It's a new era of cooperation between The New York Times and the Democrat Party. So often almost indistinguishable over the past 40 years, the two now appear to be as one, with the Times dutifully spinning Democrat propaganda without comment. Take this article from the Jan. 31st Times, reprinted in the Chronicle: "Daschle didn't pay $140,000 in taxes". Seems one of Daschle's patrons paid him over $2 million in consulting fees and transportation over 3 years and Daschle failed to pay taxes totaling $140,000.
The article is flush with small and not-so-small revelations that would typically result in a Republican being excluded from consideration for a cabinet post, if not immediately subject to closer scrutiny by a Federal prosecutor:
- All this income was provided to Daschle by "prominent businessman and Democrat fundraiser Leo Hindery, Jr....who founded a private equity firm in 2005", and that "Daschle was chairman of the advisory board" and a "consultant". Two million in three years without having an actual job description, and a 'private equity' firm to boot? What services did Daschle render for Hindery while he was a Senator?
- Towards the end of the article: "Hindery and family members have contributed......$52,000 to Daschle from 1997 to 2004". Since Senate campaign contributions are limited to $2,400 per election, that money could only have gone against his losing 2004 campaign. That means that $52 thousand was a minimum of 22 family members who made legal contributions. Shades of Al Gore picking up checks from Buddhist Monks. How many people are there in Hindery's family anyway? And does he know that substituting the names of other family members to hide donations is illegal?
- Dropped every so delicately into the middle of the article was this beauty: "A Senate aide said Daschle also had a tax issue that involved charitable contributions". In Plain English: Daschle took larger deductions for charitable contributions than he was allowed. This will be a rerun of Bill and Hillary Clinton declaring Slick Willy's soiled underwear to have a monetary value of $10 each, and that was in 1988 dollars. What was Daschle overvaluing, and by how much?
- Two paragraphs later: "Administration officials said Daschle should not be penalized because......he realized in June 2008 that he might have a tax problem". So, Daschle under-reported his income from April 2006 to June of 2008, then stonewalled on the issue for an additional seven months, and the conclusion we're supposed to draw is that this actually makes him an upright citizen? Doesn't this actually show more culpability?
- The $140,000 of unpaid taxes was "mostly for free use of a car and driver", which had a monetary value of "$182,520". $140,000 in taxes on $182,520 of compensation? This might have been a typo, or it might have been something else. Either way, if this is what the Obama Administration is reporting to The New York Times, and The New York Times is regurgitating it whole, either somebody's corrupt, or somebody's a liar.
Another unanswered question is: where is the outrage over the compensation provided by patron and employer Leo Hindery? If he awarded Daschle $182,520 in car expenses over three years as a business expense, that's $5,070 per month. Is there no limit - legal or ethical - to what can be deducted from one's corporate tax bill for employee reimbursable transportation?
Talk about blood in the water. What could have so neutered the Investigative Reporter in Robert Pear of the N.Y. Times that he didn't pick up the scent on any of these inconsistencies? Suspension of disbelief is always suspect. Willful ignorance like this is downright ugly.
And where was Daschle in all of this? As the "Chairman of InterMedia's advisory board", was it not his responsibility to flag such grotesque over-expenditures for "company provided transportation"? If Daschle not only doesn't think the expenditure was wrong, but ignores paying taxes on it to boot, is he fit to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services?
Finally, what of Barack Obama? If he's O.K. with this, do you suppose the Big Three's C.E.O.s can start flying their corporate jets again?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Movie Review: The Reader (The Revenge Of Kate Winslet)
Time once again folks for yet another movie I haven't seen but will review with complete accuracy, after having seen only a print ad and a portion of one trailer on the flick! The movie this time is "The Reader", the second of two Kate Winslet vehicles produced so as to ensure Winslet maximum prospects for the upcoming Oscars - a canny agent and a not-inconsequential talent having failed to quite do the trick in previous attempts.
In The Reader, our heroine plays a woman in her thirties who seduces a teenage boy; they muck about sweatily in various locations for the first portion of the movie, then they fast forward to the future where the young boy is now a man, and where he mostly spends his time reminiscing about the experience.
Now, here's how the conversation actually goes as he recalls the experience, and remember, I haven't seen the movie or so much as a full commercial:
"I don't know; I'm conflicted. On the one hand, it was very enjoyable. I mean, I was a young man and she a beautiful older woman. On the other hand, it's as if I wasn't even there as she took me repeatedly. Some small portion of my soul died that first time, and a little piece every time after that. And what of her feelings for me? I felt as though she loved me, but not enough to risk the disapproval of society to stay with me. I only actually regained my humanity after years of therapy and watching all of Woody Allen's movies in chronological order".
Here's how the conversation should have gone:
"Screwed? Like rabbits man. It was my first time and it freaking ROCKED! Regrets? Are you kidding me? I was 17, she was 30. It was free. She provided all the condoms and then took me out to dinner. Downside? What effin' downside? I mean, sure, my Mom freaked out, and my old man took me aside and even though he gave me a stern lecture, he punched me on the shoulder when he was done. I think he was jealous. High Fives all around, boys. I'd ask you to smell my finger, but that would be juvenile. Ha ha ha ha ha!"
Winslet's character makes a few brief cameos in the latter portion of the movie, and the makeup artists have done her proud, adding the slightest amount of wrinkles plausible to make her a woman now in her late fifties, but leaving no doubt that she still had the bod and perhaps the inclination to climb his bones once again, for old time's sake, but for the fact that she's still got this thing for teenage boys. By this late point in the movie, Winslet's character is a teacher, thus ensuring her a steady supply of her favored paramour, age-wise speaking.
Throughout the movie, she does wonder at the unfairness of it all, much as she did as the dissatisfied housewife in Revolutionary Road; that Society should so restrain her more personal impulses, thus depriving her of personal fulfillment, Hollywood's representation of the top triangle of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Self Actualization. It was her failure to achieve this goal in both roles that was the central indictment of Western Society intended by the Directors of both movies, since Self Actualization - as opposed to being anything particularly noble or significant - is in fact whatever the hell the individual wants it to be.
Winslet's characters throughout are infused with a sense of ennui - a vague dissatisfaction - the source of which she cannot identify, but very much like the dissatisfaction that Winslet herself feels when her Personal Assistant fails to cut the crust off her cucumber and arugula sandwiches. Whole scenes of the movie are devoted to her staring vacantly out the window, and we the audience are expected to stare with her, and share her discontent.
Regardless, this movie will do for Female Pedophiles what Woody Allen's life did for Male Pedophiles, although we're going to have to acknowledge that Woody actually dipped a little deeper into the old perversion pool by doing not just any teenager girl, but his own stepdaughter. Not that he was completely without standards. Allen did adopt Soon Yi before he molested her and then married her; otherwise it wouldn't have been incestuous to boot. On this last point, I'm not quite sure if we're in the presence of the Master of Irony, or simply the living god on Earth for a group of people so detached from reality and so addled with self regard that they spend their time doing these things, approving of movies that validate their excesses, and then round out the day attending fundraisers to allow Roman Polanski back into the U.S.
Either way, this movie gets a big thumbs up from Mary Kay LeTourneau and the seemingly dozens of superhot teachers who have popped up in the past decade for doing their adolescent male students, repeatedly, generally in the back seat of the kid's AMC Pacer, and frequently in the presence of his buddies. Wait, that was my generation. These kids will be driving Honda Civics.
But that we all should have been so lucky. Me, I'm going to spool up Van Halen's "Hot For Teacher", rock out, and hoist a glass to Kate Winslet, Mary Kay LeTourneau and the 17 year old boy in every man, who - truth be told - would have nailed Mary Kay or any of the rest of them faster than you can say, "dude, I am so there."
In The Reader, our heroine plays a woman in her thirties who seduces a teenage boy; they muck about sweatily in various locations for the first portion of the movie, then they fast forward to the future where the young boy is now a man, and where he mostly spends his time reminiscing about the experience.
Now, here's how the conversation actually goes as he recalls the experience, and remember, I haven't seen the movie or so much as a full commercial:
"I don't know; I'm conflicted. On the one hand, it was very enjoyable. I mean, I was a young man and she a beautiful older woman. On the other hand, it's as if I wasn't even there as she took me repeatedly. Some small portion of my soul died that first time, and a little piece every time after that. And what of her feelings for me? I felt as though she loved me, but not enough to risk the disapproval of society to stay with me. I only actually regained my humanity after years of therapy and watching all of Woody Allen's movies in chronological order".
Here's how the conversation should have gone:
"Screwed? Like rabbits man. It was my first time and it freaking ROCKED! Regrets? Are you kidding me? I was 17, she was 30. It was free. She provided all the condoms and then took me out to dinner. Downside? What effin' downside? I mean, sure, my Mom freaked out, and my old man took me aside and even though he gave me a stern lecture, he punched me on the shoulder when he was done. I think he was jealous. High Fives all around, boys. I'd ask you to smell my finger, but that would be juvenile. Ha ha ha ha ha!"
Winslet's character makes a few brief cameos in the latter portion of the movie, and the makeup artists have done her proud, adding the slightest amount of wrinkles plausible to make her a woman now in her late fifties, but leaving no doubt that she still had the bod and perhaps the inclination to climb his bones once again, for old time's sake, but for the fact that she's still got this thing for teenage boys. By this late point in the movie, Winslet's character is a teacher, thus ensuring her a steady supply of her favored paramour, age-wise speaking.
Throughout the movie, she does wonder at the unfairness of it all, much as she did as the dissatisfied housewife in Revolutionary Road; that Society should so restrain her more personal impulses, thus depriving her of personal fulfillment, Hollywood's representation of the top triangle of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Self Actualization. It was her failure to achieve this goal in both roles that was the central indictment of Western Society intended by the Directors of both movies, since Self Actualization - as opposed to being anything particularly noble or significant - is in fact whatever the hell the individual wants it to be.
Winslet's characters throughout are infused with a sense of ennui - a vague dissatisfaction - the source of which she cannot identify, but very much like the dissatisfaction that Winslet herself feels when her Personal Assistant fails to cut the crust off her cucumber and arugula sandwiches. Whole scenes of the movie are devoted to her staring vacantly out the window, and we the audience are expected to stare with her, and share her discontent.
Regardless, this movie will do for Female Pedophiles what Woody Allen's life did for Male Pedophiles, although we're going to have to acknowledge that Woody actually dipped a little deeper into the old perversion pool by doing not just any teenager girl, but his own stepdaughter. Not that he was completely without standards. Allen did adopt Soon Yi before he molested her and then married her; otherwise it wouldn't have been incestuous to boot. On this last point, I'm not quite sure if we're in the presence of the Master of Irony, or simply the living god on Earth for a group of people so detached from reality and so addled with self regard that they spend their time doing these things, approving of movies that validate their excesses, and then round out the day attending fundraisers to allow Roman Polanski back into the U.S.
Either way, this movie gets a big thumbs up from Mary Kay LeTourneau and the seemingly dozens of superhot teachers who have popped up in the past decade for doing their adolescent male students, repeatedly, generally in the back seat of the kid's AMC Pacer, and frequently in the presence of his buddies. Wait, that was my generation. These kids will be driving Honda Civics.
But that we all should have been so lucky. Me, I'm going to spool up Van Halen's "Hot For Teacher", rock out, and hoist a glass to Kate Winslet, Mary Kay LeTourneau and the 17 year old boy in every man, who - truth be told - would have nailed Mary Kay or any of the rest of them faster than you can say, "dude, I am so there."
Monday, January 26, 2009
Cigarette Taxes and Democrat Hypocrisy
So, I read in the paper the other day that the Democrats intend to extend SCHIP coverage (medical insurance for kids) to another 10 million children. Let's set aside for the moment that this is yet another payoff to the insurance industry, that it is another fix for Governors addicted to Revenue Sharing, that it will cover mostly Illegal Immigrants, or that it is intended as a Trojan Horse to eventually nationalize Health Care.
No, what's interesting to me is that the major funding for the initiative will come from yet another buck per pack tax on cigarettes. By my last count, the Feds and State governments had already imposed a Google of taxes on cigarettes, for everything from education to funding of sundry Health Care programs. Everything, it seems, but funding of efforts to end smoking.
This is another moment of surreality brought to you courtesy of the Democrat Party. Out of one side of their mouths, Democrat politicians damn Smokers for smoking. The Scarlet Letter's got nothing on the disapprobation dealt out to people who desire to light a cigarette. They're banned from smoking indoors; they're banned from smoking outdoors; they're inundated with commercials telling them how irresponsible they are; they are castigated by the Second Hand Smoking crowd, effeminately waving even the most transient wisp of smoke away from their sensitive orifices. Hell, there's even a booming trade in Class Action lawsuits against Second Hand Smoke, so nefarious is its impact on the precious piehole of the Nonsmoker.
Out of the other side of those pieholes, Democrats propose the imposition of taxes on cigarettes with the gleeful abandon with which Toddlers fill a clean diaper, oblivious of the fact that, if their efforts to tax cigarettes out of existence are successful, the revenues will die, and all of those programs will be unfunded. You know the outcome of this scenario, since it's already happening. The "shortfall" in "funding" for all of these boondoggles will then need to be met by increases in other taxes, or further borrowing by the already critically overleveraged Federal and State governments.
It has ever been thus with Democrats and their tax policies. Milton Friedman said that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. The same holds true with the sources of funding. "Temporary" tax increases are always permanent. The most transient of funding sources is exploited as if it will go on forever.
What causes one's head to explode is the breathtaking hypocrisy of it all. Democrats damn something. Democrats then tax that thing and design spending programs in the hope that it flourishes. Democrats then fail to take notice of their hypocrisy.
There is only one program that makes any sense when it comes to taxing cigarettes: to encourage people to stop smoking. Not only does it make sense, it would be fiscally responsible to boot. As people stopped smoking, we would need less and less money to fund anti-smoking efforts, and the revenues available to do so would match the need. That program would be flawless in its execution and a tribute to responsible governance. It would also be that rarest of things: a self-regulating confiscation of wealth with a built-in Sunset mechanism.
I wonder how Obama feels about that, seeing as how he's a Smoker? I wonder how Nancy Pelosi feels about Obama being a Smoker?
No, what's interesting to me is that the major funding for the initiative will come from yet another buck per pack tax on cigarettes. By my last count, the Feds and State governments had already imposed a Google of taxes on cigarettes, for everything from education to funding of sundry Health Care programs. Everything, it seems, but funding of efforts to end smoking.
This is another moment of surreality brought to you courtesy of the Democrat Party. Out of one side of their mouths, Democrat politicians damn Smokers for smoking. The Scarlet Letter's got nothing on the disapprobation dealt out to people who desire to light a cigarette. They're banned from smoking indoors; they're banned from smoking outdoors; they're inundated with commercials telling them how irresponsible they are; they are castigated by the Second Hand Smoking crowd, effeminately waving even the most transient wisp of smoke away from their sensitive orifices. Hell, there's even a booming trade in Class Action lawsuits against Second Hand Smoke, so nefarious is its impact on the precious piehole of the Nonsmoker.
Out of the other side of those pieholes, Democrats propose the imposition of taxes on cigarettes with the gleeful abandon with which Toddlers fill a clean diaper, oblivious of the fact that, if their efforts to tax cigarettes out of existence are successful, the revenues will die, and all of those programs will be unfunded. You know the outcome of this scenario, since it's already happening. The "shortfall" in "funding" for all of these boondoggles will then need to be met by increases in other taxes, or further borrowing by the already critically overleveraged Federal and State governments.
It has ever been thus with Democrats and their tax policies. Milton Friedman said that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. The same holds true with the sources of funding. "Temporary" tax increases are always permanent. The most transient of funding sources is exploited as if it will go on forever.
What causes one's head to explode is the breathtaking hypocrisy of it all. Democrats damn something. Democrats then tax that thing and design spending programs in the hope that it flourishes. Democrats then fail to take notice of their hypocrisy.
There is only one program that makes any sense when it comes to taxing cigarettes: to encourage people to stop smoking. Not only does it make sense, it would be fiscally responsible to boot. As people stopped smoking, we would need less and less money to fund anti-smoking efforts, and the revenues available to do so would match the need. That program would be flawless in its execution and a tribute to responsible governance. It would also be that rarest of things: a self-regulating confiscation of wealth with a built-in Sunset mechanism.
I wonder how Obama feels about that, seeing as how he's a Smoker? I wonder how Nancy Pelosi feels about Obama being a Smoker?
Global Warming, Global Flooding and Other Myths
Among the numerous orthodoxies of Democrat thinking on the general issue of Global Warming (see my post "Globaloney Warming" from December 9th), Gobal Flooding is surely one of the most idiotic. The premise that the Alarmists put forward is straightforward enough: Man warms the Earth; Ice melts; Ice flows into the seas; The seas rise; Coastal cities will be flooded.
This premise even has a veneer of credibility until you apply the principles of math, science and geography that you learned in high school. Simple common sense - not to mention Sister Paul, my sophomore science teacher - instruct me that the Global Flooding premise is, well, a load of crap.
The counter-argument goes something like this: First, ice displaces a greater volume than water. 10% to be exact. Second, as we all recall from endless documentaries - not to mention Sister Paul - 90% of all icebergs are underwater. So, to the extent that icebergs melt, it all balances out. Since the vast majority of melting ice is icebergs, it's no big deal.
The Global Flooders have gamed this argument by claiming that it is predominantly land-bound ice and glaciers that are melting, thus adding to the total volume of water in our seas. One problem with this claim is that atmospheric warming and melting of land-bound ice would have to occur whilst water-bound icebergs melting did not, something that even the whackiest of the Global Flooders is not trying to claim.
In point of fact, icebergs would melt first, since they are already water-bound, and yet, we see no evidence of massive displacement of icebergs; modest, yes; massive, no. And then, having confronted the displacement of icebergs, the Global Flooders must then concede that land bound ice - for the most part - would simply be replacing the lost volume in the oceans caused by melting icebergs.
This brings me to a favored aside I like to plug into any discussion on Global Warming, the disapperance of Glaciers. Global Warmers, of course, lament their passage as if they were Polar Bears instead of inanimate objects. They also routinely - and facts be damned - blame their disappearance on Global Warming caused by man. The idiocy of this is that every Ice Age builds them up, and every warming period melts them away. The "retreating ice" theory of Ice Ages is responsible for things like the Great Lakes. Nobody disputes this, not even Global Warmers. They just refuse to connect the dots if it disputes their beliefs.
The other problem with their overall premise of Global Flooding is that all the observable melting in the past 50 years has happened in the Arctic, which holds only 10% of the World's ice. The other 90% is locked up in the Antarctic, where the ice has been growing for decades, not shrinking. So, let's assume that 1% of the ice in the Arctic is melting every year, and that it would all be gone within 100 years. Of course, that's not happening, but stick with me. That means that to offset the total loss of ice in the Arctic region, the Antarctic would need to accumulate 1/10th that amount, or .1%.
The consensus of even the Global Flooding crowd is that Antarctic ice growth has offset Arctic ice loss, so after all of their blather, there is no rise in ocean levels attributable to Global Warming. As a sidenote, though, and because they can't help themselves, the Global Flooders attribute the accumulation of ice in Antarctica to - you guessed it - Manmade Climate Change.
In addition to their inconsistencies of their models regarding densities and melting, another curious oversight of the Global Coolers is the issue of how much ice is above or below sea level. The lowest point of Antarctica is 2,500 feet below sea level, and Antarctica itself is predominantly below sea level. This means that if the ice in the Antarctic ever should start melting, it will lower the volume of the world's oceans, not raise them. So, counter-intuitively, Global Warming would seem to reduce sea levels, not raise them.
Unless, of course, Global Warmers have figured out a way to cause only land bound ice at both poles to melt simultaneously, all while the oceans around them do not warm up, a phenomenon not heretofore observed by man or his instruments.
Adding to the idiocy of the Left over the issue of Global Flooding is the real cause of rising sea levels, if indeed there ever was to be any: Life. This is where crap enters the picture. Every year, billions of tons of plant and animal life are born, excrete and die in the world's oceans. Their carcasses and crap are only partially consumed, leaving the remainder to accumulate on the sea floor. Likewise, plant and animal life on the land are born, excrete, die and decompose, with a fair amount of that matter accumulating onshore being washed (along with common soil) into the oceans from our rivers.
So, much as the toys that accumulate in your toddler's bathtub displace the water necessary to fill it, so too with our oceans. Only problem is, the Seas have nowhere else to go - except up. And so they rise.
Not that any of this makes an impression on the Global Flooding crowd. Google sundry entries for the cause of the oceans rising, and it's all man-made. From melting ice, to the expansion of sea water caused by man-made global warming, to erosion caused by man-made hurricanes.
But nowhere a mention of Whale Crap or seashells.
And that's not the least of it. Surely the greatest scourge of Global Flooding must be coral reefs, which have grown exponentially in the past millions of years, the evidence of which is before our very eyes. Given their volume and relative lack of density (compared to, either ice or, say, a decomposed Humpback Whale), the Ocean's reefs are a monstrous displacer of water that must be dealt with, at least by the panicky standards of the EcoCrowd.
In conclusion, the only hope for Mankind to avoid extinction due to Global Flooding is to moderately lower the cycle of life in the Oceans and upon the Earth, preferably by polluting them. This will reduce significantly the amount of Whale crap, decomposing sea life and reefs which constitute the majority of all water displaced from our oceans.
Or, we could just wait until the next ice age.
This premise even has a veneer of credibility until you apply the principles of math, science and geography that you learned in high school. Simple common sense - not to mention Sister Paul, my sophomore science teacher - instruct me that the Global Flooding premise is, well, a load of crap.
The counter-argument goes something like this: First, ice displaces a greater volume than water. 10% to be exact. Second, as we all recall from endless documentaries - not to mention Sister Paul - 90% of all icebergs are underwater. So, to the extent that icebergs melt, it all balances out. Since the vast majority of melting ice is icebergs, it's no big deal.
The Global Flooders have gamed this argument by claiming that it is predominantly land-bound ice and glaciers that are melting, thus adding to the total volume of water in our seas. One problem with this claim is that atmospheric warming and melting of land-bound ice would have to occur whilst water-bound icebergs melting did not, something that even the whackiest of the Global Flooders is not trying to claim.
In point of fact, icebergs would melt first, since they are already water-bound, and yet, we see no evidence of massive displacement of icebergs; modest, yes; massive, no. And then, having confronted the displacement of icebergs, the Global Flooders must then concede that land bound ice - for the most part - would simply be replacing the lost volume in the oceans caused by melting icebergs.
This brings me to a favored aside I like to plug into any discussion on Global Warming, the disapperance of Glaciers. Global Warmers, of course, lament their passage as if they were Polar Bears instead of inanimate objects. They also routinely - and facts be damned - blame their disappearance on Global Warming caused by man. The idiocy of this is that every Ice Age builds them up, and every warming period melts them away. The "retreating ice" theory of Ice Ages is responsible for things like the Great Lakes. Nobody disputes this, not even Global Warmers. They just refuse to connect the dots if it disputes their beliefs.
The other problem with their overall premise of Global Flooding is that all the observable melting in the past 50 years has happened in the Arctic, which holds only 10% of the World's ice. The other 90% is locked up in the Antarctic, where the ice has been growing for decades, not shrinking. So, let's assume that 1% of the ice in the Arctic is melting every year, and that it would all be gone within 100 years. Of course, that's not happening, but stick with me. That means that to offset the total loss of ice in the Arctic region, the Antarctic would need to accumulate 1/10th that amount, or .1%.
The consensus of even the Global Flooding crowd is that Antarctic ice growth has offset Arctic ice loss, so after all of their blather, there is no rise in ocean levels attributable to Global Warming. As a sidenote, though, and because they can't help themselves, the Global Flooders attribute the accumulation of ice in Antarctica to - you guessed it - Manmade Climate Change.
In addition to their inconsistencies of their models regarding densities and melting, another curious oversight of the Global Coolers is the issue of how much ice is above or below sea level. The lowest point of Antarctica is 2,500 feet below sea level, and Antarctica itself is predominantly below sea level. This means that if the ice in the Antarctic ever should start melting, it will lower the volume of the world's oceans, not raise them. So, counter-intuitively, Global Warming would seem to reduce sea levels, not raise them.
Unless, of course, Global Warmers have figured out a way to cause only land bound ice at both poles to melt simultaneously, all while the oceans around them do not warm up, a phenomenon not heretofore observed by man or his instruments.
Adding to the idiocy of the Left over the issue of Global Flooding is the real cause of rising sea levels, if indeed there ever was to be any: Life. This is where crap enters the picture. Every year, billions of tons of plant and animal life are born, excrete and die in the world's oceans. Their carcasses and crap are only partially consumed, leaving the remainder to accumulate on the sea floor. Likewise, plant and animal life on the land are born, excrete, die and decompose, with a fair amount of that matter accumulating onshore being washed (along with common soil) into the oceans from our rivers.
So, much as the toys that accumulate in your toddler's bathtub displace the water necessary to fill it, so too with our oceans. Only problem is, the Seas have nowhere else to go - except up. And so they rise.
Not that any of this makes an impression on the Global Flooding crowd. Google sundry entries for the cause of the oceans rising, and it's all man-made. From melting ice, to the expansion of sea water caused by man-made global warming, to erosion caused by man-made hurricanes.
But nowhere a mention of Whale Crap or seashells.
And that's not the least of it. Surely the greatest scourge of Global Flooding must be coral reefs, which have grown exponentially in the past millions of years, the evidence of which is before our very eyes. Given their volume and relative lack of density (compared to, either ice or, say, a decomposed Humpback Whale), the Ocean's reefs are a monstrous displacer of water that must be dealt with, at least by the panicky standards of the EcoCrowd.
In conclusion, the only hope for Mankind to avoid extinction due to Global Flooding is to moderately lower the cycle of life in the Oceans and upon the Earth, preferably by polluting them. This will reduce significantly the amount of Whale crap, decomposing sea life and reefs which constitute the majority of all water displaced from our oceans.
Or, we could just wait until the next ice age.
Fun Fact: Democrats and Social Security
Sustaining The Unsustainable
In 1937, taxation on Social Security was 1% of the first $3,000 of income. Employers matched that, for a total yearly payment of $60. Today, the rate is 7.65% of the first $95,000. With employer match that's $14,535 of wealth confiscated. Assume 15-fold inflation since 1937, and after inflation, real SS taxes have increased over 1600%. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a3.pdf
The very first recipient of Social Security got a monthly check for $22.00, the problem of course being that she had only ever put $25.00 into the system over the three years of her contribution, and eventually drew out almost $25,000.00.
This was FDR's definition of a self-sustaining program. It's also the definition of what Democrats call "pay as you go".
Try as I might to secure an explanation from my liberal friends on the dichotomy, none of them is exactly killing themselves to provide one.
In 1937, taxation on Social Security was 1% of the first $3,000 of income. Employers matched that, for a total yearly payment of $60. Today, the rate is 7.65% of the first $95,000. With employer match that's $14,535 of wealth confiscated. Assume 15-fold inflation since 1937, and after inflation, real SS taxes have increased over 1600%. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a3.pdf
The very first recipient of Social Security got a monthly check for $22.00, the problem of course being that she had only ever put $25.00 into the system over the three years of her contribution, and eventually drew out almost $25,000.00.
This was FDR's definition of a self-sustaining program. It's also the definition of what Democrats call "pay as you go".
Try as I might to secure an explanation from my liberal friends on the dichotomy, none of them is exactly killing themselves to provide one.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Revenue Sharing
Definition: The act of confiscating wealth from the 50 sovereign states by the Federal Government, then returning it to them on the condition that the money be spent to advance the agenda of the Democrat Party. See: Block Grants, Obama Stimulus Package, SCHIP, Department of Education, Medicaid, Hurricane Katrina aid.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Global Warmers Have No Shame
In an earlier post (Globaloney Warming, Dec. 9th, 2008), I had voiced numerous criticisms about the pseudo-science of Environmentalism, at least as practiced by those who believe that Man is killing the Earth. Among the more egregious of their practices is to game the data by interpreting it any way they want. The most egregious of these was their decision to repudiate satellite measurements of the Earth's temperature because those measurements refuted their claims that the Earth was getting warmer.
Now, satellites are just fine with this crowd for use in predicting everything else about the Earth's environment: weather patterns, measuring pollutants in our atmosphere, calculating ozone depletion, ocean activity, you name it, just not in measuring the Earth's temperature.
Until yesterday, that is. An Associated Press article reported on a new study published in "Nature" that showed that Antarctica - heretofore observed to have been cooling - was actually warming. Now, there's two interesting details about this:
First, all the data prior to this showed that Antarctica has actually been cooling since at least 1980 - and conceivably well before that - and that ice has been accumulating there as well; in fact, in such quantities that it likely offset all observable loss of ice in the Arctic. This, of course, was most disturbing to the digestion of Global Warmers. What's the point of trying to get people to listen to your Chicken Little rantings about imminent disaster and Global Flooding if the Antarctic refuses to play ball and get in line with your computer model?
Second, and this is a beaut, the most recent study contradicting 3 decades of data on Antarctica and purporting to show that it is actually warming was based on - get ready - temperature readings taken by satellite.
This is as base as cherry picking gets. To validate that which you had previously invalidated because it did not support your preconceived notions, only to revalidate it when its data can be interpreted to support your preconceived notions. Of course, that's not the end of the story. I predict that this "study" will be dissected, and it will turn out that they had misinterpreted the satellite readings on the Antarctic.
These are Democrats, after all. Nothing is so fluid as fact, and that which can be observed must be interpreted, lest people start getting ideas of their own.
Now, satellites are just fine with this crowd for use in predicting everything else about the Earth's environment: weather patterns, measuring pollutants in our atmosphere, calculating ozone depletion, ocean activity, you name it, just not in measuring the Earth's temperature.
Until yesterday, that is. An Associated Press article reported on a new study published in "Nature" that showed that Antarctica - heretofore observed to have been cooling - was actually warming. Now, there's two interesting details about this:
First, all the data prior to this showed that Antarctica has actually been cooling since at least 1980 - and conceivably well before that - and that ice has been accumulating there as well; in fact, in such quantities that it likely offset all observable loss of ice in the Arctic. This, of course, was most disturbing to the digestion of Global Warmers. What's the point of trying to get people to listen to your Chicken Little rantings about imminent disaster and Global Flooding if the Antarctic refuses to play ball and get in line with your computer model?
Second, and this is a beaut, the most recent study contradicting 3 decades of data on Antarctica and purporting to show that it is actually warming was based on - get ready - temperature readings taken by satellite.
This is as base as cherry picking gets. To validate that which you had previously invalidated because it did not support your preconceived notions, only to revalidate it when its data can be interpreted to support your preconceived notions. Of course, that's not the end of the story. I predict that this "study" will be dissected, and it will turn out that they had misinterpreted the satellite readings on the Antarctic.
These are Democrats, after all. Nothing is so fluid as fact, and that which can be observed must be interpreted, lest people start getting ideas of their own.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Movie Review: Not So Revolutionary Road
Time for yet another amazing "movie review of movies I haven't even seen". This go-round, it's Revolutionary Road, starring Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, reunited for the first time since "Titanic". As in all my past reviews where I declare a movie crap and a box office bomb, I have not seen this movie. What I have seen is one 30 second TV commercial, and a print ad for the movie.
That's all, but it's enough.
Based on these slim clues, I proclaim this a monumentally stupid movie, with Leo and Kate chewing scenery like Alec Baldwin set loose in the snackbar. Also, I predict it will do crappy box office - $30 to $40 mil - but still go on to win some Oscars.
But first, the plot, and keep in mind, I know nothing about the movie. What I do know, however, is the formulaic mindset of Hollywood, the towering if fragile egos of its denizens, and the monotonous regularity with which Liberals fake sincerity.
Leo and Kate are a young couple in the 1950s, who fall in love, marry, and start a family. The initial passion wears off, however, then the marriage turns sour, then it turns into a deadly, depressing trap for both of them. Their characters talk about it endlessly over coffee, dissecting the relationship between themselves, their friends, and then themselves again for what seems like forever. They part, they reconcile, they get back together, they grow depressed again.
Neither can reconcile themselves to the 50s cliché of married life, nor draw comfort - much less joy - from it. They are both terribly sophisticated, you see; meant for bigger and better things, such as to paint, to sculpt, to write, to do momentous things. Neither does, nobody can reconcile the difference, somebody dies, everybody goes home unhappy, and all over America, coffee houses and other haunts of Liberalism will be abuzz about how this movie touched their lives. A modern day Tragedy, it will be proclaimed.
Except, of course, that that is a bunch of crap.
The Producers are hoping that what the Young Gen Xers who will see this movie will project onto the screen is themselves, albeit that the movie is set over 50 years from the present day. See, Hollywood wishes to teach America a lesson about its consumerist ways. The movie will draw sundry comparisons between the lifestyle of Gen Xers, and those of the post WWII generation. They're also laying the groundwork for justifying the radicalism of the 60s, in an attempt to start it anew.
But how to make Gen X feel guilty without actually blaming them for anything?
The trick is to project modern day Thirty-something angst into another setting. Since 1950s America is every liberal's favorite whipping boy, the 1950s it is. There will be some bilge about how consumer oriented our society was, and never mind that America had just exhausted itself with a World War and sundry other battles, including Korea. Reasonable folks might have assumed that she'd earned the right to a two-car garage, a cul-de-sac, an occasional round of golf and something resembling normalcy.
They would be wrong.
And that brings us to the inevitable trip to Europe. Now, I must say in advance that I have no idea if either Kate or Leo talks about a trip to Europe, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that one of them does. See, a trip to Europe is a metaphor for everything that is either right about a Liberal's life (I spent a summer in France), or wrong with it (I never made it to France). It is celebrated in our culture in movie's, books, autobiographies and biographies. Bill Clinton famously went to Europe. When Hollywood mega-stars get tired of America, they go to Europe.
What they fail to realize is that America had pretty much had its bellyful of Europe by that time, so, like so much else about this movie, that will ring false as well.
One final thought: I'm willing to guess that DiCaprio's character didn't do any military service, notwithstanding that Korea happened in the 50s. Hey, just thinking out loud here, but might that not be a source of his angst? As to Winslet, maybe she was just tired of banging into the glass ceiling.
I think both of the poor dears need a Fulbright Scholarship. It gets you away from America, and it gets you to France, that land of opportunity.
Hey, it worked wonders for Slick Willy.
That's all, but it's enough.
Based on these slim clues, I proclaim this a monumentally stupid movie, with Leo and Kate chewing scenery like Alec Baldwin set loose in the snackbar. Also, I predict it will do crappy box office - $30 to $40 mil - but still go on to win some Oscars.
But first, the plot, and keep in mind, I know nothing about the movie. What I do know, however, is the formulaic mindset of Hollywood, the towering if fragile egos of its denizens, and the monotonous regularity with which Liberals fake sincerity.
Leo and Kate are a young couple in the 1950s, who fall in love, marry, and start a family. The initial passion wears off, however, then the marriage turns sour, then it turns into a deadly, depressing trap for both of them. Their characters talk about it endlessly over coffee, dissecting the relationship between themselves, their friends, and then themselves again for what seems like forever. They part, they reconcile, they get back together, they grow depressed again.
Neither can reconcile themselves to the 50s cliché of married life, nor draw comfort - much less joy - from it. They are both terribly sophisticated, you see; meant for bigger and better things, such as to paint, to sculpt, to write, to do momentous things. Neither does, nobody can reconcile the difference, somebody dies, everybody goes home unhappy, and all over America, coffee houses and other haunts of Liberalism will be abuzz about how this movie touched their lives. A modern day Tragedy, it will be proclaimed.
Except, of course, that that is a bunch of crap.
The Producers are hoping that what the Young Gen Xers who will see this movie will project onto the screen is themselves, albeit that the movie is set over 50 years from the present day. See, Hollywood wishes to teach America a lesson about its consumerist ways. The movie will draw sundry comparisons between the lifestyle of Gen Xers, and those of the post WWII generation. They're also laying the groundwork for justifying the radicalism of the 60s, in an attempt to start it anew.
But how to make Gen X feel guilty without actually blaming them for anything?
The trick is to project modern day Thirty-something angst into another setting. Since 1950s America is every liberal's favorite whipping boy, the 1950s it is. There will be some bilge about how consumer oriented our society was, and never mind that America had just exhausted itself with a World War and sundry other battles, including Korea. Reasonable folks might have assumed that she'd earned the right to a two-car garage, a cul-de-sac, an occasional round of golf and something resembling normalcy.
They would be wrong.
And that brings us to the inevitable trip to Europe. Now, I must say in advance that I have no idea if either Kate or Leo talks about a trip to Europe, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that one of them does. See, a trip to Europe is a metaphor for everything that is either right about a Liberal's life (I spent a summer in France), or wrong with it (I never made it to France). It is celebrated in our culture in movie's, books, autobiographies and biographies. Bill Clinton famously went to Europe. When Hollywood mega-stars get tired of America, they go to Europe.
What they fail to realize is that America had pretty much had its bellyful of Europe by that time, so, like so much else about this movie, that will ring false as well.
One final thought: I'm willing to guess that DiCaprio's character didn't do any military service, notwithstanding that Korea happened in the 50s. Hey, just thinking out loud here, but might that not be a source of his angst? As to Winslet, maybe she was just tired of banging into the glass ceiling.
I think both of the poor dears need a Fulbright Scholarship. It gets you away from America, and it gets you to France, that land of opportunity.
Hey, it worked wonders for Slick Willy.
Caroline Kennedy Ponders Her Options
There was a flurry of activity yesterday regarding Caroline Kennedy's efforts to occupy the New York Senate seat previously held by Hillary Clinton, and long ago by her deceased Uncle, Bobby Kennedy. With Senator Ted Kennedy's seizure during the Inaugural luncheon, speculation was rife that she would pull back on the New York initiative to pursue the Masachussetts seat currently held by her stricken Uncle Teddy.
Wednesday, however, Kennedy reaffirmed her commitment to pursue the New York seat, commenting that, what with the uncertainty of Uncle Teddy's condition, it would be unseemly to pursue the Massachusetts seat at this time.
Later in the evening, however, Senator Kennedy's condition took a turn for the worse, and Caroline Kennedy announced today that she would be withdrawing from the New York candidacy to pursue the opening in Massachusetts.
There has been no word yet as to whether she will wait for Senator Kennedy to die before applying for his seat.
Wednesday, however, Kennedy reaffirmed her commitment to pursue the New York seat, commenting that, what with the uncertainty of Uncle Teddy's condition, it would be unseemly to pursue the Massachusetts seat at this time.
Later in the evening, however, Senator Kennedy's condition took a turn for the worse, and Caroline Kennedy announced today that she would be withdrawing from the New York candidacy to pursue the opening in Massachusetts.
There has been no word yet as to whether she will wait for Senator Kennedy to die before applying for his seat.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
So Much For Reconciliation
So nice to see that we as a society are beyond all that racist business, now that Barack Obama is president.
Well, except for a few small items:
- When George W. Bush was introduced at the Inauguration, he was loudly and lustily booed by most of the audience, predominantly by African Americans. It didn't stop there. They also lustily booed Dick Cheney, Lynn Cheney and - that polarizing figure - Laura Bush.
- The black minister who gave the ending prayer praised black people, brown people, red people and yellow people, and made it all rhyme. Then he got to white people, and in verse, demanded that "white finally get it right". He was roundly praised for his even handed treatment.
- On to the Inauguration Balls. Rapper Little JeeZee praised the Arab journalist for throwing shoes at Mother Effing George Bush, and praised the Mother Effing movers who moved the Bush's out of the White House, crying "get out Bitch". Then, Jay Z (husband to Beyonce), declared that the "White House is black now, no more White Lies", along with several other choice and racially charged comments.
How does Obama react to overtly racist comments and actions, inasmuch as he is himself half-white? Would it be too much for me to expect Obama to condemn them?
Probably.
During his inaugural speech, Obama described George Bush and Republican policies in pretty much the same tones he reserved for Islamist terrorists; the only problem being, he excoriated Republicans three times, and the Terrorists once. While not overtly racist, it certainly did nothing to advance the cause for "change" and reconciliation that he wishes for America.
When Obama's candidacy was in trouble due to the racist rantings of Jeremiah Wright ten months ago, President Obama gave a speech in which he dredged up the Confederacy, Jim Crow and hundreds of years of slavery, the none-too-subtle point being that Wright's comments were in some way defensible.
He also pinned the racist label on his own white grandma, describing her as being suspicious of young black men at night, and crossing the street to avoid them. Let's forget for the moment the dozens of black commentators who have so famously described that same scenario - only involving old black women - and came down on the side of old black women. Did Obama miss the lesson in those stories, or is his inherent assumption that old white women are racist for reacting exactly the same way as old black women?
If these two speeches are prologue and epilogue on the opening chapter of the Obama saga, I am not encouraged. I'd like to see him condemn the racism of those who sullied the Inauguration in at least as strong of terms as those he used to criticize his own grandmother, but I'm not holding my breath.
We shall see.
Well, except for a few small items:
- When George W. Bush was introduced at the Inauguration, he was loudly and lustily booed by most of the audience, predominantly by African Americans. It didn't stop there. They also lustily booed Dick Cheney, Lynn Cheney and - that polarizing figure - Laura Bush.
- The black minister who gave the ending prayer praised black people, brown people, red people and yellow people, and made it all rhyme. Then he got to white people, and in verse, demanded that "white finally get it right". He was roundly praised for his even handed treatment.
- On to the Inauguration Balls. Rapper Little JeeZee praised the Arab journalist for throwing shoes at Mother Effing George Bush, and praised the Mother Effing movers who moved the Bush's out of the White House, crying "get out Bitch". Then, Jay Z (husband to Beyonce), declared that the "White House is black now, no more White Lies", along with several other choice and racially charged comments.
How does Obama react to overtly racist comments and actions, inasmuch as he is himself half-white? Would it be too much for me to expect Obama to condemn them?
Probably.
During his inaugural speech, Obama described George Bush and Republican policies in pretty much the same tones he reserved for Islamist terrorists; the only problem being, he excoriated Republicans three times, and the Terrorists once. While not overtly racist, it certainly did nothing to advance the cause for "change" and reconciliation that he wishes for America.
When Obama's candidacy was in trouble due to the racist rantings of Jeremiah Wright ten months ago, President Obama gave a speech in which he dredged up the Confederacy, Jim Crow and hundreds of years of slavery, the none-too-subtle point being that Wright's comments were in some way defensible.
He also pinned the racist label on his own white grandma, describing her as being suspicious of young black men at night, and crossing the street to avoid them. Let's forget for the moment the dozens of black commentators who have so famously described that same scenario - only involving old black women - and came down on the side of old black women. Did Obama miss the lesson in those stories, or is his inherent assumption that old white women are racist for reacting exactly the same way as old black women?
If these two speeches are prologue and epilogue on the opening chapter of the Obama saga, I am not encouraged. I'd like to see him condemn the racism of those who sullied the Inauguration in at least as strong of terms as those he used to criticize his own grandmother, but I'm not holding my breath.
We shall see.
My Wife Has A Superpower
I'm a big fan of the TV show "Heroes". The premise of the show is that ordinary people have superpowers, ranging from telekinesis to mindreading to the ability to fly.
My wife Sharon has a superpower too. Let's call her Static Electricity Girl, Sparky for short. Sparky can shoot bolts of pure energy into other people as well as into inanimate objects, frequently over large distances. Her ability is not lethal, but the effects can range from mild discomfort to temporary paralysis.
She has rendered inoperable such things as cordless phones, laptops, TV remotes, and most recently, a toaster. The Static Pad on the side of gas pumps was invented specifically for her. Gas cans have warning labels that include her picture.
As of yet, Sparky does not have complete control over her ability. She frequently shocks people - most often her long suffering husband - without intending to do so. If she offers a kiss, one must ground oneself before accepting. Sparky also is immune to static electricity from any other source, including people. For that reason, I generally have her check any suspect electrical appliances, and let her get the newspaper during thunderstorms.
Best of all, it is the one power that bad guys on the show like Sylar can't steal. See, in order to absorb her ability, he would need to touch Sparky. As soon as he tried that, he would be flopping on the ground like a fish out of water. She's also right handy when somebody accosts us on the street, say, to hand us a pamphlet, or ask to borrow gas money. When Sparky shuffles her feet, the Bad Guys retreat in fear.
With a pair of bedroom slippers and a small piece of carpet, my wife could rule the world. To my own selfish ends, I have misused her power by occasionally introducing her to people who annoy me, but this seems fair given that she tunes me up at least once per day, albeit unintentionally. Or so she says.
Such is the blessing and the burden of being married to a woman with Superpowers.
My wife Sharon has a superpower too. Let's call her Static Electricity Girl, Sparky for short. Sparky can shoot bolts of pure energy into other people as well as into inanimate objects, frequently over large distances. Her ability is not lethal, but the effects can range from mild discomfort to temporary paralysis.
She has rendered inoperable such things as cordless phones, laptops, TV remotes, and most recently, a toaster. The Static Pad on the side of gas pumps was invented specifically for her. Gas cans have warning labels that include her picture.
As of yet, Sparky does not have complete control over her ability. She frequently shocks people - most often her long suffering husband - without intending to do so. If she offers a kiss, one must ground oneself before accepting. Sparky also is immune to static electricity from any other source, including people. For that reason, I generally have her check any suspect electrical appliances, and let her get the newspaper during thunderstorms.
Best of all, it is the one power that bad guys on the show like Sylar can't steal. See, in order to absorb her ability, he would need to touch Sparky. As soon as he tried that, he would be flopping on the ground like a fish out of water. She's also right handy when somebody accosts us on the street, say, to hand us a pamphlet, or ask to borrow gas money. When Sparky shuffles her feet, the Bad Guys retreat in fear.
With a pair of bedroom slippers and a small piece of carpet, my wife could rule the world. To my own selfish ends, I have misused her power by occasionally introducing her to people who annoy me, but this seems fair given that she tunes me up at least once per day, albeit unintentionally. Or so she says.
Such is the blessing and the burden of being married to a woman with Superpowers.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
An Alternative To The "Stimulus" Package
Instead of $3 Trillion in new government spending and giveaways to Wall Street's Moneylenders, we should consider an alternative. Take that money and set up an IRA for each and every household in America. Assuming there's 80 million households, that would be a nest egg of $37,500.00 each. Invest the money solely in American corporations and financial institutions.
This would accomplish several things:
- The money would not flow through the hands of government, where every dollar is immediately devalued at least 35% by the cost of government and the corruption inherent in letting public servants do as they will with somebody else's money.
- None of it would be spent on useless and ultimately counter-productive one-time rebates of a measly $1,000.00, otherwise known as Transfer Payments.
- At a mere six percent interest, families would realize a yearly income of $2,250.00 to be used as they saw fit, either to spend or save. It would also be a hedge against the inevitable albeit temporary inflation that would result from pouring such massive investment into the markets in a relatively short period of time.
- Every family in America would have a legacy to pass on to their children as a hedge against future Social Security obligations.
- The money would immediately recapitalize the American economy in a manner far more efficient than the dreadfully underscrutinized giveaway to the Banks.
- It would drive up stock prices by putting trillions of competitive capital into the purchase of stocks.
Best of all, America will have created in a single stroke another 100 million capitalists among our lower classes, all with a stake in responsible governance and fiscal responsibility on Wall Street. Either the Federal government believes in the Capitalist economy that funds their tax revenues, or they don't.This is the bold thinking Obama needs to embrace. It's consistent with his vow to spread the wealth, and insure that those less well off benefit from our Capitalist society.
It would however, deprive Democrats of some of the Nanny State control they have exerted over the economy since FDR. From my persective, yet another happy outcome.
I'm not so sure Obama would think so.
This would accomplish several things:
- The money would not flow through the hands of government, where every dollar is immediately devalued at least 35% by the cost of government and the corruption inherent in letting public servants do as they will with somebody else's money.
- None of it would be spent on useless and ultimately counter-productive one-time rebates of a measly $1,000.00, otherwise known as Transfer Payments.
- At a mere six percent interest, families would realize a yearly income of $2,250.00 to be used as they saw fit, either to spend or save. It would also be a hedge against the inevitable albeit temporary inflation that would result from pouring such massive investment into the markets in a relatively short period of time.
- Every family in America would have a legacy to pass on to their children as a hedge against future Social Security obligations.
- The money would immediately recapitalize the American economy in a manner far more efficient than the dreadfully underscrutinized giveaway to the Banks.
- It would drive up stock prices by putting trillions of competitive capital into the purchase of stocks.
Best of all, America will have created in a single stroke another 100 million capitalists among our lower classes, all with a stake in responsible governance and fiscal responsibility on Wall Street. Either the Federal government believes in the Capitalist economy that funds their tax revenues, or they don't.This is the bold thinking Obama needs to embrace. It's consistent with his vow to spread the wealth, and insure that those less well off benefit from our Capitalist society.
It would however, deprive Democrats of some of the Nanny State control they have exerted over the economy since FDR. From my persective, yet another happy outcome.
I'm not so sure Obama would think so.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
God Esteems Capitalists; Democrats, Not So Much - Pt I
It's an axiom in most major religions that God loves sinners, and therefore, God must love the likes of both, say, Democrats and Capitalists. The question is: does he love one of them more than the other? If one takes a Christian perspective, I believe the answer is clearly that he loves both equally. He is God, after all. That said, he does hold one in more esteem than the other, if we are to believe the Bible. God, as you will see, holds Capitalists in greater esteem than Democrats.
And for the sake of this exercise, we shall assume that Democrats and Capitalists are mutually exclusive, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For our proof, we shall draw on one of my favorite stories from the Bible having to do with Capitalists and Democrats, The Parable Of Jesus (The Parable of the Three Servants), Matthew 25:14-30:
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made of them five additional talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained another two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, "Lord, thou deliverest unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more". His lord said unto him, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord".
He also that had received two talents came and said, "Lord, thou deliverest unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them". His lord said unto him, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord".
Then he which had received the one talent came and said, "Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown; And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine". His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not: Thou ought therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury (interest). Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth".
One can draw several conclusions from this parable. First, God loves a man who invests. That's as clear as can be from the words of praise visited by The Master upon his first two servants. So, it is clear, God holds Capitalists in the greatest of esteem.
Second, He has little use for the Zero Sum mentality of the Democrat Party, which refuses to believe that Free Enterprise yields wealth. Just look at the way the Master treats the weaselly Democrat Doppelganger, Servant Number Three: "Thou wicked and slothful servant....Thou ought to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury (interest)."
In other words, if you weren't going to invest it and make it grow, you could at least have put it in the bank to draw interest.
So, the next time you hear Democrat politicians trying to convince you that Republicans increase the deficit by reducing taxes, remember that a) they are refuted in the Bible, b) they are contradicting God's Own Messenger and one of the Original Four, and c) they are likely in for some serious repercussions ("And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth"). I'm thinking at the very least, some version of an extended stay in Purgatory.
Third, God encourages poor people to get in the game. The Master entrusts his fortune to a bunch of poor lackeys, and they do him proud. This message in particular has to creep Democrats out, since it is their victimization of the poor that accounts for 50% of their electorate.
Fourth, the fact that God knows all is revealed to us once again in the subtext of this Parable, and His revealed wisdom is that Democrats can not be trusted. After all, was it any accident that - of the three servants - he gave the single Talent to the one who proceeded to fail him?
I think not.
Finally, God has no use for Slackers: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath".
Now, if you are not convinced of the reality of these propositions, given the proliferation of Democrats during your lifetime, it's important at this point to take an historical perspective; to look at the Big Picture, if you will. Granted, for the past 75 years, Democrats have done pretty much whatever they wanted to do, and wreaked havoc upon the Earth. But so it has forever been in the Kingdom of Man. Didn't Jesus himself say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"? For the sake of this analogy, "Caesar" is Democrats. Caesar passed, and so to shall Democrat policies.
In conclusion, I might add that this Parable is incomplete. Surely somewhere is the inevitable Parable of the 4th servant: the one who stole 30 Talents from his master, then gave them to a bunch of bums who squandered them on lottery tickets and booze. Surely the wisdom of the Bible tells that story somewhere. No history of the Democrat Party would otherwise be complete.
Stay Tuned for Part II of "God Esteems Capitalists; Democrats - Not So Much"
Footnote I: Interesting to note that in this parable Matthew provides a direct refutation of Karl Marx, and, reveals Marx to be a vile little plagiarizer to boot. Matthew: "And unto one (servant) he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability". Now Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Of course, Marx was encouraging class war and sloth, whereas Matthew was referring to the straightforward practice of exerting an honest effort and turning a profit.
As clear a refutation of the Socialist Blather of the Democrat Party (not to mention the modern Catholic Church) as can be found. Pope Benedict ought to be looking over his shoulder. I know John Paul II had some 'splaining to do, once he entered through the Pearly Gates.
Footnote II: There's also a version of the parable of the Master and 3 servants courtesy of Luke 19:12-27: The Parable of the Pounds, wherein it is revealed that a Talent is equivalent to three month's wages. So, we're not talking chump change here. A Talent is worth roughly Ten Grand.
And for the sake of this exercise, we shall assume that Democrats and Capitalists are mutually exclusive, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For our proof, we shall draw on one of my favorite stories from the Bible having to do with Capitalists and Democrats, The Parable Of Jesus (The Parable of the Three Servants), Matthew 25:14-30:
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made of them five additional talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained another two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, "Lord, thou deliverest unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more". His lord said unto him, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord".
He also that had received two talents came and said, "Lord, thou deliverest unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them". His lord said unto him, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord".
Then he which had received the one talent came and said, "Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown; And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine". His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not: Thou ought therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury (interest). Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth".
One can draw several conclusions from this parable. First, God loves a man who invests. That's as clear as can be from the words of praise visited by The Master upon his first two servants. So, it is clear, God holds Capitalists in the greatest of esteem.
Second, He has little use for the Zero Sum mentality of the Democrat Party, which refuses to believe that Free Enterprise yields wealth. Just look at the way the Master treats the weaselly Democrat Doppelganger, Servant Number Three: "Thou wicked and slothful servant....Thou ought to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury (interest)."
In other words, if you weren't going to invest it and make it grow, you could at least have put it in the bank to draw interest.
So, the next time you hear Democrat politicians trying to convince you that Republicans increase the deficit by reducing taxes, remember that a) they are refuted in the Bible, b) they are contradicting God's Own Messenger and one of the Original Four, and c) they are likely in for some serious repercussions ("And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth"). I'm thinking at the very least, some version of an extended stay in Purgatory.
Third, God encourages poor people to get in the game. The Master entrusts his fortune to a bunch of poor lackeys, and they do him proud. This message in particular has to creep Democrats out, since it is their victimization of the poor that accounts for 50% of their electorate.
Fourth, the fact that God knows all is revealed to us once again in the subtext of this Parable, and His revealed wisdom is that Democrats can not be trusted. After all, was it any accident that - of the three servants - he gave the single Talent to the one who proceeded to fail him?
I think not.
Finally, God has no use for Slackers: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath".
Now, if you are not convinced of the reality of these propositions, given the proliferation of Democrats during your lifetime, it's important at this point to take an historical perspective; to look at the Big Picture, if you will. Granted, for the past 75 years, Democrats have done pretty much whatever they wanted to do, and wreaked havoc upon the Earth. But so it has forever been in the Kingdom of Man. Didn't Jesus himself say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"? For the sake of this analogy, "Caesar" is Democrats. Caesar passed, and so to shall Democrat policies.
In conclusion, I might add that this Parable is incomplete. Surely somewhere is the inevitable Parable of the 4th servant: the one who stole 30 Talents from his master, then gave them to a bunch of bums who squandered them on lottery tickets and booze. Surely the wisdom of the Bible tells that story somewhere. No history of the Democrat Party would otherwise be complete.
Stay Tuned for Part II of "God Esteems Capitalists; Democrats - Not So Much"
Footnote I: Interesting to note that in this parable Matthew provides a direct refutation of Karl Marx, and, reveals Marx to be a vile little plagiarizer to boot. Matthew: "And unto one (servant) he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability". Now Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Of course, Marx was encouraging class war and sloth, whereas Matthew was referring to the straightforward practice of exerting an honest effort and turning a profit.
As clear a refutation of the Socialist Blather of the Democrat Party (not to mention the modern Catholic Church) as can be found. Pope Benedict ought to be looking over his shoulder. I know John Paul II had some 'splaining to do, once he entered through the Pearly Gates.
Footnote II: There's also a version of the parable of the Master and 3 servants courtesy of Luke 19:12-27: The Parable of the Pounds, wherein it is revealed that a Talent is equivalent to three month's wages. So, we're not talking chump change here. A Talent is worth roughly Ten Grand.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Is Christie Brinkley Really All That?
Trial By Media
Well, the trial has been over nigh these past six months, and judgment has been handed down, and not just by the courts, mind you. The Public has seen all the evidence - or at least all that Christie Brinkley's handlers and Entertainment Tonight wanted you to see - and decided in its wisdom that her ex-husband Peter Cook is a bastard. And not just that, but a selfish, self-centered, egomaniacal, cold-hearted, porn-loving child abuser and near-pedophile. If you followed the whole sordid mess, you know what I'm talking about.
Not to say that he's not all that, but let's take a reality check, shall we?
Back when this whole deal was unraveling with OJ and Nicole style coverage, and after what seemed weeks of unidirectional abuse heaped on Cook by Brinkley and her minions, I confidently expected the counter assault to begin. After all, this was either Husband number Four or Five for Brinkley - depending on what your definition of "Husband" is - and to paraphrase the immortal words of somebody somewhere who declared that "no matter how good looking a woman, somebody somewhere is sick of her shit", at least four other somebodies were clearly sick of Christie Brinkley's.
Take Billy Joel, Husband number three (or two). To put this whole thing in perspective, she was still married to him in 1994 even as she was sneaking around behind his back and cuckolding Joel with eventual Husband number four, real estate magnate Richard Taubman, who proposed marriage to her even though she was still married to Joel, and impregnated her before marrying her. Oh yeah, Brinkley wore a white wedding dress to marry Taubman. Nice touch if you're into irony. Brinkley dumped Taubman in mid-1995, seven weeks after giving birth to their child. Another nice touch. She married Peter Cook in 1996, making it a busy year and a half for the peripatetic supermodel and fornicatress.
Given Brinkley's sordid resume, Cook's first line of defense should have been why he did so much porn and sought out other women, and the only reasonable explanation is that Christie Brinkley is a lousy lay. After all, how bad must you be in bed in order for your husband to need porn - as Brinkley put it - to "warm things up?" You're Christie Brinkley for Cripes Sakes; you've got the whole package. How crappy a lover must you be to not just look like Christie Brinkley but to actually BE Christie Brinkley, and still drive your husband nightly to the spare computer and eventually into the arms of a teenager? Show of hands here, boys: how many of you have asked your wife to splash naked in the pool, recreating Brinkley's most famous movie-turn as the seductress in National Lampoon's Vacation? Nobody? OK, maybe it was just me, but you get my meaning.
Finally, what does it say about Christy Brinkley when her husband has to spend THOUSANDS of dollars on porn every month, when everybody knows you can get unlimited monthly porn for only $49.95? And yet, we were denied even the tiniest detail on their sex life, the rebuttal never came, her hubby meekly played the role assigned to him, settling for a measly 2.4 mill, and I for one felt cheated. He sold himself way short, and I'll predict that the payoff precludes him from writing the tell-all book, a number one best seller if ever there was one. Time will tell.
And you've got to question Brinkley's motives. You may recall that she could have done this all without the cameras rolling. She could have spared her kids - with whom she professes to be so concerned - the glare of the spotlights, much less her daughter having to recount for all the world the sordid tale of a violent Cook jerking her out of the shower naked and putting her head in a bucket. The timing of this testimony, coming as it did on the heels of Brinkley's very long, very public tantrum about Cook's affair with a Teenager, would leave the informed viewer with no other opinion than that Cook was a pedophile.
So, what's her motivation here? Revenge for the public humiliation? A shot in the arm for her fading "brand"? And why would you have your kids reveal such stories to the mass media, true or not, if it could be avoided? Isn't that perverse in itself? Are we allowed to dwell on Brinkley's Dark Side at all? Me personally, I think she's got a Joan Crawford "no wire hangers" streak in her that's a mile long, except of course that she reserves the abuse for her husbands. She's also just a tad away from any Mother Of The Year awards.
Christie Brinkley, Drama and Fashion Queen
Me, I started to question Brinkley's character long before this go-round, but more about that later. This time, her wardrobe is what did it for me. The parade into court each day looked like it could be converted in a snap into a commercial for the Christie Brinkley clothing line from Target. Now, I don't know if she's even got a clothing line at Target, but if not, it shouldn't be too long before she does. Having no sense of shame or for that matter, propriety, is not only NOT a disqualifier from the affections of the merchandise-buying masses, it now seems to be an absolute prerequisite. I wait with bated breath for the Jamie Lynn Spears line of maternity clothes for the discriminating Trailer Park Tart, and let us not forget the Casual Wear line of the ever-tempted Robert Downey, Jr.
Can Christie Brinkley's Grass Widow line be that far away? Voice-over: "It's Monday, and you're due at the courthouse in 45 minutes to confront husband number four. What do you wear?"
The Teenage Connection
So Cook had an affair with a "teenager". Nice twist, that, if you're a Brinkley media sycophant, or are merely nursing the delectable albeit remote possibility that you will one day get into her pants. Cook's mistress was 18 at the time of the affair, which means she was an adult, not that that makes Cook a nice person. Shades of Bill Clinton, who used his position as the Most Powerful Man On Earth to force a 19 year old with the mind of a child to degrade herself under his desk with cigars. I am referring of course, to Monica Lewinsky, whose addled brain managed to keep the semen-stained dress not because it was historically significant, but as a keepsake. At least Cook bought his paramour flowers and paid her lots of money. Morality wise speaking, if we apply the same standard to Clinton that we do to Cook, shouldn't he be divorced, humiliated and reviled as well? Last time I checked, Slick Willy was living large, raking it in and doing Relevant Things. So much for going into Architecture.
The Stage Managed Assault On Reason
Now we must speak of the timing of the whole thing. How many people know that Cook's affair with the teenager happened in 2005, or that Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook separated in 2006? Not many, I suspect. So why was Christie out in public in 2008, acting like these things all happened yesterday? This relationship was not only dead, it was in an advanced stage of putrification, so how is it that Christie managed the fresh tears to compliment the stiff upper lip and more importantly, why did the media play along with this grotesquely scripted version of reality?
So, without putting too harsh a spin on the whole sordid tale, is it a big stretch to portray Christie Brinkley as a selfish, egomaniacal, cold-hearted, porn-loving child abuser and seducer of teens? Or as they say in the commercial "what do you have in YOUR wallet"?
Well, the trial has been over nigh these past six months, and judgment has been handed down, and not just by the courts, mind you. The Public has seen all the evidence - or at least all that Christie Brinkley's handlers and Entertainment Tonight wanted you to see - and decided in its wisdom that her ex-husband Peter Cook is a bastard. And not just that, but a selfish, self-centered, egomaniacal, cold-hearted, porn-loving child abuser and near-pedophile. If you followed the whole sordid mess, you know what I'm talking about.
Not to say that he's not all that, but let's take a reality check, shall we?
Back when this whole deal was unraveling with OJ and Nicole style coverage, and after what seemed weeks of unidirectional abuse heaped on Cook by Brinkley and her minions, I confidently expected the counter assault to begin. After all, this was either Husband number Four or Five for Brinkley - depending on what your definition of "Husband" is - and to paraphrase the immortal words of somebody somewhere who declared that "no matter how good looking a woman, somebody somewhere is sick of her shit", at least four other somebodies were clearly sick of Christie Brinkley's.
Take Billy Joel, Husband number three (or two). To put this whole thing in perspective, she was still married to him in 1994 even as she was sneaking around behind his back and cuckolding Joel with eventual Husband number four, real estate magnate Richard Taubman, who proposed marriage to her even though she was still married to Joel, and impregnated her before marrying her. Oh yeah, Brinkley wore a white wedding dress to marry Taubman. Nice touch if you're into irony. Brinkley dumped Taubman in mid-1995, seven weeks after giving birth to their child. Another nice touch. She married Peter Cook in 1996, making it a busy year and a half for the peripatetic supermodel and fornicatress.
Given Brinkley's sordid resume, Cook's first line of defense should have been why he did so much porn and sought out other women, and the only reasonable explanation is that Christie Brinkley is a lousy lay. After all, how bad must you be in bed in order for your husband to need porn - as Brinkley put it - to "warm things up?" You're Christie Brinkley for Cripes Sakes; you've got the whole package. How crappy a lover must you be to not just look like Christie Brinkley but to actually BE Christie Brinkley, and still drive your husband nightly to the spare computer and eventually into the arms of a teenager? Show of hands here, boys: how many of you have asked your wife to splash naked in the pool, recreating Brinkley's most famous movie-turn as the seductress in National Lampoon's Vacation? Nobody? OK, maybe it was just me, but you get my meaning.
Finally, what does it say about Christy Brinkley when her husband has to spend THOUSANDS of dollars on porn every month, when everybody knows you can get unlimited monthly porn for only $49.95? And yet, we were denied even the tiniest detail on their sex life, the rebuttal never came, her hubby meekly played the role assigned to him, settling for a measly 2.4 mill, and I for one felt cheated. He sold himself way short, and I'll predict that the payoff precludes him from writing the tell-all book, a number one best seller if ever there was one. Time will tell.
And you've got to question Brinkley's motives. You may recall that she could have done this all without the cameras rolling. She could have spared her kids - with whom she professes to be so concerned - the glare of the spotlights, much less her daughter having to recount for all the world the sordid tale of a violent Cook jerking her out of the shower naked and putting her head in a bucket. The timing of this testimony, coming as it did on the heels of Brinkley's very long, very public tantrum about Cook's affair with a Teenager, would leave the informed viewer with no other opinion than that Cook was a pedophile.
So, what's her motivation here? Revenge for the public humiliation? A shot in the arm for her fading "brand"? And why would you have your kids reveal such stories to the mass media, true or not, if it could be avoided? Isn't that perverse in itself? Are we allowed to dwell on Brinkley's Dark Side at all? Me personally, I think she's got a Joan Crawford "no wire hangers" streak in her that's a mile long, except of course that she reserves the abuse for her husbands. She's also just a tad away from any Mother Of The Year awards.
Christie Brinkley, Drama and Fashion Queen
Me, I started to question Brinkley's character long before this go-round, but more about that later. This time, her wardrobe is what did it for me. The parade into court each day looked like it could be converted in a snap into a commercial for the Christie Brinkley clothing line from Target. Now, I don't know if she's even got a clothing line at Target, but if not, it shouldn't be too long before she does. Having no sense of shame or for that matter, propriety, is not only NOT a disqualifier from the affections of the merchandise-buying masses, it now seems to be an absolute prerequisite. I wait with bated breath for the Jamie Lynn Spears line of maternity clothes for the discriminating Trailer Park Tart, and let us not forget the Casual Wear line of the ever-tempted Robert Downey, Jr.
Can Christie Brinkley's Grass Widow line be that far away? Voice-over: "It's Monday, and you're due at the courthouse in 45 minutes to confront husband number four. What do you wear?"
The Teenage Connection
So Cook had an affair with a "teenager". Nice twist, that, if you're a Brinkley media sycophant, or are merely nursing the delectable albeit remote possibility that you will one day get into her pants. Cook's mistress was 18 at the time of the affair, which means she was an adult, not that that makes Cook a nice person. Shades of Bill Clinton, who used his position as the Most Powerful Man On Earth to force a 19 year old with the mind of a child to degrade herself under his desk with cigars. I am referring of course, to Monica Lewinsky, whose addled brain managed to keep the semen-stained dress not because it was historically significant, but as a keepsake. At least Cook bought his paramour flowers and paid her lots of money. Morality wise speaking, if we apply the same standard to Clinton that we do to Cook, shouldn't he be divorced, humiliated and reviled as well? Last time I checked, Slick Willy was living large, raking it in and doing Relevant Things. So much for going into Architecture.
The Stage Managed Assault On Reason
Now we must speak of the timing of the whole thing. How many people know that Cook's affair with the teenager happened in 2005, or that Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook separated in 2006? Not many, I suspect. So why was Christie out in public in 2008, acting like these things all happened yesterday? This relationship was not only dead, it was in an advanced stage of putrification, so how is it that Christie managed the fresh tears to compliment the stiff upper lip and more importantly, why did the media play along with this grotesquely scripted version of reality?
So, without putting too harsh a spin on the whole sordid tale, is it a big stretch to portray Christie Brinkley as a selfish, egomaniacal, cold-hearted, porn-loving child abuser and seducer of teens? Or as they say in the commercial "what do you have in YOUR wallet"?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
America's Foreign Car Fetishism
One of my more enduring complaints about a significant percentage of my fellow citizens is their habit of reflexively buying foreign cars because of a perceived - as opposed to real - difference in Quality between foreign cars and domestic. That is not to say that there are not discriminating purchasers of foreign cars; it is to say, however, that all too often, foreign cars are purchased because they are foreign, and American cars excluded because they are American. For the sake of a convenient shorthand, let us simply describe this phenomenon as "Foreign Car Fetishism", or FCF.
It is also important to understand from the beginning that FCF comes in two flavors: Consumers inspired by a Yuppie trend that started in the 80s, and Car Critics with Esteem issues. While both groups have several traits in common, they have one important difference: Car Critics are invested in perpetuating the Fetish. In fact, their very livelihoods frequently depend on it. Much as Environmentalists would cease to flourish if there was no perception of Global Warming as a problem, the market for Car Critics would narrow severely if America had actually eliminated the so-called Quality gap. After all, what would Car Critics have to editorialize about?
Even more significant, there is a disinclination among Critics to not bite the hand that feeds them, as Foreign car manufacturers become dominant in the advertising segments of the industry, hand out the goodies bags at the trade shows, become a presence in Racing and so on.
Let's review the traits that define Foreign Car Fetishism. You tell me if you know of somebody who fits the description:
- FCFers revere "Quality", however inanely incremental the differences between brands might be. The difference between Toyota and GM twenty years ago was wide in terms of fit, finish, reliability, durability, features, you name it. Now, the difference is extremely narrow, domestic manufacturers having resolutely closed the gap. Still, the FCFers continue to rationalize their bias against The Big Three by pointing out that overall they continue to place behind such as Toyota, Honda and Nissan in overall quality rankings.
But when all six of these manufacturers are mere percentage points apart, at what point does the "quality" argument cease to have any meaning? If American cars as just as safe; if the difference in cabin noise is indistinguishable to the human ear; if the yearly maintenance and repair costs are fifty bucks more for Domestic than Foreign; at some point, isn't the Quality argument moot? At some point, wouldn't you have to at least consider an American-made car?
- FCFers generally know little about American cars, and don't even look at them when researching purchases. They can't cite models, pricing or performance, because they know nothing about the domestic counterparts to foreign automobiles. Their justification is to cite statistics and rhetoric from the 1970s and 80s, and boy, do they love quoting that era. It's as if nothing has changed in twenty years.
- FCFers all revere resale value, unwitting of the fact that their anti-American bias partially drives the perception that drives resale value. Trends driven by perceptions don't change overnight, so don't expect resale values to change overnight. That doesn't mean that American manufactured cars aren't a good deal.
- FCFers love to point out that foreign car companies successfully manufacture quality cars at a lower price in America, compared to The Big Three. It is their ultimate "Gotcha" argument. While there is some truth to the argument, the claims are inflated, to say the least, and have virtually nothing to do with the importation of superior business practices, engineering, or manufacturing techniques. The foreign car companies all set up their plants fairly recently, and States competed with each other to get the business, offering tax breaks, free land and other incentives that the Big Three did not enjoy. And FCFs are generally ignorant of the fact that foreign car companies were given immunity from the UAW by Federal and State governments, further dooming the domestic automobile manufacturers to a perpetual competitive disadvantage.
FCFers buttress the argument above - whilst simultaneously rationalizing their foreign car bias - by also misrepresenting the whole "content" issue. They love to state, falsely, that there's no difference in content; that American cars have as many foreign parts as foreign cars, and foreign cars as much domestic content as American cars. This is willful ignorance at best, and a blatant lie at worst. Toyota and Honda "assemble" some cars here, but mostly manufacture the components elsewhere. Bottom line, foreign car manufacturers continue to import the majority of their content from overseas. American car companies manufacture and assemble the majority of their content here.
- FCFers never acknowledge the deficiencies of foreign cars. For one example, Toyota has taken some huge hits in the past few years, with more recalls than any of the Big Three, yet their consumer ratings have not suffered. How could this be?
- FCFers frequently revile domestic automobiles for their very domesticity. This is very much a Yuppie trend, but picked up by successive generations. Starting in the 70s, there was a Coolness factor to owning something foreign. This was particularly true of the two Coastlines, who had the added incentive of sticking it to the Midwest, with whom they have little in common, culturally speaking.
- FCFers never acknowledge - much less comprehend - that the overhead game has been rigged against American manufacturers of all stripes. For one example, Japan bears the burden of all retirement costs for Toyotas employees in Japan. Give one car company a $1,500 per car advantage on cars sold in America and guess what? The other companies will eventually be out of business. Ironically, Toyota's American employees do NOT have their pension benefits subsidized by the Japanese government. Why not?
- FCFers are generally ignorant of history, much less sociological trends. Korean, Japanese and German folks are culturally disinclined from purchasing foreign produced goods at the expense of domestic producers; they are willing to make a small sacrifice so as to benefit their domestic industries. Americans have no such scruples, so our world market share is smaller. What other countries understand that Americans do not is that nationalism matters, and that economies of scale matter. You need a piece of the foreign car market for your domestic industry to survive. Only America is not so entitled.
- Compared to America, most foreign countries continue to have significant trade barriers to the importation of American manufactured goods, including automobiles. America has far lower trade barriers overall, including cars. The net result is that American manufacturers suffer yet another economies-of-scale disadvantage. The bitter irony of this reality is that if America had access to as much of the worldwide automotive market as do the Japanese, Koreans and Germans, that we would generate the economies of scale that make improvements in quality possible.
The Net of all this is that American car companies - as is the case with much of American industry - are at a disadvantage for a number of reasons, most of which are outside their control. That's not the popular perception, however. The Big Three is merely the poster child for a presumption on the part of FCFers that American manufacturers don't compete well because the companies - and their employees - suck. And of course, what most FCFers have in common is that they are not employed in industries that have - as the Big Three do - foreign competition. Mostly employed by the protected industries that can still afford to pay a wage that allows the purchase of automobiles, they increasingly purchase foreign cars.
What gripes me about FCFers most in this respect is their assumption that they are so very different from their fellow Americans that do compete against the Japanese, Koreans and Germans. I'll buy that assumption the minute that Government employees, teachers, Health Care workers, Lawyers, Accountants and most other Service Industry employees have some significant foreign competition. Let's see how well they stack up; let's see them lose market share and have their share values, jobs and wages threatened; then we can talk.
The Big Question, after acknowledging that Foreign cars generally are still better than their American counterparts - albeit much less so than a generation ago - is this: Is there any price you'd be willing to pay to employ your fellow Americans? Is there any sacrifice of Quality, however small, you'd be willing to endure?
For a lot of Americans, that question drives their purchasing decisions. For most FCFers, it seems to matter not at all; only one reason among many that our economy is in the tank.
One final observation: the biggest Foreign Car Fetishists, without a doubt, are Democrats, while redneck Republicans are the ones "buying American". This strikes me as funny, given that the ones taking it in the neck for America's worship of imports are American workers. Aren't Democrats supposed to be the party that supports workers? Aren't Republicans the party that supports evil corporations?
Why in God's name does the UAW support the Democrat Party?
It is also important to understand from the beginning that FCF comes in two flavors: Consumers inspired by a Yuppie trend that started in the 80s, and Car Critics with Esteem issues. While both groups have several traits in common, they have one important difference: Car Critics are invested in perpetuating the Fetish. In fact, their very livelihoods frequently depend on it. Much as Environmentalists would cease to flourish if there was no perception of Global Warming as a problem, the market for Car Critics would narrow severely if America had actually eliminated the so-called Quality gap. After all, what would Car Critics have to editorialize about?
Even more significant, there is a disinclination among Critics to not bite the hand that feeds them, as Foreign car manufacturers become dominant in the advertising segments of the industry, hand out the goodies bags at the trade shows, become a presence in Racing and so on.
Let's review the traits that define Foreign Car Fetishism. You tell me if you know of somebody who fits the description:
- FCFers revere "Quality", however inanely incremental the differences between brands might be. The difference between Toyota and GM twenty years ago was wide in terms of fit, finish, reliability, durability, features, you name it. Now, the difference is extremely narrow, domestic manufacturers having resolutely closed the gap. Still, the FCFers continue to rationalize their bias against The Big Three by pointing out that overall they continue to place behind such as Toyota, Honda and Nissan in overall quality rankings.
But when all six of these manufacturers are mere percentage points apart, at what point does the "quality" argument cease to have any meaning? If American cars as just as safe; if the difference in cabin noise is indistinguishable to the human ear; if the yearly maintenance and repair costs are fifty bucks more for Domestic than Foreign; at some point, isn't the Quality argument moot? At some point, wouldn't you have to at least consider an American-made car?
- FCFers generally know little about American cars, and don't even look at them when researching purchases. They can't cite models, pricing or performance, because they know nothing about the domestic counterparts to foreign automobiles. Their justification is to cite statistics and rhetoric from the 1970s and 80s, and boy, do they love quoting that era. It's as if nothing has changed in twenty years.
- FCFers all revere resale value, unwitting of the fact that their anti-American bias partially drives the perception that drives resale value. Trends driven by perceptions don't change overnight, so don't expect resale values to change overnight. That doesn't mean that American manufactured cars aren't a good deal.
- FCFers love to point out that foreign car companies successfully manufacture quality cars at a lower price in America, compared to The Big Three. It is their ultimate "Gotcha" argument. While there is some truth to the argument, the claims are inflated, to say the least, and have virtually nothing to do with the importation of superior business practices, engineering, or manufacturing techniques. The foreign car companies all set up their plants fairly recently, and States competed with each other to get the business, offering tax breaks, free land and other incentives that the Big Three did not enjoy. And FCFs are generally ignorant of the fact that foreign car companies were given immunity from the UAW by Federal and State governments, further dooming the domestic automobile manufacturers to a perpetual competitive disadvantage.
FCFers buttress the argument above - whilst simultaneously rationalizing their foreign car bias - by also misrepresenting the whole "content" issue. They love to state, falsely, that there's no difference in content; that American cars have as many foreign parts as foreign cars, and foreign cars as much domestic content as American cars. This is willful ignorance at best, and a blatant lie at worst. Toyota and Honda "assemble" some cars here, but mostly manufacture the components elsewhere. Bottom line, foreign car manufacturers continue to import the majority of their content from overseas. American car companies manufacture and assemble the majority of their content here.
- FCFers never acknowledge the deficiencies of foreign cars. For one example, Toyota has taken some huge hits in the past few years, with more recalls than any of the Big Three, yet their consumer ratings have not suffered. How could this be?
- FCFers frequently revile domestic automobiles for their very domesticity. This is very much a Yuppie trend, but picked up by successive generations. Starting in the 70s, there was a Coolness factor to owning something foreign. This was particularly true of the two Coastlines, who had the added incentive of sticking it to the Midwest, with whom they have little in common, culturally speaking.
- FCFers never acknowledge - much less comprehend - that the overhead game has been rigged against American manufacturers of all stripes. For one example, Japan bears the burden of all retirement costs for Toyotas employees in Japan. Give one car company a $1,500 per car advantage on cars sold in America and guess what? The other companies will eventually be out of business. Ironically, Toyota's American employees do NOT have their pension benefits subsidized by the Japanese government. Why not?
- FCFers are generally ignorant of history, much less sociological trends. Korean, Japanese and German folks are culturally disinclined from purchasing foreign produced goods at the expense of domestic producers; they are willing to make a small sacrifice so as to benefit their domestic industries. Americans have no such scruples, so our world market share is smaller. What other countries understand that Americans do not is that nationalism matters, and that economies of scale matter. You need a piece of the foreign car market for your domestic industry to survive. Only America is not so entitled.
- Compared to America, most foreign countries continue to have significant trade barriers to the importation of American manufactured goods, including automobiles. America has far lower trade barriers overall, including cars. The net result is that American manufacturers suffer yet another economies-of-scale disadvantage. The bitter irony of this reality is that if America had access to as much of the worldwide automotive market as do the Japanese, Koreans and Germans, that we would generate the economies of scale that make improvements in quality possible.
The Net of all this is that American car companies - as is the case with much of American industry - are at a disadvantage for a number of reasons, most of which are outside their control. That's not the popular perception, however. The Big Three is merely the poster child for a presumption on the part of FCFers that American manufacturers don't compete well because the companies - and their employees - suck. And of course, what most FCFers have in common is that they are not employed in industries that have - as the Big Three do - foreign competition. Mostly employed by the protected industries that can still afford to pay a wage that allows the purchase of automobiles, they increasingly purchase foreign cars.
What gripes me about FCFers most in this respect is their assumption that they are so very different from their fellow Americans that do compete against the Japanese, Koreans and Germans. I'll buy that assumption the minute that Government employees, teachers, Health Care workers, Lawyers, Accountants and most other Service Industry employees have some significant foreign competition. Let's see how well they stack up; let's see them lose market share and have their share values, jobs and wages threatened; then we can talk.
The Big Question, after acknowledging that Foreign cars generally are still better than their American counterparts - albeit much less so than a generation ago - is this: Is there any price you'd be willing to pay to employ your fellow Americans? Is there any sacrifice of Quality, however small, you'd be willing to endure?
For a lot of Americans, that question drives their purchasing decisions. For most FCFers, it seems to matter not at all; only one reason among many that our economy is in the tank.
One final observation: the biggest Foreign Car Fetishists, without a doubt, are Democrats, while redneck Republicans are the ones "buying American". This strikes me as funny, given that the ones taking it in the neck for America's worship of imports are American workers. Aren't Democrats supposed to be the party that supports workers? Aren't Republicans the party that supports evil corporations?
Why in God's name does the UAW support the Democrat Party?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Why The Beef About Panetta?
What's the fuss about Obama naming Leon Panetta as the head of the CIA? Granted, Panetta's held no posts in Congress or his stint as a Clinton era nutbuster that had anything remotely to do with foreign intelligence gathering, but that's hardly a reason to disqualify the guy out of hand. After all, if actual qualifications mattered, America wouldn't have made Barack Obama their president, now would they?
So, is this an anomaly, or is there a pattern to Obama's choices to date? Let's look at his selections for other key positions:
- Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Zero foreign policy credentials, including her 8 years as a senator, except for her claim that her airplane took some Triple A when she visited Afghanistan several years back. Most memorable foreign policy experience: declaring in 1996 the existence of WMDs in Iraq and calling for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein, then declaring her neutrality, then enthusiastically throwing GW Bush under the bus starting in 2006 for having exactly the same views that she did prior to her run for the presidency.
Her only other major accomplishment was to be the cuckolded wife of Bill Clinton. Can't wait for her first meeting with Sarkozy: "Ah, Madame Secretary. So nice to meet ze wife of Bill Clinton. His appreciation of cigars is most creative, and so very French. As we say in France "si votre épouse pas fellate vous, votre maîtresse". And now, let us discuss NATO, shall we"?
- Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce. A Government Lifer with Zero business experience, unless you include the bribes he took from contractors in return for state business. In retrospect, though, he is cut from exactly the same cloth as Ron Brown, the Clinton Bag Man and former Commerce Secretary, and a close personal friend of Richardson's during his stint as Energy Secretary.
Probably a good thing Richardson had to drop out because of the corruption thing, since Brown's plane rather suspiciously ran into the side of a hill once his corrupt dealings started to become an embarrassment for Clinton. Not to say that Obama is that bloodthirsty, but one can't be too careful.
- Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. Zero anti-terrorism experience and zero foreign policy credentials, unless you include her cheerleading while her state (Arizona) was being overwhelmed by Illegal Immigrants. Another Clinton era hack (U.S. Attorney), and not on Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Christmas Card list, by the way.
- Eric Holder as Attorney General. Lot's of government experience as U.S. Attorney and Deputy AG to Janet Reno The Berserker, but more typically the kind that puts you in the Defendant's chair. Amongst other criminal enterprises, he held Reno's coat while she burned 91 people alive at Waco, then again when when she directed the FBI to attack the family of Elian Gonzalez with M-16s so as to forcibly repatriate the child to Communist Cuba.
He also used his office to absolve the FBI assassins who killed a right wing mother holding her baby at Ruby Ridge. Man, those were some good times for Democrats. They got to murder people at will and terrorize their opponents without so much as a cross letter to the editor - much less any grand juries. The Chi-coms should have had such a compliant press.
Holder finished off his stint as a Clinton Goon by engineering the pardon of international terrorist and long-time Democrat Party fundraiser Marc Rich. Google that one for a truly amazing read.
And that's just the short list. Obama's major picks are all Clinton retreads, mostly with the stink of corruption on them (except for Panetta), a curious choice for a man who ran on the theme of change. That may have been the price Obama had to pay to neutralize Hillary as an opponent; or it may have been the price he had to pay in order to get Bill and Hillary to turn over copies of those FBI files on the 3000 most prominent Republicans in the U.S., not to mention his own.
So, is this an anomaly, or is there a pattern to Obama's choices to date? Let's look at his selections for other key positions:
- Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Zero foreign policy credentials, including her 8 years as a senator, except for her claim that her airplane took some Triple A when she visited Afghanistan several years back. Most memorable foreign policy experience: declaring in 1996 the existence of WMDs in Iraq and calling for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein, then declaring her neutrality, then enthusiastically throwing GW Bush under the bus starting in 2006 for having exactly the same views that she did prior to her run for the presidency.
Her only other major accomplishment was to be the cuckolded wife of Bill Clinton. Can't wait for her first meeting with Sarkozy: "Ah, Madame Secretary. So nice to meet ze wife of Bill Clinton. His appreciation of cigars is most creative, and so very French. As we say in France "si votre épouse pas fellate vous, votre maîtresse". And now, let us discuss NATO, shall we"?
- Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce. A Government Lifer with Zero business experience, unless you include the bribes he took from contractors in return for state business. In retrospect, though, he is cut from exactly the same cloth as Ron Brown, the Clinton Bag Man and former Commerce Secretary, and a close personal friend of Richardson's during his stint as Energy Secretary.
Probably a good thing Richardson had to drop out because of the corruption thing, since Brown's plane rather suspiciously ran into the side of a hill once his corrupt dealings started to become an embarrassment for Clinton. Not to say that Obama is that bloodthirsty, but one can't be too careful.
- Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. Zero anti-terrorism experience and zero foreign policy credentials, unless you include her cheerleading while her state (Arizona) was being overwhelmed by Illegal Immigrants. Another Clinton era hack (U.S. Attorney), and not on Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Christmas Card list, by the way.
- Eric Holder as Attorney General. Lot's of government experience as U.S. Attorney and Deputy AG to Janet Reno The Berserker, but more typically the kind that puts you in the Defendant's chair. Amongst other criminal enterprises, he held Reno's coat while she burned 91 people alive at Waco, then again when when she directed the FBI to attack the family of Elian Gonzalez with M-16s so as to forcibly repatriate the child to Communist Cuba.
He also used his office to absolve the FBI assassins who killed a right wing mother holding her baby at Ruby Ridge. Man, those were some good times for Democrats. They got to murder people at will and terrorize their opponents without so much as a cross letter to the editor - much less any grand juries. The Chi-coms should have had such a compliant press.
Holder finished off his stint as a Clinton Goon by engineering the pardon of international terrorist and long-time Democrat Party fundraiser Marc Rich. Google that one for a truly amazing read.
And that's just the short list. Obama's major picks are all Clinton retreads, mostly with the stink of corruption on them (except for Panetta), a curious choice for a man who ran on the theme of change. That may have been the price Obama had to pay to neutralize Hillary as an opponent; or it may have been the price he had to pay in order to get Bill and Hillary to turn over copies of those FBI files on the 3000 most prominent Republicans in the U.S., not to mention his own.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Happy Days Are Here Again
Today, I feel better about the economy. Not that there's been any positive indicators; there haven't. The stock market is still in the tank, consumer confidence is down, and Democrats still intend on solving our economic woes with the fiscal equivalent of Bleeding and Leeches.
No, today I took heart because Barack Obama warned not only that in the coming year our yearly deficit would exceed $1 Trillion, but that it would remain in the One Trillion dollar range "indefinitely".
Shades of Bill Clinton. You know, the economic genius who presided over what Democrats describe as the "longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history" (LPOPPIONH for short), aka, the Clinton presidency. Now, those claims are certainly hyperbolic, and as usual, lacking explanation as to exactly what Bill Clinton and his cohorts did to cause said prosperity, but those are quibbles. We enjoyed prosperity, at least for a time.
Which brings us to the reason I'm so happy. As you may recall, in 1995, two years after Clinton signed into law the "largest tax increase in world history", the economy was tanking and deficits were ratcheting back up, causing Bill Clinton to proclaim that there would be $200 billion dollar deficits "as far as the eye can see". Within a year, the deficits were going back down.
What's the common thread here? Both Clinton and Obama are economic numbskulls; both have no clue what causes the economy to rise or fall; both inflicted massive tax increases (or soon will) on the American people; both then made exactly the same prediction of unending deficits. When Clinton did those things, he promptly lost his party both houses of Congress in 1994, and things started booming once Republicans were running things.
Granted, Obama is getting a jump on things by proclaiming the deficits before he's even president, and he's taken the added precaution of blaming it all on President Bush, but inasmuch as he already has a monster tax increase on the table (his stimulus package), it shouldn't be too long before a Republican resurgence in Congress, and the restoral of our economy.
Hope springs eternal.
No, today I took heart because Barack Obama warned not only that in the coming year our yearly deficit would exceed $1 Trillion, but that it would remain in the One Trillion dollar range "indefinitely".
Shades of Bill Clinton. You know, the economic genius who presided over what Democrats describe as the "longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history" (LPOPPIONH for short), aka, the Clinton presidency. Now, those claims are certainly hyperbolic, and as usual, lacking explanation as to exactly what Bill Clinton and his cohorts did to cause said prosperity, but those are quibbles. We enjoyed prosperity, at least for a time.
Which brings us to the reason I'm so happy. As you may recall, in 1995, two years after Clinton signed into law the "largest tax increase in world history", the economy was tanking and deficits were ratcheting back up, causing Bill Clinton to proclaim that there would be $200 billion dollar deficits "as far as the eye can see". Within a year, the deficits were going back down.
What's the common thread here? Both Clinton and Obama are economic numbskulls; both have no clue what causes the economy to rise or fall; both inflicted massive tax increases (or soon will) on the American people; both then made exactly the same prediction of unending deficits. When Clinton did those things, he promptly lost his party both houses of Congress in 1994, and things started booming once Republicans were running things.
Granted, Obama is getting a jump on things by proclaiming the deficits before he's even president, and he's taken the added precaution of blaming it all on President Bush, but inasmuch as he already has a monster tax increase on the table (his stimulus package), it shouldn't be too long before a Republican resurgence in Congress, and the restoral of our economy.
Hope springs eternal.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Selling Of America
With the Democrat inspired economic crash now in full flower, it's worth discussing how it is that they plan to get us out of the current morass.
Since the explosion in public spending in the mid-60s, Dem's have exhausted most of the traditional sources of wealth that would have qualified to right the economy. Consumer debt had of course been the foremost, but that's gone now that credit card debt and the mortgage debt incurred to cover the credit card debt are both at an all-time high. Taxes and other Public Sector costs as a percentage of national wealth are also at an all-time high - and now at levels comparable to those of World War II - consuming 60% of our GDP. Corporate and Capital gains taxes are at unsustainable levels that destroy our competitiveness. Foreign ownership of America's corporations, land, buildings, homes and now, increasingly, our infrastructure is at the point of exhaustion, unless we come up with additional means to incent further "investment". Likewise with government debt. We can't sell more without devaluing our currency further, thus risking the stagflation inflicted on us by Jimmy Carter and his three immediate predecessors, two of whom were Republicans with a huge Democrat stripe down their backs.
Bipartisan plundering also includes the imposition of State Lotteries and Casino gambling. Isn't it odd to think that the very things that Pols used to consider as crimes against society are now virtuous enterprises? When the Mafia did these things, it was bad, and corrupted the populace. When government does it, it's a good thing. Either way, Lotteries and Casino Gambling have pretty much been tapped out as sources of revenue, yet another well we can't go back to.
But with all of these obstacles, don't sell the Democrats short. Along with certain Fellow Travelling Republicans, they are, even as we speak, devising new and creative methods to sustain the unsustainable levels of government they've imposed on us, with the motto of "let no government job go unfunded".
Since State government action is always the precursor to what the Feds can do, it's interesting to note that the reaction of the States to the current economic meltdown is not to cut spending, but to increase revenues. Absent the bothersome realities that confront Corporate America and Joe Sixpack when things get tough, the States are making a few cosmetic cuts in the cost of governance, but that's about it. They're angling for a federal government bailout, and they're about to get it.
And who can blame them? GW Bush established the ground rules that fueled their expectations of a bailout, abandoning all fiscal sanity by giving the criminal Bankers that got us into this mess the keys to the vault, unlimited funds, and no accountability. Fiscal responsibility has been dropped down a rabbit hole that would seem queer even to the Cheshire Cat, and that's saying a lot, given his capacity to endure weirdness. That said, it's no wonder the States have put themselves in line for what will be a trillion dollar handout, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
So, with government debt at all levels at an all time high, with consumer and corporate debt at an all time high, and with the taxable revenue base dropping through the floor, where will new income come from to allow the States to sustain the unsustainable? The answer is simple, since the States cannot incur additional debt at this point; They will expect a handout of additional revenue sharing from the Federal Government, and they will sell everything else they can get their hands on. Think I'm kidding? The centerpiece of Barack Obama's "stimulus" package is more revenue sharing with the States; and mark my words: it will balloon from $775 billion to $1.5 trillion this year.
Of all Democrat boondoggles, revenue sharing has been one of the most insidious. States can increase spending without tax increases, and thus, without political consequences. It is so addictive that otherwise sensible Republican governors line up at the trough as enthusiastically as their Dem counterparts.
And here's the shopping list of assets the States desire to sell, hot off the pages of the Houston Chronicle:
- State and county owned toll roads.
- The afore-mentioned State Lotteries.
- The rights to ownership of inter-state roads, such as the proposed Trans Mexico/Canada corridor. This would include the land and all toll rights, by the way.
- Airports.
- Port facilities.
And that's just the short list. If you're asking yourself "gosh, these are all current and future revenue generators. Aren't we cutting off our noses to spite our faces?", the answer to your question is, yes, but they're hoping you won't notice. Democrats have been selling or mortgaging our seed corn for almost fifty years. It is a testament to how staggeringly wealthy we were as a nation that it took them this long to exhaust all of it as collateral for loans.
Now, here's the really good part: since nobody in America has any money left, and the dollar has been so devalued by irresponsible government spending, the sale of the bulk of these assets will be to foreign governments, foreign banks, and what I'll charitably call "other foreign interests", most of them hostile to the U.S. So along with selling out the assets, they are selling out America to indentured servitude to a bunch of tyrants.
Democrats.
Since the explosion in public spending in the mid-60s, Dem's have exhausted most of the traditional sources of wealth that would have qualified to right the economy. Consumer debt had of course been the foremost, but that's gone now that credit card debt and the mortgage debt incurred to cover the credit card debt are both at an all-time high. Taxes and other Public Sector costs as a percentage of national wealth are also at an all-time high - and now at levels comparable to those of World War II - consuming 60% of our GDP. Corporate and Capital gains taxes are at unsustainable levels that destroy our competitiveness. Foreign ownership of America's corporations, land, buildings, homes and now, increasingly, our infrastructure is at the point of exhaustion, unless we come up with additional means to incent further "investment". Likewise with government debt. We can't sell more without devaluing our currency further, thus risking the stagflation inflicted on us by Jimmy Carter and his three immediate predecessors, two of whom were Republicans with a huge Democrat stripe down their backs.
Bipartisan plundering also includes the imposition of State Lotteries and Casino gambling. Isn't it odd to think that the very things that Pols used to consider as crimes against society are now virtuous enterprises? When the Mafia did these things, it was bad, and corrupted the populace. When government does it, it's a good thing. Either way, Lotteries and Casino Gambling have pretty much been tapped out as sources of revenue, yet another well we can't go back to.
But with all of these obstacles, don't sell the Democrats short. Along with certain Fellow Travelling Republicans, they are, even as we speak, devising new and creative methods to sustain the unsustainable levels of government they've imposed on us, with the motto of "let no government job go unfunded".
Since State government action is always the precursor to what the Feds can do, it's interesting to note that the reaction of the States to the current economic meltdown is not to cut spending, but to increase revenues. Absent the bothersome realities that confront Corporate America and Joe Sixpack when things get tough, the States are making a few cosmetic cuts in the cost of governance, but that's about it. They're angling for a federal government bailout, and they're about to get it.
And who can blame them? GW Bush established the ground rules that fueled their expectations of a bailout, abandoning all fiscal sanity by giving the criminal Bankers that got us into this mess the keys to the vault, unlimited funds, and no accountability. Fiscal responsibility has been dropped down a rabbit hole that would seem queer even to the Cheshire Cat, and that's saying a lot, given his capacity to endure weirdness. That said, it's no wonder the States have put themselves in line for what will be a trillion dollar handout, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
So, with government debt at all levels at an all time high, with consumer and corporate debt at an all time high, and with the taxable revenue base dropping through the floor, where will new income come from to allow the States to sustain the unsustainable? The answer is simple, since the States cannot incur additional debt at this point; They will expect a handout of additional revenue sharing from the Federal Government, and they will sell everything else they can get their hands on. Think I'm kidding? The centerpiece of Barack Obama's "stimulus" package is more revenue sharing with the States; and mark my words: it will balloon from $775 billion to $1.5 trillion this year.
Of all Democrat boondoggles, revenue sharing has been one of the most insidious. States can increase spending without tax increases, and thus, without political consequences. It is so addictive that otherwise sensible Republican governors line up at the trough as enthusiastically as their Dem counterparts.
And here's the shopping list of assets the States desire to sell, hot off the pages of the Houston Chronicle:
- State and county owned toll roads.
- The afore-mentioned State Lotteries.
- The rights to ownership of inter-state roads, such as the proposed Trans Mexico/Canada corridor. This would include the land and all toll rights, by the way.
- Airports.
- Port facilities.
And that's just the short list. If you're asking yourself "gosh, these are all current and future revenue generators. Aren't we cutting off our noses to spite our faces?", the answer to your question is, yes, but they're hoping you won't notice. Democrats have been selling or mortgaging our seed corn for almost fifty years. It is a testament to how staggeringly wealthy we were as a nation that it took them this long to exhaust all of it as collateral for loans.
Now, here's the really good part: since nobody in America has any money left, and the dollar has been so devalued by irresponsible government spending, the sale of the bulk of these assets will be to foreign governments, foreign banks, and what I'll charitably call "other foreign interests", most of them hostile to the U.S. So along with selling out the assets, they are selling out America to indentured servitude to a bunch of tyrants.
Democrats.
Friday, January 2, 2009
An Inaugural Poem
We shall dispense with praise of Rocks and Trees,
And tribute to the Bees, the Birds, the Fish,
With Maya Angelou upon her knees,
Will Justice Roberts consummate her wish.....
......to consecrate The One, the Cause, the Fight,
As voters finally did what they were told,
Still chastised for the crime of being white,
And bowing to a finger-wagging Scold.
The Scold wore many faces with the label,
Be it Sharpton, Rangel, Jackson, Wright or Lee,
The One made room for race-pimps at the table,
And will serve their bile as appetizers, see?
And praise you Moderates, the timely vector,
When principle was killed for pragmatism,
You'll get a handout from the Public Sector,
And four full years of rote Obamaism.
The Roll Call of your names will cause the puckers,
to the buttholes of the losers in this Cycle,
You played your party for a bunch of suckers,
Hey Senator McCain, meet Robert Michel!
But scorn can still be nurtured, albeit reserved,
For those who sell out freedom to a Cipher,
Their ignominy more than well deserved,
For deference to a Governmental Lifer.
So tip a glass to Dems and Fellow Travellers,
Their time has come, and they control the game,
The gang of Scrounges, Thieves and Great Unravelers,
And thanks for effing nothing all the same.
But hang in there Conservatives, be cheerful,
And train your sights on midterms, twenty ten,
Accomodationists are getting fearful,
We'll save the world from Liberals, once again.
And tribute to the Bees, the Birds, the Fish,
With Maya Angelou upon her knees,
Will Justice Roberts consummate her wish.....
......to consecrate The One, the Cause, the Fight,
As voters finally did what they were told,
Still chastised for the crime of being white,
And bowing to a finger-wagging Scold.
The Scold wore many faces with the label,
Be it Sharpton, Rangel, Jackson, Wright or Lee,
The One made room for race-pimps at the table,
And will serve their bile as appetizers, see?
And praise you Moderates, the timely vector,
When principle was killed for pragmatism,
You'll get a handout from the Public Sector,
And four full years of rote Obamaism.
The Roll Call of your names will cause the puckers,
to the buttholes of the losers in this Cycle,
You played your party for a bunch of suckers,
Hey Senator McCain, meet Robert Michel!
But scorn can still be nurtured, albeit reserved,
For those who sell out freedom to a Cipher,
Their ignominy more than well deserved,
For deference to a Governmental Lifer.
So tip a glass to Dems and Fellow Travellers,
Their time has come, and they control the game,
The gang of Scrounges, Thieves and Great Unravelers,
And thanks for effing nothing all the same.
But hang in there Conservatives, be cheerful,
And train your sights on midterms, twenty ten,
Accomodationists are getting fearful,
We'll save the world from Liberals, once again.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)