The Croaking of the Stooge: The NYT Wants Anything Except Drilling Oil.

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1]  is a propaganda machine[2] that uses retrospective ways of ‘thinking’ to construct their articles. In this narrow political realm, the main political topic is first selected, frequently in a crisis, and the piece is then written in retrograde since the conclusion is already known. An appropriate word chucker is then assigned the task of rotating the propagandistic levers and thus produces the piece. Facts or truths, not very important in politics, are judiciously sorted for bias and slants and when selected are pieced together in such a manner that the conclusion of the piece is supported in any way possible by the text within the limits of the dictionary. Depending on the seriousness of the talking point, the use of illogic, absurdities, and outright lies may be inserted into the blather at any necessary point to influence the reader.

Today, we examine the frantic efforts of the The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [3] as they try to give any and all reasons why we should not drill for oil.

In an article entitled: Making America Stupid by Thomas L. Friedman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 13, 2008 we read this:

“Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of “drill, baby, drill!””--[4] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.  This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted.]

 …and the meaning of this theatre is thusly revealed:

““Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” — because an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.”

From this infantile taunt, we are presumably to conclude that our enemies are applauding our stubborn attachment to cheap energy and that, somehow, they would be happy about the US increasing the supply of oil, which would, certainly, lower the price of crude and the profits of these totalitarian rat bins. It is almost as if this is a piece of reverse psychology where we are taunted to do the wrong thing. Cheap oil for the US ensures our military and economic dominance of the world. The New York Times knows that.  Inexpensive energy drives the capitalistic juggernaut that has crushed the phony leftist command economies of the past and the Marxists look like fools because of their anti-profit mantras.  The idiot Marxists need oil more than we do.

Now, to support the choice not to drill we are presented with  a cornucopia of hokum and fluff to peruse such as:

“Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with “drill, baby, drill” — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?”

There is much absurd with this mush. We have worked on energy inventions for decades and decades and not much as been invented that will replace oil at reasonable cost.

[#1] We have been looking at alternatives to crude oil for decades and there is no satisfactory substitute in abundance to be had. The honking and waving of glittery tinsel about wind energy merely falls on the cutting room floor of these follies when an analytical editor whacks out the bad parts of the filming episode.  Ethanol, with a current price of $5 per gallon does not have the same energy content as octane so using pure ethanol would get us maybe 18 miles per gallon. Trying to produce ethanol from food merely raises the price of food. An article by Steve Miloy[5] entitled Picken’s Natural Gas Nonsense puts some reality about using natural gas in perspective.

“A new natural-gas-powered car, such as the Honda Civic GX, for example, is almost 40 percent more expensive than a conventional Civic ($24,590 versus $17,700).

While tax credits can reduce the cost by thousands, somebody -- either you and/or taxpayers -- will be paying the difference.

If natural gas fuel saved you, say, $2 per gallon, then you'd have to drive 124,020 highway miles or 82,680 city miles to break even on fuel costs against the $6,890 purchase price premium.”-- Steven Milloy September 11, 2008

[#2] We have been looking at ‘inventions’ for solar power for decades and like hydrogen fusion technology the last 50 years have not given us much. Cars cannot be rationally propelled by solar panels or windmills. Worse, of electric cars the battery is way too heavy [about 1600 lbs] and that dead weight must be dragged around from start to finish until the battery is dead. The driving range of electric cars is short compared to fuel fired vehicles. Even worse, the electricity needed to charge these cars would derive mostly from coal-fired plants. So, we wonder where the savings might come from. Electric cars pollute as much or more than oil fired cars under these conditions.

[#3] Windmills are a neat idea but only in places where the wind blows, such as Martha’s Vineyard and the East side of the Rockies, but the electric lines needed to connect long stretches of wind machines to the main grid would be very long and costly.

Notice that wave machines are apparently off the table along with geothermal.  Where is the hydrogen gas variant?? The lowest polluting car would be he one where the hydrogen and oxygen from the sea were separated by nuclear power,  thenstored and transported to supply stations and the combustion product becomes pure water. This will be a great idea until some leftist EcoNazi tells us that water is a pollutant or a climate changing gas.

Now, we take a look at the NYT’s thoughts about nuclear power:

“… McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?”

They can generate electricity cheaper than any other known way. Yes, they are expensive, but we all know that the ones we already have lasted 25 years+ and France seems to know how to make them work safely. Japan is doing well with nukes. Where did France get the money to build theirs? From raising taxes? How about we just prohibit Congress and the courts from interfering with new nuclear plant construction and see how much money we can save? How about a tax-free investment scheme where taxpayers would invest in new nuclear plants and make a bunch of money? How about a nice healthy tax cut to spur growth in the energy sector of our economy?

Friedman sums up with this nonsense:

“Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.”

Here, our propagandist inserts a mandatory condition or stipulation that gives us the usual left-wing ‘all or nothing’ message. This is all phony anyway. The effort of the left is not to even think about US dominance of the world in their globalization schemes because if we did and dominated the competing countries we would be even more successful and be in position to undermine the Marxists and Islamo-Fascists, friends of the leftists at the New York Times.  Many of these leading leftists think we should limit growth. [6] If our economy was doing better because of more oil drilling we might use that to start another war against maniacs like Iran or North Korea or cleanse Cuba of its Castroism.

If we drill and consume our awesome reserves and use the time to build new energy systems then we can, as usual, produce cheaper energy and beat our idiots Marxists and Islamo-Fascists in commerce, war or on any other scale.  That is what the Times fears. We will just keep on growing and getting stronger and the lefties will never have a chance to compete. Incoherent propaganda screeds like these are so phony and  so easily constable that they are comedy.

Our enemies on the left are stupid and we should keep them stupid and cheap energy is one way to do that.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Crime is Not a Crime Now if You are an EcoNazi or Leftist Parasite and Act out of Fear.

Generally speaking, it is a great strategic asset to posses if your enemies are comprised of a pack of drooling idiots, druggies or are economically proscribed by any of the various flavors of Marxism. Many of us have posited the celebration of the act of ‘Hugging a Commie[1]’ or wishing those who want to leave the US well and have even offered travel gifts as in incentive. Being a loser or an emotional misfit almost always benefits the opposition except on Broadway, the California Assembly or certain segments of Congress. We have a better life in many ways because our enemies cannot seem to approach the cognitive skills of coprolites.

Beyond our porous borders we can thank places like Mexico for producing the most corrupt and inefficient government close by and for maintaining a level of government destructively offensive to both mind and matter for more than 500 years. Across the pond, we can than first thank the idiot Russians, in either monarchial or Marxist garb, for wrecking their chances of becoming a vibrant world power even in the presence of their astonishing amount of natural resources.  Africa is a dung heap of passionate tribalism besprinkled with sadistic Marxist dictators who have managed to extract most the wealth and misguided missionary gifts from benevolent countries and squirreled it off to Switzerland, France and Italy where it is put to decent use in those economies. Fortunately for us, the Middle East with its tribalism and psycho-loony Islamo-Fascism prevents them from doing much more than grunting petrodollars from the sands. When they run out of oil they will retain the attributes of hate and sand in equal quantities.

Normally, when we review the political rabble burning down their own homes in Watts, twice, or in similar settings in Chicago or Detroit and destroying their microenvironment we stand firm in our resolve that such a third world mentality be contained and preserved. Many of them have used ‘education’ as a trap to maintain their cadres in misery and poverty. This, thankfully, keeps the prices of electricity, red meat and wine at reasonable levels. As such we have rather large prisons or containment facilities known as inner cities who keep the losers, druggies and criminals centralized and entertained with their drugs, sloth, sodomy and local politics. San Francisco must be celebrated as a place that seems to enclose their disgusting perverts, criminals, infected masses and illegal aliens away from decent parts of America.[2] Here, in satire, is what greatness they have achieved: Read The Road to Social Success, Peace and Justice: California has the Vision![3]

Most of the time in the US when the rabble get aroused by drugs and polemic politics unleashed by the tax grubbers and commit crimes they are arrested and given sentences, however light, and eventually return back to their flop houses in Eugene, Seattle, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia for a cooling off period. A million ‘activists’ are doing hard time for drug sales and that thins the ranks of the dissidents and perverts. This process used to work in the European Union until the mobs of ignoranti began burning 500 cars a night with no attention from the police or government. Europe is now known for their idiotic attributes.[4]Paris officials were silent on most of the riots as these were apparently considering some reasonable form of protest. England was once a place of solitude and proper behavior until recently when the Green Weenies of the EcoNazi set started destroying private property. They can barely contain the Islamo-Fascisti in their midst.

It seems that a ‘jury’[5] of their ‘peers’ [unfortunately probably the case] found that political activists who caused more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station were ‘innocent’ of wrongdoing because the ‘threat’ of global warming justified these actions.

“The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.”--Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor Thursday, 11 September 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Let us recall that their Princeling of Wails[6] is a convert to EcoNazism.

Now, if you think about this for a moment it appears to be a good sign as denying energy to the rabid political losers of the far left in certainly in the favor the good, decent folk and capitalism in general. The aftertaste of this initial inspection alerts us to the fact that they are trying to take energy away from us. ‘Us’ is the good guys; that is not good. We did get a glimpse of this form of loco-legal lunacy in the Angela Davis and O. J. Simpson trials where murderers were let loose by ‘concerned’ or racially and politically biased juries to the thundering applause of racist, grubby activists, besotted university students and other leftists. Here, the Brits, whose economy, religion, morality as a nation, and future are crumbling like a rotten fruit cake now can look forward to a legal precedent that allows violent crime when the activists think they have some urgent form of fear. Perhaps the burning of witches or the hunts for werewolves were justified in the past using this logic stream. Could the skin heads now legally burn immigrants because of fear for their own society?

“The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.”

The crime was one of graffiti:

“Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.”

Yes, indeedy doo.

“Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence[sic], including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.”

So, now, new law is being created. The point of law here is that if you think that there is some ultimate danger imminent and clearly present then you can break existing laws using that license. That is really great: violence induced by fear= acceptable conduct under the law. Wait until the AIDS activists in San Francisco digest this one as the CIA actually developed the retrovirus in secret labs to destroy gays and Africans. Can they attempt to shut down Langley on the pretext that the CIA is working on a new and better disease to infect the rabid left? Can we use this twisted logic to sanction lynching?

The scientific point here is that the Global Warming Farce is just that—a farce. Many want to confront Al Gore and his Marxist-Greenies with facts and charts. [7] He refuses. 21,000 scientists[8] refute this pseudoscientific garbage, among those being this author. There is no scientific basis for their political lies wrapped up in the guise of science. They looked like fools[9] when the earth’s temperature went down instead of up. Their computer models are just a jumble of meaningless terms and arbitrary coefficients that predict nothing except chaos, but waste billions in so-called basic research.

Perhaps we can bend this logical pattern just a teeny bit to show that illegal aliens must not be deported or even jailed for their crimes because the threat of such action causes mental languish. The reverse of this king would be labeled racist or xenophobic in nature. Withholding drug therapy in prisons and half-way houses then might be altered in such a manner as to allow, or encourage, the dope addicts to continue on their exciting binges  with new and pure government-sanctioned drugs such as crack and crystal meth because the withdrawal symptoms are a worse form of punishment. Perhaps we can think of Professor Hansen’s theatre as some form of revenge for the French and Indian Wars or the Stamp Tax.

Our society faces ignorance and the threats from Islamo-Fascism and now the Brits open a legal door for the truncation of our energy based on the supposed fears of losers.

Wait until the 9^th Circuit Court gets the papers on this one!

The capitalists do not deserve this.

rycK

Krugman of the NYT Redacts History in Liberal Terms on Sex Education for Kindergarteners

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1] has a 90+ year history of apologizing for Communism, fostering any form of anti-anticommunism, defending despots like Fidel Castro, World Wars started by leftists, the USSR, Cuba and their interminable endorsement of far left political types who would run for high office in the United States. They always have praise for any left-liberal tax whore who wants to raise taxes and increase regulations and will condemn any politician that is even moderately to the right. In a frequent departure from his role as non-economist of the Times Paul Krugman[2] now graces us with his ‘clarification’ of some stupid and disgusting comment made by Barack H. Obama on sex education of kids.  He senses that the election, once again, is lost and rushes to the pulpit to cobble together a suitable response. He leads some kind of truth squad. Let us see how he handles ‘the truth.’

In today’s screed, we read like this:

“Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies” [3]--Blizzard of Lies by Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 11, 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.  This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted.]

In propaganda terms, this is known as ‘correcting the record’ or other such phrase that really means: we need some urgent damage control and must enlist the help of trusty spin doctors to dissect and reshuffle the original words to show that the original text did not contain the original thought but needs to be redacted and supplanted with the politically correct connotations to correct the blunder. This is the lie.  Ultimately, the stark facts must be rehabilitated into a politically appropriate set of words that conveniently fits into the instant political context and some spin doctor is needed to perform this surgery. Krugman has experience in this area as he mixes numbers from disparate sources with intellectual and scientific abandon to show that, for example, tax cuts are evil in all circumstances and that supply-side economics doesn’t create growth and prosperity. He is a political hack who dutifully serves up dissected analyses that conform to the desired leftist political tenets.  He can turn a silk purse into a pig’s ear on command. If politics could be defined as a hurdy-gurdy then Krugman would be the monkey with the tin cup groping the customers for odd change. The song generated by the crank would be the leftist version of the theme songs and poetry of the Second International[4]or perhaps, in more modern and stricter political terms The March of the Volunteers.[5]

So, let us get down to the actual words and using the tools of exegesis extract the original and then compare it to what the Walter Duranty Papers thinks it should have said:

The Obama Statement:

“[Obama mocking Alan Keyes] I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” …

“‘[Obama mocking Alan Keyes] Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”

“[Obama’s exact words] But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”[6] –see footnote for full text of this. See also, the ABC News report.[7] You cannot watch this video clip as it has been conveniently removed: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

So, teaching sex education to kindergarteners isthe right thing to do.

This comment seems so straightforward and logical given the politics of the left and the speaker.  The comment, while apparently true as spoken, is now politically unacceptable in a political contest and needs to be retracted in some way.

Here is a search that contains 3100 references to this comment. [8] Why were these references and videos deleted? Political reciprocity? The video can be found here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-promotes-sex-ed-to.html

Okay, now let us see what the NYT wants this to mean:

“Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.”[9]—Krugman Published: September 11, 2008

The site that contained the original wording and theories on his topic [Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Early Childhood Education ]has numerous missing links.[10] We now wonder what those words meant.

The missing question here is: at what age is his education appropriate?

Krugman suddenly sums up with no explanation of how Obama’s words were warped by the right—only this:

“What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.”

This is just spite and hokum.  This is a caustic diversion from the topic. That is like saying “We cannot raise taxes because Cheney is a Nazi!” There is nothing here! The monkey’s cup is empty! The explanation of what Obama rally said, or meant, is omitted and only spite and vituperative rants are inserted where a logical and studied analysis of the original text ought to be.

We are to take Krugman’s word that the Obama ‘clarification’ defines the original meaning of the statement. Sure.

Obama’s forces ‘clarified’ his statement with this:

“When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. … ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing.  Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’”

In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign.”—full quote in this footnote: [11]

Here, the monkey kicks the stork off the stage.

It appears that Obama is just tooting the old liberal line about government control of ‘education’ and that includes sex. Here is advice from the sex guru Dr. Ruth Westheimer :

“In her book Sex for Dummies (For Dummies, 2nd ed., 2000), sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer gives this example about telling kids what they want to know: After a girl in his class expressed that she was different from him, 5-year-old Jimmy asked his mother what the girl had meant. After speaking awkwardly for 10 minutes about the differences between boys and girls, Jimmy's mom asked if he wanted to know anything else. "Yes," he said. "Kim said she was Chinese. What does that mean?" Although Mom told Jimmy more than he wanted to know, experts agree that he'll be OK because he has a parent (and maybe two) willing to have a frank discussion about sex. That's the key to shaping a healthy sexual attitude, they say.”[12]

What better place is there to have “a frank discussion about sex” than in the public schools where abortion, contraception, free love and other hot topics are integral components of the leftist social engineering agenda? We can bash some white males and teach our kids that the automobile has killed off our planet and we will all boil in the oceans as well. Is it too early to teach them that taxes are ‘investments?’

We should take what Obama said as defined by a reasonable interpretation of the original text and ignore both his ‘clarification’ and the unfounded notion that somebody in the McCain camp has lied about this utterance by a 100% left liberal.  Obama’s comments fit well into his far left-liberal beliefs and political objectives.  I conclude that Obama meant that 5 year olds must be taught sex education. The parental op-out provision could be nullified by the courts anyway. The use of condoms and birth control pills are a top issue with the left—along with abortions—and that fits the leftist mantra. The population must be truncated. Euthanasia is next, particularly for the old folks who have wealth, as a confiscatory inheritance tax was mandate by Marx and that makes sense to the left. Kill off the unwanted babies and the oldies and grab their loot.

Next, we will hear that feeding red meat to a youngster is child abuse. Cars are a crime against humanity!

The editors at the New York Times are frantic as the polls are sinking their candidate. Joe Biden is a dud. [13]Chucking feces at the opposition about ‘lies’ with no proof is just gutter politics, the old and proven path used by The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [14] Krugman is no better at this jaunt than his narrow views on economics.

You cannot spin away truth and reality except in the minds of the leftist manikins.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Arianna Huffy Puffs About Righteous Rage with Unrighteous Spite. Obama Must Get Nasty.

One of the more animated tools of the far leftist political resources is Arianna Huffington or The HuffyPuffer[1] as I like to call her. She routinely honks the same old stale horn for the far left with pieces like this reference:[2]

Never deviating from her strident Greek circular logic, the brand that usually returns a conclusion that mirrors the original assumptions regardless of the facts, Huffington has now calls for Obama, the Afro-Leninist to wax righteous and get back some lost voters.   It is always grounds for a serious debate as to whether she understands what she is saying, but logical outcomes need not deter a liberal like her  in her feverish mission. The Puffer is outraged.

We think this means:  get nasty and attack Palin at all costs. What else could it mean? We will search her current post for further information to enlighten us as to the substance of her current screed.

“Back in February 2007, I wrote about the role casting would play in the presidential race, and the American public's readiness to replace the John Wayne take-no-crap-cowboy model of leadership with a Gregory Peck-does-Atticus Finch archetype.” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Atticus Finch[3] is, of course, a character in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mocking Bird and is based on the politically neutral Roman Orator Titus Pomponius Atticus. Finch plays a modest man of learning and skills who is honest and decent. He achieves justice in court. From this, we must learn that Obama is some form or recreation of Finch and should or will share or amplify his positive attributes. This is a demigod building process that is amusing to explore. We can have a lot of fun making a Chicago political activist and Afro-Leninist into a country lawyer from the South with morals.

Get Huffied and Puffed!

“Now, as the crises facing our country intensify, and the campaign McCain is running becomes sleazier and more trivial, it's time for Obama to unleash his inner Atticus -- or at least the key element of Finch that Obama seems reluctant to embrace: righteous rage.”[4]-- Enough!: Why Obama Should Release His Righteous Rage b y Arianna Huffington Posted September 10, 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Finch is currently the absolute role model for the liberal law profession and this fictional character has enc0ourged many young liberals to become lawyers. The problem is that the attributes of Atticus Finch are well above the sleaze and slime of organizations like the ACLU, American Trial Lawyers association and so on and so forth. We can look at O. J. Simpson’s lawyer, Johnny Cochran[5], and wonder about his racism and disruption of the court system in LA as he made himself rich over civil rights cases. He was known to shout loud enough so that a deliberating jury would feel their chairs rattle with his epithets.

We could also inquire about radical civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart[6] who received 28 months in jail for giving material support to Islamo-Fascist terrorists using her client privilege rights to political advantage. We could wonder how closely Cochran and Stewart fit the Finch Mold.

How about Bill Clinton who lied under oath? How about Hillary who seems to have concealed subpoenaed billing documents from the Rose Law Firm? Are these actions that would be sanctioned by the character in To Kill a Mocking Bird?  Wasn’t Bill a law professor at some time? Well, that is four left-liberal lawyers that spring to mind and we could wonder how Huffy might incorporate them into her construction of a Greek God.

“Being likeable is obviously a good thing in politics. So is being analytical and thoughtful and composed. But the last seven-plus years demand more than a detached analysis -- and certainly more than a beaming smile.

They demand indignation. Outrage. Fury.”

Strange, these are negative attributes that Atticus Finch did not employ in his successful legal work. I saw the movie and cannot recall when Gregory Hamilton Peck howled in outrage and got ‘down and dirty’ as Carville likes to see his politicos. He also seemed to know what the definition of ‘is’ was.

HuffyPuffs the Big Puff with this:

“The fear of activating the residual racism provoked by the caricature of the "angry black man" should no longer hold sway.”

Michele tried this and it failed. She is the angry black woman and they muzzled her.[7] Jeremiah Wright, the angry black racist,  uses this almost every Sunday and it brought outrage from many politial quarters. The black racists loved it, but they are already 90% commited to voting Democratic in this election as we read in the polls.

Was it an angry black man who said, off microphone:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."[8]—Barack Obama off camera in what he thought was a safe environment to express his views.[9]

Or:

“Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly”—quote by Obama posted at 3:20 pm on June 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey [10]

“To fully become the transformational leader we need, Obama must demonstrate to the American people his capacity for indignation -- for the kind of ferocious passion that fueled King and Nelson Mandela. He has to fight fire with fire, and wield anger in the service of what right, true, and good. The fierce urgency of now demands nothing less.”

King[11] and Mandela were Marxists and Mandela was a convicted bomber with a crazy wife who murdered people in her own home for political reasons. King routinely plagarized whole sentences for his thesis and other writings. These are not Finch-like attributes.

In the book, Harper Lee describes the key character as: “He is described as having "Christ-like goodness and wisdom"[12]

Since all is almost lost in the fevered minds of persons like Arianna the only desperate chance is to sling doo doo and get nasty. And, we thought that Huffy had already done that with many of her posts and certainly in this one.

Maybe Huffington thinks Christ would have sat bobing and weaving  in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church, who seems to have the proper attitude here using Arianna’s logic, and howled at Whitey and offered revenge prophecy about roosting chickens while throwing a few G*d D*mns for America. Would Atticus have advocated this?

This is what Huffy Puffer wants to see in these closing days of the race. Only in California

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in Exile and removed from this mental infection. ]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Old Brown Lady of The Old Gray Lady Offers Solace and Hope for Obama and the Masses.

There are two old ladies of the New York Times both distinguished by their hairdos. Maureen Dowd, the Dowdy One and the one with the cognitive skills has electric red hair, but Gail Collins, leaning more toward the left branch of the Bell Curve[1] with her meaner cognitive gifts is a plainer brown. One is a rabble rouser and the other a balm peddler.  This brings ‘balance’ [if not fairness] to the political essays of the NY Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[2]—as they attempt to ‘form public opinion. They are in damage control lately.[3]

We can usually expect to view some fresh views of the political past along with a quantity of future political theorems’ In this case the urgent requirement for  wet nurse with rehab flophouse credentials is needed that can assure the patients that the future is bright even without the drugs and they need not worry.  Collins brings the cognitive booster shots that will bring hope to the masses.

“It has come to our attention that a large number of Democrats have gone completely nuts about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.”-- Misery Loves Democrats[4] By Gail Collins Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 10, 2008

The polls are falling faster than BritneySpears’ panties.

“He’s going to lose! Sarah Palin is getting all the attention! The Republicans are so mean! Why isn’t he tougher?” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

One reason is contrast: Obama chose Joe Biden,[5]a known loser, liar, plagiarist and gaff spinner, possessing only the skills of emotion and braggadocio brought nothing to the team. His lack of integrity and blowhard rhetoric brings some balance to the leftist ticket. His selection was hailed as a sterling piece of wisdom by the Obama sycophants and their cooing  stooges in the press. But there was no ‘bump’ in the polls.

The solace and balm in terms that the cognitively disnimble might understand:

“If the Obama brain trust seems relatively serene compared with its seething base, it’s because they live in the Electoral College world, where the presidential race only takes place in a third of the country. They don’t care about national polls — a concept as quaint as measuring one’s wealth by caribou pelts. They worry about the undecided vote in Minnesota and Ohio and run their TV ads (about the economy) in places like Colorado and Michigan and Florida. If you live in California or New York or Texas, you don’t really have much of a feel for their level of effort because as far as they’re concerned, you’ve already voted.”

This is a brash piece of reason that Al Gore would not have accepted in 2000. He ‘won’ the popular vote, but times change at the Times and other places. This is a good explanation as far as it goes, but seems to lack a frank discussion on how close the purple states are and the fact that momentum is now with the Barracuda.

This is typical of the left as they tend to emphasize only the sweet part of the story. A peek at the Electoral Map from Realpolitics.com shows that:

132 Electoral votes are in play. Here, we see that Ohio is a tie but Michigan and Pennsylvania are in the tossup category. Obama has only 48% in New Hampshire while McCain has 48% or better in 3 of the key states. The only state that appears leaning strongly toward Obama is New Hampshire with a measly 4 EVs[6].

The momentum part is now shown here, but we do know Obama was up perhaps a dozen points against McCain until Sarah Palin ripped open the electoral sack and scattered the precepts and opinions to the winds.

Telling the drug-crazed perverts, unwashed San Francisco criminals and abortionists that there is ‘no need to worry’ is a solid daily ‘fix’ from the Times when balanced with screeds like yesterday from The Old Red Lady.[7]  We need to be fair and balanced to some extent.

But, When the VP makes comments like this about hisself:

“"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."[8]—Joe Biden, yesterday Sep 10, 2008.

We wonder how assured of victory the Obama Camp might be with pronouncements like this one. Was Joe told he is supposed to win? Leaving out essentials like that is common in freak-show comedy when players forget their lines or report drunk to the stage.  Maybe Joe is unconsciously telling us that he is second rate.

We can wonder if the Times might also think the Obama Team is now second rate. Didn’t they endorse Hillary in the first place?? What—do they now have two bums on the ticket? Identity politics might be in play here were minorities and losers get their free pick of candidates to attack the tax base for them.

Instant Factoid: Without tossups, Obama is ahead 273-265 or a crummy 8 points.

Wring your hands in ‘hope’ liberals, all might be lost again.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Old Red Lady of The Old Gray Waxes Sour Against Moose and Religion.

We can usually extract some novel fundamentals of the political past along with a quantity of future political theorems from the political essays of the NY Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]—as they attempt to ‘form public opinion.’ The ‘facts’ are usually wrapped in racism and leftist tax mongering to offer some form of utopia to their constituents. When Maureen Dowd [The Old Red Lady] of the New York Times [The Old Gray Lady][2] pounds her word processor in red fury we frequently get only a misleading dose of concatenated literary allusions and illusions.  She can attack, but can she educate or change opinions? She has flown to the scene of the obligatory political crimes on an Alaskan-style hunt for anything unseemly with respect to Sarah Palin.  After Hillary was summarily vanquished by some magic as if guided by Dowd’s own poised pen, she flies into a snotty rage against Sarah Palin. The sewers are being raked in haste.

We have to find something!!

“I hope John McCain doesn’t throw his slippers at Sarah Palin’s head or get as acerbic as Henry Higgins did with Eliza Doolittle when she did not learn quickly enough. McCain’s Pygmalion has to be careful, because his Galatea might be armed with more than a sharp tongue.”-- My Fair Veep[3] by Maureen Dowd Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 9, 2008 from Wasilla, Alaska.  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.  This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Leaning on the stale literary remains of the past for a necessary leverage, The Old Red Lady extracts nonsense from a Bernard Shaw play and commingles this fantasy with contemporary politics.  We wonder why she chose this particular book in her quest for dirt in Wasilla, AK. She might have taken along a copy of Frankenstein’s Monster or Candy for inspiration.

“Sarah, who is now so renowned that she is known merely by one name and has a name ID of 90 percent, has to be a Kmart mom who appeals to Kmart moms and dads. She’s already shown that she can shoot the pig, put lipstick on it, bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan. Now all she has to do is also prove that she can be the leader of the free world on a moment’s notice, and field dress Putin as adeptly as she can a moose.”

This lipstick gig is getting stale.

We must wonder if Dowd preferred Vinegar John Kerry[4], a known collaborator with Vietnamese communists, might get along with the dictator Putin.[5] He does have experience in his arena.

The literary antecedent:

The Dowdy Dowd then mechanically restrokes all that is negative that is true or imaginary against Palin with snobbish contempt while dredging up exactly nothing for her frantic efforts. She might be happier if she showed us that there actually was a love affair between Henry Higgins and his unpolished Covent Garden flower seller.[6] The press has nothing. Perhaps there is an ax murder in her past  or a Satanic Shrine lurking nearby where the Priestess Sarah wears a black shroud and keeps her tools sharp and shiny. Dowd can be more inventive that this. And what is the truth worth at the Times? Nothing.

“After devilishly mocking Obama — and successfully getting into his head — with ads about how he was just a frothy celebrity, like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, it turns out all the McCain camp wanted was an Obama of its own. Now that they have the electric Palin, they’ve stopped arguing that celebrity is bad. All they do is worship at her cult of celebrity. As Rick Davis, a top McCain adviser, said: “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

This is an interesting twist in politics. Of course, JFK was a cult production crafted with skill and loads of his father’s dirty mob money, but that is history. He was a whore monger and drug addict [read The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh[7]] but that was suppressed for decades. The notion of ‘issues’ is too dangerous to broach for both sets of politicos here in this slice of political time. The tax issue is a monster, the debt, budget and deficits don’t make sense in any reasonable business framework except perhaps in the dustbin of Bear Stearns. These won’t be discussed for a while.  The illegal alien hot button has not been pushed as yet. Even oil drilling is presently overshadowed by the electric Palin. Is driver’s licenses for illegal aliens an ‘issue?’

The facts that Obama[8] has strong ties to communism, radical politics, the sleazy antics of ACORN and is a 100% left liberal will ooze out in time. These elements form a strong ‘issue’ as well. Sexism and race relations lurk nearby as well. The Times knows how to run the levers of racism to their advantage. McCain and his Athena are on a positive political roll and this may carry all the way to the White House. There is plenty of time for attacking Obama and his snarling little  familiar Joe Biden[9] if the need arises.

The Old Red Lady waxes with feverish bigotry on this slimy passage:

“When the phone rings at 3 a.m., will she call the Wasilla Assembly of God congregation and ask them to pray on a response, as she asked them to pray for a natural gas pipeline?

Does she really think Adam, Eve, Satan and the dinosaurs mingled on the earth 5,000 years ago?”

More spite:

“Does she talk in tongues or just eat caribou tongues?

What does she have against polar bears?”

Dowd soars into a cosmic rage over the Palin Sensation and sours her own nest as she watches the polls switch to McCain and his angelic moose hunter:

RealClearPolitics Poll Averages

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

It looks like the lefties chose another communist stooge to decorate their petard and now the public is suddenly distracted and mesmerized by  a new and wonderful ‘outsider’ who must might come to Washington and clean out that sewer.  Many leftist jobs are on the line. Tough times and the NYT stock just dropped to $14 as well. Can they survive? Maybe incoherent screeds like this can boost readership.

So, we can again thank the liberals for their snarling public intermezzos and their curious baboonesque political circus. Desperation sets in and things will get nastier in the future. Maybe they can show us that Sarah is a witch or an agent of Iran. Anything is possible [and now very necessary] at the New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers.

It has been stated in more explicit terms than printed here that:

 Liberalism is like probing a babboon’s sphincter for diamonds. There is little chance for success, but there are  several opportunities for anger and frustration. [10][11]

There ain’t no diamonds there Dorothy—but the levels of frustration of the left soars.

“I told you so!”—Future comment by Hillary Clinton.

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you’re a leftist or one of their victims."--rycK

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Bob Herbert of NYT Advises: Hold Your Heads Up [Yer Arses] and Be Liberal.

We are always privileged to study and digest the frantic political theorizing that poses as thinking at theNew York Times —aka the Walter Duranty Papers. [1]When certain events threaten the intended outcome for one of their precious leftist candidates, new political actions are required so that the public can be reeducated and vote accordingly for whatever leftovers the leftists are currently stuck with. In such cases, we need either a chum-chucker or a redactional theorist to straighten out the opposition on certain political, historical and economic points to settle the matter. Those read these scribblings would thusly be reeducated and vote accordingly, particularly in the next poll. Today we are pleased to receive a lesson from the Time’s authority on race on the splendor of liberalism and why we should have more of it.

Bob Herbert of the NYT has been selected to unwarp our little minds on certain matters as we shall see today:

”Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?”-- Hold Your Heads Up by Bob Herbert[2] Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 8, 2008 [All quotes references this link in this blog unless otherwise noted. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Now, this is great. If you do not agree with some form of dogma that has been proven worthless, brutal and of Marxian orientation and underpinnings you must be stupid. If you laughed at the failure of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, The Great Society, War on Poverty, HUD and now Fanny Mae you are stupid.

The items listed in the previous paragraph all show the hokey and fluff of far leftist societies and their repeating failures. We now wonder what the leftist definition of failure might be. Like if is was is, the future of Bill Clinton in court might have had a different outcome.

The follies grow into a fever as the best that the lefties at the Walter Duranty Papers will be slung far and wide in an exasperated freak show to save Obama.

“Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.”

[1] There is no evidence for Evolution. Darwin was a political hack. There is no slow progression and no missing links thus the theory is defeated.

[2] Global Warming?? [correction!! the new meaningless political slogan is now Climate Change [3]because their phony computer models guessed wrong. This is a tax issue—not science.

[3] These are not ‘figments’ because Evolution and Climate Change allow for the Endangered Species Act and the new Carbon Cap Tax[4], big bucks to leftist governments. They have no scientific basis but they could generate billions in taxes.

There is money on the drum here for the simple minded druggies, union types and others with minimal cognitive skills to have if they only ‘believe.’ If you want to see Troglodytes on the Left take a trip to the Mission District of San Francisco and talk to them if they are conscious. They will vote for higher and higher taxes for a bottle of Tokay or a couple of crack vials.  Drug addicts, low IQ union workers, the Stalinized teachers, and the welfare crowd are all ready to vote for higher taxes since they pay nothing.

““We need change, all right,” he said. “Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.”—Mitt Romney at the Convention.

And, this infuriates the left as it steps on their best line ‘change.’

Want to see change: Look at California:[5] The Golden State is going down and this is what the liberals offer us: “change”??!!

The Retort:

“Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.”

Let us review some contributions of liberals.

[1] Wilson gave us 160,000 dead from a war we had no interest in except, possibly, the Brits losing and failing to pay back their loans to us.

[2] FDR gave 400,000 dead and the neat plan for the USSR to challenge us around the world in the Cold War. He also fixed us up with a year’s GDP, which now corresponds to about $16,000,000,000,000 dollars.

[3] Abortion, running now at 1400 per day adding up to 25,000,000 dead babies.

[4] Education, where SAT scores drop every time we increase funding to phony programs like Head Start and there still a 50% drop out rate for blacks after 50 years of this. Busing was a failure.

[5] Welfare and the fatherless homes with drugs, sloth, and sodomy form the educational precepts of the family.

[6] Coddling criminals where now 1 black male in 3 will do hard time in jail.

[7] Illegal aliens burdening our medical systems, police and border security forces who are offered driver’s licenses and can vote in several western states.

[8] Jimmy Carter gave us malaise, high inflation and high gas prices. He kissed Brezhnev on the [wrong] cheek. He is anti Semitic.

These are all liberal programs and we don’t need to change any of these?

“It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.

They are listed above in items [1] to [8]. Liberalism is a failure.

“Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.”

Clarence Thomas does not hate him self. It is Bob Herbert who cannot stand a high-powered intellectual like Thomas avoid the phony Affirmative Action programs and excel in the district attorney’s office and then be appointed to the Supreme Court. Self-hatred comes from taking enough drugs to blot out reality.

Those who suffer without hope in terms of jobs and homes and a life can do little else than turn away from the pathetic Marxian oriented crap we hear from the left. The nostrums we get from Herbert and Obama are so much fluff and cannot change anything. Higher taxes will only mean higher prices for everybody.

Here is what liberalism really means to the party elites:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."[6]—Barack Obama off camera in what he thought was a safe environment to express his views.[7]

“Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly”--posted at 3:20 pm on June 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey [8]

The voters ought to pull their heads outta their arses and listen, closely, to what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Al Gore have to say about taxes and big government. They have to realize that the word change means more government, more rules, allowances and perhaps civil rights for Hispanics, higher gas prices, phony dumbed-down education and hyper inflation and high unemployment. Ignore Obama, he is just an artificial political construct like some Harvard sophomore would create in some elementary political science course on a bet.

“They are gambling with their political futures and our economy on this kind of psychotic brinksmanship. Obama is but a sophomoric political construct that flip-flops on any issue he can while trying to keep the leftists flush with blood and meat. He looks like silly putty on a wobbly stick. He is also an ideological racist and racist enabler and holds dear the nostrums of his crazed racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and his phony church.”[9] From a previous rycK post.

Notice that the NYT Chum-Chucker failed to hail Jimmy Carter for his fine work. Those were changes too.  Liberal changes.

Ignorance must really be liberalism

Vote accordingly.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Arianna Huffy Puffs at Moose and Still Thinks Bush is Running Again.

One of the more animated tools of the far left is Arianna Huffington or The HuffyPuffer as I like to call her. She routinely blows the horn for the far left with pieces like this reference:[1]

In a come back to her standard Greek circular logic, the brand that usually returns the original assumptions regardless of the facts, Huffington has nothing to say about Sarah Palin that she can get past her teeth without foaming.  It is unclear if she understands what she is saying, but that not need deter a liberal. Palin was a surprise! The Puffer is outraged.

Here is her blather:

“Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain.”— Sarah Palin: A Trojan Moose Concealing Four More Years of George Bush[2] by Arianna Huffington. Posted September 8, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

The problem with this assertion is that Bush’s record does not quite resemble McCain’s [except for tax cuts and the War on Terrorism] and Sarah Palin has skewered a few crooked Republicans in her time. Palin apparently got a good piece of her Republican Senator Stevens.  She is a budget shark. The major issue, tax hikes or cuts, has not been mentioned by the left.  She hunts more than mere moose and wolves.  This is proof that the liberals believe they have selected another loser to lead them to the political latrines in this round.

“Just look at the problem John McCain faced. George Bush has a disastrous record, and the country knows it. John McCain -- the current one, not the one who vanished eight years ago -- has no major disagreements with George Bush (and I'm sorry, wanting to fire Donald Rumsfeld a bit sooner doesn't qualify) and wants to continue his incredibly unpopular policies for another four years. The solution? Enter Sarah Palin, a Trojan Moose carrying four more years of disaster.”

Here, Puffy shrieks and reshrieks.

Bush is gone and all but forgotten. Huffy Puffs and Howls but can only mine the history books to denigrate her opponent?  Why didn’t she follow Paul Krugman’s recent advice in the New York Times--aka the Walter Duranty Papers ?[3][4] Where is the substance here?  How about something timely like Obama’s Freudian slip about his ‘Muslim Faith.’[5] Would George Bush miscued and mentioned his voodoo faith in stead of his stogy Methodism? Obama is the ultimate tax whore and this ought to be an issue. Palin is cutter—not a spender.

Frantic, the far left scurry like rats to the bow as the ship sinks by the stern.

“The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”

That one, awash with crooked Democrats like Cris Dodd and Backside Barney and all the money these two phony slush funds gave to ACORN and worse, is a mistake for Arianna to bring to the table.[6] It seems that Dodd and Frank were very protective of the F&Ms and their financial follies. They were the instruments of redistribution of wealth of the Marxist sort. These fools loaned money to deadbeats, losers and those who had no reason to buy homes for political reasons.

“No. We're talking about whether Sarah Palin was or was not a good mayor, whether she was or was not a good mother, whether her skirts are too short and her zingers too sarcastic.”

Yes, and not Bush.

This means that the ‘issues,’ the ones that are not being discussed such as: illegal aliens, tax hikes, oil prices [7], national debt, , tax hikes, inflation, , tax hikes, budget deficits, tax hikes ‘education, the financial failure of CA, NJ, tax hikes, Congressional spending and pork rinds, the Mexican border, and others, have been set aside to ponder Sarah Palin and her trendy glasses. She is hot! The ONLY issue that helps Obama is talking about Bush. The plan, then, is to get off Palin and get back on Old George.

“He needs to dramatically redirect this election back to a discussion over the issues that really matter -- the issues that will impact the future of this country…blah blah blah”

Her list does not include the ones I cited above [especially tax hikes and gas prices and drilling and oil taxes]. This is desperation in action.

“McCain's real running mate is George Bush and the failed policies of the Republican Party. Even if they are dressed up in a skirt, lipstick, and Tina Fey glasses.”

I think that is Kawasaki 704[8], but whatever.

As usual, the idiot Democrats have selected some slimy Communist Stooge [Carter, Kerry, Gore, Obama] as ‘leader’ and the scribblings on their party registration cards have slopped beyond the drooing drive-by press people like Olbermann and Matthews[9] to be openly discussed by many while Bush is not being discussed everywhere. Only a Marxist Suplicant is acceptable to the tax-whoring left for President. Arianna merely howls at the moon and the moose.

As the dog returns to its vomit the liberals return to Bush politics.

Only in California

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in Exile and removed from this mental infection. ]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Our famous non-economist, Paul Krugman[1] [2]of the New York Times--aka the Walter Duranty Papers[3] --has a history of number shuffling whereby the counterfeit theory of mixing apples, oranges and other fruits conveniently encroaches upon reality. He is an ardent tax hike artist and cannot manage to offer a coherent discussion on growth and taxation in his many articles and books. He is frequently excitable.[4] He may be the eternal  Tax Hike Zombie, a mirror image of what he thinks about the capitalists. [5]

In today’s Big Government episode from the Old Gray Lady, we read the following:

“The just-announced federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage lenders, was certainly the right [read left] thing to do — and it was done fairly well, too. The plan will sustain institutions that play a crucial role in the economy, while holding down taxpayer costs by more or less cleaning out the stockholders.”[6]-- The Power of De by Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist September 7, 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Now, there are elements of good economics implicit in this paragraph. It is true that the 90% drop in shares in these two dinosaurs from the Lyndon Johnson Administration are direct loses to the stockholders, but it is not clear if they will be ‘compensated’ or not.

Here is a sober analysis from one skilled in the financial arts and not infected with liberalism:

“The main focus for now is on government sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who are now understood to be hopelessly undercapitalized. Despite the complete predictability of this outcome, even conservative investors, including many banks, had been persuaded that securities issued by both Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were risk free. And although shareholders for both entities are likely to be wiped out, corporate bond holders, and those individuals and financial institutions who hold mortgages backed by both the GSE’s, correctly assume that the government will back their assets. However, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of Federal dollars will be needed to make whole all who foolishly loaded up on Fannie and Freddie debt. Unfortunately, the Federal cupboards are bare.”-- By John Browne, senior market advisor – Euro Pacific Capital[7]

This is as good as it comes in terms of reality. John Browne [Harvard, Thatcher Administration, Morgan Stanley, etc. ] early on had advised many of us to go short, get to government bonds, gold and such.[8]

He [John Browne] asks the following questions:

“But, as the old saying goes, ‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.’ So, if government financial ‘favors’ are granted to reckless investment firms (Bear Stearns) and now mortgage borrowers, what about other economically vital ‘multiplier’ industries like: automakers, airlines, credit card and insurance companies and even corporate real estate lenders? The logical conclusion for this current drift is hyperinflation. In order to make good on its promises the Federal Government will have to resort to the printing press…with a vengeance.”

Now, just where would our krugmaniacal non-economist be on the side of rescuing government agencies and failing corporations [ especially union-besotted losers like Penn Central, which became Amtrak]?

Paul Krugman sums up:

“When the current crisis hit, Mr. Bernanke was indeed very aggressive about cutting interest rates and pushing funds into the private sector. But despite his cuts, credit became tighter, not easier. And the fiscal stimulus was both too small and poorly targeted, largely because the Bush administration refused to consider any measure that couldn’t be labeled a tax cut.

As a result, as I suggested, the effort to contain the financial crisis seems to be failing. Asset prices are still falling, losses are still mounting, and the unemployment rate has just hit a five-year high. With each passing month, America is looking more and more Japanese.

So yes, the Fannie-Freddie rescue was a good thing. But it takes place in the context of a broader economic struggle — a struggle we seem to be losing.”

Paul Krugman [2005] supported Bernake with this foolish political sop:

““there’s not a hint in his [Bernanke’s] work of support for the right-wing supply-side doctrine.” –Paul Krugman [9]

“Krugman tries to portray Bernanke as a New Deal liberal by saying, “a few years back Mr. Bernanke called on Japan to show ‘Rooseveltian resolve’ in fighting its long slump.”[10]

Here are the facts as I see them. FM & FM hold mortgages that are not on the critical list, but their job was to absorb mortgages from private lending institutions so as to free capital for more mortgage lending. Being cash short, they cannot buy new mortgages, the kinds that are now very low risk. But, they have barrowed from the banks and now the banks may be at risk. Raising interest rates merely lowers to value of a mortgage so the Fed is loath to do that.

Why should they??

We have an oversold market in housing mostly because people who wanted to buy homes with lousy credit, drug problems, criminal histories and such were encouraged to do so by outfits and anti-redlining thinking  like Greenlining.org:

"Empowering Communities With Capital"

Mission Statement: Our goal is to empower low-income and minority communities by attracting investments for health, education, homeownership, employment, and minority entrepreneurship using a holistic advocacy approach.

This is a political organization that echoes standard leftist control mechanisms that the leftists want to impose on the rest of us. This site contains numerous ‘plans’ for national control of mortgages, fees, a foreclosure moratorium for six months and other measures that essentially trade minority votes for tax money. [11]

This kind of leftist thinking fits well with Krugman’s nostrums of a ‘Rooseveltian resolve’—a slogan for tax increases and more government control.

I cannot find a single instance in Krugman’s writings where he ever advocated shutting down any government program [except maybe for the military or Star Wars] and cannot find any evidence that he ever supported any tax cut except for the low class who don’t pay very much tax in the first place.

Roosevelt could not control the depression unemployment levels [26%  in 1933 down to 15% by 1940]and resorted to World War II where he barrowed a whopping 1 year’s GDP, now corresponding to 16 trillion dollars. We were able to grown out of that mess. How can we grow out of the current 10.5 bln debt? Oh! Let us raise taxes. Let us tax the oil companies! That will work.

The central issue here is that minorities and all other persons, illegal or n0t, have numerous avenues open to them for buying homes, but many cannot meet the credit standards in many cases. This organization wants to suppress strict credit evaluations of their political clients for political reasons. Normally being against private property ownership, the left has a far-reaching vision that if the liberals can get control of the government and control Fanny Mae and her half-wit brother then the government can subsidize housing for minorities, drug addicts, illegal aliens and such. That is the goal. They will trade hoochs for votes.

Krugman agrees that the government needs to control FM and FM. He does not share with us, however, the means to resupply these two disasters with more capital.  Shall we raise taxes and give the money to Frumpy Mack and reward the inept and criminal crows for their political stubbornness? Too many Democrats got favors from the Frumpies. Criminals like  Franklin D. Raines were protected by Democrats and allowed to cook the books. Rains escaped jail. [12]

This has all gone too far. The only solution for the Fed is to keep the low interest rates and let inflation ease the debt as prices and salaries and tax revenues rise accordingly. Krugman calls this deprivatization today.[13]

We always need to invent new words and slogans for big government. We need something like deliberalization[14] of our society to be more successful and avoid mistakes.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Frank [the Crank] of the NYT Picks Nits, Snits and Twits and Finds McCain Unacceptable, again.

We are always privileged to study and digest the frantic political theorizing that poses as thinking at theNew York Times —aka the Walter Duranty Papers. [1]When new events threaten their precious leftist candidates, new political actions are required so that the public can be reeducated and vote accordingly for whatever leftovers the leftists are currently stuck with. We are frequently ‘educated’ on the new plan by Frank [the Crank] Rich[2][3][4]or one of his shills. Frank Rich is well known for his supernatural ability to crank out sophomoric dogmatic far-left literary brats with sausage-machine tedium even when they apply to nothing in particular. He is the Macaca Man who spare Obama even the slightestcriticism who printed excerpts of Sen. George Allen’s macaca mumbo about the Virginia Senator but not mention the comments of Obama.[5] Frank lives for little things that he can make into a hurricane.

So, let us have some fun with the latest Crankling:

“SARAH PALIN makes John McCain look even older than he is.”— Palin and McCain’s Shotgun Marriage[6] By Frank Rich [All quotes references this link in this blog unless otherwise noted. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

What a sorry lead in.  Perhaps Michelle Obama makes the senator lookblackerthan hereally is.

Here is more spite:

“Still, attention must be paid. McCain’s address, though largely a repetitive slew of stump-speech lines and worn G.O.P. orthodoxy, reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle.”

As if Obama has a single issue to put forth that does not involve higher taxes and more social programs. That is the ‘change’ many of us worry about. I suppose there were no clichés in the Obama speech?

How about this:

“It is that promise that has always set this country apart – that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.”—Obama Speech at the Convention in DenverThursday, August 28th, 2008

No fluff there?

“As is nakedly evident, the speech’s central argument, that the 72-year-old McCain will magically morph into a powerful change agent as president, is a non sequitur.”

As is nakedly evident, Frank’s central argument, that Obama brings change is not news to the racists, socialists and tax whores. This is hurdy-gurdy time at the Times as they play the same old tune that trades tax monies for votes with fluffy rhetoric. We expected nothing else from Frank [the Crank].

Frank can remember the macaca days but seems not to remember this damning string of elitist pejoratives against middle-class Americans of white origin:

These  white dummies are portrayed thusly:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."[7]—Barack Obama off camera in what he thought was a safe environment to express his views.[8]

The lefties are frantic cuz Obama screwed up in his ‘pick’ for VP. He could have picked his noise and gotten more applause from the Times. He picked Blowhard Joe.[9]

Here is a list of what Frank the Crank will not mention:[10]

[1] Obama is a racist and so is his wife.

[2] Obama is an elitist who believes that he can direct the flow of wealth and resources better than anybody else.

[3] Obama is intimately connected with flagrant and outrageous racists in his church and will not state publicly that he rejects the overt racism he listened to for 20 years. He lies about his knowledge of Jeremiah Wright’ hateful remarks about whites and must have missed his psychotic rants. Frank Rich will print excerpts of his macaca mumbo but not mention the comments of Obama?[11]

[4] Obama will not reject his friend Ayers of 20years.

[5] Obama will not discuss his Saul Alinsky communist background and gutter-grade activism that he began his career with.

[6] Obama will not discuss how he might pay for expensive and foolish social programs.

[7] Obama insists on using ‘diplomacy,’ decoded as appeasement, of our enemies and how he will not pursue the terrorists that bombed the TwinTowers. Did he recently reverse himself on the Jerusalem issue?? He lied and will not support Israel.

[8] Obama will not discuss what he intends to do about illegal immigration.

[9] Obama will not discuss his cap and trade taxation program [EcoNazism] that will certainly ruin our economy.

Frank Rich will not broach these snarly issues; the complete explanation of even one or two would sink the Obama Ship. Rich mumbles about ‘change’ in his changeless manner.

Frank signs off with:

“By hurling charges of sexism and elitism at any easily cowed journalist who raises a question about Palin, McCain operatives are hoping to ensure that whatever happened in Alaska with Sarah Palin stays in Alaska. Given how little vetting McCain himself has received this year — and that only 58 days remain until Nov. 4 — they just might pull it off.”

Sounds like Frank is worried. We should be glad at that.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com