Blog of Joel

WHOOPS.

2013-02-21T10:37:00.004-05:00

Who'd have thought? Oh right, people that paid attention.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-nothing-brag-about

Appealing to Credibility

2011-08-17T14:28:00.003-04:00

I have interesting conversations with many of the people that I meet and greet in my line of work as well as enjoy spirited, informative debates over the interwebs from time to time. While these interactions are often productive and thought provoking, lately I've become very frustrated with the too common tendency to substitute credibility for reasoned argument. It's become such a commonly used tactic that it usually sails by unnoticed and unchallenged. Using someone else's thoughts to try and support an ideological perspective is tempting because it removes the burden of being right or wrong from the proponent and places it on an absent, undefended 3rd party. Known as argumentum ad verecundiam, or, appeal to authority, an argument whose foundation exists solely upon the testimony of a supposed authority is a logically fallacious one.

When in the course of a debate you receive such responses as "Are you a prize winning / PhD holding / published X such as the one I'm quoting?" or "Here's a link to Wikipedia", you are dealing with someone attempting to squelch your arguments through illogical (and fairly lazy) means. A related Latin phrase, "Ipse Dixit", or, "he himself said it", describes claims made by someone whose authority we are supposed to simply accept unsubstantiated by anything else. These people rely on their own credibility on a given subject to serve as a substitute for a logical defense.

One irritating constant is the failure of most folks to realize when they are arguing from an ideological perspective rather than a factual one. Dogmatic assertions such as "Health care is a human right" or "It's what Jesus would do" are unprovable, ideological positions. They cannot be supported by factual evidence, though many will try to convince you they can be by drawing on a myriad of anecdotal facts and providing you with their own interpretation presented as "scientific conclusion". Political debates in particular often devolve into this sort of "counterfactual mugging", in that both sides totally fail to understand they are defending an emotional position (such as "people should take more personal responsibility", or "there's too much economic inequality in the U.S.") and the facts have either been left by the wayside or completely misused, misunderstood, or misquoted to draw convenient conclusions.

Somewhat surprisingly, the worst offenders are the ones that doth protest too much - experts in their own mind or perhaps even legitimate experts who claim to stand atop strict scientific rigor and analysis. There is an old saying: "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient," and the attorney version: "A lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client." Even though they may be experts, a diagnosis made solely on an appeal to their own authority would be unwise. Experts are humans, and humans err.

Election Day

2010-11-02T11:23:00.000-04:00

Who should you vote for today? Quick Q & A:

Do you support the sort of politicians that would pass a $787 billion stimulus program (without the other party's input and over their objections) that ended up a colossal failure with regard to improving unemployment problems? The sort that continue to blame their opponents for the mess? If so, vote for a Democrat.

Do you support the sort of politicians that would devote a section (9006) of their "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" to extend Form 1099 to include gold purchases exceeding $600 in a calendar year? If so, vote for a Democrat.

Do you support the sort of politicians that remain entirely focused on their party agenda items, such as health care and immigration reform, while the nation's economic outlook remains bleak? If so, vote for a Democrat.

Do you support the sort of politicians that make statements like "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"? If so, vote for a Democrat.

Do you support this stance on nation security: "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever... we absorbed it and we are stronger"? If so, vote for a Democrat.

Do you support the sort of politicians that attack a state immigration law as "unconstitutional", even though it mimics the federal law already in place that the feds refuse to enforce? Do you think that a federal government hostile towards states' attempts to protect themselves from crime is a good one? If so, vote for a Democrat.

Do you support the sort of people that denounce your rejection of their ideas as "ignorance", "racism", "cronyism", undefined "hate", etc.? If you support this sort of patronizing elitist claptrap, then by all means vote for a Democrat.

To those of you who want limited government, economic improvement, safer borders, more personal freedom, and who just plain want to get back to work, please vote for someone besides a Democrat.

This list is an exercise in moot silliness, honestly, since all signs show the GOP picking up massive gains today. People don't really need any more convincing. Today's vote isn't really about supporting the GOP, after all, who in the past have proven themselves just as amenable to horrendous policy making as the current sorry bunch. Today's vote, for many people, is simply about defeating the party in power. Democrats are already excusing themselves for losing. News flash: voters actually DO care about the effectiveness of your policies! Find out who the Tea Party candidate is nearest you and vote for them. You could do much worse. Vote for real change.

The Spirit of America

2010-03-22T09:53:00.001-04:00

This November, let's remind Washington of the true spirit of America:

Straight From the Horse's Mouth

2010-03-18T15:48:00.002-04:00

The Realities of a Controlled Market

2010-02-23T11:15:00.000-05:00

Eileen Aj Connelly of the AP writes:

"During the past nine months, credit card companies jacked up interest rates, created new fees and cut credit lines. They also closed down millions of accounts. So a law hailed as the most sweeping piece of consumer legislation in decades has helped make it more difficult for millions of Americans to get credit, and made that credit more expensive.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The law that President Barack Obama signed last May shields card users from sudden interest rate hikes, excessive fees and other gimmicks that card companies have used to drive up profits. Consumers will save at least $10 billion a year from curbs on interest rate increases alone, according to the Pew Charitable Trust, which tracks credit card issues."

This is the ugly face of government running interference in free markets. When will we learn the futility of these tactics? From the ghetto slums in New York created by rent controls to the absurd federal ethanol subsidies that end up replacing gasoline at a cost of around $82 a barrel, there seems to be a broad-based learning block against the historically proven fact that attempting to shape a marketplace by means of redistribution almost invariably fails. This is because the proper functioning of the market isn't really the goal - the culprit is generally some misguided notion of "social justice".

It wasn't supposed to be this way! That's funny: I could have told you exactly how it would be.

Fact: Credit providers are under no compulsion to grant you credit. By making it less profitable to grant credit to consumers, less credit will be granted.
Fact: You are not required to do business with a creditor. For that matter, you are not required to utilize credit at all.
Fact: If you are a high-risk borrower, you will likely pay high-risk rates. If you are a low-risk borrower (you pay your bills on time and live within your means), creditors will be willing to offer you lower rates.

In other words, by attempting to prevent credit card companies from using "gimmicks", "rate hikes", or "excessive fees", this law is actually having the effect of making credit more expensive and less available to everyone. This is not news to anyone with a lick of economic sense - we've watched history repeat itself countless times on this point.

By the way: credit funding, just like insurance, operates profitably by way of risk pooling. By attempting similar legislation on a similar market, we can expect similar results.

Join My Folding@Home Team!

2009-11-17T09:12:00.001-05:00

Team ID: 124596

Download Link

One of my favorite songs

2009-10-28T22:30:00.000-04:00

I've always loved it for some reason. It's by Simon & Garfunkel.

The Russians Understand our Lost Freedoms Better than We Do

2009-09-29T12:48:00.000-04:00

Source: Pravda.Ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Statistical Abuse

2009-09-23T14:18:00.000-04:00

I saw this graph today indicating the rising costs of health insurance premiums for single and family coverage from 1999 to 2009:

What interested me the most was the complete absence of inflation data. A comparison between 2009 dollars and 1999 dollars? Really?

Knowing that gold tends to be the best available indicator of currency inflation thanks to its nearly constant historical demand worldwide, I decided to plot the price of health insurance against the average price of gold per ounce over the last ten years:

The basic argument is that if gold is an accurate measure of currency valuation, it is an excellent indicator of currency inflation. Plotting the increase in premium prices against gold prices over a decade demonstrates that the real cost of health insurance premiums has fallen. This of course assumes a flat demand for gold, and thus is not perfect. Keep in mind the demand for gold has remained nearly constant for many hundreds of years (thus its moniker, the "Golden Constant").

If the original graph indicating increasing premiums is to have any meaning, inflation data must be included and accounted for. Otherwise, we are measuring the cost of a good by a fluctuating paper currency. Since it is very difficult to determine a perfect index for measuring inflation, I choose to use the gold standard as most existing indexes (such as CPI and WPI) are of transient value and often subjected to political interference. After all, what statesman wants to inform the citizenry that their dollar will only purchase 75% of what it did the year before?

I added series of gold price, gold price/oz x 10, and a series representing the average price for family coverage adjusted against the price of gold. The amount of inflation suggested here in no way paints a very rosy picture of our long term economy, but certainly helps to indicate that the real costs for health care might not have increased as drastically as some suggest.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Gold Turns Out to Be the Best

However, the results were much better when we tested average annual commodity prices as a predictor of the following year’s CPI since 1970. All three commodity prices showed predictable power over the long term (one year). However, it is clear from the regressions that gold was the best indicator of inflationary expectations (R-squared, 0.42), followed closely by the Dow Jones Commodity Spot Index (R-squared, 0.37), and oil was a distant third (R-squared, 0.18). In fact, it could be determined that oil was a poor indicator of inflationary expectations as measured by the CPI. This view falls in line with the work of energy economist Douglas Bohi, whose historical work concludes that oil has far less impact on the world economies than most economists believe.[1]

Gold as a Measure of Price Inflation

Historically, we can see how gold has significantly anticipated the rise and fall in purchasing power. When the world went off the gold exchange standard in 1971, the price of gold rose sharply from $35 an ounce to $200 an ounce, reflecting the sharp rise in commodity and consumer prices in 1973-74. Then gold suddenly topped out in 1975, about the same time the CPI rate started dropping. When consumer price inflation started moving up again, reaching 14 percent in 1979-80, gold moved in sympathy, rising from $100 an ounce in 1976 to $850 an ounce in January 1980. The long disinflationary era of the 1980s and 1990s saw a declining trend in both consumer price inflation and the gold price, although that trend may be changing again soon.

In short, it appears that the price of gold does a good job of reflecting the inflationary environment as measured by the Consumer Price Index. It is certainly a better indicator than the crude oil price.

Research by the late Professor Roy Jastram (University of California at Berkeley) suggests that gold maintains its purchasing power over the centuries. After investigating the purchasing power of gold over the past 300 years, Jastram concluded that, despite major inflations and deflations, Nevertheless, gold maintains its purchasing power over long periods of time, for example, half-century intervals.[2]

Based on the above new evidence, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to add gold to their summaries of the financial markets?

--

1. Douglas R. Bohi, On the macroeconomic effects of energy price shocks, Resources and Energy 13 (1991), pp. 146-162. See also my column, The Freeman (August 1994), pp. 457-458.

2. Roy Jastram, The Golden Constant (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977), p. 132.

Clark Howard's Thoughts on Healthcare Reform

2009-09-09T16:16:00.000-04:00

Clark's ideas are quite sane, and I had to re-post them. This is Clark's own address on healthcare reform ahead of President Obama's planned speech before a joint session of Congress tonight at 8 p.m.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress and the most beautiful First Lady in the history of the United States (Clark's wife Lane), I want to address you about healthcare reform and what I want you to put on my desk to sign into law.

For months, there have been angry words and both sides of the aisle have been talking past each other. But tonight I propose we go to a healthcare system that we can afford and that will allow market forces to finally enter healthcare in the United States.

We must address head-on that the federal government deficits we are running are not sustainable. The commitments to seniors with Medicare and the impoverished with Medicaid are not sustainable. We can not afford as a federal government to provide for the healthcare of the citizenry. It's just not possible.

In addition, our current system is based largely on luck. Either you're lucky enough to work for an employer that provides health coverage or you unlucky enough to be self-employed, work for a smaller employer or have a pre-existing condition that makes you a pariah for insurers.

Employer provided healthcare was an accident of history. It only exists because of a move by employers some 50 years ago to provide healthcare as a back-door way to give raises during the days of wage price controls -- when the feds said that employers couldn't give pay raises.

Unfortunately, it's grown into an unsustainable haphazard system. If you go back 50 years, an employee would be a "lifer" at a job and there was a reciprocal relationship between employer and employee. Today it doesn't work like that. Employers add or subtract employees at will and we pick up and move as we see fit.

But many times someone may have an illness and can't leave an employer because of health coverage. We need a new system to address the fact that we don't stay put for a long time. We need to move away from centralization of healthcare from government or employers.

We also need to introduce the marketplace. How can this be done? We need to create an individual health insurance market where each individual in each family buys his or her own coverage. We can't allow employers to be the sole source of safe venue for coverage, but instead have to create an insurance market based on the principles of standardized policies.

Insurers will be allowed to charge what they wish based on age/sex, but we need standard policies you can pick and choose from.

Choice is the key to driving smart decisions. Some like the structure of an HMO, some like the freedom of a traditional fee-for-service plan. Others want an in-between option like a PPO with a list of cheap in-network providers and more costly out-of-network ones. Yet others, such as entrepreneurs, love HSAs, where you take a high-deductible health insurance plan and you are essentially your own insurer for routine things.

We should allow Americans to choose from all 4 options, but the coverage should be standardized across all insurance companies so consumers can comparison shop.

Not everybody should have to buy the same HMO or the same PPO coverage. I think there should be 3 levels of choice in each -- 3 different HMOs, 3 PPOs, 3 traditional plans and 3 HSAs, each with different levels of coverage.

For example, a basic plan would provide only generics medications and no experimental treatments. Each level would have different care for you. But you would have the choice of what you want to buy.

If an employer wants to subsidize the healthcare with a voucher, that's fine, but you would still be in control of the purchase. So even if you left your employer, you would still have insurance.

If someone chooses not to buy insurance, that's fine too. If you do become ill, you'll be barred from buying coverage for 24 months. Otherwise, the healthy would never buy until they're sick.

The moral choice is so key here. If we rely on government or an employer to decide what coverage is good for us, we give them the power of life and death over us. But if we make our own choice, then it puts us in control and eliminates the moral dilemma of will we tax ourselves more to provide more coverage or tax less to provide less coverage.

And for those without means, both sides of the aisle seem to agree on a voucher system that would scale back as the level of income rises. I think that's a reasonable option. But I can tell you that we can not solve the cost issue with healthcare, without having a collision with morality, if we do not put the patient in charge. That's the key.

You must be the person who decides what coverage you want, what coverage you choose not to buy and who you buy it from. It's that simple. Health care costs account for one-sixth of our economy and we have to get control of that one-sixth, but at the same time provide true power back where it belongs -- with the American people. Thank you very much.

The Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge Argument

2009-09-02T13:09:00.000-04:00

Have you ever encountered a situation where someone makes an obvious implication, but later backs away from it when it is pointed out that the reasoning behind it is unsound? This is what I like to call the "Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge" argument, and it is a commonly encountered phenomenon.

An example:

Bob: "You know John thinks that giving the White House ‘cybersecurity emergency’ powers over the Internet is a terrible idea. He works for an ISP, after all."
Stan: "Are you saying ISPs will oppose this?"
Bob: "Of course not. Only that John thinks it's a bad idea."

Bob can fall back on the fact that he never said "ISPs oppose this measure", which is true, but the intent of the statement is clear. The intent was to plant a false idea, which Stan astutely recognized. Stan asks for clarification, and the attempt to disseminate false information is thwarted.

Here is a real-life exchange (shortened and simplified) between myself and a liberal friend:

Friend: "Someone actually tries to use a Lewin study to defend their point that employers will dump their employees onto the public option rather than providing them private insurance. Hilarious, since Lewin is owned by United Health."
Me: "The fact that Lewin has a vested interest in the outcome of their own study does not preclude their information from being correct."
Friend: "The implication that someone's statement is false is where a leap is being made. I never said Lewin's numbers were 'false' -- just suggested that they not be accepted without a critical eye."

Sneaky. As you can see, the sentiment in the last statement is not reflected in the first. This is where the switchover happens - Once he realizes his point will be impossible to defend, a new point is made. The original statement was made to ridicule the very idea of using ANY data from this group because of potential conflicts of interest. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

It's important to call people out on things like this because it's dishonest. A rational person will quickly recognize the flaws in such an argument, but a great majority will not and will simply accept the implication as fact. Sure, you're likely to incur some snarky commentary as they realize they've been outed, but it's worth it.

Icon Fail

2009-08-17T18:57:00.001-04:00

Why All the Smart People Say Obama Is a Great President

2009-07-30T10:54:00.000-04:00

By Frank J. Fleming

We have a lot of problems in this country. Much of that is because the previous president was a violent moron who could barely even function in polite society; he probably tried to bomb the economy when he felt it threaten him. He also liked it when children went without necessary medical attention because that made him laugh.

Luckily, before President Bush could kill us all, President Obama came to save us. All the smart people instantly recognized him as a genius and a savior, but Obama also had the wisdom to use simple phrases like “Yes we can!” that stupid people like you could also understand. Assuaged by those words, you dimwits loosened your grips on your guns and religion, and Obama became president. It seemed soon all our problems would be solved with no interference, but it was not to be so.

Polls show majorities of people now doubting Obama’s policies on health care and the economy, but if you polled only really smart people, one hundred percent of them would say that everyone who doubts Obama is an ugly, stupid moron who should choke on his own vomit and die. Obama came to save you, and you ungrateful simpletons now wish to stop him? Obama is a man so obviously smart that all smart people know he’s smart, yet dummies like you now think you know better? It’s like everyone has suddenly become racist again and decided to hate Obama.

Let me tell you something: You people elected Obama on few specifics. His nifty catch phrases and elegant teleprompter reading were all you needed. And you didn’t care that he had no real previous experience because you knew he wasn’t some fool who would fritter away his accomplishments before becoming president and was instead smart enough to save his accomplishing things until after becoming president. So what happened? Where did your blind faith go?

I guess once again it’s time to explain things simply to you easily panicked idiots: Obama will still solve all of your problems just as he promised. He will get you jobs and free health care and stop other countries from being mean and hating us. All he asks of you is that you not question him. That’s all. Nothing more. Except maybe some of your money, but it’s just money you hillbillies would have spent on stupid things you don’t need like NASCAR races and chewing tobacco.

Yes, right now things may not look so good. Joblessness is still on the rise, huge debt threatens us, Iran and North Korea are going after nuclear weapons unmolested, and now racist children-haters are trying to convince you that health care reform will be a huge, horrible boondoggle. But if you get worried, you just need to remind yourself that Obama is really, really smart. Everyone who is smart says so. So if things he does, like support the re-installation of a socialist proto-dictator in Honduras, seem strange and confusing to you, that’s just because you’re trying to understand it with your stupid brain. If you had Obama’s smart brain, you’d understand how this will all work out in the end.

Many of you have blind faith in your invisible sky fairy, which science proves does not exist, so why can you not have faith in Obama (who is real) and all the things that smart people believe in? And did Jesus ever promise you free health care? Sure, some claim that Jesus healed a few people, but Obama is going to heal everyone with his free health care. And he also promises the new health care programs will somehow lower debt and create jobs. As any smart person using logic will tell you, that’s way more miraculous than anything Jesus did. So why not give Obama your unquestioning devotion?

You don’t need to understand how increased spending will help a country in debt or how increased taxes on energy will help a failing economy, you only need to know that Obama is much, much smarter than you. So obviously his solutions will work much better than anything you troglodytes would think he should do. If you could just have blind faith in Obama’s brilliance, you wouldn’t have to worry anymore.

To help you with that, Obama has started having “Look How Smart I Am” parades through various cities so everyone can see how smart he is. If you are smart, then Obama should appear very smart to you. It seems like a good idea, but the last one was marred when some kid yelled out, “The emperor has no brain!” and started laughing at the bucket stuck on Obama’s head. As I’ve explained before, Obama isn’t an emperor — yet — and the reason he had a bucket stuck on his head is that he was quite curious whether his head could fit inside it. Smart people get curious about many different things. If you were smart, you’d recognize that a bucket stuck on his head is in fact a symbol of his genius. And you’d stop laughing at him.

Why do I even try to explain these things to you idiots! How about this: If Obama is as dumb and inexperienced as you think he is, then how did he get elected president? Ha! Explain that one, dummy!

It's comforting to know my money is being put to good use...

2009-07-08T09:54:00.000-04:00

Making road signs telling me how well spent my money is.

The Nature of a Second-Hander

2009-04-27T12:16:00.000-04:00

"We're going to have to spend some money to get out of this hole. The government's the only body that has any money" - Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Majority Leader

Where, pray tell, does the senator think the government gets its money?

Photoshop Fun

2009-03-11T11:51:00.000-04:00

What's a familiar line of text on CNN.com?

2009-02-11T12:49:00.000-05:00

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Sure. Defend his political posturing. Write off all of his lies and excuse his inability to conduct himself in a bipartisan fashion. In the end, he's exactly what we told you he was - a liberal, socialist, chicago-style politician whose only real plan is to borrow from the American people to pay off the constituents that helped him get elected.

Just remember one thing as you watch this recession drudge on into a full blown depression - We warned you.

Our New Flag

2009-01-20T15:36:00.001-05:00

I didn't know they were changing it!

Quote

2008-12-09T14:20:00.000-05:00

"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." - GK Chesterton

The New Civilian Security Force

2008-11-04T14:18:00.001-05:00

Still Think Obama Isn't a Socialist?

2008-10-27T13:33:00.001-04:00

Think Again:

TRANSCRIPT:

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Why You Should Be Aware of the Wall Street Bailout Plan

2008-10-06T13:03:00.000-04:00

Put simply: It's your money. Are people upset about this? I'm seeing a large amount of apathy regarding the issue, and it amazes me! For the most part, we seem content as a nation to simply sit back and let greedy puppet masters hijack our political processes and banking system. Is it a big secret that the same assholes positioning this crap "bailout" legislation as the last, best hope for our economy are the same ones that stand to gain the most from it? The same ones that caused our situation in the first place? And now "they" want responsible, non-crap-asset holding average joes to pick up the tab. Forget vote switching, I'm surprised people aren't marching to the White House in body armor with AK-47s. (Or pitchforks for the Obama lovers).

Way back in 2003, I was out and about with my then roommate Evan, and my wife-to-be Milli, and we got into a discussion about economics and credit somewhere near Perimeter mall. (I guess the clear-cut, consumer-ravaged landscape got under my skin). It was my opinion, even then, that living in a "credit economy" was dangerous - and I coined the term "false assets" to describe what these massive financial companies were buying up in droves. Basically my thinking was something like this: The value of goods and services should be something that is straightforward, uncomplicated, and readily apparent. If it's tucked away through some paper trail, based on government guarantees, or is primarily valued through speculation, "Houston, we have a problem."

So let's say it's the 1930s. We're in the middle of the great depression and FDR's "New Deal". In order to stimulate the mortgage market and hopefully the economy in general, Fannie Mae is founded creating millions of potential home buyers. It becomes much easier to buy a home, so that's good right? As we see today, government sponsored monopolies are NOT, in fact, a very good idea.

Sure, it sounds good - just like "saving the economy" does this week. Funny, though, how the creation of Fannie Mae also created a gigantic, practically 100% guaranteed secondary loan market for all of those poor, poor banks. Backed by limitless government funding (the nice little sum each of us, but not apparently Cisco corp, see each April 15th), it became quite easy to turn a profit in the home lending business by making a loan to someone who otherwise could not afford one. (There were alot of "broke jokers" back in the Great Depression, if you didn't know).

So let's fast forward to 2003. Yes, past 1968 when Fannie Mae was converted to a "private corporation", or "Government Sponsored Enterprise" if you prefer, and the fake competition Freddie Mac that was propped up as another "GSE" in 1970. So by now these two fake corporations comprise over 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market, hold assets exceeding the nation's largest bank by a whopping 45%, and are the ONLY TWO Fortune 500 companies that are not required to inform the public about any financial difficulties that they may be having. An investigation by the Justice Department and the SEC into the accounting practices at Freddie Mac reveal accounting errors in the amount of 4.5 to 4.7 billion dollars and results in the termination of three of the company's top executives. Gives new meaning to the term "UHHHHHMERICA".

Effectively, the government created the loan market that is now collapsing back in 1938. Generations of sleazebags made alot of money in this artificial market, and now want you to pay to keep it afloat because it's "too important to the economy". To that I say this: Fuck you.

Here's what Barney Frank (Democrap) had to say about our government sponsored monopolies ("GSMs", I feel they should be called) back in 2003:

"I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Mr. Alan Greenspan responded with the following:

"To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if G.S.E. expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later."

Charles Schumer (Democrap) criticized Mr. Greenspan's recommendation and called it both inconsistent with his other views on regulation and potentially damaging to the housing markets.

Now gee, why would Mr. Greenspan perhaps have an inconsistent view on regulating government created and sponsored companies making up 90 PERCENT (!!) of the secondary mortgage market????????

For the record, John McCain said the following in 2003:

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

ALSO for the record, several prominent politicians have received large sums of lobbyist funding from the two giant fake corporations. Barack Obama and John Kerry are two of the top three. List here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Here's some more fun facts: Two members of Mr. Obama's political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae. I especially like the fact that James Johnson, before his stint at Fannie Mae, was a managing director at Lehman Brothers and is a board member at Goldman Sachs and KB Home. He also received loans from Countrywide Financial while he was helping Obama to decide on a Vice President, leading him to step down. That of course, did not stop him from bundling up to $500,000 for Obama's campaign. Geesh. People need to know this stuff is going on.

This is why you need to be aware of what's happening to our economy, and what statist manipulation of a free-market society does. This is what the outcome is - too much power concentrated in the hands of too few, and the decisions as to what to do with your hard-earned tax dollars being made essentially without your input. I'm just guessing, but I'll bet that 70%+ of American citizens were against this monstrous bailout garbage, and it passed anyway.

Here's a Bloomberg Poll

Something is really wrong, folks. We need to stand up against trashy, corrupt politicians promising you the world and delivering a crap sandwich, and the sleazy dirtbag executives lining their pockets. I'll say this as plainly as I know how:

OUR GOVERNMENT FAILED US Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Different Perspectives

2008-09-22T14:35:00.000-04:00

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.0 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

What is PDS?

2008-09-22T12:22:00.000-04:00

It's amazing to me as we inch close to November just how many nonsensical, emotional attacks we start seeing fire off within the politcal sphere. Most of it is utter garbage and has no bearing on the (purported) victim's ability to lead or their moral and ethical standpoints.

Here is an article from the Washington Times explaining the term "PDS":

--

With George Bush off the front pages for much of the last few months, the political pathology known as Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) took an unexpected summer hiatus.

BDS sufferers - liberal Democrats seething over successive presidential election losses and hamstrung by a Republican president confidently wielding wartime authority - failed to transfer their enmity to Sen. John McCain, largely because they couldn't bust his "maverick" brand, but to a larger extent because they assumed Sen. Barack Obama was going to win in a laugher.

That presumption ended when Mr. McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Before Charlie Gibson could even grill the Alaska governor over her "hubris" in accepting Mr. McCain's historic invitation, the raw rage that focused for eight years on the 43rd president of the United States transferred in a flash to a former "Miss Congeniality" and Anchorage suburban mother of five who immediately swung the momentum to Mr. McCain's side.

Palin Derangement Syndrome, a more irrational variant of the Bush contagion, doesn't require sufferers to know anything about the subject of their hatred. Anonymous, unsourced rumors fuel the fire (book banning, speaking in tongues, creationism, etc.). Lovely family photos hacked from a personal e-mail account displayed on commercial Web sites push more buttons. Asterisks from Mrs. Palin's biographical sketch - "moose hunter," "small-town mayor," "wife of champion snow machine racer" - cause excessive sweating and irregular heartbeats. She even fired a guy who Tased a 10-year-old. (Oh wait, she didn't.)

What will happen when they find out she shops at Wal-Mart?

Predictably, the celebrity left - ridiculous enough to form a strong opinion based on unreliable data points and narcissistic enough to broadcast it - has taken to stage, television, newsprint and blogs to express its extreme ire at the Thrilla from Wasilla.

Sandra Bernhard celebrated the 20th anniversary of her career-ending one-woman show, "Without You I'm Nothing," warning that if Mrs. Palin were to go to Manhattan she'd be "gang-raped by [her] big black brothers." The lipstick-on-a-pig lesbian also called Mrs. Palin a "bitch" and an "Uncle Woman."

Joyless niche comedian Margaret Cho blogged, "She is evil," fantasized about having hateful sex with Mrs. Palin and attacked a multitude of her supporters: "If you were truly Christians, you would let gays get married, and send them #$%ng presents from Bed Bath and Beyond!"

Everything-aholic Lindsay Lohan ("Mean Girls") joined the Sapphic pile-on by issuing a joint diatribe with her putative partner, disc jockey Samantha Ronson: "Is our country so divided that the Republicans' best hope is a narrow-minded, media-obsessed homophobe?"

"Media obsessed?" Those cameras follow Mrs. Palin because she's running for vice president. Not because she's going to the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf - like some people we know.

Not since Rosie O'Donnell & Co. manhandled Elizabeth Hasselbeck weekdays on "The View" have liberals been so gleeful to watch a bitter lesbian tear down a confident and beautiful conservative Republican woman. Unresolved high school lust and angst at well-adjusted cheerleaders and popular prom queens should be left for medical professionals, not for midmorning television gabfests.

For many, gay marriage is a key issue.

Yet none of these gilded-ghetto living haters point out that their savior, Mr. Obama, stands against gay marriage, too. Is that change Melissa Etheridge can believe in?

Like President Clinton, who supported regressive anti-gay-rights legislation such as "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, Mr. Obama gets a massive pass from the activist gay left and their stenographers in the mainstream media.

The never-reported political reality is that both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama understand that key components of the Democratic Party - the black and Hispanic blocs - hold views that Brad Pitt would deem "homophobic."

For these minority groups, and for many other religious Democrats, gay marriage is a nonstarter.

Yet liberal celebrities and activist journalists never hurl epithets at these coddled groups no matter how retrograde their ideas. President Bush correctly pegged this phenomenon as "the soft bigotry of lowered expectations." Political correctness, the rigging of politics using different rules for different groups, and buttressed by the media, ensures that Democrats always have the upper hand.

Clumsy on her lesbian training wheels, Miss Lohan and Miss Cho, Miss Bernhard and Miss O'Donnell, are granted immunity for their outrageous rhetoric because they are party girls - Democrats through and through - and creatures of the media. And because of this protection racket, none will be forced to attend sensitivity training for crossing the line last week against Mrs. Palin.

It's also why few will know that the Alaska governor vetoed legislation that would have prevented gays from getting marriagelike benefits. It's also why the media made Republicans Mark Foley and Larry Craig the butts of jokes that would be considered homophobic if hurled at liberal Democrats.

Not since the drubbing of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings have liberals in Hollywood and the elite media so openly conspired to deny a minority the right to free thought and free expression of political ideals. Now Sarah Palin is exposing the Democratic Media Complex to a new generation, many of them open-minded women.

Perhaps if he wins in November, the eminently tolerant John McCain will pick an openly gay person to serve high in his administration.

That's when the real Democratic Party derangement will begin.

-Andrew Breitbart