Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Swine Flu: Is "Fear Itself" Dooming Our Country of Wimps Who Prefer Emotional Reaction Over Real Thinking?

I really worry that our country is doomed.

We are not only heading toward socialism/economic fascism ("socialism with a capitalist veneer"), and abandoning every principle upon which this country was founded. We are becoming unable to deal, as a society, with the ordinary problems of existence. We panic and overreact to everything. Yes, this has a lot to do with a really, truly contemptible mainstream media, but the people of this country seem to have becomme terminally "soft"--wanting the government to "protect" them from every single adversity of life, even when they have to know that it is impossible.

Thus, we cn no longer bear a recession without panicking. That has pushed us down this road to economic fascism.

We can no longer handle hurricanes. That is, EMOTIONALLY, we are unable to handle the inevitable adversity of hurricanes.

And we no longer can handle outbreaks of disease (unless it is something like AIDS, where we can condemn people to death by treating it as a "politically correct" problem of homosexual tolerance than a real pandemic to be stopped).

As this blog has previosly told you, more people have died from CELERY and SPINACH in this dountry than have died from bird flu or SARS. Now we have this swine flu "scare", and again we have irresponsible talk of a "pandemic". As yet, of course--especially in the United Statesl--there is no indication that the swine flu is even as big a problem as a normal flu outbreak (every year). Normal flu outbreaks KILL people every year. Celery, lspinach and peanuts may still have killed more people in this country than swine flu, and we overreacted to THOSE (contaminated celery, spinach and peanuts).

Meanwhile, some 43,000 people DIE EVERY YEAR in traffic accidents. I can't tell you how stupid you are if you panic over wine flu, and ccancel travel plans, even as you jump in your car every day as if you were not engaging in a dangerous activity. My problem is that I am coming arund to the belief that the stupid people are taking over.

Nope. I don't buy the idea that it is necessary to OVERREACT to take reasonable steps to monitor and address new disease/health threats as they arrive.

Let me put it as bluntly as I can: ANY person who has used the word "pandemic" in this present situation should simply be SHOT. That is my own version of panic overreaction. If we don't toughen up as a country, so that we do not destroyu orselves with fear itself, then we truly are doomed.

If "all we have to fear is fear itself" (FDR), then we are well on the way to the point that panic is the only rational reaction. "Fear itself" is taking over.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Washington: First in war, frist in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen--but last in the American League

The above is the od "joke" about the old Washington Seantors। It is too bad, by the way, that ALL of the real Senators are not playing baseballl, or anything else, instead of ruining the country in the United States Senate (lack of reference to party affiliation here is deliberate)।

Well, the "Washington Senators" no longer exist, excekpt in their most damagin form as part of our government, but it is nice to see that this country is not abandoning all of the traditions that made us great (just most of them).

Yep. Washignton is still last. It is just now in the national League. Too bad Washignton (the seat of government) is not last in the hearts of the people who vote in this country, as it steadily dominates the lives of very one of us (to our ultimate sorrow).

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Rush Limbaugh: STUPID (Wall Street People Remain the Stupidest People on Earth)

No, I have not changed my mind. Generally, Rush Limbaugh is a brilliant man. On the stock market he is an absolutely STUPID man--as stupid and clueless as a man can be. He should read this blog more. (There are some indications he has read this blog on some of the numerous occasions when this blog has ANTICIPATED Limbaugh's position before he arrives at it, but clearly those could be explained by the fact that this blog's author is smart enough to arrive at the correct position before Limbaugh thinks of it).

You will notice that this blog was proven absolutely correct when I said that Limbaugh, and all of conservative talk radio, was STUPID to base almost their entire criticism of Obama on the drop in the stock market. Well, the stock market promptly rose to ABOVE the level to which it fell in October of 2008 (when you will remember that the Paulson/Geitner/Bush/Democrat/Congress/Obama/McCain panic set us on the road to both socialism and a worse economy than we would otherwise have had). It was me--jhot Rush Limbaugh--who told you, IN FORESIGHT, that the stock market had been bouncing around because it has become nothing more than a computer gaming casino, instead of a place for real investment. Yes, ONE of the reasons for this unintended consequence is the low cost of trading, and digital trading in increments of one cent, which have brought about day trading and computer program trading (not to mention hedge fund zero-sum game trading). The sick form of prsent day stock market trading, by the Stupidest People on Earth, is what guarantees wild stock market gyrations--not anything any politician is doing (which is not to say the politicians are helping the economy; on the contrary they are setting us on the road to central planning ruin).

Guess what Rush Limbaugh is now saying? Right. It is almost as lol funny as Obama. He is now saying that Obama is deliberately ROILING the stock market to advance his agenda!!! Again, bluntness is in order This is STUPID, and absolutely indefensible. This blog told you that already--again in foresight and not hindsight. In my many entries since Octoberf on the Stupidest People on Earth (present Wall Street people), I have examined the gyrations of the stock market siince the Paulson/Bernanke panic in October, and fully explainged that those gyratiions were the reullt of the way stock market traders now trade rather than the result of fundamental economic assessments by stock traders.

First, in October (before Obama), the stock marketed gyrated up and down 700 or a thousand points--not just once but several times--based just on whether Paulson's fradulent "bailout" package was going to pass in Congress. That was the idea we had to purchase "toxic assets" to save banks, quickly abandoned (until revived by Obama) in favor of simple socialism/economic fascism of government taking a direct interest in banks, and loaning money to banks. The whole farce of a debate in Congress, which "moved" the computer, momentum traders on Wall Street (the Stupidest People n Earth), was thus exposed as a complete farce. That debate was entirely about the wisdom and "oversight" of purchasing "toxic assets", which Paulson never did.

Well, after the Paulson/Democrat 700 billioin dollar bailout passed, the stock market promptly COLLAPSED to new lows, because that was the easiest way to HYPE the market--to manipulate the market with computer trading--it being obvious that the mere passage of the Paulson bailout did not "help" the economy much. Of course, that had been obvious from the beginning, but it did not keep thte computer traders from overreaction to every hiccup from government.

Recap. We are now in October--before Obama, and the stock market has reached new (for the year--for several lyears--lows. The computer traders on Wall Street then launched an IRRATIONAL RALLY, seemingly anticipating the election of Obama (the Messiah, after all). That rally brought the Dow back to above 9,000.

The day after Obama's actual election, the computer traders started SELLING (because they knew the rally had been irrational, and that the mere election of Obama did not cure the economy, which meant again that the easy way to make money for the "smart guys" was to drive the market DOWN, as there was no way to drive it any further up in the facce of obvious economic reality). This selling reached a climax on November 20, 2008. The stock market then went below the lows of October, but NOT BY MUCH. In Rush Limbaugh's words--to stupidly describe the present situation--the computer traders were "roiling" the stock market without really getting anywhere (except for the winners in the casino game of momentum musical chairs).

The computer gamers promptly shifted gears, and drove the stock market straight up--seemingly using the coming ascension of Obama, and other political (not economic) developments as the excuse. The stock market again went above Dow 9,000 in early January. I told you at the time that only the Stupidest People on Earth were buying at the top of this fictional rally.

The market promptly collapsed back below the levels of October and November--to new ten year lows, but NOT THAT MUCH below November. That is when conservative talk radio started blaming it all on Obama (with no evidence whatever, and with the evidence I have cited above to the contrary). Then the computer traders got to work again, and drove the market up 24% (20% used to be regarded as a "bull market", before this computer trading made 20% moves possible in a matter of days, which actually happened in October/November, calculating from low to high on at least one of these market gyrations).

I told you again that these computer traders, and Wall Street people in general, are the Stupidest People on Earth, as they continue to buy when the market is moving irrational higher. That move could not continue, and has not. It is earnings season, and the ear things were never going to be good enough to support a stock market going straight up--not even using the most optimistic speculation--which is all it is at this point--as to future earnings.

Yes, I have to be blunt about it. Rush Limbaugh is being STUPID to suggest that Obama is to blame for all of this. I yield to no one in my contempt for Obama's economic policies. They are leading us to disaster. But the stock market is sick on its own, because of the truly STUPID people there (this time I do mean generally stupid), and Obama can hardly be blamed for their wild gyrations (gyrations that may ultimately doom the stock market, as they drive, and have driven, everybody but momentum speculators away from the market).

Let me be blunt again: Today's stock market is as sick, or more sick, as it was in the wild days of 1929. It is all about computer program driven speculation, and today's stock market has little to do with economic reality (except as a trigger for the hype exaggerating all "market" moves).

The way the stock market SHOULD operate is NOT for traders to be "optimistic" or "pessimistic" about government policy--driving the Dow to the level they think is appropriate. The way the stock market SHOULD operate is for traders to evaluate the economic prospects of each seaparate company, with a DISCOUNT (not added value) for risk involved, and to value the company's stock based on those risk adjusted (adjusted downward) economic prospects. The aggregate of those stock values would then determine the level of the Dow, and broader stock indexes.

That is NOT how the stock market is working (okay, and never has been, but it is worse now than ever). The way things are working now is that the computer traders are setting target values on the Dow, and other indexes--target values which represent self-fulfilling prophecies. These traders don't "value" individual companies. They just try to determine the "hot" companies and industries, and manipulate stocks up and down in a "zero-sum game" with index targets. The index targets determine the trading in individual stocks, along with the bets on which types of stocks are hot and which are not. The "fundamentals" of the individual stocks are irrelevant, except when actual earnings (which today's stock traders would like to ignore and/or do away with) intrude.

Thus, you have a sick stock market being traded by sick, stupid people. If Rush Limbaugh thinks Obama really created this situation, then Rush Limbaugh is even more stupid than I think he is. I prefer to believe that Limbaugh has let his partisan, fighting spirit lead him into this stupidity, and that--deep down--he knows this is ridiculous.

Too bad Limbaugh is right on the overall picture. Obama IS leading us to disaster, and that disaster will eventually be reflected in the economy and the stock market. However, the irrational stock market gyrations along the way are solely due to the Stupidest People on Earth, and not really to Obama (at least, not until the final collapse).

P.S.: The stock market can be regarded as "my business", since I retired as a lawyer. And it is a lifetime hobby/passion--an inheritance from my gambling inclined mother. Should I really expect Rush Limbaugh to follow the stock market as cloesely as I do, and to understand it as well as I do? Well, no. But that does not help Limbuagh, does it? Limbaugh, and I, correctly criticize President Obama, and his minions, for presuming that they understand the economy so well that they can run it by central planning, even though they have no experience at all in the real world economy (not to mention that it is theoretically impossible). Limbuagh has no business placing the kind of emphasis he has been placing on the stock market, when he so clearly does not understand it (or even follow it closely and obejectively enough to realize that what he is saying makes no sense in the context of stock market gyrations well before Obama, including the NEW HIGH on the Dow in October of 2008 just as the economy's actual sickness was about to become apparent). A person who talks authoritatively on what he does not understand, or follow closely enough to even pretend to understand, is STUPID. The charge sticks.

Monday, April 20, 2009

President Obama: LOL Funny

Yes, President Obama is laugh out loud funny. The Drudge headline shows it best--why Obama should have you rolling in the aisles.

$3,550,000,000,000 "cut" by $100,000,000". That is only an approximate paraphrase of the Drudge headline, but it shows you just how funny President Obama is. The quotation marks are mine, by the way, around the word "cut".

Yes, $100,000,000 is not even 1%. In fact, it is not even 1/1000. A trillion is a thousand billion. A billion is a thousand million. 100,000,000 is 1/10 of a billion. It is 1/10,0000 of a trillion. It is 1/35,500 of the proposed budget. Is that not FUNNY? If you "cut" your PROPOSED "budget" for the coming year by 1/35,500, it would not even be a blip (even for Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, it would not be much).

Yes, President Obama made a big deal out of announcing that he is going to "cut" the proposed budget by $100 million dollars--which is nothing. Even that is probably a fraud, since Obama has a habit of assuming that saying something makes it so (even though he says the opposite thing the next day, or has said it the previous day). Actual spending for the year will probably be MORE than the "budget" amount--the full budget amount.

Surely President Obama was making a joke. But the mainstream media cannot take a joke. They are actually taking this as a serious example of Obama's dedication to fiscal responsibility! Yes, this would be hysterically funny, if it did not show the decline of this country so clearly. To pay attention to this kind of fraud ("cut") as if it were real labels us as beyond stupid as a country. The bailout of GM alone will cost us many times the $100,000,000 that Obama is claiming he will "cut". In illustration of just how small this number is (comparatively), you only have to consider that Treasury Secretary Geitner promised to DEDUCTS $163 million dollars wrom the failout to AIG to "pay" for those infamous bonuses (indicating that the $1653 million was an insignificant part of the 180 BILLION total bailout). If it is that easy to deduct 163 million from 183 billion, without affecting anything important, think how easy it should be to deduct a similar amount from 3.55 TRILLION. It is like saving a penny on buying a big screen, digital TV.

Nope. President Obama is a funny man. What makes me cry is the many people who don't realize how funny he is.

P.S.: This again shows how right this blog always is. I explained this technique to you before in connectioin with Democrat "cuts" of the "stimulus" (porkulus) package--first RAISED above 800 BILLION, and then "cut" to 780 billion or so. Then there is President Obama's promise to "cut" the deficit in half by the end of his first term, AFTER raising the deficit for this year to 2 TRILLION dollars. This technique is a fraud, even apart from the fact that many of the promised "cuts" never really happen. Think of telling your bank (as a business or credit card customer) that your deficit for the next year was originally projected (by you) to be 1 million dollars, but now (because of your "fiscal responsibility") has been reduced to $999,000. It is, of course, irrelevant that you only project income for the year of $100,000.00!!!

P.S. 2: Did you appreciate the figures above? Say you "project" spending $50,000 in this year. If you "cut" 1/35,500 from that amount, you would "cut" less than TWO (2) dollars!!! Dave Ramsey would be proud of your efforts to become "debt free"--NOT!!!

Sunday, April 19, 2009

President Obama: Twonky

Is President Obama a robot from the future with a mission of controlling every detail of the lives of every person in this country, and ultimately the world? Of course he is.

The title reference is to the short story by Henry Kuttner (a great writer of the Golden Age of science fiction, often in collaboration with his similarly talented wife, Leigh Brackett). That short story was made into a movie ("The Twonky"), with Hans Conried (movie rating 79, and it would be higher except for being mainly an "idea" movie with limited real characterization).

In the movie, a wife gives her husband a TV set to keep him company as she goes off to help here sister. The TV turns out to be a robot from the future, which merely took the form of a TV set. The robot (labeled a "twonky" for reasons explained in the movie) refuses to allow the human beings (especially poor Hans) with whom it comes into contact any freedom of thought or action (such as getting drunk, cigarettes, more than one cup of coffee, etc.). Zap!!! That is what happens if the twonky does not like what you are doing. The comparison with President Obama is obvious, and too much for coincidence. Yes, leftists in general are out to take away everyone freedom (fat in foods, cigarettes anywhere--although they are not so tough on cocaine and marijuana--etc.). However, this just explains why the twonky can find fertile ground in present day America. Hans Knonreid, in the movie, gives some stirring speaches on the value of human freedom--even the freedom to make your own mistakes. Too bad, in the Age of Obama, that we no longer have the will to resist the twonky.

If you want the clincher, refer to Isaac Asimov's story about a (secret) robot "saving" America and the world in "The Bicentennial Man". Isaac Asimov, despite being another talented science fiction author from the Golden Age, was an authoritarian leftist. His robot may even have been black, although I don't pay enough attention to that detail (not having the obsession with race of racist leftists) to remember.

The twonky in "The Twonky" was only an experimental model. President Obama is clearly the advanced, perfected model not relying on individual "zapping" (although evidently fullly capable of the kind of mind control that the twonky could exercise).

Friday, April 17, 2009

CIA: Leftist, and Mainstream Media (Redundancy), Hypocrisy and Insanity, as "Rights" of Terrorists Prevail Over Security of Country

“He thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely, because there were two principles at stake,” Axelrod said . “One is … the sanctity of covert operations … and keeping faith with the people who do them, and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency.”

The above is an excerpt from a news story today linked on Drudge. It again conclusively shows that lefitsts, including the mainstream media, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs (including Neanderthal Man and the fictional Elmer Gantry in the comparison sample).

Remember Valerie Plame and the pretended "concern" by the mainstream media over the "compromise" of the CIA by the "outing" of her name merely as an employee of the CIA by Robert Novak--to explain why her husband, Joe Wilson, was sent on a supposed CIA "mission" to Africa, without any qualifications for such a "mission". Transparency? Did the people not have a "right to know" that a CIA employee of a man publicizing himself as an "expert" validated by the CIA had his wife arrange his CIA "mission"? And, of course, the mere identification of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee (whether she was "covert" or not was not a part of Novak's column, and basically a trumped up "controversy" by the sanctimonious hypocrites ont he left, who at the same time saw no problem in explicitly violating the law to expose NSA security eavesdropping and CIA "secret prisons").

Nope. The above quoted news paragraph shows again that the left has no problem at all compromising the CIA in pursuit of a leftist agenda. Then the security of the United States does not matter at all. But let them think they can "get" Karl Rove, and suddenly even an alleged--fictional, not real--"violation of the law" becomes a major security breach to be "investigated for more than two years (the Valerie Plame fiasco, which even the Washington Post--that right wing rag--eventually called a made up "scandal").

Nope again. These (leftists and the mainstream media, to again be redundant) ARE the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth.

Why are leftists so obsessed with actions taken after 9/11 to protect this country by people acting in good faith against real terrorists killing real Americans? Answer, besides irrational hatred of the Bush Administration: Leftists regard the USA as the main source of evil in the world, which is why Reverend Wright (whose explicitly stated this) never bothered them (CNN and Soledad O'Brien: this means YOU!!!l).

Monday, April 6, 2009

"Italy Muzzled Scientists Who Forecast Quake" (Skepticism, "Science" and Public Policy---Not To Mentioni "Journalism

"Italy Muzzled Scientists Who Forecast Quake" is the present Drudge headline. As readers of this blog know, I often like Drudge's cheeky headlines. This one, however, is a terrible headline--a leftist, mainstream media kind of headline designed to do nothing but mischief (not to any political party, but to the human race).

Let me help out mainstream journalists here, and even Drudge. The next time a scientist claims to have "forecast", or to be able to "forecast", earthquakes, ask the following questions:

1. What do you suggest we do about it? Do you suggest we PANIC people without knowing what they should do? Do you suggest we evacuate San Francisco (to use one possible example)? Based on your prediction? Are ou willing to pay the costs, and stand trial for murder as to those people killed in a panic evacuation, if your "prediction" is wrong? Are you really saying people should ACT on your prediction, and HOW?

2. Are you able to predict the exact magnitude of earthquakes you "predict"? With what kind of margin og error"?

3. Are you able to predict the "epicenter" of earthquakes wihtin one suare mile? If not, what is your margin of error?

4. As to this Italian town, did you actually advocate evacuating this town? Did you predict this town would be destroyed? How close were you as to the exact date and timw of the earthquake? How close were you to the magnitude? How close were you as to the exact location of the earthquake? Have you published results on your method of prediction earthquakes that other scientists agree have proven correct in predicting earthquakes? How many earthquakes have you succesffully predicted in the past, and how accurately (give same information as requested above for this earthquake)? Back to more general questions.

5. Do you know how many INACCURATE "predictions" of earthquakes (in locatiion, magnitude or time) scientists have made in the past 10 years? Have you made any such inaccurate "predictions".

6. Do you have any FUTURE earthquake predictions right now? Time, location and magnitude please.

7. Is there any "independent" group evaluating the overall accuracy of "scientific" predictions of earthquakes? If so, what is that group (or groups), and what do their findings show.

8. Are lyou aware the technique "psychics" use to claim accurate "predictions"? If you make ENOUGH, vague enough "predictions" about events, and if people forget your INACCURATE predictions, you can make headlines. What would you say if I suggest that is at least partly the case with earthquake "predictions?

You get the idea. SKEPTICISM is the right attitude here. Looking for an excuse to PANIC the public is the WRONG attitude. It is distressing how much "science", and "scientists", are now being USED for political purposes (an evil, syil, symbiotic process in which "scientists" feather their own nests--see "The Double Helix" by Watson and Crick as to how scientists are human beings with human ambitions). This is obviously true in the area of "global warming", but it is becoming true in way too many areas.

Yes, to put it bluntly: I am telling you that present "scientific" "predictions" of earthquakes are not accurate enough to be a tool upon which to base public policy decisions and/or public actions. I assure you I am right on this. There may come a time when I am wrong (or will change my mind), but that will be based on SKEPTICAL evaluation of claims of "scientists", in peer reviewed papers, and NOT by sensational claims of "successfully" predicting a specific earthquake.

Do I think scientists should be "muzzled". Nope. Unlike most leftists, I really believe in free speech. However, I believe "journalists", and other scientists, have a duty to be SKEPTICAL of things like predictions of earthquakes (and "global warming"), rather than spreading panic based on inadequate information.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Senator Ted Stevens: Were His Civil Rights Violated? Should He Be Able to Sue President Bush for Taking Away His Senate Seat?

You wonder if former Senator Ted Stevens has a claim against the Federal Government for violating his civil rights.

My understanding is that the Justice Department, under present Democratic Attorney General Eric Holder, is dropping the criminal case against Stevens because of severe problems with the validity of his conviction. You will remember that Senator Stevens barely lost his Senate seat in Nob ember. That leaves the probability that he would have WON the Senate race if not for the TAINTED conviction (prosecutorial misconduct, witness problems, and who knows what else).

Now you might think that the Republican Party did not need Ted Stevens to be one of the "faces" of the Republican Party, but that is looking at it differently that Democrats look att hese things. Senator Stevens was OLD. It was likely that his seat would have ended up passing to Sarah Palin, or some other young Republican, which would have been very good for Republicans in the Senate.

Now if this had happened to a Democrat, it would be a major scandal (the taking away of the Senate seat because of a tainted criminal conviction). It is not like these problems were not obvious at the time of Senator Stevens original conviction. They were. It was reported then that the case might get thrown out.

I have previously described President Bush as a saboteur of the Republican Party in his last term, and this appears to be another example. Republicans simply have no courage. Why could not the REPUBLICAN Attorney General have done the right thing, and dropped the case before Senator Stevens lost his Senate seat (apparently because of the tainted criminal conviction). It appears to have been the right thing to do, just like pardoning those two border control agents (or not prosecuting them so hard in the first place) was the right thing to do. But Republicans are so worried about the mainstream media and the Democrats that they refuse to do the right thing, even when it is to their political advantage. If I were Senator Stevens, I would be livid about this.

Am I calling Republican politicians cowards? Darn right. Now I am not an admirer of Senator Stevens, but aspects of the prosecution against him stink to high heaven. Why else would a DEMOCRATIC Attorney General drop the criminal charges against him?

Now some of you cynics out there might suggest that the Democrats had already gotten what they wanted when a Democrat defeated Senator Stevens, with the aid of the criminal conviction. In other words, leftists were able to use their moles in the Bush Administration, inclluding the Attorney General and President himself (lol, but true), to advance their power agenda. Letting Senator Stevens off of the hook NOW might actually help Democratic politicians in trouble--now or in the future. That is how a cynic might look at this. A cynic might conclude that Senator Stevens was merely a pawn being manipulated by forces bigger than he was. By the way, Henry Paulson was definitely a leftist mole in the Bush Administration, again in conjunction with the President himself, in bringing economic fascism/socialism to this country. Nope. I have not forgiven President Bush for his last four years, and never will.

Whatever you think of the case for the cynical view, I prefer to think that Attorney General Holder did the right thing. That means that the Bush Administration did the WRONG thing by depriving Senator Stevens of both his Senate seat and--probably--his civiil rights to due process of law. Do you still doubt that Republicans are COWARDS?

Isn't it amazing just how badly the Bush Administration served Republicans, and conservative causes, during those last four years. I have no sympathy for them (or most Republicans). I actually do have some sympathy for Senator Stevens. Does he get to go back and have theat election again? Obviously not. Too bad, Senator. You were just in the wrong party.

Rush Limbaugh: Hypocrite

Yes, this is one of those areas where this blog has been proven absolutely correct. Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite in the area of the stock market, and this blog told you that in foresight--not hindsight. In fact, this blog has explained to you what has really been happening with the stock market since October, while Rush Limbuagh has pretended to believe that Wall Street traders are accurate evaluators of economic policy (easily disproven, when you realize the Dow set a RECORD in October of 2007, just as the economy was heading into a steep decline).

Let me be clear. Rush Limbaugh is not as much of a hypocrite as the mainstream media, or most leftists. See multiple entries in the archives of this blog (including "Andrea Mitchell Is a Whore", which I mention because she is married to Alan Greenspan--he of "irratioinal exuberance" fame in connection with the dot.com bubble). But in the area of the stock market, Rush Limbaugh has been an obvious hypocrite.

While the stock market was going down, Limbaugh blamed it on President Obama (when it had little to do with President Obama, other than President Obama not giving the computer gamers anything to HYPE--a "policy" Obama has now changed in favor of "optimism" and continuous "headline" action). I told you at the time that this was a mistake on Limbaugh's part, because the people on Wall Street are NOT accurate evaluaters of economic policy or where the economy is going. They operate on present HYPE, and not accurate views of the future. I further told you that Rush Limbaugh would NOT give President Obama credit if the stock market went UP--even while purporting to cite every DOWN move of the stock market as "evidence" of Obama's economic incompetence.

Was I right, or was I right? Yes, I was right. Today, Rush dismissed today UP move as unrelated to Obama (as, to a large degree, were the DOWN moves, which is where the hypocrisy comes in). Limbaugh's objections to President Obama, as mine, have nothing to do with how the stock market is doing, or how the stock traders view Obama. Those people are the Stupidest People on Earth. See my previous entry, and multiple entires since October.

Rush Limbaugh was merely attempting to USE the stock market as a partisan weapon against Obama. That was never good tactics, and way too obvious. As I said, what do you do when the stock market goes (irrationally?) UP? Well, what you do is make clear that you are a HYPOCRITE (on this subject). That is what Rush Limbaugh has done. He has made clear, as if there were ever any doubt about it, that he is willing to blame Obama for EVERY drop in the stock market, while giving him no credit for ANY rise in the stock market. That is intellectual hypocrisy of so obvious a kind that conservative talk radio should never have gone down that road.

As I have said before, I am not above saying "I told you so.". Rush: I TOLD YOU SO.

Wall Street: The Stupidest Peoople on Earth Strike Again

Yes, since October I have proven to you, in entry after entry, that the people on Wall Street (including the traders) are the Stupidest People on Earth.

Yes, the "market" is making one of those computer rallies today based solelyon HYPE and momentum. The economic news is NOT that "good". Then there is a change in "mark to market" rules--too late to do any good, and too late to accomplish anything but DOOM Geitner's "plan" for purchase of "toxic" assets). Then there was the G20, predictable, announcement that the "world" is abandoning free market capitalism in favor of central planning (economic fascism: "socialism with a capitalist veneer"). This is BAD news (not good news). Then there is that trillion dollars or so now promised to the IMF (International Monetary Fund to help out "distressed" countries) and the World Bank. More spending.

The Dow was recently up 300 points, and the NASDAQ up even more (pecentage). I have told you before that only the Stupidest People on Earth invest at the top of these rallies, or indeed any day when the Dow is already up 200-300 points. This is a computer gaming, MOMENTUM rally--0FICTION (unless you SELL, and don't buy). You are branding yourself one of the Stupidest People on Earth if you buy NOW, with the Dow already up 300 points. If you were going to buy (as a trader, since 401(k) people should be investing monthly, without regard to what the market is doing short term), you should have done it on MONDAY (or early Tuesday), when the market had PULLED BACK. Or you should wait for the likely pull back from this probably irrational rally. If you buy with the Dow already up 300 points, and after the market went up 152 yesterday, then you are simply confirming that you are as stupid as the Wall Street traders continuing to buy at the top of these rallies: one of the Stupidest People on Earth, in other words.

Nope. I have no opinion on whether the market "should" or "should not" go up (although I have an opinion that we are headed for eventual disaster). However, the magnitude of these rallies is IRRATIONAL--SPECULATING on present HYPE rather than economic reality (ven future reality). It is really worse than that, as Wall Street presently trades on COMPUTER PROGRAMS--unrelated to economic reality at all.

P.S. Above not proofread or even spell checked, since I have said it all before. Message to all people, including computer traders, who continued to buy today after the Dow was already up 200: You are one of the Stupidest People on Earth. Yes, I understand that many of these people are playing musical chairs, counting on being able to "get out" before the "correction". In the end, however, that kind of computer gaming destroys the stock market, which is now trading as little on reality as it did in 1929 (true for some time). Remember that the Dow went above 9,000 right before the election, only to go back to NEW LOWS on November 20. Then it went above 9,000 again in the rally that ended in early January, only to go to NEW LOWS again. I can't tell you whehter we will go to new lows from here, but I can tell you that the MAGNITDUE of these rallies is IRRATIONAL--not justified by real economic visibility.

Republicans and Taxes: House Republicans Finally Get It Right--Adopting This Blog's Tax Policy Instead of the WRONG Tax Policyof Limbaugh, Gingrich

Republicans in the House have finally gotten it right on taxes, seemingly adopting my approach rather than the STUPID approach to taxes they have emphasized in the past. On this issue, I have been right, and Dursh Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram and the rest have been absolutely, fatally WRONG. Does that mean Republicans are paying attention to this blog? Probably not. But they should.

What am I talking about? Well, the central tax proposal in the proposed House budget is a retun to the genius of Ronald Reagan, at the same time Limbaugh and Hannity have BETRAYED the genius of Reagan. The problem, of course, is that Republicans have sent out a very mixed message, previously advocating the disastrous COMPLICATIONS to the Tax Code endorsed by Limbaugh and Hannity--tax gimmicks that merely encourage the kind of game playing that the Tax Code should discourage.

The cornerstone of the new proposed Republican tax policy is a permanent tax RATE of 10% on the first $100,000 of income and 25% on all amounts over $1000,000. Realistically, of course, they will be forced to accept a zero tax rate up to a certain level (almost 50% of present workers pay no income tax at all). This is exactly what Ronald Reagan did to get the coutnry going after the Carter MALAISE. The Carter recession of 1981-1982 was just as bad as the current recession, in most ways, but Reagan did not turn to socialsim. Instead, he instituted almost 20 years of prosperity with a SIMPLE Tax Code, with reduced tax rates of 15% amd 28%. I have advocated returning to that simple concept. The Democrats, meanwhile, have been proposing tax INCREASES on the "rich", which will not ultimately raise revenue and which will kill the economy, at the same time they propose to COMPLICATE the Tax Code with such things as "cap and trade" (the "global warming" tax to raise your energy costs--no matter what tax "bracket" you are in) and all of these "tax credits" designed to make people do what Democrats want them to do.

But how have deluded Republicans, not to mention Limbaugh and Hannity, done to respond to Democrats over the past several months? See my four part (ending up at least 5 parts) series under the titles: "Rush Limbaugh Is Wrong on Taxes" and "Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich Are Wrong on Taxes." Republicans have endorsed the leftist DEMOCRAT "gimmick" of a "payroll tax holiday". In fact, they have gone further and endorsed the idea of a general "tax holiday", which is merely a WELFARE PAYMENT (not permanent reduction of taxes upon which people can plan) targeted at people who actually pay taxes. While that was better than the Obama/Democrat "stimulus" (porkulus) spending bill, it was always too complex and stupid an idea. Further, Republicans were out there--along with Limbaugh and Hannity--making an elimination of the capital gains tax and big reduction in the corporate income tax central parts of their tax argument. How STUPID can you get (yes, on this matter I just called Rush Limbaugh--a very smart man--stupid)?

Notice how gimmicks like playing games with capital gains, the corporate income tax, and tax "holidays" completely undermine the argument for a simple Tax Code with low tax rates upon which people can plan. As I have said in this blog, the corporate tax rate should be the same as the highest individual rate, and the long term capital gains rate should be no lower than the lowest individual rate (above the zero rate). I don't know if Republicans have kept some kind of "special" capital gains rate (below 10%) in their proposal, or some sort of "special" corporate tax rate (below the 25%). If they have it is a mistake, and completely undermines the argument for a simple Tax Code with low tax rates (meaning people might actually pay them instead of avoiding them).

However, the delay in Republicans coming up with this simple message, at the same time Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the rest have been advocating the OLD-=pre-Reagan--idea of a Tax Code tailored to Wall Street and Big Business, has been a disastrous delay. It has muddled the message.

That is the problem with the present Republican Party. There is no leader (or leaders) out there with a consistent message. Conservative talk radio does not fill that void, as Rush himself has noted. Conservative talk radio can act as an amplifier of a cohenernt, conservative Republican message. It is difficult for talk radio to create such a message, when there are no true political leaders out there defining that message.

Like it or not, Democrats have had a simple message. That message is that Big Government is the "solution" to all of our problems (central planning). As this blog has repeatedly, and correctly, pointed out, Republicans no longer have a consistent message. "Simple" Tax Code? How does that square with all of these tax gimmicks seemingly designed more for Wall Street than individuals? Limited government? How does that square with how Republicans actually governed lately, and with their acceptance of the idea that government has to "solve" our problems? Spending? Forget it! Deficits? Forget it! Republicans have not had a consistent message, and still don't have one. Democrats have such a message, even if it is one that willl lead this country to disaster. Frankly, the only time in my lifetime that Republicans had a consistent message was during the Reagan years and during the Clinton years (when the Gingrich revolution united Repubicans against Bill Clinton). Republicans have spent the last ten years (the last 20 in Presidential campaigns) in running away from the principles that brought them to power in 1980 and 1994 (the Contract with America).

Better late than never? Well, yes. But. Will Republicans really unite behind a simple, conservative message (including on "social issues"), or is this House budget simply another "scattershot" proposal (like the capital gains, corporate income tax, and "tax holiday" ideas) thrown up against the wall to see if it sticks? Republicans still need a political leader. They do not presently have one. Conseratives do not really have one, either, as Ronald Reagan represented such a leader even while less talented Repubicans (Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, e. al.) were dooming the party to "second class" status.

Too bad. It is time for a conservative leader to emerge. Maybe Bobby Jindal can. Or maybe it will be someone else. The time is ripe. This House Republican budget shows that a lot of the right ideas are out there. We just need q quarterback to take us to the Super Bowl.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Hillary Clinton and Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi: The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points at You!!!!!

There was some wavering of the pointing Finger of Fate this week. The judges had to confer. There was considerable sentiment for giving the award to "global warming" fanatics of every kind (including, of course, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress), and to "scientists" in particular distorting the entire basis of "science" (which is supposed to be a skeptical process of probing "theories" for weakness and not a body of revealed truth). This--somewhat successful--leftist attempt to turn "science" (and scientists) into a political tool to advance a leftist, anti-capitalist agenda is becoming a major danger to this country. In the end, if President Obama has his way, it will destoy the economy of this country and the world, beyond hope of recovery (without major upheaval).

In the end, however, the judges determined that the Finger had fixed more of the immediate stupidity of Hillary Clinton and Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi rather than the "lifetime achievement" stupidity of "global warming" fanatics (which includes anyone who considers it a "crisis" that we have to ruin our economy addressing). Yep. We are talking here about MEXICO (that failed country), and the incredibly stupid statements of Hillary Clinton in Mexico. Meanwhile, "Total Failure" Pelosi chimed in by labeling illegal immigrants as "patriots". To Democrats, almost anything is "patriotism" except actually supporting this country against its enemies.

The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate is this blog's unauthorized reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award for "outstanding" stupidity and/or evil in the preceding week. The coveted/dreaded award is represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger.

You can look at last week's entry on what Hillary Clinton said in Mexico. This entry will not dwell on "Total Failure" Pelosi and her assertion that we should not deport any illegal immigrants ("patriots" that they are) merely for being illegal immigrants. This, of course, is not a sound basis for immigration policy (not to mention depriving actual Americans of jobs in a distressed economy). It is unsound--stupid, to be blunt--to suggest that people who actually succeed in evading border "security" are therefore "qualified", by that act of "patriotism", to live permanently in the United States. Amond other things, it undermines "border security" to have security only at the border. What is disturbing is that part of the "news" last week was Obama's Homeland Security Secretary had cancelled planned raids on employers (hurting AMERICAN workers again), because such raids are supposedly not being decided based on the right criteria. But enough. If you don't consider "Total Failure" Pelosi to be stupid, and this to be another example of that stupidity, nothing I say will go very far toward convincing you. Thus, the rest of this entry will concentrate on Clinton.

Secretary of State Clinton went to Mexico last week and said some incredible things. First, she blamed the United States for the unchecked violence in Mexico, where the drug cartels control major portions of the country (including Juarez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso, where I am writing this). That stupid statement was bad enough, illustrating that leftist Democrats still are invested in blaming America for all of the evils in the world (until we see the "light" and embrace leftism). However, Secretary of State Clinton was just getting warmed up.

The very next day, in Mexico, she praised the "partnership" in Mexico between the "public sector" (government) and the "private sector". Now I admit there is a "partnership" in Mexico between government and the "private" drug cartels, but I don't think that is what Clinton meant. Clinton hled up Mexico as a "model" for the United States. You just can't get any more stupid than that. Of course, she neglected to mention that bribery is a way of life in Mexico, and that the other way in which there is a "partnership" between the public and private sectors in Mexico is in the fact that public officials at all levels exist on mordida (bribes) paid to them to perform their public function in the way the person paying want that function performed.

Clinton specifically praised Mexico as "model" for the United States based on Mexico's "green" policy, and promotion of "alternative fuels"--an absolutely weird statement on the part of Clinton, given that Mexico relies on oil revenues for a good part of its budget (besides the "under the table" money provided by the drug lords). This absurdity goes beyond the fact that Juarez is a major source of pollution in El Paso (right across the river)--including from open fires in the winter time.

If you really believe that rich people, and corporations, have to obey "the law" in Mexico, I still have an inventory of bridges in Brooklyn that I am selling. So long as the right people are "paid off", rich people and corporations in Mexico are not subject to "the law". It does not matter what laws are on the books. To suggest that Mexico is a "leader" in "green" politics is merely absurd. On this subject, good for them!!!

Thus, you have Hillary Clinton holding up a failed country, on the verge of collapse into anarchy where the mayor of Juarez had to flee for his life just a month ago, as a MODEL for the United States. It just does not get any worse than that. Worst of all, I think leftist Democrats like Clinton really believe this stuff. They really do prefer the authoritarian "rule of men, and not law" represented by Mexico. Committed leftists want central planning, and they don't care about the actual results. Mexico is the essence of a "central planning" country. that is part of Mexico's problem--a main part.

Yes, the old leftists used to point to the Soviet Union as a "model" for the United States. Some, like Michael Moore, still point to Cuba as a model for us. Hollywood people make pilgrimages to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Hillary Clinton's stupid statements in Mexico are not an aberration. They are merely further evidence of the leftist mindset--the leftist view of the world. It is for that reason that the Finger finally settled on Clinton and "Total Failure" Pelosi as the recipients of this week's Finger.

Award ceremony (again, entirely in the imagination, without even any graphics, which is why I suggest using Dick Martin as solely a visual aid--Martin having hacked into this blog from whereve he now is, as to which it is best not to think, to complain about the words being put in his mouth):

Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the Finger at the camera and saying: "Hillary Clinton and Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi, this is for you. You deserve it. If only we could deport you to Mexico. You might then, like at least 60% of the people in Mexico who want to lieve here, appreciate the United States. It is no accident the mayor of Juarez has a house in El Paso."