Friday, July 27, 2012

Yahoo "News" and ABC: Haters and Disoenst Propagandists

Headline from yeterday ("Poer players", featured on Yahoo and which I have now identified---fine print--as being part of ABC):  "Laura Bush:  I think George makes an easy target."

That is what the dishonest partisans at Yahoo and ABC considered a "top story", and "featured news", from yesterday.  If you do not understand that the above quoted headline is PURE PROPAGANDA, from Bush HATERto Bush HATERS, then you are not paying attentin.  This is the SAME "source" (Power Players-ABC/Yahoo) that "featured" in the past wek, a headline story about how Elton John "thinks" George W. Bush is the worst President of all time. 

This is the same ABC whcih did that DISGRACEFUL headline on the MOTHER of James Holmes, about how she "told' ABC that "you" have got the right person.  ABC wanted you to believve that she meant that she KNEW that her son ws the kind of person who would do this, and had done it.  What she said is the much more REASPONABLE construction:  that she meant that ABC had found the mother of James Holmes. In fact, I don't se that it even maters whether the mother was saying that, or was saying that ABC had identified the "right' James Holmes.  In either event, the statement said NOTHING about what the mother "kew" about her son.

It is the same with Laura Bush.  ABC "News" and Yahoo "News" wantto SUPPORT OBAMA by making this election all about George W. Bush.  You may have noticed, even if ABC and YAHOO hav not, that George W. Bush iwill not be on the ballot this year, and is really not even CAMPAIGNING for anyone.

Just as with the mother of James Holmes, what the ABC/Yahoo headline tries to do is TWIST what Laura Bush said to suggest that she "knows" that George W. Bush did lots of things that make him an "easy target".  There is NO CHANCE than Laura Bush ment any such thing (even if that is what she thinks--unlikely as lthat is). I m 100% ceraain that all Laura Bush ment was that is is 'easy" for leftist to "blame" George Wl Bush, siince he was there when the economy went sour.  What leftists like to ignore, of ocurse, is that BARACK OBAMA wa also "ther" when the econmy went sour, as part of a Democratic MAJORTIY in Congress.

I disowned George W. Bush  in 20006, on this blog.  But Bush is the PAST. ABC did an entire interview with Laura Bush, and what their headline writers (and Y:ahoo) thought was "important" was how she "thinks" here husband is an" easy target".  Nope.  That is NOT "news". And the reson ABC ad Yahoo hinkit is "featured" news is the SAME reason they thougt that abut Elton John's coments on George W. Bush.  ABC and Yahoo want this electin to be all about George W. Bush:  aminy becuawse it is part of Obam'a campaign to BLAMED BUSH.  

Is this the beginnnig of a media 'full court press" to make this electin ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH?  Maybe.  So the only thing ABC and Yahoo can co=me up with out of an interview with Laura Bush is her "opinion" that her husband has becom e an easy pin cuhion for peole wanting to deflect blame?  Do you need any more PROOF that these peole are PARTISAN HACKS--dishoenst partisan hacks? 

No. It wont' work. Romney may lose, but it will NOT be because peole are still "blaming' President Bush.  It will be because Mitt Romney does not ut out a message of his own (although he may win without that, based on the ECOMY--his blog having predicted that Obama LOSES unless the ecomy IMPROVES by election day, or at least APPEARS to be "improving").

PS.  No proofreading or spell cehckng (bad eyesight).

Thursday, July 26, 2012

New Unemployment Claims: Media Lies Continue as Numbers Become Absurd

Nottice that The Maverick Conservative AGAIN got last week''s RVISED numbe of new unemployment claims EXACTLY RIGHT ((388,000, revised upward 2,000 from 386,000).  Problem:  The weekly numbr itself has become TOTAL FICTION (the "seasonal adjustment" obviusly so far out of kilter as to render the numbre pretty much meanginless--at least for now).  Thus, this blog will not attempt to do my usual insightful analysis of what the reported number "means".  It means NOGHING, other than that the whole process is out of whachk. 

Headline: Jobless clims drop 35,000, to 353,000." 

Readers of this blog know, of curse, that the headline--as is true of VERY mweekly media headline for YEARS on this subject--is a LIE.  This number has been REVISED upward for 4 straight weeks, by a steady 2,000.  Before that, the usual revision wsa 3,000 and more. For some reson (deliberate refusal to make an "adjustment", surely), it has "seeted in" at a "steady" LIE of 2,0000 (the intitally reported number being at least 2,000 less than what everyone KNOWS the REVISED number will be). But the sbuheadline makes it clear that it is not just the failure to consider the INEVITABLE revision next week that makes the reported numbers for the past three weeks NOT REAL (the whole number, and to just tkhe inevitable understatement of a few thousand).  Here is that headline:  "Big swings in number linked to auto-sector conditions."    Translation: The SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT haS gone OFF OF TE RAILS.  This---as this blog has reported for years while "journalists" tgell you LIES--is NOT a "concrete number" (the weekly number of reported new unempllyment claims).  It is a SUBJECTIVE number, based on a "seasonal adjustment" formula that often provides the WRONG result.  A real "sjournalist" would not only report THAT, but would report the number of RAW "new unempllyment claims" every week, along with the adjustment, and then report the same numbers for an equivalent week last year.  And then the "journalist" would ask an economist to EXPAIN what appeatrs to be happening (with the numbres themselves), and to explain any wild swings. But what do 'economists" know. It is not like they have been correctly PREDICTING these "big swings". 

What "big swings?"  Well, here are the numbers for the past 5 weeks, starting with the UNREVISED number for this week:  353,000 (to be REVISED to 355,000 or more, if patterns hold); 388,000 (revised from 386,000, as this blog CORRECTLY told yu, in advance); 352,0000 (despite the intital media LIE that the number was 350,00, and the "lowest" in four years,  despite the initially reported number having been 348,000 TWICE in February); 376,0000; and 388,000 (part of the "steady" number right around 390,000 for MOST OF JUNE). 

Has the ECONMY "bounced around" the past four weeks?  Not a chance.  Thus, the subheadline is correct:  these numbers are FICTION: the bouncing up and down of 35,000 and more the past 3 weeks.  You don't even need the "explanation" to know thaqt the numbers are FICTION.  This kind of "bouncing around" is ALWAYS the result of GLITCHES in the "seasonal adjustment".  Now it is true that the RAW number "bounces around" even more, based on seasonal patterns.  That merely emphasizes that this weekly numbre only has "meaning" OVER TIME (as in months)Thus, it has SOME significance that this number has NOT IMPROVED over this entire year--"smoothing out' the wilder swings up and down. 

You should be able to foresee a problem here.  First the FORMULA by which ALL of teh emplyment numbers are "calculatted" is CHANGED every year. The census "caused" SUBSTANTIAL changes in the "base" numbers used to calculate MONTHLY "employment numbers".  Then you have the INCREASING questin of whether "seasonal adjustment" numbers even approach "reality". If you are a "journalist" again, y9u shuld surely be reporting the CALENDAR MONTH number, compared with the SAME calendar month for last year, and the QUARTERLY number, compared witht he sAME QUARTER last year (RAWnumbrs, with the idea that the "seasoanl adjustment' should not usuall MATTER when comparing entire calendar months, and calendar quarters, with the SAME period last year. Then you have Easter (a holiday which jumps around), and other small glitches.  But this kind of REPORTING would at least give peole an IDEA of the real situation, instead of the LIFES that "journalists" are now feeding us.  One of the LIES it that these numbers (weekly or monthly) are "exact numbers".

So the problem should be obvious to you.  These numbers are so built on wather, and the methods of "calculation" so CHANGING, that the chances of MANIPULATION are rising exponentially.  It is not even that the "policy makers" of the Obama Administratin have to "order" a "manipulation".  "Economists" and BUREAUCRATS with an AGENDA (not to mention just incompetent) can massively distort these numbers.  If you understood what is happening over the past several weeks, you shuld realize that even PRIVATE companies cn DISTORT the numbers.  GM,for example, is correctly known as GOVERFNMENT MOTORS. What if GM changed its "seasonal patern" DELIBERATELYL.  No, I have no rfeason to believe that has happened. But it COULD HAPPEN. And that is a major problem  NO real "journalists" exist anymore.  And yet that is what we NEED ral "journalists" for:  to DIG into these numbers and not only explain how unreliable they ar,e but maybe even try to glean whatever "real meaning' is in these numbers. This is NOT "in the weeds" (the new mantral for LAZY "journalists" not wanting to do their jobs).  This is what is NECESSARY for "journalists" to do their obs, if they were real "journalists". As stated, however, no "real jurnalist" now exists (of whom I am aware, although I keep thinking there must be SOME exceptions). 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad yeesight).  What is "funny" (not "laughing" funnny but CRYING funy) is that IF te initally trported number of new unemplyment claims had only been 350,000 this morning, instead of 353,000, the media could have LIED for the FOURTH TIME since the number hit 351,000 in February, and called the number "the lowest in four years",  only to be able to have the headline available yet AGAIN as the number ws REVISED next week back to 351,000 or above.  I atually wish the reported number had been 350,000.  "Journalists" are LEMMINGS with an AGENDA.  They could not have helped themselves, as they coululd not help themselves IMMEDIATELY making the Colorado shooting all about "un control" (not to mentin the "pop psychology"). If the number theis morning had been reported at 350,000, "junliasts" WOULD have FALSELY reported that as the "lowest number in four years", s they have ALREADY DONE three previus times this year (after the yearly low of 351,000--revised--was reached in February, when the initial number was TWICE reported at 348,000, before revisn). 

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Insanity and Jeffrey Toobin (CNN): Getting It Wrong on The Liar Network

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's "legal expert" (telling you all you need to know about CNN), "explaining' the insanity defense in connection wiith the Colorado shooting:

"Insanity is when a person does not know what he is doing, like when a person is choooping up a human being but thinks he is chooppping down a tree.".  Oh, the PAIN.  I get a headache every time I think of this FALSE idea of the insanity defense in America, which I heard on Monday.  But, after all, it IS The Liar Network (CNN). I will now do what Toobin is obviusly incapable of doing: explain to you the insanity defense in America (which is rthe REAL "debate" we should have as a result of the Colorado shooting, and NOT "gun control").

See the movie, "Anatomy of a Murder" (rating 1000 out of 100--movie with Jimmy Stewart)
 for a much better explanation of the traditional insanity defense than you got from CNN's "legal expert"

What Toobin described--talk abut no clue--was not even really an "insanity defense" at all, but a 'mens rea" defense. "Mens rea" is latin fo "guilty mind".  To be convicgted of a crime, you have to haev (usually) some kind of INTENT.  For intentiaonal homicide, that "intent" usually means generally means intntionally killling a human being, or committing an act which a reasonable person KNOWS will ut human beings at risk of death, and which yu intend to do (such as firing into a crowd of people).  Intent to kill a specific human being is not necessary for the crime, but deliberate intent to commit an act exposing human beings direct risk of death generally is required.  You whould be able to see now what Jeffry Boobin does not see: that you really can't form the requisite INTENT to cbe guilty of intentional killing of a human being if you "think" you are "choppping down a tree."  In a real way, it is not different (in principle--if much more difficult to convince peole of it) than if yu sink an ax into someone DISGUISED AS  A TREE, thinking you are really cutting down a tree.  If your mind really thinks taht you are doing something diffrent than killing a human being, becouas your mind is that FAR "insane', then you don't really have the "intent" necessary to commit murder.  Now I won't quiblle with you about whehter this type of 'mens rea" defense eally can be regarded as some sort of 'insnaity" defense. In fact, the Toobin desscription is the ONLY kind of isanity dfense that I think should be allowed in American courtrroms.  Note that it is an almmost IMPOSSIBLE "defense":  first because almost NO ONE is THAT far gone to reality, and, second, because no one is likely to BELIEVE that you--the acused criminal--were that far divorced from reality.  Note that it is effectivey an IMPOSSIBLE dfense in the case of the Colorado shooting, since it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that James Holmes carefully purchased weapons, and then broke into  a movie theater to use them, based on some sort of illusion that he ws shooting at paper targets.  Nope.  Can't be done--which the CLUELESS Jeffrey Toobin failed to appear to realize.  Oh, I guess you couuld THEORETICALLY come up with some scenario where Holmes thought he as in a movie, or video game, and not shooting real guns at real peole.  But, nope, it can't realistically be done. If criminal defendants are reduced to a "mens rea" defense, then the "insanity defense" is effectivelyl ELIMINATED from criminal trials, as it shuld be. 

What, then, is the TRADITIONAL "insanity defense" in America (See, again, "Anatomy of a Murder")?  It is the idea that you are "not guilty by reason of insanity" if--at the time of the alleged murder--you were INCAPABLE (mentally) of 'knowing right from wrong" (because of mental "disease or defect", and not because of voluntary ingestion of alcohol or drugs).  The "competing" idea--a very minority view--was that you could be found "not guilyty by reason of insanity" if you were capable (at the time of the act) of kowing right from wrong, but were subject to an "irresistible impulse" (because of your mental condition at the time), which your mind was incapable of resisting (even though you knew it was rong). Leftists, who want our entire criminal justice system to be about SICKNESS (and not "punishment"), have tried to liberalize the old "capable of knnowing right from wrong" standard, and even the "alternative" standard of "Anatomy of a Murder", with a "modern' (leftist) view of "mental disease".  Thus, leftists have tried to propose some variation or other of a "standard" which FOCUSES on the "mental diesease or defet", and makes it either a partial or total dfense if a person is afflicted with a "mental diseasee, defect or conditn"--at thet time of the alleged act--which makes the person incapable of "conforming his conduct to the law'.  Note how--typcial of the lefitst aproach--this turns the FOCUS away from the CONDUCT to the 'mental disease or defect" in a rather subbtle, deceptive way (as I say, typical of leftists). 

Well, there has been a COMPETING movement (which I support) to do away with the "insanity defense" entirely, in favor of what Toobin FALSELY suggests is the "traditional" "insanity defense": that "mens rea" defense that a person's mind was not even capable of knowing FACTUALLY what he was donig--incapble of forming even a correct enogugh view of reality to be aware of the real world enough to form the requisite intent to commit a criminal at.  Thus, you now have a possible verdict, in at leasto one state, of "guilty, but insane". That verdict, however, does not really "help" the defenant, in terms of the "punishment', EXCEPT to reqauire that the defendant recieve "mental treatment", rather than simply gong to jail witout mental treatment). I am not wild about the complications of retaining even this vestige of the "insanity defense", but it is better than the absurd theater represented by the "traditional" insanity defense. 

What is the law in Colorado?  Well, I leave that as an exrcise for you to look up . You certainly will NOT learn from CNN or Jeffrey Toobin, since they are NOT INTERESTED in FACTS.  We are not talkinb abut the 2700 page ObamaCare bill here.  All states hae a DEFINITIN of "legal insanity" in the statutes, and/or whic is given to the jury.  a JURY is expected to UNDERSTAND that "definition" (even if it is really absrud, from either a mental health or logical point of view) . Does CNN reallly think its VIEWES are INCABPLE of u"understanding" what a JURY of 12 peole is supposed to "understnad"?  As a matter of fact, YES.  Jeffrey Toobin and CNN do have that kind of CONTEMPT for you.  They are also that LAZY.  And I have seen this all over the media:  where "defense attorney" "experts" talk about the "insanity defense" of James Holmes without eVER really describing that deefense under the alw of Colorado. 

Let me be as blunt as I can be:  Jeffrey Toobin did NOT present this FALSE idea of the "insnaity defense" in America as some "pecularity" of Colorado alw.  He presented it as if it is the "universal" "insanity defense" in America.  Firt, there is NO "universal" insnaity defense in Aermica.  Second, the standard "insnaity defense" is as I have describved it above.  If Colorado is much different than that, then that is what Toobin--as a supposed "legal expert"--should explain.  Instead, y got this ABUSRD descritpin of a "mens rea" defense, withut any apparent clue, of Toobin's part, as to what he was talking about. 

Message to Jeffrey Toobin:  You are an IDIOT.  You know liile about  hte law, and your "informatin" is USELESS. I have described before how my LIBERAL "Criminal Law" professor att he Unitversity of Tesas School of Law gave me a "Clue" game for getting the highest grade in his class (tie), with the comment (knowing I was a conservative):  "Well, I guess this shows thinking has no ideology.'  For Jeffrey Tobin, an CNN, "thiking" not ony has an idology, but it jus does not exist.  No wonder peole are so uninformed, and so ignorant of the law (despite the trials on TV, and the incrediblly evil "analysis" of every notorious legal case around).  What caNce do peole hae when our "journalists" are NOT INTERESTED in factually correct information, which the attorneys "featured" now on cable TV fully realize.  Legal "journalists" are jsut as bsd--worse--than even ordinary "journalists".  If you can't even TELL lpeole the DEFINTION of "legal insanity" in Colorado, are you of AnY use at all as either a "journalist" or "legal expert".?  Nope. 

ntocie that the headline is deliberately ambiguous.  Is it Jeffrey Tobin and the peole of CNN who are INSANE, or does that issue only concern James Holmes.  I report, you decide. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Yahoo "News" and "The Ticket": Corrupt, Partisan Liars (Boycott AT&T and Yahoo)

"For days, Mitt Romney has led Republican attacks on Obama over his defense of the role government plays in fostering a climate in which entrepreneurs can thrive.

Do you recognize the above statement from the CORRUPT LIARS at Yahoo ("The Ticket") to be a LIE?  It is part of an article trying to "rhabilitatate" Obama from that GAFFE Obama made when h told small buiness people that THEY "did not build this", but rather could not have done it without govevernment help.  You don't think this is a LIE?  You fool, you.  Never doubt me.  This is not even a matter of opinin.  That above statement is either a LIE, or Obama agrees with ME (a person as far from his views on the proper role of government as any person alive). 

What is MY view of the "propr role of government/"  Right . My viwe, and the supposed view of the GOP, is that it is NOT the role of government to DIRFECTG the econmy, CONTGROL the way business operates, and generally TELL peole what to do. It is also not the role of the government to SUBSIDIZE the private business activities of which GOVERNMENT APPROVES.  What, then, is the role of government?  The proper role of governnment is to create a CLIMATE in which our PRIVATGE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM can operat, without "central planning' and the CONTROL of MERE MEN.  What kind of "climate" do I mean?  Come on. You know this one.  We are talking about a climate of LOW TAXES, LOW GOVERNMENT SPENDING, NO BAILOUTS, and MINIMUM GOVERNMENT REGULATION.  Is President Obama REALLY saying thaat he AGREES with ME?  Of course not, despikite the CORRUPT LIEARS at Yahoo.  Obama is saying that we NEED government to ooperate in a HANDS ON way to DIRET and "HELP" business. For Obama, it is the GOVERNMENT that "creates jobs", and the GOVERNMENT that really makes it possible to "build things":  NOT by "getting out of the way" but by DIRECT ACTION.  This is the direct opposite of 'crfeating a climate". 

kI mean it . I don't know what "The Ticket" is, and it is too much prollem (with my eyesight) for me to figure it out.  It does not matter.  I am perfectly content to give YAHOO and AT&T FULL CREDIT.  BOYCOTT the CORRUPT YAHOO AND AT&T.  I have had occasion to discuss "The Ticket" before, and those po9ple are TOTALLY CORERUPT PARTISANS.  If Yahoo is going to feature them, under the "Yahoo" brand (and theAT&T brand), then it is YAHOO that needs to face the consequences. .

P.S. no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Texas "National Tragedy": 14 Die

12 peole died in Aurora, Colorado (last count I saw).  14 peole died in Texas in a TRAFFIC accident. 

Did ;yu ever doubt me when I said that the shootng in Colorado was NOT any more a "national tragedy"--indeed much less--thatn the 40,000 peole who die on ur roads and highways each year.  Don't you feel like a FOOL for doubting bme, or are you like my daughter (not thinking straight0, and assert there is soemmehint g"different" about SUDDEN DEATHS on the highway than there is about a mass murder that plays on the EMOTIONS?  Have we really come to thiis, whre we "hytiank" only wtih our EMOTIONS?  Dead is dead. The TRAGEDY of 40,000 people dying on our highways is much WORSE than 12 peole dying in a mass murder.  If you don't see that, then I am sorry for you (as I am for my thinking challegend duagher). 

By the way it should realy BOTHER YOU that you are not as "comopassioniate" as ME.  You may rightly conclude that I am one of the coldest peole you have ever encountgered.. But what does that make YOU?  I feel COMOPASSION for the "victims" and families of the 40,000 peole who die in traffic accidents every year,--including the 14 or oso who DIED in the last 234 hours in Texas (ilklegl immigrants though some of those may have been).  I feel COMPASSION for the 16,000 murdder victims, and their famiies, EACH YERF in this counntry.  Are you like the EVIL peole of the media, who only feeel "compssion" for peopole involved in PUBLICIZED, horrific events which evoke your EMOTIONS?  Not a very compassionate person, are you  Yes, I am willing to say flattly:  I am MORFE compassionate a person than your are: certainly MORE tghan the COLD, EVIL peole of the meida out to MILK emotions for RATINGS. 

P.. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). 

Monday, July 23, 2012

Gun Control Advocates: Dishonest to Their Very Core

We already know thqat most gun control advocates are eViL people: trying to USE the Colorado shoting for  DIVISIVE, PATISAN purposes before the bodies of the dead were even cold. 

But let me reconsturct a "discussion" with these DISHOENST peole:

Moderfator:  How can you say that stronger enforcement of gun control laws, and better back ground checks would have prevented the Colorado shooting?  That appears to be not ture, since no back ground checkof James Holmes  would have revealed anything . He purchased guns legally, at recognized gun shops, and not at some gun show. 

Gun control advocate:  Well, that may be tgrue, but we still need to have a "debate" about reasonable gun laws in this country.  And who needs an assault rfiel, or magazine with a hundred rounds of ammunition. 

Moderator:  But exactly what are you saying. TARGET shooters regularly use lots of ammunition. Are you saying taht target shooters do not exitst, and that only hunters use guns?  12 peole dead is not so very many.  There were more deaths at Ft. Hood, and this shooter showed a sophisticated ability to build BOMBS.  Many more peole were killed at Okalahoma City with a FERTiLIZER BOMB.  Are you sayihng that the peole in Colorado would really have been better off if the killer had used BOMBS, or had used only shotguns and ordinary rifles instead of an aassault rifle with an expanded ammunitin drum?

Gun conrol advocagte:  Well, we can't do a perfect solution.  That would be BANNING ALL GUNS.  But gun nuts won't let us do that, rellying on tha outdatged Constitutin. (Okay, I made up those last tow sentences, which a DISHONEST un control advocate would neverf say, but it is what they MEAN.).  But hunters don't need to pum a hudred bullets into a deer (red herring alert). We need to at least do what we can to reasonably limit these guns and ammunition devices which have no use than to kill peole (LIAR: what about target shooters/), 

Moderator:  But let us get back to the subjectg.  Isn't it total speculatgion on your part that James Holmes would not have been able to kill just as many peole without the "assault riffle"?  In factg, did nto that rifel JAM. What EVIDENCED do you have hahat the laws you advocate would actually have sOTPPED this atgtack, or even have saved any lives?  An effective BOMB wouldhave killed MORe peole.  Shotguns can kill and wound a lot of peole.  It seems likelly that the laws you advocate would NOT have revented this tragedy, or evn have saved many lives, if any. Maybe MORE peole wouldhave died, if he shooter ws motivated to use a BOMB. 

Gun  control advocate:  You miss the pont.  Alllkinds of peole are killed with guhsns ever y year.  this is only one example.  You need to look at the whole picture.

Moderator: Is it me who has missed tghe orint, or YOU.  YHou are here to tell me that the Colorado shooting DEMANDS aht e have better gun control.  Yetg, you annot even make much  of a case that the laws you advocate would even have done iany good in Colorado.  ARe you not being DISHOENST;  USING the Colorado shooting as an EXCUSE to gain EMOTIONAL supoport for a positoin as to which the Coloraddo shooting has little relevance. 

Dun control avocate:  Okay.  I admit that we are using the Colorado shooting as an EXCUSE tgo try to resurrect an issue upon which I feel strongly.  Because of the NRA, we can't getg anywhere with gun control.  But peole like me know that we NEED to have gun control   So if yyou want to say that we are tryig to USE tghe Colorado Shoting, and are not being comnpletely honest, so be it.  This is tto important to argue fairly.  The NRA doe not play fiar. Neithr do we, when we gt the chance.

Yes, I admit that the last paragraph I put into the mouth of gun control advocates doe s not ring true.  that is because gun control advocates are DISHONEST TO THE CORFE.  They cannot explain HOW the laws they advocate would ever have "pevented" the Colorado massacre, or even necessarily have saved lives, but they really do not even engage that argument . They eVADE.  They LIE.  The DECEIVE.  there is not an honest bone in tgheir bodies.  The simple fact is that they--even, as this blog has pinted out--have attempted to use the EMOTION of thel Colorado shooting to advance their agenda EVEN BEFOE THE DEAD BODIES WERF COLD, and ithat has nothing to do with whether what they adovcate would reallly have prevented these deaths.  No, I do NOT achknowledge lthat gn contorl fanatics "have heir hears int the right place".  TGhey are NOT honest peole, and that means they are BAD peole.  I stgand by that staatemetn, and again (that media ploy again) "invitge" any gun contorl advocate to argue the contrary in a omment to this blog (which will not be edited by me). 

Look at the "full court press" being put on by tghe evil media!!!!!   tal about EViL peole (not the shooter, although he is, butg our EViL media).  They are trying to BOOTSRAP the EMOTINS of the Colorfado killing into pushing THEIR AGENDA.  It goes without saying lthat EVERY NRA MEMBVERF should BOYCOTT YAHOO AND AT&T (part of tgh evil media P*USHING this message that the EMOTIONS of the Colorado shotting should "ignite' the DEAD "gu contorl" debate".  It will serve these leftist partisans right if Obma actually believes tghe FOOLS and acts on the mistaken belief that peole actually balme guns for what haoppened in Colorado.  But it is likely that Obama wil NOT take this baitg, as even leftist Obama is NOT tghis TUPID.  Our evil media are, of course, his stupid and this PARTGISAN.  Doubt me?  Never, ever, do that  Here is one of those featured Yahoo "News" headlines tonight (NRA peole, I beg you:  BOYCOTT YAHOO AND AT&T).:

"Gun contgrol comes up in Ct., Va. seante debates."

Can yo uget any more DISHOENST than our evil media?  yupe.  I do mean lYAHOO., and oal of the rest of tghe mainstream media.  Yes, I know that Yahoo "nNews" does not originate these stories, butg I am GLAD to give tghem, and AT&T CREDIT.  They DESEVE IT.  Give them tghe CRFEDITG they DESERVE, you NRA peole and sympathizers, and BOYCOTT THEM.  No, I am not a member of the NRA, and have not fired a gun in 4r0 years, since I was hornorably discharged afeter a full term in the United States Army.  But I do know DiSHOENT lpeole when I see and hear them, and thasoe peole are NOT tghe peole of tghe NRA. 

What is dishoenst about that qutoed headline?  Is ti not "true?"  Not really . In fundametnal terms, it is a LIE.  First, WhO decides what "comes up" in a debvate?  No, it is NOT the "peole", even if the questins suposedly come from the public.  The querstins are SELECGTED/CHOSEN by--usually--JOURNALISTS.  D you see the INCEST going on here?  Uunfortunately for the DISOENST "jurnalists" of our evil media, I do undrstand exactlyl how this woks.  "B u, Skip, is it not POSSIBLE that one of tghe candidates pushed this "Issue"?  Sure, it is "possible", although  not LIKELY.  Most candiates, especially Democrats in a state like Virginia, are trying to DODGE this issue as hard and fast aws lpossible.  that is what PRESIDENT OBAMA is doing, unless the leftist, evil media can BAIT him into stupidity.  Now a g contorl OPPONENT, especially in Vrginia, mifht push the issue to EMBARRASS the Democrat: on the wrong side of history int he USA.  But the point is that the hedline-trying to push the idea that the Colorado shooting has "ignited" gun contorl "debatge"--is a LIE (not matter how the issue was rought up, most likely by "journalists" pushig THEIR agenda).  The Headline is ABSURD.  What difference does it make if someone--most likely "journalists" following the JOURNALIST NARRATIVE--want s to USe the Colorado shooting to "raise' gun contrl issues.  We lareazdy KNEW that.  MSNBC , CNN and tghe unfair and unablanced network have ALReADY done that before the dead boides were even fully cold.  That is the eVIL here, as oure Prfesident himself highlightged.  Ure eivl media can always USH an 'issue" to "debate", becaue THEY are pushing tghe "debate". Butg is the debate MORTANT to PEOLE, and are CANDIATGES really treating it SERIOUSLY.  In the case of gun control, the "debate" is DEAD, and our evil media cnnot resurrectg it.  Do y member of the NRA understand tghat I am SEROIUS?  Yu SHOULD BOYCOTT Yahoo, AT&T, CNN, MSNBC, and really aLL of tghe mainstream media (including the unfari and unbalanced network).  These peoel are tlrying t MANUFACTURE an "Issue" when one sdoes not really exist. 

It is simpy a fact taht gun contorol advocates are dishonest to the core. And "journalists" are dishonest to the corfe.  What, then, can we say bout GUN CTONROL ADVOCATES WHO ARE JOURNALISTS?  Right.  We can definitively say that they ar some of the MOST DISHONEST PEOLE WHO HAVE EVER LIVED.

As this blog has correclty told you, the MOST you can say about the Colorado shooting  is tghat it is ONE data point in deciding what gun "policy" should be. EMOTIN has no place here, and it is DISHOENST to try to use the EMOTGION of the Colorado shooting to push a gun control agenad that really has NOTHING to do with the Colorado shoting.  As stated, gun contgrol advocates cannot even say, except to SPECULATE unconvincingly, thaqt the "laws" they advocate would even have affected theColorado shooting for he better. 

P.S No proofreadin or spell cehcking.

Obama and CNN: If a Tree Falls, and Obama Does Not acknowledge Hearing iIt, Has It Really Happened

I have mentioned this before;  Forr CNN, it is all about Obama. If Obama does not acknowledge it, then it is not worth talking about.  Now you might regard the evil media to have made an exceptin on GUN CONTROL, hwere CNN and the rest were willing to start DIVISIVE debaqte even when OBAMA told them it was an EVIL thing to do before the bodies in Colorado were hardly even cold (debatge, by the way, that EVERYONE agrees is going NOWHERE--meaning the evil media is spreading evil for NO purpose).  But, really, the lefitsets of the media could nto help themselves on this one . They have a 'narrative" here that they have ut in place from previus shootings--a narrative that Obama once pandered to, as in his CAMPAIGN speech at  disguised as a "memorial" for Gabrielle Giffords.  It is hard to believe, but Obama lives in LESS of a fantasy world than media leftists.  However, CNN again otherwise showed how, for them, it is ALL about Obama.  No.  You may THINK that the peole of CNN "care" about the peole of Aurora ,Colorado. They don't.  All they care about is how OBAMA reacs to the shooting, and who it POLITICALLY affects Obama.

Doubt me/  Never, ever, do that.  I actualy heard CNN say that we "know" that the Colorado shooting suspet is in custody becuae "Obaama annunced it" (at that speech where he, in fffect, called CNN an evil network becuase of the DIVISIVE way they were gong to IMMEDIATELY sbut how this shooting should "intie" more debate aobut gun control).  Obama, of course, was NOT the "official" source of the susptect being in custody, and this is just another indicatin that CNN truly does not beleive a tree has really fallen unless Obama notices it. 

But it goes way beyond that.  Readers of this blog, or the ten peole who actually watch him, know that Wofl Blitgzer is one of the worst human beings who has ever lived on this Earth.  As ou know, I deliberately do not tunei int Blitzer, evin to surf, becuase I maintain that makes me a feloow traveller in EViL.  I can't ven describe how bad Blitzer is.  I was tlring to surf for the FACTS (good liuuck, with today's "journalists") abut the Colorado shooting on Friday, and I was surfing CNN (as I will do in the daytime). Unfortunately, Blitzer popped up. Guest what HIS take was?  I could NEVER make this up . He wasl--so help me--PUSHING the idea that Obama should give yet ANOTHER memorial speech at the FUNERALS (or the time of the funerals) of the Colorado sooting victims.  Blitzer must have loved that CAmAIGN "memorial" speech on a college campus, after the Giffords shooting.  Do you need any more proff that, for Blitzer and CNN, this is aLL ABUT OBAMA.  All Blitzer was intrested in was how Obama was talking a California trip anway, and would be in opostion to stop by Colorado and HORN IN on the funerals, making them AlL ABUT OBAMA.  So help me, it is like the only way the GRIEF would be REAL would be if Obama showed up and BVAIDATED it.  No.  Tisis is BAD stuff. Blitzer is a BAD man.

Notice that MAYBE Obama realized just how ridiculous Blitzerr was being gushing abut how it ws up to Obama to "memorialize" the Colorado shooting in connectin with the funerl.  I can't even adequately describe how bad Blitzer was, in almost OOZING EXCITGEMENT at the prospect of Obma gong to Colorado for a "memorial service" in connectin with the funerals.  Again, hwoever, has OBAMA realized that Blitzer is just gong to get him in trouble by making it look like another CAPAIGN SPEECH--like Obama is trying to take advantage of  tragedy for political purposes (as Blitzer was really URGING him to do, even gong to far as to say the American peole expect it of Obama--which may unfortunately be true a to both Obama and Blitzer).  I say that mAYBE Obama thught better of this particular ply (but we will see), as Obama showed up in Aurora, Colorado to TALK to victims (and families), and laud at least one herone.  Now CNN ws PUSHING the idea that we NEED Obama to "bring comfort" to peole about this tragedy.  That is absurd.  If it were true, we ar in sad shape as a country.  See  prviouis articles postedon this blog in the past few days.  Have we really become a country where we have o OBSESS over this kind of thing,; "meorialize" it to death: , and have all kinds of "celebrities" validating the grief of the people diretly affected? Have we reallyl become a coun ntry whre the President is looked upon as a "daddy", to "comfort" us when bad things happen, as if we are all six eyar old children?  I hope not. 

Anyway, there is jsut no doubt that, for CNN, a tree--any tree--has not really fallen unless Persident Obama publicly acknowledges it. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

Homosexual (Gay) Soldiers Marching in Uniform: Right or Wrong?

Before letting it totally be lost in the overreaction (hoorific as the shooting was) to the Colorado shooting, I want to mention this headline that was "featured"  within the past several days on Yahoo "News":

"Soldiers march in funiform in San Diego gay parade"

Is this againt military regulations?  Maybe.  I don't know. It is certainly WRONG for soldiers to put being 'gay" ahead of their uspposed commitment to the dfense of ALL of this country.  What would happen if soldiers "marched" IN UNIFORM in a TEA PARTY parade?  Yes, for all I know soldiers have appeared in funiform at tea Party events.  But you and I both know that if this had been brought forward by the media, it would be ONLY ni a NEGATIVE wayu.  "How dare soliders USE their unifrom to promote such a narrow, POLITICAL point of view."  I am sorry.  It is NOT approriate for soliders to try to USE their status as soldiers to try to promote the "cuase" of "gay rights'--at least in uniform.  This appears to be a deliberate attempt to put the UNFIFORMS of tghe United Sates military behind a POLITICAL positioin.  And yes, it cannot help but be DISRUPTIVE to military discipline.

This is actually the EVIL of "anti-discrimination" laws.  Say it is against army regulations for these soldies to be marching in this kind of event. Does it matter? If a superior tries to DISCIPLINE these soldiers, or even to "caution" them against this kid of activity, that superior is probably putting his CAREER at risk.  Suddenly, homosexuals have a SPECIAL STATUS in the military (not to mentin in the country).  They alomst hav ve a "get out of jail free card". In other words, they can be DISRUPTIVE and VIOLVATE POLICY (both in the military and increasingly in private companies), and it is very HARD sto do anything aobut it.  "Anti-discrimination" laws become a LICENE to actg outrageously. 

"But, Skip, is that not true of laws against racial discriminatin--not to mentin sex discrimination?"  Yes, it is.  It becomes much harder to FIRE or discipline a balck person, or a woman.  My borther jsut faced the issue of whether the trucking companny for which he works can refuse to hir e a driver, when the driver refuses to work on Saturday for religion=us reasons (whin ALL drivers are REQUIRED to be available to work on Saturdays, or Sundays, when necessary).  My LEGAL opinin is that the law does NOT require a company to hire a driver in that situation, religion or no religion, but my rother's superior (understandably) took the positin that it is TOO DANGEROUS to stand on this kind of principle.  Thuys, OTHER PEOLE may suffer because of a person's insisence of "strict" observance of his religion.  In "Chariots of Fire", you may rememberr that the Jewish runner would not run a race on Saturday, and the Christian runner on Sunday.  Should the Olympics be RESCHEDULED to accommodate everyone's religion?  Give me a break.  "So, Skip, you are such a bigot that you don't even approve of anti-discriminatin laws based on race?"  Not so  I simpl say that in a PERFECT world such laws should not existg (and not need to exist).  But we don't live in a perfect world, and cannot ignore the reality of SLAVERY, and the exensive period of systematic racial discriminatin in this country.  I recognize the DOWNSIDE of these laws, but that is outwiehed by the necessity of those laws because we were maintaining a kind of "slavery" without it being legal.  However, it makes no sense to eXPAND this kiknd of "special status", when the extreme exigent circumstances do not exist.  Thus, I certainly DO oppose anti-discriminatin lwas outside of race and religion, and I oppose turning the law into some sort of "license" for peole to at outrageously witht he idea that they can "get away with it".  Yes, I se NOT REASON for "sex discrimination" laws.  It is not like women are a "minority".  You may think I go too far there, because of my general view of women, but the princiiples I am talking aoubt ar still sound.

This idea that we should make every hiring and firing decisin a "Federal case" is absurd, and dangerous.  As for homosexuals, this idea that they can PUSH their lifestyle in an obnoxius way leaves me totally cold.  No. I do not favor anti-discriminatin" laws for "sexual orientation", or any other kind of "special status" for them. Yes, I would go beyond that and say that OPEN homoseuxals should NOT be in the military.  That does go beyond merely not giving them "special status", but the military is not your average "club" (where I have no prolbem with gays either being admitted or excluded).  What gays are now PUSHING for is NOT mere "tolerancde", but socital APPROVAL (to the point of special status giving them MORE "rights" than most people).  Sorry  Not from me.  And the military is to important to be playing games.  There is no rason a homosexal NEEDS to "advertise" his conduct in the military.  I am NOT a homosexual (although you might justly regard me neurotic with regard to women), but I served an entire term in the United States Army without a SINLGE DATE with a woman.  I also had a letter published in the El Paso Times, at the time (without identifying me as a "soldier") saying I was an agnostic (not a Christian).  You know what?  I had NO HASSLES--no "questins" raised--during my entire time in the United States Army (1958-1971).  So I know whereof I speak when I say there is NO reason for homosexuals to FLAUNT the tlype of sexual conduct in which they engage.  And no, for the most part I was NOT aware of the sexual practices of other soldiers, although there were obviusly some exceptions.  I will never see--given my own experience and the nature of the military--why a person has to be OPENLY GAY in the military. No, I see no reason to "iinestigate" the matter, which is sordid and unnecessary.  But there was nothing wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  Homoseuxal conduct is CONDUCT--even mor than being FAT is CONDUCT.  The army, of course does DISCRIMINATE against FAT people (despite strong genetic coponent), althugh youy would be surprised (ro maybe not) at how many peole in the army ARE fat (at least substantially overweight).

Again, yo may reject SOMe of what I say above.  However, you have to face the FACT that we are presently headed for a society where homosexuals really do have a sense of "entitlement": the idea that they deserve "special status' that allows them to do things other peole cannot do.  High xhool, college, the army: how many peole acutally THUGHT I am gay?  I have no idea, and I did not care.  I cared some that my ability toactually relate to women is so falwed, but why should I care what other peole ThOUGHT?  I did not, and do not.  As readers of this blog know, I "overcame" my problems relatin to women enogh to sire two daughters.  Was it some sort of Divine punishment that those two daughters bouth turned out to be FEMINISTS?  You Christians out there will ahve to draw yuor own concusions on that.  As with the Presidetnial race, I rgard myself as essentially NEUTRAL on all questions regarding sex ("not "neutral" in the snese of "no opinin", but "neutral" in the sense of no PESONAL STAKE in the matter.  I have been celibate for much more of my adult life than not, includnig now.  A I have often sated, I am deathly AFRAID of women--even though I cna't honestlyl say that any of them has ever one anything to me. But my OPINIONS on sex have NOT changed, from the age of about 16 until now:  HEALTHY sex is only marital sex between a man and a woman.  My personal sexual hangups have nothing to do with that opinin, other than maybe "explaining' why I a not so willing to RAITNALIZE my 'morality" to fit my personal condut (as, perhaps, peole are whose hangups with women  do not keep them from acting on their sexual desires). I ued to feel a little bad about not being 'normal" with regard to womn.  That was before indicents like those with Hugh Grant (while Elizabeth Hurley was his fiance) and a PROSTITUTE.  I long ago came to the correct conclusion that theere is NO "normal" with regrad to men and women.  However,  that ony reinforces my conclusin that we are doing HARM to our children by this idea that it does not matter if we further confuse their "sexual identity" by fialing to put forth--as a society--the standrds to which they should at least ASIRE.  In short, I reject the idea that peronal "sexual satisfactin" is the ultimate good in life.    I have seen the "seuxal morality" accepted when I went to hisgh school (1960-1964), and I have seen the "seuxal revolutin of the late Sixties and 1970s.  Now I have seen this PUSH toward the idea that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are the SAME.--neither to be preferred over the other.  There is nO doubt in my mind, as a "netural" party:  The "sexual morality" of the early Sixties was MUCH HEALTHIER. 

I bring up my personal experience not because it is important in itself, but to meet the "artgument" that I do not know what it means to be considered "abnormal".  I definitely do, and I hink most peole actually do.  The problem is hwen you elevate your own abnormality as to some sort of "Speical" status where society has an OBLIGTIN to make usure you are happy anyway.  I feel that is what "gay activists" are tryong to do:  to use their abnormality as a WEAPON to achieve 'status", and even "happiness".  Good luck.  It is not going to work (no matter whether they are able to bring eveyrfoone else down with them or not).  Can you be "happy" being a homosexual?  I assume so, as I have been "happy" being at least as abnormal in my own way.  But you cCANNOT attain that "happiness" by basing it on obtaining th eAPPROVAL of societgy at large, or other peole in particula. r.  We should deiniely STOP trying to teach children that they have a "right' to the "approval " of other peole, and start teaching them to NOT CARE so much abut "other peole"--or, really, about whether their 'feelings" are hurt.  Are there really more 'hapy" homosexuals now than when Rokk Hudson became a big star "in the closet"? I dont think so  In fact, I think we are headkng for making a LOT MORE peole UNAHPPY, as the fabirc which holds society--and children--together frays (partly because of homoseuxal 'activism"). 

P.S No proofrading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Maybe someone should ask Anderson Cooper:  "Are you more hapy now that ou are openly gay, than when you were putting out all of that gay activist proaganda withotu revealing your personal agenda?"  Somehow, I doubt it.  It is said that Marc Antony had a HAREM of BOTH men (boys?) and women. Julius Caesar is supposed to have had exual relatinshiiops with both men and women.  Or lyou can rea ""I, Claudius", by Graves. Were these peole NORMAL. You might also remember that Cleopatra MARRIED HER BROTHER (in accordance with Egyptian traditin, which ccepted INCEST, but not homoseuxal marraige, as has been true of ALL of human histroy as to gay marriage).  Were all of these peole NORMAL?  The mind boggles.  Are we really better off considereing "anything goes", and treting all of this kind of thing as "normal" and healthy?  The mind boggles even further. "Leave it to Beaver" is HEALTHY (ven if rare).  This other stuff is not. 

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Colorado shooting: Mark Twain and Sylvia Agree on Emotionial Overkill and Self-Indulgencde

I am not makng this up.  Here is an approximate trnascriptin of my conversation with my only female freiend, Sylvia, on Friday (Sylvia called me, all excited and emotionially stirred):

Sylvia:  'It is a tragedy.  I cant' believe it.  A tragedy occurred today."

Me:  "Are yu talking abut that shooting in Colorado/"

Sylvia:  "No.  Why would that be a tragedy to me?"

Me;   "Well, the media is saying it is a national tragedy."

Sylvia (a rather typical Obama supporter):  "Of course the shooting is bad. But it does not directly affect me.  I can't regard it as a personal tragedy.  It happpened to peole I don't even know."

Me:  (Okay, a DIG at Sylvia): "So are yu saying President Obama was lYING when he said he was 'heartbroken' by the shooting in Coloado?"

Sylvia (in exasperation, recognizing the dig):  "Yes, he ws.  Now can we get on with my tragedy, or are you going to keep spoiuting this nonsense?"

Oh. Sylvia's "tragedy"?  It was that her "team' (including her) are being moved to an area right outside of the office of the aDP supervisor how has been the BANE (not "Bain') of her existence for about a year. But I don't want to digress too far here.  Readers of this blog know that Syulvia is a VICIOUS CREATURE, and that my very life is at reik--much more than going to a movie theater--because I live iwthin a mile of where she lives, and have fairly regular contact with her. My problem is that I have come around to the view that Sylvia is a TYPICAL WOMAN, rather than being an especially vicious exmpale of the sex.  Tim Dorsey got it right when his male SERIAL KILLRE anti-hero married a female serial killer, and had MAJOR problems becuase she was a typical WOMAN (and NOT because she was a serial killer).  Nevertheless, Sylvia was right, as she often is (although not as often as she thinks). It is absurd to profess to be "heartbroken" over what happpened in Colorado, and this idea that it is a "national tragedy" is equally absurd emotioinal overkill. And it IS self-indulgent:  WALLOWING in your 'compassion". 

Mark Twain ("life on the Mississippi"): "It is not easy to manufacture an emotion out of whole cloth. It is easier to come up with 7 facts." Twain was talking aobut "tourists" from Britain who became "writers" when they went back home.  Twain's point (he might as well have been talking aoubt today's "journalists") was that these writers BUILT on each other's "emotions" with each new book.  Soon, their own descriptoins of their own emotions had more to do with previus descriptions of the eotins of others than with the Mississippi itself.  By the way, if you arre presently a published author, do NOT read Mark Twain  It can only depress you.  Modern writers are not even as good as the writes of the first sixty years of the Twientieth Century--much less Mark Twain.  If you are a WANNABE, lyou sould read Mark Twain, even if it will make your task seem imnpossible.  But if yu are a modern "journalist" or novelist, forget it.  You will only commit suicide. 

Note that this is NOT a "criticism" (exactly) of President Obama. It IS a damning criticism of moden "journalism", and of US (at least the ublic).  Our media is TELLING our Presidents that they HAVE to say these UNTURUE thin gs, and engage in emotional hyperbole 'feeling your pain'.  Peole supposedly EXPECT IT.  Do YOU "expect it?"  I hope not,  But too many peole evidently do.  Yes, I ealize that "heartbroken" could be regarded as jsut not quite the right word, but I think my inerpretatin is more correct:  President Obama jsut thought he HAD to say somethnig that dramatic.  How else can you explain him talkig about how he thought of his own two dauthers attending a movie theater--imply that he therefore "undersood" what the families are facing.  HOGWEASH.  You heard me.  Sylvie iis right;  HOGWASH. 

Then there are what are are laughably called  "jurnalists".  There oft-repeated phrase is that this is a "natioinal tragedy".  Mark Twain--a 'journalist" himself-must be turning over in his grave.  Doubt me?  Never, ever, do that.

So the murder of 12 peole, and whooting of 70, is a "national tragedy".  Mark Twain did not apply that descritpin to a steamboat that BLEW UP (as they evidently did on occasion), and killed 150 peole.  Then there are those 40,000 peole KILLED each year in traffic accidents.  HOW can the death of 12 peole be a "national tragedy" in the face of this? 

"But, Skip, this was MURDER.  that is DIFFERENT."  Nope, to the familis of the DEAD it is NOT.  Oh, I know that this k-ind of mass murder is more "shocking', and hard to "understand". But that the DEATHS are "different" is "manufactured emotin", "building' on what cable TV is TEACHHING us we are SUPPOSED to "feel'. Give me a break.  Still doubt me?  I twarned yu abut that.

There are 16,000 MURDERS in this country every year.  What makes THESE 12 a "natinal tragedy, when the 16,000 plus others are not?  Even Prsident Obama, while particiapating int he verbal emotional overkill, mentioned how "less lpublicized" murders are jsut as "devastating" to victims and their families.  What abut CHICAGO?  As of the end of June, or therabouts, there had been 259 MURDERS in Chicago in HAF a year.  HOW can the 12 murders in Colorado be a "natinal tragedy" and those 259 murdres in Chicago NOT a 'natinal tragedy".  Nope.  This is a DEBASEMENT of our language, and of our FEELING.  I think I am with Mark Twain on this one, even if your rightly think that I am light years from Mark Twain in my prose.  You just CNNOT "respond" to this by saying that ALL of these things are "natinbal tragedies".  Yet, that is exactly what the media is really saying when they use this kind of verbal OVERKILL in describing emotions. 

A tragedy (although not in the Shakespearean sense) for he victims and their families and friends--even for Aurora? Of couse.  And that IS true of EVERY murder in this country, and EVERY traffic death,  Those ARE just as big a tragedy for the PEOLE direclty involved.  No. I reject the idea that this is not true: that an event like the Colorado shooting is MORE of a tragedly for the peole injured and killed, and their families, than in an "ordinary" death.  Do you really want to admit that I have MORE OMPASSIN than yu do for the ORDINARY DEATHS out there ever day: in Chicago, on our highways, and in other "routine" murders?  I even have "compassion" (feel sa) about the 3,000 DRUG CARTEL MURDERS that have been occurring every year in Juarez, Mexico, right across the rive from where I am tying this in El Paso (3,000 a year, anyway, until there were just not the same number of peole LEFT in Juarez tto be killed).  But I am NOT "heartbroken" by these things. It is simply absurd to suggest that you PERSONAL emotiions should be that easily aroused, as if your own mother or wife had been murdered.  Civilizatin would simply not exist, and PEOLE would no exist, if peole took this kind of thating that PERSONALLY (as Obama suggests he did--he lied). 

Then there are the victims and their families.  They DO, obviusly, face real emotions (and not those the media istrying to 'teach" the rest of us we need to LEARN from them).  However, I don't like an aspect of this either.  Every time this kind of thing now happens, we now hear the refrain that "mental health professinals" are on hand to "hep" the victgims and their families, and that these pele can be eXPECTED to not be able to eal with this.  You know what (shot me if you want to)? I EXPECT THE VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO DEAL WITH THIS< JUST  LIKE I EXPECT THAT OF "VICTIMS" AND FAMILIES IN TRAFFIC DEATHS, OTHER ACCIDENTAL DEATHS, AND OTHER MURDERS.  No.  I am NOt saying ti is "easy".  I am not saying that peole should not seek help from "mental health professionals" if they feel they need it  . I AM sayig that we appear to be encouraging peole to WALLOW in their grief and sorrow, just like our 'journalists" are doing (with much less reason) . I don't think this is healthy.  You know what?  There were NO "grief counselors" there when that steamboat BLEW UP on the Mississippi (aS described by Mark Twain), or to help peole get over the rEAL "national tragedy" of theCIVIL WAR.  World War II?  World War I?  The Vietnam War (50,000 dead, if I remember right)?  The Black Death (in Europe), when one peson in every three DIED?  No real "grief counselors", and no real idea that it was up to the Presidetn (as far as the USA) to "comfort" us as if he is our "father".  Yes, Abraham Lincoln provided 'comfort" at Gettsburg, but not in terms of peole "getting over their grief, or saaying he "understood".   Maybe a Presideent, and even a JOURNALIST (horrors) should say sometime that we are a GREAT NATIN (Lincon), and that he believes that our peole can HANDLE the things thrown at them, difficult s they may be.  Maybe a President should say taht we don't NEED HIS COMFORT--a stranger--because we have EACH OTHER, our God (for soem of us), and our determinatin to perservere and show that a natin like ours can ENDURE.  I just don't like the idea that peole can't handle this sort of thing.  There si somethign wrong with that attitude, even if you htink there is soemthign wrong with mine (or Sylvia's). 

What shuld President Obama have said? Well, we now that he thught he HAD to say about what he said, becasue that is what our 'journalistic" HYPOCRITES expect him to say. But here is what I would have said:

"People are hurting in Colorado today, because an evil man chose to do evil.  All of our hearts go out to the victims and their families (no mention of "heartbroken" or "daughters"). Americans are tough, and help each other.  I am confident that the victims and their families will handle their grief and sorrow, and get beyond this--with the support of a community and natin that wil come togethiher behind them.  I have instructed that all Federal resources be made available to Colorado to help Colorado bring the killer, and anyone involved with hm, to justice (notice no typical Obama arrogance about OBAMA bringing the killer to justice).  Let me make a statemetn about personal rsponsibility here.  Anyone involed in this kind of wanton murder does not just face judges here on Earth.  He faces a higher Judge, in the view of many of us.  It is not for me to tel that Judge what to do, but anyone considering this kind of horrific act might want to consider what it means to burn for all eternity, or whatever fate awaits him in Hell.  Maybe God, in his infitie mercy, will find a way to invoke that mercy.  If I were a peson contemplating this kind of crime, I would not count on it.  Even for peolle who do not believe in such an ultimate Judge, we need to get belond the idea that there are any excuses for this sort of thing.  Peole are acccountable for what they do, and this killer is accountable for more than he will ever pay, even if he does burn for all eternity."

No President will ever say anything like this.  I hink one SHOULD.  No, it is not" too harsh".  Now, if you believe this blog, you know that Obama is not a Christian.  But even if you oly are pretending to be a Christian, you MUST accept the idea of ETERNAL PUNISHMENT (if only by being permanently denied Heaven).  How can this idea be "harsh", or the idea that a peron who does someting like this is "evil"?

"But,,Skip, you are an agnostic." Yep.  But what have I told you?  I have told you the idea of HEAVEN attracts me not at all (although some sort of "afterlife" might, since I would dealrly like to live forever in my present life). However, the idea of HELL attracts me a LOT--even though  its existence may mean that is where I will end upo.  There are a lot of peole who I think DESERVE eternal torment, wihout "right of appeal" by the ACLU.  Thios killer is one of those peole.  And no, I do NOT think that some sort of "convenient' "conversion" wil "save" such a person, because there is no way such a "conversino" could ever be sincere,  Thus, I go back and forth on the questino of whether I should HOPE that Hell exists.  Right now, I think I do, even at the sacrifice of my own eternal damnation.  What a noble guy I am!!!!!!!!!

P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  Oh, I noticed that the unfair and unbalanced network was takng the lead of CNN and MSNBC and acting like we should "dbate" "gun control" in the EMOTIONAL CLIMATE of right aftger this shooting.  That is, of course, absurd, and tells you again why I suggest yo BOTCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network (except for mere surfing to get a variety of input into how "news' is being treated).  This shooting (rfead above) is merely a DATA POINT in the debate over gun control, and the EMOTIN of a time like this is the WORST time to be "debating" the subject.  After the funerals?  Fine.  If you think this one data pont chaNges anything.  But it is an eVIL thing to try to USE the EMOTION (overhyped that it is) of this event to PUSH "gun contro'.  But you alrady knew that gun control advocates have no shame.  Nor do "journalists". 

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Colorado Shooting and Movie Theaters: You Are a Kook If: (Phil Cavuto, Certified Idiot and Kook)

Let me summarize it tis way:

1.  Number of peoe killed in movie theaters in last 5 years:  less than 15.  Numbr of peole killed in traffic accidents in past five years:  above 200,0000 (a pretty large sized town/city). 

This did not stop 'journalists" on Firday from tlalking aobut how poople are now SCARED to go to movei theaters.  Let me acknowledge here that I was ready to FLY right after 9/11, and thought airlines wre gounded too long.  I did, in fact, fly not much more than a month after 9/11, and did not WORRY at all (for a depositon in Minneapolis).  At least, I did not worry beecause of a possible terrorist attack.  As I said at the time, you might as well worry about lightning striking you.  In fact, my female friend, Sylvia--who is tlrying to lose weight and uses me as a walking partner when there is no one else available--recently had me walking into a thunderstorm in El Paso, with lightning bolts striking all around me (slight exaggeratin).  yes, she IS trying to kill me. Back to the point.  You are SELF-INDULGENT (not to mentin absurd) abut your FEELINGS to stay away from a movie theater because of the Colorado shooting.  No, I do NOT think you should let lyou "reelings" overcome youir bran in this mannter.

Thenb there is Phil Cavuto, on the unfair and unbalanced network.  He made a big point not only about peole supposedly staying away from theaters, but abut "Wall Street" (The Stupidest Peopple on Earth) SELING movie theater stocks AND "entertainment" stocks in general, because of the Colorado shooting. This blog has already informed you that Phil Cavuto is a certified idiot (with apologies, as usual, to idiots), and you know know he is a KOOK.

"But, Skip, all Cavuto was doing wss 'reporting' that theater and entertainment stocks went DOWN on Friday fairlyl substantially, and that is a FACT."  No. That is only partly true.  First, Cavuto did NOT note (as this blog does above) how STUPID this was, or dismiss the idea that there are many peole who will so let their "knee-jerk" feelings overrule their brains.  Now I can see being a little queasy (not from worry) abut seeing the "Dark Knight' movie, since it might bring the Colorado shooting to mind. I cnn see holding off on that a while.  Otherwise, this is absurd.  But it goes beynd that, and is a constant STUPIDITY in ALL media "business reproting".  Cavuto said that peole on Wall Street did not "think" (a totally accurte statemetn at all times), but simplye had a Knee-jerk" reactin to sell because of WORRY . To hhe extent you could teel what Cavuto was saing they were "worrying" ABUT, it appeas to be that people will stop going to movie theaters (and maybe "out" to pcroweded entertainment places in general, including things like BASEBALL GAMES, which would make just as much sense as to stop going to moovie theaters).  Cavuto, as statd, admitted that this "worry" might be argumed to be irrational (as it IS), but that is not all.  Cavuto, you idiot, that lparticular 'worry" is NOT the reason that the stocks went down.  No, I am serous.  It is NOT the reason, and this is a soncistent fAiLURE on the part of businesss reporting.  Wall Street is now a CO

Friday, July 20, 2012

Colorado Shooting:, MSNBC and CNN: Evil People Spreading Evil (Obama and The MaverickConservative Agree)

The evil people in the leftist media, and in the left in general, just can't help themse.ves.  President Obama ("their President") goes out and delivers a speech saying that "politcs can wait" while we "come togethr" too grieve, and support the victims in the Colorado shoting.  The left, of course--includng MSNBC and CNN--never took him seriously . Now this blog does not support this OVERHYPE of this kind of thing (more leater), including such over-the-top statements as Obama saying that hew was "heartbroken" about the Colorado shooting (see article planned for tomorrow), and I don't se any reson to SUSPEND LIFE because of what happened in Colorado (sad and horrifying as it is) . But Obama is absolutely right about one thing: It is an EVIL and DIVISIVE thing to immediately try to USE the EMOTION of the Colorado shooting BEFORE THE BODIES WERE EVEN COLD.  Whether we shuld "supsend" ALL politics or not, there is no doubt at all that it is EVIL to try to make an IMMEDIATE POLITICAL PINT OUT OF THE SHOOTING ITSELF.  But you already knew that MSNBC and CNN are composed of EVIL peole spreading evil.   (I know that Presdient Obama did not quite call this an evil thing to do, but that is what his words logically MEANT.: "There will be otehr days for politics/ today is a day to come together and put politics aside.")  We dont even have real information about most of the facts surrounding the shooting and the shooter.  This is not only EVIL stuff, based on an attempt to USE the pure emotin of the shooting for POLITICAL reasons, but it is evil SPECUALTION.  Actual "journalists" would at least wait for the FACTS, but these are NOT "journalists". 

I know whereof I speak.  I did NOT follow the "coverage" of this story most of the day. I  surfed about 30 minutes this morning, and looked at about 15 TTOAL minues the rest of the day.  It was enough.  Early this afternoon, MSNBC had a "panel" of 3 peole (plus the anchor).  They ALL agreed that this shooting SHOULD be a reason to IMMEDIATELY try to USE the shooting as a POLITICAL WEDGE to again push gun control  Even more eVIL, all four peole on MSNBC (all four also agreeing that the shooting showed we needed more gFederal gun control) agreed that the NRA was the VILLAIN here--making it impossible to "dot the right thing". I am not kidding.  MSNBC, as expected, virtually BAMED the NRA for the shooting.  I repeat:  Obama and I agree that this is EVIL stuff, before the bodies are even cold.  And it is not like MSNBC did not  RECOGNIZE the EVIL.  The anchor started off by saying that there would be criticism about doing that kind of program before lthe bodies are cold.  Okay,k he did not use that last phrase, but that is the essence of what he correclty suggested the criticism would be.  But the criticism comes onot only from me, and people who think like me.  What the anchor refused to talk about ws how PRESIDENT OBAMA had already condemned MSNBC, in advance, for this attempt to POLITICIZE the shooting the very day it hapened (since I understand it was a "midnight" showing). 

Ah. CNN. I saw CNN "Out Front", without Erin Burnett.  Again, one of the segments was about POLITICS, and that segment was basically again about POLITICIZING the shooting this very day.  The ridiculous statement by Mayor Bloomberg of New York City was used as the EXCUSE to get into the "issue' of gun contgrol.  Again, the NRA was made the VILLAIN, as if there is something WRONG witht he NRA spending money o support its positin.  No.  It was not quite as BLATANT as MSNBC, but the message was the same (as it always is on CNN--makng hthem worse HYPOCIRITGES than MSNBC, since MSNBC does ntot even make much of an attempt to deny their lefitst agenda).  Thus, CNN did not make QUITE as much a point of attackng the NRA, but it really is a distinctin without a difference.  These are EvIL peole (on CNN) spreading evil.  Again, at least so long as I watched, there was no discussion of how CN was VILATING THE STANDARDS SET BY THE PRESIDENT THIS VERY MORNING.   Even  having a segment called "politics", concerning the politics of the shooting and the gun control issue, was the very thing that the PResident said we shuld NOT DO for at least today. 

Now there was one matrial difference between MSNBC and CN.  MSNBC "doubled down" n EVIL.  MSNBC not only tried to POLITICIZE the Colorado shooting as to the gun control "issue", but MSNBC (all day, since they were doing it when I surfed about 30 seconds this evening as well) was already PUSHING to USE the shooting for yet another leftist/MSNBC agenda item: the idea that al crime is a matter osf SICKNNESS, and that we "need" a MASSIVE "mental health" push in this cuntry.  This, of course, shuld SCARE you to death.  I will explain this in another article planned for this weekend.  For now, however, look at hwo far SNBC was wiling to go to POLITICIZE this even.  This is nothing new, of course, for the left, which tried to do the SAME THING with the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.  Again, MSNBC, CNN and the left tried to POLITICIZE the Giffords shooting in TWo WAYS:  "gun control" AND the idea that it was a the fauult of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.  This last assertin was one of the most EVIL things I haVe ever saeen either on televison , or in poitics.  And MSNBC, CNN and the left hammered that EVIL assertion from the beginning, and for WEEKS, even though the Giffords shoter was never shown to have been "influenced" in any way by the Tea Party.  They made that up, becazuse thesese are EvIL PEOLE. 

Yep.  Eugene Robinson, I just called lyou an EViL person.  If you can't handle the truth, get out of the kitchen.  Yes, Jonathan Alter (sp.?--as if I carfed), you are an EVIL person.  I did not even get the names of the other two peole on that disgraceful MSNBC panel.  It does not matter. ALL of tghe peole of CNN and MSNBC (well, there must be SOME exceptions, but I have not seen any) are EVIL PEOPLE. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). 

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Romney and Tax REturns: CNN, The Liar Network (part II)

I noticed--really remembered, since I can't really read my own artiles--that I had not explained all of the headline in of the previous article.  Specifically, I did not expain the NEW evidence that CNN is The Liar Network. 

I was surfing CNN (the Erin Burnett show, but with a male substitute for her), and the anchor was talking abut how Obama seems to have totally abandoned the diea of "tax simplificatino" (as he has, because he was never serius about it in the firstg place, except as a deceptive device for RAISING TAXES).  So far, no real problem, even thugh not much ephasis was placed n the specific COMPLEXITIES thatqt Obama wants to put in the Tax Code, incluidng varius ways of 'taxing the rich" and the tax provisns of ObamaCare (not to mentin the 'green" tax breaks that led to Solyndra).  Still, for CNN this was not that bad.  But, in passing, this anchor showed again that CNN tuuly is tThe Liar Network.  He said something like this: "Romney's tax troubles seem not to be leading to any discussion of tax simpificatin."  Forget the full sentence, which made little sense as he said it, and which I have lamost surely ntnot otten completely right.  The phrase I got EXACTLY RIGHT is "Romney's tax troubles".  That, of course, is a LIE. 

No. This is not a matter of opinion  Romney has NO TAX TRUBLES.  Al he has is a DEMAND from the Obama campaign, leftist Democrats and the evill, lefitst media, to release MORFE of his tax returns.  Tim Geitner, now Secretary of the Treasury becaUe we "nneded hm so much" (lol), had TAX TROUBLES>  Al Romney has is a problem 'responding' to DEMANDS from lpeople who want a FISHONG EXPEDITON in to his taxes over as muhc of his life as they can manage.  If yu don't understand the distinctin, you should apply at CNN.  Yu are their kind of person. 

Oh, I also left out of the previous article something else Romney can say:  You know, my tax returns over some unspecifiednumber of years are not part of government policy, and will not give peole any informatin on howI will manage government olicy  Contrast this with the Obama Adminstratin, which has refused to give all kinds of GOVERNMENT informatin to either Congress or the press, including informatin on "Operation Fast and Furious" and the Solyndra matter (as well as related matters).  The details ofmy privatre tax returns are really not relevvant to anyone but me, once you have an idea of the kind of money I make and the assets I have.  Even that is not very importatn, unless you want to be like President Obama and attack me for success.  President Obama promised "trnsparnency" in GOVERNMENT, and that is a promise he has broken--on ObamaCare and many other things."

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight) .

Romney and Tax Returns: Advice (CNN: The Liar Network)

Sometime, somewhre, Mitt Romney is going to have to start makng definitestatements and stand by them. 

This whole absurd, media pushed thing about Romney producing his tax returns for his entire life (or whatever) is an example of where Romney needs to make a STAND.  First, what Romney needs to realize, and what toomany "conservatives" do not se3em to realize, is that NO ONE CARES about tax retrns.  More importantly, they are RIGHT not to care.  All the media, floowing the agenda of the Obama campaing, wants is MATERIAL to formulate attacks on Romney (no matter what mulltiple tax returns might show).  There is NO reason for Romney to play that game, and he should. not. Thle ONLY reason Rmney has any problem is because he waffled all over the place in the GOP primaires as to his 'positin" on releasing tax returns.  So lwhat?  That kind of ttthing does not laffect Obama (saying different things wvery year, month, week, day and hour). Romney did NOT say anythng improtant to being President about ta returns.  We all KNOW that Romney's tax returns will be blown out of all proortion--esepcialynow--and that small details will become (to the evil media) jsut as important as who will really make the best Presdietn.  You say you think Romney's tax returns will actually tell you important things aobut who shuld be the next President?  Then you are a FOOL, aren't you, or else (like lthe evil media again) letting your PARTISANSHIP dominsate whartever comman sense and intelligence yu have. 

Here is approximately what Romney shuld say:  "This election is about who will be the best President for getting our economy going again. I have releasd the disclosures of my finances that the law requires.  Just to make sure that peole have an idea about my current income, and the taxes I pay, I have released my 2010 tax return and information for 2011--which return I will release when it is ready.  The details of my private tax trturns are not an issue in this campaign, and I refuse to let them be made into an isssue.  No matte what I release, there will always be "more questions", and more demands.  The American peole have been informed enough about my finances to make a fuly intelttigent decisn as to whether those finances will affect their vote.  Presidetn Obama, and hi ssupporters, want to make this eelctin but everything but the crucial issues facing this country.  I refuse to let them distract me from the trully important issues facting this country, and their allies in the media are not going to convince me otherwise.  People of goo faith can always disagree on what is enough discloussure.  I have made my decisin, and I am gong to disclose what I said I was gong to disclose:  my 2010 tax return (already disclosed) and my 2011 tax return (where the essential informatin has already been disclosed).  These attacks on my finances are a form of personal attack, rather than a debate on the important issued facing this country.  It is wrong to make elecitons about that sort of "gotcha' kind of atttack, usuallly distroted and even false.  These tactics shuld nto be encouraged, and I refuse to do so.  I have diclsoed what the law requires, and what my judgment tells me is apropriate.  You can disagree with my judgmmetn, but I think I am corect on something that is simply not improtatn.  Again, this elecitn shuld NOT be about my tax returns over some big chunk of my lfe, and I refuse to make it about that.  People know the assets I ahve, and the money I am making.  Enough.  I actually sympathize with Barack Obama as to things like his brith certificate and grades at Harvard,m o whatever.  Peole should not have to give up ALL privacy to run for lpublic office.  Thesae things are not what ANY electin is about, and they are surely not what this eleti is about."

Remember what President Obama, and his supporters, said about Tim Geitner (Obama Secretary of the Treasury)?  They said that he was too tALENTED a guy to have the mere fAILURE to pay taxes owed disqualify him from being Secretary of the Treasury (haed of the IRS, really, among other things). The argument was that the coungtry NEEDED Tim Geitner (lol), and that the COUNTRY couuld not afford to let "nit-picking" (relatively speakng) about his taxes deprive the COUNTRY of his services.  How much MORE ture is that of Mitt Romney,  where there is not even any EVIDENCE that Romney has done anything "wrong' with his taxes.  Obama, and his supporters in the media, simpy want to go on a FISHONG EXPEDITIN for material (fair or not) for their campaign. As you know, I ont' think that highly of Romney already, and refuse to even support him for President.  I will think LESS highly of him if the lets the media, and "establishment" "conservatives", goad him into releasing nay further information.  The peole DO NOT CARE.  That was acutally the conlcusion of the New York Times today (that right wing rag), as the Times talked abut how all of this Bain Caital and tax retun stuff has NOT HELPED OBAMA AT ALL (according to the NYT poll released this morning).  The New Yokr Times concluded, essentially, that peole just can't be made to CARE abut this junk.  And tghe peole are rIGHT (althugh I don't know that the NYT made that conclusion).

No, the way for Romney to "put this behind him" is to BE A MAN, and stand by what he has previously said (which, afer all, is the informatin on which he ws NOMINATED to be President).  Why does s the media pay more attentin to Obama peole than to Santorum peole?  You know the answer to hthat one. Our evil media is composed of PARTISANS.   For Romney to admit that the peole have a "right to know" abut the details of some massive number of tax returns is for Romney to ADMIT that he CHEATED to get the nominatin (by not providing GOP voters wwitht he same informatin, which was an actual issue in the GOP nomination race).  Any other course than to stand up for is postion only lets Romneyin for TROUBLE. 

I do have one piece of advice as to what Romney SHULD disclose.  Romney has already said that he is gong to disclose his 011 tax return. As far as I know, and it does not matter to me, Romney has not yet disclosed the full tax return.  Romney has access to the BEST tax peole in the country, and he certainly has the money to INSIST that his tax return be completed (no matter what the "deadline" is).  I think Romney shud GET THIS DONE.  By August 1, Romney shuld release the complete 2011 tax return, with the message that completes the tax returns he will realease.  I see no senseat all in releasing this tax return in Octovber, or not releasng the full tax return at all until after the electin.  No, I do NOT regard it as "imprtant", but Romney has SAID he will do it.  Message to Romney:  GET IT DONE, sooner rather than later, and upt this entire matter of tax returns behind you. 

P.S  No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

Obama Loses 388,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement This Year (Media Lies Agan Eposed)

Remember the articles posted n this blog last week, where I exposed the LIE (pushed by the unfair and unbalanced network, and other media liears) that last week's initially reported jobless claims number was the "lowest in four years"?  Again, this bog was right, and the meia LIARS worong.  As this bog tol dyou wuld happen, last week's number on new unemplyment claims was rEVISED this week to 352,000 (up 2,000 from the 350,000 initially reported last week).  Since the low this eyar has been 351,000, in February, and was at least as low as 352,000 another week, the media LIED again.  We not lony did not hafvve the "lowest number" n four years, but we ddid not even have the lowest number this year.  yep. That is exaclty what the revision of 2,000 means to the some of the HEALDINES last week.  Notice how my other predictin has been confirmed.  The meid is now set up to use the SAME HEADLINE for a FUORTH time snce the number of new unemployment claims fell to 351,000 early this year, the NEXT time the INTITIAL number is again r(if ever) reported at 350,000. THRE TIMES our lying media has proclaimed a "new four yar low", and THREE TIMES it has proven to be a LIE.  Why not go for four?

Well, the media problem is that today's numbers confirmed that last week's aberration of 352,000 was total FICTION.  Today, the Lbor Department reported that the (seasonally adjusted) number of new unemplyment claims last week rose 34,000, to 386,000.  That is the SAME weekly number that was reported for most of June, until the last few weeks, within a few thousand.  Note that I have ADJUSTED my CORRETIN of the FALSE assertin that the nmber (even seasonally adjusted) is realy 386,000.  I have preivously CORRECTED the FALSE media report each eek by ADDING the EXPECTED revision next week of at least 3,000.  However, for the last 3 sraight weeks, the revisin has been 2,000.  Thus, to be conservatgive, I have made my own "adjustment' of this week's, number by 2,000, instead of my usual 3,000.  Note, however, tghat MY weekly "estimate' of the actual, revised, number has been MORE ACCURATE every single week than the medai number.  President score (on weekly joblesss claims numbers and everything else):  The Maverick Conservative 10,491  Media 0.  This was why The Maverick Consrvative was able to CORRECLY assert, in foresight, taht last week's intitial estimate ws NOT the "lowest number in four years", or even the loest number for this year.

Now read my article osted last night.  As I told you, if the number of new unemplyment claims reproted todayrose back into the 380,000-390,000 range, it means you can DISCARD last week's 352,000 number as if it never happened.  It was obviusly FALSE (a GLITCH of the "seasonal adjustment").  Why "discared" the 352,000, and not the 386,000 (or 388,000)?  That is because the 386,000 is CONSISTENT with previus numbers, while the 352,000 was obviusly not.  No, there is NO WAY that the "job market' actually fluctuated this much over a two week tie. There are seasonal GLITCHES here, and it is absurd to deny it.  Now is it possible that the seasonal glitches also make today's number unreliable?  Sure it is.  We will have to see next week, and succeeding weeks, to see for sure jsut how unreliable this weekly nubemer has become.  However, that does not change that we must DISCARD the 352,00 number of last week, and NOT include it on any "trend chaRt'.  It was obviusly FALSE, and created by a major glitch in the "seaonsla adjustmetn".  We will see next week if it looks like we are bakck to "normal", or wehthre these fictinal weekly "fluctuations" will continue.  As this blog correctly told you, last week's number (even if you did not know about chaNges in seasonal plant retoolings) was "too good to be ture". 

Bottom line:  Obama has FAILED on jobs this entire yyear.  We are back at the same level we began the year, as far as layoffs are concerned, and NOT IMPROVVING.  We have to "throw out" the obviusly ficitnal number of last week, and now look to see if we are really back at a consistent BAD number of around 390,000 a week.  Time will tgell, but this week's number has CONCLUSIVELYL shown that last week's 352,000 has to be IGNORED.  If you have FALSE data onts, you have to throw them out. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).

Obama: Will Four More Years Destroy This Country? Another Brother Says "Yes" (Charles Krauthammer, Certified Idiot)

Yes, my truckng executive brother in Nashville has decided he MUST vote against Barack Obama (rather than for Mitt Romney), because he, and the country, CAN'T TAKE another fur years of Brack Obama. My brother is, of course, right abut that.  He actaully KNOWS, having been a small bsiness owner (truckng compnay killedoff by the  Bernanke /Democratic Congress recession), and currrently with a large trucking company based in Nashville.  My brother knows as much abut the trucking busienss as any person alive, and he makes a persuasive case taht the trucking business probably tells you more about the overall econmy than any other business out there. You have to KNOW a lot about businness in general in the trucking business.  And my borther is a CPA with extensive previus experience n business accounting, includng with large companies like GTE.  Thus, when my borhter says we simply cannot afford four more eyars of Brack Obama, you can beleive him.  I do believe him. 

Where my borther and I differ is that my brother now has concluded he MSUT fvote "for" Mitt Romney, even tough he has no illusions abut Romney.  I can see the force of the argumetn, but I just can't agree.  My case can be summarized this way:  Would we REALLY be better off now, from a conservative ont of view, with John McCain as President?  I don't think so  I can't suport Obama, and agree that he is destroying this country (ObamaCare alne will do it). But I jsut can't get around the fact that the GOP "estalbishment" has NOT shown that it really is any better.  The problem is that CONSRVAIVES get BLAMED for the FAILURE of these GOP estalbishment peole (which the media keeps referring to as conservative", becaue the media is so FAR LEFT).

Oh. That parenthetical phrase above?  How can I BALME Bailout Ben Bernanke, Obama and te Democrats for the "Great Recession,", more than even President Bush (who I disowned in 2006), when the recessin occurred under President Bush?  Well, I am simply stating a fACT.  The recessin occurred while Presdient Bush was President. That is true.  But the econmy was doing WELL as we entered 2007.  What CHANGTED.  What CHANGED was two things.  Firt, in early 2l006, Bailout Bernanke was appont3ed head of the Federal Reserve (by Bush, but reappointed by Obama, confirming that Obama is in the midst of BUSH'S THRID TERM). Ben Bernanke has been The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance, presiding over BOTH the worst  recession since the Great Depression AND the worst "recovery" since the Great Depressin.  The other CHANGE, in 2007, was the electin of a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, with Democrats havng a majority in both houses of Congress.  That majority INCLUDED INSIDER BARACK OBAMA.  I still caN't believe Obama gets awayu with the LIE that he is an "outsider' who came to Swahsington to set things right.  Obama was PART OF THE GROUP IN CHARGE IN THE CRITICAL PERIO(D BEFORE TEH ECONOMYH COLLAPSED.  And he has continued Bush/Democrat policies from that time (which includined a previus FAILED "stimulus" in 2008).  Oh, Obama has been WORSE, which is my brother's pint, but maybe NOT worse than McCain would have been.  However, there is no doubtg that Obama and the Democratrs were IN CHARGE at the time the Great Recessin occurred, and every time they "blame Bush" they are BLAMING THEMSLVES.  From Janutary of 2007 onward, Democrats pretty much CONTROLLED domestic government policy (except for never being able to tax the rich",--lucky for them and the econmy).  The Obama/Democrat insistence on TAX UNCERTAINTY (continual THREATS of more taxes) is ONE of the many areas where they were MORE RESPONSIBLE than Bush for our ecomic disaster. 

What is the score?  The "score' is now 3 to 2 (when last I heard from the one who agrees with me) . 3 Steart brothers now say that we HAVE to vote for Obama to SAVE the country (or, more accuarately, to have any CHANCE of saving the country).  Only one Stewart brother is actually "enthusiastic" about Romney.  But the other two jsut can't face themselves in the mirror if they don't vote agasint Obama.  Two Steart broters think this is short-sighted, including me, and think that we just cannot keep voting for 'politics as usual":  where actual RESULTS are about the same under either a lefitist Democrat or a GOP estabishment group.  The majority of the Stewart brothers are lprobably more in tune with the country.  The minority just happens to be correct.  Note that the minority will NOT vote for Obama, but refuses to participate in the usual GOP FRAUD.

Charles Krauthammer? Well, this article arises out of a conversation yesterday with my Nahsville brother, and my brother was diisturbed--even depressed--that he had seen Charles Krauthammer say that Obama would "win", if the electin were held today.  Krauthammer, which this blog has previously exposed as a CERTIFIED IDIOT, was referring to his "analysis' of meaningless POLLS (th eBible--or is it the Devil's book, of the unfair and unbalanced network, and of estalbishment idiots like Krauthammer).  No.  My brother rightly does nto believe Krauthammer.  But he LISTENS enough to mentin it to me.  I qauit istening to Krauthammer long ago.  Doubt me?  Oh, you FOOL you.!!!  Guess what the headline is today, from featured by the LEFTISTS of Yahoo "News'? 

The headline was:  "Race for White House still even, despite Bain attacks"

Krauthammer made much of the MEANINGLESS "fact " that an "average" (statistical absurdity) of polls shows Romney about 2 percentage onts behind.  Give me a break. The ABC poll last week showed the race 47% to 47% among REGISTERED VOTERS.  That means Romney--if you believe the meaningless poll--acutally has about a 4% LEAD among LIKELY VOTERS.  There is that much difference between registered voters and peole who actually votre.  The CBS/New York Times (right wing nuts) released today has Romney LEADING 47% to 46%.  No, that does not MEAN anything, but Krauthammer--total idiot that he is--was trying to make much out of a mere 2 percentage ponts.  No.  If the electin were held today, Romney would WIN.  That is not because Romneyis so good, but because of the ECONMY.

This blog has made this predictin:  If the ECOMY is not at least PERCEIVED to be significantly better on electin day, then Obama LOSES.  Nope.  Ropmney's "tax returns" do not matter (and sould not). Mp[e/, "Bain Capital" attacks do not matter (as they should not) . Wat matters is the ECONOMY, and Obama--absent an even wrose performance from Romney) cannot win if the economy does not "improve', or at least APPEAR to "improve', by electin day.  No.  A SMALL "improvment" hyped by the media is NOT enough.  There is going to have to be better than that, or Obam LOSES.  If you don't believe me, instead of Krauthammer, then you have not been payng attentin.  If a vote were held TOMORROW, Obama LOSES.  His only chancde is to somehow convince peole that the EcONMY is actually getting SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER.  I don't think he caN do it, but it is possible that he will get LUCKY by having the eletin occur jsu as there appears to be a "lip up" in the eocmy.  Even with a "blip up", can Obama overcome the obvious:  that the LOOMING disaster of ObamaCare (laong with Obama's other policies) makes a real "recovery" ultimately impossible?  Maybe, or maybe not.  But withut the "improvement" by electin day, OBAMA LOSES. 

P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight). 

George Zimmerman Is Really Jack the Ripper (My Brother's Conclusion)

As the persecution of George Zimmerman goes on, my brother has totaly bought into the media narrative.  He has concuded--despite Patricia Cornwall--that George Zimmerman is really Jack the Ripper.  He has come to the anciallary conclustion that Jack the Ripper was a notorious RACIST, who is the ultimate explanation for the TEA PARTY RACISS of today (more "proof" that we are a "racist" country). I must admit to wondering whether my brother saw my kind of typo, and really saw Jack the Ripper described as a notorious RAPIST (even that, of course, not being correct, and therefore maybe not the explanation). But my brother makes a strong case that our evil media should look into whether George Zimmerman is really Jack the Ripper. 

You say that Jack the Rippr has to be dead?  Not true. There have been numerous stories about how Jack the Ripper is realy some sort of "demon", who never dies, repeating his crimes over and over again.  I remember an old "Night Stalker" TV show episode about Jack the Ripper still being alive and murdering, and I have read a number of stories (disguised as fiction) which r3each the same conclusion.

Let us follow this through.  George Zimmerman is a racist DEMON.  We have our evil media's word for this, and he has certainly been PERSECUTED as much as Kokchak ("Night Stalker", sp.?) ever persecutged Jack the Ripper. Do you know any OTHER demons out there?  According to our evil media, there is jsut no evil beyond the Zimmermans--maybe also the positon of the persecutors--I mean prosecutors)  Q.E.D.  My borther is right.  The evidence is that George Zimmerman IS Jack the Ripper (or at least is possessed by the demon who was once Jack the Ripper). 

Then there is Mrs. Zimmermn.  Was she, as a young girl, responsible for the apparent PERJURY (certainly LIES) of Bill Clinton--even as a young girl.  Is this a matter of demon attractged to demon, with an evil demon also beng within Mrs. Zimmerman?  The state of Florida seems to think so.  Did Mrs. Zimmerman ever meet Bill Clinton?  Did she "lead" him into evil, as my mother insists Monica Lewinisky did?  Maybe so.  But we must be conservative here.  It is enough to have PROVED my borther's assertin that George Zimmerman is Jack the Ripper reborn.  We must not go too far afield into speculatin, lest this blog stray into the kind of EViL that is the stock in trade of the moern "journalist".

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesightg). I really don't understand, by the way, why criminal defendants (or potential defendants) keep giving INTERVIEWS. That was what I liked about the attorney for Casey Anthony.  He got her to SHUT UP. (at least until she was acquitted, and hse has kept a fairly low profile even since).  Is George Zimeerman gonig to be like Drew Peterson, ans duddenly SEEK publicity.  Yes, I know that the pont of my own article is how the media has dEMONIZED George Zimmerman, based on NO FACTS (in which they are uninterestged), but the lawyer in me still CRINGES at criminal defendants participating in "trial by media".  The LAWYERS should be "out front' on that sort of thing, and keep their client under wraps.  Anyway, that is my strong opinion n the matter.  But that has nothing to do with the PERSECUTION of George Zimmerman, which has been as bad, or worse, as any criminal case I have seen (yes, includng the "Duke rape case").  I say that evven though--as with black thugs--I know it is a mistake to make a HERO out of George Zimmerman.  I don't think he is a "hero".  But he is entitled to FAIRNESS, and he has not gotten it.