Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Now you may think that this country has already gone so far down the wrong road that the odds are against a "happy" new year. I think you would be right as to our country as a whole, our government, and Wall Street.
However, I am convinced that individual happiness is mainly up to the individual, and that individuals can be happy even if things overall are going the wrong direction. Indeed, I think the departure from individual responsibility for each individual's own life is why things are going in the wrong direction.
However, this means that you, as an individual, can create happiness for yourself. Therefore, I wish you a Happy New Year, no matter how things go for the country or the world. Now there is no doubt that certain levels of overall failure (e.g. Mexico) make it pretty hard for individuals to be happy. We just have to hope things will not get that bad. I doubt that they will, in this country--at least by the end of next year.
So, HAPPY NEW YEAR
P.S. The election did not give me the blues, unlike Dan (slapinions comment to entry yesterday).. That is because the only thing I thought could be worse than Obama winning the Presidency, and Republicans losing so many seats in the Senate, was McCain winning the Presidency and those Republican losers in the Senate having their betrayal of conservative principles confirmed. So I was much more depressed by the nomination of McCain than by the victory of Obama. We can hope for the country to survive Obama, and for a new dawn. I am afraid that there would be no hope of a new dawn with McCain further destroying the Republican Party and the conservative cause. Now the election did give me the distressing idea that the people of this country are far down the road to wanting the government to take total care of them. However, I believe that is more a matter of lack of leadership than anything else. We can now at least hope for new conservative leaers to emerge. Frankly, the election did not worry me as much in this regard as the total conversion of President Bush, Henry Paulson, and Wall Street to the same socialist concept. It does not bode well for the rise of new conservative leaders that the establishment of the Republican Party has converted to socialism (out of fear and lust for power and approval).
The recent scientific "bombshell" that Neanderthal Man may have been doomed by global warming from Ice Age conditions seemed to fit completely with the "doom and gloom" of Al Gorice,, revealed in the Ice Age Times, as he fought to save the Ice Age way of life. Global warming was actually good for homo sapiens, and made our present civilization possible. However, there is this evidence that warming meant doom for Neanderthal Man, as they proved unable to adapt to warming. In other words, it would have made perfect sense for Al Gorice to lament the passing of the Ice Age way of life, as a Neanderthal Man, even though it seemed a little strange for a member of homo sapiens to lament the warming that would enable homo sapiens to dominate the world. There is also that implication that Al Gore is the modern descendant of Al Gorice, although there is editorial suspicion on the part of the editors of this blog that the archaeological team has no direct translation of "Al Gorice's" name, but is attempting to be cute (while otherwise maintaining strict scientific standards). There is that scientific theory that Neanderthal Man really did not disappear, but instead is part of modern man's genes because of interbreeding. It is certainly tempting to regard Al Gore as a descendant of Neanderthal Man, but we can't let our prejudices influence our scientific accuracy, lest we become no better than Al Gore ourselves.
Problem: The elite archaeological team excavating the subject site originally believed that it was a homo sapiens site, although there were no skeletal remains (fossils) so indicating. That caused the suspension of information. The archaeological team is now more uncertain whether this is really an Ice Age homo sapiens site, or one of the last bastions of Neanderthal Man succumbing to global warming. Nevertheless, the team has resumed releases of information, with the caveat that there are substantial scientific uncertainties about what, or is it "who"?, Al Gorice really was. With that introductioin, in the interest of scientific accuracy, here is the latest excerpt from the Ice Age Times translated by the archaeological team (dateline unknown):
"Al Gorice held a conference yesterday in his large cave on the crisis of global warming. As usual, the Ice "Age Times has exclusive information from that conference, although our sources must remain anonymous for reasons of political agenda and protection of both the source and this newspaper from adequate scrutiny. (Editor's note: The first newspaper was obviously more honest than modern "journalists".)
Al Gorice has faced criticism because of the size of the caves he owns, and the massive fires in those caves--even as he asserts fire is killing our way of life, and ourselves, by warming and smoke pollution. Harry "Dirty Ice" Reidice, for example, has called fire a "dirty thing", and wood something better left on the ground. Gorice addressed this criticism by telling conference participants that he has traded for massive credits more than covering his personal use of fire, and that it is necessary to his work saving the Ice Age way of life that he use fire judiciously to help him get out his message in the most effective way possible.
Gorice went on to lament the ever increasing use of fire by increasing numbers of people (translator's note: "beings"?)--especially by the upstart "hairless" people (Editor's note: A reference to homo sapiens?--the anachronisms and inconsistencies here are disturbing to the scientific mind trying to make sense of this; it is almost like reading a speech by the modern Al Gore). Gorice was so pessimistic that he seemed to doubt whether doom could be avoided, even if the use of fire were now severely limited. Our anonymous informant did have some difficulty in hearing everything that was said because of the crackling of nearby fires in the large cave. But the Ice Age Times is confident in the facts presented in this story.
Gorice went on to make a bold prediction. He predicted that the Ice Age way of life would return, even if the failure to promptly heed his warnings on fire doomed the present pristine Ice Age civilization. He did choke a little at this point because of excess smoke in the cave. Members of his entourage quickly adjusted the fires in the cave so that the smoke was vented into another area (where, unfortunately, a crowd of people suffered smoke inhalation). John McIce spoke up at this point to lyrically praise the "pristine" (his word) ice and snow unprofaned by smoke or humanity. Gorice thanked McIce, in a generous gesture to the man who had been humiliated in the recent election. No one, of course, pays much attention to McIce these days, and his constant references to "pristine" landscapes of ice and snow have grown somewhat old, even if every right thinking person knows that McIce's heart is in the right place, even if that nasty Sarah Paleice and her fire loving allies had not caused McIce to lose the last election.
Gorice, however, was soon past the interruption, and on to his predictions of a new Ice Age civilization to rise from the ashes of the civilization destroyed by the promiscuous use of fire and carbon burning. The audience was somber, as befitted the depressing message of doom and gloom. The Ice Age Times has investigated the nasty rumor that most of the audience fell asleep, bored to tears. That rumor is false, and the Ice Age Times has verified it as being spread by right wingers (translation?) trying to discredit Gorice--the same people complaining about his personal lifestyle.
Everyone agrees that the conference was another triumph for Gorice, and that the Ice Age world would be a much better place if Gorice were in charge. As objective "journalists", we at the Ice Age Times can only be proud that Al Gorice is spreading truth throughout the Ice Age world." (Editor's note: Okay. "Journalism" has not changed that much since the Ice Age Times.)
The above concludes the most recent exclusive excerpt from the Ice Age Times, as translated by the archeological team conducting the excavation. More excerpts will be presented as they are translated and disclosed.
Again, it must be noted how right Al Gorice has been proved to be, in hindsight. The Ice Age (whatever Ice Age) way of life did disappear as the Earth warmed, except maybe in places like Greenland and the Arctic Circle. Those pristine landscapes of ice and snow became limited to places like ANWR. Al Gorice even appears to be right about the return of the Ice Age way of life. Yep. We had snow in Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. It is expected to be about 17 degrees when the ball drops tonight in Times Square. Some scientists say the sun is showing signs of conditions that are associated with previous cooling. Now there is no confirmation that Al Gorice was right about fire causing the disappearance of the Ice Age way of life. But everyone has to admit that Gorice was dead on about the Earth warming, and this most recently discovered excerpt may indicate he was also dead on as to the Ice Age eventually returning. Of course, that is not yet certain, but given Gorice's track record in predicting, we should not be surprised if this latest discovered prediction also proves to be accurate.
P.S.: The reference, in the comment to the previous entry, to leftists--especially leftist politicians--making sure that they have a big fire in their own cave (while the masses freeze, or can't afford to heat their homes) appears to be a reference to Al Gorice. Yes, it may scare you, but Al Gorice's fame, and message, seems to be spreading to modern times, all the way from the Ice Age.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
"Please explain the logic or rationale or whatever explaining the liberals agenda (i.e., big government, open borders, etc.) It makes no sense. Why would anyone want to open our borders to uneducated, poor people. Do I feel sorry for them? YES. Can we absorb all of Mexicos' population that want to come here? NO. I have lived on the border my entire life and over the last 40 years have watched the living standard decline significantly. Why? Because the costs associated with allowing a poor, uneducated immigrants has it's costs..... bi-lingual education, health care and on and on. I would be curious as to the costs to the taxpayer for treating the 40 victims of Mexicos' violence, in addition to the danger posed to the other patients in the hospital. It is only a matter of time before the hit men come over here to finish off the wounded, or spray a restaurant with machine gun fire. Oh well, hopefully there will be some liberals between me the shooters."
"As best I can tell, there are two "explanations" for leftists (including Paulson, President Bush, and the Communists on Wall Streeet)--well, maybe 3.
1. Arrogance and fear: the essence of the delusion that central planning is effective. The arrogance is the idea that if only you (leftists) were in charge of all decisions, those decisions will be right (better than either the market or the mass of individuals can make on their own--leftists clearly do not really believe in democracy). The fear is not just the obvious fear that things may go wrong if "enlightened" leftists do not intervene--or the fear that anything that has gone wrong cannot be "fixed" without "enlightened" intervention. There is also the desire for power, and the fear that you will not have that power. If you are in power, like President Bush and Congress, there is the fear of losing power and/or reputation if you don't "fix" every single thing that goes wrong with central planning--in the face of both theory and practice proving that central planning is ultimately a disaster (you might remember the Soviet Union).
2 (these items are interrelated): People want the government to take care of them. This is especially true of people who are poor, or can be convinced that they are poor. This explains why true leftists want to import Mexico's poverty problem to the U.S.--making it our problem, even though it is impossible for us to solve Mexico's poverty problem. We will go under trying. However, for leftists to gain power, and be in charge, they need to import more people into this group 2. An easy way to do that is to import people from Mexico who need the government to take care of them (or think they do). Yes, this also explains why there is no chance that leftists will ever declare either racism or poverty "solved". They need the dependent underclass to rule with their central planning.
3. Upper economic class leftists tend to feel guilty (although not so guilty that conservatives do not give more of their own money to charity--a guy did a study on it and wrote a book--going in with the idea that "compassionate" leftists would give more to charity, only to find that generally incorrect). These leftists think that the only "moral" society is one in which everyone is absolutely equal--even if it means that everyone is equally miserable or badly off. You can summarize this last delusion by imagining leftist men as wanting everyone to be married to ugly women, instead of some being married to someone like Angelina Jolie. In practice, of course, they marry Angelina Jolie instead of Phyllis Diller (with the opportunity)--no matter how "feminist" they profess to be. Leftists preach equality, while seeking power and inequality for themselves (especially true of leftist politicians)."
By the way, I don't endorse every word used by Tony, but I think most of the country would agree with most of what he says (as do I). That leads to the question of how the Republican Party managed to destroy itself, to the point it now stands for nothing (on illegal immigration or almost anything else). Yes, the Republican Party actually nominated John McCain!!! And Tammy Bruce (see Caroline Kennedy entry today) is right that President Bush turned into a leftist mole in the Republican Party on domestic policy. Too bad. We can only hope that the Messiah (a.k.a. Barack "World" Obama) will resurrect a conservative leader out of the dead remains of the Republican Party. It is probably too much to expect, at least from this particular Messiah, that he resurrect Ronald Reagan (desirable, despite Reagan's amnesty mistake--which might not have been such a mistake if we had followed through with vigorous immigration law enforcement after that).
I do sympathize with those who may want to comment, but find it too much trouble. I once tried to reply to a comment on this blog, and found it frustratingly difficult. Maybe there is an easier way I don't know about. But I got some sort of distorted letters that I was supposed to repeat before I was allowed to make a comment on my own blog. I have quit commenting under AOL stories for the same reason. You seemingly have to jump through hoops by deciphering this puzzle of distorted letters. For me, that is really difficult, because--as I have mentioned a few times--my vision is not that good. That is especially true on fine detail. For me to figure out what letters are represented by some puzzle of distorted letters is sheer torture. I refuse to do it.
Therefore, unless someone tells me an easier way to reply to comments on this blog, I will only do so by replying with a separate entry. I have always done that with replies I think are important. However, that means I will not merely reply to a comment on this blog to acknowledge that I have read it. You will have to take my word that I read all I see (which, I think, is almost all), and appreciate them. It is only if I think that either the comment, or my reply, is worthy of a separate entry that your comment will be acknowledged. I don't intend to discourage comments this way. I welcome them. I just refuse to put myself through hoops to rely to a comment on my own blog. I know I am probably admitting to being both blind and stupid here, and that there must be an easier way. As it is, however, that is the way it is.
Yep. I read the comment (only one at time this is being typed) under today's Caroline Kennedy entry. I could not follow it. To me, it was like trying to decipher those distorted word puzzles AOL and Google confront me with. Maybe it is me, but I read the whole comment and could not either follow or understand it. Sorry.
The mainstream media, and fellow leftists, have gotten a little harder on Caroline. Someone actually counted the number of "you knows" in an interview she gave (146). Does this (relatively tame, in the mainstream media) relatively minor "trashing" of Carline Kennedy mean that leftists are not as hypocritical as I stated? Not on your life!!!!! Caroline Kennedy is not running against a Republican. If she were, the left--including the mainstream media--would be out defending her in force. As it is, the criticism is muted.
Who will be appointed if Caroline Kennedy is not? Right. It will be a leftist political hack--probably male. Will that be an improvement, from a conservative point of view? Of course not. The best result, from a conservative point of view, is probably for Caroline to be appointed, despite being obviously unqualified, in the face of conservative criticism. But this does explain te fact that some criticism of Caroline Kennedy is leaking into the mainstream media.
Go back to Barackk "World" Obama. Even thought the media was always for Obama, especially MSNBC, was there not more criticism of Obama leaking into mainstream media coverage when he was running against Hillary Clinton (even as Hillary was obviously shocked to be on the short end of media coverage)? Of course there was more critical, if of a muted kind, coverage of Obama when he was running against Hillary Clinton for the nomination. She was a leftist too, with supporters in the mainstream media. The same is true of leftists with their own alternative to Caroline Kennedy. They have their friends in the mainstream media. For all intents and purposes, conservatives and Republicnas--even those like McCain, when up against a Democrat instead of another Republican--have no friends in the mainstream media. So it is not surprising that some leftists have the "long knives" out for Caroline Kennedy, even if there are still not the unrelenting, unfair attacks like those against Sarah Palin (after all, Caroline may run against a Republican some day). Some leftists have their own candidate--their own agenda--in filling Clinton's Senate seat. Clinton herself may not be a big fan of Kennedy, given that Caroline (and Ted) supported Obama.
Nope. CNN, MSNBC and the rest are still the worst, sanctimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth.
Tammy Bruce--leftist turned conservative talk show host--has actually come out for Caroline Kennedy. As best I can tell, it is because Caroline is a woman, and the alternative is a lelftist, political hack male. You can tell both why Tammy Bruce was once a leftist (she tends to treat people as members of groups), and why she is now on the conservative side. I think she defended Sarah Palin, as well, and thus is consistent. Consistency is a virtue unknown to almost all of the sanctimonious hypocrites on the left.
I actually agree with Tammy Bruce that Caroline Kennedy is not disqualified from public office because she says "you now" a lot. This is actually another example of sanctimonious hypocrisy on the left, for whom the inarticulate fumbling of both President Bush and John McCain (as well as other Republicans) is conclusive proof they are stupid, while the gaffes of Joe Biden are just "good old Joe". Then there is Obama himself, who is "elogquent" only in reading a teleprompter--a trait that would have been highlighted more if he were a Republican. "Um" is heavily featured in Obama's speaking style off of the teleprompter.
Plus, Tammy Bruce has a point that the alternative to Caroline Kennedy is a male, leftist, lifetime politician, when the last thing we need in Washington is more members of the political "establishment" that has got us in so much trouble. Where Bruce is wrong, of course, is the suggestion that Caroline Kennedy is not part of the leftist establishment, just because part of that "establishment" has begun to trash her to advance their own candidate(s).
There is a more important reason Tammy Bruce is wrong. She agrees that Ted Kennedy should not be in the U.S. Senate. He killed a girl, and left her to die under the dark water while he consulted his lawyer. Ted Kennedy is in the U.S. Senate because he is a Kennedy. That is the same reason Caroline Kennedy is even being considered for appointment. That same sense of "entitlement" is why Caroline Kennedy would even dare to put herself forward for the positiion, with no discernible qualifications (and I think more of her accomplishments as a wife and mother than any of those leftists who trashed Sarah Palin--it being part of my identity crisis that the recent Presidential campaign exposed me as more of a feminist than most leftists). Carooline Kennedy--unlike Ronald Reagan--has not even been a prominent voice for any political positions.
The idea that Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the Senate just because she is a Kennedy goes beyond what most conservatives can accept, even if the alternative might be regarded as worse.
So Tammy Bruyce is wrong on this one, and I am right. However, she is not obviously wrong, and there is an honesty to her position missing from the positions of almost all leftists. That is probably why she is no longer a leftist. Bruce has some solid arguments on her side, and this is something upon which conservatives can legitimately disagree. I admit to a soft spot for Bruce, despite her misguided support of abortion on demand (even if Bruce does condemn leftist feminists for their fanatic advocacy of abortion as seemingly the ultimate good), because Bruce has affirmatively labeled President Bush a leftist mole (without using those words) in the Republican Party. She has also roundly condemned the Republican "establishment". On these things, she is right on. I am not willing to say she is that wrong on Carline Kennedy--just wrong in failing to appreciate the corrosive idea that a person is qualified for public office just by being a Kennedy.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Yep. I live in El Paso--on the front lines, so to speak. There is a story every day about the drug cartel war across the Rio Grande from El Paso, in Juarez, Mexico. That is, there is a story every day in El Paso. The mainstream media is only interested in their agenda (open borders), and in the deception supporting that agenda.
Today's story is about two Juarez shooting victims being rushed by ambulance to El Paso's county hospital (R.E. Thomason General Hospital). It is actually a first rate trauma hospital--showing the absurdity of the assertion that there is a health care "crisis" in this country unless the Federal Government acts. If El Paso--as poor as a city gets, with 25% of its residents on food stamps, which was the subject of an entry last week in this blog) can provide such high quality medical care to the poor that Mexico sends its shooting victims here, any city and state in this country can do the same (without Federal "help", beyond the numerous Federal programs that exist now). Yes, Mexican policemen are rushed to El Paso, by ambulance waiting at the border, when they are shot.
Heck. For all I know there may be an ambulance permanently stationed at the border to rush Mexican shooting victims to the El Paso hospital. 45 shooting victims have been rushed to El Paso's country hospital from Mexico this year. I am not sure that many people were shot in all of El Paso Country this year. But we have treated 45 shooting victims from Juarez.
WHY? You know. That is a good question. It is unclear (deception again) exactly what the arrangement is. There have been stories in El Paso that it is costing the taxpayers of El Paso (few as they are--consider that 25% of the population of the city receiving food stamps) and Texas considerable amounts of money. Even if Mexico, or people in Mexico, are paying for the medical care itself, patients from Juarez have to have very much increased, expensive (in more ways than one) security taking care away from American citizens.
Again, it is not possible for us to handle Mexico's problems. We are not responsible for those problems. We cannot allow Mexico to export its problems here. That is what Mexico appears to be doing with illegal immigrants (to this country). It is definitely what Mexico is doing with regard to these shooting victims.
Now you say that we need to be compassionate, and help people in need? I agree, within reason, and in extraordinary circumstances where our help will do some good. However, does it really help Mexico for us to assume the burden for Juarez shooting victims (remember, 45 of them this year alone, and increasing)? Mexcio has to do better than that handling its own problems. We have bailed General Motors out for no bood reason, but at least we have (even if it is deception, too) demanded that GM get its house in order. Mexico is not getting its house in order, and yet we are seemingly, increasingly, bailing out Mexico in any number of ways. That way lies disaster for this country, and it is doubtful it is really helping Mexico (as it is doubtful that the aid to GM will ultimately save GM).
Surely, we should be demanding that Mexico pay the full cost, including the security cost, to people of this country represented by Mexican citizens being treated in this country for gunshot wounds. Surely, we should not be allowing those people to be rushed to this country merely on condition they pay the subsidized medical bills (unclear whether they are even fully doing that). It is absolutely insane for us to be subsidizing Mexico, because of Mexico's virtual takeover by the drug cartels--resulting in a hospital not even being able to take a shooting patient without major security risk. Why should that not be the task of a Mexican hospital, when Mexico is responsible for its own people? Again, there is simply no excuse not to charge any such patient the full cost involved, including indirect security costs. It is absurd to suggest that an El Paso Country hospital is obligated to take Juarez emergency patients, as if they were U.S. emergency patients, without full reimbursement of costs. But that is the type of insanity that has characterized our total policy with regard to illegal immigration and the Mexican border.
Our "policy" toward the Mexican border and illegal immigration, as well as such things as acting as an emergency trauma center for the Mexican drug cartel war (providing even security, as American citizens are placed in danger), is an insane policy. Indications are that it will get even more insane under Obama.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
That is why this overlooked attempt by the JDL to gain attention, and advance its own agenda and power, was deemed worthy by the pointing "Finger" of this week's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate.
The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate, if you are in ignorance of the truly important awards being made in today's real U.S.A., is this blog's reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award every week (an unauthorized reincarnation). As is true of this reincarnation, the old "Laugh In" award was for outstanding stupidity and/or evil that came to the attention of the pointing Finger in the previous week--an award represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger.
As I have previously said, the primary bigots in the country today are of the left. That is not to say that there remain no bigots on the right. It is to say that bigotry is much more pervasive on the left, and in the mainstream media, to the point that it is not even acknowledged for the bigotry it is. Yes, I regard the JDL as part of the left, certainly in type of mindset, even though it is obviously a fanatic "interest" group of the same type as those Muslim "anti-discrimination" groups that tend to excuse the words and actions of extremist Muslims.
I quote Robert Young, from "Adventure in Baltimore" (the movie in which he gave the best preview of his "Father Knows Best" character: The left is "mean, bigoted and intolerant." Yes, the JDL comment on Madoff was "mean, bigoted and intolerant, because it implied that it should not be mentioned that Madoff is a Jew, or that many of the victims may have been lured into their loss by a type of Jewish bigotry (preferring to deal with, and trust, another Jew, rather than people outside of the Jewish community). Yes, again, a statement purporting to condemn bigotry can reveal bigotry. It is simply the wrong reaction to a crook like Madoff to worry that others will be inspired to anti-Semitism (basically a non-problem in the U.S.--a statement behind which I stand, even though I have previously condemened--and continue to condemn--the kooks of the "New World Order", "international Jewish Conspiracy" types for the deluded, bigoted kooks that they are).
Yes, "Adventure in Baltimore" is another one of those older (1949) Hollywood movies showing that we have regressed in many ways in this country. This is only apparently a major digression on my part. It all goes to prove my point that the left in this country, and the media in general ("journalists"), are more "mean, bigoted and intolerant" than ever.
"Adventure in Baltimore" (rating 73) is a pretty good movie attacking the evils of gossip. In the process, it makes an absolute mockery of that Turner Classic Movie, leftist, "documentary--narrated appropriately by Jane Fonda--about the way the Hollywood "Code" supposedly subjugated women in the movies into mere submissive housewives. The thesis was that the "pre-Code" females were "complicated" women, while after the Code they were Stepford women. That is a thesis worthy of Jane Fonda and the left, and which this blog has rightly mocked as the absurdity it is. The only "casualty" of the "Code" was SEX, and not feminism (unless the disastrous--to women--modern sexual "freedom" is regarded as the entire essence of feminism). It is enough to say that the major success of Katherine Hepburn and Barbara Stanwyck occurred AFTER the "Code". The best feminist political movie ever made is "The Farmer's Daughter", with Loretta Young--also, coincidentally, an indictment of the "politics of personal destruction" now routinely employed by the left.
Yes, we all fully know the evils of rumor, back fence gossip, paying too much attention to personal attacks based on agenda. This blog has previously cited these movies: "People Will Talk", "The Chidren's Hour", and "Ridicule" (an absolutely great condemnation of the CNN/mainstream media/leftist attacks on Sarah Palin made before Sarah Palin was even an adult).
The media does not confine this modern use of gossip merely to politics, of course (Fox News, this means YOU). The routine speculation (think Joh Benet Ramsey) on criminal matters, and many other things, is nothing more than truly evil gossip. These "journalists" (not to mention lawyer and psychological "panelist" "experts" should not be able to sleep at night. Who knows. Maybe they don't. Remember the attacks on hero Richard Jewell? Well, the media does not, as they do not remember any of the lessons of these movies over 70 years or more.
It is the same as FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". People pay lip service to the sentence, and then promptly ignore the meaning--as if they are not even aware of the meaning (which they are not).
You may think I am too hard on CNN and the rest in this blog. Wrong. I am not hard enough. These people engage in evil on a daily basis. I don't have the stomach or the time to try to report on it all.
You think I am letting my bias influence my opinion of the left? Wrong again. Where to start? Should I mention the attacks on Clarence Thomas? Should I mention the attempt to say that President Bush was disqualified to be President because of an alleged, decades old DUI? Should I mention that Obama's decades old hard drug use was treated (coreectly, but not consistently) as a mere youthful indiscretion? What about the attempt to crucify President Bush over really a pretty minor, and exaggerated, alleged failure to fully comply with his National Guard responsibilities?
It has gotten worse. Yes, look at "Advanture in Baltimore", "The Farmer's Daughter", and "People Will Talk"--supposedly presenting the tolerant, "liberal" point of view. Then look at the treatment of Sarah Palin. Think of poor Bristol Palin. What about those allegations--endorsed on CNN and much of the left--that Palin could not be a mother and still do a good job as Vice President? Should the opposition have used that smear against Loretta Young, in "The Farmer's Daughter"? After all, Loretta Young was probably going to get pregnant, and have babies, AFTER being elected to Congress. What can you say about CNN sending a team to Alaska to "investigate" the rumors about Sarah Palin not even being the mother of her last child? Then there is that decades old D:UI arrest of Sarah Palin's husband.
Hey. I am just getting started. See Friday's entry where I discussed Jehovah's Witnesses, and the law in "conservative" Texas on refusing to allow evidence of religious practices to be used against a parent in a divorce/custody matter. Compare that with the leftist attempt to smear Sarah Palin with religiously bigoted innuendo based on her former affiliation with a Pentecostal church ("speaking in tongues", you know). What about the article from the religiously bigoted leftists in the Associated Press "revealing" that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a polygamist (Horros!!!--except not only irrelevant and bigoted, but true of Obama's ancestors as well, although you would never know it from the disgraceful, sanctimonious hypocrites at the AP).
Then there is Christmas--jot to mention Rick Warren. People in Washington State were not free to observe a Nativity Scene explaining the meaning of Christmas in the sate capital without being exposed to a "mean, bigoted, and intolerant" atheist diatribe against religion. Some towns in Massachusetts are so anti-Christmas that they refuse to allow "Christmas lights", unless they are referred to only as "holiday lights".
Then there is Obama, where it was viewed with alarm that "whites" might not vote for him, but accepted as absolutely normal that 99% (or something close to that) of African-Americans would vote for Obama. Yes, we are back to the JDL (told you it was not a total digression). Is it "normal" for Jews to prefer to deal with Jews, and to trust only other Jews (irrational as that view obviously is)? Well, in a way it is normal. But it is a type of bigotry, just as it is a type of bigotry to look at a major crime mainly through a prism of whether some people might attempt to use it to stir up anti-Semitism. The minds that react this way are mean, bigoted and intolerant minds. Plus, they are minds trying to "use" an outrageous crime to get attention for themselves.
This is all evil stuff. The people at CNN, MSNBC, the AP, and the rest (again including Fox News) are evil people. They have been condemned as evil people by "liberal" film makers in the past, and there is really no excuse for them. They are fully aware they are committing evil, in order to advance their own agenda (or sometimes ratings). They don't care. That is why I suggest that, in many ways, our country has digressed. Back fence gossip and character assassination have always been with us--as well as the bigotry of treating people as part of groups rather than as individuals. The difference now is that this is really accepted. It used to happen, but be condemned (again, see the movies I reference over a 70 year period).
I repeat: The JDL is an intolerant group with absolutely the wrong reaction to the individual crime of a member of the group (Jews) whose interest the JDL is supposedly "protecting".
Award ceremony (again entirely in the imagination, with no graphics, which is why I suggest you use the image--if you ever saw the orignial--of Dick Martin presenting the award on the old "Laugh In" as a visual aid, even though Martin and "Laugh In" ;have no connection to this blog):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the Finger at the camera, and saying: "Jewish Defense League, this is for you. You deserve it--mean, intolerant and bigoted as you are.
Return next week to see where the Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate points. It has previously pointed to President Bush (last week), Henry Paulson, and Obama in the past--as well as the evil people at CNN, MSNBC, the AP and--yes--Fox News. So it could point anywhere.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Yep. That is right. One in four people in El Paso is receiving food stamps. That means that taxpayers (not all of the remaining 3/4's pay income taxes) are supporting one in four people in El Paso, to the extent of making sure that they don't go hungry (as I have said, it is a total leftist Big Lie that there is any real reason for any person to go hungry in this country, and very few do).
Are we heading to the point where most of the peoople in this country are being supported by a minority of taxpayers? I am afraid so. If you think a society can exist long on that basis, you are deluded. Food stamps are not even the core problem here, when even General Motors is asking for welfare.
There is actaully another point to be made, based on this statistic (and otehrs regarding Hispanics in this country). Does the U.S. have an obligation to handle the poverty problem in Mexico? If you answer "yes" to that question, you are an irrational leftist like Alan Colmes, who believes in open borders (incidentally believing that we have an obligation to take care of the poor in Mexico, even if it means letting them move here and collect welfare here).
Yes, a substantial percentage of Mexican-Americans in the United States are recent immigrants from Mexico, to the extent they are not illegal immigrants who are illegally in this country. Yet, leftists (stupid, politically dishonest hacks that they are) quote "statistics" on Hispanics as if it is a failure of the U.S. that Hispanics in this country appear to be poorer, and less well educated, than other ethnic groups.
It is insane to expect anything else. This is a failure of Mexico, and other countries, from which these people (and their families) recently came. You are an idiot if you regard these statistics as evidence of a failure by this country. You are also, as stated, almost certainly a leftist idiot deliberately mistating the significance of these statistics to push your own agenda. These statistics are certainly no evidence at all of ethnic "discrimination" in this country. The same thing happened with other immigrants, such as the Italians and others who came through Ellis Island. It takes awhile for these immigrants to succeed in this country, but most did. The difference now is that we act like these people have no obligation to better themselves, and that the rest of us are not only obligated to support them, but all of the other poor people living elsewhere in the world (in less desirable places than this country).
We cannot remain this stupid and maintain the standard of living, and opportunity, that brought these people to this country in the first place. Yes, this is directly relevant on the illegal immigration debate--a debate in which leftists refuse to engage in favor of deception.
You doubt me? You really are a fool, aren't you..
Read the previous entry again. Consider the law in Texas--at least when I retired about 5 years ago). Consider the Pentecostal variation on the Christian faith/. Yes, they are known for "speaking in tongues", and a few other (relatively small) variations on the "mainstream" Christian faiths. Texas, however, (:correctly) would not even allow evidence of the beliefs of the Pentecostal faith to even be introduced in evidence in a child custody case. That is because Texas regards this as not only irrelevant to the "best interest" of a minor child, but a violation of religious freedom.
Now let us consider the RELIGIOUS BIGOTS of CNN, MSNBC, and the rest. Remember how they tried to suggest (mainly unsuccessfully) that it was relevant to whether people should vote for Sarah Palin because she had belonged to a Pentecostal church? Yes, this is religious bigotry (as I said at the time). Larry King and Wolf Blitzer and all of CNN are relitious bigots--evil people.
This is not a matter of opinion, unless you, too, are a religious bigot. It is a fact. You can look at the tapes of the attempt to trash Sarah Palin over her affiliation (not even current) with a Pentecostal church. It is one of the most disgraceful examples of religious bigotry in American media history--matched only by the story from the religiously bigoted, Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press (always use complete, official name in first reference) that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a polygamist (I can't make up the religious bigotry of these truly evil people, and I have conclusively shown that every single person who works fro the truly disgraceful AP is at least a fellow traveler in evil. It goes without saying that the AP did not investigate whether Obama's ancestors (on the Muslim side of the family) were polygamists.
Nope. Most of the mainstream media are RELIGIOUS BIGOTS, and I have shown it time and time again in this blog. In that, they are considerably worse than the conservatives who mainly now dominate the Texas judiciary. Does that bother them? At this level of evil, I don't think so. I think they are so corrupt that they do not care.
Yes, an item of "news" I heard today is that the Jewish Defense League is worried that the Bernie Madoff scandal will lead to a rise in anti-Semitism in this country, and that the JDL aready sees a "spike" in anti-Semitism in this country.
Does that mean that the JDL does not care about the individuals--mainly Jews--who lost all of that money in Madoff's Ponzi scheme? I actually think it does mean that. The JDL, from all evidence, has tunnel vision--regarding itself as a "guranan" of the Jewish religion, rather than a true advocate of right and wrong. That is much the same as these Muslim "defense" or "advocacy" groups who defend militant, and even estreme--Muslims, no matter what they do, or are wanting to do (short, and sometimes its seems not even short, of dending terrorism itself).
What should the JDL have done? Well, for a start it should ot have advanced the idea that one of the major worries in the Madoff matter is a rise of anti-semitism. I don't believe than is the case. I don't think there is any evidence that is the case. And, even if Madoff was being used as an excuse for nti-Semitic hate speech, it is the wrong battle for the JDL to fight at the wrong time (somewhat typical of this kind of militant organizations--see the above paragraph on similar Muslim organizations).
I would have though better of the JDL if it had instituted a fund to try to compensate victims of Madoff. As it is, I think people get a (correct) view that the JDL could care less about the victims, and is only worried abut its own agenda and power base.
As I stated above, it appears that most of Madoff's victims were Jews. In fact, it appears that Madoff traded on his religion, and the characteristic of people in the relatively tight knit Jewish community to want to deal with people of their own religion, to take advantage of other Jews.
I know whereof I speak here. I used to be partners with a rather prominent Jewish family lawyer (diverce lawyer) here in El Paso. You would be amazed at the number of Jewish clients that lawyer got--including clients even outside of family law--because he was Jewish. That is, other Jews would go to him at least partly for that reason. If you doubt me, look at the Madoff client/victim list. Sure, they are not all Jews. But a large percentage of them are.
Is this tendency for Jews to seek out other Jews to do business with, and to socialize with, bigoted? Sure it is, in a way, but it is no different than how almost everyone acts. Jews have a reputation of being more insutlated than most, and more tightly knit. That has sometimes been an excuse for antiSemitism, as others observe this tendency of Jews to act like a separate community of their own within the larger communities in which they live. So Jewish people like to deal with other Jews who go to the same synagogue, or at least the same type of synagogue. However, do not a lot of Catholics and other Christians prefer to deal with people who go to the same church, or the same country club?
Sure they do, even if then tendency may not always be as strong as it is among Jews. And this is a kind of irrational bigotry, even it it is also--at least in part--rational human nature. Don't you naturally trust someone like yourself more than you trust someone different? Of course you do. And that is especailly true if you have a hsitory of being attacked and discriminated against by "outsiders". The Mormon Church--in some ways analogous to the Jews in the way the close knit members have a reputation of creating a community of thei own from which "outsiders" are often excluded--has a reputation of encouraging Mormons to deal with other MOrmons.
Con men like Madoff take advantage of this natural tendency of people to think that another Jew will be nonest with a Jew, or another Mormon more hones with a fellow Mormon. History suggests that this attitude is truly irrational, because it is merely a means of con men taking advantage of people using this irrational trust. The notorious, "Elmer Gantry" type, religious frauds are the classic examples of trying to gain trust on false pretenses. Madoff approached fellow Jews on basically the same basis as Elmer Gantry approached Christians--albeit extending the concept from a straight religious con into a business con taking advantage of a religious "kinship". This tendency to judge people as members of groups, rather than individuals, is the classic evil of bigotry, and it is present here as well as in the more obvious burning crosses of the KKK.
Now there is a rational component here. Is it not natural to prefer to deal with people you know, instead of with total strangers? Sure it is, but that natural tendency easily slides into an irrational trust, and an irrational distrust of others.
Back to the Jewish Defense League: Should that organization not be distressed that Jew Madoff took advantage of his religion, and a slightly bigoted habit of Jews going mainly to other Jews for borkers, lawyers, accountants, etc.? Yes, I think that the JDL should be distressed about that, and should even go so far as to say that Jews should not be irrationally trusting of their "own kind", any more than non-Jews should be irrationally distrusting of Jews. But the JDL is not that "honest" an organization, and I think that pretty much diminishes the credibility of that it says. In its own way, its tunnel vison is as extreme as the KKK, even if it does not spread bigoted hatred in the same obvious way as the KKK. Indeed, the mission of the JDL is supposed to be to stop irrational hatred against Jews, but I am convinced it does not go about it the right way by a mentality (as I say, bigoted in its way) that it is "Jews against the world".
When I was a working lawyer, doing a fair amount of appellate work, a fellow lawyer asked me to handel an appeal of a divorce/custody matter where a judge had denied a Jehovah's Witness woman custody of her child using her religion as at least a factor. To refresh your memory, Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in Christmas celebrations, birthday celebrations, blood transfusions, and a lot of other things that are pretty far out of "mainstream" Christian religious doctrines. Is a child better off being raised in a religion that is more "normal"? You can make that case. But I argued to the appellate court in Texas, based on Texas precendent, that a judge could not use the rather eccentric beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness religion as even a factor to decide custody issues concerning a child.
What is the point here? Well, I did not charge the Jehovah's Witnes woman nearly the amount which I would normally have charged for such an appeal. And I am an agnostic, and was never sympathetic to the Jehovah's Witnesses (raised Presbyterian). But this woman had little money. I was sorry for her, as the El Paso trial judge had clearly misapplied Texas law (whether you think Texas law on this point entirely makes sense, and it is not an easy question--the Texas position has the merit of coming down on the side of religious freedom, even if it is hard to see how a "fringe" religion does not affect the "best interest of the child").
Now the Jehovah's Witness woman had been able to get some help from the equivalent of the "Jehovah's Witness Defense League" (I don't remember its official name at this point). She borrowed money to pay my (inadequate) "up front" fee. I think the Jehovah's Witness organization advanced some money for that purpose. They additionally gave me some information for the appeal. We won the appeal.
You know what? I don't think it did the woman any good, although I never found out the final result. I was not a family lawyer. I did not handle trial court divorces, or child custody matters (even though I was a partner in that firm that did for a long while). It was always clear that I was not going to handle this woman's child custody case when it was returned for a new trial. I actually remember that the original trial had been a jury trial where the judge allowed evidence of Jehovah's Witness practice, and refused an instruction that the jutry could not consider that in awarding child custody. But the judge might have simply made clear that he considered that evidence in a decision from the bench :(this was some time ago). The point is that the case had to go to trial again, without the evidence on Jehovah's Witness beliefs and practices. That was expensive. The woman did not have the money anymore.
The original trial lawyer (who sent the case to me for appeal) would not continue the case for free (why should he--no Jehovah's Witness either?). Yet, this woman evidently could not get the national Jehovah's Witness organization, or nay Jehovan's Witness organization, to pay for continuing her case. She evidenctly could not get them to provide a Jehovah's Witness lawyer, for free. The equivalent of the Jehovah's Witness Dfense League was willing to try to help fight for the "principle" that Jehovah's Witnesses should not be discriminated against, but they did not seem to care much for this woman as an individcual. She came back and asked me to help her. My job was over, and I was not competent to go into trial court on a family law case, even if I so wanted (which I did not). So upholding the "principle" on appeal may have done this woman no good. I hope she eventually got some help. Today, she may have gotten state pro-bono help not avaiable then. But I thought then, and think now, that some Jehovah's Witness chruch organization should have helped her. Instead, the main help she got--even if ultimately inadequatge--was from me and that original trial lawyer who helped her more than the value of what she paid him. Neither of us were Jehovah's Witnesses, or particularly admired their beliefs.
That is my problem with organizations like the JDL. I think they are more interested in advancing an agenda than in individual "justice". In fact, I think they are somewhat more interested in their own power and influence than in any principle at all. I think the JDL reaction to Bernie Madoff proves that (without rpresenting that I have studied in detail what the JDL has done in response to that "scandal"--it is possible that they even started a fund for victims, which has not been publiclized, which would make me feel somewhat better about them; I doubt it).
As it is, the "positionis" and "statements" of advocacy organizations like the JDL (and Hispanic advocacy groups and Muslim advocacy groups, etc.) get way too much attention. What they say is worth little.
Plus, have you seen the mainstream media explore any of the issues I explore above? Don't be silly. They are leftist COWARDS, and would not touch what I discuss above (including the "Jewish" clannishness) with a ten foot pole. Now I have seen mention as to how these losses will affect Jewish philanthropy, and the fact that many of the victims have connections in the Jewish community could not be ignored. But listen carefully, and you will not hear the issues I raise above really being discussed.
Too bad our mainstream media are mainly leftist COWARDS--not to mention stupid.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
How can I, an agnoaic, wish you a MERRY CHRISTMAS. First, because I am not either stupid enough or wimpy enough to use the false, wimpy "Happy Holildays".
You need to carefully read my previous blog entries. First, I fully recognize that Christmas celebrates the brith of the Son of God. But why do you have to have faith in Jesus as the Son of God to wish people a Merry Christmas? First, unlike the ACLU, I see nothing wrong with Christians having JOY in their holiday. Why should I not wish them that joy? And part of that joy, at least for many of them, comes because they are celebrating the birth of Jesus, who they believe gives their life meaning. More power to them.
What about people like me? Do I mind being wished a Merry Christmas? Why should I, unless I am an anti-Christina bigot like so many leftists? I would like to have a Merry Christmas. I don't mind getting into the "spirit" of Christmas. It is the same as when I am present when someone says "grace". I simply don't pray. So I don't get religious comfort out of Christmas--even though I recognize that Christmas only exists as a religious holiday celebrating the birth of the Son of God. Doesn't matter. Why should I not participate in the spirit of the thing. Why should I be OFFENDED to be wished a Merry Christmas. No reason.
Therefore, I wish you a Merry Christmas, whether you are a Christian or not. If that offends you, I am sorry for you.
Don't doubt me on the above (that historically this is a well known danger of short selling manipulators). I recently saw a repeat of an old "Maverick" episode (1960's). The plot was exactly what I explained in the first paragraph. An unscrupulous "financier" used short selling and unfounded rumors as a method of driving down the price of stock in a gold mining operation, with the intent of buying up all of the stock. Of course, in this fictional story (which, however, explains these 1000 point Dow up days on Wall Street these days, followed by the inevitable reverse oft he fictional rise) ended with the financier being stuck in a short squeeze. A short seller sells stock he does not own, in advance. But then he has to come up with the stock at some date or time. If he can't find any stock at a reasonable price (in the "Maverick" episode Maverick had bought up all of the stock), then he has to pay any price to obtain the shares. That is a typical short squeeze. I digress (only sort of).
The point here is that modern computer trading has made the risks of allowing short selling too great. We should eliminate short selling altogether, as this blog has told you. Yes, we can keep option trading (requiring an investment of money up front). Trading in "puts" and "calls" can be manipulated, but not to the extent that short selling has become one f the main tools of these modern computer gamers in the stock market.
We simply can't afford this kind of stock manipulation. It was part of the scenario that has caused this economic "crisis".
Yes, Jim Cramer (blowhard that he is, and with no consistency in what he says) made my case last night on his program, and has rather consistently trashed the modern short sellers. He wants the SEC to again institute the old "uptick" rule, where you could only sell a stock short on an incremental RISE in the stock--keeping short sellers from just continuously driving a stock into the ground. What Cramer misses is that, with modern computer trading, the "uptick" rule would probably just be a minor obstacle to these modern short selling manipulators (magnifying moves in the stock market, leading to a sick market, as this blog has documented). We need to eliminate short selling. Crmeer's logic leads to that conclusion. He just refuses to take the final step to where his logic leads.
Jim Cramer went further toward this logical conclusion. He advocated eliminating what he called "double short" ETF funds. These funds apparently get around margin rules, and manage to multiply the leverage of shot selling (without even benefiting their investors much--as detailed by Cramer last night). As stated, what Cramer is ingoring is that the logic of what he said, in light of modern computer trading, demands that we eliminate short selling altogether, and not just some forms of it.
Now we come to the intellectually dishonest Communists on Wall Street (Larry Kudlow and all of you Wall Street people who appear on CNBC: This means YOU.). Those people are willing to see socialism in the United States so long as it bails out Wall Street. Yet, raise the issue of limiting short selling and they become the most fanatic "free market" people who ever lived. In short, they are willing to see the free market eliminated in the economy at large, so long as their own "free market" is not even restricted at all.
What can you say about people this intellectually dishonest? Well, I have said it. These are the stupidest people who have ever walked the Earth. What is worse is that these people (Henry Paulson is one) are now running the country . What Wall Street wants, Wall Street has been getting. And they have been getting darn arrogant about it, as if they had not proven themselves the stupidest, and most dishonest, people who have ever walked the Earth.
Nope. "Maverick" got it right long ago. You can't defend the people now creating these sick, wild swings on Wall Street. We should eliminate short selling. The SEC did suspend it for awhile, and the world did not end. The stock market is presently sick to the point of death, and something needs to be done. This would be one measure that we can try to slow down these computer trading manipulators.
Remember what Oama said (not what Obama, Biden and the media are now implying he said): Obama said that he, his aides, and no one on his behalf had any contact with Illinois Governor Blago about who he was going to appoint to Obama's former Senate position. Obama even went so far as to say he had no knowledge of what was going on with that appointment.
As this blog stated, that was a transparent LIE. Indeed, it would have been absurd to suggest that Obama wanted no input into Blago's appointment. There was nothing wrong with wanting input--at least to the point of being able to suggest names, or know what names are being considered so as to be able to at least make any objections that Obama had to any person being considered. Would it not be a betryal of the people of Illinois for Obama not to at least be that interested in who was appointed to replace him (the kind of betrayal represented by Obama's previous support of Blago for governor in his two elections--helping elect a croook as their governor that the mainstream media has gone so far as to suggest everyone knew was off his rocker). Of courseObama had contact, direct or indirect, with Blago. He would be abandoning Illinois to have had no such contact.. yet, he LIED. He denied any contact at all, by him or on his behalf. That was absurd, and suggests that there was something wrong with his contacts with Blago (at the very least that Obama knew more about the games Blago was playing than he now wants to admit).
There was nothing wrong with Obama talking, directly or indirectly, with Blago about Blago's appointment. As stated, Obama should have had such contacts. The attempt to deny any interest, and any contacts, merely suggests that Obama has something to hide.
Now Obama has undertaken his own "investigation" of the contacts of his aides. This is the kind of thing that the mainstream media would laugh about President Bush if he tried it: "investigating" his own people.
Yet, the Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press is putting out multiple stories, including one quoting Joe Biden, suggesting that this meaningless "investigation" will "clear" Obama aides of any "inapporpriate" conduct or "deal-making" with Blago.
Notice how the words have changed, because Obama's original lies were just stupid. Now there does not appear to be a denial of "all contact" Rather, there is now "no evidence" of any "inappropriate" contact with Blago, and no "deal making". Why, then, did Obama lie about there being no contact at all. Nope, I don't care if this "report" repeats the idea that there were "no contacts", although the change in words suggest that is fairly unlikely. It is still an obvious lie, and still raises the question as to why he thought it was necessary to lie (other than he thought--correctly--that the mainstream media would let him get away with it).
This "report" is all a total farce, and that is what the media would call it if a Republican did a similar whitewash.
Yes, the drug cartel violence in Mexico is totally out of control. Almost 1600 people have been murdered this year in Juarez, and it is so bad that the morning radio report in El Paso (where this is daily news, while the contemptible, useless national media ignores it) is that the violence has escalated to the point that they may have lost count of the victims. The news along the rest of the Mexican border with the U.S. is no better (for example, Tijuana).
The further news in El Paso this morning was that Chihuahua license plates were much more prevalent in the U.S. as people in Juarez look for safer places to shop (just to shop?).
Mexico is a failed country, and it makes border security (and control of illegal immigration) essential for this country. Except for the economy (and illegal immigrants take American jobs), there is probably no bigger problem we face.
Yet, there has been a virtual blackout on the terrible news from Mexico in our national media--even as it is daily news in El Paso. This merely proves again that the national media no longer reports "news", but only what fits into its own agenda (as it has ignored the evidence that "gloal warming" has stopped).
Remember when the Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press (to use the complete, official name) reported every violent death in Iraq. Nope. I am not talking about American deaths. I am talking about Iraqi deaths. Remember when the Associated Press kept presenting stories from Zimbabwe--at least a weekly, and sometimes almost daily--report of the progress of the election there? Remember when the despicable, anti-American AP had a story (documented in this blog) for some 14 consecutive days on Blackwater (that American contractor in Iraq accused of killing a lesser number of Iraqis than the number of Mexicans who have died this week in Juarez--pretty much a one day story, sideshow of the Iraq War unless you are the anti-American AP)? Yet you never see an AP story on the daily violence in Mexico (more important than Zimbabwe, or than Blackwater ever was--even arguably more important than Iraqi civilian deaths caused by the non-Blackwater, terrorist violence there).
Nope. The mainstream media in this country is beneath contempt. "Contempt" is an inadequate word for my feeling about "journalists" in this country. Yes, this does apply to Fox News, although I admit I have seen a story or two about the Mexican violeance on Fox News--hardly the kind of coverage it deserves. I can remember no more than one radio "news" (a joke, even for the Fox News hourly radio reports) report on the subject in the entire last year.
As I said, the problem in Mexico is accelerating, according to El Paso news. When will it start receiving national attention? Will it have to wait until the violence spreads to the U.S. (which, with isolated exceptions, it has not yet done)? I think that the mainstream media is so beneath contempt that this is so. They are going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to cover this story.
Yep. That is because of their agenda. Yes, it is a pro-illegal immigration agenda. However, it is also an anti-American agenda that basically resists saying anything bad about foreign coutnies--especially foreign countries in favor with the media. It is an agenda that says that it is "politically incorrect to suggest that the Latinos in Mexico have lost control of their country (which does not mean that Hispanics are bad people, but does mean that Mexico is a failed system and a failed country).
Well, you get the truth from this blog, even if I could wish more people read it. You people who do read this blog will not be surprised when this situation on the Mexican border explodes into the U.S.
Message to Paulson and President Bush: PLEASE GO AWAY. I AM BEGGING YOU. STEAL SILENTLY INTO THE NIGHT ON JANUARY 20, AND DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE ENOUGH TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY AND YOUR PARTY (supposed political party--leftist moles that you both are). See my numerous entries showing that Henry Paulson is the worst financial failure in the history of the world. He destroyed Goldman Sachs as chairman. The destruction just did not come to light until Paulson was Treasury Secretary, when he panicked in order to save that same Goldman Sachs from the destruction he had brought upon us. He then proceeded to destroy the country with that panic, and by bringing socialism to us all on a scale no Democrat has ever done. President Bush helped him do it. See Sunday's award of the Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate to President Bush.
Again: PLEASE GO AWAY. I can't take you people anymore. Hide in a corner, or in bed, or something. Just don't do anything more before you leave office.
Note to VP Cheney: PLEASE SHUT UP. Yes, Cheney needs to keep the goodwill he built up (ven though he has never been a conservative on domestic policy) among conservatives, mainly because of his leftist enemies. Cheney is forfeiting that goodwill by doing things like "ripping" (AP word) Congress for refusing to bail out the automakers (which really means ripping conservatives in Congress, and those Republican Senators who belatedly decided to stand up for free market principles).
Monday, December 22, 2008
yes, the Federal Government has adopted that immortal economic principle: "Buy high and sell low." You could argue for a thousand years and not justify this stupidity . In fact, the tunnel vision stupidity of President Bush is continuing to advocate HARDING oil as the price went above $140.00 a barrel was one of the worst single stupidities of any American President. It is hard to imagine one human being being that "no brainer" stupid, at a time when one reason that oil prices were rising so high was irrational buying/hoarding by China, India and speculators. We could hardly object much when we were doing to same thing, in one of the most truly irrational policies that any President has ever advocated. And he kept advocating it, no matter how high the price of oil went. Yet, as far as I know, he has not advocated resuming purchases, at a time when we should be purchasing all of the oil for the Reserve that we think we will ever need (my brother, the trucker, even recognizes this truth).
And you wonder why central planning is a disaster. The only rational policy was to buy oil for the Reserve ONLY if it were below a certain price, and to resume buying once it fell below that price. Then, if the price rises again, as it will, you could consider selling some of the low price purchases, as well as suspending the new purchases.
I never favored using the Strategic Oil Reserve to try to manipulate the price of oil, although I would have reversed the "no brainer" stupid purchases we made as oil was rising. However, I regard trying to use the Reserve to fix the price of oil, or manipulate it in a major way, as a major mistake. My brother, the trucker, was willing to advocate selling oil out of the Reserve to lower prices, although I think he recognized that you could not use the Reserve to try to obtain the oil price you want in such a major way as to compromise the purpose of the Reserve.
This does not change that it was a "no brainer" to stop buying oil in the speculative/hoarding price "bubble". There are some things that are just beyond stupid. This was one of them, and the stupidity is being repeated by failing to resume purchasing oil for the Reserve now that it is "cheap".
The only reason that President Bush's advocacy of purchasing more oil for the Reserve, no matter what the price (in the middle of an outrageous oil price "bubble") will not be regarded as one of the major blunders ever made by any American President is that the amount of oil involved was just not enough to have a major influence on the "market" price (albeit the psychology was all wrong, and the psychology of suspending purchases might have had influence on the oil market).
Still, even though it is a policy that cannot be said to have a major impact on the recent spike/bubble in the price of oil, President Bush's "policy" (too kind a word) on purchases for the Strategic Oil Reserve shows why my brother regards him as a stupid man. It was, as stated above, one of the stupidest, most hard headed absurdities in the history of Presidential absurdities--compounded by not even suggesting that maybe purchases should now be resumed.
See Sunday's entry as to my brother's opinion of President Bush as the worst President we have had in a hundred years (which means worse than Herbert Hoover, as well as Jimmy Carter). As I state in that blog entry, I have never gone that far, but believe that the stupidities of President Bush have about killed the Republican Party. On a small scale, Strategic Oil Reserve stupidity illustrates the kind of thinking that got President Bush in trouble on a larger scale.
Am I not the same? Do I not oppose the Fairness Doctrine, and attempts to impose the leftist idea of "fairness" on conserative talk radio, because conservative talk radio supports my conservative point of view?
Nope. Unlike most leftists, and admittedly some (not so many, or so blatantly) on the right, I am not (subject always to human fallibility) a hypocrite. As I have mentioned previously, my college philosophy term paper was an approving look at John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", the basic thesis of which is that all of humanity, except one, is not more justified in silencing the contrary views of that one, than that one is in silencing the views of all of the rest of humanity.
Want more? I mentioned in the previous entry that I had a letter opposing the Fairness Doctrine printed in the leftist (even then) Denver Post circa 1970. That was well before conservative talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine was then in effect, and radio was a wasteland of uninteresting pablum--to the extent it was not made up of music. In short, I was against the Fairness Doctrine when there was no ideological reason to be against it, as the evidence (even then) seemed to be that all media was trending leftist.
Now it is true that my 1970 letter, when I was stationed in the U.S. Army at Ft. Carson (right outside of Colorado Springs), was prompted by FCC action in revoking the license of one of those fringe radio preachers for violation of the "Fairness Doctrine". However, if you think that radio preacher was advancing the conservative cause (whether leftists would call him "right wing" or not), you are deluded. I said in my letter, in fact, that I would not defend the ranting of the preacher in question. As an aganostic, that kind of stuff never was my cup of tea, and this guy really was on the outer fringes of even the evangelical movement. But I said then, when it did not directly advance my ideological interest (other than my interest in free speech), and I say now: the Fairness Doctrine was, and is, incompatible with the principle of free speech. Using the idea of the "government airways" as an excuse to suppress free speech is a device of tyrants, and the present attempt of leftists to re-introduce the concept exposes them for the dictatorial suppressors of free speech that they are, and want to be (on a greater scale). This kind of leftist is interested in power (the Marxist idea that "the end justifies the means"), and has no real belief in the principle of free speech, except when it can be used to advance leftist power.
The test of principle is when you stand by the principle even when it does not obviously advance your interests. President Bush has failed this test in his abandonment of free market principles The new minted Communists on Wall Street have similarly failed totally in a transparent effort to get government to save their own skins. I generally (subject, again, to human fallibility) do not fail this test, and my goal in this blog is to stand for principle and not for the convenient partisan argument of the moment.
Now it is true that I do not know who I could be partisan for right now. I no longer consider myself a Republican. I consider myself a conservative, but that is an overall, short-hand description of an intellectual point of view rather than a matter of partisan politics.
In short, I oppose leftists because of what they believe, generally, and not because they are leftists. I do not support politicians, such as President Bush and John McCain, because they say they are "conservative", when they do not believe in nearly the same principles as I do (I did vote for Bush twice, but I gregret the second vote--stiff though John Kerry was--and have pretty much given up on the idea of voting for the "lesser evil" which I always knew President Bush represented).
For those leftists out there who regularly abandon principle in favor of power, on things like free speech: Does it bother you to be such a hypocrite? So intellectually dishonest? I see no indication it bothers most of you.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
President Bush has set back the conservative cause a generation (unless Obama rescues it), and he has perhaps totally destroyed the Republican Party forever (ditto).
Don't take just my word for it. President Bush is this week's recipient of this blog's Flyling, Fickle Finger of Fate--this blog's unauthorized reincarnation of the old Laugh In "award" for conspicuous stupidity/evil that came to light in the previous week. President Bush was the hands down, unchallenged recipient of the "Finger" this week, represented by the statuette of an INDEX finger pointing. President Bush gets the nod this weekend the old fashioned way: He earned it by bailing out General Motors and Chrysler after the otherwise hopeless Republicans in the U.S. Senate finally developed enough cojones to stand up to the Democrats/socialists on the issue. And President Bush made one of the worst "explanatory" speeches ever made by an American President to explain this indefensible action. Even politically, the action made no sense, as it totally undermined both conservatives and Republicans one last time (WHY, OF WHY, DID PRESIDENT BUSH JUST NOT GO AWAY, AS REQUESTED BY THIS BLOG)--making a farce of the Congressional "debate" on the issue. Why have a "debate", when the President was going to do it by central planning fiat anyway (as the Democrats had wanted to start with). It reminds you of the farce of the debate over Paulson's 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout, which caused panic in our entire financial system while turning out to be at total farce. The supposed "well thought out" "plan" of buying up distressed assets was never even implemented, in favor of the socialist government "purchase" of ownership interests in American financial institutions that actually took place (without ever being debated in Congress). Congress gave Paulson a blank check, which is what Paulson wanted (the whole "debate" about not giving him a blank check being a total and complete farce). Dick Cheney (no conservative either--sorry if this is a revelation to you) had the nerve to criticize Congress for being willing to let the automakers collapse, thereby "forcing" President Bush to step in as Cummunist/central planner-in-chief. Dick Cheney gets honorable mention from this week's pointing "Finger" for this atrocious statement alone.
But I promised to let you see how this is not just me talking. So here is the mail I got from my borther--the c9-owner of a trucking company not being bailed out who does not understand why General Motors deserves more consideration than he is getting. This is the email:
"Let's say that you are in financial trouble and you go to a bank to get somemoney. Your story is simple. I am going broke. I won't have enough cashto operate in two months. I don't have a plan on how to fix it, but if youwould just give me some money I am sure I can come up with one pretty quick.And then of course the bank says, here is a whole bunch of money and I willgive you even more in a couple of months. But if you don't come up with aplan, you have to pay the money back immediately. Yeah, right!!!!! They would laugh you out of the building. But what doesBush do? He actually went with this ridiculous sequence of events. Ifthere was ever any question on who the worst president in the last centurywas I think you have to point straight at Bush. Jimmy Carter is a pikercompared to Bush. This just puts the icing on the cake."
Believe it or not, I have consistently defended President Bush to my brother--jot the tupid things President Bush has done to sabotage conservatives and the Republican Party over the past 4 years, but against the assertion that President Bush is the worst President in the last 100 years or more. I have stated, and still believe (with less and less assurance) that President Bush is only the fourth worst President in my lifetime, with an overall performance better than LBJ (Vietnam and the disastrous War on Poverty), Carter (he of 15% inflation and 20% interest rates) and Nixon (price controls and Watergate). Do you realize that, even as of today, no Democratic President has imposed peacetime price controls, as nominal Republican Nixon did? This was an obvious precursor of President Bush: the first American President to directly implement socialims in this country. Again, President Bush is a nominal Repubican, which is why the Republican Party is a dead party walking. Yes, the Republicans in Congress--especiallly the "establishment" ones in the Senate--helped, but the willingness of President Bush to undermine non-Communist (slight overstatement for dramatic effect) Republicans (on this vote) by implementing the automaker bailout that they blocked indicates just how much President Bush is to blame for the death of the Republican Party (and the exile of conservatives into the Wilderness). President Bush has definitely been the worst President for the Republican Party since Herbert Hoover. I don't really believe, with my brother, that he has actually been a worse President than Hoover (who was the wrong man for the wrong time, even though he was one of the smartest, seemingly most capable men ever elected President). Again, it is telling that my brother, who is conservative but not in the ideological way I have been ever since Goldwater, is willing to condemn President Bush more harshly than I am. The man (Bush) has been an absolute disaster for conservatives, and for the Republican Party.
Need more? Well here is the reply email (to the above email from my brother--sent to me and to Tony) from "Three Line" Tony. "Three Line" was so nicknamed, by me, because he has criticized this blog, and my emails, for violating today's unwritten law that no one reads, or should be expected to read, past three lines in any modern communication. You have to admit the man has a point (if you review the verbose entries of this blog, including this one). I digress. Here is "Three Line's" email (only a few lines beyond three):
"I noticed the incredible point that you make. We will loan you money, but if you don't get your S**T together, we will demand it back....like they are going to be able to pay it back. Bush made the following comment, I kid you not. "I am abandoning free market principals to save our free market system". I will have to ask the elder Bush and Mrs. Bush...Was he dropped on his head when he was little?
Although Tony is conservative, and has "promised" (threatened?) to start a conservative blog consisting of entires limited to three lines, he was not previousl the kind of doctrinaire conservative that I might be consedered--certainly not an arguer of conservative prniciples from college (New Mexico State University) to law school (University of Texas at Austion, where no one admitted being conservative in the Nixon/Vietnam War era) to the present. Even in the army (1969-1971), I had a conservative letter opposing the Fariness Doctrine, as well as one opposing the lies of the left on the abortion issue, published in the (even then) leftist Denver Post (while I was stationed at Ft. Carson). Even so, I am less harsh toward President Bush than both my brother and Tony--even though I have actively engaged in the ideological wars longer, and more consistently, than they have. This shows just how badly President Bush has sabotaged the Republican Party--so badly that it should not survive, and will not unless Obama revives it. Even with Obama, it will take a true conservative leader to raise the Republican Party from the ashes.
I don't believe President Bush is a stupid man, although I believe he is hard headed, with tunnel vision and no real conservative instincts (although his references to God seem to me to be more heartfelt and sincere than Obama's). Yet, this auto bailout "defense" made by President Bush, referred to by both my brother and Tony, contains at least three of the most stupid statements ever made by a U.S. President, and is one of the most stupid actions ever made by a U.S. President. The three incredibly stupid, indefensible statements are as follows:
1: The loan is conditioned upon the automakers showing that they can run viable businesses by March of 2009, or they will have to immediately pay back the money.
2. (if you have stopped laughing, or crying, at the absurdity of 1): We have to abandon market principles in order to save our market system.
3 (if you have stopped laughing/crying at both 1 and 2): The UAW is required to give wage concessions by January 1,2010 so that GM/American wage costs are the same as foreign companies in the U.S. (lol). Editor's note: Obama is not required to, and will not, enforce this "requirement". If he wanted to, the Democratic Congress would not let him.
Yes, as with the Paulson bailout money, this is a "blank check". The biggest implied stupidity here is Bush's assertion that it is not. Look at AIG. We loaned them 85 billion dollars. Then we raised the loan to about 127 billion. Why is that? It is because once we made it clear that we did not believe that we could let AIG go under, AIG had a blank check. There was no way Paulson and Bush were going to admit that they made a mistake by bailing out AIG by then letting AIG go under.
The same is true of the automakers, even though Paulson and Bush will no longer be around (Thank God!!!). Are Obama and Congress going to pull the plug on the automakers in March? Don't be silly. Once we have committed to their survival, no politician will want to take responsibility for letting them go under. We may get more posturing--more "requirements. But we will move heaven and Earth, and put in virtually unlimited resources, to avoid letting them collapse. Further, now that the pressure is off, the UAW (union) will never make any substantial concessions (even though necessary to save the companies in the end, despite the almost unlimited taxpayer money, simply because taxpayer loans do not help GM sell products at a profit). In the end, especially under Democrats, we will take over GM completely rather than really lower the bom on the UAW, or let GM go under. President Bush has made this all inevitable. It may have been inevitable anyway, but at least Republicans could have said: "we told you so." President Bush, as he has done for four years and more, has made it impossible for Republicans to stand for any principle at all. President Bush has shown, except on foreign policy, that he is a man without principle--or perhaps that he fundamentally has the "principles" of a leftist central planner ("No Child Left Behind", Medicare Drug Benefit Plan, Wall Street Bailout, Auto Bailout, etc.). President Bush has effectively made it impossible for Republicans to stand for anything domestically, and it has killed the Republican Party.
Enter my brother, again. He keeps up with transportation stuff. It is his business. He notes that the UAW came out with a statement that it will be willing to make concessions beginning in 2012. First, as my brother says, the UAW has no intention of following through, in any real way, in 2012. That is just words, like the common tactic of promising spending cuts, or more "efficient" government that saves all kinds of money. It never happens, while the disastrous growth of government continues. Promises for the future mean absolutely nothing, which makes President Bush's stupid "conditions" for the future so very, very stupid (like his father breaking his pledge of "no new taxes" for spending cuts that were never going to happen).
Prediction: General Motors does not survive until 2012 (probably not until 2010). The President Bush bailout has made the ultimate demise of GM more certain (right now Chapter 11 might have saved GM, if the UAW had been forced to let GM organize to meet foreign competition).
Award ceremony (as usual, a virtual ceremony, without graphics, taking place entirely in the imagination, which is why I recommend you visualize Dick Martin presenting the statuette of the Finger on the old "Laugh In" as a visual aid, even though Martin is obviously not connected with this award):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera and saying: "President Bush, this is for you. You deserve it, as no other Republican has deserved it more since Herbert Hoover (if then). Your actions have done more to advance socialism, and undermine conservatism, in this country more than any leftist who ever lived, definitely including Karl Marx, Lenin, and every Communist who ever lived.
Return next week to see if the Finger again points at a recipient so derserving.
Friday, December 19, 2008
What is Barack "World" Obama's official position on "gay marriage". He is against it, in case you had neglected to notice. His position is basically the same as super Pastor Rick Warren. It is really the same as John McCain (as on so many other things: Why do you think McCain lost?).
However, I told you that Obama's position is a fraud, and I am right on that. Obama, like so many in the Democratic Party (and, like McCain, in the Republican Party, to which I no longer have any allegiance at all), simply does not want to take the heat for going against the thousands of years of total human history (where polygamy and incestual marriage have sometimes--often, in the case of polygamy--been sanctioned, but never homosexual marriage), and the heat (more importantly) of going against a majority of the American people. Therefore, Democrats want judges to do it for them.
Obama well knows that he fully intends to appoint judges who will eventually declare homosexual marriage the law of the land, as the California judges did for California. Thus, Obama is willing to say he is against gay marriage, while at the same time refusing to come out against the California judges, or for the Constitutional Amendment in California to restore democracy (in which leftists do not believe). Yes, again, this is just like John McCain, who refused to support a Federal Constitutional Amendment on marriage, despite knowing that judges would eventually start sanctioning gay marriage, in a subversion of democracy. Did I telly you McCain was a fraud, as well? Sure I did. That is why I did not support him for President, despite Sarah Palin.
The sitcom part of this is that most gay activists understood fully the fraud, and supported Barack "World" Obama for President. They assumed that he said what he did aobut gay marriage as a fraud, just as I said in this blog. Isn't it interesting that "gay activists" and this blog both agreed that Obama was a liar and a fraud.
To digress (as religion and gay marriage are not directly connected--else I, an agnostic, would not oppose gay marriage), I also said in this blog that the evidence is that Obama does not believe in religion or faith either, despite what he said in his books and to Pastor Warren (in that joint forum with McCain). It is impossible, of course, for me to see into Obama's heart, but I stated in this blog that I don't believe anyone who truly believes in religion could say what Obama said in San Francisco ("clinging to their guns and religion"). I stand by that statement. It is true of most leftists. Nancy Pelosi has admitted it. See my previous blog entry quoting her saying that she does not believe God meant for her to give up her own "mind" (lol, in Pelosi's case), and could not agree with the Catholic position on abortion. While that is essentially my position on faith, it shows Pelosi (as most leftists) to be an absolute hypocrite and/or someone too dumb to even understand religion (where all goodness is supposed to come from God, and you are supposed to subordinate your own will to God). I vote, in Pelosi's case, for both explanations. Even more than I, Obama, Pelosi, and most leftists expect God to agree with the, and not the other way around. Thus, they are mostly hypocritical frauds on religion, and issues involving religious views.
"Gay activists" know this. Otherwise they would never have supported Obama in the first place (besides, of course, generally being leftists on all issues). McCain and Obama did not differ on the issue (publicly, or even--I firmly believe--in their private fraud). Gay activists expected the Democratic Party to continue to tacitly support gay marriage, while refusing generally to come out directly for it.
Enter Obama and Pastor Warren. Obama chose Warren to give the Inaugural invocation. A more meaningless function you could never imagine. However, gay activists blame Warren for the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which neither Obama nor McCain (frauds that they are) publicly supported (much less actively). Suddenly gay activists have turned this into a "controversy", with the leftist mainstream media making a big deal about it (in a different--sympathetic--way than they would have if Christian groups had objected to the chocie of person giving the invocation). The mainstream media, of course, assumes that you are not enlightened if you truly oppose gay marriage. Yes, the mainstream media does believe Obama is a fraud and a liar when he said he is against gay marriage. They firmly believe that Obama is a kindred spirit to them, and fully intends for gay marriage to eventually be the law of the land.
So why the protest by gay activists? Do they not understand this is just politics, as they clearly did during the campaign? Are we really living in a sitcom, where nothing makes sense? Yes and no. We are truly living in a sitcom, as illustrated by the new intelligentsia idea that gay marriage is revealed truth, but you have to understand gay activists.
Gay activists do not care about marriage. What gay activists want is societal approval (yes, I said "approval", and not "tolerance"). They want to trash anyone standing in the way of that approval. Plus, they want political power and notice. This Rick Warren incident is all about notice and power. Knowing that the mainstream media is on their side, gay activists are just using it as an excuse to push their agenda--the "global warming" tactic of simply claiming that their side is the only "enlightened" side. I guarantee you that gay activists still expect Obama to be on their side, in the end. They just don't want to give anyone the idea that a person like Rick Warren can get away with opposing them, without paying a price. As stated, in fact, even that is not the main thing going on here. Gay activists want to grab every opportunity to push their agenda of societal approval of the gay lifestyle, and this was one such opportunity.
Homosexual conduct is conduct. No one has to do it (nope, the idea that sexual satisfaction is one of the guarantees of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution is false). Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The assertion that this should not be the case is not just an attack on the concept of marriage, as known throughout human history. It is an attack on civilization itself.
In the sitcom in which we now live, where black is white, this is simply irrelevant.
P.S. The title, of course, is meant to be sarcastic. "homophobe" is one of those meaningless words. What are you if you oppose polygamy or marriage between a brother and sister (both of which have been approved by soe human societies, with polygamy still being approved in some societies)?