Does anyone understand this nonsense?
The Stock Market is up. Oil is up. Gold is way up! Where's the catalyst? Where's the money coming from?
People, nationwide unemployment is almost at 20%. Yes, I meant to write 20%, not the bogus 10.2% figure quoted by most in the media and government. With so many folks out of work there has to be less money floating around to buy things. Remember, even the Cash for Clunkers and First-time Home Buyer tax credit is not an influx of cash into the market. They are an increase in the indebtedness that we cannot pay back.
Many economists already predict that there will be massive repossessions within six months, in part because the fools who fell for the Clunkergate did not realize how much their insurance would go up for a new car versus the more than likely liability coverage they carried on their paid off clunkers. This only adds to how much they will have to fork out to keep paying on their new car. Not to mention that they still need to pay their rent/mortgage, put food on the table, and gas in that car.
Recently it was reported that home buyers are already in arrears for homes they bought just this year. Come on, we're gutting ourselves here! Mark my words, if we don't stop this keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality our world is going to come crashing down hard and fast.
Things are very bad, folks. Very bad.
Still, the consumer robots are running around to all of these so-called Bleak Friday sales (yes, you read right). Buying flat screen TVs because they can, because they want one. I guarantee you these same folks have a perfectly functioning CRT TV in their homes right now. What are they going to do with that? Read one of my earlier blogs to get the gist of how I feel about HD and all that. My CRT TV happens to be over ten years old. I will NOT buy a flat screen TV until I absolutely have no choice. Yes, that means my CRT TV will have to go out completely. Dead. Kaput.
I spent today with family thankful for them and only them on this Thanksgiving Day. I am not thankful for my government, I am not thankful for the greedy and selfish among us, and I am not thankful for the apparent stupidity that is working to destroy this the greatest nation on earth.
Gold at 1200. Please!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
A Day to Think
Like many Americans today, I spent time reflecting on what happened September 11, 2001, and continue to try to make sense of it all. You can't really.
Some have said we need to identify who did this to us and not be so politically correct. Others go on believing and espousing that George W. Bush was behind the attacks, or knew of them in advance. The conspiracy theories abound across the web. Others, still, think we have not gone far enough or done enough damage to the "other side" to make a difference in the conflict.
It is not enough, I don't think, to say Muslims did this to us. Islamic extremists attacked before 9/11, attacked on 9/11, and go on attacking. They want an end to America so don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. I stopped blaming Muslims a long time ago, even though they make that difficult. After all, one is hard pressed to find any Muslim anywhere who publicly denounces what Islamic Extremists do.
September 11th comes and goes every year and I don't really do much about it, not really. Then I come across a video on YouTube from a young man just talking to his audience and partway through his talk he says something brief, yet absolutely remarkable. "What can you say [about 9/11]?...a day to think..."
Wow! That hit home. Of course, it is so simple, it takes a young man to explain it to me. Today is not a day to remember; it's not a day to grieve; it's not a day to blame. September 11th is a day to think. And that is exactly how I will honor the victims of 9/11 from now on.
Wow! A day to think.
Some have said we need to identify who did this to us and not be so politically correct. Others go on believing and espousing that George W. Bush was behind the attacks, or knew of them in advance. The conspiracy theories abound across the web. Others, still, think we have not gone far enough or done enough damage to the "other side" to make a difference in the conflict.
It is not enough, I don't think, to say Muslims did this to us. Islamic extremists attacked before 9/11, attacked on 9/11, and go on attacking. They want an end to America so don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. I stopped blaming Muslims a long time ago, even though they make that difficult. After all, one is hard pressed to find any Muslim anywhere who publicly denounces what Islamic Extremists do.
September 11th comes and goes every year and I don't really do much about it, not really. Then I come across a video on YouTube from a young man just talking to his audience and partway through his talk he says something brief, yet absolutely remarkable. "What can you say [about 9/11]?...a day to think..."
Wow! That hit home. Of course, it is so simple, it takes a young man to explain it to me. Today is not a day to remember; it's not a day to grieve; it's not a day to blame. September 11th is a day to think. And that is exactly how I will honor the victims of 9/11 from now on.
Wow! A day to think.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Arcadian's Got Talent (or Bring Arcadian Back)
What happened to Arcadian Broad was completely wrong and unprofessional. I, for one, am very proud that he stood up for hisself.
The young man can dance! My feeling is he was set up to lose out. He was given a routine he did not want to perform (his words). Why was he assigned a partner when he auditioned as a single act? The producers did not separate the Three Tenors into a single act and tell two to go home, did they? Why wasn't Kevin Skinner partnered for a duet instead of being allowed to remain a solo act?
And the folks running the show wonder why people think America's Got Talent is rigged.
Arcadian auditioned and performed as a single dance act, not part of a gesticulating, poorly choreographed, and bumbling aggregation as the High School Musical routine seemed to me to be.
I have enjoyed America's Got Talent (and the many "Got Talent" versions around the world), but I must take a stand here. Bring back Arcadian Broad and let him do what he wants, then let the people decide on that. The judges "threw out the rules" for Fab Five and Voices of Glory, so throw out those same rules and BRING ARCADIAN BACK. If they can't or won't, they may have just lost a fan, for I shall never watch another episode of America's Got Talent ever again.
Sorry to be so direct, but I am troubled by what I witnessed in Part 1 of the Semis.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Le Morte d'Eduord
Ted Kennedy died today. For that there is no denying an era in American history has come to its end. The last king of Camelot is dead. Long live...who?
Who now will take up the grand mantle of bulwark of the liberals who want to change America, not for the better, but for the worse?
What will happen to the liberal causes without their lion to roar for them?
Who will tell the children to shut up when they become too unruly?
No one as I can see will or can step up to the plate. If any doubts this, look at how the Camelotians (that's liberal democrats for those of you who don't get it) treated Caroline Kennedy when she tried to get the nod for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary when that carpetbagger became Secretary of State. If anyone should have been heir to Camelot it was Caroline. Right?
Liberalism is the dog that has had its day. Some -- on Ted's side (gee no surprise there) -- are already exploiting his memory by attaching his name to the reform of health care in America. Have they no shame?
I didn't like Ted Kennedy for his politics, and I really didn't like the man, but even if I had I would never use his name to further a cause of mine. That would be, I don't know, like, attaching Reagan's name to legislation for Alzheimer research just to get it to pass.
I may not be the only one who didn't like Ted, by the way. The family of Mary Jo Kopechne, might not be too upset that he's gone. I'm just saying.
At the end of the day what is most significant about the passing of Ted Kennedy is that it is really, finally, the passing of Camelot. A whole generation of Americans grew up with the Kennedys as their Royal Family. This, when there should not be any royalty to revere.
But the name Camelot, as it has been applied to the Kennedy family, says much about liberalism. Elitists (i.e., royalists) who believe in their own superiority over the common man (i.e., us serfs). Even the kings and queens of old gave alms to the poor, and this is exactly what liberals have done, are doing, and will try to go on doing: being compassionate with other people's money.
I could be pretty darn compassionate myself if I only had other folk's money to spend instead of mine own, but the words of Margaret Thatcher come back to me now: the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Isn't this what is happening today? We're running out of money. We're running out of the jobs that create wealth. We're running out of the money that is available to be taxed to pay for government of any form. We're running out of money.
Many whom I have talked to since our President Obama was elected are terrified that he is out to destroy America, as we know it. I repeat here what I have told others before; I do not fear President Obama or his policies. Why? Because America is greater than him and them.
Obama has a vision of America similar in many respects to the vision Ted Kennedy had. Similar enough that Ted endorsed Obama during the primaries. It is possible that Ted Kennedy knew even back then of his ailment and passed the torch, so to speak. Only, I don't think Obama, or anyone else on the left for that matter, has what it takes to carry it.
Camelot is crumbling away and the last lit torch has dimmed and gone out. Long live America.
Who now will take up the grand mantle of bulwark of the liberals who want to change America, not for the better, but for the worse?
What will happen to the liberal causes without their lion to roar for them?
Who will tell the children to shut up when they become too unruly?
No one as I can see will or can step up to the plate. If any doubts this, look at how the Camelotians (that's liberal democrats for those of you who don't get it) treated Caroline Kennedy when she tried to get the nod for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary when that carpetbagger became Secretary of State. If anyone should have been heir to Camelot it was Caroline. Right?
Liberalism is the dog that has had its day. Some -- on Ted's side (gee no surprise there) -- are already exploiting his memory by attaching his name to the reform of health care in America. Have they no shame?
I didn't like Ted Kennedy for his politics, and I really didn't like the man, but even if I had I would never use his name to further a cause of mine. That would be, I don't know, like, attaching Reagan's name to legislation for Alzheimer research just to get it to pass.
I may not be the only one who didn't like Ted, by the way. The family of Mary Jo Kopechne, might not be too upset that he's gone. I'm just saying.
At the end of the day what is most significant about the passing of Ted Kennedy is that it is really, finally, the passing of Camelot. A whole generation of Americans grew up with the Kennedys as their Royal Family. This, when there should not be any royalty to revere.
But the name Camelot, as it has been applied to the Kennedy family, says much about liberalism. Elitists (i.e., royalists) who believe in their own superiority over the common man (i.e., us serfs). Even the kings and queens of old gave alms to the poor, and this is exactly what liberals have done, are doing, and will try to go on doing: being compassionate with other people's money.
I could be pretty darn compassionate myself if I only had other folk's money to spend instead of mine own, but the words of Margaret Thatcher come back to me now: the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Isn't this what is happening today? We're running out of money. We're running out of the jobs that create wealth. We're running out of the money that is available to be taxed to pay for government of any form. We're running out of money.
Many whom I have talked to since our President Obama was elected are terrified that he is out to destroy America, as we know it. I repeat here what I have told others before; I do not fear President Obama or his policies. Why? Because America is greater than him and them.
Obama has a vision of America similar in many respects to the vision Ted Kennedy had. Similar enough that Ted endorsed Obama during the primaries. It is possible that Ted Kennedy knew even back then of his ailment and passed the torch, so to speak. Only, I don't think Obama, or anyone else on the left for that matter, has what it takes to carry it.
Camelot is crumbling away and the last lit torch has dimmed and gone out. Long live America.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Take My Internet, Please!
Would someone please come up with something new and better and FREE! These darn moguls want to charge for everything we do online, and frankly it's getting tiresome. Look, guys! If I'm not going to buy your newspapers off the news stand, why would I buy them online? Your magazines, too, for that matter.
It's bad enough that we have to pay for television programming that is mostly worthless just to catch a bit of entertainment or local news. No more free airwaves, are there? I mean, come on paying for three hours of programming a day, or for infomercials throughout the night and weekends. This is obscene.
Now they want to do it to the internet.
I remember when the net first came on the scene and how exciting it was to explore new things without someone shoving an ad in your face, or making you register with UPPER&lowercasepasswordsthatmusthavea!@#$%^&*(or123456789. Why do they care if my password is secure enough or not anyway?
I remember when information over the net was as free as if you had jaunted down to the local library. Not no more it ain't! Sure back then there were still some stuff you had to pay for, but it was your choice. Now there's little choice and soon there will be no choices. Pay to play or get lost is what they'll say.
Well they'll do what they want and so be it. I have enough faith in ingenuity that one day (hopefully soon) someone will come up with something that outdoes the internet and makes information free again. Even if only for a short while. Then when the greedy moguls exploit that venue for money something else will come along. And so on and so forth.
For now, take my internet, please!
It's bad enough that we have to pay for television programming that is mostly worthless just to catch a bit of entertainment or local news. No more free airwaves, are there? I mean, come on paying for three hours of programming a day, or for infomercials throughout the night and weekends. This is obscene.
Now they want to do it to the internet.
I remember when the net first came on the scene and how exciting it was to explore new things without someone shoving an ad in your face, or making you register with UPPER&lowercasepasswordsthatmusthavea!@#$%^&*(or123456789. Why do they care if my password is secure enough or not anyway?
I remember when information over the net was as free as if you had jaunted down to the local library. Not no more it ain't! Sure back then there were still some stuff you had to pay for, but it was your choice. Now there's little choice and soon there will be no choices. Pay to play or get lost is what they'll say.
Well they'll do what they want and so be it. I have enough faith in ingenuity that one day (hopefully soon) someone will come up with something that outdoes the internet and makes information free again. Even if only for a short while. Then when the greedy moguls exploit that venue for money something else will come along. And so on and so forth.
For now, take my internet, please!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Independocrats!
All of my life I have heard that Independent party candidates represent the middle-of-the-road American. With no real party affiliation they can do more for the "little guy" while remaining immune to the corruption of power. That independent voters are free thinkers who carry the burden of deciding during national elections who is ultimately the best candidate for the job.
I have never believed this bunk, even though multiple media outlets from print to network TV to Cable News to the World Wide Web have all espoused this to be true.
What I have always believed is that Independent is just another name for Democrat, and I have the proof!
The proof is rather straight forward. Common sense, really. Here it is.
Today we hear constantly from ALL media types that with the win by Al Franken the Democrat Party now has a super-majority of 60 senators. This is not just deceitful it is an outright lie! There are in fact only 58 Democrats in the Senate, 40 Republicans, and 2 Independents.
It is the assumption that the two Independents caucus with Democrats which leads to the filibuster proof majority. Proof enough for me that Independents are just another name for Democrats. The former only slightly more confused than the latter.
When was the last time you heard of an Independent who caucused with the Republicans? I cannot recall a single incident in my lifetime. I have not taken the time to research if and when this may have occurred. Personally this is part of my argument. The fact that I can name the two Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joseph Lieberman), but cannot name a single Independent who caucused Republican tells me either it has not happened or the media have never talked about it enough to make it stick.
More proof? Lieberman was a Democrat and Sanders has always sided with the Democrats (calls himself a democratic-socialist) only he never officially registered with the party.
Legally and technically I say the Democrats do not have a super-majority of seats in the Senate and I know I am right. If others want to perpetuate the lies that they indeed have 60 seats let those know this blogger has not fallen for it.
I have never believed this bunk, even though multiple media outlets from print to network TV to Cable News to the World Wide Web have all espoused this to be true.
What I have always believed is that Independent is just another name for Democrat, and I have the proof!
The proof is rather straight forward. Common sense, really. Here it is.
Today we hear constantly from ALL media types that with the win by Al Franken the Democrat Party now has a super-majority of 60 senators. This is not just deceitful it is an outright lie! There are in fact only 58 Democrats in the Senate, 40 Republicans, and 2 Independents.
It is the assumption that the two Independents caucus with Democrats which leads to the filibuster proof majority. Proof enough for me that Independents are just another name for Democrats. The former only slightly more confused than the latter.
When was the last time you heard of an Independent who caucused with the Republicans? I cannot recall a single incident in my lifetime. I have not taken the time to research if and when this may have occurred. Personally this is part of my argument. The fact that I can name the two Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joseph Lieberman), but cannot name a single Independent who caucused Republican tells me either it has not happened or the media have never talked about it enough to make it stick.
More proof? Lieberman was a Democrat and Sanders has always sided with the Democrats (calls himself a democratic-socialist) only he never officially registered with the party.
Legally and technically I say the Democrats do not have a super-majority of seats in the Senate and I know I am right. If others want to perpetuate the lies that they indeed have 60 seats let those know this blogger has not fallen for it.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
We can't all get along!
So Obama wants us and the Muslims around the world -- or is it only those around Arabia -- to get along. That's pretty noble, too bad it's unrealistic.
Trying to get along only leads to devastating circumstances. And Muslims around the world don't get along with each other, so how can we expect them to get along with us?
What has succeeded throughout the history of mankind is the survival of the fittest. The greatest nation the world has yet produced is in the throws of economic instability, but America is still much better off than most of the rest of the world.
At least for now.
Pacifists have always thought that their ideals overshadow real world concerns. Statements like "We're trying to negotiate," "Let's exhaust all diplomatic channels," "Convene the UN Security Council to condemn hostile actions." These are failed attempts to end a crisis that ultimately only ended with all out war.
In the early 1900s the League of Nations was born (precursor to the UN), a few years after the Kellog-Briand Pact "outlawed" conflict -- said all conflicts must be resolved through peaceful means -- but these worthless commitments first led to economic collapse around the world and ultimately to the Depression. The Depression ended and the global economy improved only after WWII.
Then we had the formation of the UN and that led to 40 plus years of the Cold War and the countless rise and fall of petty dictators on the blood of millions of innocents. Again military might ended the Cold War. Don't kid yourself, revisionists try to say the Cold War ended without a drop of blood, but this just is not true. Many died in USSR, Eastern Block (trying to escape for one), North/South Korea, South and Central America.
Now we are in a Global War on Terror against Islamic Extremists and a pacifist like Obama wants to talk. Well, unfortunately, we are going to waste a lot of time talking, economies will crumble (including ours), and countless lives will be lost before the world is once again forced to unite against tyranny in a worldwide conflict.
History keeps repeating itself folks because we refuse to learn from it.
Trying to get along only leads to devastating circumstances. And Muslims around the world don't get along with each other, so how can we expect them to get along with us?
What has succeeded throughout the history of mankind is the survival of the fittest. The greatest nation the world has yet produced is in the throws of economic instability, but America is still much better off than most of the rest of the world.
At least for now.
Pacifists have always thought that their ideals overshadow real world concerns. Statements like "We're trying to negotiate," "Let's exhaust all diplomatic channels," "Convene the UN Security Council to condemn hostile actions." These are failed attempts to end a crisis that ultimately only ended with all out war.
In the early 1900s the League of Nations was born (precursor to the UN), a few years after the Kellog-Briand Pact "outlawed" conflict -- said all conflicts must be resolved through peaceful means -- but these worthless commitments first led to economic collapse around the world and ultimately to the Depression. The Depression ended and the global economy improved only after WWII.
Then we had the formation of the UN and that led to 40 plus years of the Cold War and the countless rise and fall of petty dictators on the blood of millions of innocents. Again military might ended the Cold War. Don't kid yourself, revisionists try to say the Cold War ended without a drop of blood, but this just is not true. Many died in USSR, Eastern Block (trying to escape for one), North/South Korea, South and Central America.
Now we are in a Global War on Terror against Islamic Extremists and a pacifist like Obama wants to talk. Well, unfortunately, we are going to waste a lot of time talking, economies will crumble (including ours), and countless lives will be lost before the world is once again forced to unite against tyranny in a worldwide conflict.
History keeps repeating itself folks because we refuse to learn from it.
