"Economic Fasicism": Socialism with a capitalist veneer. (Not my definition, but a quote).
My definition: Central planning "parntership" between Big Government and Big Business to control almost every aspect of your economic life (see the week ago entry about the "global warming" goal to track the energy use of EVERY individual--presumably with IBM computers).
Yes, this entry is related to the earlier entry today on environmentalists and "global warming". Remember that "cap and trade" "energy" bill that Nancy Pelosi rammed through the House, without anyone even having a chance to read it? Guess what. Nancy Pelosi and/or her family have a substantial investment with T. Boone Pickens. And T. Boone Pickens has been out there campaigning for YOUR MONEY to go into HIS POCKETS--campaigning for subsidies for his "wind farms" and natural gas vehicles. Why does good ol' T. Boone need OUR moeny (government money) if his products are so good?
Welll, the answer came last week. Good ol' T. Boone ABANDONED his plans for a huge wind farm in the Texas panhandle. Turns out that it would cost too much for transmissioin lines from the wind turbines, even if they otherwise woked. And good ol' T. Boone could evidently not get a government to SUBSIDIZE the whole thihng. So he abandoned the project as UNECONOMIC ("We got ahead of ourselves"). Of curse, it was "uneeconmic" only in the sense that ALL of what T. Boone is suggesting is uneconomic: It will not work with GOVERNMENT MONEY Nancy Pelosi has tried to give T. Boone the money, but even the proposed bill was not enough to save the wind farm in the Texas panhandle.
This is what happens in economic fascism. The main source of money is the GOVERNMENT, and the hogs line up at the trough to get the money. T. Boone was an early example of how the hogs line up. IBM ("smart planet") is another example. When the governmment "partners" with Big Business, or any businesses, who loses? Right, the people lose who are not the "favored" people. Everyone is at the mercy of the econoic fascists in total control of our economy, and of our lives.
Yes, it is disgraceful that Nancy Pelosi is influecning government policy when she has a monetary interest in T. Boone Pickens. But that is samll potatoes compared to the overal central planning disaster of econoic fascism. Do you really want Big Bovernment and Big Business in "partnership" to control your life?
If you do like this idea, you are a leftist to your core. President Obama definitely likes the idea (as exhibited by all of these "deals" with entire industries), and he is an extreme leftist to his very core.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sotomayor: Sidewhow, Except to Extent Leftists Are Exposed
Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed. The only thing that could stop her is herself (with some amaizing gaffe). Further, it really does not matter whether she is confirmed, in terms of the type of Supreme Court justice we are going to get. Obama will just appoint someone just as bad. I Know. Republicans panic when they suffer a "loss", and cave to pressure. Not true of leftists, where the supply of reliable leftist judges cannnot be exhausted.
Thus, the only significance the Sotomayor hearing has is POLITICAL--to expose lefitists for the racist, anti-democrats that they are. For leftists, the judiciary is just a vehcile for imposing leftist IDEOLOGY on us all. Almost all leftist judges are willing to impose their views on all of us as what SHOUD be in the Constitutiion, if the framers haD only known what they were doing. In short, almost every leftist judge is a "far leftistist".
Well, you say (not being as smart as the blog author), are not "far right" judges just as bad? Is this not a power game where both sides are trying to impose their views on everybody?
Nope. There are NO "far right" judges. Do you know what a "far right" judge would be? It would be a jduge willing to declare the "right to life" as a fundamental right, and therefore our country MUST prohibit abortion. That is the true" far right" position. The moderate "right" position of judicial restraint is simply to reverse Roe v. Wade, and turn the matter back to DEMOCRACY to decide--probably in every individual state.
Yes, there was a time when "far right" judges were wllling to impose their views on the country. That was back in the period from 1900-1935, when the Supreme Court was often willing to protect property and business interests (although often in ways that stood up for individual rights of the "little guy" more than you would think, as by opposing government price fixing of HIGHER prices). In other words, there was a time when conservative judges were willing to IMPOSE conservative values on the country. The dirty little secret is that there was more REASON for this view of the Constitution than there is for the leftist view of what personal views judges should impose. As Yale professor John Stuart Ely said, in a law review arcile opposing Roe v. Wade: "Anyone who honestly askes whether the framers of the Constitution were more interested in protecting property and contracts, or in protecting a woman's "right" to abortion, will not like the answer". (quote paraphrased, but accurate in capturing the meaning). The Constitutiion purposrts to PROHIBIT "impairment" of contracts. It says NOTHING about abortion.
There are NO (for all intents and purposes) such "far right" conservative judges anymore, willing to dismantle the entire Fedreal Government (desirable as this might be). "Conservative" in the judiciary today--Saclia, Thomas, et. al.) means RESTRAINT--refusing to use the judiciary to impose your own views. From abortion to homosexuality, 'conservative" judges merely want to let DEMOCRACY decide. Conservative judges do not want to "prohibit" gay marriage. They just want to REJECT imposing the leftist view that gay marriage is a "right" (something the framers would have been astounded to think was part of the Constitution).
As I have said, I do not regard this as a "test" of conservatism in the Senate. It is a prefectly respctbale position, for a conservative, that the PRESIDENT appoints judges, and that the Senate should not impose its own veiws of who should be appointed. Basically, the President needs to go considerably far afied before his choice should be rejected. Now leftists are HYPOCRITES on this, as usual, in that many of them opposed judges like Aliton and Roberts solely on their "mainstream" conservative leaning (but not "far right") ideology. Therefore, I do not regard a Republican who votes for Sotomayor as some sort of traitor (although I regard most of them as traitors on other grounds--bailouts, etc.).
Would I vote for Sotomayor if I were in the Senate. Probably not. That is because I consider her a decleared RACIST. She said some SIX times, in prepared remarkds, that a "wise Latina" is will make BETTER decisons than a white male. In other words, she is arrogantly declaring herself, and her entire ethnic group, as SUPERIOR to white males. It would be unacceptable to me to vote for a person who blieves this kind of thing as a member of the Supreme Court. But leftist judges who have not been so obvious as this would vote the same way as Sotomayor.
).S. Yes, I know. The blog author (me) thinks that men THINK better than nwomen!!! To the pont that women should never have been given the vote. Note I am not saying men are "better" PEOPLE (we all know, if only from women, that "men are scum').. But men think better. You say that is horrible, and that no one would vote for me as a member of the Supreme Court? RIGHT YOU ARe (at least as to my chances of people voting fto confirm me). That is my problem In essence, that is EXACTLY what Sotomayor said--except she said that latinas were "better", instead of that males are better. WHY should a different standard apply to her than to me? Nope. I would vote against her, but repsect those who might vote the other way on the grounds that it is not the job of the Senate to keep the President from appoiting the kind of person he was elected to appoint--whether the electorate fully ralized it or not.
Thus, the only significance the Sotomayor hearing has is POLITICAL--to expose lefitists for the racist, anti-democrats that they are. For leftists, the judiciary is just a vehcile for imposing leftist IDEOLOGY on us all. Almost all leftist judges are willing to impose their views on all of us as what SHOUD be in the Constitutiion, if the framers haD only known what they were doing. In short, almost every leftist judge is a "far leftistist".
Well, you say (not being as smart as the blog author), are not "far right" judges just as bad? Is this not a power game where both sides are trying to impose their views on everybody?
Nope. There are NO "far right" judges. Do you know what a "far right" judge would be? It would be a jduge willing to declare the "right to life" as a fundamental right, and therefore our country MUST prohibit abortion. That is the true" far right" position. The moderate "right" position of judicial restraint is simply to reverse Roe v. Wade, and turn the matter back to DEMOCRACY to decide--probably in every individual state.
Yes, there was a time when "far right" judges were wllling to impose their views on the country. That was back in the period from 1900-1935, when the Supreme Court was often willing to protect property and business interests (although often in ways that stood up for individual rights of the "little guy" more than you would think, as by opposing government price fixing of HIGHER prices). In other words, there was a time when conservative judges were willing to IMPOSE conservative values on the country. The dirty little secret is that there was more REASON for this view of the Constitution than there is for the leftist view of what personal views judges should impose. As Yale professor John Stuart Ely said, in a law review arcile opposing Roe v. Wade: "Anyone who honestly askes whether the framers of the Constitution were more interested in protecting property and contracts, or in protecting a woman's "right" to abortion, will not like the answer". (quote paraphrased, but accurate in capturing the meaning). The Constitutiion purposrts to PROHIBIT "impairment" of contracts. It says NOTHING about abortion.
There are NO (for all intents and purposes) such "far right" conservative judges anymore, willing to dismantle the entire Fedreal Government (desirable as this might be). "Conservative" in the judiciary today--Saclia, Thomas, et. al.) means RESTRAINT--refusing to use the judiciary to impose your own views. From abortion to homosexuality, 'conservative" judges merely want to let DEMOCRACY decide. Conservative judges do not want to "prohibit" gay marriage. They just want to REJECT imposing the leftist view that gay marriage is a "right" (something the framers would have been astounded to think was part of the Constitution).
As I have said, I do not regard this as a "test" of conservatism in the Senate. It is a prefectly respctbale position, for a conservative, that the PRESIDENT appoints judges, and that the Senate should not impose its own veiws of who should be appointed. Basically, the President needs to go considerably far afied before his choice should be rejected. Now leftists are HYPOCRITES on this, as usual, in that many of them opposed judges like Aliton and Roberts solely on their "mainstream" conservative leaning (but not "far right") ideology. Therefore, I do not regard a Republican who votes for Sotomayor as some sort of traitor (although I regard most of them as traitors on other grounds--bailouts, etc.).
Would I vote for Sotomayor if I were in the Senate. Probably not. That is because I consider her a decleared RACIST. She said some SIX times, in prepared remarkds, that a "wise Latina" is will make BETTER decisons than a white male. In other words, she is arrogantly declaring herself, and her entire ethnic group, as SUPERIOR to white males. It would be unacceptable to me to vote for a person who blieves this kind of thing as a member of the Supreme Court. But leftist judges who have not been so obvious as this would vote the same way as Sotomayor.
).S. Yes, I know. The blog author (me) thinks that men THINK better than nwomen!!! To the pont that women should never have been given the vote. Note I am not saying men are "better" PEOPLE (we all know, if only from women, that "men are scum').. But men think better. You say that is horrible, and that no one would vote for me as a member of the Supreme Court? RIGHT YOU ARe (at least as to my chances of people voting fto confirm me). That is my problem In essence, that is EXACTLY what Sotomayor said--except she said that latinas were "better", instead of that males are better. WHY should a different standard apply to her than to me? Nope. I would vote against her, but repsect those who might vote the other way on the grounds that it is not the job of the Senate to keep the President from appoiting the kind of person he was elected to appoint--whether the electorate fully ralized it or not.
Environmentalists" IMMORAL
You think I don't "dare" call environmentalists immoral? Think again. This blog has previously shown you that environmentalists have human blod on their hands (from starving people in the name of "global warming" to killing people because of refusal to use pesticides against malaria, reducing the fight against malaria in the 21st Cetury to MOSQUITO NETTING). Of course I would dare to call these people "immoral", since they are. No, I am not talking about ALL people who call themselves "environmentalists", but neither am I talking about a small group. I am basically talking aobut every peron who regartds "global wqarming" as a "crisis" requiring us to shut down our carbon based industril civilization.
Why is this immoral? Well, I must digress to explain fully. I have previously explained how my self-image took a severe, body blow when I discovered that I am MORE of a fremiinst than most leftists. That revelation came from the treatment leftists gave, and continue to give, people like Sarah Palin, as well as the treatment they gave MY CANDIDATE, Hillary Clinton. Well, environmentalists have caused me to experience a similar revelation, and at a similar cost to my self-image. Yes, I care MORE for the world's poor than your "global warming" type environmentalist! I don't know how many more blows my self-image can take.
Yes, the willingness of invironmentalists to kill off people in Africa with malaria is part of this revelation, but only a minor part. No, this whole "global warming" scam is the major revelation. Despite attempts to turn this scam into a leftist war on the "rich" (see the blog entry a week or so ago), there is one thing that is clear about greenhouse gases. The WORLD is going to have to REMAIN POOR, or our emission of greenhouse gases is going to increase. China is right about this--not about saying it is a "rich" nation problem but about attempts to "cure" "global warming' being a way to keep the people of China (not to mention India, South America, Africa, etc.) POOR> That is the reason that major INCREASES of greenhouse has emissions are coming from China and INdia. There is no way for the people of those countries ot have a truly better standard of living, and to, at the same time, reduce worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases.
It does not matter, essentially, what the United States does. We can reduce our greenhouse gases, and it will hardly make a dent in the world's emission of greenhouse gases--so long as the economies of Cina and INdia continue to grow.
That is why environmentalists are immoral. They want to condemn the world's poor to remainging poor FOREVER. What happens if all o fthe world reaches the standard of living of the United States? Greenhouse gase emissions INCREASE. 100% guaranteed. No matter what we do--although what we do may have a role in bringing down the world economy, and immorally imposing poverty on the entire world. Paul Rodriguez asked environmentalist leftists, in California, how they expected farm workers to have a job if they refused to let farmers have WATER (for "evironmental" reasons?). Rodriguez could not understand why leftists could not see that no farms means no farm workers. Well, this is merely a small part of the overal leftist campaing against our industrial civilization. No industry means no workers. And to recue greenhouse gases worldwide means condemning the poor to remain poor. I agree with China. This is IMMORAL.
Q.E.D. Environmentalists are immmoral.
Luckily for the people o fChina, Chia has no intention of condemning its people to perpetual poverty. China will not agree to be bound by any real "global warming" restrictions. Now what China is willing to do--although even this may be short sighted--is to let the "rich" countries of the West, like the United States, destroy THEIR econmies on the cross of "global warming". Unfornately for China, this might hutr the market for Chinese goods, and sink the world economy. But China evidently thinks it would be worth it to ensure Chinese dominance of the Earth.
Now the world is no longer "warming"--making this all a complete fraud on the part of leftist environmentalists. That is because the SUN has more effect on the mythical "temperature of the Earth" than does any of man's actiivities. Further, if we really regarded "global warming" as a "crisis", there are CRISIS measures we could take (without destroying the world's economy and doooming the world's poor to a lifetime of misery, starvation, and early death). We could spread reflective surfaces acroos areas of the Earth. Don't laugh. At least one city--I don't think in the U.S., but I don't remember exactly--now REQUIRES the roofs of houses to be WHITE> We could do a lot better than that in spreading reflective material over substantial areas--even possibly in space. We could throw particles into the atmosphere to simulate a volcano.
Now the above "risis" measures would be a DISASTER if the world is now COOLING (as it may now be). They might trigger an ICE AGE. However, if we really regarded "global warming" as a "criis", thhere are things we can do which do not destroy our industrial civilization--condemning the world's ppor to that life of perpetual misery. And for you leftists who think that the United States, and other "rich" nations", can TAKE CARE of the poor of the entire world, I have nothing but pity, God only knows what substances you have to be on, or what congenital brain damage you have to have, to think that badly. The ONLY way for "poor" natiions to become "rich" is to improve their own economies. That means emitting MORE greenhouse gases.
I have said before, and will continue to say (because it is true): I we are DOOMED in the event we don't reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, then we are DOOOMED. That is because the WORLD (the only thing that matters here) is not going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
All is not lost, unless Al Gore is your high priest. As stated, the world is no longer warming, FOR ANY REASON (mcuh less the activities of man), and we are probably not doomed. If, by some miracle, Al Gore is right, then we ARE dommed. No measures now seriously contemplated by the countries of the world. would change that, since none would really reduce the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases (unless the economy of the world is truly ruined, in which case envrionmentalists may have the death of BILLIONS on their hands--blood indeed).
Why is this immoral? Well, I must digress to explain fully. I have previously explained how my self-image took a severe, body blow when I discovered that I am MORE of a fremiinst than most leftists. That revelation came from the treatment leftists gave, and continue to give, people like Sarah Palin, as well as the treatment they gave MY CANDIDATE, Hillary Clinton. Well, environmentalists have caused me to experience a similar revelation, and at a similar cost to my self-image. Yes, I care MORE for the world's poor than your "global warming" type environmentalist! I don't know how many more blows my self-image can take.
Yes, the willingness of invironmentalists to kill off people in Africa with malaria is part of this revelation, but only a minor part. No, this whole "global warming" scam is the major revelation. Despite attempts to turn this scam into a leftist war on the "rich" (see the blog entry a week or so ago), there is one thing that is clear about greenhouse gases. The WORLD is going to have to REMAIN POOR, or our emission of greenhouse gases is going to increase. China is right about this--not about saying it is a "rich" nation problem but about attempts to "cure" "global warming' being a way to keep the people of China (not to mention India, South America, Africa, etc.) POOR> That is the reason that major INCREASES of greenhouse has emissions are coming from China and INdia. There is no way for the people of those countries ot have a truly better standard of living, and to, at the same time, reduce worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases.
It does not matter, essentially, what the United States does. We can reduce our greenhouse gases, and it will hardly make a dent in the world's emission of greenhouse gases--so long as the economies of Cina and INdia continue to grow.
That is why environmentalists are immoral. They want to condemn the world's poor to remainging poor FOREVER. What happens if all o fthe world reaches the standard of living of the United States? Greenhouse gase emissions INCREASE. 100% guaranteed. No matter what we do--although what we do may have a role in bringing down the world economy, and immorally imposing poverty on the entire world. Paul Rodriguez asked environmentalist leftists, in California, how they expected farm workers to have a job if they refused to let farmers have WATER (for "evironmental" reasons?). Rodriguez could not understand why leftists could not see that no farms means no farm workers. Well, this is merely a small part of the overal leftist campaing against our industrial civilization. No industry means no workers. And to recue greenhouse gases worldwide means condemning the poor to remain poor. I agree with China. This is IMMORAL.
Q.E.D. Environmentalists are immmoral.
Luckily for the people o fChina, Chia has no intention of condemning its people to perpetual poverty. China will not agree to be bound by any real "global warming" restrictions. Now what China is willing to do--although even this may be short sighted--is to let the "rich" countries of the West, like the United States, destroy THEIR econmies on the cross of "global warming". Unfornately for China, this might hutr the market for Chinese goods, and sink the world economy. But China evidently thinks it would be worth it to ensure Chinese dominance of the Earth.
Now the world is no longer "warming"--making this all a complete fraud on the part of leftist environmentalists. That is because the SUN has more effect on the mythical "temperature of the Earth" than does any of man's actiivities. Further, if we really regarded "global warming" as a "crisis", there are CRISIS measures we could take (without destroying the world's economy and doooming the world's poor to a lifetime of misery, starvation, and early death). We could spread reflective surfaces acroos areas of the Earth. Don't laugh. At least one city--I don't think in the U.S., but I don't remember exactly--now REQUIRES the roofs of houses to be WHITE> We could do a lot better than that in spreading reflective material over substantial areas--even possibly in space. We could throw particles into the atmosphere to simulate a volcano.
Now the above "risis" measures would be a DISASTER if the world is now COOLING (as it may now be). They might trigger an ICE AGE. However, if we really regarded "global warming" as a "criis", thhere are things we can do which do not destroy our industrial civilization--condemning the world's ppor to that life of perpetual misery. And for you leftists who think that the United States, and other "rich" nations", can TAKE CARE of the poor of the entire world, I have nothing but pity, God only knows what substances you have to be on, or what congenital brain damage you have to have, to think that badly. The ONLY way for "poor" natiions to become "rich" is to improve their own economies. That means emitting MORE greenhouse gases.
I have said before, and will continue to say (because it is true): I we are DOOMED in the event we don't reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, then we are DOOOMED. That is because the WORLD (the only thing that matters here) is not going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
All is not lost, unless Al Gore is your high priest. As stated, the world is no longer warming, FOR ANY REASON (mcuh less the activities of man), and we are probably not doomed. If, by some miracle, Al Gore is right, then we ARE dommed. No measures now seriously contemplated by the countries of the world. would change that, since none would really reduce the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases (unless the economy of the world is truly ruined, in which case envrionmentalists may have the death of BILLIONS on their hands--blood indeed).
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Michael Moore: Sicko
The title does NOT directly refer to Michael Moore's "movie" titled "Sicko". It refers to Michael Moore himself. Michael Moore is one sick, anti-American individual--consumed by hate and bitterness amounting to self-loathing (along with loathing of everything about his own country). Yes, Micharel Moore HATES. He hates his own country. He hates profits. He hates business. He hates capitalism. He hates free markets. He hates insurance companies (a trait he sort of shares with me). He hates what he perceives to be the American psyche (see "Bowling for Columbine", which was an ANTI-AMERICAN movie, and NOT an "anti-gun" movie--see my review in the archives of this blog). In short, Michael Moore HATES. That hatred has consumed him, and he now consists of nothing else.
This cannot be a review of "Sicko", the movie. I only saw l0 minutes of that (with the fasciantion of one watching a train wreckk), and only because I happpened to see it on my cable "guide" and was curious. I can review MIchael Moore with fairness. He is a hating sicko. I cannot review "Sicko" with fairness, but I can make some observations.
Michale Moore is no longer funny. He has always been a bitter, unfair hater. But once upon a time he could be hysterically funny--at times. He has lost the humor, because his bitterness and hate has consumed him.
Michael Moore is incapable of understanding an issue. Back when he was funny, he could effectively ridicule people--playing an ad hominem game instead of actually "debating" an issue. Michael Moore has never been interested in debate. He makes the mistake of being numbingly serious in "Sicko" (the ten minutes I saw), and thuse totally exposs hhis intellectual deficiencies.
Michael Moore wants "universal health care" Of course, he seems to fail to recognize that we HAVE "universal health care". What we don't have is universal halth INSURANCE. Every single person in this country can receive health care. Go to the emergency room and see if you will be turned away. The poor have Medicaid. The elederly have Medicare. The middle class have a problem, but it is a problem of MONEY (staying in the middle class), and not a problem of receiving health care. That, of course, is a "universal" Big Lie of the left--that we do not have a from of "universal health care"--and not a particular intellectual deficiency of Michael Moore.
Where Michael Moore shows himself incapable of understanding an issue is the way he comes at his goal by ATTACKING "villains". How can that be dumb? Is not that the standard tactic of the left? Yep, but Michael Moore no longer does it effectively.
He attacks HMOs because they allegedly put money ahead of "care", and Michael Moore---in classic Michael Moore fashion--tries to tar HMOs by noting that they started with the devil himself (otherwise known as Richard Nixon).
Problem for Miichael Moore (and it was an OBVIOUS problem in the material I heard): HMOs were supposed to provide MANAGED CARE, in a "central planning" manner, as an alternative to the "inefficient" health insurance "system". This was supposed to provide PREVENTIVE care, and lower costs. Does that remind you of antything? It should. It represents the very same arguments in favor of "universal health care" provided by the goverrnment. In fact, HMOs represented basically a LEFTIST approach to health care. Now Moore may be right that this was an attempt to head off "socialized medicine" by providing something of the same thing through private companies, but Moore's attacks on HMOs still represent attacks on UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.
What is "universal health care"? Right. It is MANAGED CARE, where the bloated bureaucracy of the Federal Government does the "managing". "Universal health care" IS an HMO. The HMO is the Federal Government. Every criticism Moore makes of HMOs applies in spades to the massive HMO that is Federal Government provided health care.. Decisions made by bureaucrats based on cost rather than on care? What else do you think is happening NOW with Medicare and Medicaid? How stupid do you have to be to believe that bureaucrats of the Federal Government will be BETTER than bureaucrats of HMOs in terms of desregarding cost in faovr of care? I can answer that!!! You have to be as dumb as that sicko, Michael Moore. Moore even has the nerve to say that the goal of HMOs was to MANAGE COSTS rather than care. What does Moore think President Obama is saying about government health care? Right. It is the way to MANAGE COSTS. In fact, that has been the emphasis of Obama in those "deals" with hospitals and other parts of the health care industry.
EVERY argument against HMOs is an argument against "uhiversal health care" run by government bureaucrats. No, I did NOT forget about "profit" (THE dirty word for Micharel Moore AND for President Obama, not to mention leftists in general). Sure, HMOs have to make a profit to continue to exist. The government can PRINT MONEY. But does that mean that "profit" provides more "incentive" for sub-standard care? Dont be silly!!!! In a government bureaucracy, so much money is siponed off for the BUREACRATS, and the people otherwise feeding off of the government tit--getting that government money to stick to their sticky fingers--that it makes HMO "profit" look positively benign. How does the government make up for the massive waste, corrlution and inefficiency inevitable in a bloated, central planning system? Easy. CONTROL COSTS. DIMINISH CARE. The very things that Moore says happens with HMOs, and which would happen--in spades--with the ultimate HMO known as the Federal Government. But there is no check on the Federal Government. They can print money, and then lower the boom on care. It is hard to sue. You would not know it from Michael Mooore, but HMOs can be sued. If health care providers are merely complying with Federal regulatons, they can't really be sued.
Then there is the corruptionn. Moore rightly notes that money and power CORRUPT. What he fails to realize, because he is Michael Moore, is that this is an argument AGAINST universal health care. The more powerful the Federal Government becomes, the MORE corruptiong there is, and the more DAMAGE that corruption does. The idea that politicians will suddenly be "honest" simply because the government runs everything is absurd. Where the Federal Government becomes the SOURCE of almost all weath, which is where we are headed, the CORRUPUTION inevitably becomes WORSE> Too much power. Too much money. Too little accoutability (not necessarily because of lack of effort, but because the government has become TOO BIG for individuals t be held to account).
Nope. From what I saw, Michael Moore was making one of the most effective arguments AGAINST the huge HMO know as the FEderal Government that I have ver seen. And he did not even recognize it.
Okay. Way too much time on Michael Moore. I think everyone recognizes him as a sicko, outside of the loony left. The reason I spent so much time on him is not Michael Moore, but because his lies and deceptions revel more about the supposedly "non-loony" left than they would have you believe. They are really no better than Michael Moore. It is just that the bitterness and hatred is a little better disguised (in President Obama, for example), and their hatred for ordinary American values not quite so obvious.
P.S. You want to know how Michael Moore LIES? Okay, I will tell you one lie. In that 10 minutes, Moore used a CANCER patient as an example (who was CURED in the U.S., but had to pay MONEY--horrors!!!!). In that same 10 minues Moore said that U.S. health care was 37th in the world (an outright, despicable LIE, and Moore knows it). Well, this blog has previously cited the most extensive study of cancer treatment ever done--a SEDISH study that made major headlines in Great Britain. That study found that the U.S. was one of the BEST in the world at getting new cancer drugs to patients (ALL patients). Great Britain (with "universal health care") was one of the WORST. The British press directly laid the blame on the National Health Service in Britain. It is not ME who is calling MIchael Moore a LIAR. It is the authors of this DEFINNITVE Swedish study, covering many countire, and it is the British press. Again, you can see the archives of this blog for the entry on the Swedish study. Michael Moore, of course, made NO "study". He simply looked for individual examples of people not satisified with their health care. If you don't understand the logical fallacy in that, and the LIE, then you are as dumb as Michael Moore--except, I think, that Michael Moore DOES understand the lie here. He just does not care. He hates this country, and capitalism, too much to care about whehter his own arguments make any sense. Michael Moore does not CARE that that Swedish study, and the British Press, accused the British National Health Service of KILLINg thousands of people each year.
This cannot be a review of "Sicko", the movie. I only saw l0 minutes of that (with the fasciantion of one watching a train wreckk), and only because I happpened to see it on my cable "guide" and was curious. I can review MIchael Moore with fairness. He is a hating sicko. I cannot review "Sicko" with fairness, but I can make some observations.
Michale Moore is no longer funny. He has always been a bitter, unfair hater. But once upon a time he could be hysterically funny--at times. He has lost the humor, because his bitterness and hate has consumed him.
Michael Moore is incapable of understanding an issue. Back when he was funny, he could effectively ridicule people--playing an ad hominem game instead of actually "debating" an issue. Michael Moore has never been interested in debate. He makes the mistake of being numbingly serious in "Sicko" (the ten minutes I saw), and thuse totally exposs hhis intellectual deficiencies.
Michael Moore wants "universal health care" Of course, he seems to fail to recognize that we HAVE "universal health care". What we don't have is universal halth INSURANCE. Every single person in this country can receive health care. Go to the emergency room and see if you will be turned away. The poor have Medicaid. The elederly have Medicare. The middle class have a problem, but it is a problem of MONEY (staying in the middle class), and not a problem of receiving health care. That, of course, is a "universal" Big Lie of the left--that we do not have a from of "universal health care"--and not a particular intellectual deficiency of Michael Moore.
Where Michael Moore shows himself incapable of understanding an issue is the way he comes at his goal by ATTACKING "villains". How can that be dumb? Is not that the standard tactic of the left? Yep, but Michael Moore no longer does it effectively.
He attacks HMOs because they allegedly put money ahead of "care", and Michael Moore---in classic Michael Moore fashion--tries to tar HMOs by noting that they started with the devil himself (otherwise known as Richard Nixon).
Problem for Miichael Moore (and it was an OBVIOUS problem in the material I heard): HMOs were supposed to provide MANAGED CARE, in a "central planning" manner, as an alternative to the "inefficient" health insurance "system". This was supposed to provide PREVENTIVE care, and lower costs. Does that remind you of antything? It should. It represents the very same arguments in favor of "universal health care" provided by the goverrnment. In fact, HMOs represented basically a LEFTIST approach to health care. Now Moore may be right that this was an attempt to head off "socialized medicine" by providing something of the same thing through private companies, but Moore's attacks on HMOs still represent attacks on UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.
What is "universal health care"? Right. It is MANAGED CARE, where the bloated bureaucracy of the Federal Government does the "managing". "Universal health care" IS an HMO. The HMO is the Federal Government. Every criticism Moore makes of HMOs applies in spades to the massive HMO that is Federal Government provided health care.. Decisions made by bureaucrats based on cost rather than on care? What else do you think is happening NOW with Medicare and Medicaid? How stupid do you have to be to believe that bureaucrats of the Federal Government will be BETTER than bureaucrats of HMOs in terms of desregarding cost in faovr of care? I can answer that!!! You have to be as dumb as that sicko, Michael Moore. Moore even has the nerve to say that the goal of HMOs was to MANAGE COSTS rather than care. What does Moore think President Obama is saying about government health care? Right. It is the way to MANAGE COSTS. In fact, that has been the emphasis of Obama in those "deals" with hospitals and other parts of the health care industry.
EVERY argument against HMOs is an argument against "uhiversal health care" run by government bureaucrats. No, I did NOT forget about "profit" (THE dirty word for Micharel Moore AND for President Obama, not to mention leftists in general). Sure, HMOs have to make a profit to continue to exist. The government can PRINT MONEY. But does that mean that "profit" provides more "incentive" for sub-standard care? Dont be silly!!!! In a government bureaucracy, so much money is siponed off for the BUREACRATS, and the people otherwise feeding off of the government tit--getting that government money to stick to their sticky fingers--that it makes HMO "profit" look positively benign. How does the government make up for the massive waste, corrlution and inefficiency inevitable in a bloated, central planning system? Easy. CONTROL COSTS. DIMINISH CARE. The very things that Moore says happens with HMOs, and which would happen--in spades--with the ultimate HMO known as the Federal Government. But there is no check on the Federal Government. They can print money, and then lower the boom on care. It is hard to sue. You would not know it from Michael Mooore, but HMOs can be sued. If health care providers are merely complying with Federal regulatons, they can't really be sued.
Then there is the corruptionn. Moore rightly notes that money and power CORRUPT. What he fails to realize, because he is Michael Moore, is that this is an argument AGAINST universal health care. The more powerful the Federal Government becomes, the MORE corruptiong there is, and the more DAMAGE that corruption does. The idea that politicians will suddenly be "honest" simply because the government runs everything is absurd. Where the Federal Government becomes the SOURCE of almost all weath, which is where we are headed, the CORRUPUTION inevitably becomes WORSE> Too much power. Too much money. Too little accoutability (not necessarily because of lack of effort, but because the government has become TOO BIG for individuals t be held to account).
Nope. From what I saw, Michael Moore was making one of the most effective arguments AGAINST the huge HMO know as the FEderal Government that I have ver seen. And he did not even recognize it.
Okay. Way too much time on Michael Moore. I think everyone recognizes him as a sicko, outside of the loony left. The reason I spent so much time on him is not Michael Moore, but because his lies and deceptions revel more about the supposedly "non-loony" left than they would have you believe. They are really no better than Michael Moore. It is just that the bitterness and hatred is a little better disguised (in President Obama, for example), and their hatred for ordinary American values not quite so obvious.
P.S. You want to know how Michael Moore LIES? Okay, I will tell you one lie. In that 10 minutes, Moore used a CANCER patient as an example (who was CURED in the U.S., but had to pay MONEY--horrors!!!!). In that same 10 minues Moore said that U.S. health care was 37th in the world (an outright, despicable LIE, and Moore knows it). Well, this blog has previously cited the most extensive study of cancer treatment ever done--a SEDISH study that made major headlines in Great Britain. That study found that the U.S. was one of the BEST in the world at getting new cancer drugs to patients (ALL patients). Great Britain (with "universal health care") was one of the WORST. The British press directly laid the blame on the National Health Service in Britain. It is not ME who is calling MIchael Moore a LIAR. It is the authors of this DEFINNITVE Swedish study, covering many countire, and it is the British press. Again, you can see the archives of this blog for the entry on the Swedish study. Michael Moore, of course, made NO "study". He simply looked for individual examples of people not satisified with their health care. If you don't understand the logical fallacy in that, and the LIE, then you are as dumb as Michael Moore--except, I think, that Michael Moore DOES understand the lie here. He just does not care. He hates this country, and capitalism, too much to care about whehter his own arguments make any sense. Michael Moore does not CARE that that Swedish study, and the British Press, accused the British National Health Service of KILLINg thousands of people each year.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Penn and Teller: Bullshit; and "Acts of Betrayal"
Don Imus, and his nerdy, gross, dofous brother, Fred, once did a book of perfectly decent landscape PTHOTGRAPHS. Nope. It was NOT a joke. These were seriously meant lphotographs, if unexiting. However, Don and Fred Imus totally UNDERMINED the idea of anyone taking their photographs seriously--in what I regard as perhaps the ultimate attempt to HYPE sales of a book with an indefesnible gimmick. No, I did NOT buy the book--not being a total idiot--but I did browse through the (thin) volume at Barnes and Noblle.
If you have any knowledge of Don Imus, you KNOW what he did to hype sales of a book very few would otherwise buy. Basically, with every photograph you got a caption/commenttray using the F--- word ("fuck", for the single church gig grandmother out there who has never encountered the word, and I am not sure about her). Did this add ANLYTHING to the photgrpahs? Not a chance. The comentary was NOT "funny". It was merely meant to "shock", and satisfy Imsu fans that they were getting something "hip" and "adult" Of course, it merely proved that Dno and Fred Imus are JUVENILE, immature and shallow--and left being "hip" decades ago.
I just saw Penn and Teller's Showtime prgram for the first tie (since I don't usually get Showtime). Let me asy that I like the irreverence of Penn and Teller, just as I used to like Imus' radio program (if not consistently), where he was froced NOT to use the F--- word by FCC rules.
But what Penn and Teller have done with "Bullshit" is to take "Mythbusters", and try to make it "hip" and "adut" by having Penn use the F--- word about every other sentence. Does this ADD anything? Nope. As with the Imus photographs, it only SUBTRACTS from any real point t the program. It is juvenile and silly, and UNDERMINES the program.
The show I saw debunked astrology, as I have done in this blog. Yar are a kook if you believe in astrology, or use it to make ANY serious decision. The charlatans who practice astrology "seriously" can do major damage to lpeople who pay attention to their "readings". Penn and Teller (who, of course, never talks) ridiculed astrology effectively ,EXCEPT for throwing in the F--- word every other sentence. Then there was the gratuitous exposure of two breasts at the end of the lprogram. WHY is it that original cable programs feel COMPELLED to scream out: "SEE, we are on CABLE< and we can be ADULT." It merely proves they are not adult. If you think the mere use of the F--- word is eithr funny or shocking, I am sorry for you. Rating for TV show: 59.
I only give it that high a rating because Peen and Teller were dead on in the substance of their program, if only they did not mess it up trying to be "hip" and "adult". Peen even quotes James Randi (The Amazing Randi"), who is one of my favorite people of all time. He has debunked--totally successfully--pseudo-science and "paranormal" "abilities" of all kinds for decades. He exposed Uri Geller as a total fraud. You are a kook if you put Uri Geller on your program as an expert on the MIND. Ype., Doug Stephan: YOU ARE A KOOK--one of the stupidest kooks it has ever been my misfortune to encounter on the radio.
Penn and Teller are too intelligent for this Imus-style pandering. Too bad. I know. The "concept" probably sold the program. Did I say that cable executives were less than juvenile and stupid? I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they were anything else. Showtime, this means YOU (and HBO, and all of "adult" cable--Hell, all of CABLE, whether "adult" or "news" or whatever). I am talking about the "original" programming. The old movies on TCM are great, so long as you avoid the TCM leftist social commentary and "original" programming (sows on feminism, race, and similar things, as they were portrayed in the movies).
"Acts of Betrayal" may be the best movie Maria Conchita Alonso ever made (rating 76). I MUST be forgetting some really good movie she made. but mostly she was in pretty bad ones. Why is this "review" in this entry on Penn and Teller? It is here because Maria Conchita Alonso,. in "Acts of Betrayal", made Penn (in "Bullshit") look like a choir boy. From the beginning of the movie until the end, she carried on a non-stop monologue consisting of the foulest languate you have ever heard. She could not open her mouth without the F--- word being the least of the foul words and images she assaulted the world (and the FBI agent trying to protect her) with. Her language was much worse than that to the mall cp in "Observe and Report" (rating 1--that is ONE out of 100). But "Acts of Betrayal" was a very entertainging movie (so long as the language does not put you off). In vact, "Acts of Betrayal" is the ONLY movie I have ever seen where use of the F---- word, and foul language, had a real PURPOSE. In fact, every stand up comedian I have ever seen in a comic club has failed this test: NO purpose to their (compulsory?) use of the F--- word as an Imus-type filler. Whether funny or not funny, I have never seen the F--- word itself provide humor to a comic act. I gess it COULD, if there were a purpose (like in "Acts of Betrayal"), but there never is any purpose.
What is the prupose of the foul language in "Acts of Betrayal"? Well, you know the plot of "Acts of Betrayal". You have seen it many times before. There is this FBI agent assigned to protect this witness against a high placed criminal from the forces out to kill her. What makes the movie is the contrast between the totally anal, straight arrow FBI man and the totally profane, if beautiful, Maria Conchita Alonso. It is funny (funnier than Penn's use of the same language, and than all of those comics trying to be "hip" and "adult"). Further, in its B-movie way, it was somewhat profound. Is language the true test of right and wrong--the true test of character? Obviously, it is not. But you do NOT get that message from "Bullshit". You DO get that message from "Acts of Betrayal", which also conveys the message that merely because a person has a "straight arrow" moral code does not necessarily mean a lack of "worldliness" becaue of senseless internal repression. It is the TENSION between different points of view that matters, and makes "Acts of Betrayl" a pretty good movie.
Too bad the use of the F--- word so rarely has any purpose. There was a time (a LONG time ago) when it had a limited "shock" value. It no longer even has that. "Cather in the Rye" (J.D. Salinger), and a few others: you can count on one hand--two at most--the books and movies that use foul language to a purpose.
What about "realism"? Yes, I was in the army, and a movie about miliatary personnel that does not include foul language is not "realistic". So what. People scrach themselves. People pick their nose. The problem with this kind of "realism" is that it DISTRACTS from the real point. "From Here to Eternity": Would it really be a better movie with the F--- word every other sentence? I don't think so. Oh, I don't mind this sort of "realism", where the language is not totatlly gratuitous. I just don't think it is essential to much of anything. "Realism" certainly does not justify the gratuitous, distracting use of the F--- word in Bullshit, or in the Imus book of photographs (or by all of that myriad of comics who all seem to have learned from Eddie Murphy).
The language in "Acts of Betrayal" had a purpose. Mostly, such language has no purpose (including when we use it in our daily lives). You could just as effectively use "bleeping", or "fricking"--or ANY arbitrary word. P.G. Wodehouse made this point in at least one of his stories, many decades ago.
"Bullshit" is not much worth seeing, despite the manifest intelligence of Penn and Teller.
If you have any knowledge of Don Imus, you KNOW what he did to hype sales of a book very few would otherwise buy. Basically, with every photograph you got a caption/commenttray using the F--- word ("fuck", for the single church gig grandmother out there who has never encountered the word, and I am not sure about her). Did this add ANLYTHING to the photgrpahs? Not a chance. The comentary was NOT "funny". It was merely meant to "shock", and satisfy Imsu fans that they were getting something "hip" and "adult" Of course, it merely proved that Dno and Fred Imus are JUVENILE, immature and shallow--and left being "hip" decades ago.
I just saw Penn and Teller's Showtime prgram for the first tie (since I don't usually get Showtime). Let me asy that I like the irreverence of Penn and Teller, just as I used to like Imus' radio program (if not consistently), where he was froced NOT to use the F--- word by FCC rules.
But what Penn and Teller have done with "Bullshit" is to take "Mythbusters", and try to make it "hip" and "adut" by having Penn use the F--- word about every other sentence. Does this ADD anything? Nope. As with the Imus photographs, it only SUBTRACTS from any real point t the program. It is juvenile and silly, and UNDERMINES the program.
The show I saw debunked astrology, as I have done in this blog. Yar are a kook if you believe in astrology, or use it to make ANY serious decision. The charlatans who practice astrology "seriously" can do major damage to lpeople who pay attention to their "readings". Penn and Teller (who, of course, never talks) ridiculed astrology effectively ,EXCEPT for throwing in the F--- word every other sentence. Then there was the gratuitous exposure of two breasts at the end of the lprogram. WHY is it that original cable programs feel COMPELLED to scream out: "SEE, we are on CABLE< and we can be ADULT." It merely proves they are not adult. If you think the mere use of the F--- word is eithr funny or shocking, I am sorry for you. Rating for TV show: 59.
I only give it that high a rating because Peen and Teller were dead on in the substance of their program, if only they did not mess it up trying to be "hip" and "adult". Peen even quotes James Randi (The Amazing Randi"), who is one of my favorite people of all time. He has debunked--totally successfully--pseudo-science and "paranormal" "abilities" of all kinds for decades. He exposed Uri Geller as a total fraud. You are a kook if you put Uri Geller on your program as an expert on the MIND. Ype., Doug Stephan: YOU ARE A KOOK--one of the stupidest kooks it has ever been my misfortune to encounter on the radio.
Penn and Teller are too intelligent for this Imus-style pandering. Too bad. I know. The "concept" probably sold the program. Did I say that cable executives were less than juvenile and stupid? I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they were anything else. Showtime, this means YOU (and HBO, and all of "adult" cable--Hell, all of CABLE, whether "adult" or "news" or whatever). I am talking about the "original" programming. The old movies on TCM are great, so long as you avoid the TCM leftist social commentary and "original" programming (sows on feminism, race, and similar things, as they were portrayed in the movies).
"Acts of Betrayal" may be the best movie Maria Conchita Alonso ever made (rating 76). I MUST be forgetting some really good movie she made. but mostly she was in pretty bad ones. Why is this "review" in this entry on Penn and Teller? It is here because Maria Conchita Alonso,. in "Acts of Betrayal", made Penn (in "Bullshit") look like a choir boy. From the beginning of the movie until the end, she carried on a non-stop monologue consisting of the foulest languate you have ever heard. She could not open her mouth without the F--- word being the least of the foul words and images she assaulted the world (and the FBI agent trying to protect her) with. Her language was much worse than that to the mall cp in "Observe and Report" (rating 1--that is ONE out of 100). But "Acts of Betrayal" was a very entertainging movie (so long as the language does not put you off). In vact, "Acts of Betrayal" is the ONLY movie I have ever seen where use of the F---- word, and foul language, had a real PURPOSE. In fact, every stand up comedian I have ever seen in a comic club has failed this test: NO purpose to their (compulsory?) use of the F--- word as an Imus-type filler. Whether funny or not funny, I have never seen the F--- word itself provide humor to a comic act. I gess it COULD, if there were a purpose (like in "Acts of Betrayal"), but there never is any purpose.
What is the prupose of the foul language in "Acts of Betrayal"? Well, you know the plot of "Acts of Betrayal". You have seen it many times before. There is this FBI agent assigned to protect this witness against a high placed criminal from the forces out to kill her. What makes the movie is the contrast between the totally anal, straight arrow FBI man and the totally profane, if beautiful, Maria Conchita Alonso. It is funny (funnier than Penn's use of the same language, and than all of those comics trying to be "hip" and "adult"). Further, in its B-movie way, it was somewhat profound. Is language the true test of right and wrong--the true test of character? Obviously, it is not. But you do NOT get that message from "Bullshit". You DO get that message from "Acts of Betrayal", which also conveys the message that merely because a person has a "straight arrow" moral code does not necessarily mean a lack of "worldliness" becaue of senseless internal repression. It is the TENSION between different points of view that matters, and makes "Acts of Betrayl" a pretty good movie.
Too bad the use of the F--- word so rarely has any purpose. There was a time (a LONG time ago) when it had a limited "shock" value. It no longer even has that. "Cather in the Rye" (J.D. Salinger), and a few others: you can count on one hand--two at most--the books and movies that use foul language to a purpose.
What about "realism"? Yes, I was in the army, and a movie about miliatary personnel that does not include foul language is not "realistic". So what. People scrach themselves. People pick their nose. The problem with this kind of "realism" is that it DISTRACTS from the real point. "From Here to Eternity": Would it really be a better movie with the F--- word every other sentence? I don't think so. Oh, I don't mind this sort of "realism", where the language is not totatlly gratuitous. I just don't think it is essential to much of anything. "Realism" certainly does not justify the gratuitous, distracting use of the F--- word in Bullshit, or in the Imus book of photographs (or by all of that myriad of comics who all seem to have learned from Eddie Murphy).
The language in "Acts of Betrayal" had a purpose. Mostly, such language has no purpose (including when we use it in our daily lives). You could just as effectively use "bleeping", or "fricking"--or ANY arbitrary word. P.G. Wodehouse made this point in at least one of his stories, many decades ago.
"Bullshit" is not much worth seeing, despite the manifest intelligence of Penn and Teller.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wal-Mart: Convert to Economic Fascism ("A Government Big Enough To Give You Everythig You Want Is Big Enough...........")
We have to define "economic fascism" again, because people hear "fascism" and think Hitler. "Economic fascims" is defined as a central planning "partnership" between Big Goveenment and Big Business to control the economy--which means basically to CONTROL every aspect of your life. Think "energy audit" by a Federal Government employee befor you can sell your home. Think of the fascists at IBM using computers to tell you when you can turn on oyr lights, or otherwise control the way you use electricity in your own home. Anoter definition (by someone else) of "economic fascism": "Socialism with a capitalist veneer".
It does not have anything to do with Hitler's "Final Solution", but it is true that this kind of central plainning, Big Government control inevitably leads to a LOSS OF FREEDOM. Central planners need to CONTROL. Control is the essence of central planning See, again, Orwell's "1984", which shows you exactly where this leads. To complete the quote in the title (from Thomas Jefferson, I think, although there is a--gold!!!!--commercial out there attributing it to that great thinker, Gerald Ford); A government big benough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
Yep. Wal-Mart is the latest convert to economic fascism. One of those stories last week was that Wal-Mart had come out in favor of MANDATORY (on a Federal level) employer health insurance. It is difficult for me to shop at another store (no car, and Wal-Mart in walking distance), but I feel like saying: BOYCOTT WAL-MART. As you know, I have already told you to BOYCOTT IBM, and later "global warming" events have altready proven I was right to declare IBM lost to economic fascism.
Why did Wal-Mart, which has not been a model of providing great benefits for employees and has fought unionization, come out for ECONMIC FASCISM? Easy. Wal-Mart knows it is in the cross-hairs, and wants to USE the government to "save" itself. Wal-Mart is BIG. If EVERY employer is required to have expensive health insurance, does that help or hurt Wal-Mart? It HELPS Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart can better afford it than its comeptitors. Further, it HELPS Wal-Mart avoid unionization, while the mere advocacy of this Big Brother approach to killing our economy enables Wal-Mart (with crocodile tears) to claim "concern" for employees. If the GOVERNMENT is FORCING employers to provide a certain kind of helath care, why do employees need UNIONS?
I got this informatiion abut Wal-Mart from Paul Gigot on Fox this past Saturday. Paul Gigot's reaction: "Conservatives are dluded if they consider big business as their natural ally."
Exactly right. Business empire people BELIEVE IN CENTRAL PLANNING. They just want to be part of the POWER GROUP, and to control the central planning in the way they want. To them, "economic fascism" is extremly, irresistably seductive.
But conservatives, INCLUDING THE WALL STREET "CONSERVATIVES" AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, where Gigot works, fail to take the next step. The reason is obvious, in the case of people at the Wall Street Journal, because that is a "special interest" paper which considers its "job" as representing Wall Street (mostly fascist, these days). It is not so clear why other conservatives are so blind.
Yep. This Wal-Mart story, and Gigot's correct reaction, is yet more proof of what this blog has told you for years: Big Business empires, especially those caused by MERGER, are the worst threat faced by conservatism. They not only contradict free market theory, but the business empires are then USED by leftists to impose Big Government on us. Look what has happened! Not only has "too big to fail" resulted in the present vast expansion of government, but the Obama Administration is now directly USING Big Business as a central planning partner. It does not matter that big business will regret it. The damage will be done.
Now Wal-Mart is a little different than most big American corporations. It basically became big by efficiency, rather than Big Mergers. That does not change that big mergers are a DISASTER for conserastives, and for the country. "Too big to fail" has PROVEN that. It does not matter, however, that Wal-Mart became big by operating efficiently. It now wants to STAY BIG, and get bigger, by USING government--by embracing this economic fascism whereby Big Government and Big Business become PARTNERS. If that does not scare you to death, you do not know what is going on.
Why do Wall Street, and the Wall Street Journal, like big mergers? You know the answer to that one. In the short run (if you think this is true in the long run, consider "too big to fail" again, and the FAILURE of big business central planning), mergers HELP stock prices. Further, mergers generate BIG FEES for invetment bankers/brokerage houses. That is why Paul Gigot refuses to take the logical step of condeming big mergers, and acknowledging the pubic policy idiocy of alowing big mergers to occur. Big Drug and Big Oil have been CREATED by big mergers, and it has been a DISASTR for conservatism. Why conservatives outside of Wall Strett do not see this is beyond me, other than they have a knee jerk reaction to government "interference". Note that stopping big mergers does not represent government interference in ANY BUSINESS. It merely protects the free market from destruction. In other words, that type of "interference" represents ony interferene with Wall Street, and corporate empire builders who do not believe in free markets, rather than "interfernce" in the freem markets themselves.
Until conservatives realize that bug business empires, especailly those created by merger, have the same central planning defects as Big Government, conservatism has a big problem. As Paul Gigot says, the Big Government and Big Business are "natural allies", until (like Hitler and Stalin) they eventually fall out and government dominates. That combination is presently KILLING consrvatism, and yet conservatives refuse to come to the logical conclusion that big businesss is the enemy of conservatism.
It is not the enemy the way leftists perceive big business to be the "enemy"--an "exploiter" of workers and other people that needs to be NCONTROLLED as part of an overall central planning empire. Big Business is the enemy of conservatism simply because it is so very SIMILAR to Big Gvovernment, and inevitably leads to Big Government (to address "too big to fail" and all of the rest).
It does not have anything to do with Hitler's "Final Solution", but it is true that this kind of central plainning, Big Government control inevitably leads to a LOSS OF FREEDOM. Central planners need to CONTROL. Control is the essence of central planning See, again, Orwell's "1984", which shows you exactly where this leads. To complete the quote in the title (from Thomas Jefferson, I think, although there is a--gold!!!!--commercial out there attributing it to that great thinker, Gerald Ford); A government big benough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
Yep. Wal-Mart is the latest convert to economic fascism. One of those stories last week was that Wal-Mart had come out in favor of MANDATORY (on a Federal level) employer health insurance. It is difficult for me to shop at another store (no car, and Wal-Mart in walking distance), but I feel like saying: BOYCOTT WAL-MART. As you know, I have already told you to BOYCOTT IBM, and later "global warming" events have altready proven I was right to declare IBM lost to economic fascism.
Why did Wal-Mart, which has not been a model of providing great benefits for employees and has fought unionization, come out for ECONMIC FASCISM? Easy. Wal-Mart knows it is in the cross-hairs, and wants to USE the government to "save" itself. Wal-Mart is BIG. If EVERY employer is required to have expensive health insurance, does that help or hurt Wal-Mart? It HELPS Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart can better afford it than its comeptitors. Further, it HELPS Wal-Mart avoid unionization, while the mere advocacy of this Big Brother approach to killing our economy enables Wal-Mart (with crocodile tears) to claim "concern" for employees. If the GOVERNMENT is FORCING employers to provide a certain kind of helath care, why do employees need UNIONS?
I got this informatiion abut Wal-Mart from Paul Gigot on Fox this past Saturday. Paul Gigot's reaction: "Conservatives are dluded if they consider big business as their natural ally."
Exactly right. Business empire people BELIEVE IN CENTRAL PLANNING. They just want to be part of the POWER GROUP, and to control the central planning in the way they want. To them, "economic fascism" is extremly, irresistably seductive.
But conservatives, INCLUDING THE WALL STREET "CONSERVATIVES" AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, where Gigot works, fail to take the next step. The reason is obvious, in the case of people at the Wall Street Journal, because that is a "special interest" paper which considers its "job" as representing Wall Street (mostly fascist, these days). It is not so clear why other conservatives are so blind.
Yep. This Wal-Mart story, and Gigot's correct reaction, is yet more proof of what this blog has told you for years: Big Business empires, especially those caused by MERGER, are the worst threat faced by conservatism. They not only contradict free market theory, but the business empires are then USED by leftists to impose Big Government on us. Look what has happened! Not only has "too big to fail" resulted in the present vast expansion of government, but the Obama Administration is now directly USING Big Business as a central planning partner. It does not matter that big business will regret it. The damage will be done.
Now Wal-Mart is a little different than most big American corporations. It basically became big by efficiency, rather than Big Mergers. That does not change that big mergers are a DISASTER for conserastives, and for the country. "Too big to fail" has PROVEN that. It does not matter, however, that Wal-Mart became big by operating efficiently. It now wants to STAY BIG, and get bigger, by USING government--by embracing this economic fascism whereby Big Government and Big Business become PARTNERS. If that does not scare you to death, you do not know what is going on.
Why do Wall Street, and the Wall Street Journal, like big mergers? You know the answer to that one. In the short run (if you think this is true in the long run, consider "too big to fail" again, and the FAILURE of big business central planning), mergers HELP stock prices. Further, mergers generate BIG FEES for invetment bankers/brokerage houses. That is why Paul Gigot refuses to take the logical step of condeming big mergers, and acknowledging the pubic policy idiocy of alowing big mergers to occur. Big Drug and Big Oil have been CREATED by big mergers, and it has been a DISASTR for conservatism. Why conservatives outside of Wall Strett do not see this is beyond me, other than they have a knee jerk reaction to government "interference". Note that stopping big mergers does not represent government interference in ANY BUSINESS. It merely protects the free market from destruction. In other words, that type of "interference" represents ony interferene with Wall Street, and corporate empire builders who do not believe in free markets, rather than "interfernce" in the freem markets themselves.
Until conservatives realize that bug business empires, especailly those created by merger, have the same central planning defects as Big Government, conservatism has a big problem. As Paul Gigot says, the Big Government and Big Business are "natural allies", until (like Hitler and Stalin) they eventually fall out and government dominates. That combination is presently KILLING consrvatism, and yet conservatives refuse to come to the logical conclusion that big businesss is the enemy of conservatism.
It is not the enemy the way leftists perceive big business to be the "enemy"--an "exploiter" of workers and other people that needs to be NCONTROLLED as part of an overall central planning empire. Big Business is the enemy of conservatism simply because it is so very SIMILAR to Big Gvovernment, and inevitably leads to Big Government (to address "too big to fail" and all of the rest).
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Wall Street: The Stupidest People On Earth (Continued)
My auditors have told me that there is almost no way my accuracy percentage can go up any further, even though this blog has not been shown to be wrong since the spring of 2998 (when my prediction that McCain would LOSE the Republican nomination was proven wrong, and my predicton that Hillary would win the Democratic nominatin was proven wrong). Of course, I was RIGHT before almost EVERY other conservative--including Limbaugh--in recognizing that conservatives HAD to come out for Romeny, BEFORE IOWA, in order to stop McCain. I digress. Since I can never reach 100%, the present accuracy ratinng of 99,8% is almost impossible to raise.
Thus, my continue accuracy with regard to WALL STREET--ever since last October--can no longer raise the accuracy rating. Nevertheless, my unbroker stream of correct calls, IN FORESIGHT, remains. I have been especailly good at calling the stupdidity of the Stupidest People on Earth (otherwise known as Wall Street people, and others in what is laughinglyl known aws our financial "system", such as commodity traders).
You will remember that I recently declared that BOTH the stock markets and the oil market were in price BUBBLES--ridiculously overpriced in terms of economic reality. I have further been one of the only people to correctly inform you that economic reality has NOTHING to do with movements in these markets anymore (if it ever did). These are COMPUTER GAMERS at work, and the Stupidest People on Earth.
Since I declared these price BUBBLES to exist, what has happened. Well, I never said I could call these turns exactly, but witin a week of my final call declaring BUBBLES in these markets, the markets started down. Oil has gone down 6 consecutive days. The stock market is now well back within its normal trading range for the Standard and Poors 500 of 800-900. The stock market (and I am virtually the only one tellng you this) has traded in that basic range since last OCTOBER, although it has not climed above 900 THREE TIMES since the middle of last October. I bet you believed--YOU FOOL YOU--some of those media people who said that the big rise in stocks this last quarter was SIGNIFICANT. I was virtually the ONLY ONE telling you that it was little different than the RALLIES up to the moment of Obama's election last November, and at the end of last year, into January.
Okay. I was right. The BUBBLES have BURST. That did not stop some f the Stupidest People on Earth from contnuing to BUY even as the price bubbles became obvious. That INCLUDES THAT IDIOT, JIM CRAMER. But what happens now.
I again tell yo8u. If someone says they can tell you exactly what will happen in the stock market tomorrow, he is either a liar or a FOOL (one of the Stupidest People on Earth).
I can tell you that, if you are a trader (as you have to be, unless you are simply long term investing on a dollar averaging basis, in which case these fluctuations should mena little to you), it is MUCH better to buy NOW than to buy when the markets are in obvious price BUBBLES. In other words, I would not label you one of the Stupidest People on Earth if you decided to use this pullback as an opporunity to buy.
Problem: We are still rapidly heading toward the end of July. I AGAIN remind you that the stock market has suffered a MAJOR DECLINE in the period frmm the end of July to the beginning of October, EVERY YEAR since at least 1994 (and pretty consistently before that). That makes this an extremely DANGEROUS time for a trader to buy stocks. The economy is NOT "improving" substantially, and the stock market is still trading near the TOP of that 800-900 point basic range. So you MIGHT get a rally. But it is a DANGEROUS time, and scoks are probably still too high for economic reality.
The price of oil is definitely divorced totally from economic reality. It is too high. However, this fantasy world of commodity trading has become so MUCH a computer gaming atmosphere, that there is no way to predict what fantasy will drive the computer gamers next. I had no problem calling the price a BUBBLE as the price approaced 70. In terms of economic reality, however--in terms of supply and demand--oil is STILL in a price BUBBLE. That does NOT mean that the price will continue to god down I think it would continue down in a RATIONAL fianancial world. But these are the Stupidest People on Earth, existing in a fantasy world of COMPUTER GAMING. I have no doubt that oil CANNOT rise MUCH from here. That is because any such inflationary pscyhology will SHUT DOWN the econmy pretty quickly. In fact, Obama policies have made it certain that ANY signs of a supposed economic recovery will SHUT DOWN that recovery. Thus, the Stupidest People on Earth MIGHT be able to spark further BUBBLES in the price of oil, but they will be SHORT LIVED. Short of BIB problems in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the price of oil is TOO HIGH from the standpoint of economic reality.
In short, it is better to buy the stock market NOW, than it was. It is still a DANGEROUS time. Oil is still in a price bubble, but the market in oil (see entry on the ROGUE BROKER) is so insane that any short erm price movement is possible. Playing the commodity markets, OR commmodity stocks, you are simply playing ROULETTE. That is safer if oil is trading at $35 dollars a barrel than it is if oil is trading at $60 a barrel (as now).
Thus, my continue accuracy with regard to WALL STREET--ever since last October--can no longer raise the accuracy rating. Nevertheless, my unbroker stream of correct calls, IN FORESIGHT, remains. I have been especailly good at calling the stupdidity of the Stupidest People on Earth (otherwise known as Wall Street people, and others in what is laughinglyl known aws our financial "system", such as commodity traders).
You will remember that I recently declared that BOTH the stock markets and the oil market were in price BUBBLES--ridiculously overpriced in terms of economic reality. I have further been one of the only people to correctly inform you that economic reality has NOTHING to do with movements in these markets anymore (if it ever did). These are COMPUTER GAMERS at work, and the Stupidest People on Earth.
Since I declared these price BUBBLES to exist, what has happened. Well, I never said I could call these turns exactly, but witin a week of my final call declaring BUBBLES in these markets, the markets started down. Oil has gone down 6 consecutive days. The stock market is now well back within its normal trading range for the Standard and Poors 500 of 800-900. The stock market (and I am virtually the only one tellng you this) has traded in that basic range since last OCTOBER, although it has not climed above 900 THREE TIMES since the middle of last October. I bet you believed--YOU FOOL YOU--some of those media people who said that the big rise in stocks this last quarter was SIGNIFICANT. I was virtually the ONLY ONE telling you that it was little different than the RALLIES up to the moment of Obama's election last November, and at the end of last year, into January.
Okay. I was right. The BUBBLES have BURST. That did not stop some f the Stupidest People on Earth from contnuing to BUY even as the price bubbles became obvious. That INCLUDES THAT IDIOT, JIM CRAMER. But what happens now.
I again tell yo8u. If someone says they can tell you exactly what will happen in the stock market tomorrow, he is either a liar or a FOOL (one of the Stupidest People on Earth).
I can tell you that, if you are a trader (as you have to be, unless you are simply long term investing on a dollar averaging basis, in which case these fluctuations should mena little to you), it is MUCH better to buy NOW than to buy when the markets are in obvious price BUBBLES. In other words, I would not label you one of the Stupidest People on Earth if you decided to use this pullback as an opporunity to buy.
Problem: We are still rapidly heading toward the end of July. I AGAIN remind you that the stock market has suffered a MAJOR DECLINE in the period frmm the end of July to the beginning of October, EVERY YEAR since at least 1994 (and pretty consistently before that). That makes this an extremely DANGEROUS time for a trader to buy stocks. The economy is NOT "improving" substantially, and the stock market is still trading near the TOP of that 800-900 point basic range. So you MIGHT get a rally. But it is a DANGEROUS time, and scoks are probably still too high for economic reality.
The price of oil is definitely divorced totally from economic reality. It is too high. However, this fantasy world of commodity trading has become so MUCH a computer gaming atmosphere, that there is no way to predict what fantasy will drive the computer gamers next. I had no problem calling the price a BUBBLE as the price approaced 70. In terms of economic reality, however--in terms of supply and demand--oil is STILL in a price BUBBLE. That does NOT mean that the price will continue to god down I think it would continue down in a RATIONAL fianancial world. But these are the Stupidest People on Earth, existing in a fantasy world of COMPUTER GAMING. I have no doubt that oil CANNOT rise MUCH from here. That is because any such inflationary pscyhology will SHUT DOWN the econmy pretty quickly. In fact, Obama policies have made it certain that ANY signs of a supposed economic recovery will SHUT DOWN that recovery. Thus, the Stupidest People on Earth MIGHT be able to spark further BUBBLES in the price of oil, but they will be SHORT LIVED. Short of BIB problems in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the price of oil is TOO HIGH from the standpoint of economic reality.
In short, it is better to buy the stock market NOW, than it was. It is still a DANGEROUS time. Oil is still in a price bubble, but the market in oil (see entry on the ROGUE BROKER) is so insane that any short erm price movement is possible. Playing the commodity markets, OR commmodity stocks, you are simply playing ROULETTE. That is safer if oil is trading at $35 dollars a barrel than it is if oil is trading at $60 a barrel (as now).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)