Bathroom Etiquette...

Now, whenever I go to the can, I make sure that I tap my feet.

The New York Times Makes The World A Stupider Place....

If I had my brain surgically removed, I would become a Democrat, be as smart as Chuck Schumer, read the New York Times newspaper and may even then be qualified to write editorials for the non-longer esteemed paper of record, the New York Times.

In a mystifying editorial, the brain dead New York Times editorial staff enter the anti-matter universe where black is white and Chinese officials are honest and never takes bribes and where diplomats do their jobs by just negotiating without the threat of adverse impact or military intervention. As the brainless and bloviating New York Times editorial writers bleat....

French President Nicolas Sarkozy made the wrong gesture at the wrong time by brandishing the possible use of force against Iran’s nuclear weapons program in his first major foreign policy address. The United States and its allies need to be stepping up their efforts to resolve the serious dangers posed by Iran through comprehensive negotiations and increased international economic pressure, not by talking about military action.

Mr. Sarkozy, who has previously said that France would not join Washington in military action against Iran, did not exactly endorse an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Monday’s speech. He asserted that a nuclear-armed Iran would be “unacceptable” and reaffirmed support for the ongoing diplomatic initiative by the United States, France and other world powers.

I stand up and clap. Finally, the French are recognizing that these crazy Muslims ARE a threat and 5 years of toothless European negotiating has achieved...... ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY FUCKING NOTHING with the crazies in Iran. So the New York Times want to do what? Continue to negotiate? Why? Has it worked so far? Do they cite even a shred of hope that after all of these years that limpwristed European negotiation has even achieved one little bit of progress and that the weak economic sanctions in place have even the tiniest shred of hope to even have the smallest impact on the Iranian crazies? I do not see it. So the French, the pacifist French have now lost patience with the Iranians.

The editorial writers at the NYT are nothing but a bunch of toothless appeasers and are relying upon that the HOPE but obviously not a prayer -since no one at the NYT would ever believed in God- that the crazy Muslims in the middle east will suddenly come to their senses and decide to all become all nice with the great Satan.

Why does anyone even waste a moment of their time reading such drivel? I wonder myself why I bother. The New York times make the world a stupider place.

How True Is this?

Why is it that New Yorkers would rather attack Christians and call them Christian extremists? Like praying and practicing Christians are even remotely at all similar to crazy Muslims blowing up themselves and trying to take out and kill or maim as many innocent woman and children as possible? Why is it that to these moronic drooling liberals that the root of all evil isn't anything other than the white man and his religion, Christianity? Well, how is this for a statement to that question...

It's much safer to demonize Christians. They don't try to kill people.

How utterly true and completely lost on the dopes that work and read such idiotic papers as the New York times. Find it all here.

Whiners and Miscreants.....

Monte Python's 'Funniest joke'

Modern Leftist Economics...

Protectionism from the likes of IQ challenged Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and a coterie of other Democrats supported by self interested unions and others completely miss the point of global trade and particularly trade with China.

First, is a person more wealthy with money in pocket or more wealthy if one has used that money to purchase a good or service? For example is a person more wealthy with having $30,000 vs. spending it on lets say a heart operation that would save ones life. The answer is very clear in that example, that the person is probably better off by consuming the heart operation if it is needed. The same could be said with food or other necessities. And the marginal utility of a purchase may fall across all goods and services purchased by a consumer.

So, thinking about the above, one cannot say that an economy is better or worse off by spending its wealth on goods or services particularly if they are needed or wanted. Its just a transfer of value from that money in your pocket into the things that you want or need. Lets say for example that a person offers to give you his car in exchange for a piece of paper that says that you intend on paying him some fixed amount of money at a later date. If it is acceptable to the seller that he receives this promise from you and you are pleased to gain ownership and use of this good, then has one person gained or lost? I say that the only way that this transaction would have been completed is if BOTH sides are satisfied with the terms of the deal. If one side is not satisfied then the transaction would not happen, right?

So, assuming that the US is pleased with receiving goods from China and China is pleased to sell it to the US in exchange for money, then has one or the other party gotten the worse part of the deal? I argue that both sides are satisfied or other-wise, the trade would not happen.

So, clowns like Chuck Schumer argue that China is trading unfairly and are subsidizing the export of Chinese goods to Americans. So, lets go back to the previous example: say the person selling you the car decides to charge you less for the car than you theoretically assume is the right price. Would you argue that the seller is charging you an unfair LOW PRICE? How stupid would that be? How stupid would it be for the seller to voluntarily sell you a product below the price that you would be willing to pay for it. But that is the exact argument that is being made by such intellectual giants like Chuck Schumer.

He is saying that it is unfair that China is charging us so little for the things that we want to buy and is saying that China should charge us more for these things. Huh? It just doesn't make sense to me. We are asking to pay more for these things?

Imagine that some other country develops a new technology, say Kazakhstan, so that they can produce a good much cheaper than before and they pass some of those saving onto the consumer. IS this unfair? I argue that this is exactly what has been going since the beginning of mankind and is what SHOULD be done in the natural course of human endeavours.

So, is China unfairly subsidizing producers? Or are they more efficient at making these things? Is it unfair that technology improvements lead to lower prices and more competitive markets? The answer to this is clearly no. Is it unfair that as Schumer and company argue that China unfairly subsidizes prices that Americans pay for goods from China? I think that Americans should love the largess of the Chinese to subsidize our consumption. So we in the transaction are getting the better part of the deal. Is this unfair? Maybe yes, but it is unfair to the Chinese and their citizens that are subsidizing rich Americans not the other way around.

France Gains Some Spine...

As recently reported, the French backing away from their tiring anti-Americanism of the Chirac years are now acting as if they are one of our allies...

Another possibility was shuttle-diplomacy led by Kouchner among the factions, the official said.

The French move carries the personal mark of Kouchner, who was one of the few French politicians who backed the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and whose longstanding and close relations with Kurdish and Shiite leaders have earned him credibility in the region. During his visit to Iraq, he held talks with religious and political leaders, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani, whom he has known for three decades.

"France in general and Bernard Kouchner in particular are uniquely placed to be a honest broker in Iraq," the French official said.

Chirac's negative knee jerk de Gaulle like reaction to everything American may be coming to end on Europe. Maybe its because they have finally figured out that fanatical Muslims are a gigantic risk to modern Europe and that the US is a supporter of their liberty and way of life. Its about fucking time!

More Dishonest Income Reporting By The New York Times...

Rarely does the leftist robots at the New York Times use average incomes in the US to further its "soak the rich with taxes to give it away to the poor" theme since average income statistics in the US are a very unreliable indicator of true income for Americans. Average incomes can be misleading and vary widely as the very wealthy income earners consistently produce volatile incomes even over a very short period of time. Tax year 2000 was a particularly interesting year to use as the base since their was so much taxable income generated by the super-rich through IPOs and huge compensation packages associated with the Internet and stock market bubble that year and the few preceding years.

So, what does the New York Times do? Uses tax year 2000 average incomes and compares them to tax year 2005 average incomes to claim that the average American's income have not risen during that period on an inflation adjusted basis. OK.

Why is this dishonest? Because a more accurate measure of the average American's income is the median income figure not average income and this is primarily due to the volatility of super wealthy tax payer's income. Furthermore, people do not have their average income to spend but their AFTER TAX average income. Since tax rates have fallen for everyone, as the inane New York times typically laments, the figure that they sport in their typical class warfare style of leftist journalism has no bearing on the actual experience of the typical average American. If they pay lower taxes on income, then they have more to spend, everything else being equal.

The New York Time agenda laden 'journalism' is smacked down further, here. I just do not understand this newspaper. They invest so much of their time, energy and money in being a fine journalistic organization and then print tripe this this that reduces the value of everything else that they write. A sad commentary on the left in the US today.

Don't Shoot The Messenger....

If you were hit by these bullets, they wouldn't even raise a welt....



The above photo on the Yahoo Iraq photo section had the following caption....

An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more than 200 wounded when four suicide truck bombs targeted people from an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, officials said.(AFP/Wissam al-Okaili)

The link to the photos can be found here.

Now here's my question to anybody that cares to think about this. The professionals that work at AFP must know, as would almost anyone with half-a-brain know, that the bullets that the lady is holding and claims to have hit her house were never fired.

Sooooooooo, what is the story here? Someone threw them at her house or they were dropped from an aircraft and 'hit' her house- if either of these are the case, it just isn't a very compelling story. The AFP is reporting that this lady is claiming that these bullets hit her house and it should raise the question within the minds of the reporter and all those high paid editors is just how dangerous is ammunition that isn't fired in a war-zone and how would this unused ammunition qualify as news? Or is the AFP, its editors responsible for what is put on the wires with their names on it and the reporters that actually generate this material serious about what they are producing? Probably not. They just try to produce as much material as possible, even if it isn't true, showing the horrors of the Americans to these innocent old ladies, widows, orphans, etc.

Ha Ha Ha....

For the party that is scared of Fox News since they don't pander to the Democrats as most of the media has done for the past 30 years, its worrisome to think how these spineless buffoons will stand up to al Queda, Hugo Chavez, North Korea, Iran or a host of other non-pandering dangerous individuals or groups.

Finnally, Europeans Are Starting To Wake Up....

A Dutch politician is proposing to BAN THE KORAN. Europe that has long depended upon American force to protect them from risk during the last half of the 20th century is now coming around to realize that that might will be unable to protect from the insidious risk posed by internal and home-grown islamists that want to kill them. He says....

Geert Wilders, has called for a ban on the sale and distribution of the Qur'an. He would also outlaw the book’s use in the mosque and at home. Mr Wilders says the Qur'an (Koran) is a fascist book which promotes violence and is similar to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

This fellow is putting his life and that of his family at risk for saying this since we all know that Muslims will want to kill him since their weak religion is unable to deal with even minor adverse words said against them. Their solution is not to promote themselves as the religion of peace but one of death, revenge and retribution.

Changes To The China On-child Policy....

Through a combination of rising incomes, farmers with a need to children to do the back breaking labor and a demographic timebomb, where China's population will age very very rapidly surpassing the average age in even developed countries shortly, the wise old men in Beijing have decided to adjust the one-child policy. 30-40% of the population is now exempt through a dizzying and confusing array of exemptions. Of course, in the big cities, a nice big apartment, a BMW and a second child will be status symbols to be paraded to envious friends and relatives.

Of course, in communist China, the slogans are going to change. Such favorites as...

“Add 10 graves rather than one more baby.”
“Better to let blood turn into a
river than to add a new person to our population.”
“Raise fewer babies and
more pigs.”
“Those who do not follow the one-child policy will see their
homes collapsed and families broken.”

Are on their way out.

To be replaced by such soon to become memorable slogans as...

“Mother Earth is exhausted, no longer able to bear with more children.”
“High-quality babies, fewer daily troubles.”
“Children are the flowers of the mother land; senior citizens are the wealth of our society.”

Given the demographics, if wealth is measured by the number of pensioners, then China will truly be a very rich country.

Worthless New York Newspaper...

The New York Times is really not a newspaper but some kind of Democrat support institution. Worthless for getting news from and particularly annoying when reading editorials and Op-eds. The left-leaning media is having competitive trouble with the not-left-leaning media these days. I guess one could imply that people are sick of their bullshit and have shifted to Fox News and to cable and radio programs like Rush Limbaugh.

So Silly....

Christians don't riot, issue fatwas to kill and get overly excited when free speech treads on their religion. Muslims do.

Why do we have to curb our free speech if these murderous clowns go wild? Because the rainbow coalition of politically correct liberals are scared of Muslims and would rather appease them than support our way of life. Remember what Winston Churchill said about appeasers, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last." and Heywood Broun, (Born in Brooklyn) "Appeasers believe that if you keep throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian."