Thursday, February 4, 2010
Working for the worthless
The hardest working/most creative & intelligent people in America, people who have given us millions of jobs & great products like the Ipod & Starbucks-their income gets taxed upwards of 40-70%. You mightn't care if someones taxes are raised from 20 to 45% (so that Obama can send checks to ppl who pay no taxes) but that means that those people will work half the week for the Goverment & do they get the 200,000 they give in taxes back in gov. services? No, not even close.
"A History of Green Lights Gone Bad"...
...perhaps that would work as the title of the documentrary that Roger Ebert suggested in 1996 which would consist of segments devoted to chronicling indivual cases of mind bogglingly bad desicions on the part of film studios. This would means that you would take maybe 5-7 terrible movies with the worst/dumbest plots and try to answer for each movie in the course of maybe 15-30 mineutes segments, the question: how did this move get the green light?
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.
Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).
The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.
Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).
The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Are liberals more close-minded than conservative?
NOTES ON LIBERALS FROM A FORMER LIBERAL MAROONED IN LIBERALDOME: I think liberals tend to be more close minded & intellectually curious. I think it b/ liberals hate to even hear others views they might not know anything about a immigration but if ur not a obama fan they don't want to hear wat u have to say. They hate debating issues. Yet conservatives love to argue & never refuse to even hear the left out, this all makes sense since most begin as liberals by default in life b/c the media is liberal & only those with the intellectual curiousity ever even exsplore the other side's views which most libetals dont even know.
There is no liberal version of William F. BUckley's TV show, Firing Line whererin Buckley would debate liberals paying fastidous attention to the details of liberal's arguments, usually disagreeing but still always taking the liberals arguments serious. People complain about FOX all the time as biased but there is no Hannity & Colmes on another network. On CNN and MSNBC all we got is liberals, they make no pretense of balance, Hannity was the conservative and Holmes was the liberal where is Rachel Maddow's counter-weight conservative on the other side of her anchor desk?
Just look at the classic libetal facial geture: the smug, condescending your-views-are-such-a-joke-its-comical face.
I hesitate to discuss this liberal smugness/clos mindedness because I fear being viewed as part of the Palin crowd. There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of Sara Palin cause she is not ready for show time, not even close. I've said this from the moment she came into our lives.
Anyways I really believe that atleast with regard to those Americans now below 30 years of age (my mileu) the following is the general case: that the more intellectually rigorous and curious exsplore the views of the right and are becoming conservatives as they see that the view point of a National Review which never gets any play on ABC or CNN is, on most things, the correct view. Those with the most complacent, smug, unintrested, uncurious minds stay default liberals which is to say they don't know what the liberal position may be on immigration but they know they support it, they are democrats by cultural affinties and accept the whole assortment of liberal views without scruntizing them.
Look are society since about 15 years ago has been one inwhich the partus of the media (celebrity tabloid blogs and magazine, political sites, movies,etc.) has become a bigger part of a lives as a result of our growing investment in the internet. With younger Americans, my crowd, who have grown up in this enviorment their whole lives, because of the Daily Show & Colbert those who became "liberals" became such at a younger age than previous generations but did so not because this generation of people is more political. Because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (shows for young people) and how politics has become more central to the arts and life in gen eral (as a watercool subject of conversation) kids develope political idenities passivley at a incrasing young age (before they know anything usually).
Kids are shaped by those around them, who they look up to, etc. Increasingly the immediate geographical and cultural surroundings of an indivual are supplanted by online or TV and media in generals influence in deciding someones views. Meaning that the daughter of a evangelical in Alabama 40 years ago would have been more likely to end up a Republican but because of the influx of the internet and cable TV, parents have become less of an influence on children and TV stars like Jon Stewart have become larger factors when it comes to determining a (young) persons political idenity.
So for instance, during the last decade, school kids came home (like me and my friends) and watched the Daily Show (while 30 years ago kids of the same age would've watched Happy Days or whatever). Being subjected to the Daily Show and CNN from a very young age on a regular basis has a great effect. And so i think most perhaps just many kids decide nowadays that there "a Jon Stewart person" rather than a Sara Palin type person. In other words, its become a way of cultural identifying yourself as being either hip, urban, edgy (e.g. Jon Stewart) or being square, provincial and traditional (Sara Palin). The influence of a celberity world of all liberals is also important.
There is no liberal version of William F. BUckley's TV show, Firing Line whererin Buckley would debate liberals paying fastidous attention to the details of liberal's arguments, usually disagreeing but still always taking the liberals arguments serious. People complain about FOX all the time as biased but there is no Hannity & Colmes on another network. On CNN and MSNBC all we got is liberals, they make no pretense of balance, Hannity was the conservative and Holmes was the liberal where is Rachel Maddow's counter-weight conservative on the other side of her anchor desk?
Just look at the classic libetal facial geture: the smug, condescending your-views-are-such-a-joke-its-comical face.
I hesitate to discuss this liberal smugness/clos mindedness because I fear being viewed as part of the Palin crowd. There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of Sara Palin cause she is not ready for show time, not even close. I've said this from the moment she came into our lives.
Anyways I really believe that atleast with regard to those Americans now below 30 years of age (my mileu) the following is the general case: that the more intellectually rigorous and curious exsplore the views of the right and are becoming conservatives as they see that the view point of a National Review which never gets any play on ABC or CNN is, on most things, the correct view. Those with the most complacent, smug, unintrested, uncurious minds stay default liberals which is to say they don't know what the liberal position may be on immigration but they know they support it, they are democrats by cultural affinties and accept the whole assortment of liberal views without scruntizing them.
Look are society since about 15 years ago has been one inwhich the partus of the media (celebrity tabloid blogs and magazine, political sites, movies,etc.) has become a bigger part of a lives as a result of our growing investment in the internet. With younger Americans, my crowd, who have grown up in this enviorment their whole lives, because of the Daily Show & Colbert those who became "liberals" became such at a younger age than previous generations but did so not because this generation of people is more political. Because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (shows for young people) and how politics has become more central to the arts and life in gen eral (as a watercool subject of conversation) kids develope political idenities passivley at a incrasing young age (before they know anything usually).
Kids are shaped by those around them, who they look up to, etc. Increasingly the immediate geographical and cultural surroundings of an indivual are supplanted by online or TV and media in generals influence in deciding someones views. Meaning that the daughter of a evangelical in Alabama 40 years ago would have been more likely to end up a Republican but because of the influx of the internet and cable TV, parents have become less of an influence on children and TV stars like Jon Stewart have become larger factors when it comes to determining a (young) persons political idenity.
So for instance, during the last decade, school kids came home (like me and my friends) and watched the Daily Show (while 30 years ago kids of the same age would've watched Happy Days or whatever). Being subjected to the Daily Show and CNN from a very young age on a regular basis has a great effect. And so i think most perhaps just many kids decide nowadays that there "a Jon Stewart person" rather than a Sara Palin type person. In other words, its become a way of cultural identifying yourself as being either hip, urban, edgy (e.g. Jon Stewart) or being square, provincial and traditional (Sara Palin). The influence of a celberity world of all liberals is also important.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Meg Whitmen: who the fuck greenlighted this pro-amensty nun's run?
"THE NEXT GOVERNOR MUST HAVE A SPINE OF STEEL KNOW WHAT SHE BELIEVES AND STICK WITH IT"
-MEG WHITMAN
I really hate Meg Whitmen cause she looks like McCain, the women to me. Shes like Gwen Ifill, she never says anything intresting and I'm sure that her whole political career was dreamed up in some mediocre neo-con's office (e.g. "Hey, what about that bitch, the CEO of Ebay? She'd sell real good with Orange County Housewives."
Meg Whitmen is so mind bogglingly bad a candiate for this race or any race. She is worst than Martha Coakely. Whitmen looks like a Catholic nun.
BUT MY GOD, THE GOP RUNS A PRO-AMENSTY, DULLER THAN A WHITE WALL OLD NUN FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR.
Ok, its come to the point where i think that leftists today are dumber than conservatives
Eric Alterman sounds so dumb here talking to Mickey Kaus. It's funny, you can tell Mickey Kaus is suprised by how unsophisticated Eric Alterman is (who is for the left, relatively smart).
Mirananda Rights or waterboards for terrorists?
The Nigerian Christmas bomber would've killed hundreds over the skies of Detriot hsd it not been for a Dutchmen bum rushing him. We now know that Obama would have preffered that the Dutchmen had first read the nigerian "his miranada rights" ("to remain silent...right to the power of attorney..") first & that whole tackling thing probably would've cost him a de-merit had he been a CIA agent. what did the FBI do when he gets off the plane at Obama request? They read a Nigerian non-citizen his miranada rights (though he doesn't have any such miranada rights)!"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"! and then you give him a lawyer to tell him to not answer the CIA interrogators questions. This guy told them "their are more like me"! So that shows he has info about other plots & where going to just let him say "no" when we ask where the next attack is gonna be? NIGERIAN TERRORISTS WHO TRY TO MURDERER HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN A PLANE OVER DETROIT with potentially life saving info about future attacks ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE TO BE TREATED LIKE SHOP LIFTERS.
davidfrum tweets,
davidfrum tweets,
Yoo and Bybee: "Poor judgment" says DOJ review. http://bit.ly/9GLRtUAnd what do we say of the people who Mirandized the underwear bomber? 2 days ago reply
Monday, February 1, 2010
3 Issues We All Forgot
I've come across a debate over media bias at UC Santa Barbara between bow-tied Tucked Carlson and Eric Alterman.And it made me realize:
ABORTION
GUN-CONTROL
RELIGON.......are so 90's.
I'm serious people getting heated about gun-control sounds to my 19 year old ass like William Jennings Bryan raving about Free Silver.
If you need exsplanations of the decline in intrest in these 3 issues: 1. We have bigger issues than guns and abortion to reckon with, like stopping amensty:the sequel. and 2. fewer Americans are religous or own guns/go hunting.
ABORTION
GUN-CONTROL
RELIGON.......are so 90's.
I'm serious people getting heated about gun-control sounds to my 19 year old ass like William Jennings Bryan raving about Free Silver.
If you need exsplanations of the decline in intrest in these 3 issues: 1. We have bigger issues than guns and abortion to reckon with, like stopping amensty:the sequel. and 2. fewer Americans are religous or own guns/go hunting.
Hitler's Revenge
The most destructive ideology of the first half of the 20th Century was obviously Nazism. Ironically, the most destructive and insidious ideology of second half of the 20th Century (and beyond) was & is poltically correct multiculturalism. This was "Hitler's Revenge". Nazism caused the left to turn off their brains and move to the opposite extreme and scorning nationalism and patriotism and rejecting the idea that nation's had any racial or etnic identity (aka China is Chinese). This brought about unlimited mass immigration to the west & inturn brought about the death of the West.
Multiculturalism does not work within a society. Racial diversity at to fast at rate of growth creates what we have in California today: Governor Schwarznegger goes on TV his state deep and debt and lyingly asserts that there is nothing more to cut. The truth is that the California debt could be greatly mitigated by merely listening to the Californian majority (as of now atleast) and ending the transfer of billions of tax payer dollars to the millions of illegals living without fear, outside the shadows in California mooching off the tax payers receieving free schooling, welfare, therapy, scholarships, healthcare on Uncle Sam's tab. But why can't Schwarznegger tell the truth? Why does he lie so blatantly? Because California has a huge population of people-Mexicans-who have intrests completly different from that of "white Americans" which screws democracy up entirely. For the fragile instuition of pure one man one vote democracy to work everyone has to share a basic set of intrests. It fucks democracy up completly when , say, 30% of the population's allegiance is with another foreign nation.
Jim Pinkerton makes the above point well here.
Multiculturalism does not work within a society. Racial diversity at to fast at rate of growth creates what we have in California today: Governor Schwarznegger goes on TV his state deep and debt and lyingly asserts that there is nothing more to cut. The truth is that the California debt could be greatly mitigated by merely listening to the Californian majority (as of now atleast) and ending the transfer of billions of tax payer dollars to the millions of illegals living without fear, outside the shadows in California mooching off the tax payers receieving free schooling, welfare, therapy, scholarships, healthcare on Uncle Sam's tab. But why can't Schwarznegger tell the truth? Why does he lie so blatantly? Because California has a huge population of people-Mexicans-who have intrests completly different from that of "white Americans" which screws democracy up entirely. For the fragile instuition of pure one man one vote democracy to work everyone has to share a basic set of intrests. It fucks democracy up completly when , say, 30% of the population's allegiance is with another foreign nation.
Jim Pinkerton makes the above point well here.
Should Young Single Mothers Automaticly Be Seen As Victims?
Should 18-21 year old single mothers be treated like victims or should they ever be looked at as having any responcibility for their getting involved with irresoncible bums? Its like the women that gets beaten by her menfolk, I have no pity for these types because they usually stay with & are attracted to guys that batter them & then they act like they deserve pity when they get the abuse that they like in a way cause they wouldn't respect their boyfriends if they didn't do stuff like act like brute guerillas (which occasionally inolves infidelidty and getting hit for some shit). They wanted brutes so why are they victims when they get manhandled (and come back to him or another brute)?
Insights & Ponderings:
Today's Insights & Ponderings:
1. Think about it: what would the middle east be like today if Saddam Hussein where still in power? I must say, as someone who thinks the war should've have ended in 2005, Saddam was a crazy mother fucker, could u imagine having Amedinjihad & Hussein back to back? However, the prospect of a the Taliban still being in charge of Afganistan doesn't concern me at all cause they had no outside ambitions. So, again, "the good war" Afganistan was the dumber one and is as we can see, impossible to "win".
2. There is much to support in Ron Paul & the move away from the neo-cons within the GOP, however he has always come off as unimpressive, their must be smarter, less goofy uncle type liberterians and Paul wrongly resorts to left wing masochistic arguments against the wars in the middle east.
1. Think about it: what would the middle east be like today if Saddam Hussein where still in power? I must say, as someone who thinks the war should've have ended in 2005, Saddam was a crazy mother fucker, could u imagine having Amedinjihad & Hussein back to back? However, the prospect of a the Taliban still being in charge of Afganistan doesn't concern me at all cause they had no outside ambitions. So, again, "the good war" Afganistan was the dumber one and is as we can see, impossible to "win".
2. There is much to support in Ron Paul & the move away from the neo-cons within the GOP, however he has always come off as unimpressive, their must be smarter, less goofy uncle type liberterians and Paul wrongly resorts to left wing masochistic arguments against the wars in the middle east.
The Importance of Geezers
I think adults who never critize the youth are cowards. I'm talking about those middle age guys who only have the best of words for my generation. Geezers have been a cornerstone of civilization for time on memorial. Because they 1. have exsperience and wisdom the young dont have usually 2. they have more time to see the world around them more clearly. Geezers need to keep the young in check. And whats the result of it all? From Gary Cooper to Ira Glass in 1 generation. go fish.
Can you imagine the American political landscape without old white guys aka geezers? Without the old people who know whats up, Obama could replace the Constuition with "Rules For Radicals" and no one would even care (aka Brazil).
Can you imagine the American political landscape without old white guys aka geezers? Without the old people who know whats up, Obama could replace the Constuition with "Rules For Radicals" and no one would even care (aka Brazil).
good case for health care reform
from Mickey Kaus,
That makes a lot of sense, except that establishing a guarantee of affordable health care is one of the things that would enable painful cuts in both the public and the private sector. If you know your health care is taken care of, then a cut in your projected pension becomes less threatening. It's less of a big deal to be downsized or outsourced, to give up your Detroit assembly line job (or D.C. newspaper job) and move to find work at some other company with a future. It's just money, then, not life or death. .And it's easier to jump at risks when there's a secure platform underneath you
The Bastard Son
Do u feel that you've ever seen the real Barack Obama? I don't. He's very much like FDR in this way. He has 2 qualities found in many politicians: he's a bastard child and his political face is a mask. His feeling of being un-wanted seems to have engendered the classic personality of bastard sons: he's in politics cause he wants to be loved (bad reason) which means that he'll say watever it takes to get the most applause no matter how sappy and untrue the statement ("the Afgan, war is a war of nesscity" , "theres no blue state America and red state America"). He'll make policy on pure politics (ala Afganistan) He doesn't want you to know what he thinks and/or wants to do as much as he wants you to think he agrees with you.
However I don't believe Obama will change his major policies according to opinion polls. He will, as I say, temporize and "do what it takes". I along with David Frum find Obama's Afgan policy to be purely political to an extent I personally find sickening. I believe that if Obama where to go by his gut we would be out of Afganistan and Iraq very soon. Though then again i don't think Obama is nearly as intelligent as everyone asserts (though he defintely has a good post-babybommer sense of politics and political timing. I'm not sure he has the rigour of mind to see that it doesn't really matter if we leave tommorow or in two years. However it's really not a suprise that Obama has set a deadline (absurdly) for 18 months in Afganistan. Any President that adopts Iraq and Afganistan is not going to close them up done within his first year as President while he's doing healthcare, the economony, the stimulus, etc. He also seems to be willing to say nearly anything at times. The most appauling examples of Obama cynically lying is a two or three way tie. One egregious example is his first big war on the War in Afganistan where he deemed Afganistan, "a war of aboslute nesscity". He also said to the cadeats at the Anapolis that night that "I would never send you into harms way if I did not absolutely have to". Well that second statement is a lie and I would like to think that Obama woldn't have the ignorance to write either line that i quote above. Like so many Obama statements in his speeches, the assertions that get lauded and never challendged don't stand up upon inspection.
However I don't believe Obama will change his major policies according to opinion polls. He will, as I say, temporize and "do what it takes". I along with David Frum find Obama's Afgan policy to be purely political to an extent I personally find sickening. I believe that if Obama where to go by his gut we would be out of Afganistan and Iraq very soon. Though then again i don't think Obama is nearly as intelligent as everyone asserts (though he defintely has a good post-babybommer sense of politics and political timing. I'm not sure he has the rigour of mind to see that it doesn't really matter if we leave tommorow or in two years. However it's really not a suprise that Obama has set a deadline (absurdly) for 18 months in Afganistan. Any President that adopts Iraq and Afganistan is not going to close them up done within his first year as President while he's doing healthcare, the economony, the stimulus, etc. He also seems to be willing to say nearly anything at times. The most appauling examples of Obama cynically lying is a two or three way tie. One egregious example is his first big war on the War in Afganistan where he deemed Afganistan, "a war of aboslute nesscity". He also said to the cadeats at the Anapolis that night that "I would never send you into harms way if I did not absolutely have to". Well that second statement is a lie and I would like to think that Obama woldn't have the ignorance to write either line that i quote above. Like so many Obama statements in his speeches, the assertions that get lauded and never challendged don't stand up upon inspection.
Obama's is placing America down the European path as the European abandon that route for a more (pre-Obama) US Route relizing bankruptcy of nannystat
Have you noticed anything missing from the health care "debate"? Any words, in paticular the utter absensce of which has become rather striking by now?
Have you eyed or eared the following word lately: Europe? No? Well me neither which is only yet another inditment of the quality of the healthcare tug of war which is currently on hiatus while Obama tries to shepered the passing of a "Jobs Bill" they very sound of which makes me reach for my wallet and my revolver.
One would think, if rationality where the animating force of the health care scuffle, there would have been tremendous debate about whether European style socialist health care and the European welfare state was such a smahing success.
My intuitive media radar tells me that, amazingly, no one has yet to point out the Democrats are trying to drag a unwilling America onto a path that the more socialistic west Europeans democracies went down decades ago and yetto go by what can roughly be called the on going healthcare debate you would think that that the Democrats want to do something entirely orginal that has never been tried before by nation(s). It seems strangely that it's the Democrats who don't want to talk about Europe and how all the policy they yearn for worked out in the long run in the nations who adopted these basic policies long ago. Right now, figuring out whether the story of goverment run health care was a triumph or a tragedy (or a tragedy waiting to happen) is clearly the most important question to answer in the short term. But the other items on the Obama agenda after healthcare have also been in Europe sometimes not so long ago really at all. Take, Cap & Trade, one of the worst items on the Obama wishlist and a issue unlike obamacare is easy to understand and easy to predict in all the terrible economic effects Cap & Trade will have and all the "transformative" enviomental effects it won't have as a result of reducing carbon emissions a neglible amount easily nullfied by all the co2 the devloping world emits. The only thing that Cap and trade will be help to cut back on is jobs and business in America, the neglible amount of Co2 we cut back will have no effect on the climate. No one serious denies that Cap & Traade is bad for Americans economically. Combined with the increased burdens plcaed on buisness big and small the increased cost of doing business here created by Cap & Trade will send business and corporations moving out of the country for good and taking their jobs with them as well as rapidly bring about a massive wave of outsourcing of jobs to Asian economies whichhave become far more buusiness friendly than the United States. The Democrats don't realize that America has to actually compete in this world to keep and to imaintain and increase the appeal of the American economny. Businessmen, investors, and people in today realize or atleast think that the United States is about to move to the left, Obama may loose in 2012 but the feeling is that he will invetiably be able to put in place huge liberal structural changes that will have the goverment running American healthcare among other changes, following the European model that has proved sucidial if not simply diastrous for Europe economically as well as socially stymmying entrupernership, indpdence and indutrury on the oart of the indivual and mking citizens into the children of the stat and, meanwhile, as America appears adamant upon followiwng Europe's exact footsteps of decline, the Asiatic nations of India, China, Singapore and the like appear to have learned in a deep way all the lessons that America has forgotten for the moment, about limited goverment, taxes and beyond.
Americans seem to be blind to the fact that they can no longe exspect for business to turn the other check again and againand not move its jobs out of America if the Democrats levy the burdens of obamacare on business, then increase the cost of doing business in America even more (and raise energy prices) ship away even more jobs with Cap & Trade those sacrficies would allresult in the cutting back of a negligible, insignifgant amount of co2-as the most honest green people will admit like Ralph Nader. So Cap & Trdae will, in summary, ship away millions of jobs , dramaticly increase the cost of doing business in America,raising food and energy prices and imposing the largest ever tax aka transfer of wealth from the people to the Goverment in our history and all these sacrficies will be for what "pay off"? "Green jobs" won't make up dir anything like the huge amount of jobs lost to asia as a result o this. But won't we save the earth? No, because Cap & Trade will have no apparent climatological benefit s for the very reason that theactual cut backs in Co2 will be neglibible and completly nullfied, canceled out and over come by the amount of the Co2 China and/or India alone will increasingly emit. Once you make it clear that there is no climatelogical signifgance the hapless true believers of Cap & Trade tell you that its good for the economy to deveolp "green technologies" the fact is that no one wants to 3 times as much money for clean solar energy shen you can get clean nuclear energy without the higher prices with nuclear power plants which don't emit Co2. One lesson that should be taken from France is that if America got as much of its energy from nuclear as France did, we would be well below the traget emissions reductions and unlike with solar and wind energy it wouldn't exact a completly unviable economic cost. The fact is that"green" technologies aren't good enough yet and that if we were smart we would invest in further research that could create better green techbologies. In short, Obama's talk of "green jobs" as the new base of the glorious new American ecoconomy is something only Ralph Nader could come up with. But then again China and India are making it clear they won't sign on to any global govermental climate change agency or treaty unless they receive payments in the billions from America as Obama has just done for Africa giving them a 100 billion dollars we don't have for corrupt African regimes to "prepare forclimate change". Coopenheganshould have been the definitive turning point for americans who realized that the whole summit was basically a 3rd world scheme to force America to essentially create a binding international govermental body that will allow Africa and some other 3rd world nations to vote themselves 100 of billions of Americantax payer dollars without consolntanting the American people , without Americans having any kind of veto. Essentially, if America wants to try new, alternative sources of energy it should build its self more nuclear power plants and force the Nevaians not to reneg on there contract and allow Yukka Mountain to be used as a place to store nuclear waste. Getting more of our energy from nuclear power will unlike unvialable solar and wind energy won't double the amount of money Americans pay for energy. Since no one but a minature elite with money to waste will buy into hugely exspensive solar & wind energy if they free market is allowed to decide it would way Obama will be able to deliver even a small portion any of the 2 million green jobs (which Obama, in speeches and in TV ad's has poytrayed as the new base of the US economny itself over more billionr Only if the goverment tyranically forces Americans and American companies into buying overly exspensive "green" energy with crackpot schemes like Cap & Trade.
This generation of Americans hasexspects continued prosperity to continue automatic as the divine state of American economomc and more problematicly many Americans, again on the left,have trouble accepting truths that aren't what they'd like them to be. This is true of Global WArming, race, diversity, immigration, education, latinos, latino assmilation, patriotism and IQ. But at the moment the first a nd most important bubble belief to popped is the multi-faceted global warming myth(s) that include 1. Al Gore's "science" is shaky at best and is all best on computer projection modeling, much of the data has been shown to be manupilated and less credible than before thought Thomas Friedman doesn't know how hot it will be in 87 years and at what rate it will get hot 2.No one has shown for sure how much climate changecurrently is effected by man made activetly versus the natural climate cycle 3. CHina and India and Russia and much if not all of the devolpoing world is totally opposed to the global goverment treay/entity that would hava to be created in order to enforce a serious climate change treaty, even if China and India did join in and allow intrusive inspection and not enough co@, according to Al GOre 's sources, would be cut (let alone in time) to have any real effect. In other words it can't be done now, unless some new method of cleaning the climate, like cloudwashing and that type of stuff that could to alot more for alot less money compared to economony killing stuff like Cap & Trade.
that will lead to the shipping away of millions of jobs to more attractive and in a way more stable Asian markets long & short term effects the which is easy to understand not endlessly complex, issue that issue whicv
and the success and failure and sustsenability of French and other european' countries health care
Have you eyed or eared the following word lately: Europe? No? Well me neither which is only yet another inditment of the quality of the healthcare tug of war which is currently on hiatus while Obama tries to shepered the passing of a "Jobs Bill" they very sound of which makes me reach for my wallet and my revolver.
One would think, if rationality where the animating force of the health care scuffle, there would have been tremendous debate about whether European style socialist health care and the European welfare state was such a smahing success.
My intuitive media radar tells me that, amazingly, no one has yet to point out the Democrats are trying to drag a unwilling America onto a path that the more socialistic west Europeans democracies went down decades ago and yetto go by what can roughly be called the on going healthcare debate you would think that that the Democrats want to do something entirely orginal that has never been tried before by nation(s). It seems strangely that it's the Democrats who don't want to talk about Europe and how all the policy they yearn for worked out in the long run in the nations who adopted these basic policies long ago. Right now, figuring out whether the story of goverment run health care was a triumph or a tragedy (or a tragedy waiting to happen) is clearly the most important question to answer in the short term. But the other items on the Obama agenda after healthcare have also been in Europe sometimes not so long ago really at all. Take, Cap & Trade, one of the worst items on the Obama wishlist and a issue unlike obamacare is easy to understand and easy to predict in all the terrible economic effects Cap & Trade will have and all the "transformative" enviomental effects it won't have as a result of reducing carbon emissions a neglible amount easily nullfied by all the co2 the devloping world emits. The only thing that Cap and trade will be help to cut back on is jobs and business in America, the neglible amount of Co2 we cut back will have no effect on the climate. No one serious denies that Cap & Traade is bad for Americans economically. Combined with the increased burdens plcaed on buisness big and small the increased cost of doing business here created by Cap & Trade will send business and corporations moving out of the country for good and taking their jobs with them as well as rapidly bring about a massive wave of outsourcing of jobs to Asian economies whichhave become far more buusiness friendly than the United States. The Democrats don't realize that America has to actually compete in this world to keep and to imaintain and increase the appeal of the American economny. Businessmen, investors, and people in today realize or atleast think that the United States is about to move to the left, Obama may loose in 2012 but the feeling is that he will invetiably be able to put in place huge liberal structural changes that will have the goverment running American healthcare among other changes, following the European model that has proved sucidial if not simply diastrous for Europe economically as well as socially stymmying entrupernership, indpdence and indutrury on the oart of the indivual and mking citizens into the children of the stat and, meanwhile, as America appears adamant upon followiwng Europe's exact footsteps of decline, the Asiatic nations of India, China, Singapore and the like appear to have learned in a deep way all the lessons that America has forgotten for the moment, about limited goverment, taxes and beyond.
Americans seem to be blind to the fact that they can no longe exspect for business to turn the other check again and againand not move its jobs out of America if the Democrats levy the burdens of obamacare on business, then increase the cost of doing business in America even more (and raise energy prices) ship away even more jobs with Cap & Trade those sacrficies would allresult in the cutting back of a negligible, insignifgant amount of co2-as the most honest green people will admit like Ralph Nader. So Cap & Trdae will, in summary, ship away millions of jobs , dramaticly increase the cost of doing business in America,raising food and energy prices and imposing the largest ever tax aka transfer of wealth from the people to the Goverment in our history and all these sacrficies will be for what "pay off"? "Green jobs" won't make up dir anything like the huge amount of jobs lost to asia as a result o this. But won't we save the earth? No, because Cap & Trade will have no apparent climatological benefit s for the very reason that theactual cut backs in Co2 will be neglibible and completly nullfied, canceled out and over come by the amount of the Co2 China and/or India alone will increasingly emit. Once you make it clear that there is no climatelogical signifgance the hapless true believers of Cap & Trade tell you that its good for the economy to deveolp "green technologies" the fact is that no one wants to 3 times as much money for clean solar energy shen you can get clean nuclear energy without the higher prices with nuclear power plants which don't emit Co2. One lesson that should be taken from France is that if America got as much of its energy from nuclear as France did, we would be well below the traget emissions reductions and unlike with solar and wind energy it wouldn't exact a completly unviable economic cost. The fact is that"green" technologies aren't good enough yet and that if we were smart we would invest in further research that could create better green techbologies. In short, Obama's talk of "green jobs" as the new base of the glorious new American ecoconomy is something only Ralph Nader could come up with. But then again China and India are making it clear they won't sign on to any global govermental climate change agency or treaty unless they receive payments in the billions from America as Obama has just done for Africa giving them a 100 billion dollars we don't have for corrupt African regimes to "prepare forclimate change". Coopenheganshould have been the definitive turning point for americans who realized that the whole summit was basically a 3rd world scheme to force America to essentially create a binding international govermental body that will allow Africa and some other 3rd world nations to vote themselves 100 of billions of Americantax payer dollars without consolntanting the American people , without Americans having any kind of veto. Essentially, if America wants to try new, alternative sources of energy it should build its self more nuclear power plants and force the Nevaians not to reneg on there contract and allow Yukka Mountain to be used as a place to store nuclear waste. Getting more of our energy from nuclear power will unlike unvialable solar and wind energy won't double the amount of money Americans pay for energy. Since no one but a minature elite with money to waste will buy into hugely exspensive solar & wind energy if they free market is allowed to decide it would way Obama will be able to deliver even a small portion any of the 2 million green jobs (which Obama, in speeches and in TV ad's has poytrayed as the new base of the US economny itself over more billionr Only if the goverment tyranically forces Americans and American companies into buying overly exspensive "green" energy with crackpot schemes like Cap & Trade.
This generation of Americans hasexspects continued prosperity to continue automatic as the divine state of American economomc and more problematicly many Americans, again on the left,have trouble accepting truths that aren't what they'd like them to be. This is true of Global WArming, race, diversity, immigration, education, latinos, latino assmilation, patriotism and IQ. But at the moment the first a nd most important bubble belief to popped is the multi-faceted global warming myth(s) that include 1. Al Gore's "science" is shaky at best and is all best on computer projection modeling, much of the data has been shown to be manupilated and less credible than before thought Thomas Friedman doesn't know how hot it will be in 87 years and at what rate it will get hot 2.No one has shown for sure how much climate changecurrently is effected by man made activetly versus the natural climate cycle 3. CHina and India and Russia and much if not all of the devolpoing world is totally opposed to the global goverment treay/entity that would hava to be created in order to enforce a serious climate change treaty, even if China and India did join in and allow intrusive inspection and not enough co@, according to Al GOre 's sources, would be cut (let alone in time) to have any real effect. In other words it can't be done now, unless some new method of cleaning the climate, like cloudwashing and that type of stuff that could to alot more for alot less money compared to economony killing stuff like Cap & Trade.
that will lead to the shipping away of millions of jobs to more attractive and in a way more stable Asian markets long & short term effects the which is easy to understand not endlessly complex, issue that issue whicv
and the success and failure and sustsenability of French and other european' countries health care
By All Means Let's Fight Bias and Discrimination in Goverment: Heres a clue its not in fire department civil service exams but NPR
President Obama who is tired of politicians spending the American people's tax dollars "like its monopoly money" sure showed how un-cynical that statement was by hiring not 10, not 30, not even 50, or 80 but a whooping 150 new entirely unneded Civil Rights Lawyers. So we elect a black president and he exspands the Civil Rights Dicvision like crazy to counter what?
Its odd that billions are spent on "fixing" problems that either fixable arent real or a a big deal at all or crimes that aren't crimes at all (like giving a police exam with results Eric Holder doesn't like not because teh test was flawed or biased bor because the median score was lower than last year , no, but because he disaproves (he,, not the law not the Constuition, not the Congress disaproves of the amont of black testtakers who passed the said civil servce exam in question. Look it can be a nice goal to have a very diverse fire department or police department but that is probably something that should be an afterthought and completly secondary to the most important matter which is: is the police department and fire department in question doing its job well? And by and large, they are. We don't have a police or fire fighting crises that requires billions of dollars spebt on lawyers , paperwork, etc, etc.
If there was a huge systemtic problem with police departments and fire houses not doing there basic duties then tasks forces and other such things should be created at the tax payers exspence. But there is no such problem in policing and fire fighting.
And yet take a looki invite you at a another part of the goverment with the exact massive systemic problems that require tasks forces, and other such spending to correct: Public Radio-National Public Radio to be exact. The goverment has spent/wasted billions of dollars fighting or so it claimed discrimination, bias and the like within the police departments and fire houses of America when it comes to hiring. There was no problem ofcourse because the test decided but whatever.
Well the boogeyman of discrimination is no myth when it comes to NPR and Public Radio inwhich liberals dicriminate against conservative figures, employees, job applicants, figures and pundits. But the main problem is not nesscarily in itself the voting patterns of the staff of NPR news stations but whether there shows are systemitacially and regularily baised and biased against the right.
Its odd that billions are spent on "fixing" problems that either fixable arent real or a a big deal at all or crimes that aren't crimes at all (like giving a police exam with results Eric Holder doesn't like not because teh test was flawed or biased bor because the median score was lower than last year , no, but because he disaproves (he,, not the law not the Constuition, not the Congress disaproves of the amont of black testtakers who passed the said civil servce exam in question. Look it can be a nice goal to have a very diverse fire department or police department but that is probably something that should be an afterthought and completly secondary to the most important matter which is: is the police department and fire department in question doing its job well? And by and large, they are. We don't have a police or fire fighting crises that requires billions of dollars spebt on lawyers , paperwork, etc, etc.
If there was a huge systemtic problem with police departments and fire houses not doing there basic duties then tasks forces and other such things should be created at the tax payers exspence. But there is no such problem in policing and fire fighting.
And yet take a looki invite you at a another part of the goverment with the exact massive systemic problems that require tasks forces, and other such spending to correct: Public Radio-National Public Radio to be exact. The goverment has spent/wasted billions of dollars fighting or so it claimed discrimination, bias and the like within the police departments and fire houses of America when it comes to hiring. There was no problem ofcourse because the test decided but whatever.
Well the boogeyman of discrimination is no myth when it comes to NPR and Public Radio inwhich liberals dicriminate against conservative figures, employees, job applicants, figures and pundits. But the main problem is not nesscarily in itself the voting patterns of the staff of NPR news stations but whether there shows are systemitacially and regularily baised and biased against the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)