Why would I bother?

On HuffPo today, the day after Thanksgiving I find the following:

1) The lead story is about Dubai's request for a standstill, and fretting another financial "panic". Panic implies a degree of irrationality. I would say that a lack of fear on Wall Street would be the only irationallity. With deficits blossoming, healthcare (snicker) "reform" coming our way, the insolvency of the dollar, why should Wall St. be scared?

2) Arrianna Huffington's opinion piece is entitled "Sharing the Privilege of Abundance". One would assume she is refering to herself: a wealthy heiress. One would be wrong. She is, of course, talking about "sharing" other peoples' money:

The food, fuel, and financial crises have pushed the numbers of those enduring chronic hunger past one billion people for the first time in history. So as we enter the season of colossal Wall Street bonuses and a frenzy of holiday spending, it's time for us to share the privilege of plenty.

By "us" she means Wall St. bonuses (which pale to her inheritences) and yours and my holiday spending. Naturally.

With $3.2 billion a year -- or $1.5 billion less than Americans spend on Halloween annually, and a fraction of America's $300 billion a year in private giving -- we can feed the 66 million children worldwide who go to school hungry. This alone won't end hunger, but it would be a huge step forward.

There are many comparisons should could made. Comparisons that don't involve Americans, or at least not exclusively Americans. But consider; she accidentally gives credit to Americans by stating that 3.2b could be had as a fraction of our private givings of 300b. So what are our private givings going to if not to feed 1/6 the population of the world? Other things, to be sure: medical research, war relief, famine relief ... which I imagine is a part of the global hunger problem.
Two things pop out at me about this: 1) Arianna doesn't question the 1b number at all. 2) She calls American's charitable contributions "private givings". What is the alternative to private givings? Public "givings"? IE, taxes? That's hardly "giving". That's something that is taken by threat of private property confiscation and personal incarseration. Or perhaps we should call it "private" incarceration.
Arriana is not confused though, she chose her words well so as to frame her argument for higher taxes toward the effort of global hunger relief as something altruistic ... e.g. "public giving".

3) And from Marian Wright Edelman:

What kind of nation, blessed to be the wealthiest in the world, lets one in five children be poor? I offer a Thanksgiving prayer for us to commit to end poverty in our time -- beginning with children.

Only an evil greedy selfish nation, of course. We should create a massive program to end poverty and we'll call it something like "The Great Society" and it will be a complete success, just like LBJ's. Does history not matter to these people? If doing X to solve problem Y doesn't work and you KNOW X does nothing, why would you insist on continuing to do X? For one thing, you hurt Y because you redirect resources into X that are supposed to address Y but you know already are wasted. I can only conclude that the author is either an idiot or actually wants Y to continue on forever, while keeping X in place to achieve some other, unknown goal.

4) On Sarah Palin, Keli Goff writes:

Because you just never know what Palin and her clan are going to say or do, those of us constantly looking for stuff to write about owe Palin a humble thank you.

I can't disagree with her, but shouldn't she be more worried about the 1,000,000,000 starving people in the world rather than the strawman and ego massager of the Left, that is Sarah Palin?

5) Another:

Rewriting History To Blame Tim Geithner: An Incomplete Story Of The AIG Bailout

IE, it's not all Obama's fault. No shit dude. This is still more Bush's mess than Obama's. But let me point out that this is a wonderful mess for Obama, one that he relishes. There is no better time than a financial crisis to further increment the implementation of socialism and Pelosi, Obama, et al. have taken full advantage of this fine window of opportunity.

6) Some BS about Lieberman. Who cares.

7) An opninion piece that looks like it might not either try to make you feel bad for being American or try to reach into your wallet. I don't care to find out.

8) Film reviews. Doesn't this guy know he supposed to tell us what our ticket money could better go to? Bad liberal! Bad!

9) RJ Eskow exclaims "Phantom America, Thanks for nothing!".

10) and more blah blah blah. There's a lesson here - one that I've tried to impress upon my liberal friends and one which I would do well to remember myself. I ought not dissect the easily dissectable. Picking on Arianna and her intellectual ilk is too damn easy. They are the strawmen of the Right, as Palin and Bush are for the Left. I need to seek out intelligent and challenging arguments from the Left. I suppose. It's not like it will change anything. We'll still have Palin and we'll still have Huffington.

Hopefully it's ok for me to post this verbatim. Just want to note too that I am aware that the Gitmo terrorist detainees are not receiving the H1N1 vaccine, contrary to earlier reporting.

Anyhow, this is from http://www.semissourian.com/story/1586060.html

Mr. Obama: I'm calling you out

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
By William Piercey Sr.

The new era of government control over our lives and freedoms has begun. This week, it got personal, and I felt helpless.

The doctor overseeing my health care advised me to get an H1N1 flu shot. I've been under a six-year treatment program for a chronic infection, plus I have heart and lung problems. Therefore, I am considered a high risk. Fortunately, my doctor had three shots available, but I would have to get approval from my county health department. Much to my surprise, the woman at the health department apologized and told me that even though I was a senior citizen at high risk, the health department had been instructed to approve shots only for children and pregnant mothers. I asked when a shot for my situation might be available. "We really don't know. Check back with us sometime in December."

What? The terrorist detainees in Gitmo are getting shots this month. Why not a high-risk senior citizen?

Mr. Obama, this is what we call health care rationing, which you claim won't happen under a government-run health care program.

If George W. Bush was considered the Barney Fife of executive power, then welcome to the Chicago-style politics of the new Vito Corleone family. The president himself, like a strong-armed enforcer, said in a nationally televised speech, "If you misrepresent anything in this plan, I will call you out." This administration has turned the once dignified and esteemed Oval Office into a war room for its liberal propaganda.

On his first day in office, the president signed the Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel executive order. During the campaign he vowed to keep lobbyists out of the administration. But in Section 3 of this order is a waiver clause. The director of the Office of Management and Budget "may grant" a written waiver of any restrictions. Former lobbyists were given waivers and now hold key positions in government. Mr. Obama, you lied.

At the same time lobbyists were coming in the front door, dozens of new unvetted, hand-picked ideologues were being shuttled in the back door. Many of these people were placed in key policymaking positions. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was worried about 18 of these unvetted czars, 10 of whom worked in the White House. An amendment to force these appointees to testify in oversight hearings was shot down by the Democratic leadership. Collins was especially concerned about Carol Browner, who negotiated fuel-economy standards with the auto industry. She even sent a letter to Obama, and one of his counsels replied that no one would be made available. This administration fears no one, especially a senator who dares to enforce something as minor as checks and balances. Obama promised transparency. He lied.

On the topic of transparency, the $787 billion stimulus bill was a progressive Trojan horse. It's loaded with political favors and programs that set up the infrastructure for education, health care and climate change. It was passed and signed in a matter of weeks. This was not a bill to put Americans back to work. Obama said it would produce 3.5 million jobs in two years. Over the past year the administration has changed its story daily but finally settled on the "create or save" propaganda. Obama also said the bill would keep unemployment under 8 percent. The rate has climbed to over 10 percent. Either his economic advisers are incompetent and need to be fired, or, once again, Mr. President, you lied.

Mr. President, you said you didn't want to run our car companies and banks, but you do. With the $350 billion in TARP funds left by President Bush, Obama's people continued the surge of bailouts. Americans might be shocked to know the recipients of bailout money now total 727 institutions. This government control in the private sector is unprecedented.

Government-run health care, card check, cap-and-trade, net neutrality, control of radio stations and possible newspaper bailouts are just part of this administration's agenda.

It's time for Americans to get in this government's face and call it out. This coup d'etat can be defeated. We have the numbers, the votes and the will power to turn back this assault on our individual freedoms.

With 15 million unemployed Americans, I'm sure we can find a few willing patriots to fill all those upcoming vacant seats in Washington, especially with an annual salary of $170,000, office, staff, insurance, expense account and, best of all, a three-day workweek. The only requirements for this job are honesty, integrity and a love of country.

William Piercey Sr. is a Cape Girardeau resident.

I'm not the only one ...

... who thinks Obama is willfully destroying the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6241196/Andy-Williams-accuses-Barack-Obama-of-following-Marxist-theory.html

Andy Williams - Republican but close friend to the Kennedy's - has stated as much as well.

This hypothesis of mine is shared by many and an increasing number of people. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This isn't Glenn Beck. It's just common sense. Obama has surrounded himself all his life with Marxists, Communists, and others cut of far-left cloth. His actions betray his words.

So I'll say it again: he is purposely destroying the country. Not to see it become a smoking pile of rubble, but so as to remake it into a Socialist nation. I don't see what's so crazy about this assertion. Isn't it pretty obvious?

Muslim-to-Christian convert update

It looks like I was wrong on this one. She's full of Shiite. Haha. Clever. Sunni enough she'll get what's coming. OK, OK, I'm sorry - I'll stop.

If you've never read Eyes for Lies, do yourself a favor and get acquainted with the site. It's well worth your time. Then read what she has to say on the girl who I thought would be the next Elion.

http://eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-thoughts-rifqa-bary.html

Reagan on socialized medicine

I guess Reagan gave this little speech in the 60's. Funny how relevant it is today:

REAGAN: Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this trip is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand said, if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, they can we can expand the program after that. Well, let's see what the socialists themselves had to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Well, we can't say we haven't been warned.

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen, even if we believe that he's on our side to begin with, write to strengthen his hand. Write those letters now. Call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country... until one day as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.

Of course, this only matters to you if you don't want socialism to begin with.

New job start date: 6/16

Can you tell?

I wanted to rant a little about my favorite religion, Islam. Read this lovely little bit of evasiveness and tell me if you can read the "we're going to kill her if she doesn't recant" that's barely concealed:

"It is not Islam for the father to bring harm upon his blood daughter or any other human being because of anger," he said. "Our position is to exhaust all measures that would bring peace and harmony back to the family," Hamidullah said. "Being angry and threatening the life of someone is not one of those methods."

That was Imam Imgonnakillyah's response when pressed as to whether or not the father of a seventeen year old muslim-to-Christianity convert would harm the girl. Well, fuck it - I'm convinced! I mean, it's not like there's anything in Islam that states one must die if one converts away from Islam, is there? Noooo... that's crazy talk. It says right here that it's actually possible to not die when converting to Christianity from Islam! So I should just stop H8ing. Isn't that clever? The H8 thing? Yeah, I know you think it means "Hate" but it actually means "If you don't agree with every little thing I say then you're filled hate." So - you were close; the word "hate" does appear in there!

Spoiler Alert!!

This is going to be another Elian Gonzalez case. She'll be thrown under the Greyhound she took to Orlando by the U.S. Attorney General.

It's almost like markets work ...

How can that be though? The news has been telling us all our lives that free markets result in horrible consequences due to greed.

Someone forgot to tell NYC that markets don't work. They don't correct themselves. Only huge govt. intervention can save you!! Repent, repent!! Oh, sorry. Got a little carried away in messianic revere.

http://newledger.com/2009/06/is-the-housing-bust-about-to-take-manhattan/

So who's being greedy now? The renters, I suppose, asking for lowered rents. Weird. It's like, no matter what we do greed just keeps lingering. Why can't we all just agree not to be greedy? Are we asking too much, America? Is it really so much to ask to cast aside your own self-interests and do what's right for everyone?

A sad, sad point of view

This article, written by Joseph Stiglitz really bums me out if true. Not his "points" about capitalism, but that are so many in the world who delude themselves into believing his essential premise: that so called American "style" capitalism has become a proven failure to much of the third world.

The fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, marked the end of Communism as a viable idea. Yes, the problems with Communism had been manifest for decades. But after 1989 it was hard for anyone to say a word in its defense. For a while, it seemed that the defeat of Communism meant the sure victory of capitalism, particularly in its American form. Francis Fukuyama went as far as to proclaim “the end of history,” defining democratic market capitalism as the final stage of social development, and declaring that all humanity was now heading in this direction. In truth, historians will mark the 20 years since 1989 as the short period of American triumphalism. With the collapse of great banks and financial houses, and the ensuing economic turmoil and chaotic attempts at rescue, that period is over. So, too, is the debate over “market fundamentalism,” the notion that unfettered markets, all by themselves, can ensure economic prosperity and growth. Today only the deluded would argue that markets are self-correcting or that we can rely on the self-interested behavior of market participants to guarantee that everything works honestly and properly.

Wow. How can a seemingly intelligent person make so many mistakes? An aside: we need to, as a civilization, learn how the "other side" thinks. Because this guy's thinking, in my estimation, is fundamentally flawed.

First, Communism is anything but dead. Second, there will never be an "end of history" as described by Hegel, Marx, et al. Societies will always experiment with differing forms of government, trade, monetary policy, etc. Third, our markets were anything but "unfettered". Freddie and Fannie were specifically instructed to buy up billions in subprime loans. Also, I would dispute the notion that American-style capitalism is about "unfettered" markets. That can mean different things to different people. A zero-regulated economy is not capitalism, it is anarchy.

Stiglitz throws out the baby with the bathwater in this article. Or rather, he suggests everyone but the deluded have done so. Count me among the deluded then. American capitalism continues to evolve. We're going through a financial crisis now that we can learn and grow from. But we can't do it by lying to each other and ourselves about the who, what, and how of this mess.

My response to Theresa's "Forced Tarp" comment

I agree with you - the govt. created the same crisis they are now pretending to be the saviors of. The Community Redevelopment Act (I know that's not what it's called) passed in the 90's lowered (some would say forcibly) the standards of lending. Of course, it seemed like a good idea for a long time. It was almost a decade in the making. And to be sure, that while Clinton may have passed the original legislation to make the lending rules looser, NO ONE ever expected the govt. to bail out Bear Sterns. There was never a reason to. "Too big to fail" is obscene and absurd. Whatever happened to Monopoly busting?

Now, from what I understand of the situation, this was far less a bank bail-out than a Wall Street bail out. The securities market doesn't reside in the banks - they're traded on the floor of the stock exchange. And the securities are what brought the house of cards down. Despite being hedged with many prime mortgages, the actual value of homes - whether the loan was prime or not - were simply not in line with their price.

That being said, I have to wonder if this whole thing is even a tenth as complex as they make it out be. Had they let the free market do what it would, things would have corrected themselves by 2010. So says leading economist John Sullivan ;-) Really though, this isn't rocket science: housing prices should roughly follow inflation. It's very easy to graph out inflation and home values side by side and I've seen websites do it. So all you have to extrapolate the two lines starting from 1981 (our last recession). What we would have seen is that housing prices would have dipped BELOW the inflation line. These would have been all of the foreclosed homes and their resulting impact on other home prices. After the foreclosure dust settled, we would have seen a normalization in home prices.

I mean, really - we have THOUSANDS of first time home buyers flooding the market, driving up prices. People take advantage and speculate. AND they make money hand-over-fist. This is the "greed" that everyone complained about. It wasn't greed, people, it was smart. You don't pass up opportunities like that because you think it will create a systemic failure. The idea would have been laughed at in 2005 and should still have been laughed at in 2008.

See, I'm not the only one who's crazy

Kevin Hassett from Bloomberg also believes Obama is out to create a quasi-socialist state.

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- I’ve finally figured out the Obama economic strategy. President Barack Obama and his team have been having so much fun wielding dictatorial power while rescuing “failed” firms, that they have developed a scheme to gain the same power over every business. The plan is to enact policies that are so anticompetitive that every firm needs a bailout.

I'm glad I'm not the only crazy out there.

Two articles for you to ignore

First up - Obama's numbers are made up. Literally. Well, let me be more specific: his "150,000 jobs saved" is an abstraction from macro economic data. In other words, it's made up. The Wall Street Journal says so anyway. Of course, aren't they cause of this whole mess - Wall Street? With their greed? Too bad we don't have a system in place that could place checks on greed. NO!! I have an even better idea!! Let's use greed to fight greed! Haha!! We'll call it "free market capitalism" and people will pursue their own self interests and that'll keep everyone's greed in check.

The second is about Canadian public health "insurance". It tells us things we've heard so many times before: rationing, waiting, giving up and paying for it yourself. This article from the disreputable Wall Street Journal is surely just the beginning of the deluge of hysterical hit-pieces on single-payer systems.

Should you choose to subject yourself to the first right-wing, corporate-sponsored rag-of-an-op-ed piece about healthcare, here are some of the more absurd paragraphs:

Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

First of all, the author is Canadian, which I think disqualifies him to speak intelligently on the subject.

My views changed in medical school.

As in you were walking down a hallway delivering pizza in a medical school dorm?

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Well, la-tee-da.

Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

Um ... yeah, so do we. We have to sit in waiting rooms for hours ... more scare tactics from the radical right, people.

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

Oh sure - a "relative". CanadaCode for "pet moose". Hey, he's a rich dude - was able to go to the fancy-schmancy Mayo Clinic in NY. How does this guy count? So he would have been a little inconvenienced having to wait his turn in the Canadian system. So what? At least he has coverage. Besides, he's just a dumb moose.

Such stories are common.

Yeah - stories. Let's look at cold hard facts, dude. Your drool-in-a-cup Wall Street Journal readers might be entertained by these isolated examples, but this is the real world, where anecdotal evidence is easily refuted with yet more anecdotal evidence.

Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

So Canada is dumping their brain-damaged on us. Nice. Thanks, Canada.

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

And how does the U.S. fair in this regard? He doesn't say.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting.

So we're going to allow 45 million Americans (as defined as people currently living inside our borders - by Americans we mean Norte Americano) go without health insurance just because we're impatient? Look, Canadians w/ Cancer - what else is there to do but wait? Are you going somewhere? Just sit tight and wait the cancer out. Carcinomas are like dinosaurs - if you stay really still they can't see you and walk away.

Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction.

Canada can't make up its mind - what does this have to do with us? This is America and we do things our own way, like the folks from Texas.

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Duh - because we're AMERICA, you DB. Just because socialized whatever hasn't worked in backwards countries like Canada and England, doesn't mean we can't make it work here in the U.S.

Forced TARP

Many of the banks that received TARP money have been wanting to get out from underneath the governments restrictions on compensation and dividends by repaying the government the bail out money. Hurray! We're getting our bail out money back :-) Oh no... wait, this doesn't fit into Dear Leader's long term goals. The administration isn't allowing this "yet", for their own good, of course. It's so nice how our government is always looking out for the little guy.

Here's a story from the Wall Street Journal that very politely summarizes the benevolent restrictions placed on the TARPed banks ... for their own safety and long term profitability, of course.

An anology

So the press isn't biased? Let me ask you: if a weather-person told you that the cat 3 hurricane barreling toward you wasn't going to be so bad after all because the wind-speed is increasing at a slower rate than it had been an hour ago, would you go to the beach? If you were bleeding to death but the doctor told you not to worry, the rate at which your blood loss is increasing has decreased since the last pint, would his assertion give you cause to relax?

And as ridiculous as these examples are, it is exactly what the press tells us to believe about the economy. And I say "tell us" because when the press says something, they are supposedly reporting the facts.

Laughable (if you can afford to laugh, that is)

Great economic news, folks!!! The economy is coming back! Woo hoo!! Layoffs have slowed - isn't that just peachy? Why, only 350,000 Americans were laid off this month! Phew - Obama (pboh) brought us back from the brink, people. That was a close one!! Damn, I almost thought we were going to have a depression there for a minute.

Now, I know some of you might think I'm being disingenuous, but I offer as proof of my sincerity the fact that the author of the AP article wrote the following:

The much smaller-than-expected reduction in payroll jobs, reported by the Labor Department on Friday, adds to evidence that the recession is loosening its hold on the country. It marked the fourth straight month that the pace of layoffs slowed.

"This tide is turning," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus. "We expect this trend of slower job loss to continue throughout the year."

Oh RAPTURE, layoffs will continue to slow for the rest of the year!! See, I told you I was being serious: an economist says the tide is turning. Who am I to argue proof of this magnitude. See, it's not just Obama (pboh) who is assuring us that things are getting better; naturally he would since he has a vested interest in doing so; but both an impartial journalist and a learned scholar have stated so as well :-) You can't argue with evidence of this magnitude?

And you know, I just want to give a special "shout out" (ala Sarah Palin) to Bush for making all this possible. Would Kerry or Gore have been brave enough to get the train rolling with TARP, Bear Sterns, CitiCorp, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, etc, etc? I doubt it!!! They would have assumed the people of this country were too smart for that sort of rapid socialization of the American financial system. HA!! Looks like you two were out-thunked by the master thinker G.W. Bush.

Do I really think Obama is that bad?

I often posit ideas and theories only as a rhetorical and logical exercise. So to clarify to myself and my vast four-person audience, I don't really think Obama is trying to destroy the country, but I wouldn't be 100% surprised to find out that he is. If I were to give odds on "Obama the elected fifth column" VS "Obama the ultra-lefty looking to make the US more like the EU", I would give odds of about 1 in 20 that he is the former.

The point is that I am not certifiably insane. But the other point is this: we really do need to keep a close watch on the guy, just as we do all elected officials. And not because he might be that wolf in sheep's clothing, but because the guy clearly doesn't understand the real world. He's like a college professor turned president. The notion of a philosopher king only works within philosophy itself - not the real world.

Accident my a**

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090603/D98J6BAG0.html

Sure it was. Like I said, Manchurian candidate. I'd love to see him impeached and brought up on treason for this. But we don't charge anyone with treason anymore. LOL, if we did, we'd have to indite ourselves for having elected this guy in the first place.

Obama does something right

I was walking one day with a guy I work with. He has a bachelor's degree in economics and is one of our brightest techs. We were talking about network security issues and I brought up the fact that many believe it was China who caused the blackouts in the Northeast and in S. FLA ... whenever they happened. I think the Northeast one occurred first, then I think it was summer of '07 that Florida lost power.

He laughed it off as a conspiracy theory and gave me a weird look. 'Why would they do that; they're our number one trading partner', he asked. I laughed and agreed because I don't like to be controversial at work. And besides, I am sure this is going to become common knowledge as time goes on.

So today Obama appoints a cyber-security czar. Good thinking, dude. Bush should have done it himself, but then again, Bush is retarded. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't want to antagonize the Chinese by admitting to the problem by way of actually addressing said problem.

Anyhow, if you're interested in why you lost power, Jimmy (FL) or Theresa (NY), then read the article and reminisce.

Why Obama is making this so much worse

Tina took me to task on my last Obama rant. She wanted some concrete examples of how Obama was ruining the country. I couldn't answer. There were literally so many things in my head that I couldn't spit out just one. But I just stumbled on this article that at least illustrates the idiocy of his economic "policy". And as a nice addition, the article also goes into a UCLA study that demonstrates how FD Roosevelt's policies made the Depression last so much longer.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article10721.html

Such a totally gay debate

I subjected myself to an editorial written by Scott Maxwell. He goes on about what an outrage it is that gov. Crist opposes the abolition of traditional marriage and adoption.

Here was my commentary that I posted to Orlando Slantinel:

Same-sex couples have every right to be together and express themselves however they choose. If we are to boil down the arguments for same-sex marriage and same-sex parental adoption what we are left with is the notion that any group (of any number) of people who choose to mimic actual marriage and actual adoptive parenthood should be allowed to do so because they want to. There is no hypocrisy in being gay and opposing laws that degrade the value of the unique and necessary institution of marriage between a man and a woman. There is nothing duplicitous in being a loving and caring gay couple and still opposing the legislation that is tantamount to allowing any group of consenting adults to adopt and raise children simply because they want to and so that such ability validates them personally.
To all who support gay marriage and adoption I implore you to look more seriously at this issue. Try to open your mind and understand "the other side" of this debate. We have tolerated your intolerance for quite a while. It's time you step up to the plate, lose your emotionalism, and think about the long term and unintended consequences of what you're proposing.

Pretty good, huh? Yeah, well, whatever. I thought it was good. Sigh ... I don't know, guys. The left just doesn't understand the right and I find that sad. If they did, they wouldn't have such completely off-base assumptions about why we think the way we think. Oh well. It's all cyclical. People will figure this stuff out eventually and even when they do they will surely forget other lessons of the past. Such is life, I suppose.

With luck, the frog is starting to realize he's being boiled alive

You have probably heard of the old "boiling the frog" analogy as it relates to politics. For those who have not, please look it up.

Do any of you suppose Bush's and Obama's Obortion of an administrative run will result in a stronger understanding of Libertarian principles? Will their quick & painful destruction of this country bring people around to realize the inherent risks and inevitable tyranny that results in a federal government that is not bound by anything? And I include Bush in this for a good reason. In fact, I should include Clinton while I'm at it. It started with the abuse of executive order power. I'm pretty sure executive order was never supposed to be used for the wholesale circumscription of all legislative due process. Yet with Clinton that is what it became. The left had no problem with this expansion of power until Bush came to power. Suddenly, the right thinks its cool - Bush expands it, as well as other executive and federal powers, and the left is howling over the very precedent their idiot president set. Now we find ourselves with a man who sees no problem too small to draw the attention of the federal government. Like his drool-in-a-cup predecessor, he's "bailing out" every which industry. These bail-outs are not bail-outs, btw. These are hostile take overs. Once Obama gives out TARP money (think monopoly money, only with less value) to company X, Obama OWNS company X. Almost literally. Look at Chrysler. He handed the company over to one of his biggest campaign donors, the UAW. The freaking UAW!! The UAW is who RUINED GM and Chrysler to begin with!!! Not entirely, for sure, but largely. Well, now they own it.

Anyhow ... we're doomed. Sorry guys, but its true. The dollar is about to go into a free fall. China now plays its war games against the US. China has also hacked our fragile power grid and brought it down at least once, probably twice (NYC and S. FLA). China is moving off of the dollar and moving ahead with their own currency, along with Brazil. The communists are leveraging our fear of Islamic terrorism by using the distraction to gradually neuter the US. And that's not so much an issue with me, so long as we were to remain a well-defended country, but I have seen no move on the part of most pols to move toward that stance. Nope - we're becoming more and more like the USSR of the 1980's: a third world country with a first world military trying to hang on to its empire.

So back on topic: Obama is indeed destroying the nation with the MASSIVE debt that even he says we can't sustain. Which is laughable. We've already reached a level that we can't sustain, this just brings it all to a head that much sooner. And maybe that's a good thing. Obama is moving in the wrong direction so fast and furious, that even the blind will be able to see the failure of liberalism. Or at least, that is my hope. But history already tells us that this hope is unfounded. FD Roosevelt ran this country into the ground. Consider: his predecessor was a country-club republican who was happy to over-extend the executive's powers as well as give in to many of the Left's social demands. He rapidly expanded government and the country continued to flounder for over a decade before finally coming out of it after WWII. We are still dealing with his awful legacy 70 years later in the form of social security and medicare.

What did we learn from Roosevelt? Government schools tell us that what he did was a great thing. My sister, going back to school to become a teacher, has her proffessors telling their classes that what Obama is doing is what FDR did. So they are telling the truth in that regard. But then they say that it worked. The hell it did. The economy never fully recovered. And the weird thing is these people, these "teachers" know this, yet they choose to believe their own lies.

So I've answered my own question: you can boil six frogs in front of a seventh and then ask the seventh if he'd like to jump in. "Hell no" the frog says. Assure the frog that the last six didn't die from the boiling water but from coronary artery disease that just happened to cause a heart attack right before they touched the water, and that seventh frog will jump in. Because that frog believes in hope and change. I don't. I believe history repeats itself. And that is no cause for hope.

Will's "Tincture of Lawlessness" column piece

George Will has such a nice way of putting things: I really wish more columnists were as eloquent as he. If you've ever been over to townhall.com/columnists, you'd see a long row of faces. Kind of like Mortal Kombat. But most of them or dull or "obvious" and others are just plain stupid or boilerplate.

Anyhow, Will brings up the Obama's administration willingness to run roughshod over contracts is probably, when you get right down to it, not particularly legal. I imagine a guy like Will recognizes the fact one of the primary reasons Obama can get away with these sorts of kingly-mandates is because his predecessor also ran roughshod over the constitution, thereby setting up this precedence. Furthermore, one has to assume Will understands that the administrations approach to the economy is what's driving the recession at this point. Who wants to spend money now? Business-wise that is? No one and you have ask why. Many of them have the money but are so afraid of what the economy is going to do, that they choose not to spend it on growth-related activities because they don't know when business will suddenly fall off. Or rather, when the bottom will finally hit. That uncertainty comes from the administration. It's origin is there, in my opinion, because no one knows what else they are going to do. What other banks are going fail? What will the administration do for them? And once they "do" something for the banks, suddenly the US Govt. owns the bank for all intents and purposes. They decide salary, bonuses, and in the case of the non-banking entity Chrysler - their FREAKING ADVERTISING budget!!!

It's late and I need to go to bed and so I'll get to the meat of the issue. The left wants more control. They want to own the means of production and they're using the recession and peoples' fears to their advantage. Don't think so? OK, go back a year ago: the oil industry. They wanted to federalize it because the market was so clearly "broken." We had high gas prices: so their solution is to ... federalize it? Isn't that a bit extreme? We don't hear about that now because the crisis is gone and so their cassis belli against capitalism is gone. But don't worry - when the price goes back up, we'll hear them clamor again to own the means of production. It's incremental Marxism.

Man, if someone would like to show me where I'm wrong on this, I'd love to hear it.

They could have done this ...

... a long time ago: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul_savings

The only reason they're doing it now is they know the mood of the country is very different than it was seventeen years ago. Healthcare and college education are two areas of the private sector with runaway costs that, in my opinion, are so expensive largely because because people are willing to spend a ton on both. But the problem there is that it draws the attention of the ultimately big spender: the US Govt. and populists in general who see a golden opportunity to score political points in making these things cheaper.

You know, govt. is the cause of both of those being so expensive. Healthcare is kind of obvious. Did you know that exterior to the US, drug companies short-sell drugs to the canadians and euros and make up the difference with high US prices? Through other countries socialization, it makes it harder for us to not socialize. Same thing with food prices and farm subsidies. Anyhow, back to my point: medicare, medicaid, free ER treatment for the poor and illegals <--- first two are govt. inventions and the last is a by-fiat govt. mandate. Not to mention why we even have health "insurance" to begin with: wage freezes during WWII.

College education is a little less obvious, but lowered public High School graduation standards makes those diplomas far less valuable, thereby forcing people to get at least a 2 year degree to prove the level of competence that was demonstrate a couple decades ago with a high school diploma that meant something. And of course that all trickles up the chain: a bachelors then is a masters now, etc, etc. I know the calculus of degree and diploma values then-and-now aren't really that overlapping and neat. But I think the overall arch is clear: lowered public school expectations have placed a premium on secondary education to prove you're not just a public school skate.

I could go on about public schools, juvenile labor laws, illegal immigration, and how they all tie together to foster juvenile delinquency. I'll post more about that some other time.

Hello World

No one wants to hear my boring-ass political rants. So I'm blogging to myself over here. Why bother if it's just to myself? Narcissism for one. Vanity for two. Self-absorption for three. OK, they're all part of the same thing. But aside from all that, I want a place to rant and if anyone cares about what I am saying, they can read it.

More importantly I can keep my "I don't believe in blogging" blog light and friendly without the occasional political punctuation.

So welcome to my blog, me.