Smarter Than Thou!

CRAZY LIKE A FOX (HUNTER)

   RECENTLY the Obama administration “attacked” Fox News.  According to the official mythology, the administration considers it primarily to be an active arm of the Republican Party, and thus an enemy, and thus properly not being considered as a news agency.  Fox was actually, temporarily, excluded from being part of the White House “press pool.”  

    The network objected, strongly, and so did the other, i.e. standard liberal networks.  That is, CBS, NBC, etc, stood up for their professional enemy.  This “principled” and untied opposition caused the White House to back off.  “Everyone” (sic) sees this as (1) a stupid act for the president, and (2) a victory for Fox.  Of course I see it quite differently, in fact as the exact opposite.  The action was a brilliant victory for the Fox hunter.

    Consider, please, not what was done, but what are likely to be the final results.  The liberal networks will be able to defend themselves as NOT being liberal, because they “stood up” to the president.  This will give them “cover,” when attacked by Conservatives.  How could they possibly be “in the tank” for him, and then oppose him like this?  And this means that they will go back to the state of submissive adoration with a clear(er) conscience.  The humans at Fox will be, as all humans are, influenced by the accusations.  They will be induced towards repeated self-examination.  They will attempt to be more “balanced,” which means less critical towards Bam-bam.  In other words the administration gains by moving the Media towards an even more favorable position.   

    Bam-bam outfoxed them this time.  And he probably will again. 

    Insights for sale!  Yes, you too can be equipped to analyze similar events and results.  Subscribe to “A&E.”  I thank you for the attention.  

RUSH TO (PRE)JUDGMENT

IN case you are too young to recognize the above title, it refers to a book written after, and about, the JFK assassination (in which the murder was attributed to every conservative who ever lived, beginning with McKinley).  I (pre)judged such silliness to be relevant to my topic.  Recently the radio host Rush Limbaugh was rejected as a potential part owner of a (allegedly) professional football team.  One reason seems to be that he is a “racist.”

Michael Wilbon is a sports writer, and is Black.  He attacked Rush with some specific negative attributions, and then properly withdrew them, when Rush denied having said them.  In being interviewed on the subject Michael then added the following.  “Universally”---he used this word three times in a short interview!---Blacks consider Rush to be a racist.  

I am not concerned here whether Rush is a racist.  The term itself is so vague as to be useless.  However, I am interested that a self-appointed Black spokesman feels that he can speak for EVERY Black person in the entire USA.  How interesting!  I was under the impression that Blacks, as are all humans, actually have various opinions, evaluations and reactions.  I thought that to consider all of them to be stereotyped by a only one viewpoint was to judge an entire people by the skin color, and not by personality, experiences and individual characteristics. 

But then Blacks do have a universal tendency to do this, don’t they?

If you wish to be universally correct in your opinions, evaluations and reactions (for they will be mine) then subscribe to the A&E.     

A PRINCIPLED OPPOSITION TO NATIONAL PROSPERITY

    FOX TV news has a series of financial shows on Saturday morning.  They all seem to deal with the same subjects, namely the economy, taxes, stocks, etc.  The guests shout at each other a lot, and are entertaining, and---as I am stealing an observation---insightful. 

    The subject of the “new” Green Economy came up.  This means (in theory), among other things, that there will be new technologies invented to produce clean energy.  Of course this will mean lots of new jobs.  And new jobs mean more employment and thus more prosperity.  So who could oppose it, even if only in theory?  I could, and do.     

     One of the guests did (also).  He argued that MORE people working actually means more bad news.  Follow his logic.  Suppose that it currently takes X people to produce Y amount of (fossil) energy.  The new technology will take X + Z people to produce the same amount of clean energy.  This is the DEFINITION of inefficiency.  Look at this way.  A bakery which produces 100 loaves of bread employing 4 bakers is much, much better than a bakery which produces 100 loaves employing 13 bakers (which is a baker’s dozen).  The last thing we need is more bakeries like the second one!  The Green Economy might as well put unemployed people in giant hamster wheels connected to generators.  This too would be “clean,” and ensure full employment. 

     Things now do not quite look the same as before do they?  However, the principle has not changed.  The nation which does the most with the least is the greatest.  The nation which requires “full” employment is in trouble. 

    Keep your mind fully occupied, by maximizing your resources.  That is, subscribe to the A&E.  Our normal rate of a 1,000 Bama-bucks has been reduced to $30 (Bush Bucks) for one year.   (This does not mean that the reduction is in effect for one year.)

I COME TO PRAISE OBAMA, NOT TO BURN HIM

   RECENTLY King Bambam flew to Denmark to get some of things which liberal, porn capital Copenhagen is famous for, namely, international conferences.  While there he, apparently, tried to convince some White Europeans to relocate the Olympics into the USA.  Officially he failed. 

   Some news commentators, on Fox, pointed out how much the flights there and back “cost.”  Other than the cash (which was in the billions!)  Air force One, the official plane, expelled tons and tons and tons of carbon based pollution.  And as we all “know” such things cause climate change, which kill whales, melt the polar ice caps, and cause fires in California.  So these commentators implied that Bambam was not doing something good. 

    In fact, of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  Well, actually a great many things could be, and are, much further from the truth, but you understand what I mean.  Bambam actually showed great compassion for the less wealthy in the country, and the world, and the universe. 

  His actions, by directly increasing the temperature of the Earth, thereby reduced the need for fossil fuel consumption this winter for purposes of producing heat.  Yes, by flying that big plane around, poor people now will need to burn fewer scraps of wood to keep from freezing when December comes around. 

   So fewer people will die this winter, which increases the population, and this means more of a strain on the Earth’s limited resources… Ignore that.  This means fewer carbon based pollutants, and thus a decrease in the temperature of the Earth which means colder winters…

   At any rate, King Bambam is to be praised for his imperial foresight and unselfishness.  And Fox News should stop picking on him. 

In case you care to know, the publication the “A&E” is printed only on paper that is made from trees which died from natural causes.  What is more natural than dying when cut down?  It is yours for only $30 per year.  

THE SOURCE OF ETERNAL (FREE) LIFE

    THE recent health care/insurance discussion---for it is not (yet) a debate---has raised a number of at least potentially interesting issues.  One is the concept of “for profit.”  It is usually expressed this way.  “Europeans (and other evolutionary advanced species) find it shocking that we Americans allow doctors to make a profit from the suffering and misfortune of others.  For example, they actually charge someone to set a broken arm.”  After all this is a matter of life and death, or even life or death, is it not?  How dare we allow the vulgar desire for money to enter into such spiritual matters?  Have we no shame?

      At first this sounds, if not convincing, then at least something to be analyzed and considered.  Allow me to analyze it, indirectly.  What (else) does a human need to be alive?  Clearly he needs food.  So why, in the name of Karl Marx, do we allow farmers and food merchants to make a living over this?  So food is a legal right in Holland.  And as people need to get to supermarkets, why is the transportation to get there left to immoral exploiters who want to make a profit from needs of others?  Cab rides to the Shop Rite should be free, and mandated by law.  Certainly they are in France, as we all know.    

      And people, in order to be healthy, need social interaction.  Why should they have to pay for dogs to cheer up them when they are depressed?  Dogs should be free, as they are in England, of course.  And dog food is freely given by the government in Norway, as we all know.  We all need clothes, don’t we?  What kind of national disgrace are we allowing by permitting filthy capitalists to profit from our dire needs?  Surely the Swedes are disgusted with us, because warm clothing is free to all citizens in that society, right?   

      And what about shoes?  What about soap?  What about vacations, so that we can relax mentally, as this is part of health too, is it not?  It is no wonder the Germans laugh at us, because there everyone gets paid to go to the Caribbean, twice a year. 

      The whole issue looks a bit different now, does it not?  I thought that you might want to know, and I did not profit from it. 

      But I could profit from this, if you were to subscribe the A&E” where wise guy remarks like this are published every month.  And a subscription is yours for only $30.