Central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are actively engaged in discussions about the feasibility of mass purchases of mortgage-backed securities as a possible solution to the credit crisis….linkÂ
It must be difficult for someone involved with billion dollar deals not to get a big head. The elites at the Central Bank around the globe are proposing that they take over troubles mortgages. After all, it is not their money that they are risking. They won’t risk billions of their own money like JP Morgan did during the depression. They want to risk our money…yet hold all the strings.
You know where this leads. People with connections make out. The rest of us get screwed.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on March 21st, 2008
I have never been to a “black church “, but I wonder if it is common place for the pastors to worry about the AIDS virus, yet totally overlook the number of black babies aborted. It seems to me that the AIDS virus is passed along (usually due to sin) and abortion is ending the life of a completely innocent person. Most religious Christian find abortion, drug use and homosexuality to be an horrifying, yet Barack’s pastor supports abortion and makes excuses for drug addicts and homosexuals.
Christians forgive sinners. Democrats make excuses for them. Do you thing “Pastor” Wright more closely resembles a Pastor or a Democrat?Â
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on March 21st, 2008
Ewww….the rich liberals are really looking out for us. All you need to know is this bit,
Some of them … carbon-consciously jet-pooled in from Silicon Valley …
here is the link if you really need to read more
It is not uncommon these days to see graphical signs with no words. It is like we are reading hieroglyphics from the time of the Pharaohs. It is also becoming common place to see signs written in both English and Spanish.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the interpretation of a picture depends on the reader. I have spent hours trying to assemble new purchases from instructions written in hieroglyphics. It is not that I am lacking in mechanical skills. The graphics are often unclear. A few words would help tremendously.
I understand why companies do it. They have an international audience and it is easier to make one instruction manual with no words than it is to print out instructions translated into many languages. These graphics-only instructions invariably lead me to frustration.
Walking through an industrial building today, I saw warning signs written in both English and Spanish. I am sure that it is a noble goal to keep people safe regardless of what language they speak. But this is a new tradition. What would are safety signs look like today if we started this multilingual warnings 150 years ago? Would every potential danger have a warning sign written in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Japanese, Korean. Would anyone see the sign meant for them in a sea of multilingual messages?
Where will this sign nonsense lead? Will we go back to the time of hieroglyphics or will we be swamped in endless languages and translations.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Common Sense on March 21st, 2008
“If it saves one life, it will be worth the cost.â€
It is a lazy argument. It is a false choice. Those who use this cliché often overlook the trade-offs involved in decisions. It is from the standard play book of a progressive on a crusade.
An example often cited is seat belts on school buses. Advocates will often use the dreaded cliché as an argument that the cost of seatbelts is justifiable even though very few children would benefit from the seatbelts. Opponents are then branded as heartless, greedy monsters. How could a caring person allow children to be hurt in order to save a little money.
This argument would only be valid if tax dollars were unlimited (NEWS FLASH to liberals: it’s not) or that the money would not be more effectively spent on other safety measures. For instance, money could be spent at the bus drop off point, for video surveillance or a host of other safety precautions that may help more children. The discussion should focus on how to effectively spend the money available.
It also presupposes that safety is society’s #1 priority. There is no doubt that safety is a concern, but wealth allows us to address safety issues. At some point, spending on safety becomes a burden to such an extent that it becomes self defeating. If we spent 99% of our wealth on safety, our wealth would diminish and safety funds would dry up.
“If it save one live†therefore is an emotional argument used effectively on those who can’t see beyond their own nose.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Common Sense on March 21st, 2008
Is the globe warming? According to Al Gore, the debate is over. Don’t look now Al, but the heat measured in the oceans is not jiving with your message. How inconvienant.
NPR has a story (link) about how the oceans have not increased heat content in the last 5 years. Well, five years is not a lot. The globe has been warming for a much longer time. So we can’t make conclusiongs from only the last 5 years. Ah…but we can.
 First of all, the robots have only been monitoring the oceans for 5 years. So what happened before 2003 is unknown. Come to think of it. Much of what happens in the global climate is unknown. Accoring to the piece:
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it’s probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
That can’t be directly measured at the moment, however.
“Unfortunately, we don’t have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they’ve been playing during this period,”
Whoa…..We have been told that all the models say that the earth will warm catastrophically over the next 100 years…according to our climate models. How can we have accurate models if “we don’t have adaquate tracking of clouds….what role they’ve been playing”. So we can conclude that the models in their current state are worthless.
The author has a theory.
One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.
The scientificic method in action. Step 1. State your theory. Step 2. Make an experiment. Step 3. Analyze….Repeat Step 2 and Step 3 until you get the answer that brings in the most grant money.
For months, Barack Obama has been telling us that he would make a superior commander and chief. Since he is completely lacking in experience, he points to his judgment. His key point is stating his opposition to the war in Iraq as evidence that his judgment in these matters is superior to Hillary Clinton’s. As far as I know, he has never explained his judgment. I have never heard how he came to the conclusion that attacking Iraq would be a mistake. He never claimed that he opposed the war because he had knowledge that the weapons of mass destruction did not exists. In speeches, Obama is not adverse to war in principal. He claims that he would take military action against Al Queda in Pakistan if necessary. He says he would use the military to stop genocide in Darfur. His stand was not an overall aversion from military action and it was not because he knew more than the CIA about weapons programs in Iraq. Therefore I find his judgment interesting. What influenced his judgment. Was it his pastor? If his pastor can convince him about war and peace, what other policy judgments does Paster Wright have sway.
You are correct, Mr. Obama. It is about judgment. So let’s talk about it, because from what I have seen of your spiritual leader and your relationship with this racist radical…you have none.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on March 19th, 2008
There is a fundamental difference in the way conservatives and liberals define “fair”. If we could redefine track and field and we asked conservatives and liberals to write separate rule books, the contrast would be striking.
A conservative track and field event would look just like they look now. A conservative would ask, “Why change what works?” Track and field events just did not happen overnight. From a conservative viewpoint, competition events evolved over time and what we have now is a reflection of what works.
By contrast, a liberal has no use for history and tradition. They believe in evolving standards and elites that can use logic to find better, often radically different ways. Tradition means nothing to a liberal.
If we used political rhetoric as guideline for how liberals would rewrite track and field rules, we can assume that they would try to level the playing field. They would take into account all sorts of issues that make the race unfair and make adjustments accordingly. Runners with the best coaches and training facility would have to start further back. Runners who had injuries might get a yard or two advantage.
In other words, a conservative would have everyone start at the same place and award a prize to the winner at the end. A liberal would have all sorts of criteria to determine where you start with the goal of everyone crossing the finish line at the same time. A liberal would take satisfaction if there were no winners and no losers.
If you feel like you are losing the rat race, you can take solace in the fact that liberals are there to even the playing field so that you don’t fall too far behind. And the next time you feel like you are getting ahead in life, remember that there is a liberal fighting to hold you back so that others may keep up with you.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on March 17th, 2008
Demographics are driving us toward a financial cliff. As our Social Security shortfalls approach, politicians are starting to dance around the 3rd rail of American politics. People are asking, “How do we save Social Security?†Maybe the question should be, “Why should we save Social Security?â€
Social Security was a product of the Great Depression. The goal of Social Security was to protect seniors from extreme poverty. At the time, there were very few safeguards against devastating poverty. That is no longer true. Welfare has become much more politically acceptable.
When Social Security was initiated, there were many more workers per recipient. As science advances and lives are extended, there are fewer workers to support seniors. Longer lives and a demographic crisis (Baby Boom) have taken us to the financial cliff.
Our current system collects payroll taxes on the first $102,000. Some politicians are suggesting that the limit either be raised or eliminated. Even some rich people are suggesting that the limit should be removed. Warren Buffet for one is making this suggestion. If we forget for a second that Warren Buffet makes a ton of money on financial planning…planning that helps you avoid the taxes he is advocating…we should at least admit that this would fundamentally change Social Security from a government mandated retirement plan to a welfare plan designed to transfer wealth from the successful working class to poor seniors.
If you believe such a system is just, then you should at least have the guts to come out and admit that we no longer need Social Security. Have the guts to call it what it is…WELFARE.
One of the great flaws of Social Security is that the money is not invested or saved. This is fortunate. If the government were to invest Social Security funds into stocks and bonds as Bill Clinton once suggested, the power of the federal government would be dramatically increased and those investments would ultimately be poorly managed. This idea was so poorly thought out that it never made it past a mention in a State of the Union address.
Saving the money in a “lock box†as Al Gore suggested would be even worse. Imagine taking trillions of dollars out of the economy each year and putting it in a vault somewhere. The economy would collapse.
The best alternative is to have the social security money invested. The only way to have that money invested without giving unimaginable power to the feds is to have individuals invest their own money. This would insure that the money is not removed from the economy and would disperse the power that comes with that money.
The big conflict between the parties comes down to a fundamental difference in world views. Do you believe that elites in Washington are better decisions makers than the nation as a whole? What are the consequences of bad decisions? The idea that a few big-brained individuals in Washington are superior to the thinking power of the collective brain of hundreds of millions is dubious. But more to the point, we all suffer if those few elites make mistakes. The question should not be, “Will some Americans poorly invest their income?†The question should be, “Who should pay the price of the poor investments?â€
Our current Social Security system will make younger Americans pay the price for our father’s poor choices…and that is wrong. Social Security needs to be scrapped for a better system.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on March 16th, 2008
When you bring up abortion, be prepared for a battle of opinions. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue. Some believe that abortion is murder and some believe that a woman has a right to determine what happens to her body.Is abortion a Constitutional right. No. Unelected judges determined that an abortion was a decision made between a woman and her doctor that falls under the right to privacy. There are serious people who agree and disagree with this Supreme Court decision.
The pro-abortion argument states that the fetus is not a baby while it is in the womb. They take this argument so far that they excuse partial birth abortion. In their judgment, the fetus is not a baby as long as part of the fetus is still inside the mother. In a partial birth abortion, the head is delivered, the baby is killed and then the remainder is extracted.
That is pretty awful. In an ABC poll, 69% of Americans believe partial birth abortions should be illegal. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html
But it is not the worst case scenario. In rare circumstances, the abortion fails and the baby is born weakened but alive.
What do you do in such a case? The new arrival is no longer a fetus. It is by baby by definition. There is no longer any threat to the mother’s health.
It has been reported by nurses that these babies are killed and discarded as if they never lived. In one instance, the baby was accidently thrown into the trash. I find this horrifying. Unwanted dogs are treated better than unwanted babies.
Certainly people from both parties could agree that this is morally wrong. You would think that this would be an bipartisan issue…and it is. When the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was proposed in Congress at the national level, even liberal icons like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry voted for it. On the state level, it had dissenters. In Illinois, a similar law failed to pass twice, largely because of opposition by Barack Obama who voted against it twice and killed in a committee a third time. It finally passed after Obama moved on to the Senate.
The so-called man of hope who wants to transcend political parties cannot compromise on an issue like this. I can only assume that to end the political bickering, he plans on eliminating conservatives and moderates, leaving only the fringe left to decide what is best for us.
I urge all voters to take a close look at this man. Look beyond his rhetoric and take a look at his radical policy position. He is scary and I would not trust this man to run a hot dog stand.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on March 16th, 2008
« Newer Posts
Share on Facebook