Sitting here posting waiting for the second blizzard of the year to stop so I can start digging out the multiple feet of snow covering my yard and car. While I'm no old man, and I'm only remembering back about 25 or 28 years, but I still cannot remember a year where we have had two storms that dumped multiple feet of snow where I live. I remember a couple years where there was one, but never more than that.
I really could use some of those global warming drones to shovel my walk and dig out my car.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Employment Rate Declines; 20,000 More Lose Job
That headline, taken from one of the major propaganda outlets says it all. Most places just trumpet in their headline "Unemployment drops to 9.7%" To give the former headline some credit, it at least offers the hint of some truth.
Many people do not read more than the headline of a news article. Propagandists know this. So they only include what they want the most people to see and believe in headlines. Oh, and buried in those headlines somewhere is also the fact that the count of people who couldn't find a job for the year 2009 was off by just a little bit. But only by about 1.2 million. No big deal, right? No need for a big headline on that.
So the real question is, how does the unemployment rate decline when there was another net loss of 20,000 jobs? Any free-thinking person with half a brain will come to one of two conclusions. Neither of them very good. Either someone is fudging the numbers, or the way the unemployment rate is calculated is severely flawed. This is a case however where both conclusions are correct. The reasons are numerous of how and where they fudge the numbers (one being already counting temporary census workers as employed even though they aren't) , but no more obvious is this "correction" of 1.2 million more discouraged people than they thought. It's either total incompetence or on purpose. And while I'm quite secure in the knowledge that there are a lot of stupid people out there, even I have a hard time believing incompetence on that scale.
Many people do not read more than the headline of a news article. Propagandists know this. So they only include what they want the most people to see and believe in headlines. Oh, and buried in those headlines somewhere is also the fact that the count of people who couldn't find a job for the year 2009 was off by just a little bit. But only by about 1.2 million. No big deal, right? No need for a big headline on that.
So the real question is, how does the unemployment rate decline when there was another net loss of 20,000 jobs? Any free-thinking person with half a brain will come to one of two conclusions. Neither of them very good. Either someone is fudging the numbers, or the way the unemployment rate is calculated is severely flawed. This is a case however where both conclusions are correct. The reasons are numerous of how and where they fudge the numbers (one being already counting temporary census workers as employed even though they aren't) , but no more obvious is this "correction" of 1.2 million more discouraged people than they thought. It's either total incompetence or on purpose. And while I'm quite secure in the knowledge that there are a lot of stupid people out there, even I have a hard time believing incompetence on that scale.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Four Supreme Court Justices Support Book Bans
Yes, that's right. That is actually the flip side of today's Supreme Court decision. In today's 5-4 ruling in favor of first amendment free speech rights, the Court struck down the campaign finance "reform" laws like McCain-Feingold that suppress people's ability to express opinions and disseminate information before primaries and general elections.
I've read comments far and wide on boards throughout the day of people that have railed against this decision. It's a sad fact that the class warfare of the left has insidiously wormed its way into people and makes them see this as a victory for "big corporations" and not a victory for free speech.
When it comes down to it, the suit was not brought by ExxonMobile or AIG. It was brought by a non-profit organization that wanted to release and advertise their political film about why Hilary Clinton was not qualified to be President. And a government bureaucrat told them they would be fined and possibly imprisoned if they did so. (Excuse me? Is this the United States or the old Soviet Union?) because it was within one of the "reform" laws' periods banning such activity.
Even though this was a victory, the scariest part to me was during oral arguments one of the Justices asked the government's lawyer if this content had been in book form would it be the government's position that that too would be illegal? And the government answered: yes. In a second round of arguments Justice Ginsburg offered the government and out and asked the question again for "clarification". Again the government's lawyer answered yes, it would be our position this would be illegal in book form, but you should "trust us, we have never enforced such things." At this, Chief Justice Roberts leaned across the bench and said "we don't place our First Amendment rights in the hands of bureaucrats."
So yes, as free Americans we have won a victory pushing back those who would infringe upon our basic Constitutional rights. But Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor sided with the government, and in essence with the prospect of banning books. The next time you wonder what the big deal is over a Supreme Court nominee
is all about, perhaps you should remember this. If just one more person on that court such as Kennedy had gone the other way, next week, next month, or whenever it was convenient, YOU might be sitting in jail for writing something poliltical within a 30 or 60 day window of an election...
I've read comments far and wide on boards throughout the day of people that have railed against this decision. It's a sad fact that the class warfare of the left has insidiously wormed its way into people and makes them see this as a victory for "big corporations" and not a victory for free speech.
When it comes down to it, the suit was not brought by ExxonMobile or AIG. It was brought by a non-profit organization that wanted to release and advertise their political film about why Hilary Clinton was not qualified to be President. And a government bureaucrat told them they would be fined and possibly imprisoned if they did so. (Excuse me? Is this the United States or the old Soviet Union?) because it was within one of the "reform" laws' periods banning such activity.
Even though this was a victory, the scariest part to me was during oral arguments one of the Justices asked the government's lawyer if this content had been in book form would it be the government's position that that too would be illegal? And the government answered: yes. In a second round of arguments Justice Ginsburg offered the government and out and asked the question again for "clarification". Again the government's lawyer answered yes, it would be our position this would be illegal in book form, but you should "trust us, we have never enforced such things." At this, Chief Justice Roberts leaned across the bench and said "we don't place our First Amendment rights in the hands of bureaucrats."
So yes, as free Americans we have won a victory pushing back those who would infringe upon our basic Constitutional rights. But Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor sided with the government, and in essence with the prospect of banning books. The next time you wonder what the big deal is over a Supreme Court nominee
is all about, perhaps you should remember this. If just one more person on that court such as Kennedy had gone the other way, next week, next month, or whenever it was convenient, YOU might be sitting in jail for writing something poliltical within a 30 or 60 day window of an election...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)