Ouch.
What a blow to his sainted status amongst the Democrats.
Woops, my bad. They don't care.
Rented a brothel for the entire night.
Key quote:
"The FBI's reluctance to follow the law and release this material shows that it, too, is not above politics. Our tough fight with the Obama administration shows that it was not keen on letting the American people know that Ted Kennedy, one of Obama's leftist politician heroes, liked to hang out with communists and prostitutes,"
The object lesson of Nixon was that the cover-up just never ends, and in the end, is what gets everyone caught.
The FBI covered for Teddy Kennedy and covered his apparent misdeeds. That was a disservice to the country.
Sonntag, Februar 27, 2011
Ah, the sweet delicious irony of it all...
This is simply too ironic to let go unnoticed.
The left is now calling for Gadaffi to be prosecuted and brought to justice.
Using the same arguments that justified the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
First, this:
Terrorism - at least where it is a policy of an organization and not a one-off incident - must surely be a crime against humanity since it is directed, like Gaddafi's present actions, against a civilian population.
Next, this:
...there is now a duty of intervention on the international community, existing under international law, 'whenever it becomes necessary to stop or to punish crimes against humanity'. He sees this as resting on the doctrine of a 'responsibility to protect'.
The illogical anger of the opposition to the Iraq war was and is irrational and absurd. Some of these people wouldn't know right from wrong if they were smacked upside the head with it, which is exactly what is happening.
How ironic. Don't you think?
The left is now calling for Gadaffi to be prosecuted and brought to justice.
Using the same arguments that justified the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
First, this:
Terrorism - at least where it is a policy of an organization and not a one-off incident - must surely be a crime against humanity since it is directed, like Gaddafi's present actions, against a civilian population.
Next, this:
...there is now a duty of intervention on the international community, existing under international law, 'whenever it becomes necessary to stop or to punish crimes against humanity'. He sees this as resting on the doctrine of a 'responsibility to protect'.
The illogical anger of the opposition to the Iraq war was and is irrational and absurd. Some of these people wouldn't know right from wrong if they were smacked upside the head with it, which is exactly what is happening.
How ironic. Don't you think?
Donnerstag, Februar 24, 2011
Truly Amazing...and Appalling
Here is an book review on a book about Marxism and its effect on the world.
But if you read the review, there is one thing substantially and damningly missing: the sheer inhumanity of Marxism, the necessity of terror and the decades of human suffering imposed by delusional control freaks in the name of a "philosophy" that, in order to work, must deny fundamental human interests and humanity itself, all in the name of a Greater Good.
Appalling. Truly appalling. If this is the face of the modern left, all one can say is that for those who truly believe in the inevitability of history, their historical ignorance is truly appalling.
Here is the tenor:
In 1976, a good many people in the West thought that Marxism had a reasonable case to argue. By 1986, most of them no longer felt that way. What had happened in the meanwhile? Were these people now buried under a pile of toddlers? Had Marxism been unmasked as bogus by some world-shaking new research? Had someone stumbled on a lost manuscript by Marx confessing that it was all a joke?
The only ones who believed that Marxism had a reasonable case to argue in 1976 were those whose knowledge of what went on behind the Iron Curtain was nil. The reason that a decade later no one in their right mind could believe in Marxism is that it is, was, and will remain a fundamentally flawed doctrine.
Marx failed because he reduced work to a commodity: his future utopia could only work if work no longer mattered, that the mechanics of supply and demand were removed entirely and replaced by commands for workers to do as they were told, effectively by their betters.
Further:
If one thinker left a major indelible mark on the 20th century,' Hobsbawm remarks, 'it was he.' Seventy years after Marx's death, for better or for worse, one third of humanity lived under political regimes inspired by his thought. Well over 20 per cent still do. Socialism has been described as the greatest reform movement in human history. Few intellectuals have changed the world in such practical ways. That is usually the preserve of statesmen, scientists and generals, not of philosophers and political theorists. Freud may have changed lives, but hardly governments. 'The only individually identifiable thinkers who have achieved comparable status,' Hobsbawm writes, 'are the founders of the great religions in the past, and with the possible exception of Muhammad none has triumphed on a comparable scale with such rapidity.'
I suppose that you can consider socialism to be one of the greatest reform movements in human history if you see mass murder, genocide, deliberately caused ecological disasters and ruthless surpression of fundamental human rights as being "reform". To consider this a "practical" change underscores the utter moral bankruptcy of those who consider themselves Marxists or, more pointedly, even Leftist.
I find the fact that there are those who consider themselves to be true Marxists to be both amazing and appalling. Amazing because it most certainly must count as a truly bizarre way to look at the world; appalling because of the necessary complete and total denial of the lessons that history has taught us about Marx and his "philosophy" that has led to such massive suffering and death. No religion, despite what has been written there, has ever caused so many deaths as Marxism has.
But if you read the review, there is one thing substantially and damningly missing: the sheer inhumanity of Marxism, the necessity of terror and the decades of human suffering imposed by delusional control freaks in the name of a "philosophy" that, in order to work, must deny fundamental human interests and humanity itself, all in the name of a Greater Good.
Appalling. Truly appalling. If this is the face of the modern left, all one can say is that for those who truly believe in the inevitability of history, their historical ignorance is truly appalling.
Here is the tenor:
In 1976, a good many people in the West thought that Marxism had a reasonable case to argue. By 1986, most of them no longer felt that way. What had happened in the meanwhile? Were these people now buried under a pile of toddlers? Had Marxism been unmasked as bogus by some world-shaking new research? Had someone stumbled on a lost manuscript by Marx confessing that it was all a joke?
The only ones who believed that Marxism had a reasonable case to argue in 1976 were those whose knowledge of what went on behind the Iron Curtain was nil. The reason that a decade later no one in their right mind could believe in Marxism is that it is, was, and will remain a fundamentally flawed doctrine.
Marx failed because he reduced work to a commodity: his future utopia could only work if work no longer mattered, that the mechanics of supply and demand were removed entirely and replaced by commands for workers to do as they were told, effectively by their betters.
Further:
If one thinker left a major indelible mark on the 20th century,' Hobsbawm remarks, 'it was he.' Seventy years after Marx's death, for better or for worse, one third of humanity lived under political regimes inspired by his thought. Well over 20 per cent still do. Socialism has been described as the greatest reform movement in human history. Few intellectuals have changed the world in such practical ways. That is usually the preserve of statesmen, scientists and generals, not of philosophers and political theorists. Freud may have changed lives, but hardly governments. 'The only individually identifiable thinkers who have achieved comparable status,' Hobsbawm writes, 'are the founders of the great religions in the past, and with the possible exception of Muhammad none has triumphed on a comparable scale with such rapidity.'
I suppose that you can consider socialism to be one of the greatest reform movements in human history if you see mass murder, genocide, deliberately caused ecological disasters and ruthless surpression of fundamental human rights as being "reform". To consider this a "practical" change underscores the utter moral bankruptcy of those who consider themselves Marxists or, more pointedly, even Leftist.
I find the fact that there are those who consider themselves to be true Marxists to be both amazing and appalling. Amazing because it most certainly must count as a truly bizarre way to look at the world; appalling because of the necessary complete and total denial of the lessons that history has taught us about Marx and his "philosophy" that has led to such massive suffering and death. No religion, despite what has been written there, has ever caused so many deaths as Marxism has.
Mittwoch, Februar 23, 2011
Menetekel and Reality Intruding...
First of all, sorry for the long absence: reality has been intruding for some time now. Way too much to juggle for the time being.
However, this reminded me of what is going on in the background.
Simply put, the core principle driving ObamaCare - and how the Democrats are hating having it called that now - is the reorganization of the entire medical profession: the destruction, as it were, of the American Doctor.
Even if it were to be repealed tomorrow - and de-funding is a good first step - it has already started a negative trend, one that is deliberate and, even worse, aimed at doctors based on a faulty understanding of why medical costs are so high.
In the liberal mind set, costs are so high because medical doctors charge so much, earning enormous amounts of money based on their monopoly position as primary health care givers. The vast majority are private and you can't effectively put limits on what they can earn.
So what you do is force the doctors out of their private practices and into collectives of one form or another:
Six years ago, doctors owned more than two-thirds of U.S. medical practices, according to the Medical Group Management Association. By next year, nearly two-thirds will be salaried employees of larger institutions.
This is astonishing: there are fewer and fewer traditional medical doctors out there with their private practices. For the Democrats: goal achieved.
Why is this important?
Because once medical doctors lose their autarky, their independence, they became just one more salaried profession.
Under the faulty Democrat (sorry, I repeat myself) understanding of why medical costs are so high, they have forced medical doctors out of independence into collectivized institutions of one kind or another, which will then be controlled by ObamaCare.
Why is this a faulty understanding?
For two reasons, the second one the more important one.
First, medical doctors in private practice may appear to be earning quite a bit of money, but in reality they are also employers and have to carry their own malpractice insurance as part of being in business. Once that is deducted - plus rent for their offices and bills for their equipment, as well as salaries - things look slightly different for medical doctors' actual real take-home after costs and taxes. They continue to earn well, but it's nothing near what they took in overall.
The real reason why this line of thought is faulty is that the real problem is medical liability and malpractice insurance costs: these are what is driving up health care costs, not merely via the cost of the insurance, but also pushing medical doctors to run tests just in case someone takes them to court.
That is the real problem: this kind of insurance plus the cost of doing due diligence testing (because the cost of not doing the testing is, if you are sued (or even threatened with a lawsuit), is catastrophic and can financially destroy any medical doctor out there.
Now, collectivization of medical doctors may bring some efficiencies, but unless the real cause of increasing medical care costs is addressed, any health care reform is not worth the paper it is written on.
To repeat: ObamaCare is damaging, not merely because it is based on faulty thinking, but because it is already doing damage to the US health care system.
Who benefits?
First and foremost, the insurers who, if they play the game right, can charge more for the insurance they supply. There is no other explanation for the strong support for ObamaCare amongst the insurance companies.
Second, the trial lawyers. Without tort reform, but with collectivization of medical doctors, the pockets of the collective entities of medical doctors becomes automatically deeper and hence more lucrative to sue. What is the worth of bringing a $200mn wrongful injury/malpractice suit against a single doctor, who can never pay that, when they can collectively take 300 doctors to court?
Further, if ObamaCare reaches its logical conclusion, when there are no private medical doctors around any more. The entity of last resort in an injury/malpractice lawsuit is the owner of the company: if ObamaCare sets up the situation, then the payer of last resort will be the US taxpayer, who will then end up feeding the lawyers and accountants (and professional witnesses) through the practically unending deep pockets.
In other words, it is the usual Democrat politics, Liberal thoughts and intentions galore. Misplaced, as usual, and downright destructive if left alone.
Read the writing on the wall: מנא ,מנא, תקל, ופרסין
Daniel 5:25–28: And this is the writing that was inscribed: mina, mina, shekel, half-mina. This is the interpretation of the matter: mina, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; shekel, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; half-mina, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
The Democrats have numbered the days of the United States and plan to bring it to an end; you will be weighed on the scales and found wanting; your goods will be divided and given away.
That is the writing on the wall: this way lies madness, lies an utterly unsustainable doctrine that must end in thievery and disenfranchisement, all to be sacrificed on the alter of "social justice" and "fairness".
As I've said, reality intrudes on my side of the computer screen and I have been remiss. Suffice to say that things will ease up slightly and you can expect more. Very little of it will be nice and complimentary of recent events.
However, this reminded me of what is going on in the background.
Simply put, the core principle driving ObamaCare - and how the Democrats are hating having it called that now - is the reorganization of the entire medical profession: the destruction, as it were, of the American Doctor.
Even if it were to be repealed tomorrow - and de-funding is a good first step - it has already started a negative trend, one that is deliberate and, even worse, aimed at doctors based on a faulty understanding of why medical costs are so high.
In the liberal mind set, costs are so high because medical doctors charge so much, earning enormous amounts of money based on their monopoly position as primary health care givers. The vast majority are private and you can't effectively put limits on what they can earn.
So what you do is force the doctors out of their private practices and into collectives of one form or another:
Six years ago, doctors owned more than two-thirds of U.S. medical practices, according to the Medical Group Management Association. By next year, nearly two-thirds will be salaried employees of larger institutions.
This is astonishing: there are fewer and fewer traditional medical doctors out there with their private practices. For the Democrats: goal achieved.
Why is this important?
Because once medical doctors lose their autarky, their independence, they became just one more salaried profession.
Under the faulty Democrat (sorry, I repeat myself) understanding of why medical costs are so high, they have forced medical doctors out of independence into collectivized institutions of one kind or another, which will then be controlled by ObamaCare.
Why is this a faulty understanding?
For two reasons, the second one the more important one.
First, medical doctors in private practice may appear to be earning quite a bit of money, but in reality they are also employers and have to carry their own malpractice insurance as part of being in business. Once that is deducted - plus rent for their offices and bills for their equipment, as well as salaries - things look slightly different for medical doctors' actual real take-home after costs and taxes. They continue to earn well, but it's nothing near what they took in overall.
The real reason why this line of thought is faulty is that the real problem is medical liability and malpractice insurance costs: these are what is driving up health care costs, not merely via the cost of the insurance, but also pushing medical doctors to run tests just in case someone takes them to court.
That is the real problem: this kind of insurance plus the cost of doing due diligence testing (because the cost of not doing the testing is, if you are sued (or even threatened with a lawsuit), is catastrophic and can financially destroy any medical doctor out there.
Now, collectivization of medical doctors may bring some efficiencies, but unless the real cause of increasing medical care costs is addressed, any health care reform is not worth the paper it is written on.
To repeat: ObamaCare is damaging, not merely because it is based on faulty thinking, but because it is already doing damage to the US health care system.
Who benefits?
First and foremost, the insurers who, if they play the game right, can charge more for the insurance they supply. There is no other explanation for the strong support for ObamaCare amongst the insurance companies.
Second, the trial lawyers. Without tort reform, but with collectivization of medical doctors, the pockets of the collective entities of medical doctors becomes automatically deeper and hence more lucrative to sue. What is the worth of bringing a $200mn wrongful injury/malpractice suit against a single doctor, who can never pay that, when they can collectively take 300 doctors to court?
Further, if ObamaCare reaches its logical conclusion, when there are no private medical doctors around any more. The entity of last resort in an injury/malpractice lawsuit is the owner of the company: if ObamaCare sets up the situation, then the payer of last resort will be the US taxpayer, who will then end up feeding the lawyers and accountants (and professional witnesses) through the practically unending deep pockets.
In other words, it is the usual Democrat politics, Liberal thoughts and intentions galore. Misplaced, as usual, and downright destructive if left alone.
Read the writing on the wall: מנא ,מנא, תקל, ופרסין
Daniel 5:25–28: And this is the writing that was inscribed: mina, mina, shekel, half-mina. This is the interpretation of the matter: mina, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; shekel, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; half-mina, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
The Democrats have numbered the days of the United States and plan to bring it to an end; you will be weighed on the scales and found wanting; your goods will be divided and given away.
That is the writing on the wall: this way lies madness, lies an utterly unsustainable doctrine that must end in thievery and disenfranchisement, all to be sacrificed on the alter of "social justice" and "fairness".
As I've said, reality intrudes on my side of the computer screen and I have been remiss. Suffice to say that things will ease up slightly and you can expect more. Very little of it will be nice and complimentary of recent events.
Mittwoch, Februar 02, 2011
On Egypt...
Things are not quite as they appear, I believe.
According to the mainstream observations of what is happening in Egypt, the people have taken a cue from Tunisia and are calling for democracy and an end to dictatorship.The dictator, Mubarak, is holding on to power by refusing to step down, and the Army is keeping neutral and letting politics work itself out.
The reality, I fear, is a tad more complex than that. Read this to understand why.
First and foremost: the Egyptian state has survived as long as it has because it provides bread and circus, with heavy emphasis on the former. The government controls bread and how it is distributed, for instance, rather than allowing private bakers to do that job. The reason for this is that bread prices are heavily subsidized and, as a result, supply and demand are seriously distorted.
The Egyptian government has been introducing liberalizations and reducing subsidies, but slowly. The designated heir-successor was following a neo-liberal approach to transforming Egyptian finances into some more sustainable, one where more private business activities were going to be possible and, at the end of the day, with greater efficiencies, prices would have remained at least stable, if not lower.
So far, so good: the problem really arises when you fail to communicate this and people suddenly no longer see the government supplying services that they have relied on for decades, for their entire lives. If you are used to getting up in the morning and pop down to the bread distribution point to pick up bread for the day, it is disconcerting and frightening to see that place no longer under control by the government. Never mind that the bakeries continue to sell bread: it looks like the government is no longer taking care of the people, ensuring availability at low price.
And that is the basis for the existence of the Egyptian government's longevity: it was seen as being the only institution that wasn't completely corrupted and wastrel, which is why it was charged with ensuring the availability of something as basic as bread.
Oh? Did I say government? The bread distribution in Egypt is in the hands of the military.
Now you can understand that this is a reactionary revolution: people are having their old, trusted system of guaranteed infrastructure dismantled and are reacting against that. The military is on their side: they do not want to lose the rights and privileges that come from fulfilling this fundamental role, resulting in a rejection of the changes in the status quo.
Hence things are not quite what they seem. What we have is the Egyptian people taking to the streets to protect their privileges and fighting reforms; the army is backing them, as they have the greatest to lose if things change.
This is not to say that the Egyptian government and military isn't corrupt and venally incompetent: they are. Many out on the streets have serious, long-term and legitimate complaints about the Mubarak government. But there is a lot more to the story than originally meets the eye.
This is less a revolution to end a dictatorship and bring in democracy as much more a reactionary revolt supported by those who have a vested interest in things remaining, largely, the same. Rather than modernize the Egyptian economy and reduce the role of the government, we will see lack of reforms and further stagnation.
This revolt is not solving the problems facing Egypt: while it probably isn't making them worse, it most certainly doesn't contain the fundamentals needed to move beyond re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
According to the mainstream observations of what is happening in Egypt, the people have taken a cue from Tunisia and are calling for democracy and an end to dictatorship.The dictator, Mubarak, is holding on to power by refusing to step down, and the Army is keeping neutral and letting politics work itself out.
The reality, I fear, is a tad more complex than that. Read this to understand why.
First and foremost: the Egyptian state has survived as long as it has because it provides bread and circus, with heavy emphasis on the former. The government controls bread and how it is distributed, for instance, rather than allowing private bakers to do that job. The reason for this is that bread prices are heavily subsidized and, as a result, supply and demand are seriously distorted.
The Egyptian government has been introducing liberalizations and reducing subsidies, but slowly. The designated heir-successor was following a neo-liberal approach to transforming Egyptian finances into some more sustainable, one where more private business activities were going to be possible and, at the end of the day, with greater efficiencies, prices would have remained at least stable, if not lower.
So far, so good: the problem really arises when you fail to communicate this and people suddenly no longer see the government supplying services that they have relied on for decades, for their entire lives. If you are used to getting up in the morning and pop down to the bread distribution point to pick up bread for the day, it is disconcerting and frightening to see that place no longer under control by the government. Never mind that the bakeries continue to sell bread: it looks like the government is no longer taking care of the people, ensuring availability at low price.
And that is the basis for the existence of the Egyptian government's longevity: it was seen as being the only institution that wasn't completely corrupted and wastrel, which is why it was charged with ensuring the availability of something as basic as bread.
Oh? Did I say government? The bread distribution in Egypt is in the hands of the military.
Now you can understand that this is a reactionary revolution: people are having their old, trusted system of guaranteed infrastructure dismantled and are reacting against that. The military is on their side: they do not want to lose the rights and privileges that come from fulfilling this fundamental role, resulting in a rejection of the changes in the status quo.
Hence things are not quite what they seem. What we have is the Egyptian people taking to the streets to protect their privileges and fighting reforms; the army is backing them, as they have the greatest to lose if things change.
This is not to say that the Egyptian government and military isn't corrupt and venally incompetent: they are. Many out on the streets have serious, long-term and legitimate complaints about the Mubarak government. But there is a lot more to the story than originally meets the eye.
This is less a revolution to end a dictatorship and bring in democracy as much more a reactionary revolt supported by those who have a vested interest in things remaining, largely, the same. Rather than modernize the Egyptian economy and reduce the role of the government, we will see lack of reforms and further stagnation.
This revolt is not solving the problems facing Egypt: while it probably isn't making them worse, it most certainly doesn't contain the fundamentals needed to move beyond re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
