Miss California, and the first runner-up in the Miss USA pageant, dared to stand up against political correctness and the McCarthyism of the left in this country. She dared to answer a question by saying that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and therefore she did not approve of homosexual marriage (between two women or two men, if you are a leftist who does not understand the basic facts of an issue). As far as I know, the contstants were not asked whether they favored honoring the religious beliefs of people that believe in polygamy, or who may believe incest is perfectly okay.
It did not matter that Miss California merely agreed with the position of a majority of the people of California (Novemmber Constitutional Amendment iniative). Nor did it matter that Miss California was merely stating the official position of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton. This blog has previously established that the left does not believe in either democracy or free speech, and they proved it once again. They also proved once again that the left, including the mainstream media, is the prirary source of McCarthyism (from Joe McCarthy allegedly trying to personally destroy people based on their opinions and associations)--just as the left, including the mainstream media, represent the primary racists in modern America.
Yep. The left, and a good part of the mainstream media, immediately set out to DESTROY Miss California for merely stating what she thought. That included distributing "revealing" photographs taken of her at a young age--photographs that would not have phased these hypocrites at all if they were of a contestant who had professed that she favored abortion. Did I mention that leftists, including the mainstream media, are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth on two legs (including the fictional Elmer Gantry in the comparison sample, as well as Neanerthal man).
Yes, Miss California was merely stating the positioin--besides being the official position of President Obama--that was the official position of ALL of mankind for the 10,000 years or so (in other words, ALL) of recorded human history before the 21st Century. Miss California and I stand with those 10,000 years of mankind, and not with the insane leftists of today (who, for the most part, don't efven believe in marriage at all). The reason I mentioned polygamy and incest is that BOTH were practiced as part of marriage in human history, while homosexual marriage was never even THOUGT of as making any sense. Cleopatra married here brother (before killing him). Polygamy, of course, has an EXTENSIVE history in various human societies, even up to the present. Some of Presidetn Obama's pretty close ancestors almost surely practiced polygamy (even though the mainstream media was uninterested, even after the "anti-Aermican, Despicable Associated Press" printed a breathless, RELIGIOUS BIGOTED story that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a polygamist. (horrors!!--NOT). Did I mention that the mainstream m media are HYPOCRITES? Sure I did.
Now let me be clear. I corectly say that President Obama purposts to have the same position marriage being appropriate only between a man and a woman as Miss California. "Gay activists" nevertheless strongly supported Obama. That is because Obama was LYING. "Gay acitivists" knew it. I know it. You know it.
Oh, I don't know whether President Obama believes, "in his heart", in homosexual marriage. That is totally irrelevant. I know that President Obama fully intends to pursue policies,, and judicial appointments, that will lead to homosexual marriage being "legalized" thoroughout this country.
The main strategy of the ypocritical lleft is the same on homosexual marriage as it was on abortion (a more important issue than homosexual marriage, if only because it involves life and death). That strategy is to do an end run around democracy by using the COURTS. Then leftists, including Obama, can say that the "courts have spoken", and that the issue is "SETTLED". In fact, I can hear the Notre Dame speech now about how "extreme" it is to want to try to reverse the court decisions, shen we all just need to "come together" on common ground (like strenghening marriage). Lerftist, of course--hypocrites that they are--only take this "position" when they think they have won, and want to SHUT OFF FURTHER DEBATE.
I guarantee you that leftists, and the mainstream media, do NOT want to "debate" homosexual marriage, as they do not want to "debate" abortion or "global warming'. They want to IMPOSE their opinion on everyone, and SHUT UP the opposition (witht he help of the mainstream media).
Notice the INTOLERANCE of the left, as they set out to destroy Miss California the same way they set out to destroy Joe the Plumber. Leftists, of course, do not want "tolerance" of homosexual CONDUCT. They want society to APPROVE of such conduct, and ENDORSE it in every possible way. They are willing to be as INTOLERANT in pusuing this goal as necessary. I would not bet against "waterboarding". The left would certainly be more sympathetic to waterboarding for this reason than for the reason of protecting us from terrorists.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Wall Street and Oil Traders: The Stupidest People On Earth Keep Getting Worse
At the end of last week, two news items proved me right on the present (but long-standing, and increasing) irrationality of botht eh stock market and the commodity markets. These truly are the Stupidest People on Earth, and the same disease (momentum, computer gaming grading) affects ALL financial markets these days. In fact, it is not an overstatement to say that such disease was a major cotributing factor to the present economic "crisis". Nope. I don't care that SOME of these computer gaming traders are making money. The people at ENRON (not to mention banks and brokerage houses) made money, until the house of cards collapsed. This blog has shown you again and again that these really are the Stupidest People on Earth (Wall Street and people in financial markets).
Do you doubt this? Look at Friday's news items. Several oil demand forecasting groups, including the government, REDUCED their projection for world oil demand this year (according to my brother--he with the failed trucking company--not enough). Oil has risen 80% or more from its low. Even if you argue that it went too low, that rise is IRRATIONAL.--a "bubble".
It gets worse. CNBC put out an item, while--as usual--failing to recognize the significance of the item. Someone did a correlation between the stock market and the commodity oil market. The result was a 70% positive correlation between up moves in the stock market (Standard and Poors 500) and up moves in the price of oil (oil futures). That is beyond irrational. It is totally worthy of the Stupidest people on Earth.
Why is it irrational? I will explain it to you., as I have explained in prior entries abut the irrational rise in the price of oil (in the face of a world awash in oil). A rise in the price of oil is athe equivalent of a TAX on the economy (also true of the Democrat proposed legistaltioin to tax "dirty" fuels like coal and oil using the excuse of "global warming").
Not only is a rise in the price of oil irrational when demand is going DOWN, and supply more than plentiful, but an irrationally high oil price SHUTS DOWN THE ECONOMY--at the very least acting as a large drag on the economy. The irrational spike in the price of oil futures to $147 a barrel, after the economy was already faltering, was a factor--if hardly the main factor--in our economy going into recession. That recssion resulted in the most recent bursting of the oil price bubble, as the (coputer gaming) price of oil was cut by more than 2/3's (MORE than the stock market, housing, or the economy as a whole).
In other words, it is an absolute fact that a rising price of oil HURTS future oil demand, addds to supply, and is disastrous to the ultimate price of oil in a weak economy. This does not take brains. It is obvious to anyone with a brain. The Stupidest People on Earth have no brain. How else can you explain the sdtock market going UP in tandem with an exploding rise in the price of oil futures?
My 88 year old mother, by the way, noticed the correlation between rises in the price of oil and rises in the stock market BEFORE CNBC. She has been assrting that irrational relationship for MONTHS.
Now Rick Santelli (the only non-economic fascist I have seen on CNBC) has claimed that commodity traders are not like the socialists/economic fascists on Wall Street--that they still believe in a "free market" not dominated by government. And it is true---as far as I know--that commodity traders have not demanded govrenment hand outs/bailouts. However, these news items on Friday show that commodity traders are part of the disease--the "pandemic"--that is killing Wall Street. Indded, the disease may be even more virulent in commodity markets. Taht disease is sto treat markets as a computer gaming casino, where economic reality is irrelevant. ENRON did that in energy trading. I have not noticed that oil traders learned a single thing from ENRON, as Wall Street did not learn a single thing from the bursting of the dot.com bubble (or the stock market crash in 1987--much less the crash in 1929, as computer gaming speculation is ruinning financial markets at least as much as it did in 1929).
Q.E.D. These are the Stupidest People on Earth.
Do you doubt this? Look at Friday's news items. Several oil demand forecasting groups, including the government, REDUCED their projection for world oil demand this year (according to my brother--he with the failed trucking company--not enough). Oil has risen 80% or more from its low. Even if you argue that it went too low, that rise is IRRATIONAL.--a "bubble".
It gets worse. CNBC put out an item, while--as usual--failing to recognize the significance of the item. Someone did a correlation between the stock market and the commodity oil market. The result was a 70% positive correlation between up moves in the stock market (Standard and Poors 500) and up moves in the price of oil (oil futures). That is beyond irrational. It is totally worthy of the Stupidest people on Earth.
Why is it irrational? I will explain it to you., as I have explained in prior entries abut the irrational rise in the price of oil (in the face of a world awash in oil). A rise in the price of oil is athe equivalent of a TAX on the economy (also true of the Democrat proposed legistaltioin to tax "dirty" fuels like coal and oil using the excuse of "global warming").
Not only is a rise in the price of oil irrational when demand is going DOWN, and supply more than plentiful, but an irrationally high oil price SHUTS DOWN THE ECONOMY--at the very least acting as a large drag on the economy. The irrational spike in the price of oil futures to $147 a barrel, after the economy was already faltering, was a factor--if hardly the main factor--in our economy going into recession. That recssion resulted in the most recent bursting of the oil price bubble, as the (coputer gaming) price of oil was cut by more than 2/3's (MORE than the stock market, housing, or the economy as a whole).
In other words, it is an absolute fact that a rising price of oil HURTS future oil demand, addds to supply, and is disastrous to the ultimate price of oil in a weak economy. This does not take brains. It is obvious to anyone with a brain. The Stupidest People on Earth have no brain. How else can you explain the sdtock market going UP in tandem with an exploding rise in the price of oil futures?
My 88 year old mother, by the way, noticed the correlation between rises in the price of oil and rises in the stock market BEFORE CNBC. She has been assrting that irrational relationship for MONTHS.
Now Rick Santelli (the only non-economic fascist I have seen on CNBC) has claimed that commodity traders are not like the socialists/economic fascists on Wall Street--that they still believe in a "free market" not dominated by government. And it is true---as far as I know--that commodity traders have not demanded govrenment hand outs/bailouts. However, these news items on Friday show that commodity traders are part of the disease--the "pandemic"--that is killing Wall Street. Indded, the disease may be even more virulent in commodity markets. Taht disease is sto treat markets as a computer gaming casino, where economic reality is irrelevant. ENRON did that in energy trading. I have not noticed that oil traders learned a single thing from ENRON, as Wall Street did not learn a single thing from the bursting of the dot.com bubble (or the stock market crash in 1987--much less the crash in 1929, as computer gaming speculation is ruinning financial markets at least as much as it did in 1929).
Q.E.D. These are the Stupidest People on Earth.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
President Obama, Comic Genius, Says His Own Spending Is Headling Country Toward Disaster!
You may have missed it, because the mainstream media pretty much ignored it, but President Obma (who regularly endorses what this blog says--see archives) made one of the very same points made in the previous blog entry in the course of his Town Hall event in New Mexico on Thursday.
Yep. President Obama turly is a comic genius. He mad ethe same pessimistic point that I made in the previous entry: namely that our country is headed for absolute DISASTER. President Obama said that if we continue spending like we are, the result well be economic ruin (no joke--by me--although an hilariious joke by President Obama). President Obama detailed the evils of this kind of government spending, including exploding interest rates now being avoided only by the Fed purhasing the government's own bonds, as we buy our own IOUs). The concluded that we could not sustain the present level of government spending without total disaster. (Note how the Stupidest People on Earth---the people on Wall Street--have pushed an insane 30% stock market rally in the face of this disaster President Obama is warning against, and in the face of the fact that any measures taken to stop this disaster will likely DERAIL any mild recovery in prospect.). Obama noted own INSANE it is to rely on Chian, and other countries, to finance this enormous spending.
Note the true comic geinius here. President Obama said the above things as if he had nothing to do with the present level of spending. Of course, not only has he spent more than Republicans (getting religion way too late) now want to spend, but he has voted for President Bush's spending!!!!!! You have to agree the man is FUNNY. I had trouble typing this entry, because I was laughing so hard.
We can't sustain the present level of government deficits and spending? ..................Sorry, I was rolling on the floor laughing. About a week ago President Obama proposed his 2010 budget, where he "cut" the budget by LESS than 1/2 of 1%--17 billion dollars out of a 3.55 TRILLION dollar budget (disregarding likely "emergency", off-budget spending and Congressional dodges around the budget).
You may have thought my pessimmism in the previous entry was etreme. President Obama himself is making the case that I was not pessimistic enough. There is NO evidence that we are going to reduce our present level of spedning (which Obama says will be disaster). Further, we have already committed to spending so much that the evils Prfesident Obama warned about are already inevitable.
P.S: I am perfectly aware that President Obama will take the position, comic genius that he is, that his own spending was "necessary", and that his masterful "central planning" will reverse the present trend in time to "save" us...................Sorry, I was laughing again. Merely trying to restate Obama's positioon virtually makes me a comic genius. Laughter is the only appropriate reaction to these absurdities!!!!!
Yep. President Obama turly is a comic genius. He mad ethe same pessimistic point that I made in the previous entry: namely that our country is headed for absolute DISASTER. President Obama said that if we continue spending like we are, the result well be economic ruin (no joke--by me--although an hilariious joke by President Obama). President Obama detailed the evils of this kind of government spending, including exploding interest rates now being avoided only by the Fed purhasing the government's own bonds, as we buy our own IOUs). The concluded that we could not sustain the present level of government spending without total disaster. (Note how the Stupidest People on Earth---the people on Wall Street--have pushed an insane 30% stock market rally in the face of this disaster President Obama is warning against, and in the face of the fact that any measures taken to stop this disaster will likely DERAIL any mild recovery in prospect.). Obama noted own INSANE it is to rely on Chian, and other countries, to finance this enormous spending.
Note the true comic geinius here. President Obama said the above things as if he had nothing to do with the present level of spending. Of course, not only has he spent more than Republicans (getting religion way too late) now want to spend, but he has voted for President Bush's spending!!!!!! You have to agree the man is FUNNY. I had trouble typing this entry, because I was laughing so hard.
We can't sustain the present level of government deficits and spending? ..................Sorry, I was rolling on the floor laughing. About a week ago President Obama proposed his 2010 budget, where he "cut" the budget by LESS than 1/2 of 1%--17 billion dollars out of a 3.55 TRILLION dollar budget (disregarding likely "emergency", off-budget spending and Congressional dodges around the budget).
You may have thought my pessimmism in the previous entry was etreme. President Obama himself is making the case that I was not pessimistic enough. There is NO evidence that we are going to reduce our present level of spedning (which Obama says will be disaster). Further, we have already committed to spending so much that the evils Prfesident Obama warned about are already inevitable.
P.S: I am perfectly aware that President Obama will take the position, comic genius that he is, that his own spending was "necessary", and that his masterful "central planning" will reverse the present trend in time to "save" us...................Sorry, I was laughing again. Merely trying to restate Obama's positioon virtually makes me a comic genius. Laughter is the only appropriate reaction to these absurdities!!!!!
Yellow Freight (YRCW) and My Brother: "Winners" and "Losers" In the Insane Age of Obama
Yellow Freight (Yellow Worldwide--YRCW) is a trucking company. Shirppers Transport was my borther's trucking company now in bankruptcy. Two MILLION dollars would have saved my brother's company. An item of Friday's news is that YRCW is going to ask for 1 BILLION dollars in Federal "bailout" money to "save" YRCW.
President Obama, Timothy Geitner, President Bush, Henry Paulson, Wall Street, and the Democratic and Republican establishments could argue for a thousand years and nnot successfuly explain how this makes sense. Even if YRCW did not receive its requested bailout, and it certainly should not, the entire bailout culture has made no sense. Who picks the "winners" and who picks the "losers", in the Age of Obama (which, as I have said, started before Obama was President). For example, the "establishmment" made sure GE survived, even though the unreasonable refusal of a GE unit (GE Fleet Servies) to work with my brother directly caused the demise of Shippers Transprot.
Who says that YRCW, Citigroup, GM, or Goldman Sachs should be "saved", while my brother's comny is is allowed to gou uner without any qualm (by the "establishment")? Well, we know the answer to that. The CENTRAL PLANNERS now in charge make these decisions, and they are basically arbitrary decisions. The most that can be said is that Democrats AND Republican central planners are now showing an enormous BIAS in favor of Big Business--in favor of economic fascism. "Economic fascism", again, is defined as a partnership between big business and government--dominated by government, which has been described as "socialism with a capitalist veneer". Almost everyone on wall Street is now an econoimic fascist (Larry Kudlow, this CONTINUES to mean :YOU, along with most other people who appear on CNBC).
Now my brother opposed all bailouts. He was not looking for the government to bail him out. Of course, he would not have turned it down, but he recognized the INSANITY, and inherent, blatant unfairness of this "bailout culture" dominated by central planners with their own agenda. My borother was, and is, simply ANGRY that others--less worthy, or certainly no moe worthy than his compnay--got bailed out, while he did not.
Therefore, my brother favors something which I also favor. He favors voting out ALLL politicians presently in power--ALL of them. I guess he (and I) MIGHT relent as to any politican who can show that they opposed ALL of these bailout measures from the begninning. Do you realize how FEW that number is?
WHY should my brother vote for Republicans who enabled this to occur fully as much as Democratss? Why should I? I remain pretty confidant that I will vote for NO Republican during the remainder of my life. It is only when enough people get ANGRY that we are going to throw all of the bums out and start over. At the very leaset, there needs to be a revolutioon to take over the Republican Party (Democratic Party is beyond hopeless, but the present result would not be materially different under McCain).
Tihs is one of the big rroblems for Republicans. They did NOT firght for my brother's interest (in fairneess and principle). They did not fight for mine. My brother and I are not "turn the other cheek" kind of guys. We will NOT "fight" for Republicans who betrayed us.
The prroblem that Democras have is that they have already guaranteed disaster by their exercise in central planning, encomic fascism, unrestrained Big Government, unfairness, and total idiocy. Their party is doomed too. The difference there is that there doom probably also means at least temporary doom for the country. As I have said, I am a pessimist on this. I believe the country cannot survive the present policies, at least in its present form.
Will the Republican Party be arond to benefit from the preordained failure of Obama (preordained because there is not even a THEORETICAL case for central planning working--much less a practical example in history)? The only way it will still be around is by a conservative coup transforming the entire party into something very different from the "establishment" party it is today.
President Obama, Timothy Geitner, President Bush, Henry Paulson, Wall Street, and the Democratic and Republican establishments could argue for a thousand years and nnot successfuly explain how this makes sense. Even if YRCW did not receive its requested bailout, and it certainly should not, the entire bailout culture has made no sense. Who picks the "winners" and who picks the "losers", in the Age of Obama (which, as I have said, started before Obama was President). For example, the "establishmment" made sure GE survived, even though the unreasonable refusal of a GE unit (GE Fleet Servies) to work with my brother directly caused the demise of Shippers Transprot.
Who says that YRCW, Citigroup, GM, or Goldman Sachs should be "saved", while my brother's comny is is allowed to gou uner without any qualm (by the "establishment")? Well, we know the answer to that. The CENTRAL PLANNERS now in charge make these decisions, and they are basically arbitrary decisions. The most that can be said is that Democrats AND Republican central planners are now showing an enormous BIAS in favor of Big Business--in favor of economic fascism. "Economic fascism", again, is defined as a partnership between big business and government--dominated by government, which has been described as "socialism with a capitalist veneer". Almost everyone on wall Street is now an econoimic fascist (Larry Kudlow, this CONTINUES to mean :YOU, along with most other people who appear on CNBC).
Now my brother opposed all bailouts. He was not looking for the government to bail him out. Of course, he would not have turned it down, but he recognized the INSANITY, and inherent, blatant unfairness of this "bailout culture" dominated by central planners with their own agenda. My borother was, and is, simply ANGRY that others--less worthy, or certainly no moe worthy than his compnay--got bailed out, while he did not.
Therefore, my brother favors something which I also favor. He favors voting out ALLL politicians presently in power--ALL of them. I guess he (and I) MIGHT relent as to any politican who can show that they opposed ALL of these bailout measures from the begninning. Do you realize how FEW that number is?
WHY should my brother vote for Republicans who enabled this to occur fully as much as Democratss? Why should I? I remain pretty confidant that I will vote for NO Republican during the remainder of my life. It is only when enough people get ANGRY that we are going to throw all of the bums out and start over. At the very leaset, there needs to be a revolutioon to take over the Republican Party (Democratic Party is beyond hopeless, but the present result would not be materially different under McCain).
Tihs is one of the big rroblems for Republicans. They did NOT firght for my brother's interest (in fairneess and principle). They did not fight for mine. My brother and I are not "turn the other cheek" kind of guys. We will NOT "fight" for Republicans who betrayed us.
The prroblem that Democras have is that they have already guaranteed disaster by their exercise in central planning, encomic fascism, unrestrained Big Government, unfairness, and total idiocy. Their party is doomed too. The difference there is that there doom probably also means at least temporary doom for the country. As I have said, I am a pessimist on this. I believe the country cannot survive the present policies, at least in its present form.
Will the Republican Party be arond to benefit from the preordained failure of Obama (preordained because there is not even a THEORETICAL case for central planning working--much less a practical example in history)? The only way it will still be around is by a conservative coup transforming the entire party into something very different from the "establishment" party it is today.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Powerline Blog Gets It Wrong: John McCain as a Candidate
I heard the authors of the Powerline Blog on radio last week (I wake up to Bill Bennett's "Morning in American", although I rarelylisten to more than a few minutes after the alarm goes off). I was NOT impressed. It sort of confirmed my lack of interest int eh Powerline blog, although the times I have looked at it I though it performed a useful service. However, I was not impressed enough to regularly visit the site, and the radio "guest" appearance again illustrated why.
What raised my "ire" was the indefensible statement that John McCain did better than any other Republican could have done against Barack Obama. No one who says something like that-in answer to a phone call accurately stating that McCain was a hopeless nominee--is not really a very good political analyst.
First, there is NO reason to believe that Mitt Romney would have done worse than McCain. Romney, at least, had some credibility on economic. McCain had none. The Powerline person accccurately said McCain had no chance once the economy collapsed, but failed utterly to cnsider the corollary thhat McCAIN was doomed BECAUSE HE WAS McCAIN, and not because he was a Republican. The Powerline guy accurately noted that McCain was even util President Bush panicked on the economy, and Paulston came to Congress with the bailout bill However, the Powerline guy again failed to see the obvious corollary that McCain MAY have been the Republican's "best chance" to "win" so long as the economy was not the overriding focus, but that ONLY a "conservative" had a chance to win once President Bush panicked on the economy--lurching into socialism, and "stimulus" spending before that.
Of course, this is all TOTAL SPECULATION (which the Powerline guy also failed to say). We don't know if Mitt Romney would have reacted better than McCain to the econommic "crisis". We do know that McCain had NO CHANCE, and reacted as badly as any candidate could have reacted. Sure, Romney MIGHT have done worse than McCain, but he had a CHANCE. McCain had NO CHANCE. And the reaction to "bailouts" since then makes clear that it is absolutely not true that any Republican was doomed to lose. McCain offered no contrast at all with Obama on the economy, and that made it impossible for him to win. How would a Republican have fared who OPPOSED bailouts, tied illegal immigration to jobs, and correctly stated that Obama was lproposing to crucigy jobs and the economy on a cross of "global warming" ("cap and trade" representing more of an effective tax INCREASE o working Americans than any tax "cut" proposed by Obama)?
That is the real reason I was "not impressed" with the Powerline analysis. As I said, it is total slpeculation whether any Republican would have "done better" than McCain. Howevcer, it is NOT "speculation" to say that almolst ANY other Republican would have set the Republican Party up better to continue the fight against Obmaa.
Bailouts? Sure, Obama ran for Bush's third term on bailouts, but so did McCain. Health care? No one understood McCain's health care "plan", inclduing McCain, and McCain let Obama LIE about the plan--almost without a whimper. McCain hardly set up the Republican Party for the health care "debate". SSure, McCain was pretty good on EARMARKS, but had NO credibility on spending in general (as the whole Republican Party did not). The Republican candidate, to set up the resurgence of the REPUBLICAN CASE, desperately needed to be DIFFERENT from President Bush on both spending and bailouts--on Big Government in general. McCain could not distingyish himself from either Bush or Obama. Other than McCain obviously hardly had a clue on the economy. McCain was FOR "cap and trade", "global warming" type legislation (bill CALLED "McCain Lieberman" in Senate). McCain could hardly se up Repubilcans as PROTECTORS of the economy against the "dlogal warming" fanatics (which is why McCain has not even made a ripple with his opposition to Obama' "cap and trade" insanity, other than to rrepresent "cover' for "liberal" Republicans holding firm in the Senate). How could McCain link aggressive action against illegal immigration with jobs and national security, when McCain let the fight FOR "amnesty"?
It is said--correctly--that Republicans have been floundering around for a "message--partly because Republicans lost their way then they were in power. But Powerline (or at least the main people behind Powerline) failed to state the equally obvious: MCCAIN bears a lot of responsibility for the failure of Republicans to have a recognized "message" going into the first 100 days of Obama. McCain had made NO CASE against the policies Obama proposed in that first 100 days .
Even if a conservative had lost by 3 additioinal percentage points, in a true landslile, it would not have been as bad as McCain. That is because such a conserative would have set tup the case against Obama. McCain did NOT. That makes the present Republican opposition to Obama llok like political opportunism, rather than principle.
Nope. I was NOT IMPRESSED by Powerline.
P.S.: McCain was not even able to set up the case AGAINST terrorists, and FOR people in the CIA (and elsewhere) who--in good faith--were trying to fight terrorists and protect us. Nope. It was NOT necessary for McCain to "support" waterborading, or ""torture". All he had to do was say--as he essentially has said since the lection--that there is no reason to treat terrorists as our friends and the CIA as our ENEMIES (not to mention the Bush Administration). Instead, McCain went out of his way to throw away this WINNING issue. You don't think it was a "winning" issue? Look again at the trouble Nancy Pelosi is now in, and at the "flip-flop" of Obama on the question of release of "abuse" photos for no other purpose than to be used as anti-American propaganda. McCain was a DISASTER as a candidate, whether he won or lost (as this blog has said, in foresight). Like President Bush, he undermined almost every Republican argument (except earmarks and foreign policy--distinguished from attacking conservatives, or good faith Americans acting for this country, as more the enemy than the terrorists). A good nominee would have prepared the country for the Republican fight against the extreme leftist, "apololgy for America", policies of Obama. McCain did not do that, which made him the WORST possible candidate.
What raised my "ire" was the indefensible statement that John McCain did better than any other Republican could have done against Barack Obama. No one who says something like that-in answer to a phone call accurately stating that McCain was a hopeless nominee--is not really a very good political analyst.
First, there is NO reason to believe that Mitt Romney would have done worse than McCain. Romney, at least, had some credibility on economic. McCain had none. The Powerline person accccurately said McCain had no chance once the economy collapsed, but failed utterly to cnsider the corollary thhat McCAIN was doomed BECAUSE HE WAS McCAIN, and not because he was a Republican. The Powerline guy accurately noted that McCain was even util President Bush panicked on the economy, and Paulston came to Congress with the bailout bill However, the Powerline guy again failed to see the obvious corollary that McCain MAY have been the Republican's "best chance" to "win" so long as the economy was not the overriding focus, but that ONLY a "conservative" had a chance to win once President Bush panicked on the economy--lurching into socialism, and "stimulus" spending before that.
Of course, this is all TOTAL SPECULATION (which the Powerline guy also failed to say). We don't know if Mitt Romney would have reacted better than McCain to the econommic "crisis". We do know that McCain had NO CHANCE, and reacted as badly as any candidate could have reacted. Sure, Romney MIGHT have done worse than McCain, but he had a CHANCE. McCain had NO CHANCE. And the reaction to "bailouts" since then makes clear that it is absolutely not true that any Republican was doomed to lose. McCain offered no contrast at all with Obama on the economy, and that made it impossible for him to win. How would a Republican have fared who OPPOSED bailouts, tied illegal immigration to jobs, and correctly stated that Obama was lproposing to crucigy jobs and the economy on a cross of "global warming" ("cap and trade" representing more of an effective tax INCREASE o working Americans than any tax "cut" proposed by Obama)?
That is the real reason I was "not impressed" with the Powerline analysis. As I said, it is total slpeculation whether any Republican would have "done better" than McCain. Howevcer, it is NOT "speculation" to say that almolst ANY other Republican would have set the Republican Party up better to continue the fight against Obmaa.
Bailouts? Sure, Obama ran for Bush's third term on bailouts, but so did McCain. Health care? No one understood McCain's health care "plan", inclduing McCain, and McCain let Obama LIE about the plan--almost without a whimper. McCain hardly set up the Republican Party for the health care "debate". SSure, McCain was pretty good on EARMARKS, but had NO credibility on spending in general (as the whole Republican Party did not). The Republican candidate, to set up the resurgence of the REPUBLICAN CASE, desperately needed to be DIFFERENT from President Bush on both spending and bailouts--on Big Government in general. McCain could not distingyish himself from either Bush or Obama. Other than McCain obviously hardly had a clue on the economy. McCain was FOR "cap and trade", "global warming" type legislation (bill CALLED "McCain Lieberman" in Senate). McCain could hardly se up Repubilcans as PROTECTORS of the economy against the "dlogal warming" fanatics (which is why McCain has not even made a ripple with his opposition to Obama' "cap and trade" insanity, other than to rrepresent "cover' for "liberal" Republicans holding firm in the Senate). How could McCain link aggressive action against illegal immigration with jobs and national security, when McCain let the fight FOR "amnesty"?
It is said--correctly--that Republicans have been floundering around for a "message--partly because Republicans lost their way then they were in power. But Powerline (or at least the main people behind Powerline) failed to state the equally obvious: MCCAIN bears a lot of responsibility for the failure of Republicans to have a recognized "message" going into the first 100 days of Obama. McCain had made NO CASE against the policies Obama proposed in that first 100 days .
Even if a conservative had lost by 3 additioinal percentage points, in a true landslile, it would not have been as bad as McCain. That is because such a conserative would have set tup the case against Obama. McCain did NOT. That makes the present Republican opposition to Obama llok like political opportunism, rather than principle.
Nope. I was NOT IMPRESSED by Powerline.
P.S.: McCain was not even able to set up the case AGAINST terrorists, and FOR people in the CIA (and elsewhere) who--in good faith--were trying to fight terrorists and protect us. Nope. It was NOT necessary for McCain to "support" waterborading, or ""torture". All he had to do was say--as he essentially has said since the lection--that there is no reason to treat terrorists as our friends and the CIA as our ENEMIES (not to mention the Bush Administration). Instead, McCain went out of his way to throw away this WINNING issue. You don't think it was a "winning" issue? Look again at the trouble Nancy Pelosi is now in, and at the "flip-flop" of Obama on the question of release of "abuse" photos for no other purpose than to be used as anti-American propaganda. McCain was a DISASTER as a candidate, whether he won or lost (as this blog has said, in foresight). Like President Bush, he undermined almost every Republican argument (except earmarks and foreign policy--distinguished from attacking conservatives, or good faith Americans acting for this country, as more the enemy than the terrorists). A good nominee would have prepared the country for the Republican fight against the extreme leftist, "apololgy for America", policies of Obama. McCain did not do that, which made him the WORST possible candidate.
Flu "Pandmic": "Pandemic" as a Word Directly Out of Wonderland, or--More Exactly--as a Word Out of Orwell's "1984"
I think it is an "Alice in Wonderland" character who says (paraphrasing slightly): Wehn I use a word, it means what want/choose it to mean--no more, no less." I saw aboujt 30 seconds (way too much) of Lou Dobbs on Thursday, and it is clear to me that the present use of "pandemic" has an "Alice in wonderland" quality to it. However, it is more pernicious than that A more direct and exact reference is Orwell's "1984", hwere words are mere instruments on propaganda for the approved agenda.
Am I accusing "scientists", "medical experts", "journalists" and government officials/politicians of an Orwellian use of "pandemic"? Damn right Iam. Am I accusing these same people of promoting an EVIL misuse of languaged.? Again, Damin right I am.
Before analyzing the 30 seconds of the Lou Dobbs program that prove my point, let us segue to Friday morning. I heard on e of those "public service" commercials (which tend to be Orwellian themselves--almost universally and on all subjects). You know the kind of commercial--for a dot.org organization ussually saying it is co-sponsoered by the "Ad Council" (I can't tell you how EVIL an "organization I regard the "Ad Council"!!!). Well, this particular ad was trying to SCARE you into getting a flu vaccine shot (of limited effectiveness against a NEW flu strain). Nope. The ad did not make the DIRECT error of saying that you needed to give you yound child a flue shot to protect the child from the swine flu, although the ad was clearly trying to "piggyback" on the swine flu scare (I really question whether NOW is the time to vaccinate yound children for the NEXT flue season). The scare point of the ad was that 100 children under 5 DIE of the regular flu EACH AND EVER YEAR in this country. I am not one of those kooks (part of my "yor are a kook if:" series) who overstate the danger of vaccines, and blame the evil drug compnay vaccines for everything from autism to mercury poisoning. However, I note that the ad does NOT state how many people may sicken or die from the VACCINE. This is not a digression, because it is all part of the Orwellian way we are beginning to misuse scare language in this country to epxlode the power of government (and those favored by the government)--in contradictory ways.
Let us segue back to Lou Dobbs, and the "expert" (not worthy of the term) he had on his program to address the new "outbreak" of swine flu in New York City. This "expert" at least provided SOME actual facts. He said there have been 4,000 confirmed cases of the swine flu in the USA, and 3 deaths (increased to 4 the next day). The expert said that this is no wrose than the ordinary flu, which kills one out of every thousand persons who contract the disease EVERY YEAR. The "expert" did thereby brush off Lou Dobbs' ridiculous, "mainstream media' suggestinon that the critical condition of an assistant principal in a New York City school raised the "danger" of a MUTATION of the swine fle into a more dangerous form. (Yes, Lou Dobbs is a KOOK, as are most of the mainstream media on this.) Regular flu strains, of course, mutate/change regularly, which is why it was so hard to devlop an EFFECTIVE flu faccine applicable to the strain of flu most prevalent in any individual year. There is no more "danger" of the swine flu strain "mutating" than there is of any other flu stain "mutating" (all mutations, by the way, are not bad).
Note, however, that neither the "expert", nor Lou Dobbs, brought up the statistic that the public service commercial was using to SCARE you into getting your child vaccinated for the flu. FOUR people (maybe one or two more by now) have died from the swine flu in the USA. ONE HUNDRED children under 5 (assuming this scare commerical to be ture) die from the REGULAR FLU EVERY YER. Whis is the more dangerous thing? That is not to mention how foolhardy most of us are to get in our automobile each day, when 43,000 people die every year in traffic accidents. I am no longer such a fool, as I no longer drive--nor do I even ride in an automobile for weeks at a time. (That is how my SCARE "public service/environmental comercial on the dangers of automobile travel would go, omitting that the main reason for this is my eyesight--also the main reason you will note a significant deficiency in proofreading and use of spell check in blog entries).
I have not even gotten to the main point of this blog entry, and why the Lou Dobbs "expert" should simply have been SHOT (figuratively, although literally is becoming more and more attactive). This "expert" matter of factly said (paraphrasing, but accurately): "This swine flu 'pandemic' has now spread to 33 countries."
Say what? The "expert" just got through saying that only THREE people have died in the USA from swine flu, and that it is no worse than the normal flu (which, in most years, kills MANY more people, and obviusly affects more people). That is what I mean when I talk about Orwellian misuse of language.
Remember how "pandemic" was used as a bogeyman to conjure up the image of people dying like flies--how the Democrats proposed two BILLIOIN dollars in supplemental funds to fight a potential flu "pandemic", and "save" us all?
If the regualr flu, in most yeard during my lifetime, was a PANDMIC, what are we worrying about? What does the word "pandemic" mean? It wobviously means what any one of these people want it to mean, for their own AGENDA, at any time the word is used. If FOUR people dying in the USA is a "pandemic", while 100 children dying every year is not, then the word has NO significance. Yes, I have come to that conclusin, and am willing to state it flatly: AS it is now being used, the word "pandemic" has NO MEANING wiht any significance for public policy. Its only meaning is as a means of screening out those people who should be SHOT for attempting to spread evil propaganda (which includes every single person who uses the word "pandemic" as a scare word).
As this blog has pointed out, and as is being proven each and every day, if this country can no longer handle a normal flu outbreak, then we are doomed--on our last legs as we enter the end stages of our power, about to follow the Roman Empire into historical oblivion. Nope. Desptie my respect for Dan (whol, after all is my only "fan"--sort of, in a left handed sort of way) said--in a comment last week--our inability to be ratioinal on this sort of thing is NOT a sign that we can handle a truly dangerous pandemic. It is simply a sign that we are now totally subject to Orwellian manipulation, and to letting our emotions overwhelm our reason.
Ye, I have raised AIDS before, wich really was (and to some degeree still is) a truly dangerous pandemic. Millions worldwide have died from the disease, and perhaps hundreds of thousands in this country. The homosexual commuinity was decimated by the disease in this country (where homosexual sex was the PRIMARY means the disease spread) as "the band played on". WHY was there not this kind of "establishment" hysteria over AIDS, where the establishment/leftist reaction was to talk about the IRRATIONAL fear of things that did NOT spread the disease?
You know the answer to that, as well as I do. The only difference, besides AIDS being a truly dangerous disease and swine flu merely orinary type flu, is that AIDS is PRIMARILY a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE. Leftists, homosexual activists, the mainstream media, and the "establishment" in this country were "politically correct" about AIDS. With swine flu they are intrested in the SCARE. With AIDS, they were intrested in AVOIDING treating the disease like a real disease ("qurantine", shutting down homosexual bah houses and other breeding grounds for the disease, etc.). You heard a lot about how AIDS is NOT transmitted. You heard very little about how AIDS is a CONDUCT related disease, and that maybe the CONDUCT should be changed. There were two taboos preventing us from treating AIDS as a "real" disease: the taboo against labeling SEX as a dangerous acitivy (talking abut the promiscuous kind), and the taboo against saying anything negative about homosexual conduct. That is why I have said, and will continue to say, that the people who LET AIDS spread, without effective action, HAVE BLLOD ON THEIR HANDS> They KILLED PEOPLE.
Did you hear anything about shutting down acitivities because of AIDS (other than to dismiss the idea)? Did you see and hear extensive discussions of how and where AIDS WAS being spread, as distinguished from how it was NOT being spread? Did you hear "advice" on conduct such as sneezing into your elbow (stupid as that "advice" is)? Did you see a suggestion that people DESIST FROM HOMOSEXUAL SEX for a time when the disease was pandemic, or that homosexuals voluntarily test themselves for the disease. You really did not hear ANYTHING about how to CHANGE CONDUCT to avoid AIDS, beyond the letist agenda item of using a condom. Yes, people should have been told to use a condom to avoid the disease (MAYBE--the idea that condoms totally protect agaist sexually transmitted diseases is surely a leftist myth). But should AT RISK groups not have been SCARED into how crucial action was FOR THEM? Sure they should have. AIDS should have been treated like a dangerous PANDMIC. It was not. PEOPLE DIED who did not need to die.
That is why my prediction has been that the nex truly DANGEROUS nwe "pandemic" in the world will be a sexually transmitted disease, just like the last one (AIDS). When it involves SEX, we are incapable of treating a spreadking disease like a real disease. That makes sexually transmitted diseases much more potentially dangerous to us. This is, of course, only a matter of probability. We could face a totally new and deadly disease of any typel--such as the pneumonic form of the bubonic plague--the Black Death--that killed one person out of every 3 at its height in Eurpose.
Orwellian, POLITICAL, misue of language will not help us meet a rEAL threat of either the AIDS type or the Black Death type (or the flu "pandemics" of the first half of the 20th Century). "Crying wolf", especially in this kind of Orwellian manner, NEVER helps fight the real thing. Swine flu is NOT the real thing
And I have nothing but CONTEMPT for Loub Dobbs' "expert", and for the mainstream media in general, for the criminal way they are misuing both facts and language on things like the swine flu.
Am I accusing "scientists", "medical experts", "journalists" and government officials/politicians of an Orwellian use of "pandemic"? Damn right Iam. Am I accusing these same people of promoting an EVIL misuse of languaged.? Again, Damin right I am.
Before analyzing the 30 seconds of the Lou Dobbs program that prove my point, let us segue to Friday morning. I heard on e of those "public service" commercials (which tend to be Orwellian themselves--almost universally and on all subjects). You know the kind of commercial--for a dot.org organization ussually saying it is co-sponsoered by the "Ad Council" (I can't tell you how EVIL an "organization I regard the "Ad Council"!!!). Well, this particular ad was trying to SCARE you into getting a flu vaccine shot (of limited effectiveness against a NEW flu strain). Nope. The ad did not make the DIRECT error of saying that you needed to give you yound child a flue shot to protect the child from the swine flu, although the ad was clearly trying to "piggyback" on the swine flu scare (I really question whether NOW is the time to vaccinate yound children for the NEXT flue season). The scare point of the ad was that 100 children under 5 DIE of the regular flu EACH AND EVER YEAR in this country. I am not one of those kooks (part of my "yor are a kook if:" series) who overstate the danger of vaccines, and blame the evil drug compnay vaccines for everything from autism to mercury poisoning. However, I note that the ad does NOT state how many people may sicken or die from the VACCINE. This is not a digression, because it is all part of the Orwellian way we are beginning to misuse scare language in this country to epxlode the power of government (and those favored by the government)--in contradictory ways.
Let us segue back to Lou Dobbs, and the "expert" (not worthy of the term) he had on his program to address the new "outbreak" of swine flu in New York City. This "expert" at least provided SOME actual facts. He said there have been 4,000 confirmed cases of the swine flu in the USA, and 3 deaths (increased to 4 the next day). The expert said that this is no wrose than the ordinary flu, which kills one out of every thousand persons who contract the disease EVERY YEAR. The "expert" did thereby brush off Lou Dobbs' ridiculous, "mainstream media' suggestinon that the critical condition of an assistant principal in a New York City school raised the "danger" of a MUTATION of the swine fle into a more dangerous form. (Yes, Lou Dobbs is a KOOK, as are most of the mainstream media on this.) Regular flu strains, of course, mutate/change regularly, which is why it was so hard to devlop an EFFECTIVE flu faccine applicable to the strain of flu most prevalent in any individual year. There is no more "danger" of the swine flu strain "mutating" than there is of any other flu stain "mutating" (all mutations, by the way, are not bad).
Note, however, that neither the "expert", nor Lou Dobbs, brought up the statistic that the public service commercial was using to SCARE you into getting your child vaccinated for the flu. FOUR people (maybe one or two more by now) have died from the swine flu in the USA. ONE HUNDRED children under 5 (assuming this scare commerical to be ture) die from the REGULAR FLU EVERY YER. Whis is the more dangerous thing? That is not to mention how foolhardy most of us are to get in our automobile each day, when 43,000 people die every year in traffic accidents. I am no longer such a fool, as I no longer drive--nor do I even ride in an automobile for weeks at a time. (That is how my SCARE "public service/environmental comercial on the dangers of automobile travel would go, omitting that the main reason for this is my eyesight--also the main reason you will note a significant deficiency in proofreading and use of spell check in blog entries).
I have not even gotten to the main point of this blog entry, and why the Lou Dobbs "expert" should simply have been SHOT (figuratively, although literally is becoming more and more attactive). This "expert" matter of factly said (paraphrasing, but accurately): "This swine flu 'pandemic' has now spread to 33 countries."
Say what? The "expert" just got through saying that only THREE people have died in the USA from swine flu, and that it is no worse than the normal flu (which, in most years, kills MANY more people, and obviusly affects more people). That is what I mean when I talk about Orwellian misuse of language.
Remember how "pandemic" was used as a bogeyman to conjure up the image of people dying like flies--how the Democrats proposed two BILLIOIN dollars in supplemental funds to fight a potential flu "pandemic", and "save" us all?
If the regualr flu, in most yeard during my lifetime, was a PANDMIC, what are we worrying about? What does the word "pandemic" mean? It wobviously means what any one of these people want it to mean, for their own AGENDA, at any time the word is used. If FOUR people dying in the USA is a "pandemic", while 100 children dying every year is not, then the word has NO significance. Yes, I have come to that conclusin, and am willing to state it flatly: AS it is now being used, the word "pandemic" has NO MEANING wiht any significance for public policy. Its only meaning is as a means of screening out those people who should be SHOT for attempting to spread evil propaganda (which includes every single person who uses the word "pandemic" as a scare word).
As this blog has pointed out, and as is being proven each and every day, if this country can no longer handle a normal flu outbreak, then we are doomed--on our last legs as we enter the end stages of our power, about to follow the Roman Empire into historical oblivion. Nope. Desptie my respect for Dan (whol, after all is my only "fan"--sort of, in a left handed sort of way) said--in a comment last week--our inability to be ratioinal on this sort of thing is NOT a sign that we can handle a truly dangerous pandemic. It is simply a sign that we are now totally subject to Orwellian manipulation, and to letting our emotions overwhelm our reason.
Ye, I have raised AIDS before, wich really was (and to some degeree still is) a truly dangerous pandemic. Millions worldwide have died from the disease, and perhaps hundreds of thousands in this country. The homosexual commuinity was decimated by the disease in this country (where homosexual sex was the PRIMARY means the disease spread) as "the band played on". WHY was there not this kind of "establishment" hysteria over AIDS, where the establishment/leftist reaction was to talk about the IRRATIONAL fear of things that did NOT spread the disease?
You know the answer to that, as well as I do. The only difference, besides AIDS being a truly dangerous disease and swine flu merely orinary type flu, is that AIDS is PRIMARILY a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE. Leftists, homosexual activists, the mainstream media, and the "establishment" in this country were "politically correct" about AIDS. With swine flu they are intrested in the SCARE. With AIDS, they were intrested in AVOIDING treating the disease like a real disease ("qurantine", shutting down homosexual bah houses and other breeding grounds for the disease, etc.). You heard a lot about how AIDS is NOT transmitted. You heard very little about how AIDS is a CONDUCT related disease, and that maybe the CONDUCT should be changed. There were two taboos preventing us from treating AIDS as a "real" disease: the taboo against labeling SEX as a dangerous acitivy (talking abut the promiscuous kind), and the taboo against saying anything negative about homosexual conduct. That is why I have said, and will continue to say, that the people who LET AIDS spread, without effective action, HAVE BLLOD ON THEIR HANDS> They KILLED PEOPLE.
Did you hear anything about shutting down acitivities because of AIDS (other than to dismiss the idea)? Did you see and hear extensive discussions of how and where AIDS WAS being spread, as distinguished from how it was NOT being spread? Did you hear "advice" on conduct such as sneezing into your elbow (stupid as that "advice" is)? Did you see a suggestion that people DESIST FROM HOMOSEXUAL SEX for a time when the disease was pandemic, or that homosexuals voluntarily test themselves for the disease. You really did not hear ANYTHING about how to CHANGE CONDUCT to avoid AIDS, beyond the letist agenda item of using a condom. Yes, people should have been told to use a condom to avoid the disease (MAYBE--the idea that condoms totally protect agaist sexually transmitted diseases is surely a leftist myth). But should AT RISK groups not have been SCARED into how crucial action was FOR THEM? Sure they should have. AIDS should have been treated like a dangerous PANDMIC. It was not. PEOPLE DIED who did not need to die.
That is why my prediction has been that the nex truly DANGEROUS nwe "pandemic" in the world will be a sexually transmitted disease, just like the last one (AIDS). When it involves SEX, we are incapable of treating a spreadking disease like a real disease. That makes sexually transmitted diseases much more potentially dangerous to us. This is, of course, only a matter of probability. We could face a totally new and deadly disease of any typel--such as the pneumonic form of the bubonic plague--the Black Death--that killed one person out of every 3 at its height in Eurpose.
Orwellian, POLITICAL, misue of language will not help us meet a rEAL threat of either the AIDS type or the Black Death type (or the flu "pandemics" of the first half of the 20th Century). "Crying wolf", especially in this kind of Orwellian manner, NEVER helps fight the real thing. Swine flu is NOT the real thing
And I have nothing but CONTEMPT for Loub Dobbs' "expert", and for the mainstream media in general, for the criminal way they are misuing both facts and language on things like the swine flu.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi and the Death of Feminism (Or Is This Wishful Thinking On My पार्ट?)
You can count the implosion of Nancy Pelosi as another validation of the accuracy of this blog. Yes, this blog has been no different than many conservative outlets in pointing out just how hoplessly bad Pelosi is, on every level. But this blog has done so, accurately, on levels establishment Repbuclicans will not touch--such as the total, stupid HYPOCRISY of Pelosi on her supposed Catholic religion, where I conclusively showeed, using her own words, that Pelosi does not believe in religion at all). This blog's accuracy rating, including on swine flu (see yet another entry planned for today) has now risen to 99.8%. This blog has not been shown to be wrong since initially declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of the Democratic nomination (as she should have been, wiht a decent campaign and without media betrayal of feminism that would reach a whole new level with Sarah Palin), and my statement that John McCain would NOT be the Republican nominee. I redeemed myself on McCain by CORRECTLY telling Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio that they were BETRAYING conservatives by a hypocritical "neutrality" in the race for the Republican nomination, when they desperately needed to get behind Mitt Romney as the only conservative hope in the race. In other words, despit my premature obiturary, I perceived the real danger of McCain well before the opinion "leaders" of conservatism, and said so (in foresight yet again, rather than hindsight) at the crucial time (BEFORE Iowa, when this blog endoresed Romney). I digress (sort of).
This blog long ago dismissed Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi. Note the nickname, which has been this blog's nickname for Pelosi or a yer or more. Therefore, I will not belabor the point. "Total Failure" Pelosi has been a MUTLIPLE "winner" of this blog's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate (on hiatus for lack of interest). It would be merely "piling on" for this blog to detalil the multiple versions of Nancy Pelosi's idiocy regarding the CIA and "torture". Saying what everyone else is saying has always been somewhat uninteresting to me. I will note that President Obama can get away with saying contradictory, false things day after day. "Total Failure" Pelosi cannot. That brings me to the point of this entry.
Is the case of "Total Failure" Pelosi yet another indication that "feminism" is waning fast in America? Pelosi is definnitely a total embarrassment to feminism of the leftist kind. Hell, she is an embarrassment to the human race. But there was a time when she would have been pretty much immune from serious attack. She may survive this latest idiocy, but indications are that "feminism" is no longer such a sacred cow as to automatically save Pelosi. Hillary Clinton was the first strong indication of the waning influence of knee jerk feminism. Then Sarah Palin expossed the utter hypocrisy of leftist "feminists"--who are leftists much more than they are feminists. There is not much question that this decline of feminism is occurring. There is even a Gallup Poll out showing that the siganture "issue" of radical feminism is waing--as the "pro-life" positions gain ground (not that I believe you should pay any attentioin to polls, but you can probably believe this knd of poll because it goes gainst the pro-abortion bias plling--and poll questions--have always had). The only question is WHY feminism is waning.
I think it is because women have finally realized that feminsm has NOT helped them. Instead of increasing their options, it has pretty mcuh REDUCED them. Yes, there are more women police officers and firefighters.(but do MOST women really want to be police officers or firefighters?). But at what cost? Do women really have the option to be housewives and mothers anymore? Are women really "helped" when the reaction of a boyfriend informed of a pregnancy is: "Get an abortion"? Are women really "helped" by the idea that they should adopt the old sexual "standards" of men (that is, NO standard)? If relationships are more important to women, and marriage more important to women, has feminism "helped" women in that area? Women are now perceiving the corect answer to all of these questions, and are beocming more and more skeptical of feminism.
Yes, in many ways many men "like" feminism, and especially the sexual freedom aspects. It definitely helps male predators out there, and men who are glad to put responsiblity on women to support themselves (and perhaps the man too).
Men, however, are smarter than women. We have always known that the advantages of feminism for men are superficial things that do not outwiegh the destruction of social order. Men are simple creatures. Underneath, we just want a woman to take care of us, even at the cost of "marriage" and/or supporting her. Now if we don't HAVE to marry, or support, we will take the easy path that fits our short term desires. But we perceive that there is something WRONG with this, and are not really happy. This also expalins why men are not as easy to embrace the leftist idea that the government will "take care of us".
Men are just too smart to deceive ourselves. We may let our sex drive rule us, on occasion and with the opportunity, but we don't by into fiction--such as the fiction that men and women are the same, or that "I am from the government, and I am here to help you".
Bottom line: Men would, deep down, prefer that women "take care of us" (on an emotional level, while we take care of them economically), than realy on the govenment to "take care of us" (on all levels).
The above, by the way, explains why this blog is right in the one absolutely kooky positioni of this blog (part of the "Yor Are a Kook If:" series in this blog not recently featured because leftist kooks merely keep reinventing the old lefitst kookisms instead of coming up with new ones). Yes, civilization DID begin to go down hill when women got the vote.
This blog long ago dismissed Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi. Note the nickname, which has been this blog's nickname for Pelosi or a yer or more. Therefore, I will not belabor the point. "Total Failure" Pelosi has been a MUTLIPLE "winner" of this blog's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate (on hiatus for lack of interest). It would be merely "piling on" for this blog to detalil the multiple versions of Nancy Pelosi's idiocy regarding the CIA and "torture". Saying what everyone else is saying has always been somewhat uninteresting to me. I will note that President Obama can get away with saying contradictory, false things day after day. "Total Failure" Pelosi cannot. That brings me to the point of this entry.
Is the case of "Total Failure" Pelosi yet another indication that "feminism" is waning fast in America? Pelosi is definnitely a total embarrassment to feminism of the leftist kind. Hell, she is an embarrassment to the human race. But there was a time when she would have been pretty much immune from serious attack. She may survive this latest idiocy, but indications are that "feminism" is no longer such a sacred cow as to automatically save Pelosi. Hillary Clinton was the first strong indication of the waning influence of knee jerk feminism. Then Sarah Palin expossed the utter hypocrisy of leftist "feminists"--who are leftists much more than they are feminists. There is not much question that this decline of feminism is occurring. There is even a Gallup Poll out showing that the siganture "issue" of radical feminism is waing--as the "pro-life" positions gain ground (not that I believe you should pay any attentioin to polls, but you can probably believe this knd of poll because it goes gainst the pro-abortion bias plling--and poll questions--have always had). The only question is WHY feminism is waning.
I think it is because women have finally realized that feminsm has NOT helped them. Instead of increasing their options, it has pretty mcuh REDUCED them. Yes, there are more women police officers and firefighters.(but do MOST women really want to be police officers or firefighters?). But at what cost? Do women really have the option to be housewives and mothers anymore? Are women really "helped" when the reaction of a boyfriend informed of a pregnancy is: "Get an abortion"? Are women really "helped" by the idea that they should adopt the old sexual "standards" of men (that is, NO standard)? If relationships are more important to women, and marriage more important to women, has feminism "helped" women in that area? Women are now perceiving the corect answer to all of these questions, and are beocming more and more skeptical of feminism.
Yes, in many ways many men "like" feminism, and especially the sexual freedom aspects. It definitely helps male predators out there, and men who are glad to put responsiblity on women to support themselves (and perhaps the man too).
Men, however, are smarter than women. We have always known that the advantages of feminism for men are superficial things that do not outwiegh the destruction of social order. Men are simple creatures. Underneath, we just want a woman to take care of us, even at the cost of "marriage" and/or supporting her. Now if we don't HAVE to marry, or support, we will take the easy path that fits our short term desires. But we perceive that there is something WRONG with this, and are not really happy. This also expalins why men are not as easy to embrace the leftist idea that the government will "take care of us".
Men are just too smart to deceive ourselves. We may let our sex drive rule us, on occasion and with the opportunity, but we don't by into fiction--such as the fiction that men and women are the same, or that "I am from the government, and I am here to help you".
Bottom line: Men would, deep down, prefer that women "take care of us" (on an emotional level, while we take care of them economically), than realy on the govenment to "take care of us" (on all levels).
The above, by the way, explains why this blog is right in the one absolutely kooky positioni of this blog (part of the "Yor Are a Kook If:" series in this blog not recently featured because leftist kooks merely keep reinventing the old lefitst kookisms instead of coming up with new ones). Yes, civilization DID begin to go down hill when women got the vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)