A group of boys out in Morgan Hills, California were sent home from school and threatened with suspension for wearing T-shirts of the American flag on May 5th. The controversy is over them wearing the flag T's on the Cinco de Mayo, a holiday celebrating the Mexican Militia’s victory over the French army at the Battle of Pueblo in 1862. The holiday is more regional than it is national, as many parts of Mexico don’t recognize it as a date as holding any significance. However, in the crazy world of California liberals. This is nothing to joke around about. Even the sub headline on the cover of the Oak hills local newspaper is misleading:
“Freedom of expression or cultural disrespect on Cinco de Mayo?”
You see, cultural disrespect is still covered in a persons freedom of expression. Our free speech is not limited to what is acceptable and pleasant to all. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need the guarantee of free speech in the first place. Freedom of expression is specifically outlined because it is meant to protect offensive speech. Yet, wearing the American Flag on your shirt is somehow crossing the line? How exactly does that work?
Why would people living in America, with Mexican heritage or Angelo-Saxon heritage, be offended by the nation’s flag? Are we really that far lost to the politically correct agenda of progressive nut jobs? How is the flag, of everyone in this country, offensive to anyone living here? It’s insanity. I’m sure the boys who wore the flag did it because they thought it would cause a stir. So what? They are in high school, and that’s what high school boys do. This is such a ridiculious action by the school administration that they should be the ones suspended for dishonoring the rights of individuals. My question is, why are these people allowed to influence and teach children? They don’t even understand the constitution or bill of rights. How are these people in positions of influence?
Anyway, here is the full story:
On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.
May 4, 2010
Race and Resentment
Thomas Sowell Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Recent stories out of both Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students beating up Asian American students. This is especially painful for those who expected that the election of Barack Obama would mark the beginning of a post-racial America.
While Obama's winning the majority of the votes in overwhelmingly white states suggests that many Americans are ready to move beyond race, it is painfully clear that others are not.
Those who explain racial antagonisms on some rationalistic basis will have a hard time demonstrating how Asian Americans have made blacks worse off. Certainly none of the historic wrongs done to blacks was done by the small Asian American population who, for most of their history in this country, have not had enough clout to prevent themselves from being discriminated against.
While ugly racial or ethnic conflicts can seldom be explained by rational economic or other self-interest, they have been too common to be just inexplicable oddities-- whether in America or in other countries around the world, and whether today or in centuries past.
Resentments and hostility toward people with higher achievements are one of the most widespread of human failings. Resentments of achievements are more deadly than envy of wealth.
The hatred of people who started at the bottom and worked their way up has far exceeded any hostility toward those who were simply born into wealth. None of the sultans who inherited extraordinary fortunes in Malaysia has been hated like the Chinese, who arrived there destitute and rose by their own efforts.
Inheritors of the Rockefeller fortune have been elected as popular governors in three states, attracting nothing like the hostility toward the Jewish immigrants who rose from poverty on Manhattan's Lower East Side to prosperity in a variety of fields.
Others who started at the bottom and rose to prosperity-- the Lebanese in West Africa, the Indians in Fiji, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, for example-- have likewise been hated for their achievements. Being born a sultan or a Rockefeller is not an achievement.
Achievements are a reflection on others who may have had similar, and sometimes better, chances but who did not make the most of their chances. Achievements are like a slap across the face to those who are not achieving, and many people react with the same kind of anger that such an insult would provoke.
In our own times, especially, this is not just a spontaneous reaction. Many of our educators, our intelligentsia and our media -- not to mention our politicians-- promote an attitude that other people's achievements are grievances, rather than examples.
When black school children who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for "acting white," why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?
This attitude is not peculiar to some in the black community or to the United States. The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.
These are poisonous and self-destructive consequences of a steady drumbeat of ideological hype about differences that are translated into "disparities" and "inequities," provoking envy and resentments under their more prettied-up name of "social justice."
Asian American school children who are beaten up are just some of the victims of these resentments that are whipped up. Young people who are seething with resentments, instead of seizing educational and other opportunities around them, are bigger victims in the long run, whether they are blacks in the US or lower-class whites in the UK. A decade after these beatings, these Asian Americans will be headed up in the world, while the hoodlums who beat them up are more likely to be headed for crime and prison.
People who call differences "inequities" and achievements "privilege" leave social havoc in their wake, while feeling noble about siding with the less fortunate. It would never occur to them that they have any responsibility for the harm done to both blacks and Asian Americans.
Recent stories out of both Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students beating up Asian American students. This is especially painful for those who expected that the election of Barack Obama would mark the beginning of a post-racial America.
While Obama's winning the majority of the votes in overwhelmingly white states suggests that many Americans are ready to move beyond race, it is painfully clear that others are not.
Those who explain racial antagonisms on some rationalistic basis will have a hard time demonstrating how Asian Americans have made blacks worse off. Certainly none of the historic wrongs done to blacks was done by the small Asian American population who, for most of their history in this country, have not had enough clout to prevent themselves from being discriminated against.
While ugly racial or ethnic conflicts can seldom be explained by rational economic or other self-interest, they have been too common to be just inexplicable oddities-- whether in America or in other countries around the world, and whether today or in centuries past.
Resentments and hostility toward people with higher achievements are one of the most widespread of human failings. Resentments of achievements are more deadly than envy of wealth.
The hatred of people who started at the bottom and worked their way up has far exceeded any hostility toward those who were simply born into wealth. None of the sultans who inherited extraordinary fortunes in Malaysia has been hated like the Chinese, who arrived there destitute and rose by their own efforts.
Inheritors of the Rockefeller fortune have been elected as popular governors in three states, attracting nothing like the hostility toward the Jewish immigrants who rose from poverty on Manhattan's Lower East Side to prosperity in a variety of fields.
Others who started at the bottom and rose to prosperity-- the Lebanese in West Africa, the Indians in Fiji, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, for example-- have likewise been hated for their achievements. Being born a sultan or a Rockefeller is not an achievement.
Achievements are a reflection on others who may have had similar, and sometimes better, chances but who did not make the most of their chances. Achievements are like a slap across the face to those who are not achieving, and many people react with the same kind of anger that such an insult would provoke.
In our own times, especially, this is not just a spontaneous reaction. Many of our educators, our intelligentsia and our media -- not to mention our politicians-- promote an attitude that other people's achievements are grievances, rather than examples.
When black school children who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for "acting white," why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?
This attitude is not peculiar to some in the black community or to the United States. The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.
These are poisonous and self-destructive consequences of a steady drumbeat of ideological hype about differences that are translated into "disparities" and "inequities," provoking envy and resentments under their more prettied-up name of "social justice."
Asian American school children who are beaten up are just some of the victims of these resentments that are whipped up. Young people who are seething with resentments, instead of seizing educational and other opportunities around them, are bigger victims in the long run, whether they are blacks in the US or lower-class whites in the UK. A decade after these beatings, these Asian Americans will be headed up in the world, while the hoodlums who beat them up are more likely to be headed for crime and prison.
People who call differences "inequities" and achievements "privilege" leave social havoc in their wake, while feeling noble about siding with the less fortunate. It would never occur to them that they have any responsibility for the harm done to both blacks and Asian Americans.
April 29, 2010
How to prepare for climate change: according to Al Gore
How do Global Warming Alarmist prepare for the rising sea levels they predict? Apparently, they buy ocean-front property for a first class view of the cataclysm.
Al Gore and family are doing their good work, fighting climate change by purchasing $9 million ocean front property, complete with massive water fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Former Vice President Al Gore added the Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings sometime this week, according to the Montecito Journal.
The Italian style villa is placed on 1.5 acres, with a swimming pool and spa. All very carbon neutral, I’m sure. Apparently, Al Gore isn’t as concerned about actual Climate Change as he wants everyone else to be. Go figure….
Al Gore and family are doing their good work, fighting climate change by purchasing $9 million ocean front property, complete with massive water fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Former Vice President Al Gore added the Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings sometime this week, according to the Montecito Journal.
The Italian style villa is placed on 1.5 acres, with a swimming pool and spa. All very carbon neutral, I’m sure. Apparently, Al Gore isn’t as concerned about actual Climate Change as he wants everyone else to be. Go figure….
April 27, 2010
Happy Meal Toys Causing Childhood Obesity?
The latest target in the battle over fast food is something you shouldn't even put in your mouth.
Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.
The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.
Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald's, the limits would include all of the chain's Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.
Supporters say the ban would encourage restaurants to offer more-nutritious foods to kids and would make unhealthful items less appealing. But opponents believe it amounts to government meddling in parental decisions. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will consider the proposal Tuesday.
Even though it's largely symbolic — the proposed ban would apply only to the dozen fast-food restaurants within the jurisdiction of the board — the proposal has caused a bit of an uproar on the Internet, where comments on YouTube and other sites say it is another example of the "nanny state" gone wild.
The California Restaurant Assn. has taken out full-page newspaper advertisements against the proposed ordinance in local newspapers. One shows a little girl with her hands cuffed behind her back as she holds a stuffed animal.
Another opponent wrote in a YouTube posting, "I want to know when the pitchforks and torches and rope is going to come out.... We need to run these Frankenstein politician monsters the hell out of town!"
Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who is behind the effort, says the toys in kids' meals are contributing to America's obesity epidemic by encouraging children to eat unhealthful, fattening foods.
"People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children," said Yeager, who is president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. "But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?"
NEWS FALSH: YOUR NOT BURDENING THEM! THEY ARE BURDENING THEMSELVES. YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! GET A FRICKING HOBBY AND KEEP YOUR NANNY LAWS TO YOURSELF
"We went through a phase when my daughter wanted the Happy Meal just to get the toy," said Kristen Dimont, 37 (do you here the violin in the backround?) . The Sunnyvale blogger said that once her child tasted fast food, it took years to coax her back to the healthful variety (Takes me about a second. You say NO. It’s a very complex and emotionally straining word, but it works everytime). Dimont likes the idea of the ban — and thinks the supervisors should consider extending it to the play yards that also attract children to fast-food restaurants.
In this way, they can take all the responsibility away from the parents and blame someone else for their fat kid. It’s the American way!
Ok, here is a novel approach: DON”T TAKE YOUR KIDS TO MCDONALDS> IF YOU GO< DON’T BUY A HAPPY MEAL! Why is it always necessary for these freaking progressives to impose their choices on everyone around them. I take my kids to McDonalds and I have not once bought them a happy meal (they are expensive). My kids have somehow managed to avoid Obesity despite these trips to the fat farm. Perhaps, just maybe, kids have other reasons for being obese.
"To say that Burger King or McDonald's is the root cause or that giving toys with children's meals is a root cause is not right," said some parents
McDonald's declined to comment on the proposed ban. But the California Restaurant Assn. has played a major role in the opposition.
If County Supervisor Yeager "wants to take away the toys that are making kids fat, take away Xboxes, take away PlayStations, take away flat-screen TVs," said Daniel Conway, spokesman for the industry group.
Damn straight, unfortunately for us all-they will go after that too.
Yeager knows that even if the board passes his proposal, its effect would be small. Even so, he says, it's worth it.
"We're responsible for paying for healthcare in the whole county," Yeager said. "We pay close to $2 billion annually on healthcare, and the costs have done nothing but rise." A big part of the increase, he said, is costs related to obesity.
And so it begins….. We are responsible for your healthcare, so we can tell you what to eat. I told you this mentality would take hold. It is already is at the for front of every liberal tyrant out there. They want to control your behavior. Healthcare gives them an excuse to do so. Next will come the push for mandatory exercise, probably during work hours to assure compliance. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that a big nanny state government is what the American people want. Are we not able to make simple decisions about food without mandates from the federal government? Does anyone truly believe that childhood obesity is a result or even influenced by McDonald’s Happy meal toys? Even if it is responsible for developing bad habits, the government has no right to dictate what I or my children eat. If I want to eat myself to death, I have every right to do so as a free individual. It’s not their concern, or at least it shouldn’t be. But like the tyrant pointed out, they are paying for health care now…..
The progressive ideology is the problem. We have a very screwed up sense of morality in the 21st century. Peopl don’t take care of themselves, but to keep busy they dictate how everyone else should act. They believe in “helping others” through force. They use the government to do so because they have a monopoly on force, a monopoly that is supposed to protect our individual rights. They don’t care what one individual thinks, because what is the opinion of one man worth against the benefit of the greater good. The concept of a society of free individuals is lost on them. They view any law that forces a “progressively “favorable” behavior as beneficial to people, so its ok to impose on their right to make a choice. It’s only a little imposing anyway, and its for their own benefit. Like CS Lewis says – they do so with the approval of their own conscious. Which makes them the most dangerous tyrants of all.
Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.
The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.
Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald's, the limits would include all of the chain's Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.
Supporters say the ban would encourage restaurants to offer more-nutritious foods to kids and would make unhealthful items less appealing. But opponents believe it amounts to government meddling in parental decisions. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will consider the proposal Tuesday.
Even though it's largely symbolic — the proposed ban would apply only to the dozen fast-food restaurants within the jurisdiction of the board — the proposal has caused a bit of an uproar on the Internet, where comments on YouTube and other sites say it is another example of the "nanny state" gone wild.
The California Restaurant Assn. has taken out full-page newspaper advertisements against the proposed ordinance in local newspapers. One shows a little girl with her hands cuffed behind her back as she holds a stuffed animal.
Another opponent wrote in a YouTube posting, "I want to know when the pitchforks and torches and rope is going to come out.... We need to run these Frankenstein politician monsters the hell out of town!"
Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who is behind the effort, says the toys in kids' meals are contributing to America's obesity epidemic by encouraging children to eat unhealthful, fattening foods.
"People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children," said Yeager, who is president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. "But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?"
NEWS FALSH: YOUR NOT BURDENING THEM! THEY ARE BURDENING THEMSELVES. YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! GET A FRICKING HOBBY AND KEEP YOUR NANNY LAWS TO YOURSELF
"We went through a phase when my daughter wanted the Happy Meal just to get the toy," said Kristen Dimont, 37 (do you here the violin in the backround?) . The Sunnyvale blogger said that once her child tasted fast food, it took years to coax her back to the healthful variety (Takes me about a second. You say NO. It’s a very complex and emotionally straining word, but it works everytime). Dimont likes the idea of the ban — and thinks the supervisors should consider extending it to the play yards that also attract children to fast-food restaurants.
In this way, they can take all the responsibility away from the parents and blame someone else for their fat kid. It’s the American way!
Ok, here is a novel approach: DON”T TAKE YOUR KIDS TO MCDONALDS> IF YOU GO< DON’T BUY A HAPPY MEAL! Why is it always necessary for these freaking progressives to impose their choices on everyone around them. I take my kids to McDonalds and I have not once bought them a happy meal (they are expensive). My kids have somehow managed to avoid Obesity despite these trips to the fat farm. Perhaps, just maybe, kids have other reasons for being obese.
"To say that Burger King or McDonald's is the root cause or that giving toys with children's meals is a root cause is not right," said some parents
McDonald's declined to comment on the proposed ban. But the California Restaurant Assn. has played a major role in the opposition.
If County Supervisor Yeager "wants to take away the toys that are making kids fat, take away Xboxes, take away PlayStations, take away flat-screen TVs," said Daniel Conway, spokesman for the industry group.
Damn straight, unfortunately for us all-they will go after that too.
Yeager knows that even if the board passes his proposal, its effect would be small. Even so, he says, it's worth it.
"We're responsible for paying for healthcare in the whole county," Yeager said. "We pay close to $2 billion annually on healthcare, and the costs have done nothing but rise." A big part of the increase, he said, is costs related to obesity.
And so it begins….. We are responsible for your healthcare, so we can tell you what to eat. I told you this mentality would take hold. It is already is at the for front of every liberal tyrant out there. They want to control your behavior. Healthcare gives them an excuse to do so. Next will come the push for mandatory exercise, probably during work hours to assure compliance. I just can’t wrap my brain around the idea that a big nanny state government is what the American people want. Are we not able to make simple decisions about food without mandates from the federal government? Does anyone truly believe that childhood obesity is a result or even influenced by McDonald’s Happy meal toys? Even if it is responsible for developing bad habits, the government has no right to dictate what I or my children eat. If I want to eat myself to death, I have every right to do so as a free individual. It’s not their concern, or at least it shouldn’t be. But like the tyrant pointed out, they are paying for health care now…..
The progressive ideology is the problem. We have a very screwed up sense of morality in the 21st century. Peopl don’t take care of themselves, but to keep busy they dictate how everyone else should act. They believe in “helping others” through force. They use the government to do so because they have a monopoly on force, a monopoly that is supposed to protect our individual rights. They don’t care what one individual thinks, because what is the opinion of one man worth against the benefit of the greater good. The concept of a society of free individuals is lost on them. They view any law that forces a “progressively “favorable” behavior as beneficial to people, so its ok to impose on their right to make a choice. It’s only a little imposing anyway, and its for their own benefit. Like CS Lewis says – they do so with the approval of their own conscious. Which makes them the most dangerous tyrants of all.
Filtering History
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Many years ago, I was surprised to receive a letter from an old friend, saying that she had been told that I refused to see campus visitors from Africa. At the time, I was so bogged down with work that I had agreed to see only one visitor to the Stanford campus-- and it so happens that he was from Africa. He just happened to come along when I had a little breathing room from the work I was doing in my office.
I pointed out to my friend that whoever said what she heard might just as well have said that I refused to go sky-diving with blacks-- which was true, because I refused to go sky-diving with anybody, whether black, white, Asian or whatever. The kind of thinking that produced a passing misconception about me has, unfortunately, produced much bigger, much longer lasting, much more systematic and more poisonous distortions about the United States of America.
Slavery is a classic example. The history of slavery across the centuries and in many countries around the world is a painful history to read-- not only in terms of how slaves have been treated, but because of what that says about the whole human species-- because slaves and enslavers alike have been of every race, religion and nationality.
If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history. But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people.
It is true, just as it is true that I don't go sky-diving with blacks. But it is also false in its implications for the same reason. Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans-- more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States and in the 13 colonies from which it was formed. The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves picking cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to "Roots," and our schools and colleges don't pound it into the heads of students.
The inhumanity of human beings toward other human beings is not a new story, much less a local story. There is no need to hide it, because there are lessons we can learn from it. But there is also no need to distort it, so that sins of the whole human species around the world are presented as special defects of "our society" or the sins of a particular race.
If American society and Western civilization are different from other societies and civilization, it is that they eventually turned against slavery, and stamped it out, at a time when non-Western societies around the world were still maintaining slavery and resisting Western pressures to end slavery, including in some cases armed resistance.
Only the fact that the West had more firepower than others put an end to slavery in many non-Western societies during the age of Western imperialism. Yet today there are Americans who have gone to Africa to apologize for slavery-- on a continent where slavery has still not been completely ended, to this very moment.
It is not just the history of slavery that gets distorted beyond recognition by the selective filtering of facts. Those who go back to mine history, in order to find everything they can to undermine American society or Western civilization, have very little interest in the Bataan death march, the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire or similar atrocities in other times and places.
Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed.
An ancient adage says: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." But apparently that is not sufficient for many among our educators, the intelligentsia or the media. They are busy poisoning the present by the way they present the past.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Many years ago, I was surprised to receive a letter from an old friend, saying that she had been told that I refused to see campus visitors from Africa. At the time, I was so bogged down with work that I had agreed to see only one visitor to the Stanford campus-- and it so happens that he was from Africa. He just happened to come along when I had a little breathing room from the work I was doing in my office.
I pointed out to my friend that whoever said what she heard might just as well have said that I refused to go sky-diving with blacks-- which was true, because I refused to go sky-diving with anybody, whether black, white, Asian or whatever. The kind of thinking that produced a passing misconception about me has, unfortunately, produced much bigger, much longer lasting, much more systematic and more poisonous distortions about the United States of America.
Slavery is a classic example. The history of slavery across the centuries and in many countries around the world is a painful history to read-- not only in terms of how slaves have been treated, but because of what that says about the whole human species-- because slaves and enslavers alike have been of every race, religion and nationality.
If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history. But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people.
It is true, just as it is true that I don't go sky-diving with blacks. But it is also false in its implications for the same reason. Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans-- more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States and in the 13 colonies from which it was formed. The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves picking cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to "Roots," and our schools and colleges don't pound it into the heads of students.
The inhumanity of human beings toward other human beings is not a new story, much less a local story. There is no need to hide it, because there are lessons we can learn from it. But there is also no need to distort it, so that sins of the whole human species around the world are presented as special defects of "our society" or the sins of a particular race.
If American society and Western civilization are different from other societies and civilization, it is that they eventually turned against slavery, and stamped it out, at a time when non-Western societies around the world were still maintaining slavery and resisting Western pressures to end slavery, including in some cases armed resistance.
Only the fact that the West had more firepower than others put an end to slavery in many non-Western societies during the age of Western imperialism. Yet today there are Americans who have gone to Africa to apologize for slavery-- on a continent where slavery has still not been completely ended, to this very moment.
It is not just the history of slavery that gets distorted beyond recognition by the selective filtering of facts. Those who go back to mine history, in order to find everything they can to undermine American society or Western civilization, have very little interest in the Bataan death march, the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire or similar atrocities in other times and places.
Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed.
An ancient adage says: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." But apparently that is not sufficient for many among our educators, the intelligentsia or the media. They are busy poisoning the present by the way they present the past.
April 21, 2010
Densely Woven Lies
by Walter Scott Hudson
http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/densely-woven-lies/
Much hey has been made of the recent string of comments portraying conservative activism as support for domestic terrorism. Former President Bill Clinton insinuated, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, that the Tea Party movement is breeding the next Timothy McVeigh. Representative Betty McCollum, from Minnesota’s fifth district, placed House Republicans and conservative commentators on notice to “temper” their rhetoric lest anyone within earshot take up arms. Joe Kline, a political columinist for TIME magazine, accused Glenn Beck of sedition for “langauge inciting rebellion against the state.” Chris Matthews prefaced Kline’s accusation by declaring terms such as “un-American” to be “license words” or “permission words,” as if assassins lay in wait for talk show hosts to give a green light.
These moments are indicative of a progressive strategy to undermine the Tea Party movement. The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsehoods are numerous and tightly woven, intent to defy concise response. In the space of three minutes, McCollum managed to misrepresent Tea Partiers as anarchists – in spite of their obvious support of the Constitution, accuse them of racism – without any evidence whatsoever, and shamelessly distort a transcript of Sean Hannity – to pass off a plainly satirical comment as sincere. These were less than half the factually challenged statements in her brief remarks.
I believe this tactic, densely weaving lies, is intended to distract as much as discredit. Like obsessive compulsives counting grains of rice, bloggers feel compelled to unwind the deceitful knot and expose every thread. I do not begrudge them the task. However, at the root of the Democratic strategy are a couple unspoken assertions which are plainly wrong. Yanking at these makes light work of the knot.
http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/densely-woven-lies/
Much hey has been made of the recent string of comments portraying conservative activism as support for domestic terrorism. Former President Bill Clinton insinuated, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, that the Tea Party movement is breeding the next Timothy McVeigh. Representative Betty McCollum, from Minnesota’s fifth district, placed House Republicans and conservative commentators on notice to “temper” their rhetoric lest anyone within earshot take up arms. Joe Kline, a political columinist for TIME magazine, accused Glenn Beck of sedition for “langauge inciting rebellion against the state.” Chris Matthews prefaced Kline’s accusation by declaring terms such as “un-American” to be “license words” or “permission words,” as if assassins lay in wait for talk show hosts to give a green light.
These moments are indicative of a progressive strategy to undermine the Tea Party movement. The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsehoods are numerous and tightly woven, intent to defy concise response. In the space of three minutes, McCollum managed to misrepresent Tea Partiers as anarchists – in spite of their obvious support of the Constitution, accuse them of racism – without any evidence whatsoever, and shamelessly distort a transcript of Sean Hannity – to pass off a plainly satirical comment as sincere. These were less than half the factually challenged statements in her brief remarks.
I believe this tactic, densely weaving lies, is intended to distract as much as discredit. Like obsessive compulsives counting grains of rice, bloggers feel compelled to unwind the deceitful knot and expose every thread. I do not begrudge them the task. However, at the root of the Democratic strategy are a couple unspoken assertions which are plainly wrong. Yanking at these makes light work of the knot.
Muslim groups threaten to murder South Park creators.....
Foxnew.com
A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week.
RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park." The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
So what was this evil depiction of Muhammad that broadcast on the show?..... Brace yourselves, this is pretty extreme:
The enitre episode was about how stupid society is for tip-toeing around this issue. That's why Muhammad is in a bear suite. Before he was in the suit, they were shipping him around in a Uhaul so you couldn't see anything but the truck. The episode made fun of every modern religion and even showed Buda Snorting Coccaine. The fact that this bear-suit is drawing the anger of the Muslim Community is more evidence of why we shouldn't care what Muslims think. It is ridiculious to the extreme that they are able to dictate proper free speech to the world by threatneing violence, while we walk on egg-shells to appease the sand-people. At some point people need to decide how long this non-sense can be tolerated. Kudos to Matt Stone and Trey Parker on this one. They seem to be the only people willing to show the insanity of our tolerance of Islamic Extremism.
Reaching by phone early Tuesday, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.
"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."
If this is the reality of the Muslim faith, then they have no more place in this world then the KKK, the Nazi party, or common white supremacy groups. They are threatning the livelihoods of people because they are offended! .........BFD! Get over it and worry about yourself. I don't understand how this threatning post is given free speech rights, while South Park is STILL prohibited from showing the image of Muhaamad. Is free speech only for those willing to force peoples obedience? Only in the politically correct insanity of todays world would this be able to continue.
Asked about the show, Amrikee commented: "This is not a small thing, We should do whatever we can to make sure it does not happen again."
His post also included a link to a 2009 story in the Huffington Post that gave details of Stone and Parker's mansion in Colorado.
But don't worry, the ACLU re-affirmed that Islam is a religion of peace and love. South Park is simply intolerant and evil. So really, this is all their fault. Islamic extremism is allowed way too much power for what they are actually capable of. They dictate free expression to the world, and get a pat on the back from liberal tyrants for their efforts. The left is all about force, thats why they defend this scum.
A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week.
RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park." The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
So what was this evil depiction of Muhammad that broadcast on the show?..... Brace yourselves, this is pretty extreme:
Reaching by phone early Tuesday, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.
"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."
If this is the reality of the Muslim faith, then they have no more place in this world then the KKK, the Nazi party, or common white supremacy groups. They are threatning the livelihoods of people because they are offended! .........BFD! Get over it and worry about yourself. I don't understand how this threatning post is given free speech rights, while South Park is STILL prohibited from showing the image of Muhaamad. Is free speech only for those willing to force peoples obedience? Only in the politically correct insanity of todays world would this be able to continue.
Asked about the show, Amrikee commented: "This is not a small thing, We should do whatever we can to make sure it does not happen again."
His post also included a link to a 2009 story in the Huffington Post that gave details of Stone and Parker's mansion in Colorado.
But don't worry, the ACLU re-affirmed that Islam is a religion of peace and love. South Park is simply intolerant and evil. So really, this is all their fault. Islamic extremism is allowed way too much power for what they are actually capable of. They dictate free expression to the world, and get a pat on the back from liberal tyrants for their efforts. The left is all about force, thats why they defend this scum.
April 20, 2010
The Limits of Power
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
When I first began to study the history of slavery around the world, many years ago, one of the oddities that puzzled me was the practice of paying certain slaves, which existed in ancient Rome and in America's antebellum South, among other places.
In both places, slave owners or their overseers whipped slaves to force them to work, and in neither place was whipping a slave literally to death likely to bring any serious consequences.
There could hardly be a greater power of one human being over another than the arbitrary power of life and death. Why then was it necessary to pay certain slaves? At the very least, it suggested that there were limits to what could be accomplished by power.
Most slaves performing most tasks were of course not paid, but were simply forced to work by the threat of punishment. That was sufficient for galley slaves or plantation slaves. But there were various kinds of work where that was not sufficient.
Tasks involving judgment or talents were different because no one can know how much judgment or talent someone else has. In short, knowledge is an inherent constraint on power. Payment can bring forth the knowledge or talent by giving those who have it an incentive to reveal it and to develop it.
Payment can vary in amount and in kind. Some slaves, especially eunuchs in the days of the Ottoman Empire, could amass both wealth and power. One reason they could be trusted in positions of power was that they had no incentive to betray the existing rulers and try to establish their own dynasties, which would obviously have been physically impossible for them.
At more mundane levels, such tasks as diving operations in the Carolina swamps required a level of discretion and skill far in excess of that required to pick cotton in the South or cut sugar cane in the tropics. Slaves doing this kind of work had financial incentives and were treated far better. So were slaves working in Virginia's tobacco factories.
The point of all this is that when even slaves had to be paid to get certain kinds of work done, this shows the limits of what can be accomplished by power alone. Yet so much of what is said and done by those who rely on the power of government to direct ever more sweeping areas of our life seem to have no sense of the limits of what can be accomplished that way.
Even the totalitarian governments of the 20th century eventually learned the hard way the limits of what could be accomplished by power alone. China still has a totalitarian government today but, after the death of Mao, the Chinese government began to loosen its controls on some parts of the economy, in order to reap the economic benefits of freer markets.
As those benefits became clear in higher rates of economic growth and rising standards of living, more government controls were loosened. But, just as market principles were applied to only certain kinds of slavery, so freedom in China has been allowed in economic activities to a far greater extent than in other realms of the country's life, where tight control from the top down remains the norm.
Ironically, the United States is moving in the direction of the kind of economy that China has been forced to move away from. China once had complete government control of medical care, but eventually gave it up as the disaster that it was.
The current leadership in Washington operates as if they can just set arbitrary goals, whether "affordable housing" or "universal health care" or anything else -- and not concern themselves with the repercussions -- since they have the power to simply force individuals, businesses, doctors or anyone else to knuckle under and follow their dictates.
Friedrich Hayek called this mindset "the road to serfdom." But, even under serfdom and slavery, experience forced those with power to recognize the limits of their power. What this administration -- and especially the President -- does not have is experience.
Barack Obama had no experience running even the most modest business, and personally paying the consequences of his mistakes, before becoming President of the United States. He can believe that his heady new power is the answer to all things.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
When I first began to study the history of slavery around the world, many years ago, one of the oddities that puzzled me was the practice of paying certain slaves, which existed in ancient Rome and in America's antebellum South, among other places.
In both places, slave owners or their overseers whipped slaves to force them to work, and in neither place was whipping a slave literally to death likely to bring any serious consequences.
There could hardly be a greater power of one human being over another than the arbitrary power of life and death. Why then was it necessary to pay certain slaves? At the very least, it suggested that there were limits to what could be accomplished by power.
Most slaves performing most tasks were of course not paid, but were simply forced to work by the threat of punishment. That was sufficient for galley slaves or plantation slaves. But there were various kinds of work where that was not sufficient.
Tasks involving judgment or talents were different because no one can know how much judgment or talent someone else has. In short, knowledge is an inherent constraint on power. Payment can bring forth the knowledge or talent by giving those who have it an incentive to reveal it and to develop it.
Payment can vary in amount and in kind. Some slaves, especially eunuchs in the days of the Ottoman Empire, could amass both wealth and power. One reason they could be trusted in positions of power was that they had no incentive to betray the existing rulers and try to establish their own dynasties, which would obviously have been physically impossible for them.
At more mundane levels, such tasks as diving operations in the Carolina swamps required a level of discretion and skill far in excess of that required to pick cotton in the South or cut sugar cane in the tropics. Slaves doing this kind of work had financial incentives and were treated far better. So were slaves working in Virginia's tobacco factories.
The point of all this is that when even slaves had to be paid to get certain kinds of work done, this shows the limits of what can be accomplished by power alone. Yet so much of what is said and done by those who rely on the power of government to direct ever more sweeping areas of our life seem to have no sense of the limits of what can be accomplished that way.
Even the totalitarian governments of the 20th century eventually learned the hard way the limits of what could be accomplished by power alone. China still has a totalitarian government today but, after the death of Mao, the Chinese government began to loosen its controls on some parts of the economy, in order to reap the economic benefits of freer markets.
As those benefits became clear in higher rates of economic growth and rising standards of living, more government controls were loosened. But, just as market principles were applied to only certain kinds of slavery, so freedom in China has been allowed in economic activities to a far greater extent than in other realms of the country's life, where tight control from the top down remains the norm.
Ironically, the United States is moving in the direction of the kind of economy that China has been forced to move away from. China once had complete government control of medical care, but eventually gave it up as the disaster that it was.
The current leadership in Washington operates as if they can just set arbitrary goals, whether "affordable housing" or "universal health care" or anything else -- and not concern themselves with the repercussions -- since they have the power to simply force individuals, businesses, doctors or anyone else to knuckle under and follow their dictates.
Friedrich Hayek called this mindset "the road to serfdom." But, even under serfdom and slavery, experience forced those with power to recognize the limits of their power. What this administration -- and especially the President -- does not have is experience.
Barack Obama had no experience running even the most modest business, and personally paying the consequences of his mistakes, before becoming President of the United States. He can believe that his heady new power is the answer to all things.
April 15, 2010
Alright all you Bush Haters, Explain this……
The department of justice wants to tap into peoples emails without a warrant or court approval. This invasion of personal privacy is spearheaded by the Obama administration. The same administration that, during the election, claimed the patriot act was unconstitutional and violated people right to privacy. Their premise was that tapping international phone calls without a warrant was unconstitutional.
Obama of course went on to re-sign the patriot act once in office, but that’s just another of those pesky campaign lies that no one will ever talk about. As president, Obama wants to invade your privacy at a whole new level.
Are liberals screaming there outrage? Are they rioting in the streets and breaking FBI windows? No, they support it as a common sense measure. It is unbelievable the double standard for this China-Doll President. He is held to a standard of zero, and everything he does is dismissed or ignored. Obama is not accountable for any action he takes. His Tyranny goes unchecked, and he has already gone much farther than Bush ever dared. Will people respond in anger and protest? Only if they are racist. Because everyone who is against anything Obama does is a racist.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Here is the story.
Google and an alliance of privacy groups have come to Yahoo's aid by helping the Web portal fend off a broad request from the U.S. Department of Justice for e-mail messages, CNET has learned.
In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages--a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.
Yahoo has been quietly fighting prosecutors' requests in front of a federal judge in Colorado, with many documents filed under seal. Tuesday's brief from Google and the other groups aims to buttress Yahoo's position by saying users who store their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
"Society expects and relies on the privacy of e-mail messages just as it relies on the privacy of the telephone system," the friend-of-the-court brief says. "Indeed, the largest e-mail services are popular precisely because they offer users huge amounts of computer disk space in the Internet 'cloud' within which users can warehouse their e-mails for perpetual storage."
Obama of course went on to re-sign the patriot act once in office, but that’s just another of those pesky campaign lies that no one will ever talk about. As president, Obama wants to invade your privacy at a whole new level.
Are liberals screaming there outrage? Are they rioting in the streets and breaking FBI windows? No, they support it as a common sense measure. It is unbelievable the double standard for this China-Doll President. He is held to a standard of zero, and everything he does is dismissed or ignored. Obama is not accountable for any action he takes. His Tyranny goes unchecked, and he has already gone much farther than Bush ever dared. Will people respond in anger and protest? Only if they are racist. Because everyone who is against anything Obama does is a racist.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Here is the story.
Google and an alliance of privacy groups have come to Yahoo's aid by helping the Web portal fend off a broad request from the U.S. Department of Justice for e-mail messages, CNET has learned.
In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages--a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.
Yahoo has been quietly fighting prosecutors' requests in front of a federal judge in Colorado, with many documents filed under seal. Tuesday's brief from Google and the other groups aims to buttress Yahoo's position by saying users who store their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
"Society expects and relies on the privacy of e-mail messages just as it relies on the privacy of the telephone system," the friend-of-the-court brief says. "Indeed, the largest e-mail services are popular precisely because they offer users huge amounts of computer disk space in the Internet 'cloud' within which users can warehouse their e-mails for perpetual storage."
April 14, 2010
Can Ron Paul beat Obama in 2012?
Probably not. but thats not what a new poll from Rasmussen says. (Excerpt below)
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.
So there you have it. 95% of the people responsible for destroying the wealth and prosperity would vote for Obama over Ron Paul. The choice is clear. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012!
Think about that, 95%! If there was a better endorsement for Ron Paul than the hate of the established political class I couldnt think of one. I was never huge on Ron Paul during last election, but the fact is he is the only current member of congress that I trust to uphold the constitution. He may be the only one in congress who has even read it.
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.
So there you have it. 95% of the people responsible for destroying the wealth and prosperity would vote for Obama over Ron Paul. The choice is clear. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012!
Think about that, 95%! If there was a better endorsement for Ron Paul than the hate of the established political class I couldnt think of one. I was never huge on Ron Paul during last election, but the fact is he is the only current member of congress that I trust to uphold the constitution. He may be the only one in congress who has even read it.
Nothing left to say.....................
According to Gallup Polls, 45% of Americans think they are being federally taxed at the correct amount. Meaning, they find their tax burden to be fair, and see no reason why others feel this way. The poll is being trumped by those on the Left as proof that half of Americans support the governments spending policies and initiatives (at the federal level).
Interestingly enough, according to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Any Questions? I guess if I paid zero, and had all my activities subsidized, I would feel like it was fair too.
We have nothing going on in our government but wealth redistribution. It is as wrong now as it always has been. This country can't survive on the production of the top one percent, while the leaches of society demand the wealth produced by others.
I've come to this realization: Americans don't deserve freedom. They no longer recognize what it is, or what it takes to preserve it. What we now have is the beginning stages of servitude, through the imprisonment of false altruism. In our noble effort to help the downtrodden, we will enslave everyone who does live in excess wealth. Self respect and pride in personal accomplishments will no longer be possible. The evilness of Mans nature will be shoved down your throat. Every common sense instinct will be deemed as selfish greed. Nothing will get done, and it will always be someone else’s fault. This is the future of a country that does not allow for personal responsibility. We will be a collection of the greater good, which will radically change us from prosperous to pathetic. This is the what will happen unless Americans realize what they are giving up for the approval of tyrants.
So many people already live in that entitlement world, dead to life. They may never again know the greatness that comes with having pride in yourself. But hey, what is the opinion of one man mean in relation to the greater good. Welcome to Socialism. I think it hear to stay
Interestingly enough, according to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Any Questions? I guess if I paid zero, and had all my activities subsidized, I would feel like it was fair too.
We have nothing going on in our government but wealth redistribution. It is as wrong now as it always has been. This country can't survive on the production of the top one percent, while the leaches of society demand the wealth produced by others.
I've come to this realization: Americans don't deserve freedom. They no longer recognize what it is, or what it takes to preserve it. What we now have is the beginning stages of servitude, through the imprisonment of false altruism. In our noble effort to help the downtrodden, we will enslave everyone who does live in excess wealth. Self respect and pride in personal accomplishments will no longer be possible. The evilness of Mans nature will be shoved down your throat. Every common sense instinct will be deemed as selfish greed. Nothing will get done, and it will always be someone else’s fault. This is the future of a country that does not allow for personal responsibility. We will be a collection of the greater good, which will radically change us from prosperous to pathetic. This is the what will happen unless Americans realize what they are giving up for the approval of tyrants.
So many people already live in that entitlement world, dead to life. They may never again know the greatness that comes with having pride in yourself. But hey, what is the opinion of one man mean in relation to the greater good. Welcome to Socialism. I think it hear to stay
Printing money.....................
I received an email today from a friend of mine that I wanted to share. He has built up significant credibility with me, by continually providing accurate predictions of the Stock Market. He researches the trends of the market on a daily basis, and has been dead on in everything he has passed to me. I wouldn't call him an expert, but he understands all of this better than anyone else I know.
His email was in response to a poll I sent him. The poll showed that 86% of respondants believe the government will continue printing money, until it's too late to recover. Here is what he told me in response:
As you know, we cannot print our way out of this, somehow the "powers" at large think this is possible, but what's the end game? All of a sudden we'll be back to prosperity, and we'll do the honorable thing, which is to pay the money back......it will never happen. We're over 60 Trillion dollars in the hole, the interest alone will bury us, as a matter of fact, this year marks the year in which, we can no longer afford to even pay the interest on the debt.......at that point, the IMF is suppose to come in and shut us down, deeming us BANKRUPT!
I read an article the other day, which said our debt alone is currently 90% of our entire GDP! Again, when it reaches 100% it's game over! And the stock market is a very poor indicator of the real economy, although it's been rising, it's all manipulated, and the banks are blatantly doing it right out in the open. They are currently not borrowing money, or very little, so you have to ask, how are they posting such huge profits...? They are speculating in the market, while the "market makers" run the price of stocks super high, in order to entice mutual funds into the market, they sell into the dumb mutual funds for huge profits. One example, look at Ford Motor company, at the stock market bottom, their stock hit $1, now it's hit as high as $14.....that's 14 times your money. Banks are selling into the mutual funds, the 401k's are buying at these outrageous price
Here's how: Let's say there is 2 banks involved for this example. Bank A values their assets for 10M dollars, while Bank B does the exact same thing, then Bank A agrees to buy Bank B's assets for 30M dollars, as long as Bank B will buy Bank A's for the same amount......Wa-La! They both profited thanks to the Government bailouts and especially the tax payers!
It's the largest PONZI scheme ever! And like all ponzi schemes, they never end well.
His email was in response to a poll I sent him. The poll showed that 86% of respondants believe the government will continue printing money, until it's too late to recover. Here is what he told me in response:
As you know, we cannot print our way out of this, somehow the "powers" at large think this is possible, but what's the end game? All of a sudden we'll be back to prosperity, and we'll do the honorable thing, which is to pay the money back......it will never happen. We're over 60 Trillion dollars in the hole, the interest alone will bury us, as a matter of fact, this year marks the year in which, we can no longer afford to even pay the interest on the debt.......at that point, the IMF is suppose to come in and shut us down, deeming us BANKRUPT!
I read an article the other day, which said our debt alone is currently 90% of our entire GDP! Again, when it reaches 100% it's game over! And the stock market is a very poor indicator of the real economy, although it's been rising, it's all manipulated, and the banks are blatantly doing it right out in the open. They are currently not borrowing money, or very little, so you have to ask, how are they posting such huge profits...? They are speculating in the market, while the "market makers" run the price of stocks super high, in order to entice mutual funds into the market, they sell into the dumb mutual funds for huge profits. One example, look at Ford Motor company, at the stock market bottom, their stock hit $1, now it's hit as high as $14.....that's 14 times your money. Banks are selling into the mutual funds, the 401k's are buying at these outrageous price
Here's how: Let's say there is 2 banks involved for this example. Bank A values their assets for 10M dollars, while Bank B does the exact same thing, then Bank A agrees to buy Bank B's assets for 30M dollars, as long as Bank B will buy Bank A's for the same amount......Wa-La! They both profited thanks to the Government bailouts and especially the tax payers!
It's the largest PONZI scheme ever! And like all ponzi schemes, they never end well.
April 13, 2010
Good Riddance!
When Supreme Court Justices retire, there is usually some pious talk about their "service," especially when it has been a long "service." But the careers of all too many of these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enormous disservice to this country.
Justice Stevens was on the High Court for 35 years-- more's the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005.
The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay "just compensation" for seizing a citizen's private property for "public use." In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.
What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government's power-- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials seizing homes and businesses-- not for "public use" as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.
Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?
John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans' appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.
Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.
Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party has long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.
The net result has been a whole string of Republican Justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats' agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.
There may have been some excuse for President Ford's picking such a man, in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected President who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace after Watergate, creating lasting damage to the public's support of the Republicans.
But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush to appoint David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.
In light of these justices' records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.
If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.
But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
Justice Stevens was on the High Court for 35 years-- more's the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005.
The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay "just compensation" for seizing a citizen's private property for "public use." In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.
What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government's power-- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials seizing homes and businesses-- not for "public use" as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.
Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?
John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans' appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.
Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.
Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party has long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.
The net result has been a whole string of Republican Justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats' agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.
There may have been some excuse for President Ford's picking such a man, in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected President who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace after Watergate, creating lasting damage to the public's support of the Republicans.
But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush to appoint David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.
In light of these justices' records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.
If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.
But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
- Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
April 8, 2010
Another climate change assumption turns out to be BS..........(stop the presses)
The longer scientist study Climate Change, the more they realize they don't know what they are talking about. Not five months ago environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming. However a new study found that cattle grazed on open grasslands can actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.
The researchers explained that this only applied to free range cattle who are able to eat and pad down grass that releases nitrous. Last fall, Lord Sterns laid the claim out that eating meat was causing extreme global warming. At the time he claimed that emissions from cows and livestock contributed a minimum of 18% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. He based his claim on the fact that Methane is 4 times more effective than Carbon dioxide is in trapping the suns heat. He went on to say that when a climate deal is reached, meat prices must skyrocket in order to save the planet and change peoples eating habits
“I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “People need to change their notion of what is responsible and increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Yeah, I’ll get right ont that. “ Excuse me, waiter. Could you please let me know the carbon footprint of this burger?"
Actually now that I think of it, I’m going to start doing exactly that :-) It will drive the liberals I know absolutely bonkers.
The researchers explained that this only applied to free range cattle who are able to eat and pad down grass that releases nitrous. Last fall, Lord Sterns laid the claim out that eating meat was causing extreme global warming. At the time he claimed that emissions from cows and livestock contributed a minimum of 18% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. He based his claim on the fact that Methane is 4 times more effective than Carbon dioxide is in trapping the suns heat. He went on to say that when a climate deal is reached, meat prices must skyrocket in order to save the planet and change peoples eating habits
“I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “People need to change their notion of what is responsible and increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Yeah, I’ll get right ont that. “ Excuse me, waiter. Could you please let me know the carbon footprint of this burger?"
Actually now that I think of it, I’m going to start doing exactly that :-) It will drive the liberals I know absolutely bonkers.
April 7, 2010
Race and Politics
No dogma has caused more mischief-- and, in some countries, tragedies-- than the notion that there is something strange and wrong when some groups are "over-represented" or "under-represented" in some occupations or institutions.
This dogma is so widely accepted, and so deeply entrenched, that no one asks for evidence and no speck of evidence is offered. Moreover, tons of evidence to the contrary are ignored.
Over the centuries, and in countries around the world, all sorts of groups have been disproportionately concentrated in particular occupations and at different income levels, and have had radical differences in their behavior, from rates of alcoholism to rates of crime and infant mortality.
Often some minority, with no political power, has outperformed the dominant majority in lucrative or prestigious professions-- the Tamils in colonial Ceylon, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese minority throughout southeast Asia, the Huguenots in France, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Japanese in Brazil, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Jews in medieval Spain. The list could be extended almost indefinitely.
This dogma is so widely accepted, and so deeply entrenched, that no one asks for evidence and no speck of evidence is offered. Moreover, tons of evidence to the contrary are ignored.
Over the centuries, and in countries around the world, all sorts of groups have been disproportionately concentrated in particular occupations and at different income levels, and have had radical differences in their behavior, from rates of alcoholism to rates of crime and infant mortality.
Often some minority, with no political power, has outperformed the dominant majority in lucrative or prestigious professions-- the Tamils in colonial Ceylon, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese minority throughout southeast Asia, the Huguenots in France, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Japanese in Brazil, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Jews in medieval Spain. The list could be extended almost indefinitely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
