COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Obama Failed to Sieze the Moment. Berlin Redux?



You can't win them all. Every public figure soon learns than there is no revise and resubmit outside of the Senate. It would be more interesting to hear what was not recorded. How about the first night in the Presidential bed.

Do you think Michelle said something along the lines of..."I've never done a president before"

Just wondering.

______________
Barack Obama inauguration: his worst speech
Posted By: Alex Spillius at Jan 20, 2009 at 19:56:31 Telegraph

Barack Obama, history, inauguration, past, speech

QUITE a day, but not much of speech unfortunately. Obama got where he is by speechifying, but this effort would not have won him many votes. It was his worst on a grand stage, though still better than most politicians could muster.

The delivery, as ever, was first class, but the message was wasn't clear enough and the language not insufficiently inspiring.

As soon as the applause had died down, an African American standing man near me on the Mall said to his friend: "I thought the speech was shit." Another woman said, correctly, that "we had heard it all before at other events".

In a way Obama was a victim of his own success. Having given so many dynamic speeches he had set his own bar very high. What he tried to do at his inauguration was tell Americans that they had to sacrifice to make gains, while making them believe this was well within their capabilities. The emphasis on sacrifice was too weak however.

To the disappointment of many black people in the crowd, he also made but one reference to the enormity of a black man occupying the White House for the first time. Obama has never laboured the issue of his race, but on this historic day the issue needed more.

Jon Favreau, his co-writer, recently admitted that he had been pouring over previous inaugural speeches. That might have been a bad idea. Obama seemed weighed down by the past, and failed to seize the moment.


60 comments:

  1. Have sold our heritage for some red lentil stew.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way, lentils were higher the other day, at Primeland. Lentils and summer sausage is good. Sleep alone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a lousy speech Obama gave. No wonder the stock market crashed.

    Mark Twain thought Esau came off much better than Jacob, and, when you really look at the behaviors involved, he had a point.

    Like I've said before, the Book shows a distinct prejudice in favor of the younger son, even if he is kind of a shit, a grabber.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The book understands psychological profiles. Mark Twain is wrong in this assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Esau should have killed Jacob, and could have, but let him off the hook.

    ReplyDelete
  6. but let him off the hook
    ==

    Let him off the hook for what. For taking that which he did not want?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Twain On Jacob and Esau, page 222

    I allow there are other interpretations, so as to save argument:)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dick Morris on the hell ahead--

    THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY: HERE COMES SOCIALISM

    By DICK MORRIS

    Published on TheHill.com on January 20, 2009



    2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

    Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

    In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)


    But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.

    Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.


    But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

    Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

    In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

    Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).

    Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.

    But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)

    And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).

    And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.

    Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.

    But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.

    So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

    But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We'll have to visit this some other time, Bob. Anyway, the Edomites were not Jews and did not subscribe to a Jewish identity. Edom is where Esau went and that's where his destiny lay. Esau chose not to be a part of the house Abraham and Israel. It was his decision.

    Gottaran.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 3rd edit:

    "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
    ---
    This from the Manchild who went to Chicago specifically to learn from the followers of the Master of Deceit and Corruption, the Silencer of Dissent, Saul Alinsky.
    (and Obama's followers silenced dissent whenever they could throughout the campaign, as the MSM on the left and on the "right" is presently expending all possible energy to accomplish now.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. "But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
    "

    Morris often gets a lot wrong and a lot right, but I think a rational argument refuting that truth has yet to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 81. twobyfour:
    @ 78. Doug

    In Arabic it is called “taqiyya” - “deception by lie”, in English “newspeak” - “deception by projection” or “deception by inversion”.

    Jan 21, 2009 - 1:15 pm

    ---
    82. Doug:

    In sum, no matter how it’s sliced, it’s still Baloney!

    Jan 21, 2009 - 1:16 pm

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rat, in particular might enjoy the following article:


    ECONOMIC STIMULUS

    Honest Abe's spending legacy is a cautionary tale
    Headshot of Neil Reynolds

    NEIL REYNOLDS


    January 21, 2009

    OTTAWA -- In February, 1861, three weeks before his inauguration, U.S. Republican president-elect Abraham Lincoln assured the troubled country that his first priority as president would be higher tariffs - an economic policy he had championed throughout his political career. In 1832, announcing his candidacy for a seat in the Illinois legislature, Lincoln had said: "I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favour of a national bank, the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff."

    Honest Abe indeed. For 30 years, he pursued these three policy objectives with remarkable consistency and dedication. As a state legislator and as a congressman, he promoted the internal improvement system, a euphemistic phrase that meant deficit spending to fund extravagant economic stimulus programs. As president, he established a central bank to print paper money not supported by gold (the first easy-money "greenbacks") and raised U.S. protective tariffs to the highest levels in the country's history.

    Taken together, these policies changed U.S. history perhaps as much as his Emancipation Proclamation. Charles Dickens certainly thought so, asserting as early as 1861 that Lincoln's high tariffs must be regarded as the fundamental cause of the American Civil War.

    In 1860, the United States had one of the lowest tariff schedules in the world (average rate: 17 per cent). In 1861, it raised tariffs twice, the first time to 26 per cent, the second time to 36 per cent. In 1862, it raised tariffs to 48 per cent and levied them on a much broader range of goods (including every single farm crop). They remained in effect until the First World War.
    Print Edition - Section Front



    Economists say 80 per cent of the costs imposed by these tariffs fell on the import-dependent southern states. In his inaugural speech, Lincoln explicitly promised these states that he would not invade them - provided they paid all "the duties and imposts" that the federal government levied on them.

    Perhaps more instructive of Lincoln's economic instincts, though, was his commitment to the internal improvement system. Railways and canals were the fashionable infrastructure projects of the time - and the great American debate in the years preceding the Civil War was less about slavery than about using public debt to fund the laying of private railway track.



    You can find the rest of the article here

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090121.RREYNOLDS21/TPStory/TPComment

    ReplyDelete
  14. Obama needed to come up with something new, the old stuff was wearing thin. And, he didn't even do the old stuff very well. Where were the receding waters of doom, mastered by the Messiah and his masses? The most memorable lines were whitey do righty, yellow is mellow, red man ahead man, and they weren't even his lines. And you had to be deep into pop culture to have a clue as to what they might mean. He could at least have said, "Please clean up after yourselves on the out."
    ------

    Hey, Ash, there's torture in Gaza. Something must be done---

    The Grand Inquisitors

    Up to a hundred Palestinians in Gaza who have defied house arrest orders have been tortured in children’s hospitals and schools converted into interrogation centers. People have been shot in the legs or had their hands broken. The campaign has been described as a “new massacre”. One victim had his eyes put out. No one was safe from the torturers, not even those attending funerals. When is will the UN act to put a stop to this horror? Won’t President Obama intervene to stop these barbaric acts? Aren’t international human rights monitors going to put a stop to this? When will War Crimes charges be preferred against the perpetrators?

    Never.

    from BC and Jerusalem Post

    Torture in the children's hospitals, the schools and mosques, who would have thought it.

    ----

    Wasn't there a Mini-Civil War Out In Kansas before the main event? Was that about tariffs?

    ReplyDelete
  15. That ain't pop-culture, that's Black History.

    One thing for certain, now:
    Swedes don't pass.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If you are buying Starkist tuna you are helping Nancy Pelosi. She owns a bunch it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Both Charles Krauthammer and Rush Limbaugh said that Obama's inaugural speech was mediocre.

    Guardian commentators said that the speech seemed to be small c conservative but "really quite radical" in his thorough repudiation of the Bush Administration.

    I think everyone is projecting and that's the way uh huh, uh huh, Obama likes it, uh huh, uh huh.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think it would have been more like, "I've never done a black president before."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Barack Obama shifted in the formal room as journalists along the rear wall snapped pictures. Even a meet-and-greet event now included more than a dozen journalists to capture the scene.

    Obama's aides announced the open house to promote their themes of an open and accessible White House. President Bill Clinton had a similar event the day after his 1993 inauguration.

    Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, also invited visitors — Washington public school children — to their official residence at the Naval Observatory.


    White House Visitors

    ReplyDelete
  20. Some members of Obama's team are known to be privately angry with Israel over the death toll and level of destruction in Gaza, despite Obama's expression of sympathy for Israel over Palestinian rocket attacks.

    As well as meeting military leaders, the president called together his economics team for the first time in the White House to discuss the $800bn spending package he is proposing to kick-start the economy with. They have to decide whether the money will be enough, given the depth of the recession.

    Republicans in Congress are already hinting that they are prepared to fight against the package.


    Starting Work

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's How We F##K Ourselves In Idaho

    You probably have a lot of this nonsense in your state too.

    The greenies are going to be the death of us all. Greens stopping green projects.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't think sage grouse fly high enough to get into a wind turbine. If so it would be rarely.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No one has a crystal ball, only opinions:

    ...consider that during WWII, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was: 1943 -- 30 percent; 1944 -- 23 percent; 1945 -- 22 percent. A trillion-dollar deficit in 2009 would be only 8.3 percent of the GDP, although it would be bigger than the previous biggest deficit since WWII -- 6 percent in 1983.

    So, if the Depression-WWII theory is to be followed, then next year's deficit should not be a paltry $1 trillion, but rather about $2.5 trillion (in order to be about the same percent of the GDP as the WWII deficits were). At a mere trillion, we may be spending enough to badly inflate the currency without spending enough to lift the economy.

    Of course, economic historians point out that 2009 is vastly different economically from 1943. Back then, we had almost a command wartime economy. There were few consumer products available; our economy was much more self-contained than our globalized economy and financial system is today; we had rationing of food, gasoline and other products; the government was spending the money directly to build and run war material factories; and 16 million people were in the military -- mostly abroad.

    So how literally do we want to copy the methods of the past to cure today's problem?


    Read the read of Tony Blankley's most recent column Economic Crap Shoot

    ReplyDelete
  24. Let's face Bob, they worship the created...In their worldview man is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Blankely's outlook is like mine, it's a crapshoot. I'd lower corporate and capital gains taxes, if I were throwing the dice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Obama Day One

    By executive order:
    Lobbyist gifts a no-no to anyone in his administration...
    Gray wolves get a reprieve from eviction order.

    Clinton sails through confirmation, Holder becalmed in Senate.

    Steaming in over the horizion: Rejiggering military trials and closing Guantanamo.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Me too, bob. I would also lower to almost nil, the withholding taxes.

    BTW - Top corporate tax rates elsewhere in the world are around 15%.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Two More Bumped Off In Broad Daylight On Russian Street

    This time with head shots. Pooty the Poisoner prime suspect but others possible.
    ---

    McCain moved that Hillary be accepted by unanimous vote for Sec of State. Only two pubs voted against her. Good old John reaching across the aisle.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Caroline Kennedy drops out of consideration for Senate seat for personal reasons, according to the radio.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The news is a shock to supporters and to New York Gov. David Paterson, who has said he hopes to make an appointment by the weekend.

    Citing personal reasons, Kennedy ended her monthlong bid to succeed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was confirmed as secretary of state Wednesday.

    ...

    Her withdrawal was first reported by the New York Post.


    Senate Bid

    Like, you know, bummer dude.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Two More Bumped Off In Broad Daylight On Russian Street
    ==

    You lobby for Jihadis, you get a bullet to the head. What is wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
  32. :)

    What about the girl? Collateral damage?

    I read the Russians are going to let us move stuff into Afghanistan through their area.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Esau chose not to be a part of the house Abraham and Israel.
    ==

    Another point to remember, when hard times befell Jacob/Israel he did not seek his twin brother Esau, but travelled to Egypt instead.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What about the girl? Collateral damage?
    ==

    "Journalist Anastasia Baburova, 25, who accompanied Markelov, was also shot as she tried to intervene."

    Doesn't look like collateral damage to me.

    ReplyDelete
  35. For investors seeking access to Bernard Madoff’s house of cards, the front door was rarely an option.

    Instead, reports increasingly indicate that the reclusive former Nasdaq chief fueled his alleged Ponzi scheme with an air of exclusivity and carried it out almost entirely through middlemen.

    “The thing about Madoff is that people couldn’t get to him directly,” Lecturer of Economics Chris McHugh said. “He was playing hard to get.”


    Middlemen Key

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The murder of lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova on the streets of Moscow is only the most recent attack on people working for human rights in Chechnya," Davis said.
    .
    .
    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090120/119724340.html
    ==

    I have zero problems with that. Good on Putin.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Kenya to Get 30% of Power from One Wind Farm!

    Written by Hank Green
    Wednesday, 21 January 2009

    When America approves another 300 megawatt wind farm it's a big deal. But, let's be honest, that's one third of a coal-fired power plant. It's much more interesting when the developing world starts getting in on the game.

    Not just because it will bring power to people who need it. Not just because it's a decent amount of green power. But because it's possible that African countries will be able to grow as clean-energy nations. Just like China and India have grown as cell-phone nations, it might just be possible that Africa will leap-frog fossil fuels.

    The new wind farm will be financed mostly by the government of Kenya, to help meet the growing electricity demand of about 8% per year. The African Development Bank will also pay for about 30% of it.

    It should be interesting to see how a power system with such a larger percentage of it's energy coming from wind will handle it. Since there is nowhere where wind blows 100% of the time, the grid will have to be able to handle that instability. In developing parts of the world, however, grid instability is generally just a part of life.

    One more reason why Africa might end up being the greenest continent

    ReplyDelete
  38. RMI Promises 100 MPG Car with 30 Mile EV Range

    Written by Hank Green
    Wednesday, 21 January 2009

    This might not seem like the best time to be starting a car company. Then again, ecologically, as giant trees fall in the forest, space opens in the canopy for the next generation.

    Maybe that's what the Rocky Mountain Institute was thinking when they decided to spin off Bright Automotive.

    Bright is being pioneered by John Waters, the guy behind the EV1's battery pack (not Hairspray). Amory Lovins, who started RMI, has long been fascinated by the inefficiencies of automobiles, and has a lot of ways to increase efficiency.

    It's interesting to see that Bright will be following in the footsteps of the Chevy Volt, offering a range-extended electric vehicle as their first car. Before now, RMI's major innovation was light-weight materials. But it looks like, now, they're seeing the wisdom in GM's thinking on the Volt.

    Bright says their first prototype will be available by the end of the year. It will have a 30 mile all-EV range, and will have an overall mileage of about 100 mpg. They say that they will then come to market "rapidly." In the car industry, that can mean anything from two to five years.

    Let's hope it's on the tail end of that.
    ==

    Amory Lovins. I just love that name.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hank Green is pretty good also. Not as good as Lovins 'though.

    ReplyDelete
  40. On top of that, Shelby claims a 200 mile range. If this powertrain can truly meet these specifications, Shelby will revolutionalize electric cars.

    Fortunately, we only have to wait about 10 months to see if it happens.

    The details of this powertrain follow an announcement in July of last year that Shelby was working on turning the Ultimate Aero into an electric car. In that previous announcement, Shelby said its electric powertrain "will feature a revolutionary power source allowing for extended time between charging intervals with the possibility of several years between charging."


    Electric Car

    ReplyDelete
  41. Extraordinary Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds

    And this was before the Golden Age of TV, and the Venereal Silver Screen. Think what some of the earlier mis-leaders of mankind could have done with the Tube.

    ReplyDelete

  42. One more reason why Africa might end up being the greenest continent


    Does Africa beckon to you, mat? Yield to the temptation. Go.

    The corruption infrastructure is already in place in Africa. A ready market for the green revolution. Your customers will never suspect that the lights are supposed to stay on all night...

    ReplyDelete
  43. LT,

    What exactly do you find so objectionable?

    ReplyDelete
  44. LT,

    What exactly do you find so objectionable?



    We've covered this ground before. To borrow your line: "Read my comments."

    Just to nudge you in that direction, consider

    --corruption of the political process by groups like Center for Climate Strategies, Al Gore, et al.

    --energy market place distortions created by governmental meddling.

    --tax burdens and other societal costs imposed by half-baked energy and climate "solutions" foisted off on us by the charlatans and doomsday prophets. If you want a roster, let me know.

    Incidentally, in case it's escaped you, I have nothing against any renewable energy technology. It's when the promotion of the unproven technologies at the expense of both conventional energy sources and other innovative technologies occurs, that I see red. It's happening at an accelerating rate.

    You may share your giddy enthusiasm for every piece of green tech vaporware that's advertised at treehugger.com to your heart's content.

    Just expect that occasionally my curmudgeonly retorts will come back at you.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ok, let me ask you this: How do feel about the hundreds of billions of dollars a year that go towards bloated defense spending in support of Jihadi oil? Is that not a distortion of the market? Is that not governmental meddling? Is that not corruption of the political process?

    ReplyDelete
  46. How do I feel about "bloated defense spending?" Mark Helprin covered that ground for me a few days or weeks after 9/11. His observation was that the US spent far too little as a percent of GDP on defense for the undertakings that we were committing to in the specific direction of combating jihad. That was seven years ago. I still agree.

    The other questions you raise just take the reader deeper into the maze of your dementia. I'll pass.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The US spends $1.4 trillion a year on defense. By comparison, China Russia France Britain all spend less than $50 billion a year on defense. It's obvious that there's a colossal waste of money that goes on here. Money that could be used towards energy independence. It's also very clear that the geopolitical benefits, given all this spending, are not all that beneficial and are rather quite detrimental. Finally, if you continue with your bad behavior, you will find out very quickly how lonely it can be talking to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Finally, if you continue with your bad behavior, you will find out very quickly how lonely it can be talking to yourself.

    Further Conversations With Myself, Bill Evans, c. 1967

    Google it. Or don't. Lonely some of us like. Far from the maddening crowd. You don't like my behavior? Fuck you.

    Money that could be used towards energy independence...

    Nah. You mean money that could be doled out by your elitist green governmental energy czars.


    It's also very clear that the geopolitical benefits, given all this spending, are not all that beneficial and are rather quite detrimental.

    Boo hoo hoo. When they tire of the poor benefits, and quit whining about the detrimental effects, watch out 'cause they're fixin' to ask for more help.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Front Page Subhead, LA Times:

    Seasons change -- earlier than before, study says

    The "Seasoned" Expert Source of this August "Study?" see below
    ---
    "The change coincides with the rise in global temperatures, which could suggest a link to human-induced global warming, said Alexander Stine, the study's first author and a graduate student at UC Berkeley's Department of Earth & Planetary Science.

    "The pattern that we see suggests there's a relationship between global warming and the shifting of the seasons," Stine said.

    Earlier seasons could affect farming, rainfall distribution, water supplies and the diversity of ecosystems, said Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La CaƱada Flintridge.


    "When you see a shift like this, or what appears to be the beginning of a shift, it's yet another red flag about the potential implications of humans fiddling with the climate," he said.

    An earlier spring could lengthen wildfire season in Western states and affect the availability of water resources, said Stephanie McAfee, a PhD student at the University of Arizona who studies the effect of climate change on ecosystems."

    Wowee, Two Grad Students say...

    ReplyDelete
  50. ""When you see a shift like this, or what appears to be the beginning of a shift, it's yet another red flag about the potential implications of humans fiddling with the climate," he said."
    ---
    Yeah, fer shure, Dude!
    Cool!
    (and hot, of course)

    ReplyDelete
  51. You don't like my behavior? Fuck you.
    ==

    You got my a big hairy johnson in your mouth? Tiz choking you? Go play with yourself biatch.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Good Morning!!! 2164th.blogspot.com is one of the most outstanding informational websites of its kind. I take advantage of reading it every day. I will be back.

    ReplyDelete