Smarter Than Thou!

IF YOU CAN'T STAND GLOBAL WARMING, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE

     I was watching C-SPAN on a day when the news reporters were excited over the newest “wave” of Swine Flu.  I do not know, at this time, if this scare is valid, or a creation of the Media.  I mention it because it is relevant.  The guest on C-SPAN was a Chicken Little, who, of course, was telling us that the Earth is has already become a big frying pan, and we all will die, soon, unless we do away with fire, and similar inventions from the Devil.

     A number of callers attacked the guest, pointing out that in certain places temperatures are going down.  The guest countered that “fluctuations” can not be used as evidence.  Do you understand his position?  Odd bits of evidence do not provide proof.  I agree… so far. 

     The guest repeatedly said that one proof for global warming is that “we” see tropical diseases in places, “for the first time.”  And, of course, the ONLY reason could be that the Earth is warming.  Perhaps it is impolite to point out that there has to be a first time for all diseases to appear.  And the first recorded appearance does not mean that it really is first.  However, I shall pass over this. 

      However, please note this.  The Swine Flu which is now active in NYC came, a few days ago, from Mexico.  That is, it is a tropical disease, and it is appearing for the first time, and it is utterly independent of climate factors.  It involved a bunch of NYC kids visiting Mexico.  In fact this Spring had been extra cold in NY.  So, global cooling spreads tropical diseases.  

      My point is that a “new” outbreak of Swine Flu does not provide any evidence of global warming.  It is simply an unfortunate and odd incident.  And, as the guest, rightly pointed out, such odd events can not be used to prove anything.  He, however, failed to note that his own claims have no other support.  Or maybe, like the others of his tribe, he simply does not care. 

P.S.  He also said that excessive water causes droughts.  

SATAN, TOO, WAS ONCE AN ANGEL

     I fluctuate between two views on Bam-Bam.  One is that he is an evil genius, who will destroy America, or at least the few good values the nation has left.  The other view is that he is an evil idiot who will destroy the country and its good values.  This is not that much of a choice, is it?  However, something has occurred to me.  And it may be that, in the economic sphere, he actually may not be that bad.  In fact, he may be involved in very cunning hidden-in-plain-sight conspiracy. 

      I shall explain.  Recently, according to Mass Media reports, Bam-Bam personally “fired” Jeff Wagoner, who had been the head of General Motors.  My first reaction was that this was terrible.  It was an intervention into private business by the Feds.  And, as bad as Wagoner was (and he was), he was likely to be better than any Bam-Bam picked successor.  In other words, Bam-Bam was making a bad situation worse. 

     Then I reasoned the matter through to the end.  This act would certainly frighten other executives.  Let us give them no credit for virtue.  Let us assume them to be immorally selfish, greedy, proud, etc.  However, they DO care about keeping their jobs and not being shamed, publicly, as on CNN newscasts. 

      So they will avoid the circumstances which led to Wagoner’s demise.  And what was the primary cause?  It was accepting federal aid.  So now companies (such as Ford)---or actually the guys in charge---will run from the offer of federal funds.  Thus, they will solve their own problems, and keep out the government.  And this has to make things better.  So, could it be that Bam-Bam, a radical pro-abortion, raving Liberal, could really be working for the benefit of the nation?  Could he, secretly, be betraying his own roots to help America?  Stranger things have happened. 

      Actually, no they have not. 

THE CURSE OF STRENGTH

RECENTLY Bam-Bam met with European leaders.  Officially at least, he asked them to increase their military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The leaders said, essentially, “No, but thank you.”

      I am surprised at how often some commentators, mostly conservative types, are troubled by the failure of the Europeans to provide more troops.  Look at it from their point of view.  If they do nothing then the USA undertakes the entire burden, and suffers all the loses.  If the do something, then they are going to lose some of their own people, cost them money and this will induce political opposition within their own countries. 

      So, to put this briefly, here are their choices.  They can spend money, shed blood and help their local opponents, and achieve X.  Or they can stay home, do nothing, criticize and have X achieved for them.  As these are their alternatives, it is surprising when anyone helps the USA in these efforts. 

      There is a consequence in being willing and able to bear burdens.  The consequence is that others will let you do it.  There was an expression which described Winston Churchill during World War II.  It was he was “willing to fight Hitler, even to the last… Frenchman.”  Most Europeans are quite willing to fight the Mohammedan enemies… to the last American, but not to the first European. 

       Why would they choose anything else?   I offer no solution to this problem.  The fact that the George Bushes got as many allies as they did is remarkable.  And Bam-Bam is neither of those. 

   

THE BEST DEFENSE IS... STUPIDITY?

     BAM-BAM has decided, at least officially, if not in his heart, that his way to economic recovery is to spend, spend, spend, after borrowing.  Actually, the policy is to have others spend.  To do this he arranges for federal money to be transported into the pockets of citizens.  To “pay” for this transfer he is going to borrow metric tons of money, and/or print it.  At the same time he wants to “create” (or at least keep) millions of jobs.  He also wants to emphasize a policy which restricts this spending within the USA.  This is, again, what he wants, officially. 

      At the same time, he wants to reduce military spending.  It may seem that cutting federal spending---anywhere!---may be a good thing.  Yet, this is precisely what he should NOT be in favor of.  Look at this issue… well, rationally.  First, the reduced defense industry will lay off workers, if the defense budget is cut.  Thus, this time directly, Bam-Bam will be firing people, who are not all rich executives.  That is, he will directly cause unemployment among workers who are domestic employees.  And some of the defense industries are automakers, and in related fields.  So, at precisely the same time that Bam-Bam is forcing money onto these companies, to keep them alive, he is taking business away from them, so that they can not earn revenue.  Huh?

      In case I have been too subtle, it is better to keep an industry going by buying products from it, then by giving it burdensome welfare.  It is better to have a few extra weapons, which may not be required in the future, than not to have what will be required…. much better, and much safer.

    Additionally, the USA’s trading partners will, automatically, resent any restrictions on international trade.  They may react by preventing USA exports from being sold within their borders.  This would be a massive disaster.  Yet, no country would resent the USA restricting its defense spending to its domestic industries.  This would be an easy and prudent way to “buy American” without risk of catastrophic trade wars. 

     When the Bam-Bam ruled USA gets involved in another military action, the weapons, which were not produced, may be very much needed.  Even if they were never to be needed their purchase would still then be better than simply giving the money away, as Bam-Bam wants.  In other words, to cut the defense budge it precisely the opposite of what any patriotic and sensible leader would advocate. 

      There is no surprise that this is the opposite of what Bam-Bam advocates, is there?  He really does want America to fail.

OBAMA'S FITTING FIRING SQUAD

     Someone named Wagoner (he had his first name taken away by an Act of Congress) was recently “fired” as head of General Motors.  The story is that Bam-Bam called him on the phone and said that, if GM was going to take the federal money, then he should resign.  He said that Wagoner should resign, too.  I admit that, as my sources are network news reports, this may all be wrong.  There may not even be a GM.  But assuming that this happened as reported, I continue my analytical insight.   

     Wagoner did resign and got millions of (apparently non yet existent) dollars which to spend in security measures to prevent UAW mobs from lynching him.  I offer the following.  No matter how bad Wagoner was, he is likely to be better than any potential replacements approved of by Bam-Bam.  This guy knows how the company worked.  He probably had a good sense of what caused the disaster.  And, unless he was a total jerk, he could figure out a way to make it better, given the opportunity and the support. 

     Any replacements, picked by Bam-Bam, rather than from internal GM ranks, will have to spend time learning the nature of GM.  This is like the captain of the ship being killed and appointing some gym teacher to take his place.  OK, so why then do I consider it to be good that Bam-Bam got Wagoner to run away, like a little sissy girl?

     GM is facing tough times.  It is going to need strong leadership, or Divine Intervention, or both, to survive and to revive.  If Wagoner was the right man, and if he knew that he was, then he should have fought to stay, and stayed to fight.  That is, he should have been man enough to defy Bam-Bam.  So the mere fact that he “took the money and ran” means that he was not the right guy.  Who wants an industrial un-man running the show?  Of course, if he knew that he was not the right guy, then he was right to run off, too.  So either way Bam-Bam got this one right, and got rid of the right one. 

And here is our latest installment on… How Barack-onmics works. 

Fast food will become much faster---much, much faster.  First, as there will be fewer people in line, the customer will wait less time.  Second, as the customer will be much, much hungrier, the food will be eaten more quickly, as speeding up matters.  Thus, Bam-Bam will help the fast food industry, by making it more efficient.  Recall his slogan:  “Better things via worse living.”