Recession R.I.P.: Democrats WANT You To Suffer

 

Once again, you got it STRAIGHT from this blog.

 

In the face of $4.00 oil (which SHOULD have offset the "stimulus" checks), the economy GREW 1.9% (almost 2%) in the second quarter ending June 30.  That is remarkably GOOD, in terms of the hurdles the economy overcame.  Further, it is ACCELERATINIG growth in comparison with the previous two quarters.

 

What about those previous two quarters?  Revised numbers indicate a CONTRATION in the first quarter ended December 31, and GROWTH of .9% in the first quarter of this year (as stated, continuing to accelerate in the right direction in this quarter).  Not very good, right?

 

Right, and also NOT VERY BAD.  What this blog told you that we were in a slowdown where it did not even matter whether it was a recession or not.  Again, this blog has been proven right by events.  The DEFINITION (not complete definition) of a recession is two consecutive quarters of CONTRACTION.  We only had one quarter of about as little contraction as you can get (essentially FLAT).  Then we had another quarter barely better than flat.  What did I tell you?  I told you that it only makes a difference to the MEDIA and LEFTIST DEMORATS desperate to label it the Bush recession 

 

I have been proven absolutely right.  Does it MATTER whether the economy grew .1% in the six months previous to this quarter (this quarter was clearly GROWTH, and not merely flat), or contracted .1% in the six months prior to this quarter (the numbers say it GREW .8% over those six months).  Of course it makes no difference.  If you call it a "recession", it was not much of one  If you call it growth, it was not much.  Basically, we had a SLOWDOWN where the economy was basically FLAT.  Since events were bad enough (gasoline, bursting of the housing bubble, and credit) to produce a REAL recession, that is GOOD news.  We have had what Wall Street calls a "soft landing"--the BEST of all possible worlds economically.

 

That is because we will ALWAYS have recessions as excesses (housing this time, and the dot.com boom at the end of the Clinton years) that have to be CORRECTED.  If they are not corrected, then the eventual recession is a BAD one--perhaps approaching a depression. You cannot AVOID recessions.  If you try too hard to do so, you just set up the economy for a BAD fall.  That is why Wall Street wishes for a "soft landing", where the excesses or corrected without ruining the economy.  That is exactly what appears to have happened here.

 

Oh, we are not totally out of the woods.  Layoffs in certain areas are still happening.  But all appearances are that the economy will be BETTER in the second half of this year--especially if gasoline prices come down (as they should, because of the calendar alone--think of how good it would be if Democrats actually removed restrictions on DRILLING to help with the psychology!!!).

 

Are the media and Democrats hailing the GOOD news.  Don't be silly.  They are INVESTED in "doom and gloom", as they are INVESTED in trashing this country internationally, racially, and every other way.  Again, think how GOOD things might be if Democrats stopped TRASH:ING both the economy and this country  COFIDENCE is something that matters.  If Democrats and the media actually gave the economy, and this country, the credit it deserves, the public's CONFIDENCE should be RISING rapidly.  As it is, the Democrats and mainstream media (redundancy) are INVESTED in things being BAD.

 

That alone should be enough to vote against them (yes, a Democratic vote is a vote for today's media).  If only John McCain were not AMOST as bad.

 

You think I am exaggerating?  You FOOL you!!!  In the face of TODAY'S numbers, Nancy "Total Failure"  Pelosi came out and said we were in a recession!.  As I say, you can legitimately argue that those previous six months were FLAT..  But you CAN'T say that 1.9% GROWTH is a recession, unless you are "Total Failure" Pelosi.

 

Q.E.D.  You see it on gasoline.  You see it in Pelosi's deliberately doom and gloom comments on the economy.  Democrats WANT the economy to fail.  Democrats WANT you to suffer!

Exxon Mobil

Exxon Mobil announced "record" (depends on how you look at it; Exxon is far from the most profitable American company by any real economic measure) profits today, and leftist Democrats immediately jumped on that as a way to deflect voters from the INSANE refusal of Democrats to ALLOW (not subsidize) development of our own domestic oil, and other,  resources (offshore drilling, ANWR, oil shale, nuclear power, coal, etc).  Attacking Exxon will not reduce gasoline prices ONE PENNY (as Democrats know), but this is an opportunity for Democrats to DEMAGOGUE--what they do best (certainly THINKING is not their forte').

Let us state a truism:  One coumpany earning profits of 10 billion dollars is NO different from 100 companies earning 100 million dollars each, if the profit margins are the same.  Google, for example, is MUCH more "profitable" than Exxon, but not as BIG.  But it is fallacious to say profits are "obscene" when one company has a cerain profit margin on a LARGE equity base, while not obscene if 100 companies make the SAME total profits on the same profit margin, but with each having 1/100 of the equity base. 

Notice, however, taht this blog is almost always right.  What have I told conservatives for YEARS?  I have told conservatives that BIG MERGERS are a DISASTER politically for conservatives and the free market.  That is NOT because the profits of the "merged" companies suddenly become obscene when they are the profits of one company , instead of several.  It is because it gives LEFTISTS a chance to do exactly what they are doing:  DEMAGOGUE on the matter by attacking "Big Oil" or "Big Drug" or big corporations in general--giving them an easy argument that ONLY big government can counter these large corporations. 

Firtjer. tjere is NO reason to allow BIG MERGERS of healthy companies.  Exxon is a perfect example.  Exxon used to be SEVERAL seaparate companies, with adequate resources to compete on their own.  That included Gulf, Mobil, and several other very profitable, separate companies.  The present Exxon Mobil is the result of BIG mergers that never should have been allowed.  As stated, they are a godsend to Democrats.  Beyond that, however, there is NO reason to allow them under free market theory.  Free market theory assumes an infinite number of free market units, and that none of the units are big enough to affect the market by themselves, or in tacit ccombination with a few other big companies. 

I have told you recently, corretly, that T. Boone Pickes does not agree with free market theory  I have also told you that these big corporate empire builders, like those who formed the present Exxon BY MERGRE, do not believe in free market theory.  Too many conservatives do not truly believe in free market theory, becase they fail to recognize that BIG MERGERS violate free market theory by creating entities that are too BIG.  That is the real problem with Exxon.  It is NOT that Exxon makes such obscene profits.  Bill Gates' Microsoft was MUCH MORE profitable, and Bill Gates himself became RICHER than anyone connected with Exxon.  (I question, by the way, whether Bill Gates really believes in free market theory, but at least Microsoft did NOT primarily grow from MERGER.)   The problem is NOT "profits", but SIZE created by MERGERS that should never have been allowed.

It follows that the size of Exxon does not necessarily have anythng to do with the price of gasoline.  The price of gasoline might well be the same if Exxon were 10 separate companies, instead of one huge one.  But the size allows Democratic demagoguery, AND  it reduces the decision makeers and competitors (two key advantages of free markets over the CENTRAL PLAINNING in which T. Boone Pickens and leftist Democratts agree).  Ten companies instead of one means TEN decision makers (managements) instead of ONE.  It means TEN competitors instead of ONE.  Over the long term, that probably will have an effect on the price. Even if it does not, however, if you really believe in free market theory TEN separate decision makers representing competitive units are better than ONE.

Now are Democrats making this point.  Don't be silly  Democrats LIKE big corporations.  They have no interest in preventing corporations from merging.  They may DEMAGOGUE by mentioning it from time to time, but they are not serious  That it because they KNOW that the larger the corporation, the more leftist Democrats can DEMONIZE (demagogue about) the corporation.  That is what is happening now, and it is exactly what I have been telling you for more than 4 years (well before gasoline prices became a problem).   It happens in Big Drug, and everywhere else BIG MERGERS have created these huge corporations (for nogood free market reason, since the mergin corporations had more than enough assets to compete as independent companies).

I repeat (and you should know by now):  This blog is always right.  The whole distorted, miserable saga of Exxon Mobil has proved it again.  Think of how much better it would be for free market advocates if Exxon were still 5 separate companies!!!!  The profits would not be "record".  The villain would not be so convenient.  Nope.  Those mergers were a disaster for conservatives and free market advocates, and a godsend to leftist Democrats trying to DISTORT and DEMAGOGUE the significance of the profits.

By the way, do you want proof that leftist Democrats (not to mention John McCain) do not believe in free market captalism.  Consider their assertion that Exxon Mobil has an OBLIGATION to use its profits to benefit the public, the way DEMORATS (central planners all) are instructing.   Out of what "free market manual" does that socialist view come?  None, of course.  IT is a Democrat CONCEIT that profits of corporations, as well as wages of us all, belong to DEMOCRATS (the government, which Demcorats regard as the same thing), to be used as DEMORATS desire. 

The problem, of course, is that even these huge oil compniaes (who don't much, as stated, believe in free markets themselves) play into this by suggesting that they ARE acting in the "ublic interest", as if they AGREE that they have an obligation to do so. 

Free market theory suggests that the opporunity for PROFIT (the very engine that makes the thoery work) will entirce MULTIPLE decision makers to allocate resources where the opportunity for profit is greatest, simply to earn that profit.  This means that resources are automatically allocated where the public as a whole VOTES (with their pocketbook--more reliable than any political vote) that the resources should be allocated.  In this case, that SHOULD mean MORE DRILLING, except that Democrat CENTRAL PLANNERS have excluded the most promising ares from drilling.  Not that this free market allocation of resources does NOT rely on corporatiions acting in the PUBLIC interest.  In fact, the theory assumes that the private entities will act in their OWN interest, but with the RESULT being that the public interest in the best allocation of resources is advanced.  It DISTORTS the theory if businesses are trying to figure out what the PUBLIC interest is, rather than acing in their own, private interest, because that is again CENTRAL PLANNING rather than the free market at work.

And you wonder why I, as a conservative who believes in free market theory, get depressed.  You should at least not wonder where you will get accurate information.  Day in and day out this blog is proven right, even as to future predictions (such as the way leftist Democrats USE big, merged corporations for their own demagogic purposes).

Smoking and Pot, or Is It Smoking Pot?

 

There were two absolutely contradictory "news" stories yesterday.  One was about the House passing a bill that would give the FDA authority to act even further as a "super nanny" by regulating pot smoking so that there is not much marijuana in a joint.  No, wait.  I got that wrong. Congress has messed with my brain so much here that I am totally confused.

 

Notw let me see.  mmmm.  Wasn't Congress worried about evil drug lords using marijuana to "hook" people on the harder stuff?  No, that can't be right.  Congress doesn't worry much about evil Mexican or Columbian drug lords, except when it is looking for an excuse to oppose beneficial free trade agreements with Coilumbia.  I have it.  Congress is more interested in the EVIL tobacco companies (even though they have a legal product), and the Nazi like campaign against smoking.  ("Pro-choice.  Nuts. You don't need no stinking CHOICE.  What do you think this is, a free country?  Bars and restaurants can't exercise any stinking CHOICE of what to offer customers.  They are, after all, agentts/arms of the STATE.  Pro-choice is only for MURDER of unborn children.  We don't really mean it anywhere else.").

 

Yep.  I've got it straight now.  The House passed a stupid law giving the FDA "authority" to regulate TOBACCO (cigarettes, cigars, etc.).  Presumably, that means the FDA would  have the authority to regulate the AMOUNT of nicotine, as well as other ingredients.  Of course this is STUPID.  If the FDA is supposed to make cigarettes SAFE, that can't be done.  So the FDA is supposed to decide what is a "safe" formulation for an UNSAFE product?  Give me a break.  This is Federal regulation run amok.  (Nope, I do not smoke, and never have). 

 

Should the FDA regulate the amount of alcohol in alcoholic products?  How about the amount of caffeine in Cokes and other soft drings?  How about the amount of SUGAR in soft drinks and cereal?  How about the amount of FAT in foods?    Most of these are, of course, being PROPOSED by various wannabe nannies/Nazis out there.

 

It is not the government's job to "protect" us from ourselves.  The FDA should be regulating food and drug compounds (if that).  Food should be regulated as to CONTAMINANTS, and so that it does not produce disease or poisoning--NOT for the "healthiness" of the food itself, and the natural ingredients in the food.  Similarly. SOME (nanny wannabes) want to regulate HERBS, and "natural" medicine formulations.  Pox on them all is my attitude, even though I think most "natural" "cures" for disease are bunk.  The FDA should be dealing with actual DRUGS formulated for health.  Tobacco is NOT such a drug.  It is, like marijuana, a natural substance USED FOR RECREATIION.  Now I would have no problem with LABELING requirements as to ingredients/nicotine level.  But the idea that the FDA should have a mandate to regulate everything that goes into our mouths for overall "healthiness" is ARROGANTLY stupid.  Again, it should not be the job of the Federal Government to protect us from ourselves.

 

That brings me to the insane disconnect in yesterday's "news".  Barney Franks, and what the AP calls a "group of lawmakers"--meaning that the "Anti-American Despicable AP APPROVES of the action--proposed yesterday to decriminalize pot (marijuana).  Read the above again, and EXPLAN to me how it makes sense to , ON THE SAME DAY, propose MORE Federal control of tobacco and LESS Federal control of marijuana?  It does NOT make any sense, unless you realize that leftists consider tobacco companies more evil than drug lords, while the PUBLIC is perfectly willing to accept the idea of being protected from itself--the idea that the Federal Government is THERE to take care of every person in this country from the cradle to the grave.  That is why conservatives are now exiled to the wilderness.

 

Okay, you say, what about you?  Do you favor legalizing recreational drugs?   Well, I am certainly open to the idea of decriminalizing marijuana.  But you know what?  I am NOT interested in going down that road at the same time that people are pushing for MORE Federal regulation of tobacco and everything else.  I am only open to decriminalizing marijuana as PART of a general acceptance of the idea that people should not be protected from themselves.  NOT otherwise.  I consider marijuana AT LEAST as dangerous as cigarettes, with the added problem that using it tends to support the scum of the Earth (drug dealers). 

 

Even though I am open to the argument, I am not yet convinced we can AFFORD to legalize cocaine, heroin, and all of the rest.  This is NOT because I think people should not be allowed to kill themselves with such products.  I just think that society has a right to protect itself, and those drugs have shown themselves to be DESTRUCTIVE of society.  If you worry about children and cigarettes, you should REALLY worry about children and cocaine, etc.  So I don't really accept the idea of legalizing all recreational drugs, and I consider marijuana as a "nose under the tent" start in that direction--while remaining open to the idea that people should not go to prison for possessing small amounts--even though that contributes to the DISTRIBUTION and sale of large amounts (in aggregate, with money going primarily to scumbag drug dealers).

 

Should the FDA have the "right' to DENY people drugs that those people think might keep them ALIVE (surely more important than denying people RECREATIONAL drugs)?  Yes, I am talking abut SCAM "cancer cures" like Laetrile (big issue in the 60's).  "Natural" medicine promotes a number of such things today, but not as drugs.  WHY should the government have the power to DENY people something that people may WANT, with their eyes wide open as to the government not approving it? 

 

Yes, I have MORE qualms about the FDA "mission" in general than I do about the more powerful recreational drugs being banned.  Is society at risk if we allow people to die because they are being scammed, or die after having money scammed from them for "cures" that are not real (even though they were going to die anyway)?  Maybe.  But I am much MORE reluctant to come to that conclusion as to the FDA regulating every aspect of what we are "allowed" to eat, drink, smoke, and take for health than I am to the conclusion that powerful, recreational drugs are a danger to us all.

 

WHY do leftists, especially, seem to take the opposite view, and WHY id there more pressure to "legalize" recreational drugs than there is to take the FDA off our backs as far as access to drugs we may NEED to stay alive, or off our backs as to food and drink we may just happen to LIKE, but which is not good for us? 

 

The answer is obvious.  People are willing to FIGHT for the "right" to use recreational drugs that they think give them a LOT of pleasure, while not too many people are that passionate about, say, sugar in Coke, or tobacco when it has become unfashionable to the hip crowd.  Why else is liquor legal, other than there was a revolt against making it illegal by people who wanted the PLEASURE of drinking.  Alcohol is, objectively, MUCH more destructive than cigarettes.

 

In other words, leftists are willing to make up WORDS to justify indulging in their appetites, but leftists are not either CONSISTENT or intellectually honest.  Leftists favor choices that allow them to do what they want to do.  They do not favor choices, or democracy, when the choices are not those that leftists want for themselves.  Too many ,of course, who are not really "leftists" are buying into the same idea that the Federal Government needs to control every detail of our lives for our own good.

Yesterday was a very constructive day  In microcosm, it told you everything that is wrong with our present approach to policy.  Smokers are out, unless they are smokng pot. Then they are in (maybe).

 

P.S.  Even though I drink alcohol, and would prefer to keep that freedom, OJECTIVELY the Prohibitionists may have the best of the argument (as I have said before).  In fact, they were never out-argued.  They simply lost because too many people refused to give up the pleasure of drinking--hardly the noblest of "victories".  Prohibitionists lost merely because people whould not obey the law--not for "noble" reasons but for the most selfish of reasons.  Alcohol has killed MANY more people than cigarettes (or marijuana)--especially young.  Further, alcohol kills OTHERS besides the person getting drunk.  It amuses me when leftists argue that marijuana is not as bad as alcohol.  Very FEW things are as bad as alcohol, and if it were not already established, the case for making it illegal is VERY strong. 

Barack "World" Obama

If Barack "World" Obama had not already earned the nickname (with continued apologies to former NBA star "World" B. Free), he would have done so this week.

"This is the moment the world has been waiting for.  I have become a symbol of America returning to the traditions that made her great."

The aboove is an approximate quote of what Barack "World" Obama said in a meeting with Democrats in the House. 

Then came the usual "explanation" that the above quote was not as arrogant as it sound (even though it pretty much merely REPEATS the Berlin arrogant speech:  "People of the world.  This is our moment.  This is our time.").  Rather, Obama is supposed to have made clear that it is not about "him", but that he has merely become a symbol of the aspirations of the entire world looking for a Messiah--OOPS!!!  I meant looking for a symbol to express what they want.

Think about that a little bit. Is not the "explanation" MORE arrogant than the words themselves.  So Obama is a SYMBOL upon which the entire WORLD is placing their hopes.  Gee.  Americans are bad (as Obama keeps telling us; see previous entry). Best iindications are that HALF of us believe McCain is a better, and safer, vehicle for our hopes and aspirations. 

Is Obama sayimg the WORLD would be justified in rejecting the United States totally, or even RIOTING, if we rejected the SYMBOL that the whole world now believes in?  That is what the "explanation" suggests.  The more simple, straight forward interpretaion is that Obama has come to believe his own rhetoric--to believe that he really is the Messiah read to save the world, and lead us all to the Promised Land.

For a man with almost NO accomplishments, and little experience, Obama is full of himself.  Again, this blog told you FIRST that this is one DANGEROUS man, beyond being a creature of the far left.

P.S.  Let us go back to that non-visit to the troops in Germany--a visit that had been SCHEDULED.  What did Obama say in LONDON, after the first tactic of blaming it on the Pentagon fell apart?  He said that he was told that one of his CAMPAIGN ADVISORS could not go with him, because it would make the visit "too political", and that therefore he cancelled the visit (rather than the campaign advisor, for the time of the visit).  Now it is unclear whether Obama could really have thought that media and/or cameras could go with him on this visit.  He may be ARROGANT enough to have though so.  But my previous comment about cameras being more important to Obama than soldiers stands, because it is obvious he chose his CAMPAIGN over the soldiers.  It is further obvious that PHOTO OPPORTUNITIES (cameras) were what were IMPORTANT to Obama on the trip.  Again, the "explanation" hardly makes Obama look any better.  Everyone agrees that he could have visited the soldiers privately, or even with a Senate aide or two.  He was just not allowed to involve his campaign in the visit.  Did Obama, in his arrogance, merely get ANNOYED that he could not take whom he wanted?  Did he really think the media could somehow be involved?  Who knows, and who cares.  The man is all about portraying himself as the Messiah to the MEDIA, and it is hard to be "unfair" to a man enamored of himself and his own image to that degree.  Contrary to the "explanation" about the statement quoted above at the beginning of this entry, for Obama it obviously IS all about HIM.  If ever anyone deserved a sarcastic nickname, Barack "World" Obama does.

Barack "World" Obama and Race: Stuck in the Past

"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Obama said the above to a meeting of "minority" journalists, to a "warm" reception.  Have you noticed that Obama tells each group what he thinks they want to hear, and then virtually denies saying it ("I meant..") if he is quoted to his face?

 

Let us go to the Hawaiian Star Bulletin coverage of the above speech.  Why?  Because my younger daughter (the one taking the New York bar exam as this is written)  went to the University of Hawaii, and the left wing loons there have some relevance to the above, as indicated by what the Honolulu Star Bulletin had to say.

 

Yes, almost at the beginning of its article on the above Obama speech, BEFORE even quoting the above, the Honolulu Star Bulletin brought up something called the "Native Hawaiian Recognition Act" dratted by, and being pushed in Congress by, a Democratic Senator from Hawaii.  The Star Bulletin noted that Obama had told "local reporters" that he FAVORED the Act. 

 

You might well ask what is going on here, if your daughter did not attend the University of Hawaii.  There is actually a movement in Hawaii to SECEDE from the United States (first expelling people who are not "native Hawaiians, or at least giving them no power)--returning Hawaii to the old government (monarchy) that existed before the United States annexed the Hawaiian Islands.  Now Hawaii VOTED to become a state in the late 1950's, but I have told you before that leftists do NOT believe in democracy.  Make no mistake about it:  these kooks are hard core leftists selling the idea that America is an evil country destroying the native Hawaiian culture.  A good number of these people are RACIST.

 

Do you think I am exaggerating here?  You FOOL you!  One of my daughter's professors in college brought in one of these nuts in the Hawaiian independence movement to speak to the class, with a POSITIVE endorsement from the professor.  These are first class kooks, as even my daughter recognized (remember, she is a pretty leftist feminist, and NOT a disciple of mine), and they have the ear of leftist academic and political kooks in Hawaii.  

 

Question:  If Hawaii becomes independent does Barack "World" Obama become a non-citizen?  Lest you forget, he was born in Hawaii.  I digress.

 

No, I am sure that the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act does NOT grant independence to Hawaii.  Abraham Lincoln fought a war over that, and the majority of the people in Hawaii want no such thing.  However, it is a major LEFTIST GUILT CAUSE to make up for the destruction "we" have caused to the native Hawaiian culture, to the point that the Honolulu Star Bulletin felt it necessary to point out that Obama had not listed native Hawaiians as part of the oppressed "people of color" that we are ALL supposed to feel real bad about--whether we individually oppressed anyone or not and whether any individual "of color" was actually "oppressed".  This is "group rights" run amok and out of control.

 

Note that Obama virtually endorsed the RIDICULOUS idea of "reparations", and said that it was not enough for the U.S. government to "offer words", but that it needed to offer DEEDS.  Like most of what Obama says, note that no one has any idea what that MENAS.  WHAT "deeds".

 

Under all circumstances, the words of Obama are NOT the words of a "post-racial" candidate. They are the words of a candidate STUCK IN THE PAST on race, and who is willing to buy into the idea that the whole country needs to wear a hair shirt, and live in a monk cell for a few decades to ATONE for "our" past sins.

 

The problem, of course, is that they are not OUR past "sins".  As I have said before, should the ancestors of those men who DIED in the Civil War to end slavery have to pay reparation?  Should ONE HALF of Barack Obama have to pay reparations to the other half?  There is NO SUCH THING as idenfitifiable racial or ethnic groups in this country.  Are people that never discriminated against anyone supposed to pay "reparations" to people (individuals in the "racial" group) who have never been discriminated against?  What about all of the WELFARE that has been paid all of these years to SOME members of these oppressed minorites.

 

Dirty little secret:  the U.S. Government is ALL OF US.  The U.S. Government does NOT "pay" money.  WE, through the vehicle of the U.S. Government, pay money.  Should Mexican-Americans (and many others) who were not even IN this country when the most serious oppression occurred be required to pay "reparations" to African-Americans?  Should Mexican-Americans be entitled to receive reparations, when perhaps MOST of them did not even have ancestors in this country when most serious discrimination occurred?  Chinese (certainly discriminated against, and even treated as slaves, at one time)? Italians?  Native Hawaiians?  Native Americans?  When does the list ever end?  

 

It DOESN'T, once you start talking about GROUP rights, and going back in history.  What about the JEWS? 

 

Not the least problem here is that defining people (FALSELY) as members of racial and ethnic groups is RACIST in itself.  It is an assertion that ALL "minorities" (which may total a majority) are VICTIMS of, well, WHITE MALES.  I haven't even mentioned WOMEN, who feminists regard as virtual slaves in the past.  Are THEY to pay reparations to "other" oppressed "minorities"?  But individual WHITE EUROPEAN MALES (to use the terminology of Reverend Wright, which Obama has clearly not forgotten)  did not necessarily oppress anyone.  Certainly, their present ancestors did not.

 

It has been ILLEGAL in this country to LEGALLY (government action) discriminate on the basis of race since the Civil War, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments..  It has been illegal for ANYONE to discriminate on the basis of race (in employment, housing, or other areas) since the civil rights legislation circa 1964-5.  That is more than FORTY YEARS ago.  These are OLD grievances.  Most of the villains are DEAD, or old.  Most of the heroes are dead, or old.  Most of the VICTIMS (individual victims) are dead, or old.  ALL of the victims of slavery and transgressions against Native Americans are DEAD.  To say that you can assign MODERN "members" of the same racial groups, usually with MIXED "blood", to receive "reparations" for offenses against their ANCESTORS is absurd.  As stated, by defining people as members of racial and ethnic groups, rather than individuals, it is also RACIST. 

 

Nope.  As usual, Obama has no idea what he is saying.  Have "we" not "acknowledged" the past evils of racial discrimination, slavery, and the way "we" treated the Indians?  Of course we have. This whole idea is a STUNT. 

 

The idea is first to get an "official" apology of the U.S. GOVERNMENT for past sins, and then to USE that "apology" to EXTORT money from ALL OF US.  To the extent it is not all about money, and POWER, it really is about the "hair shirt".  The idea is that "we" are supposed to be wailing about our past sins forever and ever. 

 

You know what?  That is not even good for the minorities themselves, who are being HELD BACK by remaining stuck in the grievances of the past.  Plus, I (and those like me) have NO GUILT.  WE did not discriminate.  WE did not have slaves.  As I have said before, family history indicates I am 1/8 Native American.  It is likely I have SOME Indian "blood", and that almost ALL people in the U.S. are of mixed heritage.  This idea of "collective GUILT" is STUPID.  It does no one any good.  It is nothing more than an excuse for EXTORTION (the kind Jesse Jackson engaged in so well over all of these years).

 

Obama buys into all of this stuff because he is an extreme leftist, who would probably have been cozy with those HAWAIIAN independence LOONS if he had grown up there instead of Chicago.  Of course, as actual events showed, he became aligned/cozy with CHICAGO extreme left loons instead.  The mind se it basicaly the same, and Obama makes clear almost every day that he shares that mind set (whenever he is not deliberately trying to DECEIVE with POLITICAL speeches to non-leftist groups).   

 

 

 

 

"Maverick"

TV Show Rating:  100

 

"Maverick" is being rerun on the Western Channel.  Turner Classic Movies and the Western Channel represent my main TV viewing these days, besides sports.  The Western Channel is also rerunning "Bat Masterson" (rating 89, with Gene Barry), "The Big Valley" (with Barbara Stanwyck in her later, frozen face years--rating 76) and "The Rifleman" (Chuck Conners--rating 81).

 

Yes, I admit that I might be influenced by the rosy glow from my childhood.  However, I am rewatching the episodes of Maverick, and they are so much better than today's TV and today's Westerns, that it is not even funny. Of course, every episode is not rated 100.  In fact, most are not.  But the overall quality is amazingly high.

 

yes, the rating primarily applies to the episodes with James Garner--one of the best actors who ever lived, and perhaps THE best TV actor who ever lived (surely in the top 5).  However, some of the "Bart Maverick" episodes (Garner is "Bret"), and even a few Roger Moore episodes, are pretty darn good.  The "Bart Maverick" episode lampooning "Bonananza" is classic (with "Moose" and "Small Paul").

 

James Garner (who also was in the best TV PI series of all time--"The Rockford Files", rating 100) is just so COMFORTABLE in the role of the easy going, reluctant knight in shining armor, Bret Maverick.  If you have the chance, and can stand old style Westerns at all, you should watch "Maverick".

 

I do feel that I was blessed to grow up in the "golden age" of television--before television had to be "hip", with an "edge".  "I Love Lucy" (100, but obvious), "Leave it to Beaver" (100), the Andy Griffith show (100), "Gunsmoke" (100), "Have Gun, Will Travel"  (Richard Boone, 100), "Wanted Dead or Alive (Steve McQuenn, 83), "Rawhide" (Clint Eastwood, 81), Wyatt Earp (Hugh O'Brien, 81), "Get Smart (Don Adams, 100), Bonananza (80), High Chaparral" (rating 85), the Ann Southern show (86), Eve Arden, Tales of Wells Fargo (Dale Robertson, 79), Death Valley Days (Ronald Reagan!!!, anthology), General Electric Theater (anthology), "The Twilight Zone" (Rod Serling, 100),  "the Outer Limits" (83), the Loretta Young show, Eve Arden, "I Married Joan" (Joan Davis, rating 82), "Green Acres (somewhat later, but still 100),  "My Three Sons" (Fred MacMurray, 94), "The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (86), The Groucho Marx show (100), the Gracie Allen show (Burns and Allen, 100)--the list just keeps on going.  Television never got any better than that, just as movies never got any better than those shown on Turner Classic Movies (mainly dating prior to 1965, with obvious exceptions). 

 

Yes, I admit bias.  But the stuff was GOOD, and (as the old TV show channels have proved) stands up better than the "hip" stuff is likely to stand up.  The humor and "messages" were TIMELESS, instead of aimed at the lowest level of the "culture". 

 

P.S.  Yes, "Maverick" is part of the name of this blog.  I can't say that I had the TV show in mind when I named the blog.  However, it might have been in the back of my mind.  I only wish I could be as smooth and cool as James Garner.  One thing I can say with 100% certainty is that the blog was NOT named after John McCain.  Readers of this blog know my view of John McCain (politically).  I could agree that McCain is a "Maverick", who ENJORYS criticizing conservatives much more than he enjoys criticizing others.  He is NOT, however, a "conservative". 

Global Warming Comic Relief

You have probably heard a variation on this old question:  Does a tree falling in a forest make a sound, if nobody is there to hear it fall? 

 

Well, "global warming" is like that.  In the history of the world, ice sheets have broken off routinely in the arctic and antarctic, with no one even noticing.  There used to be glaciers down to Florida.  Yes, we would really be in bad shape if the Earth had never warmed (all without man, although my exclusive archeological sources do provide me with those recently discovered articles in the Ice Age Times, about the alarm of Al Gorice that FIRE would result in the end of the Ice Age way of life). 

 

The point is that ice breaking off used, correctly, to NOT be "news" except when it did something like hit the Titanic.  That does not mean it was not happening.  We just correctly paid little attention.  Now, as REAL evidence of "global warming" is sparse, and the world may be COOLING again, "global warming" priests are desperate for material to feed to the faithful.  Thus, you get FUNNY, propaganda non-stories like this:

 

"A chunk of ice spreading across seven square miles has broken off a Canadian ice shelf in the Arctic, scientists said Tuesday.

 

"Derek Mueller, a research at Trent University, was careful not to blame global warming, but said it the event was consistent with the theory that the current Arctic climate isn't rebuilding ice sheets".

 

The above two paragraphs are CLASSIC "global warming" propaganda.  Note that the "scientist" quoted is "careful" not to "blame" global warming (because he KNOWS this is a non-story), but goes ahed to do so by INNUENDO. 

 

Is the breaking off of this ice sheet CONSISTENT with the arctic cllimate being in a normal cycle.  Of course it is.  That is what the above SAYS, but it says it in a way that leaves the impression that this is "evidence" of a "global warming" "crisis" in the arctic.  It is classic propaganda--asying nothing that is actually false, but trying to leave an impression that is FALSE. 

Polls: Dumb and Dumber

Yesterday, this blog was again proven right (as if there were ever any doubt) about how MEANINGLESS polls are, and how STUPID the media is in the way they report them as "news".  That is apart from the fact that they ear EVIL things, which we (the public) should sabotage at every opportunity by LYING (or at least not cooperating).

 

In case you missed it, or properly ignored it, the Gallup "tracking poll" of registered voters" yesterday had Barack "world" Obama ahead of John "Hit Man" (leftist designated "hit man" when they want to target a conservative, or conservatives in general) McCain by a margin of 8 percentage points.  Meanwhile, ,a Gallup/USA Today poll of "likely voters" (the kind of poll you get from EVERYONE at election time, since a poll of merely "registered voters" is KNOWN to be an inaccurate predictor of actual voting results) gave MCCAIN a 4 percentage point LEAD over Obaba.  This poll was, predictably, NOT publicized much--for example, on AOL--even though the previous USA Today poll giving Obama a six percentage point lead was played up big on AOL. 

 

Now it is known that polls of all people, polls of registered voters, and polls of "likely" voters vary substantially in their results.  Since we do not elect people by polls, it is VOTERS who are the only ones that matter.  And it is only VOTES that count.  Logically, however, IF you are going to play up polls (and be a stupid idiot), it is polls of LIKELY VOTERS that are the most meaningful.  That would mean that it is ONLY the USA Today Poll giving McCain the LEAD that MATTERS.  EXCEPT, all polls are meaningless at this stage.  How can you even determine a "likely voter" more than 90 days before the election?

 

Yet, the media (ALL the media--as I have said repeatedly, Fox News and Sean Hannity are among the worst) reports poll numbers (but only the selected poll or polls they WANT to report) as if the numbers mean something.  They don't, and they shouldn't.

 

Is a poll of likely voters REALLY supposed to differ by 12 percentage points from a poll of registered voters?  Nope.  Even if it does, that merely highlights how MEANINGLESS the polls are, since it is the ACTUAL VOTERS that matter.  And the media will STILL say Obama is "leading" in polls, even while saying that the poll is within the margin of error.  In other words, the media insists of treating the poll as an exact measurement of the ENTRIE POPULATION, when it is not.  This is not mere stupidity,  It is a LIE.  The media--all of the media--LIES to you every single day.  A poll is a STATISTICAL PROJECTION of the results of a SMALL sample (generally around 1000 people) projected onto a LARGE population (say 100 MILLION people).  By chance alone, you could have an error of 100% (chance of throwing 100 heads or 100 tails in a row)  You have an EXPECTED error of plus or minus 4% or so (a LANDSLIDE in recent elections).  That means that EXPECTED chance variations in a poll having Obama "ahead" by 3 points could mean that MCCAIN is actually "ahead" in the larger population.  Polls are NOT "news".  It is a LIE to suggest that they represent the "opinion" of the larger population of 100 million plus.  They are--this is NOT a matter of opinion; I can assure you as a person having a B.S. in physics--merely an ESTIMATE of the opinion of 100 million plus people based on a small SAMPLE of people.  in other words, polls are only an EXACT reflection of the opinion of the 1000 person sample, and that assumes the people in the sample DO NOT LIE (as I suggest they do, and as I would).  The ESTIMATE has a built in, expected error (usually 4% or so).

 

But the ESTIMATE is a statistical estimate based on the sample being REPRESENTATIVE.  In other words, if you flip a coin 10000 times, you EXPECT that it will come up 500 heads and 500 tails.  However, it is UNLIKELY that it will come up exactly 500 heads and 500 hundred tails.  Chance alone will cause the number to vary 3 or 4% either way.  That is ALL that is meant by the "margin of error".  Remember, however, that it is POSSIBLE for a coin flipped 1000 times to come up heads 1000 times--just unlikely.  Still, chance alone is why polls are an ESTIMATE, at best, and NOT a "measurement" of opinion.  "Issue" polls are even worse, because they depend on HOW THE QUESTION IS ASKED.  There is NO "scientific" basis for the validity of "issue polls", since there is every indication that the sample is ALWAYS invalid because the way the question is asked affects the reults.  To even "report" "issue poll" results is an OUTRAGEOUS LIE.  The results are even more meaningless than straight voter polls ("Who do you plan to cast your vote for?").

 

Even in "simple" polls of how people expect to vote, the mathematics of statistics does NOT tell you that the sample is valid  There are numerous ways the sample may be unreliable.  As I said, people in the sample could LIE.  The sample may be CHOSEN in a way (as the TELPHONE poll that put Alf Landon ahead of FDR) that the people in the sample are not representative of the people who actually vote (or of the general population).  The people WILLING to participate in the poll may NOT be representative of the overall population (if you follow my advice to SABOTAGE polls, it will not be).  The POLLSTERS (people asking the questions) may not be honest.  They may either send UNCONSCIOUS signals as to the answer they want, or they may DELIBERATELY skew the results.  That is because polls have become an ever more obvious means of PUSHING one candidate or another as a "winner" on whose bandwagon you should get.  Logically, of course, your vote should NOT be affected by a poll.  But the way the media reports polls suggests that polls should MEAN SOMETHING to you.  They SHOULDN'T, as a matter of fact.  The mere suggestion that they should is an EVIL distortion of the election process, and of the political process (like on "approval" or "issue" polls).

 

See why I say that polls are meaningless?  They are little more than an "educated" guess, and NOT "news". 

 

Beyond all of the above, polls are an attempt to gauge opinion at a SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME.  The citizen wo you ask may have a DIFFERETN opinion 24 hours later.  MANY people (unlike this blog) may not think much about an overall philosophy, and their opinions may shift with the wind (and every sensory input).  Thus, polls this far out from an election are especially meaningless--of NO significance at all.

 

Yet, this is now the MAIN way the media reports elections  And some wonder why I hold the media in nothing but contempt!!!!

 

Then we come to Real Clear Politics and the Fox News habit of reporting their AVERAGE of all polls, as if it adds validity to that number.  It does not.

 

Gain, this is NOT a matter of opinion.  It is a "scientific" FACT that you cannot add any validity to ERRONEOUS polls by averaging the results.  I can illustrate this to you with a thought experiment. Say there are two polling organizations who MAKE UP poll results (dont' even ask the questions).  One shows McCain ahead by 10% and the other shows Obama ahead by 10%.  Neither has any validity  However, if you AVERAGE them out, you will REDUCE THE MAGNITUDE OF ERROR in any one of the FAKE polls, simply because of the averaging process.  If Obama is really ahead by 10%, then the other poll is in error by 20 percentage points.  But if you AVERAGE the two polls, the AVERAGE is only in error by 10 percentage points.  However, the average is not ANY more valid than the two FAKE polls.  You just reduce the possible "error" of any one of the polls.  However, if ONE of the polls is valid, and the other is not, then the average makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have the correct result. 

 

In short, averaging adds NOTING to the validity of the individual polls averaged, and the average is no more likely to be CORRECT than any individual poll.  In fact, the average is almost guaranteed to be INVALID, since it is likely to include invalid polls in the average.  To cite a Real Clear Politics "average" as meaningful is another one of those OUTRAGEOUS LIES, with no mathematical basis for such a conclusion.  For example, what SENSE does it make to "average" polls of "likely voters" and "registered voters".  They are not even picking their samples the same way!!!!  That is true across the board.  If ONE poll's sample is invalid, the "average" is NOT VALID.  In short, an "average" (by definition) is NEVERF as bad as the WORST individual poll and almost NEVER as good as the BEST individual poll.

 

I can't tell you how serious I am about this  We need, desperately, to ELIMINATE POLLS.  And we, the people, CAN do it by sabotaging them.

 

P.S.  Do I know whether McCain or Obama is ahead?  Nope.  But I have a good idea.  Right now, at a meaningless time, I think they are about 50-50.  That is NOT based on polls, but on the fact that--at a Presidential level--we have basically been a 50-50 country for some time  That dos not mean the ELECTION will end that way, simply because the way we are NOT a 50-50 country is if one of the candidates is viewed as DANGEROUS or hopeless (George McGovern, Walter Mondale. Barry Goldwater, etc.).  I have confidence that EITHER McCain or Obama (more likely, just because of his lack of experience and objective qualifications) could lose 60-40.  But it will take the people who do not live and breathe politics ALL shifting one way or another because they view on candidate or the other as DANGEROUS.  In that case it does not matter whether people "like" the "safer" candidate.  NO ONE "liked" Richard Nixon in 1972  Nevertheless, they voted for him because he was a KNOWN quantity, while McGovern was a far left extremist.  Hence a 60-40 vote.  In this election, Obama is MORE extremist than who the Democrats nomminated n 1972.  If he is PERCEIVED that way in the end, he is going to lose big.   However, McCain is McCain, and I am tempted to say that if he is PERCEIVED that way he is going to lose big.  I know.  One of them has to win.  Is it not sad?

 

T. Boone Pickens: Communist

Is T. Boone Pickens really a communist/Marxist?  Of course not, but that is the problem, and why conservatives are facing exile in the wilderness.  The reaction to solving every problem today is reflexively the CENTRAL PLANNING soulution--NOT making the free market and decentralized decision making we that is the foundation of this country work better.  Central planning is the Communist (with a capital "C")/socialist approach to "solving" problems--in the face of experience that it does not work (including recent experience in the inability of the Federal Government to act efficiently in ANY area).

 

It is amazing how the left cries out about freedom in the most inconsequential areas (monitoring o finternational terrorist communicatios), while pursuing COERCION (taking away freedom) in the most important areas of our life.  This includes the freedom to drive the vehicle we want and to use the light bulb we want. 

This brings us to T. Boone Pickens, central planner and all around arrogant human being (as ALL central planners have to be, to assert that THEY know enough to TELL us what to do).

T. Boone Pickens wants to MANDATE that we "solve" our depednence on foreign oil by COERCING people to generate energy in the exact way that T. Boone Pickens thinks it should be generated.  One of the reasons I am not religious is that I don't concede that GOD should be able to tell me what to believe, and what to do.  T. Boone Pickens is not God.  He is just, like all central planners, a "God" wannabe.

You heard it here first, and I heard T. Boone Pickens confirm it yesterday on Sean Hannity's radio program.  In fact, I listened to that segment of the ratido program just to confirm my impression of good old T. Boone.  As usual, I was vindicated by what he said.

Pickens wants the Federal Government to MANDATE that ALL vehicle "fleets" in this country buy ONLY "natural gas" powered vehicles.  That would include the Federal, and all other, governments, but would also include all private "fleets"  This shows you that T. Boone is like all central planners.  He is not only about coercion, but about DECEPTION.   The idea is to leave you the illusion that you, as an individual, have choices, while doing your best to take away those choices by degrees.  The man is a menace.  I have nothing but CONTEMPT for him.

You doubt me on DECEPTION?  You FOOL you!!!  Good old T. Boone is deliberately PANDERING to the other, leftist central planners out there by saying that we "can't drill our way out of this problem" (fuel prices).  That is the leftist mantra, and gold od T. Boone knows it.  He is cynically trying to USE the same slogan (meaningless, since every barrel of oil we drill domestically is one LESS barrel we have to import from elsewhere, whether we "can drill our way" out of the (whole) problem or not.  T. Boone Pickens has no real idea whether we can "drill our way" out of the problem.  He simply wants to COERCE us into doing what he thinks should be done (which, incidentally, would make him a lot of money).

This is entirely cynical and contemptible, because Pickens wil say he is for "drilling"--for trying everything--while trying to MANDATE that we do it his way.  That is deceptive as Hell, and cynically manipulatitive as Hell.  Did I tell you that I have nothing but conempt for good old T. Boone?

 

Does T. Booone Pickens believe in free market theory?  Of course not.  The OTHER aprt of his "plan" is MASSIVE subsidy of wind and solar power.  He wants "production tax credits", and other government aid, to FORCE the use of solar and wind power by the GOVERNMENT paying for it--wheen those "alternative energy" sources cannot stand on their own.

Lefitst Democrats are fond of calling cuts in TAX RATES as government "expenditures"--a LIE.  That terminology assumes that ALL money belongs to the government, and that the government merely lets you keeep some of it to give you an illusion of freedom.  Yes, I understand that, to leftists, this is not a lie, because that is what they really BELIEVE.  Objectively, however, our country was founded on freedom, and the idea that your money and property is yours, and not the government's.  It is NOT an "expenditure" to let people keep more of their own money. 

However, things like "production tax credits", and other subsidies for alternative energy, generally ARE expenditures.  They are, in effect, direct PAYMENTS of government money to distort the free market.  Thus, as my brother (the co-owner of a trucking company) has noted--passed on previously in this blog--people have made money by IMPORTING diesel into this country, adding "biodiesel" for purposes of making money out of the subsidy, and then EXPORTINGthe SAME diesel. 

If the government sets up a situation where people can make money only BECAUSE of the government expenditures, that is a distortion of the free market.  Now, you can justify one time accelerated deductions, or even credits ("expenditures") to enable people to make capital expenditures necessary to get economically desireable activities off of the ground.  However, if you have to KEEP massively subsidizing to keep the "alternatives" competitive, then they are NOT really competitive.  You are engaging in a central planning distortion of the free market.   That is what good old T. Boone wants to do.  He is really TELLING you that is what he wants to do.  This shows how far we have sunk:  where "businessmen" and "investors" are willing to come out and TELL you they don't believe in the free market.

Lucky, isn't it, that T. Boone Pickens does not have a snowball's chance in Hell of selling his "plan" (although he can cause damage in the WAY he is trying to sell it).  Do you think that environmentalists are really going to want to MANDATE one fossil fuel in place of another to run cars.  They want ELECTRIC cars, or other types of vehicles that do not run on fossil fuels at all  And the free market SHOULD be able to sort out which "alternatives" to prsent day vehicles are economic, and which are not.  The whole, correct, theory of free markets is that they make those decisions without the CETRAL PLANNING of fallible human beings, who FORCE their deicisions on us in a way that we can't even correct disasters until they are already terrible ("Lysenkoism").  T. Boone Pickens (and too many of our "capitalists) does NOT believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand".  Rather, he believes that He is God, and capable of making infallible decisions.

Maybe electric cars ARE the future.  Maybe hydrogen cars are the future.  We KNOW nuclear power could be the future, if the government (and environmentalists) did not make it impossible.  MAYBE oil shale will allow us to continue to devleop the future without forcing uneconomic (expensive) energy sources on us.  Maybe oil shale is still uneconomic.  We, and good old T. Boone, do not KNOW unless we allow these various "solutioins" to compete in the free market on a somewhat level playing field.  If we try to FORCE on "solution" or the other, we may well choose the WRONG one. 

Contrary to asserrtions by good old T. Boone, and others, the "technoloty" is NOT there for these "alternatives" UNTIL thaey are efficient enough to be COMPETITIVE, without making the "profit" come solely from GOVERNMENT expenditures. 

I have already told you, in this blog, how to bring down gasoline prices.  T. Boone, and the left, are BOTH not interested in that so much as they are in FROCING their own agenda on us all. 

The one are I agree with good old T. Boone on is that the Federal Government, and other governments, should put their money where their mouth is.  If the Federal Government believes that people should buy electric cars, then the Federal Government should be purchasing electric cars for ITS us (rather than FORCING central planning "solutions" on the rest of us),.  I have said that the Federal Government should IMMEDIATELY announce that it is IMMEIDIATELY reducing its gasoline use by 20%--whatever it takes to do it, INCLUDING WALKING.   The Federal Government should act by EXAMPLE, and NOT by force trying to impose central planning "solutions" on us all.

Yes, it is lucky that T. Boone's plan is going nowhere (although I am afraid that we are going to create a boondoggle in wind and solar, where people "invest" money where the only economic reality of the investment is to make a profit out of Federal expenditures).

The free market actually works.  We should try it sometime.

Charles Dickens, Reverend Wright, and Barack "World" Obama

Charles Dickens is probably the best writer who ever lived (at least in English), outside of Shakespeare.  I recently "read" (heard on tape) "Hard Times".  It is hardly Dickens' best (rating 53), because "message" consumes the characters.  Dickens always had a tendency to toward caricature, but usually made his people seem so real that the slightly larger than life characters merely added to the enjoyment of reading his novels.  In "Hard Times", the "social reformer" takes over and the characters are nothing but cartoons. They are nothing more than vehicles for conveying the message (fatal to fiction), and you never get the impression that you are reading about real people. But Dickens is still Dickens, and the WRITING--use of language--is still top drawer.  In fact, the writing makes the book worth reading, even though I think its flaws as a NOVEL are fatal.  It is a bitter, depressing book really pretty mean to its characters (including those Dickens meant to portray unfavorably.  However, in the impressive language, and individual sentences, is one that applies directly to the situation of Reverend Wright and Barack "World" Obama.

 

"What more could I do, even if I DID believe it".

 

That is the statement of bored aristocrat "Jim" to Louisa, explaining how it makes no difference whether he actually believes in the philosophy of her husband and her father, so long as he is willing to "buy" into it and ACT like he believes it.  Jim is one of those bored aristocrats who affected to be "bored" by life, and everything in it--to regard LL philosophies as meaningless in lives that are meaningless.  Thus, Jim professes to "buy" into the philosophy of others to entertain himself, on the basis that one philosophy is just as good as another, and so why not adopt the philosophy of others, so long as you "buy" into it to the extent of ACTING like it is true in all that you say and do. 

 

Defenders of Barack "World" Obama and Reverend Wright suggest that it is absurd to suggest that Obama believes what Reverend Wright believes.

 

Read that Dickens quote again.  What difference does it make what Obama believes?  Could he have done more if he DID believe in what Reverend Wright was saying?  For 20 years, Obama supported Reverend Wright with money and influence.  For those 20 years, Obamawas ACTING like he believed in the philosophy of Reverend Wright--a philosophy of HATE and racial separatism (see speech before the NAACP, and NOT just the speech the next day that finally caused Obama to disown his 20 year pastor). 

 

Again, could Obama have done MORE, if he DID believe in Reverend Wright's philosophy of hate?  I don't think so.

 

Then there are leftists in general.  I have tried to give you the same message--just not as succinctly as Dickens.  Do leftists hate this country?  I don't know--certainly not about all of them.  But could they do more if they DID hate this country?  Ir is not a matter of whether they are "patriots".  It is a matter of whether they ACT as patriots.  It is not a matter of whether they actually believe that the U.S. is the main force of evil in the world, and not Islamic extremists (or whoever else you might name)?  Could they do more if they DID believe it.  One thing this blog has done, more than any other source, for the past 4 years is SHOW you how the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Presss" could not possibly do MORE, even if they were actual propagandists for al-Qaida and other anti-Americans in the world.

 

Look at the troop surge, which Obama now admits reduced violence and death MORE than he, or ANYBODY ELSE, expected--in other words, SAVED MORE LIVES.   Could Democrats have done MORE to stop the troop surge, or to undermine it?  They did the best they could, even to the point of trying to eliminate funding.  Barack "World" Obama did the best he could.  Could they have done MORE, even if they DID believe that the U.S. should LOSE in Iraq, or that violence should stay high?  Of course not.

 

It does not really matter what you believe, if you ACT like you believe certain things.  Dickens knew that in the 19th Century.  You should know that now. 

 

Caveat: It does not matter to the effect of your actions as to what you really believe.  It DOES, however, matter to your character, and to how dangerous you are.  As I have said before, who knows what Obama really believes, other than his ACTIONS, and words not intended for specific purposes in this election, indicate he is a creature of the extreme left.  That is why I regard him as so DANGEROUS.  He may be capable, like that Dickens character, of assuming ANY set of beliefs fully as convincingly as if he DID believe them. 

World B. Free, Barack "Spanish" Obama, and Barack "World" Obama

If you read this blog, you know that Barack Obama has earned the nickname of "Spanish" Obama.  That nickname was earned when Obama answered a question from a person concerned about illegal immigrants/immigrants not speaking English by saying:  "Parents should not worry as much about immigrants learning English--they'll learn--as they should about their (the parents') children learning SPANISH."  (Entire, Exact quote is in entry noting Obama's new, earned nickname).

But is "Spanish" Obama an adequate anymore, now that Obama belongs to the WORLD (see last week's entries)?  I don't think so.

 

Obama went to Berlin and called himself a "citizen of the world"--telling the "people of the World":  "This is our moment.  This is our time"  (This was the same meaningless stuff that Obama had previously told the "people of America").  If Obama is going to become the Messiah for the WORLD, and not just America, to the point of going to Berlin to talk about our faults and how we need to tear down all barriers excluding other "citizens of the world" from the U.S. (barriers between "natives"--those savage Native Americans--and immigrants), how can "Spanish" possibly be adequate as a nickname for Obama?  That nickname might have been adequate when Obama was only telling people IN AMERICA that they needed to "unite" with illegal immigrants by learning Spanish, but not when he is telling the whole WORLD that Obama can tell them how to live together as one, united people.  While the "Spanish" comment was consistent with the later transition by Obama to become a "citizen of the world"--even though Obama himself does not seem to speak a foreign language.   After all, what Obama's "Spanish" comment really was meant to say is that Americans were not sufficiently OPEN to the world (languages, "open borders" and all the rest).  But once the transition is fully made, and Obama is full fledged Savior of the world, the transitional nickname is just no longer adequate.

 

Obama has EARNED the new nickname, recognizing that Obama now belongs to the WORLD, as is now Savior of the entire WORLD:  Barack "World" Obmaa.  That is the nickname that this blog will not apply to "citizen of the world" Obama.

 

Now I have to make apologies to "World B. Free" (Lloyd B. Free).  "World" Free was a pretty darn good NBA player.  At times, he was an "unconscious" scorer with unlimited range.  I don't quite know where he got the nickname "World".  I suspect it is a cute play on his name, and it also suggests "all world".  Now my limited knowledge of World B. Free is that he was not especially humble.   Few prolific scorers are.  You have to have a certain arrogance to believe you can score 50 points a game, and go out and shoot to make it happen. 

Nevertheless, World B Free could NEVER have been as arrogant as Barack "World" Obama.  I would further guess that World B. Free would never have gone to Berlin for the apparent purpose of "talking trash" about America.  I imagine World B. Free was capable of talking trash in the NBA.  I don't know enough about him to know whether he ever did the same about his country, but I really doubt he would go overseas and do it (ven if he supports Obama).  In any event, I certainly don't mean to diminish World B. Free by assigning the same nickname to Barack "World" Obama--meaning it sarcastically.

 

Is there a danger that Obama supporters could ADOPT this nickname--construing it to mean "all world"?  I guess so, but I think people willing to believe that are beyond help anyway. 

 

Anyone who thinks that it is a desirable thing for Americas to regard themselves as "citizens of the world", rather than Americans, has a brain made of mush.  So there reaction to the nickname matters not.  Others will take the nickname in the spirit it is meant--as a sarcastic commentary on the willingness of Barack "World" Obama to consider being a "citizen of the world" as superior to being a citizen of the United States.

 

In reality, of course there is no such thing as a "citizen of the world".  In fact, the very concept is the essence of leftism:  a "feel good" phrase with NO meaning beyond the ridiculous, and even dangerous.

 

With apologies to World B. Free, all hail to Barack "World" Obama, as he shall forever after be known to this blog.

CNN and AP: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points at YOU!

The coveted/dreaded Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate never wavered this week, once it came to rest on Monday pointing firmly at the RACISTS at the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (multiple "winner" of "the Finger") and CNN.  There was never any doubt after my Boston lawyer daughter called the attention of teh spinning "Finger" to the following quote from a CNN.com featured article from the AP.  The article containted the following statement:

 

"The arid landscape around El Paso, and the dark-skinned Hispanic
population, reminded him of Iraq."

 

Kenda called the above "the most racist statement I have ever seen".  I won't go that far, but it is bad.  As I have said, the AP and CNN might as well have used the term "darkies", even though Hispanics are generally Caucasians. 

 

You know that all "dark skinned" people look alike, don't you?  Well, the AP and CNN evidently think so  I don't.  As I said in Tuesday's blog entry, repeated below, my experience is that Hispanics and Iraqis look very little alike--not to mention that El Paso looks pretty much like most Western American cities rather than like Iraq (even the Spanish--not Arabic--you hear is pretty much common now in American cities).

 

Yes, in most weeks there would have been stiff competition.  See yesterday's entries on the absolutely amazing statements of Barack "Spanish" Obama in Berlin.  Not only is Barack Obama a "citzen of the world" rather than an American (a "Man Without a Country"?), but as a "citizen of the world" he pretty much said there should be no borders--at least no barriers keeping out immigrants.  He was pretty clearly referring to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in the U.S.--putting him firmly in the "open borders" camp.  Obama evidently regards citizens of the U.S. and Mexico as all "citizens of the world", rather than of their respective countries.

Yes, Obama would have won in most weeks.  But, after all, it isn't like we had any doubt about where he stood on this--albeit the Berlin speech was almost a parody of leftist "internationalism", and of the desire of the effete, elite snobs in the U.S. to be "European".   How this man could even have been nominated--much less elected--remains a mystery. 

 

But "the Finger" remained unimpressed byObama--having obviously seen too much of him. 

 

The media overkill on Obama was also worthy of "the Finger", but also old "news".

In case you have been living under a rock, and not aware of it, "the Finger" is a statuette of an INDEX finger standing for conspicuous stupidity/evil in the past week. It is an unauthorized reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award. 

 

Award ceremony:

 

As usual, you need to visualize (visual aid and not implying endorsement) Dick Martin presenting the award on "Laugh In" by presenting the statuette directly to the camera.

 

Imagine (you do have an imagination, right?) Dick Martin THRUSTING "the Finger" at the camera and saying:  "CNN and the Associated Press, this award is for YOU.  You DESERVE it.  No one else could have shown their racism in such a talented way."

 

Here is Tuesday's entry repeated, explaining the context of the "winning" statement: 

 

Racists:  CNN and the Associated Press

I have said it before, and they keep proving it:  The majority (obviously not all) of the racists in this country are leftists, including the mainstream media.

 

My attention was called to this latest example by my older daughter, Kenda (official, if rare, blog cartoonist and BOSTONIAN leftist of the mild sort herself).  She called this "the most racist statement I have ever seen."  I would not go that far, although it is pretty bad.

 

I need to explain the background.  This was an article on CNN.com, but it is from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference).  The article was meant to be an anti-military article along the lines of those multiple attempts by the AP and rest of the mainstream media to suggest that most of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are committing suicide and/or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (which, as a former personal injury lawyer, I can tell you is a pretty subjective diagnosis which is hardly unique to soldiers, but can be caused by simple automobile accidents).

 

The article was a LONG article about this medic featured in a famous picture from Iraq helping people in Iraq.  You should understand WHY "anti-American is part of the official name of the AP.  The original picture (way back at beginning of the Iraq War) was supposed to reflect the BEST of America--in Iraq for a noble cause (removing Saddam Hussein, which WAS a noble cause) and HELPING people. The whole purpose of this CNN/AP article was to TRASH that image, as the mainstream media has been trying to do ever since Vietnam (now 40 years ago, although the AP EARNED its official name by bringing up, to trash the U.S., a South Korean machine gunning of prisoners FIFTY plus years ago).

 

It turns out that this medic has had a lot of problems.  He has been rushed to the hospital recently for "sniffing" or "huffing" substances.  The AP, of course, traces it all to Iraq, and the "demons" that have occupied this man's mind since Iraq (demons that the AP--see quote below AFTER racist quote--clearly wants to say were placed in the man's mind by the U.S. military, and which the U.S. military was responsible for exorcising).  The man has had emotional problems since returning from Iraq (translation:  The man was probably emotionally disturbed BEFORE going to Iraq, although there is no doubt men can crack under the stress of war, as under the stress of life). 

 

Is it ONLY soldiers who have emotional problems and substance abuse problems ("demons").  Of course not.  That would be news to Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and half of Hollywood.  It is NOT a soldier who went berserk at Virginia Tech, although it was an ex-marine who was the "Texas Tower" shooter at the University of Texas a few years before I was at law school there.  Unfortunately for the mainstream media, however, he was NEITHER a traumatized Vietnam War soldier nor a time traveling veteran of Iraq.

 

Of course, Barack Obama intends to traumatize MORE of our soldiers by sending them to Afghanistan--a place MORE inhospitable to foreigners than Iraq.  In fact, I think the AP is perfectly willing to trash the Afghanistan War, and certainly the military in Afghanistan (see archives of this blog).  It is a dirty little secret that the far left does not like the War in Afghanistan any more than the War in Iraq.  They simply regard ti as useful, as does Barack Obama, to attack the Bush Administration and Republicans ("why have you not concentrated on the "real" war in Afghanistan?")

 

The above background IS relevant.  The left, and the mainstream media, are RACIST because they--much more than, say, rednecks--insist on treating people as part of GROUPS, instead of individuals.  How do they justify it in their own minds?  How do they justify this LABELING of people based on their race?  Easy.  For leftists, it is justified by their INTENTIONS.  Their intentions are always good, even if they say things that are RACIST.  Thus, Jesse Jackson and Reverend Wright have good intentions (generally), and therefore their outrageous conduct can be excused.  It is the same with the racist/geographically bigoted statement in the AP story.  The INTENTION is good:  to TRASH the U.S. military and the Iraq War.  Therefore, they don't even notice the RACIST statement.  Leftists want everyone to be wards of the government, and want everyone to be part of a "victim" group taken care of by the government--even as they trash the government for not being capable of solving everyone's problems (as it never will be).  Racism, of the leftist kind, is actually a necessary part of this "identity politics" aimed at getting people to regard themselves as part of a victim group to be taken care of by leftists.  That explains how you get racist statements like this one:

 

  

"The arid landscape around El Paso, and the dark-skinned Hispanic
population, reminded him of Iraq."

 

The above is the attempt by the AP and CNN to explain why this soldier/medic had difficulty in El Paso, where he was evidently sent by the military after Iraq (although he is out of the military now).  Horse manure.  RACIST horse manure. 

 

Why not just use the term "darkies"?    "Dark skinned Hispanic population" indeed!!!

 

You have to realize that my daughter, Kenda, was born in El Paso, and spent the first 18 years of her life here.  She is 50% Mexican-American, with some Native American "blood" on my side (even though I have blue eyes and was born with blonde hair that gradually darkened to light/medium brown, before becoming white).  In other words, Kenda is just as much Hispanic as Barack "Spanish" Obama (see last week's explanation of nickname) is African-American.  Does "Spanish" know that the mainstream media--at least CNN and the AP wire to most mainstream media outlets--is LABELING people this way?  Someone should ask him this kind of question. 

 

It goes without saying that my "Hispanic" daughter looks like a CALIFORNIA GIRL.  My other daughter is darker, except when she dyes her hair blonde, but still is never taken for Hispanic outside of El Paso.   Further, Hispanics are generally CAUCASIAN ("white", with usually some mixed Indian--American kind--"blood").   My ex-wife, for example (100% Mexican-American) has WHITER skin than I do (although not the "pink white" of the typical Aryan "master race" type that is surely one category recognized by the racist AP and CNN;  my mouthy younger daughter--"border girl" that she is--offended a co-worker of Kenda by referring to the blonde haired, blue eyed guy as an "Aryan").   Italians, and many other non-Aryan Europeans, have skin just as "dark" as Hispanics. 

 

I have not been to Iraq, but my son-in-law was there as a marine.  He has been to El Paso.  While I am sure he considers it more like Iraq than, say, Seattle, I am also sure he would tell you it is nothing like Iraq.  El Paso is NOT a real desert.  It is NOT as 'arid" and hot as Tucson, Phoenix, or the California desert west.  It is true that areas around El Paso look like the Colorado prairie on which Fort Carson sits (Colorado east of the Rocky Mountains is pretty much exactly like the "arid" areas around El Paso;  I was stationed at Ft.Carson. Colorado in the army, as well as Ft. Bliss in El Paso).

 

There are some Arabic people in El Paso.  They don't look that much like Mexican-Americans.  Oh, some may.  But mostly they look both "lighter" and "duskier" than Mexican-Americans, with rather distinctive Arabic features.  Note that I am deliberately following in the RACIST footsteps of CNN and the AP by trying to characterize Arabs as a GROUP.  My ex-wife, on trips, was generally NOT taken for either Arab or Mexican-American, but for something more exotic (like Greek or Mediterranean). 

 

A RIVER runs through it.  Yes, the Rio Grande runs along the entire south side of El Paso.  There is a MOUNTAIN in the middle.  Both the Lower Valley and Upper Valley (where the Rio Grande flows) of El Paso are hardly "arid".   They are pretty green, and get MUCH more rainfall that the "official" rainfall for El Paso.  The airport, where the official rain gauge is located, was placed in one of the most "arid" areas of El Paso County.  It is true that is where Ft. Bliss is also located, but that brings up another point.

 

If you want to live in a "green" area in El Paso, you can.  Further, if you WANT to avoid all of those "dark skinned" people in El Paso, you pretty much can.  El Paso may be 85% Hispanic.  However, the SOLDIERS at Ft. Bliss are NOT.  If you are in the military, you can stay on post.  Further, as long as you don't go downtown (right across the bridge from Mexico), or to Wal-Mart (where I shop),  the people in the MALLS in El Paso hardly look like a mob of poor Arabs. They look pretty much like people in the malls in BOSTON.  Oh, I guess you will see more "dark skinned" people, but it hardly looks like Iraq.  It looks like the U.S.A.  So long as Barack "Spanish" Obama does not have its way, El Paso may continue to look and "feel" like the U.S.A.    As I have pointed out, the main problem in El Paso is that Spanish seems to be gradually taking over as "the" language of the city, despite "Spanish" Obama's assertion that "they'll learn" English, and that parents should worry about their children learning Spanish.   You will NOT hear Arabic in El Paso, except in very isolated places.  You WILL hear Spanish (sounds not at all like Arabic).  I would emphasize that I don't think El Paso has yet become a Spanish language equivalent of French speaking Quebec.  But if people like leftist Barack "Spanish" Obama get their way, it will.

 

Presently, however, you can live in El Paso and feel just like living elsewhere in the U.S.--so long as you don't have Home Depot arrange to install a water heaater, resulting in plubers who speak not a word of English.    You see just as many "dark skinned" people in the non-tourist areas of Honolulu and the ethnic areas everywhere (:not to mention African-American areas).  If it reminds you of Iraq, the problem is in YOU.

 

In short, I AMsaying that the CNN/AP story was a bunch of BULL.  It was a story about a man with problems that the AP and CNN tried to USE for their own AGENDA.  In the process, they exposed themselves for the leftist RACISTS and geographic bigots that they are.  Here is another direct quote from the story that tells you all you need to know about the anti-military AGENDA here: 

 

"This broken, frightened man had once been the embodiment of American might and compassion. If the military couldn't save him, Knapp thought, what hope was there for the thousands suffering in anonymity?"

 

I won't even bother to tear apart the above. If you don't see it as a ridiculous statement that illustrates where the whole article was coming from, I can't help you.  Your mind is too far gone.

 

P.S.  Yes, the above shows that CNN and the AP (again) are way ahead for this week's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate.  "The Finger" (see Saturday's entry for the previous week's presentation to San Francisco) is now firmly pointing at CNN and the AP.  It will take a lot to move "the Finger" at this point.

 

P.S.2:  Virtually my only (no surprise to readers of this blog) woman friend I have (notorious in this blog as Sylvia), is 100% (I think) Mexican-American.  She is NOT that "dark".  She lived for almost 2 decades in the Portland and Seattle areas.  She has a (long story--don't ask) non-Hispanic last name.  No one really recognized her as Mexican -American.  Again, she was thought t be something more exotic.  Note also that the AP/CNN racist quote above is really racist as to TWO "populations" of people.  I have told you, correctly, that Iraqis and El Pasoans do not look that much alike, and that El Paso and Bagdad do not look that much alike.  However, they share a characteristic.  Both populations are mainly WHITE (Caucasian).  Arabs are WHITE.  CHRIST (for everyone but Reverend Wright) was WHITE (Semitic rather than directly Arab, although Semitic is part of Arab too).  Was Christ "dark skinned"?  It is a question that matters only to BIGOTS.  "Races", as Barack "Spanish" Obama proves, are matters of "convenient" description rather than fundamental.  That is true because the "races" BREED together.  One of the reasons we are all of the same species is that we can INTERBREED.  Basically ALL of humanity are MUTTS (good thing).

 

 

 

CNN: Racists (Continued)

See Tuesday's entry and the upcoming Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate prsentation in this blog later today.

However, you will note that CNN has the gall to be running one of those over-the-top, hysterical series called "Black in America"--the point of which is to denigrate all of the progess made on racial discrimination in this country.  The very network that is quoting all of those statistics to show what they do not show (see my entry analyzing the AP attempt to do that very same thing with regard to blacks in the military), printed an article from the AP with the following sentence:

"The arid landscape around El Paso, and the dark-skinned Hispanic
population, reminded him of Iraq."

 

Yes, CNN is RACIST.  "Dark skinned" indeed!!!!  Yes, the above was in what was meant to be an anti-military, anti-American, anti-Iraq War article.  That is the point, isn't it?  Racism shows up most clearly when race is NOT specifically the issue.

 

Let us go to Soledad O'Brien.  She is one of the major CNN "anchors" for "Black in America."  She is also a RACIST.  Yes, I stand by that statement.

 

She called Reverend Wright's speech before the NAACP a "great speech."  It was no such thing.  It was a RACIST speech, as Reverend Wright tried to suggest that blacks and whites should be taught differently becaus they learn differently, using different parts of their brain (straight out of the WHITE BIGOT manual, except that Revered Wright is a BLACK BIGOT).  CNN gave an "analysis" of that disgraceful NAACP speech that was as RACIST as it gets--approving the racism of REverend Wright by hardly mentioning it.  You don't even have to get into Reverend Wright's endorsement of the DISCRETDITED idea of "Black English" (as some sort of separate language, instead of simply a variation of standard English, like SOUTHERN English) to know that he was speaking the language of bigotry. 

 

So what is RACIST CNN trying to do with "Black in America"?  There is no doubt.  CNN is trying to do that which will DESTROY African-Aericans more certrainly that any other thing.  CNN is trying to convince Black Aermicans, and "White" Americans (There is NO adequate definition of "black" or "white" here; Is Barack Obama "white" or "black" when he is 50% each) that Black Americans are VICTIMS ofwhite opprssion.  No wonder Soledad O'Brien chose to defend Reverend Wright just as Barack Obama was about to throw him under the bus (in the hope that people would forget Obma's 20 year support of a RACIST philosophy).  Soledad O'Brien, and CNN, believe exactly what Reverend Wright believes, and they are willing to help DESTROY the lives of African-Americans to advance that racist agenda. 

 

It is now more than FORTY YEARS since the passage of the Civil Rights laws that gave black Americans full, legal protection in this country.  It has been more than FIFTY YEARS since the Supreme Court gave African-Americans full protection against GOVERNMENT discrimination in this country (Brown v. Booard of Education and similar decision).  Does it really HELP black people to tell them that their lives are hopeless because statistically they are not even with "white" people?  of course it does not. 

If there are any SPECIFIC kinds of DISCRIMINATION that still need to be addressed, CNN could look at that with some pretense to value.  It does NO good to merely cry that African-Americans have it tough in this country.  "Tough" is a relative term.  Short of Marxism (in which Soledad O'Brien and CNN fully believe), the government is NOT going to be able to waive a magic wand and improve the lives of black people.  After FORTY and FIFTY YEARS of legal equality, and protection against overt, and a lot of covert, discrimination, "blacks in America" are going to have to realize that it is up to INDIVIDUALS to take advantage of the opportunities they have.

 

Now CNN carried a "commentary" by a black professor that shows just how deadly to individual African-Americans this "victim" propaganda is.

 

This professor has a brother serving LIFE for MURDER.  Now the professor admits his brother made "bad choices" (like being in drugs and a violent subculture?).  But he says that his brother is innocent, and that Black Males have little chance in today's America.  There is a case, by the way, that MALES are being disserved by our present educational system, as we cater to a FEMININIST/Chick view of the world.  But let us examine this case of black males in prison.

 

Are this professor, and CNN, saying that black males should not be sent to jail for life for MURDER?  Actually, despite protestations, they ARE (see below for quote). However, under what insane logic is it discrimination against black males for this professor's brother to be sent to prison for life for murder?  No one can possibly be saying that black males should not be sent to prison for MURDER, but these people ARE saying that.

 

Now the professor says that his brother is innnocent.  Not under the law he isn't.  He was DCONVICTED.  But say he is innocent. We can't take the professor's word for that, can we?  More importantly, it almost surely has nothing to do with incarceration of too many black males.  If the professor's brother did not do this particular killing (did he do others?), some OTHER black male likely did.  Black on black crime is MUCH more prevalent than black on "white" crime.  When you excuse black criminals, yuou merely consign law abiding African-Americans to HELL.  It is not a matter of only black males committing murder.   It is a matter that if the professor's brother was convicted of committing a murder, and did not do it, those statisics so beloved of CNN would indicate that another black male probably did it (simply because of the circumstances of the murder). In short, if the professor's brother was wrongly convicted, it is an injustice against him as an INDIVIDUAL, and not against that mythical "blacks in Amreica". 

 

What are juries and prosecutors supposed to do (dealing with INDIVIDUAL crimes, rather than racial GROUPS)?  Are they supposed to excuse black males from serious crimes because they are black males, and never had a chance?  For this professor, AND CNN, I think the answer to that is a clear, and stupid, affirmative.  To be blunt:  Whether the professor's scumbag brother committed murder is a case of INDIVIDUAL FACT, and shows nothing about being "black in America". 

 

Here, from this black professor's commentary, is the really terrible, even evil--certainly racist--philosophy behind "Black in America":

 

"Everett is a highly intelligent young man who made grievous errors in his life, but none that deserve the fate he presently suffers. It pains me deeply -- often, by myself, to tears -- to see him suffering so long for a crime that he didn't commit. It hurts as well to know that prisons are being built to fit the failures and struggles of other young black and brown men just like him.

I feel an obligation to raise my voice in defense of millions of young black and brown men and women who may one day follow his path. I want to warn them away from the destructive personal habits that make them vulnerable to prison.

But I must also cry out against a society that would punish them in such unforgiving fashion while extending mercy to millions more who aren't poor or black."

First, it is STUPID (I use the word advisedly, and with absolute confidence) to suggest "mercy" as a basis for a criminal justice system.  What CAUSES "disparity" in sentencing? It is failure to punish people UNIFORMLY for the acts that they do (prefereably with as LITTLE discretion in sentencing as possible).  "Mercy" is a concept with no place.  Now you can argue over the APPROPRIATE sentence for individual acts, and that we incarcerate too many people for acts that do not justify it.  But that means concentrating on the APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT, and why acts are not deserving of prison. That is NOT what this professor does, or what leftists do.

This professor, and extreme leftists in general (like in Vermont land San Francisco) do not want ANY people to go to prison  That is one of the many reasons I favor the death penalty, especially if it were actually applied.  You can't have "bleeding hearts" crying for a "rehabilitated" MURDERER to get out of prison if he has been executed. 

As I have said before, leftists want to incarcerate people for thieir ILLNESS, and want those people released as soon as the "illness" is cured or "rehabilitation" has occurred.   This ignores that if we COULD do this (tell who has been "cured" or "rehabilitated"), we could SCREEN people in advance.  What this really means is that people are bing incarcerated for their CHARACTER, and not for what they have done.

That does not bother true leftists, like the professor above, because they fully intend to determine that EVERYONE is "cured" within a quick period of time.  After all, if they are not lcured, it is OUR FAULT. "Indeterminate" sentences are just a leftist way of trying to make sure, DECEPTIVELY, that no one spends much time in prison.

Read that statement from the professor again, and tell me where I am wrong.  Is he really arguing that "black and brown" INDIVIDUALS should suffer the INDIVIDUAL consquences of their crimes, so long as they are treated as individuals rather than part of a racist or ethnic GROUP?  Of course not.  He is a RACIST, as is CNN.  They WANT to treat people as being defined by their racial and ethnic group.  However, they also don't want ANYONE to go to prison. 

 

That is why "building prisons" is "fighting words" to leftists.  Yes, those leftists HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.  That is because overcrowded prisons, and bad conditions because of old construction, KILLS PEOPLE.  But leftists regularly have blood on their hands (see the mayor of San Francisco--responsible for an illegal immigrant FELON killing three people).

This same professor quoted above (go to CNN.com) says that drug dealing is a "nonviolent" crime.  Who says?  Is armed robbery a "nonviolent" crime because no one is killed?  NO--except to leftists and the mainstream media.  Drug dealing is one of the most violent crimes there is.  It KILLS people.  It has created a WAR in Mexico, with GUNFIGHTS right across the border from where I am typing this.  And if you have 100 pounds of cocaine in your possession, you are a DEALER (or part of the dealer network of distribution).  Yes, drug dealing ha killed more people than all of the armed robbers who ever lived.

Finally, that same professor says his brother never had a chance because there is a favoritism in society for "light skinned" "black" people over darker skinned black people.  That brings us full circle, does it not?  Yes, we are back to the RACISTS at CNN and the Associated Press essentially calling the population of El Paso (ME!!!!) "darkies".  Here is the quote again:

 

"The arid landscape around El Paso, and the dark-skinned Hispanic
population, reminded him of Iraq."

 

All "dark skinned" people look alike, right?

 

Q.E.D.