Obama vs. Bernanke, article by Vox Day.
I also find the quote from Bernanke at the 2002 dinner to honor Milton Friedman to be hilarious:
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
He's right, they did do it. But not for the reasons that he thinks (being too tight with monetary expansion), in fact, almost entirely the reverse.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
I Know that I am being Slow to Point this Out
But This is bad news for the "audit the Fed" campaign.
However, we must press on to get the bill passed in the House, after which we can worry about the Senate.
That is all.
However, we must press on to get the bill passed in the House, after which we can worry about the Senate.
That is all.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
What They Are Not Reporting
I recently saw this little tidbit on Alas, a Blog, discussing a black man who was apparently assaulted for no reason by a cop.
It is interesting that in the first full pragraph of Ampersand's commentary on the occurence, he says:
Although the assaulted man — like nearly all of the protesters — was Black, none of the news reports I’ve seen have pointed out that these assaults have a racist and sexist aspect. But although all kinds of people are assaulted by cops, the victims in these stories seem to be disproportionately brown-skinned men (both African-American and Latino).
Note though, that never once does he mention the fact that the officer, Joseph J. Rios III, is Latino himself, something that he should have at least wondered about, given the almost certainly Latino name.
Considering that if this had been a white cop, Ampersand would have been all out talking about the officer's white privilege, etc., I think that it is downright dishonest not to point out that the cop here was, actually, a "person of color," by the usual definition (where "person of color" means any person other than a non-Hispanic white).
Fortunately enough, a letter writer at VDARE points out Rios' ethnicicty.
Why is this important? No, not because it should be used against Latinos who wish to become policemen. It is important because of the tremendous anti-white (or more specifically, anti-non-Hispanic white) mentality of the "anti-racism" crowd.
That is all.
It is interesting that in the first full pragraph of Ampersand's commentary on the occurence, he says:
Although the assaulted man — like nearly all of the protesters — was Black, none of the news reports I’ve seen have pointed out that these assaults have a racist and sexist aspect. But although all kinds of people are assaulted by cops, the victims in these stories seem to be disproportionately brown-skinned men (both African-American and Latino).
Note though, that never once does he mention the fact that the officer, Joseph J. Rios III, is Latino himself, something that he should have at least wondered about, given the almost certainly Latino name.
Considering that if this had been a white cop, Ampersand would have been all out talking about the officer's white privilege, etc., I think that it is downright dishonest not to point out that the cop here was, actually, a "person of color," by the usual definition (where "person of color" means any person other than a non-Hispanic white).
Fortunately enough, a letter writer at VDARE points out Rios' ethnicicty.
Why is this important? No, not because it should be used against Latinos who wish to become policemen. It is important because of the tremendous anti-white (or more specifically, anti-non-Hispanic white) mentality of the "anti-racism" crowd.
That is all.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Deficits are a Problem; Inflation is a Threat
Sheldon Filger becomes skeptical of Keynesian Krugman's dismissal of inflation.
An excellent article, and an indication that Keynesian has at least a few chinks in its armor.
That is all.
An excellent article, and an indication that Keynesian has at least a few chinks in its armor.
That is all.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Matt Yglesias, Climate Change, and Race
In a recent column, Matt Yglesias opines:
As clowns like Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) are wont to point out, the scale of the average temperature shift associated with catastrophic climate change is not especially large relative to ordinary fluctuations in the weather. In other words, in most parts of the world summer is much hotter than winter, and the summer-winter gap exceeds the sort of changes associated with carbon emissions. If you’re dumb, this becomes a reason to get blasé about climate change. If you understand the issue, you understand that even modest structural shifts in the climate can have enormous impacts—shifting rainfall patterns, altering sea levels, massively increasing the odds of extreme weather, etc.
I wonder if Yglesias will be honest enough to use this same analysis on the canard that "differences within races are greater than differences between races."
Actually, I lie. I don't wonder at all. I am pretty certain what he will do.
That is all.
As clowns like Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) are wont to point out, the scale of the average temperature shift associated with catastrophic climate change is not especially large relative to ordinary fluctuations in the weather. In other words, in most parts of the world summer is much hotter than winter, and the summer-winter gap exceeds the sort of changes associated with carbon emissions. If you’re dumb, this becomes a reason to get blasé about climate change. If you understand the issue, you understand that even modest structural shifts in the climate can have enormous impacts—shifting rainfall patterns, altering sea levels, massively increasing the odds of extreme weather, etc.
I wonder if Yglesias will be honest enough to use this same analysis on the canard that "differences within races are greater than differences between races."
Actually, I lie. I don't wonder at all. I am pretty certain what he will do.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Ampersand and Leftist Deception
Reading this post on Alas, a Blog gives a little insight as to how leftists operate - getting the camel's nose in the tent, and doin it through deception and deceitful double standards:
Discussing New Hampshire's new Same-Sex "Marriage" law, and the religious exemption, primary Alas-blogger Ampersand says:
Benefits are another form of pay, and giving churches the right to pay some queer employees less is an expression of second-class citizenship for queers. (If a church wanted the right to refuse spousal benefits to Jewish or atheist employees, would people be so quick to find that reasonable?)
Translation: All that business about separation of church and state - I was lying when I said that. Separation only goes one way - the church should not influence the state. The state has every right to impose its morality on the church.
But I’d rather have equal marriage for same-sex couples, and then work on fine-tuning this aspect later, than not have gay marriage at all.
Translation: All that stuff about same-sex marriage law not forcing churches to participate in or recognize marriages that they disapprove of - that's just what we say to pacify them. We'll keep it like that until we win the battle. If we have to let them keep their silly little moral ideas in order to get same-sex "marriage," then fine. We'll let them have it for now. Later we can get to the business of forcibly re-educating them, like Canada is doing.
When the folks at Alas start expressing concerns over Canadian "human rights tribunals," about German persectuion of homeschoolers, or about the announced intentions of the President of Brazil to persecute "homophobes," I will take seriously their claims to give a fig about religious freedom.
However, I suspect that what they will actually do is find little weaselly ways to claim that opposing the rights of the religious in these cases is the true "pro-freedom" position, claim that the laws and policies in question are not really restrictive of religious freedoms at all, suggest that well, rights are for the "oppressed," after all, and these people are really just oppressors, and a hundred other forms of double-think to allow them to support the suppression of their enemies while maintaining a pretense of freedom.
Once they have the power, they won't care a white about "tolerance."
That is all.
Discussing New Hampshire's new Same-Sex "Marriage" law, and the religious exemption, primary Alas-blogger Ampersand says:
Benefits are another form of pay, and giving churches the right to pay some queer employees less is an expression of second-class citizenship for queers. (If a church wanted the right to refuse spousal benefits to Jewish or atheist employees, would people be so quick to find that reasonable?)
Translation: All that business about separation of church and state - I was lying when I said that. Separation only goes one way - the church should not influence the state. The state has every right to impose its morality on the church.
But I’d rather have equal marriage for same-sex couples, and then work on fine-tuning this aspect later, than not have gay marriage at all.
Translation: All that stuff about same-sex marriage law not forcing churches to participate in or recognize marriages that they disapprove of - that's just what we say to pacify them. We'll keep it like that until we win the battle. If we have to let them keep their silly little moral ideas in order to get same-sex "marriage," then fine. We'll let them have it for now. Later we can get to the business of forcibly re-educating them, like Canada is doing.
When the folks at Alas start expressing concerns over Canadian "human rights tribunals," about German persectuion of homeschoolers, or about the announced intentions of the President of Brazil to persecute "homophobes," I will take seriously their claims to give a fig about religious freedom.
However, I suspect that what they will actually do is find little weaselly ways to claim that opposing the rights of the religious in these cases is the true "pro-freedom" position, claim that the laws and policies in question are not really restrictive of religious freedoms at all, suggest that well, rights are for the "oppressed," after all, and these people are really just oppressors, and a hundred other forms of double-think to allow them to support the suppression of their enemies while maintaining a pretense of freedom.
Once they have the power, they won't care a white about "tolerance."
That is all.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Thoughts on the Tiller Murder
I wonder how many of the left who are accusing the pro-life movement of contributing to the death of Dr. George Tiller because of their [the pro-life movement's] rhetoric are willing to accept any blame for the role that leftist "anti-racist" and "anti-xenophobic" rhetoric played in contributing to the assassination of Pim Fortuyn.
That is all.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)