Friday, October 31, 2008

Some Thoughts

Around Election Time:
1. Happy Halloween! (Don't forget to put up the Christmas Lights).
2. "She's Just Like Us!" (Our Sarah, that is). That's a good selection criterion alright. I hope you choose your cardiac surgeon or your oncologist for that same reason. That's how we oughtta select our generals firefighters and airline pilots too. Why do people keep chattering about 'qualifications' for gossake?
3. "He wants to spread the wealth around!" Sounds pretty good to me. Alas; there isn't any left to spread. The current president spread it all around to his cronys, the war profiteers, and now the last of the contents of the treasury (and the Social Security Trust Fund is being express mailed to failed finacial institutions. Keep it out of the hands of the poor folk.
4. I understand the Consumers Aren't consuming enough any more. Bizzarre world, isn't it? A 'healthy' economy depends on people consuming more and ever more. Actually, it's worse even than that. To be a successfully capitalist economy, the consumers have to consume more, and increase consumption at an accelerating pace into the bargain! The faster we can burn through the limited resources of our planet, the healthier our economy will be. As far as the inhabitants of the planet (that would be You and Me) - Not So Much, sorry!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Proposition 8..

Lets Face It Folks; If we don't stop them here in California, we're going to be screwed! As it points out here:A Line in the Sand For Same-Sex Marriage Foes... - A "No" vote on Proposition 8 will not only mean that your priest/pastor/rabbi/imam will have to marry Gays and Lesbians, but your children will become victims of the Homosexual Agenda!

"In television advertisements, rallies, highway billboards, sermons and phone banks, supporters of Proposition 8 are warning that if it does not pass, churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will be sued and lose their tax-exempt status. Ministers will be jailed if they preach against homosexuality. Parents will have no right to prevent their children from being taught in school about same-sex marriage....
Yes; it seems that allowing people to marry whom they chose means that your sons will be forcibly wedded (and bedded!) by men (oh me!), and your daughters will be made concubines of Lesbians (oh my!) .
Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!
Besides - Fear is the last best hope of the Party Of Fiscal Responsibility (GOP) to get your vote.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Shocked Disbelief

"...those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity... are in a state of shocked disbelief."... Alan Greenspan, Oct. 23 2008. Amazing. I guess Mr. Greenspan can be included among those who believe, most miraculously, that the government is incapable of regulating people's economic behavior, but that it is in fact the government's job to regulate people's social behavior. Why people cannot be held responsible for the way they act socially but are presumed responsible for the way they handle money, is puzzling. If I try to rob you with a gun: I Go To Jail! If I try to rob you with a contract: I Get Government (Taxpayer) Bailout Money!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

"anti-American views,"

Oh My! Apparently there's a secret cabal of Anti-American Leftist Liberal Socialist Congress-persons lurking in the halls of Congress. Who woulda thought it? Michele Bachmann, that's who. Here she explains:



It seems that the late, unlamented House UnAmerican Activities Committee never really went away; it simply reconstituted itself as a committee of Congressmen who harbor anti-American attitudes. Now, there are those who remember the original HUAC, when it was demanding cofessions from various "Slightly Pink" victims... er... witnesses. Some might characterize the activities of that iteration of HUAC as being "Anti-American". But at least they were not Leftist-Liberal-Socialists. They were good capitalist anti-Communist witch-hunters. And it worked! How many witches have you seen lately? Except of course around Samhain Eve? Or on Fox-News-Fair-And-Balanced?
As to Why The Liberal Media Elite refuse to investigate; I leave that as an exercise for the puzzled reader.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Odd, Isn't It?

For some time now it seems to have been the case that the Presidential Campaigns, in particular, are always either brilliant (the winner) or incompetent (the loser). Once upon a time, the ratings agencies (the news reporters, actually), gave at least a wink and a nod to the voters as the determining factor in the election. But No More! Now, it's all about the Marketing Of The President. Madison Avenue is entirely to blame (the loser), or entirely credited (the winner) for the results of the polling. At the polls, I mean, not in the pollsters Polls. Odd that this is not also true of the down-ticket campaigns. Sometimes, though not always, the Candidate or the Issue is allowed to succeed/fail on its own merits. Sort of like the old-fashioned concept of Participatory Democracy, where the people decide on their own who and what they want government to be. Instead of the Campaigns holding the voters in total thralldom.
No real point to be made here; it's entirely possible that the Miniscule Machiavellis of Madison Av. are correct in their self-indulgent evaluation: The Boobocracy is competely dominated by marketing! That would be a shame, I think. The President really should be elected based on a serious evaluation of the candidates. Who Knows - perhaps that is the reality, and voters do in fact vote their own minds, rather than following the direction of the marketing wizards.
NAH!
But one thing I do know - I do love alliteration.

Friday, October 17, 2008

My Misteak

OOps! A few years ago I staked a claim to the invention of a New Science. Well, it appears that I was late to the game. It seems my "New Science of Econostrology" was anticipated (I shoulda known it I guess!)
by astro-finance specialist Raj Kumar Sharma, a prominent quack medical practicioner in Mumbai, India; shown here with Miss Germany in an undated picture. As he says:
"Leo is the sign of the sun and the sun is the father in Indian astrology ... But the son (Saturn) and his father (the sun) don't get along ..."

So, it's pretty obvious, the Mumbai Stock Exchange (SENSEX) was due to take a dump, as we see in the Chart, (The graph of the SENSEX, that is).
The other chart, the Astrological Chart shows the heavenly positions of the Sun, Saturn, and also Mercury, and assorted other mischief-makers, all in the sign of Leo


As Quakestar.org says, in their analysis of Election Day 2008(!):"The Unusual Week of Oct. 6th. 2008 -The Stock Market Crash- If anyone were ever to doubt astrological cause -let them examine the chart of the 2008 Stock Market Crash. The placement of the planets looks to all appearances like a Shakespeare play stage scene:... The stagecraft is so poised by the playwright that the evil group is gazing exactly quartile (90 degrees) across the boards to 74 degrees West longitude which is the global location of the New York Stock Exchange."


All this adds up, pretty clearly, to a major drop in the stock market (go figure). Now, if you'll notice, the SENSEX has been headed down since sometime in January, whereas, if my limited knowledge of the Zodiac hasn't led me astray, all these various heavenly bodies haven't been stuck in Leo for the last ten months. If I'm right, then, using the Principle of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, then it all becomes clear. The falling of the market has caused the Sun to enter the House of Leo.
Of course, as per my motto; I Could Be Wrong. If so, I apologize. Still, it looks to me suspiciously as though, given all the various dates and times, Pt. Sharma has been just a little retro in his analysis. All well and good to say "See, I could have told you this was going to happen!", after it's happened. Sort of like when the racetrack touts hand you their "predictions" after the eighth race. Lot of good it does you then! Still, it's pretty clear, and I cannot deny it, the financio-astrologio-medico-man was practicing Econostrology long before I "invented" it. Therefore, in an attempt to make amends, I hereby award to Pt. Raj Kumar Sharma the First Annual Post-facto Prediction Prize for Econostrology. Way to go Raj!

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Voodoo

Economics rules the roost. The New York Times opines here Mr. Paulson’s Client that Treasury Secretary Paulson is going to "...get the banks lending freely again". I have to ask Mr. Paulson: who do you expect the banks to lend to - other than themselves? The consumer is tapped out. The consumer has no collateral left to borrow against. The consumer is even getting his credit card limit reduced for goshsakes! When the banks pass up a chance to charge usurious rates, it shows pretty clearly that the Financial Wizards Of Wall Street understand that the loans they make aren't very likely to get repaid. Besides, with the government shovelling money at them with both hands, why should they exert any effort to look for another source of wealth? As for the economists contribution, the prevalence of the words "Confidence" - the stock in trade of the con man, and "Faith", the stock in trade of the Priest - it kind of gives the lie to the idea of "The Science Of Economics". Face it, its All Voodoo Economics.
Oh: a wink and a nod to Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner for the above-mentioned Science of Economics (AKA the Dismal Science). He's the only economist I know of offhand who can rise above his spreadsheets and charts, and make mention of the human aspects of economic activity. To wit: (my concept of the whole thing), there's not much reason for the creation of Goods & Services except to enable people to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. For the most part, though, people just screw up the economist's charts and equations. Reduce the beauty of the system to a shambles by not acting like the economist's Fully Specified Predictive Model.
Tough!

Monday, October 13, 2008

Ancient Tmes

The Connecticut State Supreme Court says "Gays Can Marry". An increasingly acceptable ruling, it seems. CT is now state number three to rule thus. But then, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Peter T. Zarella said, incredibly, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,"! Now I find this disquieting. I, and I think most people, think of judges as being knowledgeable, studious, thoughful people. Of Good Judgement, as it were. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking Mr. Justice Zarella is an unschooled idiot. Perhaps the problem is semantic. The justice has a different definition of "Ancient" than me. So, let's see if we can infer what "ancient" means to Mr. Justice Zarella. It could hardly mean Biblical Times. That was the time of Solomon, who famously had a thousand wives. Probably not exactly 1,000. Most likely a thousand was used to mean "A LOT". Of course, having a lot of wives back then didn't mean a lot of marriage-for-love weddings. It meant that you were rich and powerful, and other rich-and-powerful guys wanted to ally themselves with you. There was a brisk trade in daughters and sisters going on. Not likely there were many multi-wife orgies going on, either. Sexual activity was more likely to be between one man and one concubine, or perhaps with one harlot. Perhaps occasionally with one fluteboy. Those were the times when women were treated as chattel. Somewhat related to cattle. Property, in both cases. Women had no separate societal or economic identity apart from their father, their husband, their son or their husbands son, successively.
In more recent ancient times, Rama V (Chulalongkorn), the King Of Siam and great grandfather (I think) of the current King, had at one time or another one hundred fifty eight wives. Rama V also had a lot of Elephants. He offered some of his finest Combat Elephants to President Lincoln to help during the Civil War. This was back in the nineteenth century; when the King OF Siam was still officially a God. Again, I suppose, this could not be considered as "ancient times".
In Modern Times, of course, we practice Serial Monogamy, or, one man and one woman (at a time).
So, looking back and looking ahead, I confess I'm unable to decipher Mr. Justice Zarella's meaning when he says "Ancient". I'm also uncertain what he means when he uses the word "Biology", come to think of it. Perhaps he's talking about his own biology. Wonder how often Judge and Mrs. Zarella procreate these days...

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Unscripted ?!?!

Just as in a News Conference, no politician is so unwary as to hand a mike to somebody at a political event without knowing pretty much what that person is going to say. No politician; liberal, conservative, elitist, hockey-mom, straight-talker, gaffe-prone - nobody is that dumb! So you can take it as a given that when Candidate McCain let that sweet little old lady talk at the "Town Hall Meeting" in Lakeville Minnesota, he knew he was gonna get one or another of the Keywords: "Liberal", "Terrorist", "Elitist", "Muslim", "Liberal", "Traitor", "Elitist", or the word the LOL actually used, "Arab". Having salted his mine, so to speak, McCain switched tracks and became the Senatorial Statesman, gently correcting the LOL and showing his recently missing Straight Talker persona. Then there was the guy who got the word out to the faithful that Candidate Obama, along with those tax-and-spend liberals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, was going to turn the United States into a Socialist State! (Oh My!)
After twenty years of Ronald Reagan and (ideological) sons practicing Voodoo Economics, compared to eight years of the tax-and-spend-liberal economic policies of Bill Clinton, it takes a lot of chutzspa to call the Republicans The Party Of Fiscal Responsibility. I honestly don't know why that claim doesn't bring peals of laughter. Or perhaps a spate of tears and a gnashing of teeth. But then, as I've mentioned before, with the right coaching people can even be taught to say Fair And Balanced with a straight face on the Fox News Channel.

Friday, October 10, 2008

The Recession

That Never Arrives - appears to have arrived! The DJIA (a measure of expectations more than reality) finished the session at 8,579.19, a new low for the period of the George W. (CEO Presidency) Bush administration. Don't know about you, but I'm guessing that Dow 40,000 is pretty much out of the question, at least for the forseeable future. A possible reason for the panic selling: the CEO of AFLAC was on CNBC a few moments ago reassuring us that "The smartest men in the financial world are working on this". Another possible reason to panic: George W. (CEO Presidency) Bush is meeting with leaders of the World Of Finance to fix things up. Don't know about you, but I'm selling! Or, I would be if I hadn't spent it all on food and shelter already.
I'm not sure why there's such a frantic need to identify the exact moment at which the economy goes into what they now refer to as a "Technical" Recession. Seems to me that when you've lost your job/house/retirement savings: that's a bad economic indicator. DOW, NASDAQ, FTSE, all those alphabetic indicators be damned! If, as the current candidates for high office say, "The American Workforce Is The Best And Most Productive" ever ever ever; then why can't they get any work? Does "Worker" include the people who work (used to work) at banks and finance companies? Is moving numbers between boxes on the Spreadsheet work?
A lot of these pronouncements sound like they're coming from people tiptoeing past the Cemetary. Or, perhaps they believe, like the Queen Of Hearts, that what I say shall be done is as good as done. Say the fundamentals of the economy are strong (a demonstrable lie!); thus it must be so. Then, when called on the lie, Redefine "Fundamental".

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

What's The Point?

Why is the Government bothering to (your choice):
a: Recapitalize, or,
b: Liquefy, or,
c: Rescue, or,
d: Bailout,
the banks, the financial service companies, the "lenders", whatever you wanna call 'em? I keep reading/hearing about the need to "provide capital to the lenders" so they can begin lending to each other again! Can anybody explain to me why banks need to lend each other money? If they were able to turn that money around by lending it to a borrower, I could understand it. But, there are only two groups of borrowers left standing: Those who can't qualify for a loan - and those who can't afford a loan.
This entire process is fruitless. At some point, perhaps two trillion(!), perhaps three trillion(!!) dollars down the line, the wizardly government economic experts are going to have to give up on the lender, and start thinking about doing something for the borrower. The lenders don't want to lend to the borrowers because the borrower doesn't have nice tidy good-looking collateral. Homeowners? Negative equity; sorry!
Businesses? Declining revenue; sorry!
Car Buyers? You're a moron!: sorry!
Credit Card Borrowers? OKAY! You we can make a profit on!
All these junque-type-"instruments" people bought into are junky precisely because of the decliine in the Underlying Asset Value. That is, the housing market. Re-"liquefy" the broke homeowners instead of tossing 'em overboard. If the banks don't have to hold a large-and-increasing inventory of empty buildings, maybe there'd be some capital available for borrowers.
This whole thing about financials lending each other money sounds like that old canard about the Chinese Merchants who found themselves marooned on a desert island: With nothing better to do, they started swapping hats. When they were rescued some years later, they'd both gotten rich from the trade! Nice story, but I think it's apocryphal.
At any rate, with property values down perhaps $2,000,000,000,000 in the aggregate, that money is gone! That means a lot of people are poorer. No Getting Around It!

The Most Important Thing

About The "Debates" is not what they say. It's How They Look. Or, rather, how Candidate Obama looks. For those who have been told he's a Radical-Muslim-Fundamentalist-Terorist-America-Hating-Liberal - It's a real shock to find out he looks like

This


Not This

Yes, after all the mischaracterizations (to be polite about it) on Talk Radio (You Know Who I'm Talking About, Don't You?) and Fair And Balanced Cable News (Ahem), it turns out the man is, as Candidate Biden so endearlingly pointed out, quite presentable, well spoken, and even articulate. The last an increasingly rare attribute in a candidate for high office. All the Joe Sixpacks aside, there are still a large number of voters in the USA who (I hope) want a smart and knowledgeable person for President. If you still don't value those characteristics after having witnessed eight years of the absence of same, I'm afraid there's really no hope of redemption for you. As I pointed out earlier (somewhere down-Blog), The plain-talkin' back-slappin' easy-goin' good-ole boy (or Moose-Huntress good-ole gal) turns out to be a Really Bad model for a national leader.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

You Gotta Wonder

...If these states voted for G. W. Bush not once, but twice!
Then how can any pollsters believe their polling results? What kind of people are they polling? People who think G. W. Bush is presidential, no?
My Advice: Discount any poll numbers you see for these states - concede that there are enough numbskulls voting there to vote for the next Disaster-In-Waiting to swing the election to that candidate.
I know: It's a depressing thought, but there you have it.
These states, now classed as Battleground States, were won by George W. Bush in 2004: Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Virginia, and North Carolina.
Read 'em and weep.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Palling Around...

With Terrorists...? That is so weak! I'm sorry, but Candidate Palin And Others... are so far out of bounds. What purpose is served by this sort of comment: "'...he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,' Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain's ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday." (DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, AP, Oct 6). This from a person who "pals around" with corrupt politicians (I know, I know), like Sen. Ted Stevens "Stevens, 84, is charged with lying on senate financial disclosure forms about more than $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts from oil pipeline magnate Bill Allen." (Alaska Daily News, Oct. 5). And worse; she's "palling around" with a Separatist! Yes, if, that is, "palling around" is how you'd describe her relationship with Husband Todd Palin, who "...was a member of the (Alaska Independence) party for seven years (Los Angeles Times, Sep. 3). Be that as it may... It's pretty clear that Obama's Terrorist, a University of Chicago professor, is far more accomplished than Palin's Separatist, a snowmobile racer (or am I being an Elitist?).
I gotta say, I thought she did much better when she simply spouted a lot of sense-free (and often grammar-free) platitudinous stump commentary. She did it so well. But piling purposelessness on top of senselessness to try to reach the White House is like the Titans trying to reach Olympus by piling Ossa on Pelion (yes, that's where the saying comes from). Two Thumbs Down RNC campaign.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Master of the Non Sequitur

... Is Candidate Palin. Here's an interesting view she expressed in the Alaska Daily News: '...Palin said she had been "annoyed" in her interviews with CBS News anchor Katie Couric and had been caught off guard when asked what newspapers and magazines she read and to name Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with - questions Palin appeared not to be able to answer. Her responses, Palin said, were "an indication of being outside that Washington elite, outside of the media elite also."...'
Well, yes. I guess. Who among us, saving only the Washington Elite can name the newspapers, or news sources generally, where we garner our information?
Other than that, the Vice Presidential Debate was unsurprising. There were some pre-debate attacks on Moderator Ifill, attempting to cast her as a Tool Of The Media Elite, but, steady professional that she is, that charge didn't fly. Actually, I thought Gwen Ifill would pose more interesting questions, but i guess the universe of possible questions is pretty small - especially in the canned-response-to-a-pseudo-debate-question format. Which is what these "Debates" are.
Lots of stress tones in Candidate Palins voice, but that's hardly a surprise.
Passing Little content - also not surprising.