).
Yes, Dan, I do admit this is the one area where John McCain would PROBABLY have been better than President Obama. Obama's Court nominee, Sotomayor, was one of the judges REVERSED by the Supreme Court in the New Haven decision. She is a racist (by the definition of that term I gave you in yesterday's entry). Further, she considered the issue so unimportnat that it was not even worth a full opinion. Even the dissent was uncomfortable with the summary manner in which the New Haven "white" firfighters had been treated all of the way up to the Supreme Court (summary judgnment--no trial--in the trial court, and then a summary dismissal of their appeal in the appellate court on which Sotomayor sat).
But President Bush appointed Sotomayor to the Federal bench. Apparently, he also endorsed her appointment to the Supreme Court. David Souter was appointed by President (41) Bush, and was one of the four justices who would have denied the firefighters their rights. He has been one of the MOST liberal of the justices, and he is the one being replaced by Sotomayor. Therefore, I have no confidence in what John McCain would have done. But there was a CHANCE he would have done better than Obama. There was no chance that Obama would do better than Sotomayor.
The point is that we are on the verge of having extreme leftism imposed upon us BOTH by the judiciaary and our elected politicians (President and Congress). The real significance of the New Haven decision is that it shows that leftists have not QUITE taken over the judiciary. But it also shows how CLOSE we are to that day.
Yes, I am saying that the only hope now is a catastropic FAILURE of leftism all of the way down the line--a failure that discredits leftism for a generation or ore. That is the real reason I did not support John McCain (aside from the face he insulted me, and did not really seek my support). I wanted leftism to have its chance in an UNAMBIGUOUS way--where failure could not be blamed on John McCain. Although Republicans will be blamed anyway, I don't thinnk it will work. That does not mean that we should tamely let our country be ruined (health care, Cap and Trade, immigratin amnesty, etc.). But leftists are basically getting their Big Government. It cannot work in the end, and the blame needs to be clear.
Will the FEderal judiciary keep imposing leftism, even after it has FAILED? Ah, that is a good question, and depends a lot on how many Supreme Court (and other) appointments Obama has a chance to make.
It would be nice if the New Haven case represented a decisive blow for a color blind Constitution/society--the way the Constitutioin READS. Unfortunately, it did not.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
St. Louis Cardinals: Worse Hitting Than Giants? Not a Playoff Team? Blog Pessimism Strikes Again
Could it really be worse (the Cardinals hitting). Since the end of April, have the Cardinals really been a worse hitting team than the San Francisco Tiants? See the comment to my entry on Albert Pujols (told you, previously, that I can offend EVERYONE if you give me enough time--it is a talent).
Witout Pujols, I am morally certain the Giants (a team I do not follow much, except to know that they have OUTSTANDING starting pitching). have not been a worse hitting team than the Cardinals since the end of April. I know that the same way I nknow that there are no WORSE "news" oraganizations in this, or any other, UNIVERSE than our mainstream media. That is because it is just impossible to be worse. I think that can be said to fhe Cards' hitting since the end of April, exclulding Pujols. The scary thing is that the Cards' hitting MAY be "worse" than the Giants, even with Pujols. Now I admit that may be a hard case to make, given how good Pujols has been, as to the overall hitting of both teams.
BUT. Let us compare Cards' hittig against Giant pichers, and Giant hitting against Cardinal pitchers. They happen to have played tonight. When the game was still, at least to a small degree, in doubt (for the first 6 innings), the Cardinals got ONE (count 'em, ONE) hit. They did not do so very much better when the game was no longer in any doubt. You might discount the Giants' hitting tonight, since it was against the Cardinals 5th starteer. That is not the point, is it? Can you win ANY games getting one hit? Not many. I think it was a no-hitter either through 5, or into the 5th. Evenb the addition of Mark DeRosa (previously a solid hitter) has not helped (admittedly, sample is small at this point). Is this catching?
Nope. I think it is conclusive (including previous games between the two clubs). The Cardinal hitting against Giant pitching is ABYSMAL (mayber true of most of the league). And the Cardinal pitchers are NOT generally able to do as well against Giant hitting (maybe not so generally true of some other teeams against the Giants). On a direct match-up, I believe the Cardinal hitting IS worse than the Giant hitting. Now it may be close. The next three games may tell the tale, in terms of just how much better Giant hitting is against Cardinal pitching than Cardinal hitting is against Giant pitching. If the Cardinals are not to come out much worse, Pujols may have to have MONSTER games at least 2 of the next 3 games.
I repeat. The Cardinals are sill in the race mainly with smoke and mirrors--mainly because Milwaukee has been losing too (not to mention the other teams in the division). The Cardinals have been less than a .500 team since a hot start (when the hitting was good), and are not going anywhere this year without something changing. I agree that Pujols cannot carry the team alone. It is incredible that he has done so to this point (as he did not do last year, when he had help and a much slower start, partially because of injury).
The Cardinals seem to be snakebit. K. Greene came from the Padres, but just went on the diabled list for the 2nd time because of "social anxiety disorder". He is hitting .200. What is funny is that he is not hitting much wrose, since the end of April, than everyone else in the lineup. He even has 5 home runs--basically as many as any player on the team besides Pujols and Ludwick. Ankiel and Duncan are supposed to be "home run hitters", but have no more home runs than a guy with "social anxiety disorder" who has missed a farily large number of games.
Ludwick had a big year last year (almost as productive as Pujols). He went on the disable list this year, and has not been the same player since (although he was fading before that). Ankiel almost had a Greene type disorder as a pitcher, when he could not throw strikes (I mean REALLY could not throw the ball anywhere close), and had to give up being a picher. Then, in a great story, he came back as an OUTFIELDER, and carried the team for a period after he was called up last year (while Pujols was NOT carrying the team). However, Ankiel faded last year, and has not really shown he can hit big league pitching on a consistent basis (despite a decent spring). Worse, his power numbers are not very good. Duncan, the son of the pitching coach, has shwon little power this year, despite really good power numbers in his first year. And his average has gradually sunk, after a pretty good start.
Then there are all of those rookies LaRussa and the Cardinals have tired. There is an article ont he website today about the RECORD number of rookies the Cardinals have used. Problem: NONE of them has really shown much. Rasmus--the most touted--has shown some flashes, but is hardly tearing things up (with power numbers also no better than Greene, and a very so-so batting average). LaRussa announced another pitcher being brotht up today, with his usual statement that he liked to give rookie pitchers "with talent" a chance to get their "feet wet". Problem: So far, pitchers that have "gotten their feet wet" have FAILED--escept, to a degreein in the bullpen with Motte and perhaps another--depending on who are "rookies"). Did I tell you LaRussa slings a lot of bull, as he did last year when he kept dentying the failure of the bullpen (better this year).
Oh, you ask what happened to that pichter LaRussa was going to let "get his feet wet"? Well, he got into the game tin the 7th innning tonight--when I told you the game was still theoretically within reach (for a team that could hit). The Giants promtly scored FIVE RUNS.
It truly is amazing that the Cardinals are still close to the leader in their division. Despite the bull he slings, LaRussa has to be doing something right. There is, of course, Pujols. But the Cardinals cannot keep doing it with mirrors. They have no adequate 4th OR 5th staarter, unless Lohse can come back better than he left on the disable list. Their third starter is erratic (very good or pretty bad). Carpenter and Wainright are first quality starters, but have shown themselves somewhat vulnerable lately (especially with a weak hitting team). there is the nagging worry about whether Carpenter will make it through the season (which he has not done since 2005, and he already was on the DL once). The bullpen alone seems relatively solid, so long as it holds up.
If LaRussa can get this Cardinal team into the playoffs, he deserves his reputation as a "genius". If Pujols can carry this team to the playoofs, he deserves a HIGHER award than MVP, or maybe they should just retire that award and to him, and start a new one for which everyone else competes.
P.S. Don't worry. This completes my analysis of the present--precarious--state of the St. Louis Cardinals. I do have one more entry on managers, and how they give fans grey haris, but I may or may not get around to it. It would be much shorter than this, anyway. But I wanted to get this off of my chest, because it relieves the frustration of seeing your chosen baseball team going down in flames. You will remember I did the same thing with the Dalllas Cowboys, in football, questioning whether they were a playoff team (IN FORESIGHT) I was, as usal, right. I would prefer to be WRONG on these things, as on my convinction that our country is pretty much doomed to collapse under this central planning, Big Government, Big Business monster Obama and the Democtrats are creating. At least baseball is only a game. I am not so sure about football, but I am told some people consider it only a game.
Witout Pujols, I am morally certain the Giants (a team I do not follow much, except to know that they have OUTSTANDING starting pitching). have not been a worse hitting team than the Cardinals since the end of April. I know that the same way I nknow that there are no WORSE "news" oraganizations in this, or any other, UNIVERSE than our mainstream media. That is because it is just impossible to be worse. I think that can be said to fhe Cards' hitting since the end of April, exclulding Pujols. The scary thing is that the Cards' hitting MAY be "worse" than the Giants, even with Pujols. Now I admit that may be a hard case to make, given how good Pujols has been, as to the overall hitting of both teams.
BUT. Let us compare Cards' hittig against Giant pichers, and Giant hitting against Cardinal pitchers. They happen to have played tonight. When the game was still, at least to a small degree, in doubt (for the first 6 innings), the Cardinals got ONE (count 'em, ONE) hit. They did not do so very much better when the game was no longer in any doubt. You might discount the Giants' hitting tonight, since it was against the Cardinals 5th starteer. That is not the point, is it? Can you win ANY games getting one hit? Not many. I think it was a no-hitter either through 5, or into the 5th. Evenb the addition of Mark DeRosa (previously a solid hitter) has not helped (admittedly, sample is small at this point). Is this catching?
Nope. I think it is conclusive (including previous games between the two clubs). The Cardinal hitting against Giant pitching is ABYSMAL (mayber true of most of the league). And the Cardinal pitchers are NOT generally able to do as well against Giant hitting (maybe not so generally true of some other teeams against the Giants). On a direct match-up, I believe the Cardinal hitting IS worse than the Giant hitting. Now it may be close. The next three games may tell the tale, in terms of just how much better Giant hitting is against Cardinal pitching than Cardinal hitting is against Giant pitching. If the Cardinals are not to come out much worse, Pujols may have to have MONSTER games at least 2 of the next 3 games.
I repeat. The Cardinals are sill in the race mainly with smoke and mirrors--mainly because Milwaukee has been losing too (not to mention the other teams in the division). The Cardinals have been less than a .500 team since a hot start (when the hitting was good), and are not going anywhere this year without something changing. I agree that Pujols cannot carry the team alone. It is incredible that he has done so to this point (as he did not do last year, when he had help and a much slower start, partially because of injury).
The Cardinals seem to be snakebit. K. Greene came from the Padres, but just went on the diabled list for the 2nd time because of "social anxiety disorder". He is hitting .200. What is funny is that he is not hitting much wrose, since the end of April, than everyone else in the lineup. He even has 5 home runs--basically as many as any player on the team besides Pujols and Ludwick. Ankiel and Duncan are supposed to be "home run hitters", but have no more home runs than a guy with "social anxiety disorder" who has missed a farily large number of games.
Ludwick had a big year last year (almost as productive as Pujols). He went on the disable list this year, and has not been the same player since (although he was fading before that). Ankiel almost had a Greene type disorder as a pitcher, when he could not throw strikes (I mean REALLY could not throw the ball anywhere close), and had to give up being a picher. Then, in a great story, he came back as an OUTFIELDER, and carried the team for a period after he was called up last year (while Pujols was NOT carrying the team). However, Ankiel faded last year, and has not really shown he can hit big league pitching on a consistent basis (despite a decent spring). Worse, his power numbers are not very good. Duncan, the son of the pitching coach, has shwon little power this year, despite really good power numbers in his first year. And his average has gradually sunk, after a pretty good start.
Then there are all of those rookies LaRussa and the Cardinals have tired. There is an article ont he website today about the RECORD number of rookies the Cardinals have used. Problem: NONE of them has really shown much. Rasmus--the most touted--has shown some flashes, but is hardly tearing things up (with power numbers also no better than Greene, and a very so-so batting average). LaRussa announced another pitcher being brotht up today, with his usual statement that he liked to give rookie pitchers "with talent" a chance to get their "feet wet". Problem: So far, pitchers that have "gotten their feet wet" have FAILED--escept, to a degreein in the bullpen with Motte and perhaps another--depending on who are "rookies"). Did I tell you LaRussa slings a lot of bull, as he did last year when he kept dentying the failure of the bullpen (better this year).
Oh, you ask what happened to that pichter LaRussa was going to let "get his feet wet"? Well, he got into the game tin the 7th innning tonight--when I told you the game was still theoretically within reach (for a team that could hit). The Giants promtly scored FIVE RUNS.
It truly is amazing that the Cardinals are still close to the leader in their division. Despite the bull he slings, LaRussa has to be doing something right. There is, of course, Pujols. But the Cardinals cannot keep doing it with mirrors. They have no adequate 4th OR 5th staarter, unless Lohse can come back better than he left on the disable list. Their third starter is erratic (very good or pretty bad). Carpenter and Wainright are first quality starters, but have shown themselves somewhat vulnerable lately (especially with a weak hitting team). there is the nagging worry about whether Carpenter will make it through the season (which he has not done since 2005, and he already was on the DL once). The bullpen alone seems relatively solid, so long as it holds up.
If LaRussa can get this Cardinal team into the playoffs, he deserves his reputation as a "genius". If Pujols can carry this team to the playoofs, he deserves a HIGHER award than MVP, or maybe they should just retire that award and to him, and start a new one for which everyone else competes.
P.S. Don't worry. This completes my analysis of the present--precarious--state of the St. Louis Cardinals. I do have one more entry on managers, and how they give fans grey haris, but I may or may not get around to it. It would be much shorter than this, anyway. But I wanted to get this off of my chest, because it relieves the frustration of seeing your chosen baseball team going down in flames. You will remember I did the same thing with the Dalllas Cowboys, in football, questioning whether they were a playoff team (IN FORESIGHT) I was, as usal, right. I would prefer to be WRONG on these things, as on my convinction that our country is pretty much doomed to collapse under this central planning, Big Government, Big Business monster Obama and the Democtrats are creating. At least baseball is only a game. I am not so sure about football, but I am told some people consider it only a game.
Supreme Court and Race: The Supreme Court Decides New Haven Officials Acted UNLAWFULLY. Will those Officials RESIGN?
"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge."
Yes, the above represents the mainstream media view of the Supreme Court decision in the New Haven (home of Yale: no coincidence) firefighter case.
Note how the above "news" report is WRONG. Abosolutely, totally WRONG. Wrong in an evil way which misapprehends the role of the judiciary in a free society (as distinguished from a dictatatorship). You may think I am overreacting to a single word, but I am not. That word represents the core of what is wrong with leftist thinking about "the law", and the role of judges.
The Supreme Court did NOT rule that white (who says they are "white"? Who says Hispacis are not "white"? Who says Obama is "black"? There is NO way to define these terms, unless you are a RACIST) firefighters were "UNFAIRLY" deined promotion. It is only leftists who think that the judiciary is there to FORCE the leftists view of "fairness" upon us all---the leftist view of what the law ShOULD be, instead of what the law is.
What the court held was that New Haven UNLAWFULLY violated the RIGHT of white firefighters not to be discriminated against on the gasis of RAE (and ethnic origin). That is supposedly the law of the land, except for racist leftists out there. Did I just call 4 members of the United States Supreme Court racist, as well as Sotomayor. Yep. I did.
What is the fundamental definition of "racist"? Is it not "a person who identifies people by the superficial fact of their APPARENT 'race', rather than as an individual, and wansts to assign "rights" and "privileges" based on that apparent 'rac'"? I dare any leftist out there to come up with a better definition--one that makes sense, that is. The leftist "definition" of racism, of course, is: "dscrimination against anyone, EXCEPT 'whte people' (whoever, they are--as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "what do you mena 'we' are in trouble, white eyes"), on the basis of their race". Oh, I forgot. Leftists are also willing to disriminate against ORIENTALS, JEWS, and MIXED RACE people, depending on the circustances. They also have never quite explained how Hispanics are not "white", and why Hispanics recently immigrated into the United States (which is a high percentage of them, depending on how you define "recently") can claim they were "discriminated" against previously (by WOMOM? The government of MEXICO, or some other Latin country?).
It is ironic that conservatives are routinely accused of "racism", when it is conservatives who want our society to be COLOR BLIND, and for everyone to be treated solely as an individual (whatever their race, color or creed). It is the left that wants to identify people by race, and make race determinative of the rights of people. That is why I have said all along, in this blog, that leftists are the PRIMARY racists in today's society--long ago having outdistanced the steadily diminishing supply of redneck racists of the Ku Klux Klan type.
The Constitution does not say anything about "white" people. Neither do our civil rights laws. This LABELING of people as "white", or "black", or "brown" (Italians?--nope, Reverend Wright considers them "white Europeans")--this LABELING of peple by the superficial tone of the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN is totally--in today's world--a leftist thing.
I have mentioned n this blog before that I made many of these points, circa 1972 or 1973, in an op-ed published in The Daily Texan (uncer my name, Gordon Stewart), while I was a law student at the University of Texas. As previously described, I leftists did not believe in free speech, even then, and my article was published (dspite the numberous leftist op-eds taking the opposite point of view) only after I complained the the Texas Legislature about a student newspaper being ussed totally for leftist propaganda.
I stand by that 1972-73 article today (wirttine during the controversy over the Bakke decision--showing how long this matter of "reverse discrimination" has consumed the racists on the left). I was right then, and I am right now.
But say I was wrong in 1972-73 (hard as that is to imagine). Say that "affirmative action" (the left made up the term to CONCEAL their goal of "reverse discrimination"--a typical leftist tactic which continues to this day) was "needed" because past discriminatioin (against people then living in Mexico?) made it "unfair" to treat people as individuals, when some had a grave disadvantage. Well, at what point do we STOP, and treat people as INDIVIDUALS. For FORTY YEARS leftists have been pusuing discrimination based on race, "to "make uP" for "past discirmination" (not usuallly, of course, engaged in by the people the left is discriminating AGAINST on the basis of race). We have now elected a BLACK (sort of--by whose definition?) PRESIDENT. Is it not time now to be COLOR BLIND?
Dirty little secret: the left NEVER wants to be color lind. They want to definite people based on race and ethnic origin FOREVER. That is partly a matter of POWER, and politics, since the left gets a lot of votes that way, and hopers for more.
As I have said before, by (somewhat suspect) family history, I am 1/8 Indian (Native Amercian). That is why I repeated the Tonto joke above. My daughters are 50% Hispanic (in addition to whatever Indian princess blood they may have). Obama, of course, is of MIXED RACE--almost surely more "white" that black (when you add in the apparent Arab heritage, although I guess we cannot be sure that there were "white" Muslims in his rediscovered "roots"). This whole idea of basing rights based on a superficial, and indefinable, characteris like race/ethnic origin has always been a bad one. It was a bad idea when the Ku Klux Klan did it, and it is a bad idea when the newly minted racists of the left do it. It becomes a worse idea every year that passes. Yet, the left still hangs on to its racism, as it still hangs on to the central planning idea of the Soviet Union (long after it failed in the Soviet Union).
Yes, this Supreme Court decision is another small step toward a COLOR BLIND society. However, you should be disturbed by how near we are to adopting RACIMS as the official policy of the United States. Obama wants to do that. Four members of the Supreme Court want to do that. Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court wants to do that (luckily, she ould replace one of the four, rather than one of the five, but that may not be true next time). The Supreme Court, of course, reversed Sotomayor--hardly a recommendation of her for the Supreme Court. She is a person who wants to impose her idea of "fairness" on us all. That is a very bad thing.
Final note (and criticism of above quoted "news" paragraph): The Supreme Court found, in its decision, that New Haven violated "THE LAW" of the land. This illustrates again that leftists have NO respect for "the law", despite their seemingly fanatic invoking of that phrase when it suits their agenda. For the hypocrites of the left, "the law" is what leftists WANT it to be. It is a phrase with no objective meaning.
Illegal immigrants violate "the law". Leftists do not care. California voters define "the law" on homosexual marriage. Leftists do not care. Voters tried to define "the law" on abortion. Leftists did not care. They just wanted judges to impose their view on the rest of us. Then they accused abrotion opponents of not respecting "the law" because they continued to fight the Suppreme Court decision--a dictatorial decsion by judicial fiat.
The Supreme Court has again held that "the law" prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race (which "the law" clearly says, by the way). Do you expect the left, including the mainstream media, to accept that determination of what "the law" is? Don't be silly. These are the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth on two legs, and the only version of "the law" they accept is their own version.
P.S. No proofreading on any entry this long, as it simply takes too long--even spell check, where I caNnot see the highlighting well at all. You will just have to accept the typos as the price for the article existing for you to read. There is no other price,after all. For some, this price may be too high. Too bad. I do have SOME sympathy for those who fight through the verbosity to try to make sense of these long entries. However, I really lost all sympathy I was born with at age 10, and therefore any sympathy I have is just scraps thrown away by other people after all of my original sympathy was used up. "Cutting" and "honing" are WORK (said with horror of Maynard G. Kregs of Dobie Gillis), and I still am not getting paid for his So the verbosity is another price you just have to pay for the (substantial) benefit of my wisdom.
Yes, the above represents the mainstream media view of the Supreme Court decision in the New Haven (home of Yale: no coincidence) firefighter case.
Note how the above "news" report is WRONG. Abosolutely, totally WRONG. Wrong in an evil way which misapprehends the role of the judiciary in a free society (as distinguished from a dictatatorship). You may think I am overreacting to a single word, but I am not. That word represents the core of what is wrong with leftist thinking about "the law", and the role of judges.
The Supreme Court did NOT rule that white (who says they are "white"? Who says Hispacis are not "white"? Who says Obama is "black"? There is NO way to define these terms, unless you are a RACIST) firefighters were "UNFAIRLY" deined promotion. It is only leftists who think that the judiciary is there to FORCE the leftists view of "fairness" upon us all---the leftist view of what the law ShOULD be, instead of what the law is.
What the court held was that New Haven UNLAWFULLY violated the RIGHT of white firefighters not to be discriminated against on the gasis of RAE (and ethnic origin). That is supposedly the law of the land, except for racist leftists out there. Did I just call 4 members of the United States Supreme Court racist, as well as Sotomayor. Yep. I did.
What is the fundamental definition of "racist"? Is it not "a person who identifies people by the superficial fact of their APPARENT 'race', rather than as an individual, and wansts to assign "rights" and "privileges" based on that apparent 'rac'"? I dare any leftist out there to come up with a better definition--one that makes sense, that is. The leftist "definition" of racism, of course, is: "dscrimination against anyone, EXCEPT 'whte people' (whoever, they are--as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "what do you mena 'we' are in trouble, white eyes"), on the basis of their race". Oh, I forgot. Leftists are also willing to disriminate against ORIENTALS, JEWS, and MIXED RACE people, depending on the circustances. They also have never quite explained how Hispanics are not "white", and why Hispanics recently immigrated into the United States (which is a high percentage of them, depending on how you define "recently") can claim they were "discriminated" against previously (by WOMOM? The government of MEXICO, or some other Latin country?).
It is ironic that conservatives are routinely accused of "racism", when it is conservatives who want our society to be COLOR BLIND, and for everyone to be treated solely as an individual (whatever their race, color or creed). It is the left that wants to identify people by race, and make race determinative of the rights of people. That is why I have said all along, in this blog, that leftists are the PRIMARY racists in today's society--long ago having outdistanced the steadily diminishing supply of redneck racists of the Ku Klux Klan type.
The Constitution does not say anything about "white" people. Neither do our civil rights laws. This LABELING of people as "white", or "black", or "brown" (Italians?--nope, Reverend Wright considers them "white Europeans")--this LABELING of peple by the superficial tone of the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN is totally--in today's world--a leftist thing.
I have mentioned n this blog before that I made many of these points, circa 1972 or 1973, in an op-ed published in The Daily Texan (uncer my name, Gordon Stewart), while I was a law student at the University of Texas. As previously described, I leftists did not believe in free speech, even then, and my article was published (dspite the numberous leftist op-eds taking the opposite point of view) only after I complained the the Texas Legislature about a student newspaper being ussed totally for leftist propaganda.
I stand by that 1972-73 article today (wirttine during the controversy over the Bakke decision--showing how long this matter of "reverse discrimination" has consumed the racists on the left). I was right then, and I am right now.
But say I was wrong in 1972-73 (hard as that is to imagine). Say that "affirmative action" (the left made up the term to CONCEAL their goal of "reverse discrimination"--a typical leftist tactic which continues to this day) was "needed" because past discriminatioin (against people then living in Mexico?) made it "unfair" to treat people as individuals, when some had a grave disadvantage. Well, at what point do we STOP, and treat people as INDIVIDUALS. For FORTY YEARS leftists have been pusuing discrimination based on race, "to "make uP" for "past discirmination" (not usuallly, of course, engaged in by the people the left is discriminating AGAINST on the basis of race). We have now elected a BLACK (sort of--by whose definition?) PRESIDENT. Is it not time now to be COLOR BLIND?
Dirty little secret: the left NEVER wants to be color lind. They want to definite people based on race and ethnic origin FOREVER. That is partly a matter of POWER, and politics, since the left gets a lot of votes that way, and hopers for more.
As I have said before, by (somewhat suspect) family history, I am 1/8 Indian (Native Amercian). That is why I repeated the Tonto joke above. My daughters are 50% Hispanic (in addition to whatever Indian princess blood they may have). Obama, of course, is of MIXED RACE--almost surely more "white" that black (when you add in the apparent Arab heritage, although I guess we cannot be sure that there were "white" Muslims in his rediscovered "roots"). This whole idea of basing rights based on a superficial, and indefinable, characteris like race/ethnic origin has always been a bad one. It was a bad idea when the Ku Klux Klan did it, and it is a bad idea when the newly minted racists of the left do it. It becomes a worse idea every year that passes. Yet, the left still hangs on to its racism, as it still hangs on to the central planning idea of the Soviet Union (long after it failed in the Soviet Union).
Yes, this Supreme Court decision is another small step toward a COLOR BLIND society. However, you should be disturbed by how near we are to adopting RACIMS as the official policy of the United States. Obama wants to do that. Four members of the Supreme Court want to do that. Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court wants to do that (luckily, she ould replace one of the four, rather than one of the five, but that may not be true next time). The Supreme Court, of course, reversed Sotomayor--hardly a recommendation of her for the Supreme Court. She is a person who wants to impose her idea of "fairness" on us all. That is a very bad thing.
Final note (and criticism of above quoted "news" paragraph): The Supreme Court found, in its decision, that New Haven violated "THE LAW" of the land. This illustrates again that leftists have NO respect for "the law", despite their seemingly fanatic invoking of that phrase when it suits their agenda. For the hypocrites of the left, "the law" is what leftists WANT it to be. It is a phrase with no objective meaning.
Illegal immigrants violate "the law". Leftists do not care. California voters define "the law" on homosexual marriage. Leftists do not care. Voters tried to define "the law" on abortion. Leftists did not care. They just wanted judges to impose their view on the rest of us. Then they accused abrotion opponents of not respecting "the law" because they continued to fight the Suppreme Court decision--a dictatorial decsion by judicial fiat.
The Supreme Court has again held that "the law" prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race (which "the law" clearly says, by the way). Do you expect the left, including the mainstream media, to accept that determination of what "the law" is? Don't be silly. These are the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth on two legs, and the only version of "the law" they accept is their own version.
P.S. No proofreading on any entry this long, as it simply takes too long--even spell check, where I caNnot see the highlighting well at all. You will just have to accept the typos as the price for the article existing for you to read. There is no other price,after all. For some, this price may be too high. Too bad. I do have SOME sympathy for those who fight through the verbosity to try to make sense of these long entries. However, I really lost all sympathy I was born with at age 10, and therefore any sympathy I have is just scraps thrown away by other people after all of my original sympathy was used up. "Cutting" and "honing" are WORK (said with horror of Maynard G. Kregs of Dobie Gillis), and I still am not getting paid for his So the verbosity is another price you just have to pay for the (substantial) benefit of my wisdom.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
President Obama Is "Deeply Concerned" About Iran........OOPS!!! I Mean About HONDURAS (Won't You Sleep Better Tonight?)
"President Obama said in a statement that he was 'deeply concerned' by the news."
I know. It is hard to believe. But President Obama was NOT talking about Iran--where his reacttion was much slower and seemingly less heartfelt ("heartfelt" is a term of art for this telepromter President who overstates everything--including contradictory things--whether he blieves what he says or not).
Yes, having Obama "deeply concerned", and $5, MIGHT get you a coffee beverage at Starbucks.
Still, are YOU "deeply concerned" about HONDURAS. People are apparently not yet DYING there, as they are in Iran. The President has simply been arrested (as the left wanted to do to President Bush almost his entrie term).
Let me be blunt: I am NOT "deeply conerned" about Honduras (at least not at this point). I AM "deeply concerned" (on more than one level) about Iran and its people--something Obama has not appeared to be "deeply" concerned about.
To me, this is typical of the bizarre approach of President Obama. He says what he thinks SOUNDS GOOD, and almost always in OVERSTATEMENT. Yes, I would go so far as to say that I don't believe President Obama. I don't think he is "deeply concerned" about HONDURAS (at least not yet). But, unlike Iran, he felt he could safely show how much he CARES by being "deeply concerned" (since he knows Americans in general do not care about Honduras, but probably "like" a President who is "deeply concerned" about ever development in the nation and the wolrd).
I have said it before. Our President is a piece of work.
P.S.: Hugo Chavez has condemed what happened in Honduras--probably fearful of hi own people getting ideas. For that reason alone, this can't be all bad.
I know. It is hard to believe. But President Obama was NOT talking about Iran--where his reacttion was much slower and seemingly less heartfelt ("heartfelt" is a term of art for this telepromter President who overstates everything--including contradictory things--whether he blieves what he says or not).
Yes, having Obama "deeply concerned", and $5, MIGHT get you a coffee beverage at Starbucks.
Still, are YOU "deeply concerned" about HONDURAS. People are apparently not yet DYING there, as they are in Iran. The President has simply been arrested (as the left wanted to do to President Bush almost his entrie term).
Let me be blunt: I am NOT "deeply conerned" about Honduras (at least not at this point). I AM "deeply concerned" (on more than one level) about Iran and its people--something Obama has not appeared to be "deeply" concerned about.
To me, this is typical of the bizarre approach of President Obama. He says what he thinks SOUNDS GOOD, and almost always in OVERSTATEMENT. Yes, I would go so far as to say that I don't believe President Obama. I don't think he is "deeply concerned" about HONDURAS (at least not yet). But, unlike Iran, he felt he could safely show how much he CARES by being "deeply concerned" (since he knows Americans in general do not care about Honduras, but probably "like" a President who is "deeply concerned" about ever development in the nation and the wolrd).
I have said it before. Our President is a piece of work.
P.S.: Hugo Chavez has condemed what happened in Honduras--probably fearful of hi own people getting ideas. For that reason alone, this can't be all bad.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Albert Pujols and the St. Louis Cardinals: Can One Man Carry an Entire Team on his Back to a Championship?
Albert Pujols can be overpraised (hard as that is to believe). He did not deserve the "Most Valuable Player" award last year. I follow the St. Louis Cardinals because of my childhood in Arkansas, lilstening to Harry Carey, and marvelling at Stan Musial.
For most of last year, Pujols was NOT even the primary run producer for the Cardinals. It was Ludwick. When the season was on the lin, Pujols failed to come through on a pretty large number of occasions. His overall RBI number was NOT that good, given his home run number. And his numbers were padded by a late surge after the season was OVER for the Cardinals.
Now don't get me wrong. For an ordinary mortal, Pujols had a great year last year. However, for Pujols (perhaps because he was plagued with some nagging physical problems), it was a SLIGHTLY disappointing year. It was not a "Most Valuable Player" year, in my opinion.
Nor do I like the sometime excuse for Pujols "mini-slups" that he does not get pitches to hit Are major league pitchers trying to give ANY major league hitter pitches to hit? Oh, I undestand that Pujols gets less than others, because pitchers would rather walk him than "give in" to him. So he doesn't get ANY "Hail Mary" fastballs right down the middle, no matter what the count. Seill, EVERY great hitter has this porblem. Tony LaRussa--who says a lot of bull, like ALL managers and coaches--overhypses this "problem". Great hitters have to live with it, and Pujols showed signs last year he was slipping just SLIGHTLY. I saw several of those cruicial games when the Cardinals were still in the playoff race, and Pulols GOT pitches to hit. He jsut miseed them, often with players on base.
All of this is prelude to this statement: Albert Pujols is just finishing up the BEST single half year I have ever seen from a baseball player--other than the steroid hyped years of Barry Bonds. If there is any question about whether Pujols "deserved" the MVP award he got last year (and I am probably the only person on the plantet who questions it, and I hardly think it was a grave injustice), there should be no question that Pujols deserves the award THIS YEAR (absent a second half slump).
Pujols single handedly won the Cardinals game today--hitting two home runs to bring his total to 28 for the season. That has been the norm this season. The Cardinals have NO offense outside of Pujols--NO other RBI man this year. They hit well the frist month, but thereafter a good part of the team, aside from Pujols, is hitting around .200. Ludwick (who I thought was about as valuable to the Cardinals last year as Pujols), has faded. Rick Ankiel, who used to be a picer before mental "yips" caused him not to be able to throw stikes, has seemingly started to develop apparent hitting "yips" (or maybe just fundamental swing problems). NO hitting at third base. NOT MUCH hitting across the entire outfield. Despite hype from the manager, touted rookie Rasmus has provided little (despite flashes). About the only bright spot is the second basemen converted from an outfielder las year--in the illusion that the Cardinals were "set" in the outfield (where Duncan has also not done much). Molina, at catcher, has been solid, although he has tailed off at the bat from an extremely hot start. In short, Pujols is IT.
Pujols has CARRIED the Cardinals for over a month more than I have ever seen a player carry a team. For that period of time, he has been the OFFENSE for the Cardinals. It has been a truly impressive performance. For once, I agree with the manager as to the "problems" of being Albert Pujols. How much pressure must it be to be the ONLLY offense on a still contending team? I can't even imagine it.
Yes, I don't see how this can continue. If Pujols has not seen good pitches before, what is he going to see as the other teams simply refuse to let him beat them? He walked twice today, and hit two home runs. When will teams decide that walking him FOUR times is the better strategy--at least until the other Cardinal hitters prove they can beat somebody?
In short, the Cardinals are presently doing it with mirrors (incuding a pitching staff that has been very good in spots, but very bad in spots--excpet for a generally good bullpen, headed by Franklin having a caeer year).
Can a team get into the playoofs with ONE dangerous hitter? I don't think so, although Pujols has proved me wrong for almost two months (albeit with help from losses by other "contending" teams in the division). You would think that the pressure of being the ENTIRE offense would have to get to Pujols, but he is certainly holding up well. It just figures teams will more and more take Pujols OUT of the game, as an RBI hitter--forcing some other Cardinal hitters to step up.
I am not even sure it is possible for Pujols to have a bad enough second half of the year such that he does not deserve the MVP award this year. Hey, did I just JINX him? But to expect even Pujols to carry an entire team this way for the entire last half of the year seems the stuff of fantasy rather than reality.
In short, the St. Louis Cardinals had better find some offense outside of Albert Pujols. In the meantime, at this particular point in time, Albert Pujols is unchallenged as the best baseball player on the planet. Hell, he ven leads the Cardinals in STOLEN BASES--which should shame some of the other players. Of course, you don't WANT anyone to steal a base IN FRONT of Pujols, which might account for part of this seeming absurdity (absurd in terms of just how much one man can be expected to do).
For most of last year, Pujols was NOT even the primary run producer for the Cardinals. It was Ludwick. When the season was on the lin, Pujols failed to come through on a pretty large number of occasions. His overall RBI number was NOT that good, given his home run number. And his numbers were padded by a late surge after the season was OVER for the Cardinals.
Now don't get me wrong. For an ordinary mortal, Pujols had a great year last year. However, for Pujols (perhaps because he was plagued with some nagging physical problems), it was a SLIGHTLY disappointing year. It was not a "Most Valuable Player" year, in my opinion.
Nor do I like the sometime excuse for Pujols "mini-slups" that he does not get pitches to hit Are major league pitchers trying to give ANY major league hitter pitches to hit? Oh, I undestand that Pujols gets less than others, because pitchers would rather walk him than "give in" to him. So he doesn't get ANY "Hail Mary" fastballs right down the middle, no matter what the count. Seill, EVERY great hitter has this porblem. Tony LaRussa--who says a lot of bull, like ALL managers and coaches--overhypses this "problem". Great hitters have to live with it, and Pujols showed signs last year he was slipping just SLIGHTLY. I saw several of those cruicial games when the Cardinals were still in the playoff race, and Pulols GOT pitches to hit. He jsut miseed them, often with players on base.
All of this is prelude to this statement: Albert Pujols is just finishing up the BEST single half year I have ever seen from a baseball player--other than the steroid hyped years of Barry Bonds. If there is any question about whether Pujols "deserved" the MVP award he got last year (and I am probably the only person on the plantet who questions it, and I hardly think it was a grave injustice), there should be no question that Pujols deserves the award THIS YEAR (absent a second half slump).
Pujols single handedly won the Cardinals game today--hitting two home runs to bring his total to 28 for the season. That has been the norm this season. The Cardinals have NO offense outside of Pujols--NO other RBI man this year. They hit well the frist month, but thereafter a good part of the team, aside from Pujols, is hitting around .200. Ludwick (who I thought was about as valuable to the Cardinals last year as Pujols), has faded. Rick Ankiel, who used to be a picer before mental "yips" caused him not to be able to throw stikes, has seemingly started to develop apparent hitting "yips" (or maybe just fundamental swing problems). NO hitting at third base. NOT MUCH hitting across the entire outfield. Despite hype from the manager, touted rookie Rasmus has provided little (despite flashes). About the only bright spot is the second basemen converted from an outfielder las year--in the illusion that the Cardinals were "set" in the outfield (where Duncan has also not done much). Molina, at catcher, has been solid, although he has tailed off at the bat from an extremely hot start. In short, Pujols is IT.
Pujols has CARRIED the Cardinals for over a month more than I have ever seen a player carry a team. For that period of time, he has been the OFFENSE for the Cardinals. It has been a truly impressive performance. For once, I agree with the manager as to the "problems" of being Albert Pujols. How much pressure must it be to be the ONLLY offense on a still contending team? I can't even imagine it.
Yes, I don't see how this can continue. If Pujols has not seen good pitches before, what is he going to see as the other teams simply refuse to let him beat them? He walked twice today, and hit two home runs. When will teams decide that walking him FOUR times is the better strategy--at least until the other Cardinal hitters prove they can beat somebody?
In short, the Cardinals are presently doing it with mirrors (incuding a pitching staff that has been very good in spots, but very bad in spots--excpet for a generally good bullpen, headed by Franklin having a caeer year).
Can a team get into the playoofs with ONE dangerous hitter? I don't think so, although Pujols has proved me wrong for almost two months (albeit with help from losses by other "contending" teams in the division). You would think that the pressure of being the ENTIRE offense would have to get to Pujols, but he is certainly holding up well. It just figures teams will more and more take Pujols OUT of the game, as an RBI hitter--forcing some other Cardinal hitters to step up.
I am not even sure it is possible for Pujols to have a bad enough second half of the year such that he does not deserve the MVP award this year. Hey, did I just JINX him? But to expect even Pujols to carry an entire team this way for the entire last half of the year seems the stuff of fantasy rather than reality.
In short, the St. Louis Cardinals had better find some offense outside of Albert Pujols. In the meantime, at this particular point in time, Albert Pujols is unchallenged as the best baseball player on the planet. Hell, he ven leads the Cardinals in STOLEN BASES--which should shame some of the other players. Of course, you don't WANT anyone to steal a base IN FRONT of Pujols, which might account for part of this seeming absurdity (absurd in terms of just how much one man can be expected to do).
Friday, June 26, 2009
"Climate Change"/"Global Warming": Turst Us (lol); No One Needs to READ Federal Legislation
"Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the bill’s sponsors, finally rose to say that a single copy of the current version of the bill was available at the speaker’s desk – and on the Internet, which members would have to leave the floor to access."
Transparency? For leftist Democrats (the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs), it is all about POWER. For those of you not in the know, 300 pages were added to this "climate cange"/"global warming" (see previous entry) bill at 3 a.m. this morning to BRIBE enough Democrats to get this bill passed. Nuerous members of Congress have confessed they do not know what is in the bill.
I suggest they don't care. This is not about "saving the planted". This is about government POWER, and POWER for leftist Democrats. Just like the "stimulus" bill that no one had read, no one is really sure what is in this bill. What we do know is that this bill is an ATTTACK on the economy of this country, while CHINA has no intention of any such crippling of its own economy. The bill is a JOB KILLER, and a gift to China and India.
See my previous entries the past two days. As I said, you should vote against EVERY member of Congress who voted for this bill, FOREVER--no matter what office he or she runs for.
Transparency? For leftist Democrats (the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs), it is all about POWER. For those of you not in the know, 300 pages were added to this "climate cange"/"global warming" (see previous entry) bill at 3 a.m. this morning to BRIBE enough Democrats to get this bill passed. Nuerous members of Congress have confessed they do not know what is in the bill.
I suggest they don't care. This is not about "saving the planted". This is about government POWER, and POWER for leftist Democrats. Just like the "stimulus" bill that no one had read, no one is really sure what is in this bill. What we do know is that this bill is an ATTTACK on the economy of this country, while CHINA has no intention of any such crippling of its own economy. The bill is a JOB KILLER, and a gift to China and India.
See my previous entries the past two days. As I said, you should vote against EVERY member of Congress who voted for this bill, FOREVER--no matter what office he or she runs for.
32 degrees Farenhiet: The Temperature at which Water Freezes/Melts.. Do "Climate Change"/"Global Warming" Advocates Know This?
I have a Bachelor os Science degree from New Mexico State University, majoring in PHYSICS. I don't need it for this. The freezing point of water is 32 degress Farenheit. That is ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE.
You say you know that? Well, "blobal warming" pirests appear not to know it, or to be attempting "1984" style DECEPTION (Big Lie), or borth.
The point is that it is all about TERMPERATURE. The ice cap on Antarctica does not melt because Al Gore says it will melt. The TERMPERATURE has to RISE (a LOT). This talk about "climeate change" is a deliberate fraud. Ice does NOT melt because of greenhouse gas emissions. Physics does not tell us that, and there is NO theory that says that. Ice melts if the TEMPERATURE reaches 32 degrees Farenheit, and in NO other cirucstance (as adjusted for pressure). Greenhouse gases matter ONLY so long as they SUSTANTIALLY increase the TEMPERATURE of Antarctica, and other critical areas of the Earth. "Climate change is a POLITICAL term, and NOT a "scientific" term. There is NO theory of "climate change". What you have is a "theory" (ofr sorts--reallymore a computer model HYPOTHESIS not supproted by any theory of phsyxics explaining the way the Earth's atmosphere works).
You say that "gloabal warming" advocates knowt he freezing point of water? No, they don't, or otherwise they would not have changed their POLITICAL cause to CLIMATE CHANGE. There is NO theory of CLIMATE. There is only this "theory" that greenhouse gases increase the temperature of the Earth.
Problem: It is NOT happening. The Earth is NO LONGER WARMING. Since 1998, or 2001, depending on which data you use, the Earth HAS NOT WARMED. However, greenhouse gases have increased. So much for that hypothesis.
Of course, the United States has shown NO warmng trend since 1880 (something which leftist Democrats and the mainstream media never tell ou, but which Michael Crichton conclusively showed in his eco-thriller, with footnotes and a bibliography, "State of Fear"). 1936 remains the WARMEST year, of crecord, in the United States since 1880 (in a virtual tie with 2006). The United States has COOLED since 1936, and since 2006. Temperatures in the Uninted States have gone up and down since 1880, with NO TREND. If you have heard otherwise, it is a LIE (something "global warming" priests, like Al Gore, do consisttently). It all depends on when you START measuring (1936, for exmple), and when you stop. Even worldwide, where the worldd seems to have warmed from 1970 to 1998-2001, there is NO correlation between greenhouse gase levels and the temperature over the entrie last century. In fact, the world COOLED (see charts in Crichton's bok again) from 1940 to 1970, as greenhouse gases INCREASED.
Remember again, this is all about TEMPERATURE. Without warming TEMPERATURES< there is NO THEORY. NONE. It is a sham, a lie and a fraud (any larger reference to a "theory" of "climate change", which does not exist).
How do I know that "Global warming" advocates want to ignore the freezing point of water? Easy. Because they want to ignore the TEMPERATURE in Antartica, and at the north pole. This is a matter of elementarary physics. If the TEMPERATURE is not RISING, then those areas are NOT WARMING. We can measure the temperature on Mars. Are you telling me that we cannot measure the temperature in varous areas of Antartica, and in various areas of the arctic? Yet, you don't get this information from "global warming" advocates, for good reason. The TEMPERATURE of the world (although there is no one "temperature") is not rising. "Global warming" predictions have been WRONG--consistently wrong. That is what is so absurd about changing the name, for political reasons,, to "climate change". "Global warming" advocats have not even ATTEMPTER specific predictions on climate, because thye know they have no way of predicting the climate--whether for next month or for 20 years from now. They have not even been able to predict the TERMPERATURE.
What have "global warming" advocates been doing, other than measuring and reporting the only thing that matters (for their "theory"): TEMPERATURE. Antarctica does NOT melt, as a matter of simple physics, unless the TEMPERATURE rises to the freezing point of water (albeit there can, of course, be localized "melting" as the local surface reaches the melting poinnt of water, or because of OCEAN CURRENTSD in areas exposed to the ocean).
Not being able to rely on temperature, even though that is the entire basis of their "theory", what have "global warmng" adcoates done They have talked about "melting" of the polar ice cap in the summer (WEATHER, and ocean currents), and the "melting" of areas of Greenland and the Antarctic peninsula also exposed to oceean currents and LOCAL WEATHER.
Does it matter that the polar ice cap is melting more than "usual" in the summer". ? NOPE. Does it matter that ice sheets are breaking off of Antarctica, in areas exposed to the ocean? NOPE. What matters is the TEMPREATURE over the entire regions, and the entire Earth, and whether that temperature is really rising. If that temperature is not rising, then you CANNOT have large scale melting of Antarctica. And any "melting" of the polar ice cap is necessarily due to warmn CURRENTS< which have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Sea levels cannot "rise" unless the TEMPERATURE is rising. You can talk all you want about "melting" glaciers, and ice sheets breaking off, and it does not change that fact. That fact is ELEMNTARY PHYSICS. Water freezes at a certain temprature, and melts at theat same temperature. That temperature is both the freezing point and melting ponit of wather. The only way greenhouse gasess can possibly affect this is by raising the TEMPERATURE. If they are not raising the temperature, as they are not now doing (and have never done, bly consistent correlation), then man-made factors do NOT "explain" the climate, or any "climate change".
Yes. I am saying that all of these attempts to catelogue "melting" are USELESS (RIRIDUCLOUS might be a better word). The questin is what is happening to the TEMPERATURE. If the temperature is not warming, we have nothing to worry about. And it is not.
Now does a small rise in temperature mean much? Nopoe. It is COLD, for exampel, in Antarctica. A small rise in temperature many "melt" ice at the edges. But water still freezes at 32 degrees Fareheit () degress Centigrade). So long as the temperature of water stays below the freezing point of water (under the pressure conditions), Antarctica DOES NOT MELT. Right now, the tmeprature does not appear to be rising at all.
Why does the ocean not freeze SOLID at the North Ple, in winter, when the temperature is below the rreezing point of water? Easy (and this is why currents MATTER in "summer"). The atmospheric temperature can only lower the temperature of SURFACE water (down to a greater and greater depth, as the tmerpature gets colder). The ocean is BIG. The temperature of deeper water is not affected much by atmospheric temperature. So the ocean does NOT freeeze "solid". In fact, warm ocean currents (bring in warmer water from the larger ocean) can SUBSTANTIALLY affect the temperature of the WATER. And--I repeat--it is the temperature of the WATER that matters, in terms of the freezing point of water.
However, "global warming" "theory" proivdes NO basis for raising the temperature of the oceans, ecept the ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE. Greenhouse gased "trap" the sun's energy (the hypothesis goes, although the problem is that we do not know enough about atmospheric physics to know HOU MUCH this affects the temprature of the overall atmosphere). Ture, that will ultimately raise the temperature of the wor'ld's oceans, but ONLY if the atmosphere is WARMING.
Q.E.D. The Earth is no longer WARMING (from any cause). Therefore, "global warming" theory (that man-made greenhouse gases are a crucial factor in temperature) is FALSE. The world, of course, has warmed MUCH more than this in the past. Dinosarus once roamed the EArth, and it was very HOT. The Earth warmed for abut the same time in COOLED--30 years. From 1940-1970, the Earth Cooled. From 1970-2000, the Earth WARMED. Nowe we appear to be on the verge of cooling again. Through it all, the UNITED STATES has shown NO CONSISTENT WARMING, at all (something "global warming" "theory" does not explain, as it does nto explain the COOLING from 1940-1970).
Whenever "global warming" pariests talk, remember the freezing point/melting point of water. Unless the overall TEMPERATURE of the Earth KEEPS RISING, there is no way for the overall "melting" of ice on the Earth to increase. Yes, we might have something like a change in the magnetic field of the Earth, but that would not be "man-made". Greenhouse gases ONLY affect atmospheric TEMPERATURE, and "global warming" theory is DEAD if that TEMPERATURE does not continue to rise.
You say you know that? Well, "blobal warming" pirests appear not to know it, or to be attempting "1984" style DECEPTION (Big Lie), or borth.
The point is that it is all about TERMPERATURE. The ice cap on Antarctica does not melt because Al Gore says it will melt. The TERMPERATURE has to RISE (a LOT). This talk about "climeate change" is a deliberate fraud. Ice does NOT melt because of greenhouse gas emissions. Physics does not tell us that, and there is NO theory that says that. Ice melts if the TEMPERATURE reaches 32 degrees Farenheit, and in NO other cirucstance (as adjusted for pressure). Greenhouse gases matter ONLY so long as they SUSTANTIALLY increase the TEMPERATURE of Antarctica, and other critical areas of the Earth. "Climate change is a POLITICAL term, and NOT a "scientific" term. There is NO theory of "climate change". What you have is a "theory" (ofr sorts--reallymore a computer model HYPOTHESIS not supproted by any theory of phsyxics explaining the way the Earth's atmosphere works).
You say that "gloabal warming" advocates knowt he freezing point of water? No, they don't, or otherwise they would not have changed their POLITICAL cause to CLIMATE CHANGE. There is NO theory of CLIMATE. There is only this "theory" that greenhouse gases increase the temperature of the Earth.
Problem: It is NOT happening. The Earth is NO LONGER WARMING. Since 1998, or 2001, depending on which data you use, the Earth HAS NOT WARMED. However, greenhouse gases have increased. So much for that hypothesis.
Of course, the United States has shown NO warmng trend since 1880 (something which leftist Democrats and the mainstream media never tell ou, but which Michael Crichton conclusively showed in his eco-thriller, with footnotes and a bibliography, "State of Fear"). 1936 remains the WARMEST year, of crecord, in the United States since 1880 (in a virtual tie with 2006). The United States has COOLED since 1936, and since 2006. Temperatures in the Uninted States have gone up and down since 1880, with NO TREND. If you have heard otherwise, it is a LIE (something "global warming" priests, like Al Gore, do consisttently). It all depends on when you START measuring (1936, for exmple), and when you stop. Even worldwide, where the worldd seems to have warmed from 1970 to 1998-2001, there is NO correlation between greenhouse gase levels and the temperature over the entrie last century. In fact, the world COOLED (see charts in Crichton's bok again) from 1940 to 1970, as greenhouse gases INCREASED.
Remember again, this is all about TEMPERATURE. Without warming TEMPERATURES< there is NO THEORY. NONE. It is a sham, a lie and a fraud (any larger reference to a "theory" of "climate change", which does not exist).
How do I know that "Global warming" advocates want to ignore the freezing point of water? Easy. Because they want to ignore the TEMPERATURE in Antartica, and at the north pole. This is a matter of elementarary physics. If the TEMPERATURE is not RISING, then those areas are NOT WARMING. We can measure the temperature on Mars. Are you telling me that we cannot measure the temperature in varous areas of Antartica, and in various areas of the arctic? Yet, you don't get this information from "global warming" advocates, for good reason. The TEMPERATURE of the world (although there is no one "temperature") is not rising. "Global warming" predictions have been WRONG--consistently wrong. That is what is so absurd about changing the name, for political reasons,, to "climate change". "Global warming" advocats have not even ATTEMPTER specific predictions on climate, because thye know they have no way of predicting the climate--whether for next month or for 20 years from now. They have not even been able to predict the TERMPERATURE.
What have "global warming" advocates been doing, other than measuring and reporting the only thing that matters (for their "theory"): TEMPERATURE. Antarctica does NOT melt, as a matter of simple physics, unless the TEMPERATURE rises to the freezing point of water (albeit there can, of course, be localized "melting" as the local surface reaches the melting poinnt of water, or because of OCEAN CURRENTSD in areas exposed to the ocean).
Not being able to rely on temperature, even though that is the entire basis of their "theory", what have "global warmng" adcoates done They have talked about "melting" of the polar ice cap in the summer (WEATHER, and ocean currents), and the "melting" of areas of Greenland and the Antarctic peninsula also exposed to oceean currents and LOCAL WEATHER.
Does it matter that the polar ice cap is melting more than "usual" in the summer". ? NOPE. Does it matter that ice sheets are breaking off of Antarctica, in areas exposed to the ocean? NOPE. What matters is the TEMPREATURE over the entire regions, and the entire Earth, and whether that temperature is really rising. If that temperature is not rising, then you CANNOT have large scale melting of Antarctica. And any "melting" of the polar ice cap is necessarily due to warmn CURRENTS< which have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Sea levels cannot "rise" unless the TEMPERATURE is rising. You can talk all you want about "melting" glaciers, and ice sheets breaking off, and it does not change that fact. That fact is ELEMNTARY PHYSICS. Water freezes at a certain temprature, and melts at theat same temperature. That temperature is both the freezing point and melting ponit of wather. The only way greenhouse gasess can possibly affect this is by raising the TEMPERATURE. If they are not raising the temperature, as they are not now doing (and have never done, bly consistent correlation), then man-made factors do NOT "explain" the climate, or any "climate change".
Yes. I am saying that all of these attempts to catelogue "melting" are USELESS (RIRIDUCLOUS might be a better word). The questin is what is happening to the TEMPERATURE. If the temperature is not warming, we have nothing to worry about. And it is not.
Now does a small rise in temperature mean much? Nopoe. It is COLD, for exampel, in Antarctica. A small rise in temperature many "melt" ice at the edges. But water still freezes at 32 degrees Fareheit () degress Centigrade). So long as the temperature of water stays below the freezing point of water (under the pressure conditions), Antarctica DOES NOT MELT. Right now, the tmeprature does not appear to be rising at all.
Why does the ocean not freeze SOLID at the North Ple, in winter, when the temperature is below the rreezing point of water? Easy (and this is why currents MATTER in "summer"). The atmospheric temperature can only lower the temperature of SURFACE water (down to a greater and greater depth, as the tmerpature gets colder). The ocean is BIG. The temperature of deeper water is not affected much by atmospheric temperature. So the ocean does NOT freeeze "solid". In fact, warm ocean currents (bring in warmer water from the larger ocean) can SUBSTANTIALLY affect the temperature of the WATER. And--I repeat--it is the temperature of the WATER that matters, in terms of the freezing point of water.
However, "global warming" "theory" proivdes NO basis for raising the temperature of the oceans, ecept the ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE. Greenhouse gased "trap" the sun's energy (the hypothesis goes, although the problem is that we do not know enough about atmospheric physics to know HOU MUCH this affects the temprature of the overall atmosphere). Ture, that will ultimately raise the temperature of the wor'ld's oceans, but ONLY if the atmosphere is WARMING.
Q.E.D. The Earth is no longer WARMING (from any cause). Therefore, "global warming" theory (that man-made greenhouse gases are a crucial factor in temperature) is FALSE. The world, of course, has warmed MUCH more than this in the past. Dinosarus once roamed the EArth, and it was very HOT. The Earth warmed for abut the same time in COOLED--30 years. From 1940-1970, the Earth Cooled. From 1970-2000, the Earth WARMED. Nowe we appear to be on the verge of cooling again. Through it all, the UNITED STATES has shown NO CONSISTENT WARMING, at all (something "global warming" "theory" does not explain, as it does nto explain the COOLING from 1940-1970).
Whenever "global warming" pariests talk, remember the freezing point/melting point of water. Unless the overall TEMPERATURE of the Earth KEEPS RISING, there is no way for the overall "melting" of ice on the Earth to increase. Yes, we might have something like a change in the magnetic field of the Earth, but that would not be "man-made". Greenhouse gases ONLY affect atmospheric TEMPERATURE, and "global warming" theory is DEAD if that TEMPERATURE does not continue to rise.
Cap and Trade: Crucifying Our Economy On a Cross of "Global Warming"
The main vote of "Cap and Trade" comes today in the House. Democrats like to call this an "energy reform" bill (See previous entry about the wisdom of Jane Austen). It is a TAX on our industrial civilization. It will destroy our economy, and crucify that economy on a cross of "global warming" (to again paraphrase/misquote Willim Jennings Bryan).
This is one of those votes where you should vote AGAINST every single Representative, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS, who vote for this bill--IN EVERY ELECTION IN WHICH YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, ANY TIME DURING THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
Now I have said something similar to the above as to the several "bailout" votes, and spending votes that have led us to the brink of economic fascim, and economic ruin. If you take all of the votes about which I have said this (that you should oppose, FOREVER, an Congressperson voting for such bill), you would end up voting essentially against almost every incumbent in Congress--including almost every Republican.
So what. That is, in fact, my brother's position: That we need to throw out ALL of the bums, and start over. The prinnciple is obviious. To get a mule's attention, you first may have to hit him over the head with a 2 by 4. It happens that throwing out every incumbent would leave us with a Republican Congress. Read the P.S. to my previous entry. I assure you I would not care if it led to a Democratic Congress. In fact, you might say that Reubicans have already been hit over the head with a 2 by 4. It is time for the Democrats to get the same message--although it is wildly optomistic to believe that Republicans have gotten tthe message. Think of the MESSAGE it would send if EVERY incumbent were defeated!!!! I agree with my brother (the trucking company co-owner NOT bailed out by Obma). There is nothing that would send a more valuable lesson to Congress than for EVERY incumbent to be defeated (whether the opponent is nominally any "better" or not). And we should keep REPEATING the process until the message gets across.
I know. Will the RIGHT message get across, or will politicians simply conclude that people wnat the government to do MORE. I am afraid of the answer to that question, but we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Throwing every incumbent out is the right place to start.
Even if you can't agree with my extreme measures, you really should vote against every single Repesentative--forever--who votes for this "Cap and Trade", JOB KILLER bill. Those who would crucify our economy on the cross of "global warming" deserve to GO, and stay gone. Unfortunately, they may not leave much of a country behind them.
This is one of those votes where you should vote AGAINST every single Representative, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS, who vote for this bill--IN EVERY ELECTION IN WHICH YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, ANY TIME DURING THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
Now I have said something similar to the above as to the several "bailout" votes, and spending votes that have led us to the brink of economic fascim, and economic ruin. If you take all of the votes about which I have said this (that you should oppose, FOREVER, an Congressperson voting for such bill), you would end up voting essentially against almost every incumbent in Congress--including almost every Republican.
So what. That is, in fact, my brother's position: That we need to throw out ALL of the bums, and start over. The prinnciple is obviious. To get a mule's attention, you first may have to hit him over the head with a 2 by 4. It happens that throwing out every incumbent would leave us with a Republican Congress. Read the P.S. to my previous entry. I assure you I would not care if it led to a Democratic Congress. In fact, you might say that Reubicans have already been hit over the head with a 2 by 4. It is time for the Democrats to get the same message--although it is wildly optomistic to believe that Republicans have gotten tthe message. Think of the MESSAGE it would send if EVERY incumbent were defeated!!!! I agree with my brother (the trucking company co-owner NOT bailed out by Obma). There is nothing that would send a more valuable lesson to Congress than for EVERY incumbent to be defeated (whether the opponent is nominally any "better" or not). And we should keep REPEATING the process until the message gets across.
I know. Will the RIGHT message get across, or will politicians simply conclude that people wnat the government to do MORE. I am afraid of the answer to that question, but we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Throwing every incumbent out is the right place to start.
Even if you can't agree with my extreme measures, you really should vote against every single Repesentative--forever--who votes for this "Cap and Trade", JOB KILLER bill. Those who would crucify our economy on the cross of "global warming" deserve to GO, and stay gone. Unfortunately, they may not leave much of a country behind them.
President Obama and Jane Austen: Did Jane Austen Skewer Obama 200 Years Ago?
"How can the President say someting so positively, when he means the exact opposite? It is unaccountable. How can one understand him?"
The above is Jane Austen, from "Northanger Abbeey"--except, of course, that Ms. Austen was talking about "the general", and not directly about the President that had not yet been born. I have mentioned earlier that Ms. Austen, earlier in "Northagner Abbey", had described the kind of person who passoinately says one thing one day, and contradicts himself the next day--equally as passionately. It is if Jane Austen had observed Barack Obama from 200 years in the past.
Superficially, "Northanger Abbey" (rating, 99 out of 100) is an hilarious send up of the overheated gothic novel and of horror/suspense novels/movies ever after. In reality, the novel is about deception of all kinds--including, most particularly, SELF-DECEPTION. Thus, it is a send up of the speculative, hypocritical world of cable "news", and modern "journalism", as much as it is a send up of the novels of "Mrs. Radcliffe" at which Austen directly pokes fun. Yes, it IS a send up of President Obama, who seems to be able to deceive himself as well as others.
P.S.: I know. I cannot be objective about President Obama. Even though I "supported" him (see Dan't comment yesterday), I also "supported" John McCain by opposing Barack Obama (I supported Bob Barr, without any self-deception that he would become President). Am I makeing fun of Dan? Yep. Gulity. If opposing John McCain is that same thing as supporting Barack Obama, what is it when I opposed Obama (as I did). Is that not equally "supporting" John McCain? Yes, I have no self-deception. I know I threw my vote away. But Dan assumes, incorrectly, that John McCain had a "right" to "expect" my vote, and my "support", even though John McCain has often INSULTED ME (people who believe what I believe). That is one of the messages that I have tried to convery in this blog. REPUBLICANS do NOT have a "right" to expect my support. They have to EARN it. They are still not doing so. Did McCain really "expect" people like me to "support him? I think he hoped that we would have nowhere else to go, but I don't think McCain was really looking for our support. He, like all "moderate" Republicans, was hoping for "moderates"--independents and Democrats, along with that type of Republican--to elect him. They preferred Obama, who sold himself to the same group (ableit Obama is hardly a "moderate"). That is the inevitable result of McCain's kind of "Republicanism". Thus, I could not "supprot" McCain, other than by OPPOSING Obama, and I will not support future Repubicans of the same type. Good luck on that "independent" and "moderate" strategy. Even if it "workds" (wins an election), it will merely take us down the same disastrous road as Obama, only slightly SLOWER (as President Bush did--and he was hardly "slow" at betraying free market capitalism at the end).
The above is Jane Austen, from "Northanger Abbeey"--except, of course, that Ms. Austen was talking about "the general", and not directly about the President that had not yet been born. I have mentioned earlier that Ms. Austen, earlier in "Northagner Abbey", had described the kind of person who passoinately says one thing one day, and contradicts himself the next day--equally as passionately. It is if Jane Austen had observed Barack Obama from 200 years in the past.
Superficially, "Northanger Abbey" (rating, 99 out of 100) is an hilarious send up of the overheated gothic novel and of horror/suspense novels/movies ever after. In reality, the novel is about deception of all kinds--including, most particularly, SELF-DECEPTION. Thus, it is a send up of the speculative, hypocritical world of cable "news", and modern "journalism", as much as it is a send up of the novels of "Mrs. Radcliffe" at which Austen directly pokes fun. Yes, it IS a send up of President Obama, who seems to be able to deceive himself as well as others.
P.S.: I know. I cannot be objective about President Obama. Even though I "supported" him (see Dan't comment yesterday), I also "supported" John McCain by opposing Barack Obama (I supported Bob Barr, without any self-deception that he would become President). Am I makeing fun of Dan? Yep. Gulity. If opposing John McCain is that same thing as supporting Barack Obama, what is it when I opposed Obama (as I did). Is that not equally "supporting" John McCain? Yes, I have no self-deception. I know I threw my vote away. But Dan assumes, incorrectly, that John McCain had a "right" to "expect" my vote, and my "support", even though John McCain has often INSULTED ME (people who believe what I believe). That is one of the messages that I have tried to convery in this blog. REPUBLICANS do NOT have a "right" to expect my support. They have to EARN it. They are still not doing so. Did McCain really "expect" people like me to "support him? I think he hoped that we would have nowhere else to go, but I don't think McCain was really looking for our support. He, like all "moderate" Republicans, was hoping for "moderates"--independents and Democrats, along with that type of Republican--to elect him. They preferred Obama, who sold himself to the same group (ableit Obama is hardly a "moderate"). That is the inevitable result of McCain's kind of "Republicanism". Thus, I could not "supprot" McCain, other than by OPPOSING Obama, and I will not support future Repubicans of the same type. Good luck on that "independent" and "moderate" strategy. Even if it "workds" (wins an election), it will merely take us down the same disastrous road as Obama, only slightly SLOWER (as President Bush did--and he was hardly "slow" at betraying free market capitalism at the end).
MIchael Jackson R.I.P.: What Killed Michael Jackson? (Uninteresting Question)
What killed Michael Jackson?" is one of the headlines on Druge. It is a question in which I am not interested, and in which no one should be interested (except the authorities whose job it is to find out).
I know what killed Michael Jackson (in all probabiliby, although some people actually do have their heart "give out" at 50 for no reason at all except a weak heart). What killed Michael Jackson was the same thing that killed Elvis, and the same thing that killed Anna Nicole Smith. What killed Michael Jackson was a lifesyle out of control.
Jackson has been a comic/tragic figure for some time. Is his death really more important that tjat of the many WORTHY people who will die today, but who happen not to be famous? Nope, it obviously is not.
Now Michael Jackson's LIFE might be useful, if people drew the right lesson from it. I never much liked Michael Jackson's music, and I am not much of a music lover in general (not going out of my way to listen to music, although I appreciate some music whin I hear it, including "classic" rock and roll). However, even I could see that MIchael Jackson had TALENT. It was talent he basically threw away because of an inability to control his own bizarre and selfl-destructive impulses (not unlike, in some ways, chess champion Bobby Fischer, who may not have killed himself so obviously, but pretty much killed his talent).
For example, Mark Sanford could have learned from Micael Jackson. I am not one to say that everyone should "conform" to the norm. I certainly don't. No one, I think, really does, despite the efforts of central planners to mold us all into one, approved, lifestyle. But when you behavior is obviously bizarre, and self-destructive, you should examine yourself.
In the end, Michael Jackson really was more a comic figure than a truly tragic one. His was not the one "fatal flaw" of tragedy, but the obvious "flaws" of farce. Too bad so many ordinary people follow the same path of drug use and/or bizarre attempts to escapte the world of reality into a fantasy world or their own. To a degree, almost all leftists do that, with their bizarre belief in coercive central planning as the answer to all problems people have.
Was Michael Jackson mentally ill? I tend to agree with Dr. Szasz that such is a sterile question to ask. Oh, I don't question that there is such a thing as mental illness. But people make bizarrely wrong choices without being "clinically" mentally ill. And it really is pretty much impossible to define "inanity" (which is why I OPPOSE the "insanity defense" to criminal behavior). In the end, Michael Jackson made many wrong choices. I don't think he can escape repsonsibility for those wrong choices.
I know what killed Michael Jackson (in all probabiliby, although some people actually do have their heart "give out" at 50 for no reason at all except a weak heart). What killed Michael Jackson was the same thing that killed Elvis, and the same thing that killed Anna Nicole Smith. What killed Michael Jackson was a lifesyle out of control.
Jackson has been a comic/tragic figure for some time. Is his death really more important that tjat of the many WORTHY people who will die today, but who happen not to be famous? Nope, it obviously is not.
Now Michael Jackson's LIFE might be useful, if people drew the right lesson from it. I never much liked Michael Jackson's music, and I am not much of a music lover in general (not going out of my way to listen to music, although I appreciate some music whin I hear it, including "classic" rock and roll). However, even I could see that MIchael Jackson had TALENT. It was talent he basically threw away because of an inability to control his own bizarre and selfl-destructive impulses (not unlike, in some ways, chess champion Bobby Fischer, who may not have killed himself so obviously, but pretty much killed his talent).
For example, Mark Sanford could have learned from Micael Jackson. I am not one to say that everyone should "conform" to the norm. I certainly don't. No one, I think, really does, despite the efforts of central planners to mold us all into one, approved, lifestyle. But when you behavior is obviously bizarre, and self-destructive, you should examine yourself.
In the end, Michael Jackson really was more a comic figure than a truly tragic one. His was not the one "fatal flaw" of tragedy, but the obvious "flaws" of farce. Too bad so many ordinary people follow the same path of drug use and/or bizarre attempts to escapte the world of reality into a fantasy world or their own. To a degree, almost all leftists do that, with their bizarre belief in coercive central planning as the answer to all problems people have.
Was Michael Jackson mentally ill? I tend to agree with Dr. Szasz that such is a sterile question to ask. Oh, I don't question that there is such a thing as mental illness. But people make bizarrely wrong choices without being "clinically" mentally ill. And it really is pretty much impossible to define "inanity" (which is why I OPPOSE the "insanity defense" to criminal behavior). In the end, Michael Jackson made many wrong choices. I don't think he can escape repsonsibility for those wrong choices.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Why I Opposed John McCain (Without Supporting Barack Hussein Obama)
I was going to, in a few days, do one of my typically verbose entries on why I do not feel "guilty" about failing to support John McCain and the Republicans, even though I recognize that President Obama is in the process of destroying the country (and recognized it, in foresight, during the election campaign, as what would happen ni an Obama Presidency).
I have been saved the trouble. Glenn Beck just did it for me. I just heard him say: "John McCain would have been WORSE. It would all have been BLAMED on John McCain."
Beck was reacting to Barney Frank going on O'Reilly and saying that it was not the Democrats ("who, US?") who abandoned capitalism, but President Bush.
As Beck said, McCain was a "progressive' (Beck's term) Republican who did not believe in conservatism. Especially with a Democrati Congress, leftist Democrats would have had real cover with McCain as President. Sure, he would have not so quickly underined the entire American Way of Life, but McCain was always going to go down the same path--just not as quickly. A slow, agonizing death, BLAMED on conservatives, rather than a quick death where conservatism might yet rise from the ashes. The choice was grim, but I simply could not support McCain, and Glenn Beck explained why to you today on his radio program.
P.S.: Beck can be pretty good, but I do not regularly listen to him. I just have the radio in the bedroom (where I usually am NOT), set on that channel. Occasionally, I will check in on Beck, just to see where he is going. I thus heard some 30 seconds of his program this morning. That was AFTER the previous entry in this blog was posted. Isn't it amazing how what Beck said fit right into my promise for a future entry, made just this morning? I find it a little amazing. Beck, by the way, is also telling his listeners--correctly--not to get destracted by the push on health care, while leftist Democrats are trying to SNEAK through the "cap and trade" TAX on energy which will DESTROY our industrial civilization. To misquote William Jennings Bryan, we are about to be CRUCIFIED on a cross of "global warming". Bryan, of course, said "cross of gold".
I have been saved the trouble. Glenn Beck just did it for me. I just heard him say: "John McCain would have been WORSE. It would all have been BLAMED on John McCain."
Beck was reacting to Barney Frank going on O'Reilly and saying that it was not the Democrats ("who, US?") who abandoned capitalism, but President Bush.
As Beck said, McCain was a "progressive' (Beck's term) Republican who did not believe in conservatism. Especially with a Democrati Congress, leftist Democrats would have had real cover with McCain as President. Sure, he would have not so quickly underined the entire American Way of Life, but McCain was always going to go down the same path--just not as quickly. A slow, agonizing death, BLAMED on conservatives, rather than a quick death where conservatism might yet rise from the ashes. The choice was grim, but I simply could not support McCain, and Glenn Beck explained why to you today on his radio program.
P.S.: Beck can be pretty good, but I do not regularly listen to him. I just have the radio in the bedroom (where I usually am NOT), set on that channel. Occasionally, I will check in on Beck, just to see where he is going. I thus heard some 30 seconds of his program this morning. That was AFTER the previous entry in this blog was posted. Isn't it amazing how what Beck said fit right into my promise for a future entry, made just this morning? I find it a little amazing. Beck, by the way, is also telling his listeners--correctly--not to get destracted by the push on health care, while leftist Democrats are trying to SNEAK through the "cap and trade" TAX on energy which will DESTROY our industrial civilization. To misquote William Jennings Bryan, we are about to be CRUCIFIED on a cross of "global warming". Bryan, of course, said "cross of gold".
President Obama: "You Should Have Voted For Hillary"
You will remember that this blog endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. No joke, although the reason was hardly a compliment to her: I thought she would discredit leftism about as much as Barack Obama, but with less danger to the country. I still have nostalgia for the "gloden age" of Bill Clinton, and HillaryCare, when the conservatism of Ronald Reagan seemed again dominate the country through a Republican House brought into power by Bill and Hillary.
Yes, President Obama himself has now acknowledged that this blog picked the correct candidate--the more HONEST candidate.
Okay. Obama did not EXACTLY put it that way. However, he might as well have. He have one of those interviews to a friendly "news" organization. He was asked about his present opinion on a Federal Government MANDATE for every person to have health insurance--another loss of your FREEDOM.
Do you remember the main difference between Barack Obama's "health plan" in the campaign and Hillary Clinton's? Right. Hillary said that people needed to be FORCED to buy health insurance, to keep healthy young people from increasing the cost to everyone else by "opting out" of health care insurance. She might also have mentioned that wealthy people might reasonably "opt out".
Well, in this interview, President Obama acknowledged that Hillary Clinton was RIGHT. Obama has now been "convinced" by the arguments that a "comprehnesive" government plan requires a MANDATE that everyone buy health insurance. This is the same provision that Obama, with his usual "eloquence", PASSIONATELY opposed during the campaign. His positon has now "evolved", Obama said in the interview, such that he now faovrs such governnment coercion that he PASSIONATELY opposed during the campaign.
Has antything "new" happened? Nope. The "arguments" Obama is talking about are the SAME arguments Hillary was making, in the campaign, for her plan. Why did Obama not acknowledge during the campaign that Hillary had convinced him? Well, the short answer is that Obama was trying to get ELECTED, and said what he thought would help him get elected. Does this mean I think Obama was dishonest? Yep, as I have said before--quoting similar Obama inconsistencies on issue after issue. Sometimes Obama has said contradictory things on consecutive DAYS.
Should we not have elected womeone who was reasonably HONEST about her own plan, and who saw the implicatons of her own plan, even if that plan is a disaster in the making? Yes, "we" should have. Why did we elect the person who merely "sounded good", but did not understand the implications of his own health care position (or was lying about it)? Obama gives no reason we should not have elected Hillary, and there is none. Because she is a WOMAN? From a leftist point of view (admittedly the wrong ponit of view, but the same point of view to which Obama has now "evolved"), Hillary was RIGHT on health care (the "signature issue of the Democratic Party), and Obama was WRONG. In reality, has Obama not admitted you should have voted for Hillary? Of course he has.
You say that being President is more about "judgment" than policy positons? Are you really serious in saying that you trust the "JUDGMENT" of Barack Obama (with alomst no experience) ofer the JUDGMENT of Hillary Clinton (battle tested as she was)? You can't be that dumb.
Nope. I have said that Jane Auten pegged Obama 200 years ago, when she described a type of person who says one thing passionately one day, and contradicts himself just as passinately the next day. Jane Austen, of course, implied that this was a character DEFECT (in "Northange Abbey"). Obama has made it a VIRTUE. It is why he was elected. He SOUNDS GOOD, even when he contradicts himself. Have we become that shallow? I think we have.
President Obama clearly things that the substance of what he says is not important, so long as what he says sounds good to people. I am convinced that is why Democrats chose him over Hillary (along with the fact she is a WOMAN). Democrats thought Obama was the better snake oil SALESMAN. So far, they may have been more right than wrong on that. However, why were the REST of us willing to sell the country down the river that way?
Do we really need a snake oil salesman n the White House, however good he sounds while passionately contradicting himself? I don't think so. I think Obama HAS admitted that you should have voted for Hillary.
Don't foam at the mouth. I will get around--again--as to why I refused to support McCain over Obama (although not supporting Obama), even though I knew McCain would be SLIGHTLY better than Obama for the country in the short run. If you have not previoiusly read my explanation for that, and for suppporting HIllarty over McCain (tot he point of promising to vote for her), then you will have to wait for the future entry when I again explain.
Yes, President Obama himself has now acknowledged that this blog picked the correct candidate--the more HONEST candidate.
Okay. Obama did not EXACTLY put it that way. However, he might as well have. He have one of those interviews to a friendly "news" organization. He was asked about his present opinion on a Federal Government MANDATE for every person to have health insurance--another loss of your FREEDOM.
Do you remember the main difference between Barack Obama's "health plan" in the campaign and Hillary Clinton's? Right. Hillary said that people needed to be FORCED to buy health insurance, to keep healthy young people from increasing the cost to everyone else by "opting out" of health care insurance. She might also have mentioned that wealthy people might reasonably "opt out".
Well, in this interview, President Obama acknowledged that Hillary Clinton was RIGHT. Obama has now been "convinced" by the arguments that a "comprehnesive" government plan requires a MANDATE that everyone buy health insurance. This is the same provision that Obama, with his usual "eloquence", PASSIONATELY opposed during the campaign. His positon has now "evolved", Obama said in the interview, such that he now faovrs such governnment coercion that he PASSIONATELY opposed during the campaign.
Has antything "new" happened? Nope. The "arguments" Obama is talking about are the SAME arguments Hillary was making, in the campaign, for her plan. Why did Obama not acknowledge during the campaign that Hillary had convinced him? Well, the short answer is that Obama was trying to get ELECTED, and said what he thought would help him get elected. Does this mean I think Obama was dishonest? Yep, as I have said before--quoting similar Obama inconsistencies on issue after issue. Sometimes Obama has said contradictory things on consecutive DAYS.
Should we not have elected womeone who was reasonably HONEST about her own plan, and who saw the implicatons of her own plan, even if that plan is a disaster in the making? Yes, "we" should have. Why did we elect the person who merely "sounded good", but did not understand the implications of his own health care position (or was lying about it)? Obama gives no reason we should not have elected Hillary, and there is none. Because she is a WOMAN? From a leftist point of view (admittedly the wrong ponit of view, but the same point of view to which Obama has now "evolved"), Hillary was RIGHT on health care (the "signature issue of the Democratic Party), and Obama was WRONG. In reality, has Obama not admitted you should have voted for Hillary? Of course he has.
You say that being President is more about "judgment" than policy positons? Are you really serious in saying that you trust the "JUDGMENT" of Barack Obama (with alomst no experience) ofer the JUDGMENT of Hillary Clinton (battle tested as she was)? You can't be that dumb.
Nope. I have said that Jane Auten pegged Obama 200 years ago, when she described a type of person who says one thing passionately one day, and contradicts himself just as passinately the next day. Jane Austen, of course, implied that this was a character DEFECT (in "Northange Abbey"). Obama has made it a VIRTUE. It is why he was elected. He SOUNDS GOOD, even when he contradicts himself. Have we become that shallow? I think we have.
President Obama clearly things that the substance of what he says is not important, so long as what he says sounds good to people. I am convinced that is why Democrats chose him over Hillary (along with the fact she is a WOMAN). Democrats thought Obama was the better snake oil SALESMAN. So far, they may have been more right than wrong on that. However, why were the REST of us willing to sell the country down the river that way?
Do we really need a snake oil salesman n the White House, however good he sounds while passionately contradicting himself? I don't think so. I think Obama HAS admitted that you should have voted for Hillary.
Don't foam at the mouth. I will get around--again--as to why I refused to support McCain over Obama (although not supporting Obama), even though I knew McCain would be SLIGHTLY better than Obama for the country in the short run. If you have not previoiusly read my explanation for that, and for suppporting HIllarty over McCain (tot he point of promising to vote for her), then you will have to wait for the future entry when I again explain.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
To Dan and Everyone: Answer to Question and General Permission to Quote This Blog--As Comment to Yours or Otherwise
To Dan: I am replying to your comment as a main entry for two reasons.
1. As previously stated, I have trouble replying to comments on my own blog because of my difficulty with the Google "security" system.
2. This response has general applicability.
I have no objection to usng a paragraph from my entry as a comment on your blog. In fact, I do not have any objection to anyone using what I write publicly on their blog, or anywhere else, although I would request attribution.
I guess I could have emailed Dan, but I am no longer sure of his email address. My own email address (again, for use by anyone who wants to contact me), is skip33666@gmail .com. I insist that the extra "6" is an editorial comment by GOOGLE, since I meant to be "skip3366". I just realized, after Googe added the "6" (or, for you cynics, I made a typo), that "skip3366" could be seen as "skip666". Although I am capable of it, I did not deliberately intend the "666"--either originally or in the Google email address. Of course, I KEPT it, when I could change it. That, of coures, was because it sort of tickled me--maybe a Freudian slip all the way around.
1. As previously stated, I have trouble replying to comments on my own blog because of my difficulty with the Google "security" system.
2. This response has general applicability.
I have no objection to usng a paragraph from my entry as a comment on your blog. In fact, I do not have any objection to anyone using what I write publicly on their blog, or anywhere else, although I would request attribution.
I guess I could have emailed Dan, but I am no longer sure of his email address. My own email address (again, for use by anyone who wants to contact me), is skip33666@gmail .com. I insist that the extra "6" is an editorial comment by GOOGLE, since I meant to be "skip3366". I just realized, after Googe added the "6" (or, for you cynics, I made a typo), that "skip3366" could be seen as "skip666". Although I am capable of it, I did not deliberately intend the "666"--either originally or in the Google email address. Of course, I KEPT it, when I could change it. That, of coures, was because it sort of tickled me--maybe a Freudian slip all the way around.
Mark Sanford: Moth to the Flame? Travelling Too Close to the Sun?
This blog gets validated on the strangest things. See the previous entry, and my archive entry about Latina females and "Anglo" males.
I said that it was fairly easy to understand the attraction Anglo males have to some Latina females. Used to dealing with macho Latin men, some Latin females prefer to settle for white, Anglo Saxon men they can DOMINATE. However, I acknowledged it was a little harder to understand why Anglo men are attracted to Latina females they KNOW they cannot handle (as if most Anglo men can handle AnY woman). I finaly decided that it was the old "moth to the flame" syndrome, or the attraction of flying ever closer to the sun with wings held on by wax.
Has Mark Sanford proved my point? I have not bothered to follow the details, but it appears he became involved with a Latina from Argentina. If that is incorrect, I have to fall back on the mental instability theory. But if he was involved with a latina woman, I can almost sympathize.
P.S: Yes, readers of this blog know that my ex-wife was 100% Mexican American, and as fiery as they come. However, there was no "affair" involved in our divorce, and in fact our divorce was amicable. We remained on relatively good terms afterward. I guarantee you (and I have said few things in this blog that are as certainly correct as this, dspite my record of being correct) that the divorce would NOT have been amicable ha I been having an affair. I claim no special moral distinction here. I have never been able to handle ONE woman--much less more than one. I am in awe, or maybe I am looking for the opposite word, of ment who think they can handle more than one woman at the same time.
I said that it was fairly easy to understand the attraction Anglo males have to some Latina females. Used to dealing with macho Latin men, some Latin females prefer to settle for white, Anglo Saxon men they can DOMINATE. However, I acknowledged it was a little harder to understand why Anglo men are attracted to Latina females they KNOW they cannot handle (as if most Anglo men can handle AnY woman). I finaly decided that it was the old "moth to the flame" syndrome, or the attraction of flying ever closer to the sun with wings held on by wax.
Has Mark Sanford proved my point? I have not bothered to follow the details, but it appears he became involved with a Latina from Argentina. If that is incorrect, I have to fall back on the mental instability theory. But if he was involved with a latina woman, I can almost sympathize.
P.S: Yes, readers of this blog know that my ex-wife was 100% Mexican American, and as fiery as they come. However, there was no "affair" involved in our divorce, and in fact our divorce was amicable. We remained on relatively good terms afterward. I guarantee you (and I have said few things in this blog that are as certainly correct as this, dspite my record of being correct) that the divorce would NOT have been amicable ha I been having an affair. I claim no special moral distinction here. I have never been able to handle ONE woman--much less more than one. I am in awe, or maybe I am looking for the opposite word, of ment who think they can handle more than one woman at the same time.
Mark Sanford: The Stupidity of Republican Politicians Goes Nuclear
Since Dan brought it up in his comment to the previous headlie (without even waiting for the article that went with the headline), I decided to mention the South Carolina Governor today.
I have thought for some time that I do need to throw REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS into the grouping of the generally stupidest people on Earth, along with mainstream "journalists" and men who kill their wives/girlfriends. I generally don't add the Republicans, and men who kill when they KNOW they will be the ONLY supspects, into my mention of stupid groups for two reasons. The main reason is that stupid Republicans, on this level, and men who actually kill their wives, are not THAT numerous (although inexplicably numerous). Pluls, I really can't try to enumerate all INDIVIDUAL stupid people when referring to groups who are almost universally stupid. Repubican politicians are pretty stupid, as a group, but are they really MORE stupdi than leftist Democrats? Politicaly, they may be. But the level of stupidity is just not at that truely extreme level of Mark Sanford.
Now Eliot Spitzer (patornizing hooker while governor of the state) is right up there with the most stupid, there is a reason I refer to REPUBLICAN POLITIICIANS. Bill Clinton got away with it. A number of Democrats have been able to get away with incredible stuff. And that assumes they are CAUGHT. Almost no one is TARGETING Democrats, who are EXPECTED to have low morals. The NEW governor of New York admitted to NUMBEROUS "mistakes", and the Democratic replacement for Mark Foley, in Florida, ALMOST got away with MULTIPLE affairs and misconduct.
The point? Republicans like Mark Sanford KNOW that they cannot get away with this stuff. Yet they keep doing it. Just like men who kill their wives KNOW that the oldds are against them, and yet they keep doing it. Larry Flynt has a BOUNTY on Republican sexual misconduct, after all. John Edwards might get a (somewhat) sympathetic mainstream media "hearing" as to why he was at a hotel with his mistress at 2 in the morning, and why he RAN AWAY from a National Enquirer reporter. Mark Sanford was never going to have a chance (not that even a Democrat would hav had much of a shot with this one, although I would have once thought the same thing about sex with an intern in the Oval Office. I can see President Obama getting away with this kind of thing. Makr Sanford had no chance.
But Repubicans KEEP doing it. Senator John Ensign of Nevada recently admitted to an affair (an affair, by the way, NOT disqualifying a person from being a Senator). There is Senator Vitter from Louisiana. Newt and Livingstone (respective Republican Speakers of the House) had to step down, in quick succession (although I think stepping down for an affair was a MISTAKE). Mark Sanford, of course, has gone beyond a mere affair with behavior so bizarre as to bring into question his mental stability. Is it that Republicans are so staright and narrow that hey CAN'T HANDLE an affair? Maybe.
We KNOW why Republicans get less leewaly. That is entirely thenuclear hypocrisy of the mainstream media, which wannts to turn even the misconduct of a teenage daughter (evil as the mainstream media is) into an "hyocrisy" issue against a Repubican. Is it "hypocristy" to simply not be able to live up to your own princiiples--as distinguished from the intellectual DISHONESTY of David Letterman and the mainstream media? Npe. It MAY be, if those are really not your principles. But people are WEAK. That is the entire basis of the Chirstian religion, and the doctrine of Oringinal Sin. So I reject the idea that Republicans are more "hypocritical" than Democrats to argue for "family values", and yet prove to be humanly weak. However, there is no doubt hey are STUPID, because they know they will be hled to a higher standard than Democrats.
WHY are Democrats held to a lesser standard (aside from the hypocrisy of the mainstream media--how many Dmeocrats say they BELIEVE in adultery)? I think it is a matter of what the mainstream media, and hypocrites on the left, think they can get away with. They think the pubic holds Republicans to a higher standard, while they EXPECT Demcrats to be slezeballs (usually correctly). I think it goes further than that. I think conservatives DO have higher standards than Democrats of the leftist kind, and that the hypocrites on the left try to USE those higher standards against them. In other words, CONSERVATIVE REPUBICANS turn against Republicans who fall from grace (despite the Christian religion), while Democrats DO NOT CARE if their politicians fall from grace. I have said before that I think this is short sighted, and just a little hypocirtical, on the part of holier than thou Republicans who refuse to give any slack for moral weakness.
All of th eabove being said, I agree with Dan. It is hard to imagine anyone MORE stupid than Mark Sanford. As I said, it calls into question his mental stability. I am perfectly willing to "forgive" him an affair. His actual bizarre behavior is beyond belief
I have thought for some time that I do need to throw REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS into the grouping of the generally stupidest people on Earth, along with mainstream "journalists" and men who kill their wives/girlfriends. I generally don't add the Republicans, and men who kill when they KNOW they will be the ONLY supspects, into my mention of stupid groups for two reasons. The main reason is that stupid Republicans, on this level, and men who actually kill their wives, are not THAT numerous (although inexplicably numerous). Pluls, I really can't try to enumerate all INDIVIDUAL stupid people when referring to groups who are almost universally stupid. Repubican politicians are pretty stupid, as a group, but are they really MORE stupdi than leftist Democrats? Politicaly, they may be. But the level of stupidity is just not at that truely extreme level of Mark Sanford.
Now Eliot Spitzer (patornizing hooker while governor of the state) is right up there with the most stupid, there is a reason I refer to REPUBLICAN POLITIICIANS. Bill Clinton got away with it. A number of Democrats have been able to get away with incredible stuff. And that assumes they are CAUGHT. Almost no one is TARGETING Democrats, who are EXPECTED to have low morals. The NEW governor of New York admitted to NUMBEROUS "mistakes", and the Democratic replacement for Mark Foley, in Florida, ALMOST got away with MULTIPLE affairs and misconduct.
The point? Republicans like Mark Sanford KNOW that they cannot get away with this stuff. Yet they keep doing it. Just like men who kill their wives KNOW that the oldds are against them, and yet they keep doing it. Larry Flynt has a BOUNTY on Republican sexual misconduct, after all. John Edwards might get a (somewhat) sympathetic mainstream media "hearing" as to why he was at a hotel with his mistress at 2 in the morning, and why he RAN AWAY from a National Enquirer reporter. Mark Sanford was never going to have a chance (not that even a Democrat would hav had much of a shot with this one, although I would have once thought the same thing about sex with an intern in the Oval Office. I can see President Obama getting away with this kind of thing. Makr Sanford had no chance.
But Repubicans KEEP doing it. Senator John Ensign of Nevada recently admitted to an affair (an affair, by the way, NOT disqualifying a person from being a Senator). There is Senator Vitter from Louisiana. Newt and Livingstone (respective Republican Speakers of the House) had to step down, in quick succession (although I think stepping down for an affair was a MISTAKE). Mark Sanford, of course, has gone beyond a mere affair with behavior so bizarre as to bring into question his mental stability. Is it that Republicans are so staright and narrow that hey CAN'T HANDLE an affair? Maybe.
We KNOW why Republicans get less leewaly. That is entirely thenuclear hypocrisy of the mainstream media, which wannts to turn even the misconduct of a teenage daughter (evil as the mainstream media is) into an "hyocrisy" issue against a Repubican. Is it "hypocristy" to simply not be able to live up to your own princiiples--as distinguished from the intellectual DISHONESTY of David Letterman and the mainstream media? Npe. It MAY be, if those are really not your principles. But people are WEAK. That is the entire basis of the Chirstian religion, and the doctrine of Oringinal Sin. So I reject the idea that Republicans are more "hypocritical" than Democrats to argue for "family values", and yet prove to be humanly weak. However, there is no doubt hey are STUPID, because they know they will be hled to a higher standard than Democrats.
WHY are Democrats held to a lesser standard (aside from the hypocrisy of the mainstream media--how many Dmeocrats say they BELIEVE in adultery)? I think it is a matter of what the mainstream media, and hypocrites on the left, think they can get away with. They think the pubic holds Republicans to a higher standard, while they EXPECT Demcrats to be slezeballs (usually correctly). I think it goes further than that. I think conservatives DO have higher standards than Democrats of the leftist kind, and that the hypocrites on the left try to USE those higher standards against them. In other words, CONSERVATIVE REPUBICANS turn against Republicans who fall from grace (despite the Christian religion), while Democrats DO NOT CARE if their politicians fall from grace. I have said before that I think this is short sighted, and just a little hypocirtical, on the part of holier than thou Republicans who refuse to give any slack for moral weakness.
All of th eabove being said, I agree with Dan. It is hard to imagine anyone MORE stupid than Mark Sanford. As I said, it calls into question his mental stability. I am perfectly willing to "forgive" him an affair. His actual bizarre behavior is beyond belief
Wall Street and CNBC: The Stupidest People on Earth (always excluding the "journalists" of the mainstream media)
No, the actual move in stocks today was not that irrational, if you only took the final numbers (and ignored the insane divergence betweent he Dow and the Nasdaq, which I explain below). But the trading today--and you will generally not hear this from the stupid people on CNBC--was very revealing. It almost conclusively shows that all financial markets today are COMPUTER GAMING CASINOS, rather than places for any kind of investment based on economic reality. The financial markets (AND the people in them) are SICK--WORSE than f1929.
Look at what happened today. The Dow was way up (as was the Nasdaq, but more on that later)--well, at least substantially up. Then came the statement from the Fed, which IMMEDIATELY knocked the Dow down 100 points. What did the Fed say that wsa so important? Actually, NOTHING. It is only the Stupidest People on Earth, acting solely as if lplaying a computer game where the rules are artificial, that would have reacted this way to NOTHING.
What the Fed said was that the recession was "easing", although the economy was still weak. Fine. We knew that. It is what the Fed did NOT say that drove the Dow down. The Fed did NOT say that it would PRINT MORE MONEY. In other words, the Fed did not say that it woulld continue this unprecedented, incredible, Wall Street induced purchase by the Fed of OUR OWN DEBT (like you purchasing your OWN MORTGAGE at the time you bought the house). To the economiic fascists on CNBC, and Wall Street, this caused a computer gaming "secret rule" (like a semi-hidden rule in a computer game) to be triggered. If the Fed does not ARTIFICIALLY keep down interest rates, government BORROWING (you have heard about that INCREASING deficit) will DRIVE UP INTEREST RATES. That is bad for the economy. However, is it not true that in a RATIONAL world PRINTING MONEY would drive up interest rates, as would the prospect of FUTURE INFLATION. Damn right.
Yes, this confirms that CNBC, and Wall Street, fully believe what this blog has said: that these enormous deficits, and enormous Federal spending, will SHORT CIRCUIT any recverty. But that did not keep the stock market from rising FORTY PERCENT from its March low (into a BUBBLE--irrational bubble). It gets worse. Yes, the Fed also said that it was no longer worried much about DEFLATION. Whay is that "bad" news for the stock market.
Well, the stock market (one of those "secret" rules of a computer game that you are supposed to figure out, having nothing to do with economic rality) has supposedly gone straight up because of a FALLING DOLLAR, and because of inflationary expectations--thus "explaining" why commmodities (e.g. oil) have gone straight up, as the stock market has gone straight up.
Say what? Am I really telling you that the stupid people on Wall Street, and CNBC, are so stupid as to think it makes rational sense to have MAJOR rises in commodities (anticipating inflation, which causes HIGHTER interest rates) at the same time you have MAJOR rises in the stock market? Yep. Theese are the Sltlupidest People on Earth. You say they are not stupid because they are playing the COMPUTER GAME the way it is now designed to be played? Well, in a way you are right. However, that ignores the more fundamental SICKNESS that ALL YOU HAVE LEFT ARE COMPUTER GAMERSD, ONCE IT BECOMES CLEAR TO EVERYONE ELSE THAT THE MARKETS ARE A COMPUTER GAME WITH RULES HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMIC REALITY.
Is it reallly "bad" news for the economy that the dollar go up? Nope. Not unless the dollar goes WAY up, spoecifically becaluse of major rises in interest rates. But it has been obvious all along that we are headed for MAJOR rises in interest rates the moment any kind of "recovery" is obvious. That is what I have said, and does not today's trading CONFIRM what I have said--at least that Wall Street believes it. The Fed today essentially said that we may be heading into a weak recovery, and that it will not keep ARITIFICIALLY holding down interest rates by prining money. What was the immediate, computer game gype/rule, reaction on Wall Street? It is that interest rates are headed up, and therefore the dollar is headed up. This is all absurd stuff, and indicates again that I am right, and Rush Limbaugh WRONG. Trading on Wall STreet, and in commodity markets (in a price BUBBLE for oil, as this blog has told you) has NOTHING to do with economic reality (even with rational expectations of future economic reality). It is all computer gaming, based on HYPE and these "secret rules" that become the basis for computer trading.
Still doubt me? Never do that. This blog has not made a single substantive mistake--as distinguished from typo type mistake--since the nomination of McCain and Obama. If you doubt the above, consider the other interesting part of stock market trading today. The NASDAQ was incrediblly strong all day. When the Dow was up 80, the NASDAQ was up almost 40. The Nasdaq is trading at less than 1/5 the level of the Dow--meaning it should rise at only 1/5 the gross Dow number, to be proportionate. Then the Dow collpased, but the NASDAQ remained up 25-30. How do you explain that? CNBC won't, or can't (probably both). I can tell you, and I will.
There is actually a bias toward the Nasdaq this year, as the overall market has become more SPECULATIVE, and computer driven. There are also a lot of coomodity stocks on NASDAQ. And the only "hot" areas of the economy (besides financial stocks SUBSIDIZED by the government) have been things like Ipods, and hand held devices of all kinds. This has led to the FAD stocks being mostly on the Nasdaq: stocks like APPLE. That is also where the "growth" stocks (read HYPED FAD STOCKS) are. In a market grown increasingly speculative, the Nasdaq is getting lots of computer gaming play. But that is not all that is going on, and does not really explain TODAY. Can the Nasdaq stocks keep going up if the economy does not "recover". Not on your life. So this is just another irrational part of recent Wall Street trading. However, it gets worse. (Although this helps explain why the economic fascists at IBM--BOYCOTT IBM--are lobbying so heavily for government, central planning business to force a "smarter planet" upon us--government being the only truly growth industry left in the country.)
Have you ever heard of "paired trades". That is another one of those computer gaming stategies of hedge funds, like the "secrets" you find in "how to" manuals on how to play specific computer games. A "paired trade" is where SPECULATIORS "bet" against one investment, while "betting" on another investment. The paired trade here is to be the Nasdaq against the Dow. Sure, you could simply go "long" the Nasdaq, and "short" the Dow. As long as the Nasdq does better than the Dow (even if they both do badly), you will make money. But say you noticed something else. Lately, if the Nasdaq does really well one day, it is likely not to do as well the next. In the previous two days, the Nasdqaq did BADLY--even against the Dow. It was DUE for a rebound. There was some SLIGHT "good" news on Nasdaq stocks today, and it is true that rising interest rates may hurt Nasdaq tech stocks SLIGHTLY less badly than they will hurt industrial and financial stocks. Still, this kind of discrepancy has little to do with reality, and everything to do with PAIRED TRADES. You can generally favor the Nasdaq, if you want, but also bet that the Index that does well for a day or two will do BADLY for the next day or so. Thus, we (not CNBC, or at least they have not told you this much) have seen MANY recent days where the Dow will do BADLY the day after it has done WELL against the Nasdaq, and vice versa--with a general trend in favor of the Nasdaq, but not overwhelmingly so. This PAIRED TRADE COMPUTER GAMING STRATEGY of lplaying the Dow to do badly (comparatively), right after it has done wll, is one of those "secrets" of recent trading. Note how all of this stuff becomes self-fulfilling (as in "self-fulfilling prediction) as computer trading comes to completely dominate trading--because most rational people have left the stock market.
Why does it kill the stock market to have it become a computer gaming casino? After all, people like to gamble. Unfortunately, witht he stock market, what happens is that the swings become ever WILDER, and more irrational, until the market tears itself apart (like that bridge in the Northwet, where the harmonic exaggeration of the swings caused by the winds caused the bridged to tear itself apart).
Do you understand now why these are the Stupidest People on Earth? You should.
Look at what happened today. The Dow was way up (as was the Nasdaq, but more on that later)--well, at least substantially up. Then came the statement from the Fed, which IMMEDIATELY knocked the Dow down 100 points. What did the Fed say that wsa so important? Actually, NOTHING. It is only the Stupidest People on Earth, acting solely as if lplaying a computer game where the rules are artificial, that would have reacted this way to NOTHING.
What the Fed said was that the recession was "easing", although the economy was still weak. Fine. We knew that. It is what the Fed did NOT say that drove the Dow down. The Fed did NOT say that it would PRINT MORE MONEY. In other words, the Fed did not say that it woulld continue this unprecedented, incredible, Wall Street induced purchase by the Fed of OUR OWN DEBT (like you purchasing your OWN MORTGAGE at the time you bought the house). To the economiic fascists on CNBC, and Wall Street, this caused a computer gaming "secret rule" (like a semi-hidden rule in a computer game) to be triggered. If the Fed does not ARTIFICIALLY keep down interest rates, government BORROWING (you have heard about that INCREASING deficit) will DRIVE UP INTEREST RATES. That is bad for the economy. However, is it not true that in a RATIONAL world PRINTING MONEY would drive up interest rates, as would the prospect of FUTURE INFLATION. Damn right.
Yes, this confirms that CNBC, and Wall Street, fully believe what this blog has said: that these enormous deficits, and enormous Federal spending, will SHORT CIRCUIT any recverty. But that did not keep the stock market from rising FORTY PERCENT from its March low (into a BUBBLE--irrational bubble). It gets worse. Yes, the Fed also said that it was no longer worried much about DEFLATION. Whay is that "bad" news for the stock market.
Well, the stock market (one of those "secret" rules of a computer game that you are supposed to figure out, having nothing to do with economic rality) has supposedly gone straight up because of a FALLING DOLLAR, and because of inflationary expectations--thus "explaining" why commmodities (e.g. oil) have gone straight up, as the stock market has gone straight up.
Say what? Am I really telling you that the stupid people on Wall Street, and CNBC, are so stupid as to think it makes rational sense to have MAJOR rises in commodities (anticipating inflation, which causes HIGHTER interest rates) at the same time you have MAJOR rises in the stock market? Yep. Theese are the Sltlupidest People on Earth. You say they are not stupid because they are playing the COMPUTER GAME the way it is now designed to be played? Well, in a way you are right. However, that ignores the more fundamental SICKNESS that ALL YOU HAVE LEFT ARE COMPUTER GAMERSD, ONCE IT BECOMES CLEAR TO EVERYONE ELSE THAT THE MARKETS ARE A COMPUTER GAME WITH RULES HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMIC REALITY.
Is it reallly "bad" news for the economy that the dollar go up? Nope. Not unless the dollar goes WAY up, spoecifically becaluse of major rises in interest rates. But it has been obvious all along that we are headed for MAJOR rises in interest rates the moment any kind of "recovery" is obvious. That is what I have said, and does not today's trading CONFIRM what I have said--at least that Wall Street believes it. The Fed today essentially said that we may be heading into a weak recovery, and that it will not keep ARITIFICIALLY holding down interest rates by prining money. What was the immediate, computer game gype/rule, reaction on Wall Street? It is that interest rates are headed up, and therefore the dollar is headed up. This is all absurd stuff, and indicates again that I am right, and Rush Limbaugh WRONG. Trading on Wall STreet, and in commodity markets (in a price BUBBLE for oil, as this blog has told you) has NOTHING to do with economic reality (even with rational expectations of future economic reality). It is all computer gaming, based on HYPE and these "secret rules" that become the basis for computer trading.
Still doubt me? Never do that. This blog has not made a single substantive mistake--as distinguished from typo type mistake--since the nomination of McCain and Obama. If you doubt the above, consider the other interesting part of stock market trading today. The NASDAQ was incrediblly strong all day. When the Dow was up 80, the NASDAQ was up almost 40. The Nasdaq is trading at less than 1/5 the level of the Dow--meaning it should rise at only 1/5 the gross Dow number, to be proportionate. Then the Dow collpased, but the NASDAQ remained up 25-30. How do you explain that? CNBC won't, or can't (probably both). I can tell you, and I will.
There is actually a bias toward the Nasdaq this year, as the overall market has become more SPECULATIVE, and computer driven. There are also a lot of coomodity stocks on NASDAQ. And the only "hot" areas of the economy (besides financial stocks SUBSIDIZED by the government) have been things like Ipods, and hand held devices of all kinds. This has led to the FAD stocks being mostly on the Nasdaq: stocks like APPLE. That is also where the "growth" stocks (read HYPED FAD STOCKS) are. In a market grown increasingly speculative, the Nasdaq is getting lots of computer gaming play. But that is not all that is going on, and does not really explain TODAY. Can the Nasdaq stocks keep going up if the economy does not "recover". Not on your life. So this is just another irrational part of recent Wall Street trading. However, it gets worse. (Although this helps explain why the economic fascists at IBM--BOYCOTT IBM--are lobbying so heavily for government, central planning business to force a "smarter planet" upon us--government being the only truly growth industry left in the country.)
Have you ever heard of "paired trades". That is another one of those computer gaming stategies of hedge funds, like the "secrets" you find in "how to" manuals on how to play specific computer games. A "paired trade" is where SPECULATIORS "bet" against one investment, while "betting" on another investment. The paired trade here is to be the Nasdaq against the Dow. Sure, you could simply go "long" the Nasdaq, and "short" the Dow. As long as the Nasdq does better than the Dow (even if they both do badly), you will make money. But say you noticed something else. Lately, if the Nasdaq does really well one day, it is likely not to do as well the next. In the previous two days, the Nasdqaq did BADLY--even against the Dow. It was DUE for a rebound. There was some SLIGHT "good" news on Nasdaq stocks today, and it is true that rising interest rates may hurt Nasdaq tech stocks SLIGHTLY less badly than they will hurt industrial and financial stocks. Still, this kind of discrepancy has little to do with reality, and everything to do with PAIRED TRADES. You can generally favor the Nasdaq, if you want, but also bet that the Index that does well for a day or two will do BADLY for the next day or so. Thus, we (not CNBC, or at least they have not told you this much) have seen MANY recent days where the Dow will do BADLY the day after it has done WELL against the Nasdaq, and vice versa--with a general trend in favor of the Nasdaq, but not overwhelmingly so. This PAIRED TRADE COMPUTER GAMING STRATEGY of lplaying the Dow to do badly (comparatively), right after it has done wll, is one of those "secrets" of recent trading. Note how all of this stuff becomes self-fulfilling (as in "self-fulfilling prediction) as computer trading comes to completely dominate trading--because most rational people have left the stock market.
Why does it kill the stock market to have it become a computer gaming casino? After all, people like to gamble. Unfortunately, witht he stock market, what happens is that the swings become ever WILDER, and more irrational, until the market tears itself apart (like that bridge in the Northwet, where the harmonic exaggeration of the swings caused by the winds caused the bridged to tear itself apart).
Do you understand now why these are the Stupidest People on Earth? You should.
President Obama: Health Care and Economic Fascism--That Central Planning "Partnership" Bettween Big Business and Big Government
Late last week, there was this amazing (except, with our President, similar stories happen every day) story about how the DRUG INDUSTRY (the whole industry? So much for "free market" theory!!!) had made a "deal" with President Obama (the government) to "save" 80 billion dollars in drug costs over the next 10 years. Note that this is only 8 billion dollars a year. The hype was that this would help "pay" for comprehensive (Federal takeover) healthcare "reform" (in what fantasy universe?).
What business does the Fedral Government have making a "deal" with an entire industry (supposedly) in the first place? What does "save" mean anyway? You mean drug companies would otherwise have charged "more"? Who says? Them? And IF this is going to be a "real" savings, why apply that "savings" to "pay" for health care? That is a total sham. Medicare is GOING BROKE. Any "savings" we get is NEEDED to help Medicare. What does it have to do with "paying" for healthcare reform? NOTHING. The cost "overruns" for Medicare and Medicaid are vastly more than 8 billion dollars a year. That is all apart from the fact that these FUTURE "savings" never seem to materialize. They are ALWAYS eaten up in extra COSTS elsewhere--or by the same drug companies making up the "savings" by extra charges in areas outside the "deal". This idea of "savings" "paying" for a Federal takeover of health care is a SHAM--a deception.
What does this "deal" (and other "deals" announded by Obama) really mean? Does it mean that we really have entered upon an eral of economic fascism, where big business PARTNERS with Big Government to control every aspect of our lives? Does it mean that the "drug industry" is a CARTEL, where a few exectutives can speak for the entire industry? Does it mean that we allowed too many drug company mergers, scuh that too many drug comapnies are too big? Does it mean that conservatives have failed to appreciate the damage that big corporate, central planning empires (created almost entirely by big MERGERS which should never have been allowed)--with the same defect as Big Government--has created for conservatism and free market theory?
YES. The answer to all of the above questions is "yes".
This whole idea that a central planning, fascist "partnership" between Big Government and Big Businees is the way to CONTROL the economy "rationally" is a DISASTER--and unholy, fascist presciption for DOOM. You should get the same feeling listening to this stuff as you get watching an IBM commercial (openly campaigning for GOVERNMENT money to go to IMB to centrally plan the entire PLANET. Do "IBM'ers care that I consider them creepy--Dan's suggested word in a comment--fascists? Probably not.). That idea is that this is DOWNRIGHT CREEPY. A "parthership" between Big Business and Big Government to contorl everything is the very essence--the definition--of economic fascism (also described as "socialism with a capitalist veneer"). If the idea of "1984" style Big Brother being created by a partnership between Big Business and Big Government does not creep you out, you are beyond help.
Senator Dorgan (Democrat of, I think, North Dakota--one of the Dakotas, anyway) exposed the general SHAM of "paying for" health care reform last week. For example, one of the ways to "apy" for this "reform"--unless you consider that the states that have tried it have found the costs to be not only out of control, but understated--is the "cap and trade" TAX on American industry coming up for a vote in the House on Friday. That TAX would not only cause your electric bill to SKYROCKET (Obama's word, not mine), but Congress is not going to let people revolt over such an increase int heir energy bill. So if the TAX is enacted at all, it will be with the Federal Government REFUNDING the money to people (no net revenue). This is in addition to "cap and trade" DESTROYING the economy, and thereby causing less government revenue that way.
ALL "ideas" for "apying" for health care "reform" are going to be SHAMS. That is because President Obama, and leftist Democrats, do not CARE about "paying" for a government takeover of health care. They just want the takevoer. They WANT economic fascism: that parthnership of Big Bovernment and Big Business dominated by Big Government. That is their overall goal for the entire economy, and they are most of the way there. A Federal takeover of health care will pretty much put us pas the point of no return, if we are not there already. That is what leftist Democrats want, and they will worry about paying for it later.
P.S.: When I talk "econoic fascism", I am NOT talking "Hitler". Hitler's "National Socialism" was just an excuse for Hitler getting absolute power. Now you might consider today's economic fascism as similarly designed to give absolute power to President Obama, and the rest of the leftist Democrats. Central planning inevitably leads to a loss of freedom. But the point here is not some coparison of Hitler and Obama. That is not useful. The comparison is rather to that old theory that Hitler USEDl--that old, discredited theory of economic fascism that we are now putting so disastrously into effect. The delusion is the delusion of CENTRAL PLANNING, and the idea that a "partnership" of Big Business and Big Government can lead to a central planning paradise. Yes, Hitler also "perverted" a perfectly intellectually "respectable" theory of the 1920's into Hitler's own concept of the "master race". That 1920's concept was EUGENICS. See the late Michael Crichton's appendix to his eco-thriller, "State of Fear". "Eugenis" was the central planning idea that we should BREED human beings for desirable trraits, or at least encourage such selection of mates. The "eugenics" movement was actually one of the main factors behind the origin of Planned Parenthood (that evil organization). Nope. I am NOT saying modern Planned Parenthood believes in eugenics, or a "master race", but there are multiple RECORDINGS where Planned Parenthood personnel have "promised" prospective donors that their donations can be "targeted" solely for African-Americans and other minorities (for ABORTIONS for those people, in other words). The idea that Hitler was simply a madman ignores the intellectual antecendents that Hitler and Mussolini USED in their mad quest for power. It is no accident that Mussolini is remembered for the description: "At least he made the trains run on time." That is the idea of economic fascism: That you can "make the trains run on time" by an "efficient" "partnership" between Big Bovernment and Big Business". It is sad to see us heading down this road witht he headlong, irrational speed of a train totally out of control.
What business does the Fedral Government have making a "deal" with an entire industry (supposedly) in the first place? What does "save" mean anyway? You mean drug companies would otherwise have charged "more"? Who says? Them? And IF this is going to be a "real" savings, why apply that "savings" to "pay" for health care? That is a total sham. Medicare is GOING BROKE. Any "savings" we get is NEEDED to help Medicare. What does it have to do with "paying" for healthcare reform? NOTHING. The cost "overruns" for Medicare and Medicaid are vastly more than 8 billion dollars a year. That is all apart from the fact that these FUTURE "savings" never seem to materialize. They are ALWAYS eaten up in extra COSTS elsewhere--or by the same drug companies making up the "savings" by extra charges in areas outside the "deal". This idea of "savings" "paying" for a Federal takeover of health care is a SHAM--a deception.
What does this "deal" (and other "deals" announded by Obama) really mean? Does it mean that we really have entered upon an eral of economic fascism, where big business PARTNERS with Big Government to control every aspect of our lives? Does it mean that the "drug industry" is a CARTEL, where a few exectutives can speak for the entire industry? Does it mean that we allowed too many drug company mergers, scuh that too many drug comapnies are too big? Does it mean that conservatives have failed to appreciate the damage that big corporate, central planning empires (created almost entirely by big MERGERS which should never have been allowed)--with the same defect as Big Government--has created for conservatism and free market theory?
YES. The answer to all of the above questions is "yes".
This whole idea that a central planning, fascist "partnership" between Big Government and Big Businees is the way to CONTROL the economy "rationally" is a DISASTER--and unholy, fascist presciption for DOOM. You should get the same feeling listening to this stuff as you get watching an IBM commercial (openly campaigning for GOVERNMENT money to go to IMB to centrally plan the entire PLANET. Do "IBM'ers care that I consider them creepy--Dan's suggested word in a comment--fascists? Probably not.). That idea is that this is DOWNRIGHT CREEPY. A "parthership" between Big Business and Big Government to contorl everything is the very essence--the definition--of economic fascism (also described as "socialism with a capitalist veneer"). If the idea of "1984" style Big Brother being created by a partnership between Big Business and Big Government does not creep you out, you are beyond help.
Senator Dorgan (Democrat of, I think, North Dakota--one of the Dakotas, anyway) exposed the general SHAM of "paying for" health care reform last week. For example, one of the ways to "apy" for this "reform"--unless you consider that the states that have tried it have found the costs to be not only out of control, but understated--is the "cap and trade" TAX on American industry coming up for a vote in the House on Friday. That TAX would not only cause your electric bill to SKYROCKET (Obama's word, not mine), but Congress is not going to let people revolt over such an increase int heir energy bill. So if the TAX is enacted at all, it will be with the Federal Government REFUNDING the money to people (no net revenue). This is in addition to "cap and trade" DESTROYING the economy, and thereby causing less government revenue that way.
ALL "ideas" for "apying" for health care "reform" are going to be SHAMS. That is because President Obama, and leftist Democrats, do not CARE about "paying" for a government takeover of health care. They just want the takevoer. They WANT economic fascism: that parthnership of Big Bovernment and Big Business dominated by Big Government. That is their overall goal for the entire economy, and they are most of the way there. A Federal takeover of health care will pretty much put us pas the point of no return, if we are not there already. That is what leftist Democrats want, and they will worry about paying for it later.
P.S.: When I talk "econoic fascism", I am NOT talking "Hitler". Hitler's "National Socialism" was just an excuse for Hitler getting absolute power. Now you might consider today's economic fascism as similarly designed to give absolute power to President Obama, and the rest of the leftist Democrats. Central planning inevitably leads to a loss of freedom. But the point here is not some coparison of Hitler and Obama. That is not useful. The comparison is rather to that old theory that Hitler USEDl--that old, discredited theory of economic fascism that we are now putting so disastrously into effect. The delusion is the delusion of CENTRAL PLANNING, and the idea that a "partnership" of Big Business and Big Government can lead to a central planning paradise. Yes, Hitler also "perverted" a perfectly intellectually "respectable" theory of the 1920's into Hitler's own concept of the "master race". That 1920's concept was EUGENICS. See the late Michael Crichton's appendix to his eco-thriller, "State of Fear". "Eugenis" was the central planning idea that we should BREED human beings for desirable trraits, or at least encourage such selection of mates. The "eugenics" movement was actually one of the main factors behind the origin of Planned Parenthood (that evil organization). Nope. I am NOT saying modern Planned Parenthood believes in eugenics, or a "master race", but there are multiple RECORDINGS where Planned Parenthood personnel have "promised" prospective donors that their donations can be "targeted" solely for African-Americans and other minorities (for ABORTIONS for those people, in other words). The idea that Hitler was simply a madman ignores the intellectual antecendents that Hitler and Mussolini USED in their mad quest for power. It is no accident that Mussolini is remembered for the description: "At least he made the trains run on time." That is the idea of economic fascism: That you can "make the trains run on time" by an "efficient" "partnership" between Big Bovernment and Big Business". It is sad to see us heading down this road witht he headlong, irrational speed of a train totally out of control.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wall Street: The Stupidest People on Earth (CNBC: The Stupidest Group in the Stupidest People on Ealrth)
lThis blog's audited accuracy rating is now up to 99.7%. I have not made a verifiable mistake since predictiing Hillary would win the Democratic nomination and that McCain wululd LOSE the Republican nomination. In a rational world, both predictions would have been right.
Yes, Wall Street has been a major part of the roll this blog has been on. While CNBC has given you WRONG informatioin and "explanationis", I have given you the RIHGT information. I have told you that the Standard and Poors 500 has ben LOCKED in a "trading range". basidcally between 800 and 900, since the completion of the market crash last October. I have told you that trading withint that range, and brief excursions oustside of that range, have been MOMENTUM moves, based on computer gaming, and that people who might telll you otherwise (CNBC, for example) LIE to you. This is a computer gaming markket, based on momentum and computer programs, and those people who say otherwise are the Stupidest People on Earth. What am I saying? Even those people who PRETEND to "explain" these computer moves with FALSE inoformatioin are the Stupidest People on Earth, because they are DESTROYING their own business. would you bet on a RIGGED horse race? No? Well why would you want to "play" today's stock marketj--where computer gamers rule. Those computer gamers are certainly TRYING to "rig" the market, whether they are successful in making money themselves or not.
Yes, I am telling you "I told you so" again--noting another CORRECT call by this blog. When the Standard and Porrs 5r00 Stock Index broke above 950 (well above 900), I TOLD YOU that we were in another stock market "bubble". Well, the Standard and Porrs 500 broke back BELOW 900 today (whether it closed below that level or not). I was right yet again , as I have been about the Stupidest People on Earth since last October. Remember, the market has made thises irrational (because too large) moves UP three times sicne the first plunge to new lows last October. The S & P 500 rose above 900 before Obama's election--the computer gaming rise being reversed right after the election. Then the market fell to NEW RCENT YEAR LOWS in Novermbe.r . Then the S & P 500 rose again to above 900 in early January. Were the Stupidest People on Earth right that time? Not on your life. The market promptly fell to NEW LOWS in March. Then the market went straight up beyond 900 again. I correctly told you this was a BUBBLE, for which there was not excuse (the mangnitude of the move--not whether the market should have been going up or not). Nowe we are backing off again, as I said we MUST.
IF you are anxious about getting in on any stock market recovery, NOW is the kind of time to invest--NOT when the makrket is already up 40% and up 200 Dow points on the day. Only the Stupidest People on Earth (compter traders or not) BUY HIGH AND SELL LOW. Not thatt my personal opinion is that this is the right time for a trader to invest. We still have a long way to go to 8900 on the S & P 500, and we are still near the TOP of the recent (since October) trading range. Further, we are heading into the WORST time of year for stocks. As I have previously stated, from the middle/end of July to the end of September, there has bee a MAJOR decline in the stock market EVERY YEAR for the last FIFTEEN YEARS. It is a perilous time to be investing in stocks as a trader AT A HIGH. If you want to invest at a HIGH, listen to CNBC's Jim Cramer, who I HEARD (for the minute I could stand to listen to him) recommend big BANKS as investments just a few days ago. Good call, Jim---NOT.
Yes, I think the market is going further down. But if I were good at day-to-day market calls, and stock calls, I owuld be much more successful in the stock market (where my perfrormance has ntot been that good). What I am good at is knowing when the market is being totally IRRATIONAL, and telling you how STUPOD these people are who insist on BUYING HIGH AND SELLING LOW (not to mention giving absolutely asininine "explanations" for market moves). The market may go up tomorrow. But that 15 year, lunbroken history suggests the next major move is DOWN. There is certainly NO WAY anyone should buy on major UP moves--for example, if the Dow were to go UP 200 points tomorrow. If you would be tempted to buy then, you should buy NOW. Otherwise, you are just confirming that you are as stupid as the people on CNBC, or Jim Cramer--confirming yourself as one of the Stupidest People on Earth.
You doubt me about these being the Stupidest People on Earth? Don't. It is an absolute fact. What were they STILL saying on CNBC today. They were saying that there have been two "strtegies" (by whicch they meant, but did not say,, computer gaming strategies, rather than economic reality strategies) that have "worked" over the past few months. They failed to mention that almost ANY stratey has "worked" over the past few months, so long as you have been LONG the "markte". I digress (sort of). CNBC says that one "successful" strategy has been the "inflation/commodity" play, based on anticipation of INFATION/COMMODITY PRICE RISE in a "recovering" economy. The other "strategy" has been investing in growth stocks.
Now, like CNN LIES< the above CNBC "dichotomy" of "successful" strategies was a LIE. How do I know? Bewcause I engaged in NEITHER stategy, and my stock portfolio was UP 100% over these past few months. I invested in 'beaten down" stocks--the problem being that my stocks were often further beaten down AFTER I invested in them. As I said, almost ANY "long" strategy "worked" in the momentum trading, irrational "bubble" of the past few months.
It gets worse. This idea that it makes sense for both infaltion plays and "growth strategies" to "work" at the same time is FALSE. That just shows that CNBC, and Wall Street, are comprised of the Stupidest People on Earth. All it means to note that both stategies have "worked" in the past three months is that the trading in those months has been IRRATIONAL (unless you correctly lunderstand that the trading has all been about computer gaming, and not about "fundamentals" at all).
It is CONTRADICTORY, especailly in today's world of instant market "moves", to play both "inflation" and "growth" at the same time. If we have inflation, what happens to interest rates (especially with this government spending)? They go UP. Correction: They go WAY UP, That shuts down the economy. That CRUSHES commodity prices, AND CRUSHES GROWTH. In other words, it actually makes more sense to bet AGAINST both growth and commodity price rises than it does to bet on such a contradictuory, insane "combo". In today's world, growth cannot survive substantial infaltion. This is a FACT--even though CNBC seems not to realize it. Now we might have STAGFLATION: NO "growth and inflation. Carter proved that. But it is effectively impossible to have BOTH inflation and a substantially growing economy. Cannot happen, Yet, that is what the "market" (Wall Street) has bet on the past few months, while CNBC has acted as if it makes sense. These truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
"But", you sputter, having a CNBC mind (poor soul), "commodity prices DID go up the past few months while the economy 'stabilized'". Uh-huh. That is my exact point. That was IRRATIOINAL (given the magnitude of the rise in both "growth" stocks and commodity prices). It was not the result of rational economics, but the result of COMPUTER GAMING. As this blog correctly told you, such irrational trading could not continue. And it has not. If we were to have a brief resurgence of such irrational trading, it would only be a prelude to a FAlLL. A market that makes these MASSIVE, IRRATIIONAL moves, based on momentum, is a SICK markket (as sick, or sicker, as the market in 1929, before the crash). Sure, there were some rational reasons for the market to go up MILDLY in the past few months, and even for oil to go up MILDLY. The magnitude of the actual, CONTRADICTORY, moves was INSANE, and proves that these truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
Yes, Wall Street has been a major part of the roll this blog has been on. While CNBC has given you WRONG informatioin and "explanationis", I have given you the RIHGT information. I have told you that the Standard and Poors 500 has ben LOCKED in a "trading range". basidcally between 800 and 900, since the completion of the market crash last October. I have told you that trading withint that range, and brief excursions oustside of that range, have been MOMENTUM moves, based on computer gaming, and that people who might telll you otherwise (CNBC, for example) LIE to you. This is a computer gaming markket, based on momentum and computer programs, and those people who say otherwise are the Stupidest People on Earth. What am I saying? Even those people who PRETEND to "explain" these computer moves with FALSE inoformatioin are the Stupidest People on Earth, because they are DESTROYING their own business. would you bet on a RIGGED horse race? No? Well why would you want to "play" today's stock marketj--where computer gamers rule. Those computer gamers are certainly TRYING to "rig" the market, whether they are successful in making money themselves or not.
Yes, I am telling you "I told you so" again--noting another CORRECT call by this blog. When the Standard and Porrs 5r00 Stock Index broke above 950 (well above 900), I TOLD YOU that we were in another stock market "bubble". Well, the Standard and Porrs 500 broke back BELOW 900 today (whether it closed below that level or not). I was right yet again , as I have been about the Stupidest People on Earth since last October. Remember, the market has made thises irrational (because too large) moves UP three times sicne the first plunge to new lows last October. The S & P 500 rose above 900 before Obama's election--the computer gaming rise being reversed right after the election. Then the market fell to NEW RCENT YEAR LOWS in Novermbe.r . Then the S & P 500 rose again to above 900 in early January. Were the Stupidest People on Earth right that time? Not on your life. The market promptly fell to NEW LOWS in March. Then the market went straight up beyond 900 again. I correctly told you this was a BUBBLE, for which there was not excuse (the mangnitude of the move--not whether the market should have been going up or not). Nowe we are backing off again, as I said we MUST.
IF you are anxious about getting in on any stock market recovery, NOW is the kind of time to invest--NOT when the makrket is already up 40% and up 200 Dow points on the day. Only the Stupidest People on Earth (compter traders or not) BUY HIGH AND SELL LOW. Not thatt my personal opinion is that this is the right time for a trader to invest. We still have a long way to go to 8900 on the S & P 500, and we are still near the TOP of the recent (since October) trading range. Further, we are heading into the WORST time of year for stocks. As I have previously stated, from the middle/end of July to the end of September, there has bee a MAJOR decline in the stock market EVERY YEAR for the last FIFTEEN YEARS. It is a perilous time to be investing in stocks as a trader AT A HIGH. If you want to invest at a HIGH, listen to CNBC's Jim Cramer, who I HEARD (for the minute I could stand to listen to him) recommend big BANKS as investments just a few days ago. Good call, Jim---NOT.
Yes, I think the market is going further down. But if I were good at day-to-day market calls, and stock calls, I owuld be much more successful in the stock market (where my perfrormance has ntot been that good). What I am good at is knowing when the market is being totally IRRATIONAL, and telling you how STUPOD these people are who insist on BUYING HIGH AND SELLING LOW (not to mention giving absolutely asininine "explanations" for market moves). The market may go up tomorrow. But that 15 year, lunbroken history suggests the next major move is DOWN. There is certainly NO WAY anyone should buy on major UP moves--for example, if the Dow were to go UP 200 points tomorrow. If you would be tempted to buy then, you should buy NOW. Otherwise, you are just confirming that you are as stupid as the people on CNBC, or Jim Cramer--confirming yourself as one of the Stupidest People on Earth.
You doubt me about these being the Stupidest People on Earth? Don't. It is an absolute fact. What were they STILL saying on CNBC today. They were saying that there have been two "strtegies" (by whicch they meant, but did not say,, computer gaming strategies, rather than economic reality strategies) that have "worked" over the past few months. They failed to mention that almost ANY stratey has "worked" over the past few months, so long as you have been LONG the "markte". I digress (sort of). CNBC says that one "successful" strategy has been the "inflation/commodity" play, based on anticipation of INFATION/COMMODITY PRICE RISE in a "recovering" economy. The other "strategy" has been investing in growth stocks.
Now, like CNN LIES< the above CNBC "dichotomy" of "successful" strategies was a LIE. How do I know? Bewcause I engaged in NEITHER stategy, and my stock portfolio was UP 100% over these past few months. I invested in 'beaten down" stocks--the problem being that my stocks were often further beaten down AFTER I invested in them. As I said, almost ANY "long" strategy "worked" in the momentum trading, irrational "bubble" of the past few months.
It gets worse. This idea that it makes sense for both infaltion plays and "growth strategies" to "work" at the same time is FALSE. That just shows that CNBC, and Wall Street, are comprised of the Stupidest People on Earth. All it means to note that both stategies have "worked" in the past three months is that the trading in those months has been IRRATIONAL (unless you correctly lunderstand that the trading has all been about computer gaming, and not about "fundamentals" at all).
It is CONTRADICTORY, especailly in today's world of instant market "moves", to play both "inflation" and "growth" at the same time. If we have inflation, what happens to interest rates (especially with this government spending)? They go UP. Correction: They go WAY UP, That shuts down the economy. That CRUSHES commodity prices, AND CRUSHES GROWTH. In other words, it actually makes more sense to bet AGAINST both growth and commodity price rises than it does to bet on such a contradictuory, insane "combo". In today's world, growth cannot survive substantial infaltion. This is a FACT--even though CNBC seems not to realize it. Now we might have STAGFLATION: NO "growth and inflation. Carter proved that. But it is effectively impossible to have BOTH inflation and a substantially growing economy. Cannot happen, Yet, that is what the "market" (Wall Street) has bet on the past few months, while CNBC has acted as if it makes sense. These truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
"But", you sputter, having a CNBC mind (poor soul), "commodity prices DID go up the past few months while the economy 'stabilized'". Uh-huh. That is my exact point. That was IRRATIOINAL (given the magnitude of the rise in both "growth" stocks and commodity prices). It was not the result of rational economics, but the result of COMPUTER GAMING. As this blog correctly told you, such irrational trading could not continue. And it has not. If we were to have a brief resurgence of such irrational trading, it would only be a prelude to a FAlLL. A market that makes these MASSIVE, IRRATIIONAL moves, based on momentum, is a SICK markket (as sick, or sicker, as the market in 1929, before the crash). Sure, there were some rational reasons for the market to go up MILDLY in the past few months, and even for oil to go up MILDLY. The magnitude of the actual, CONTRADICTORY, moves was INSANE, and proves that these truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
CNN: The Liar Network Lies About the Economy and Health Care (Non-Existant Connection Except if Federal Takeover Ruins Economy
I don't watch CNN. I boycott it, since it is the Liar Network. Almost everyone else doesn't watch CNN either, and I don't think most of them are even boycottintg it. People can tell "worthless" when they see and hear it.
Yep. Saturday evening is a case in point. I borke my boycott for about 90 seconds to see what CNN might be doing about Iran. Ths was prompted by the decision by Fox News to GO LIVE with essentially wall-to-wall, in-depth coverage on Iran.
CNN was not covering Iran (no surprise). What I did hear was no surprise either, but confirmed again that CNN is the Liar Network, and of no use to anyone.
What CNN had on was a "sepcial report" on the "need" for health care reform. This report was beyond worthless, because it was one Big Lie. Yes, it was really just a proaganda piece in support of Obama's push for "health care reform"--trying, I guess, to "preempt ABC's move in turning over essentially the whole network all of next Wednesday to President Obama, and to propaganda supporting health care reform.
In that 90 seconds I watched, I heard this incredible statement: "This proves that we can't have a full economic recovery without 'health care reform'". The "this" referred to in this statement is the numbers CNN went through to show that the unemployed cannot afford health care insurance!!!!! I kid you not. CNN maede the leap from "statistics" on the cost of health care insurance bein out of the reach of the unemployed to the above quoted statement.
"Wait a minute, skip", you say ("you" being constantly slow on the uptake). That statement you quote may be an Obama suck up (Obama says the same thing all of the time), but it is not a LIE. It is a matter of opinion.
Nope, bison breath. It is a LIE--a "1984" style Big Lie.
This is my statement, and it is closer to being true (cannnot be said to be a lie): We cannot have a "full recovery" if we have 'health care reform', because WE CAN'T AFFORD IT." That is apart from the fact that the Federal Government taking over health care will ultimately make the health care you receive WORSE. Now these are statements of opinion--albeit opinions based in history and logic--not to mention opinions that have the virtue of being correct. But the CNN statemnet is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a lie.
How do I know it is a lie? Easy. We had the Great Depressiion--worse than anything yet happening now (Obama may yet change that). We recovered from the Great Depression without universal (goovernment) health insurance, without Medicare, and without Medicaid. Sure, it took World War II, and Roosevelt Big Government did NOT bring us out of the Great Depression. Still, we DID recover WITHOUT people having health insurance. Really, they could NOT afford it. We recovered from the 1981-1982 recession without universal health coverage, or "health care reform". In fact, the prosperity of the 1990's was still ahead, and that prosperity was really created by the lingering effect of the policies of Ronald Reagan (kept in effect by a Republican House at a time the Republicans had not yet lost their soul).
You should see why the CNN statement is a LIE, while my statement is not. You might puase here and think about it. We have had MANY economic recoveries in this country where the unemployed could not afford health care INSURANCE. Everyone in this country--at least now--RECEIVES HEALTH CARE. We are only talking about health care INSURANCE. It is absurd to suggest that we cannot have an economic recovery wtihout people having health insurance. The history of our economy PROVES this to be a LILE.
My statement, on the other hand, is NOT a LIE. That is because we have NOT TRIED A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, AND HEALTH CARE, IN THE PAST. That would be a new thing, and our experience with Medicare, Medicaid, and central planning in general indicates that our economy will NOT SURVIVE this kind of Federal domination of our economy. Yes, this goes well beyond health care insurance, but a Federal takeover of health care insurance will, in itself, DOOM our economy. Yep. That IS a matter of 'informed, correct) opinion. It cannot be a lie, because we have no history. The CNN statement can be, and IS, a lie because it contradicts numberous, observable FACTS in the past history of our economy.
What was CNN doing? What was Obama doing? You know what they were doing as well as I. They were using overstatement--this time so egregious as to constitute a Big Lie--for lpurposes of a POLITICAL AGENDA. It is really a matter of definition, as CNN twists the meaning of words out of all recognition.
What CNN was really saiying is that we will not have a "full recovery" until everyone has health insurance, and that everyone will not have health insurance (especially with this recession) unless we have FEDERAL "health care reform". Now this is a LIE too, under the meaning of "full economic recovery" that has existed from the beginning of time (or thereabouts). But if you DEFNIE "full economic recovery" as requiring that everyone have health insurance, then CNN's statement is correct (if totally trivial). That is because CNN is ASSUMING that the Federal Government must achieve insurance coverage for every person before we can be said to have a "full economic recovery" If you cannot see the circular "reasoning" there, you are beyond my help. By the way, the CBO determined that the DEMOCRATIC "health reform plan' in Congreess would still leave us with 35 million unemployed in 10 years.
Do we HAVE to have health insurance? Nope. Two states have ABANDONED "health insurance reform" because they were going BANKRUPT. California did not even adopt it, because they know it would BaNKRUPT California. This was before it was obvious California is going bankrupt anyway. WHERE does the money come from for FEDERAL "health insurance/care reform"? It comes from the people of CALIFORNIA (and the people of the other states). Nope. It is NOT true that the Federal Government can do things more efficiently. IN fact, the Federal Government always does things LESS EFFICIENTLY. The true motivations for the increase of Big Government are "free money" (the Federal money FALSELY viewed as "free", when it has to come from the people just like California's budget has to come from the people), and the leftist rab for POWER. Leftists want central planning because they want more POWER, and because they cant' stand not imposing their views on everyone.
Say, fr the sake of argument, that 10% of our country remins unemployed, and without health insurance (because ultimately the inemployed can't afford it). SO WHAT. Those people can go on MEDICAID, or just get health care at the emergency room. Yes, I know. We do NOT have "full recovery" if unemployment stays at 10%, but that is NOT because of health care. It is because unemployment is staying too high. Health care has nothing to dowith it. But we can DERAIL any recovery if the Fedeal Government spends too much money, and tries to totally run our economy through central planning (never worked, and theoretically CAN'T work).
Even if FEDERAL "health care reform" were a good idea (it is not), we can't afford it now. The states who toyed with the idea realize that. The Federal Government would realize that too, except the Federal Government can PRINT MONEY (spend beyond its means). Problem: That may lies eventual DISASTER.
Correct policy: Any "health care/insurance reform should be done by the STATES, who are REQUIRED to "pay as you go." Our present health care system is NOT in "crisis", and what we really have is a "health insurance" "problem" (not crisis). States routinely regulate insurance (do so with auto insurance which people in El Paso don't have either). At the present time, we should do essentially NOTHING (at Federal or state level). Once we have recovered from the recession (if Obama and the Democrats let us--big "IF" right now), then we can try to tweak insurance plans on a STATE level, with whatever MINOR Federal co-ordinating help that may be needed. Note to CNN: As recovery occurs, peole will become insured at the same rate as they were before the recession, although benefits will probably diminish as employers try to control their own costs. Read this last sentence carefully. What happens with FEDERAL dominiation of health care? Big Brother eventually has to control costs too, or try to control them (without success), because someone has to PAY for health care. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The FEDERAL medthod of "controlling costs" is to TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM with central planning coercion. So you will lose the right to choose doctors, and doctors will lose the right to operate the way they want. We will RATION health care.
The present system is not nearly as bad as the Federal alternative. Further, it is dESPERATE that we not have a Federal Government out of control (in size, power, and spending). The biggest danger to a "full recovery" is not "health care", but a Federal Government out of control. Even if you think we should eventually have universal, Federally guaranteed health care, you should not want it NOW. The only people who want it now are those so desperate to increase the Federal Government, and leftist power, that they don't want to let the "opportunity" slip.
If you think I proofread the above adequately, with my eyesight, you are nuts. You have to put up with typos. But think how much WISDOM you get in exchange. I might figure out how to adequately proofread these entries if I were getting paid, and/or I had a LARGE readership. As it is, it is not a cost effective use of my time. You have to decide whether your time is wasted by having to read entries with typos. I do try to "proffread" as I type, but sometimes my concentration wanders. I do feel sorry for you if my hand slips out of position, and my fingers end up on the wrong letters. I recognize that typos sometimes make sentences unreadable. Just can't justify trying to eliminate them under present circumstances.
Yep. Saturday evening is a case in point. I borke my boycott for about 90 seconds to see what CNN might be doing about Iran. Ths was prompted by the decision by Fox News to GO LIVE with essentially wall-to-wall, in-depth coverage on Iran.
CNN was not covering Iran (no surprise). What I did hear was no surprise either, but confirmed again that CNN is the Liar Network, and of no use to anyone.
What CNN had on was a "sepcial report" on the "need" for health care reform. This report was beyond worthless, because it was one Big Lie. Yes, it was really just a proaganda piece in support of Obama's push for "health care reform"--trying, I guess, to "preempt ABC's move in turning over essentially the whole network all of next Wednesday to President Obama, and to propaganda supporting health care reform.
In that 90 seconds I watched, I heard this incredible statement: "This proves that we can't have a full economic recovery without 'health care reform'". The "this" referred to in this statement is the numbers CNN went through to show that the unemployed cannot afford health care insurance!!!!! I kid you not. CNN maede the leap from "statistics" on the cost of health care insurance bein out of the reach of the unemployed to the above quoted statement.
"Wait a minute, skip", you say ("you" being constantly slow on the uptake). That statement you quote may be an Obama suck up (Obama says the same thing all of the time), but it is not a LIE. It is a matter of opinion.
Nope, bison breath. It is a LIE--a "1984" style Big Lie.
This is my statement, and it is closer to being true (cannnot be said to be a lie): We cannot have a "full recovery" if we have 'health care reform', because WE CAN'T AFFORD IT." That is apart from the fact that the Federal Government taking over health care will ultimately make the health care you receive WORSE. Now these are statements of opinion--albeit opinions based in history and logic--not to mention opinions that have the virtue of being correct. But the CNN statemnet is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a lie.
How do I know it is a lie? Easy. We had the Great Depressiion--worse than anything yet happening now (Obama may yet change that). We recovered from the Great Depression without universal (goovernment) health insurance, without Medicare, and without Medicaid. Sure, it took World War II, and Roosevelt Big Government did NOT bring us out of the Great Depression. Still, we DID recover WITHOUT people having health insurance. Really, they could NOT afford it. We recovered from the 1981-1982 recession without universal health coverage, or "health care reform". In fact, the prosperity of the 1990's was still ahead, and that prosperity was really created by the lingering effect of the policies of Ronald Reagan (kept in effect by a Republican House at a time the Republicans had not yet lost their soul).
You should see why the CNN statement is a LIE, while my statement is not. You might puase here and think about it. We have had MANY economic recoveries in this country where the unemployed could not afford health care INSURANCE. Everyone in this country--at least now--RECEIVES HEALTH CARE. We are only talking about health care INSURANCE. It is absurd to suggest that we cannot have an economic recovery wtihout people having health insurance. The history of our economy PROVES this to be a LILE.
My statement, on the other hand, is NOT a LIE. That is because we have NOT TRIED A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, AND HEALTH CARE, IN THE PAST. That would be a new thing, and our experience with Medicare, Medicaid, and central planning in general indicates that our economy will NOT SURVIVE this kind of Federal domination of our economy. Yes, this goes well beyond health care insurance, but a Federal takeover of health care insurance will, in itself, DOOM our economy. Yep. That IS a matter of 'informed, correct) opinion. It cannot be a lie, because we have no history. The CNN statement can be, and IS, a lie because it contradicts numberous, observable FACTS in the past history of our economy.
What was CNN doing? What was Obama doing? You know what they were doing as well as I. They were using overstatement--this time so egregious as to constitute a Big Lie--for lpurposes of a POLITICAL AGENDA. It is really a matter of definition, as CNN twists the meaning of words out of all recognition.
What CNN was really saiying is that we will not have a "full recovery" until everyone has health insurance, and that everyone will not have health insurance (especially with this recession) unless we have FEDERAL "health care reform". Now this is a LIE too, under the meaning of "full economic recovery" that has existed from the beginning of time (or thereabouts). But if you DEFNIE "full economic recovery" as requiring that everyone have health insurance, then CNN's statement is correct (if totally trivial). That is because CNN is ASSUMING that the Federal Government must achieve insurance coverage for every person before we can be said to have a "full economic recovery" If you cannot see the circular "reasoning" there, you are beyond my help. By the way, the CBO determined that the DEMOCRATIC "health reform plan' in Congreess would still leave us with 35 million unemployed in 10 years.
Do we HAVE to have health insurance? Nope. Two states have ABANDONED "health insurance reform" because they were going BANKRUPT. California did not even adopt it, because they know it would BaNKRUPT California. This was before it was obvious California is going bankrupt anyway. WHERE does the money come from for FEDERAL "health insurance/care reform"? It comes from the people of CALIFORNIA (and the people of the other states). Nope. It is NOT true that the Federal Government can do things more efficiently. IN fact, the Federal Government always does things LESS EFFICIENTLY. The true motivations for the increase of Big Government are "free money" (the Federal money FALSELY viewed as "free", when it has to come from the people just like California's budget has to come from the people), and the leftist rab for POWER. Leftists want central planning because they want more POWER, and because they cant' stand not imposing their views on everyone.
Say, fr the sake of argument, that 10% of our country remins unemployed, and without health insurance (because ultimately the inemployed can't afford it). SO WHAT. Those people can go on MEDICAID, or just get health care at the emergency room. Yes, I know. We do NOT have "full recovery" if unemployment stays at 10%, but that is NOT because of health care. It is because unemployment is staying too high. Health care has nothing to dowith it. But we can DERAIL any recovery if the Fedeal Government spends too much money, and tries to totally run our economy through central planning (never worked, and theoretically CAN'T work).
Even if FEDERAL "health care reform" were a good idea (it is not), we can't afford it now. The states who toyed with the idea realize that. The Federal Government would realize that too, except the Federal Government can PRINT MONEY (spend beyond its means). Problem: That may lies eventual DISASTER.
Correct policy: Any "health care/insurance reform should be done by the STATES, who are REQUIRED to "pay as you go." Our present health care system is NOT in "crisis", and what we really have is a "health insurance" "problem" (not crisis). States routinely regulate insurance (do so with auto insurance which people in El Paso don't have either). At the present time, we should do essentially NOTHING (at Federal or state level). Once we have recovered from the recession (if Obama and the Democrats let us--big "IF" right now), then we can try to tweak insurance plans on a STATE level, with whatever MINOR Federal co-ordinating help that may be needed. Note to CNN: As recovery occurs, peole will become insured at the same rate as they were before the recession, although benefits will probably diminish as employers try to control their own costs. Read this last sentence carefully. What happens with FEDERAL dominiation of health care? Big Brother eventually has to control costs too, or try to control them (without success), because someone has to PAY for health care. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The FEDERAL medthod of "controlling costs" is to TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM with central planning coercion. So you will lose the right to choose doctors, and doctors will lose the right to operate the way they want. We will RATION health care.
The present system is not nearly as bad as the Federal alternative. Further, it is dESPERATE that we not have a Federal Government out of control (in size, power, and spending). The biggest danger to a "full recovery" is not "health care", but a Federal Government out of control. Even if you think we should eventually have universal, Federally guaranteed health care, you should not want it NOW. The only people who want it now are those so desperate to increase the Federal Government, and leftist power, that they don't want to let the "opportunity" slip.
If you think I proofread the above adequately, with my eyesight, you are nuts. You have to put up with typos. But think how much WISDOM you get in exchange. I might figure out how to adequately proofread these entries if I were getting paid, and/or I had a LARGE readership. As it is, it is not a cost effective use of my time. You have to decide whether your time is wasted by having to read entries with typos. I do try to "proffread" as I type, but sometimes my concentration wanders. I do feel sorry for you if my hand slips out of position, and my fingers end up on the wrong letters. I recognize that typos sometimes make sentences unreadable. Just can't justify trying to eliminate them under present circumstances.
President Obama: Does He Really Believe in the "Universal Right" of Free Speehc, Except as a SOUND GOOD Sound Bite?
If there is a "universal right" to free speech, as President Obama said there is (without meaning a word of it), do we--as the lone remaining superpower--not have an OBLIGATION to promote free speech around the world: an OBLIGATION to denounce countries and leaders who violate free speech? Of course we do, unless "we" are Obama--who said something different before his statement yesterday on Iran, and will say something different tomorrow, or the next day. have we condemend Saudi Arabia (Obama was THERE) for its violations of free speech? Hugo Chavez? Again, Obama was THERE, and listened to criticisms of this country without hardly a mumur--accepting an anti-American book from Chavez without talking about Chavez' violations of free speech. Syria? Egypt? In fact, you can go through AFRICA and find hardly a country that truly allows free speech. Oh, I guess there must be a few who allow relatively "free" speech, but only a few. Russia? Not as bad as it once was, but hardly a mecca of free speech. China? Don't be silly! This
This "universal right" of free speech seems to be routinely ignored everywhere but in the Western democracies, and those allied with us (Israe, the former occupied countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, etc.).
What has Obama done, before this totally over-the-top statement on Iran (over-the-top in terms of the difference between what he said and what he really means)? Easy answer. Obama has done NOTHING to promote free speech in those areas of the world where it is a "universal right" that is routinely violated.
Our President, Oama, is a piece of work. I mean that in the WORST possible way.
This "universal right" of free speech seems to be routinely ignored everywhere but in the Western democracies, and those allied with us (Israe, the former occupied countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union, etc.).
What has Obama done, before this totally over-the-top statement on Iran (over-the-top in terms of the difference between what he said and what he really means)? Easy answer. Obama has done NOTHING to promote free speech in those areas of the world where it is a "universal right" that is routinely violated.
Our President, Oama, is a piece of work. I mean that in the WORST possible way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)