I was wondering why it is, if the free market is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter of good ideas, as conservatives tell us is the case, that on the day the Obama revealed his plans for fixing the economy (March 6), the stock market has been climbing and doing so pretty steadily.
Well, according to Ann Coulter, it's because Wall Street is full of commies.
I know that link is a bit old, but I'm on Ann Coulter's mailing list and was sent what was basically an ad for a stock broker who is anti-Obama. The ad took the form of an article written by Ann basically saying the same thing that the above link says.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Iran
The consensus seems to be that the Iranian election was rigged, and I hope it was. not because I wanted Ahmadinejad to win, of course, but because if he really did win by like 60% or whatever, we really need to revise our assumptions about the attitudes of the Iranian people. Everyone says they're very pro-Western, so, if that's true, then this thing was likely rigged.
What worries me, however, is that that, and the fact that there were tens of thousands of people risking their lives to protest the election results seem to be the only evidence that the election was rigged. Nobody has any real numbers and the UN wasn't there monitoring the elections, so we have no hard data to support this suspicion.
Also if this election was rigged, then the government has been telling some pretty blatant and audacious lies. Lies that even they should have known nobody would swallow. And if they're going to lie with such daring, then any benefit of the doubt that I was giving Ahmadinejad regarding his claims that the Iranian nuclear program was only for civilian purposes just went out the window.
What worries me, however, is that that, and the fact that there were tens of thousands of people risking their lives to protest the election results seem to be the only evidence that the election was rigged. Nobody has any real numbers and the UN wasn't there monitoring the elections, so we have no hard data to support this suspicion.
Also if this election was rigged, then the government has been telling some pretty blatant and audacious lies. Lies that even they should have known nobody would swallow. And if they're going to lie with such daring, then any benefit of the doubt that I was giving Ahmadinejad regarding his claims that the Iranian nuclear program was only for civilian purposes just went out the window.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Clean Coal
In the absence of a working alternative to fossil fuels, it will become more and more of a necessity to turn to coal for fuel. Unless a renewable form of energy is developed that can power everybody's cars, the industry is going to turn to coal. I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out that that's the reality of the situation.
It is for this reason that I advocate research into clean coal technology. Of course at the very mention of this, environmentalists like to point out that there's no such thing, and, sure, the technology, right now, is very sketchy and few of the private companies who are advocating it are actually putting money into developing it. This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason people think clean coal is bullshit. And you what? Maybe it is, but in the absence of viable alternatives, we should at least be open to finding a way to make coal cleaner, because we may be stuck with it.
Fortunately, although private companies don't really want to develop clean coal technology, there are at least a few government programs that do. China, now the world's biggest polluter, has severe air quality problems, but at the same time, needs to continue to develop in order to prevent its collapse and widespread domestic revolt. Realizing that coal is likely their only future form of fuel, but also understanding that the current level of coal use is poisoning their population, is frantically trying to find ways to make coal cleaner.
Will this technology ever be effective? Maybe, maybe not. But if there is a chance that it can, and it looks like there may be? Why not investigate it? Why not research it?
It is for this reason that I advocate research into clean coal technology. Of course at the very mention of this, environmentalists like to point out that there's no such thing, and, sure, the technology, right now, is very sketchy and few of the private companies who are advocating it are actually putting money into developing it. This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason people think clean coal is bullshit. And you what? Maybe it is, but in the absence of viable alternatives, we should at least be open to finding a way to make coal cleaner, because we may be stuck with it.
Fortunately, although private companies don't really want to develop clean coal technology, there are at least a few government programs that do. China, now the world's biggest polluter, has severe air quality problems, but at the same time, needs to continue to develop in order to prevent its collapse and widespread domestic revolt. Realizing that coal is likely their only future form of fuel, but also understanding that the current level of coal use is poisoning their population, is frantically trying to find ways to make coal cleaner.
Will this technology ever be effective? Maybe, maybe not. But if there is a chance that it can, and it looks like there may be? Why not investigate it? Why not research it?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Gay Marriage in New York
Looks like yet another state is about to legalize gay marriage through the legislative process rather than through the courts. After Vermont did this, the homophobes lost one of their favourite talking points about gay marriage in the US: that it was imposed by the courts. Now it's is being voted into law by the people.
The anti-gay groups don't seem organized enough to stop this one. They weren't even able to stop it in Maine and Vermont, and Vermont had a Republican governor who threatened to veto it.
Larry Auster was all butt hurt when Vermont legalized gay marriage, but hasn't made mention of Maine or New York.
The anti-gay groups don't seem organized enough to stop this one. They weren't even able to stop it in Maine and Vermont, and Vermont had a Republican governor who threatened to veto it.
Larry Auster was all butt hurt when Vermont legalized gay marriage, but hasn't made mention of Maine or New York.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Market Has Spoken!
On Obama's Inauguration Day, the stock market dipped a bit and the crazies all said, "Obama is bad for the economy! The market has spoken!"
You haven't heard much of that recently. Especially not since about March 6th. Since then, the markets have been rising pretty steadily, and March 6th was just after Obama unveiled the details of his plan to revive the economy. If the reaction of the market is a good basis for predicting the outcome of a public policy, why has it been responding so well to Obama's "disastrous" bailout plan?
Of course, the market could tank tomorrow. It's not that predictable, but it has had a steady (although slowing) upward trajectory for the last two months. If Wall Street knows best, why hasn't the market reacted adversely to the Obama administration's plans? Aren't investors supposed to be running in terror from the market now that Obama has shown us his plans for its complete and utter destruction?
You haven't heard much of that recently. Especially not since about March 6th. Since then, the markets have been rising pretty steadily, and March 6th was just after Obama unveiled the details of his plan to revive the economy. If the reaction of the market is a good basis for predicting the outcome of a public policy, why has it been responding so well to Obama's "disastrous" bailout plan?
Of course, the market could tank tomorrow. It's not that predictable, but it has had a steady (although slowing) upward trajectory for the last two months. If Wall Street knows best, why hasn't the market reacted adversely to the Obama administration's plans? Aren't investors supposed to be running in terror from the market now that Obama has shown us his plans for its complete and utter destruction?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
VI Day
Apparently, the US has won the War in Iraq.
That just slipped by everyone's attention, of course, because of the liberal mainstream media. Oh, and because there was no declaration of surrender, and nobody really knows if Iraq can even govern itself without US forces there. That probably has something to do with it too.
Go to right wing blogs like this one and you'll see all kinds of pictures of ticker tape parades and post-war celebrations from... the forties. They all declared November 22nd Victory in Iraq Day. Why November 22nd? Well, I really couldn't find out why they chose that date rather than any other. It's not like the insurgents signed a peace treaty or surrendered their arms and gave in to US troops. From what I could find, they pulled that date out of their asses.
Have things improved in Iraq. Absolutely! After they finally decided to throw in enough troops to actually manage the insurgency, the number of attacks are down, and Iraq is a much safer place. But is that victory?
Victory in Iraq should be defined as having accomplished the goals that the Americans set out to accomplish. Was that goal simply getting enough troops in there to keep violence to a minimum? I doubt it.
The goal was to facilitate the establishment of a government and infrstructure in Iraq that could provide for its own security, and be friendly to the US and its interests. In order to find out whether that's been accomplished, American forces have to pull out of Iraq, or at least reduce their military presence, to see if the level of violence stays as low as it currently is. When that happens, I'll be ready to declare victory in Iraq. Not before.
Ask a righty why it is, if the War in Iraq has been won, why it is that there are still American troops there, and they'll say, "well, we still have troops in Germany and Japan!" Those, troops however, aren't holding back insurgencies. Nobody is worried that Tojo's grandson is going to bomb Pearl Harbor again if American troops leave Okinawa. That comparison is meaningless. Stop using it. It's fucking stupid.
That just slipped by everyone's attention, of course, because of the liberal mainstream media. Oh, and because there was no declaration of surrender, and nobody really knows if Iraq can even govern itself without US forces there. That probably has something to do with it too.
Go to right wing blogs like this one and you'll see all kinds of pictures of ticker tape parades and post-war celebrations from... the forties. They all declared November 22nd Victory in Iraq Day. Why November 22nd? Well, I really couldn't find out why they chose that date rather than any other. It's not like the insurgents signed a peace treaty or surrendered their arms and gave in to US troops. From what I could find, they pulled that date out of their asses.
Have things improved in Iraq. Absolutely! After they finally decided to throw in enough troops to actually manage the insurgency, the number of attacks are down, and Iraq is a much safer place. But is that victory?
Victory in Iraq should be defined as having accomplished the goals that the Americans set out to accomplish. Was that goal simply getting enough troops in there to keep violence to a minimum? I doubt it.
The goal was to facilitate the establishment of a government and infrstructure in Iraq that could provide for its own security, and be friendly to the US and its interests. In order to find out whether that's been accomplished, American forces have to pull out of Iraq, or at least reduce their military presence, to see if the level of violence stays as low as it currently is. When that happens, I'll be ready to declare victory in Iraq. Not before.
Ask a righty why it is, if the War in Iraq has been won, why it is that there are still American troops there, and they'll say, "well, we still have troops in Germany and Japan!" Those, troops however, aren't holding back insurgencies. Nobody is worried that Tojo's grandson is going to bomb Pearl Harbor again if American troops leave Okinawa. That comparison is meaningless. Stop using it. It's fucking stupid.
Blagojevich and Republican Loyalty
For some reason, Blagojevich doesn’t feel like he’s done enough damage to the Democratic Party by basically selling Obama’s senate seat, and insists on staying in office and appointing someone to the senate despite the fact that even if he appointed the second incarnation of Christ, that person would have the stink of corruption on him.
However, he’s a very wiley fellow, that Blagojevich. Since, after Obama leaves the senate to become President, the place will be completely vacant of blacks, so Blago appointed a black guy. And as Rep. Bobby Rush says, “I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate, right now, want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.” So the Democrats have a tough choice to make. Allow a tainted senate appointment, or go without their token black guy. In all likelihood, they’ll be scrambling to find another black guy to take the seat after they’ve blocked out the one Blago tried to appoint.
The Republican’s, of course, are citing this as an example of how corrupt the Democratic party is, despite the fact that Obama and most other Democrats have been fighting this senate appointment tooth and nail. If the shoe were on the other foot, I highly doubt the main Republican establishment would be doing the same. Republicans like to get behind each other and march. That’s why they’ve been so successful at winning elections until now. They’re policies are all retarded, as American’s have finally come to realize, but they stand behind each other and get the proverbial trains to run on time. As Sideshow Bob said, they want their leaders to “slash taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule them like a king.” They even got behind McCain, who they despised for years with his “belief in evolution” and “imaginary black baby”.
However, he’s a very wiley fellow, that Blagojevich. Since, after Obama leaves the senate to become President, the place will be completely vacant of blacks, so Blago appointed a black guy. And as Rep. Bobby Rush says, “I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate, right now, want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.” So the Democrats have a tough choice to make. Allow a tainted senate appointment, or go without their token black guy. In all likelihood, they’ll be scrambling to find another black guy to take the seat after they’ve blocked out the one Blago tried to appoint.
The Republican’s, of course, are citing this as an example of how corrupt the Democratic party is, despite the fact that Obama and most other Democrats have been fighting this senate appointment tooth and nail. If the shoe were on the other foot, I highly doubt the main Republican establishment would be doing the same. Republicans like to get behind each other and march. That’s why they’ve been so successful at winning elections until now. They’re policies are all retarded, as American’s have finally come to realize, but they stand behind each other and get the proverbial trains to run on time. As Sideshow Bob said, they want their leaders to “slash taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule them like a king.” They even got behind McCain, who they despised for years with his “belief in evolution” and “imaginary black baby”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)