Quick Opinions

January 7, 2010

Governments Stimulus Fairytale

Filed under: Politics — @ 2:26 am

By Herb Kay

Once upon a time, I thought that when a politician did or said something really ridiculous it was because they were being purely political, but really in their heart of hearts, they knew better. In other words, if a politician says something like “America needs stimulus” they likely knew that in all the history of such things, literally none have ever worked. What I used to believe, was that politicians who said such nonsense were simply being disingenuous. Now, I think they are just stupid.

I mean, no one could repeat as much baloney as the talking heads on Capitol Hill, over and over again – and not really believe it. Insincerity does not excuse the situation – it’s as if that was the case – and as we are staring into the recession, a reasonable person would put aside partisan propaganda and do the right thing for the country. But it is not the case. They, meaning those that continue to add insult to injury, must really believe that just adding liquidity (printing money) is going to work out in the end. It’s all a bit mind-numbing.

Now, I have had this discussion with a lot of people, many of who are believers in government stimulus. Inevitably it always goes back to the “New Deal.” When I point out to them that between 1932-1940 things in America got progressively worse, the inevitable retort is that World War II and all the government spending pulled us out of the Depression and thus proving that if you do spending on a big enough scale, it will work. Hence what is happening now, as things get bad, it doesn’t take long before politicians start calling for a War on this or a War on that. The problem is, even though most Americans would believe that WWII ended the Depression, they are mistaken.

For those of us who did not live through those years and for those of you who did, 1940-45 were years of a command economy and shortages of everything. You couldn’t buy a new car or nylons or chocolate or much of anything else and if you could it was with ration coupons. In other words, for those years we had essentially a Soviet System. We were so understandably devoted to winning the war that we ignored the hardships, but to believe that this rationing somehow ended the Depression is a gross misreading of history and it’s also absurd.

Let me prove my point. If this logic were true, then what President Obama should do is call up the Prime Ministers of Japan and Germany and tell them to build a huge fleet of warships, as big as those they both had in WWII, with America doing the same, and we all load them up with tanks and airplanes and bombs, and then sail them out into the middle of the ocean and sink the whole damn thing. That ought to do it! At least, that is what the “War on anything defeats an economic downturn” argument would say. It’s absurd I know, but this is even what most kids are taught as history.

What really ended the Depression was the rush of consumer demand beginning in 1946. Millions of folks freed – both of the war’s rationing and the end of the New Deal – which happily died in 1940. Freed of government interference and doing without, good old “free market” demand fueled the boom. That is the lesson we should learn. Government is just feeding on the free market. To the extent that they stop, is the extent by which we will succeed. Every dollar spent by a government is a dollar taken from the free market or worse, created out of nothing, stimulated by paper money, leading to bubbles and busts.

In fact, I believe our entire economy is just one big bubble at this point and virtually all pricing of everything is suspect with few exceptions. Meanwhile just remember, soon these politicians will not be fooling anyone.

Herb Kay, self-made millionaire, best-selling author, nationally recognized finance and business expert, and creator of Herb Kay’s S.O.S. System (http://www.HerbKaySOS.com), offers his insight into the world of everything from business to personal finance with a style all his own. It’s the Herb Kay Way!

.

bar tricks | bar tending tricks | bar tricks revealed | 25th wedding anniversary | gum disease

December 21, 2009

What Should Be the Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions For Voters?

Filed under: Politics, Uncategorized — @ 1:38 am

By Anand Krishna

In spite of their “purportedly” common vision toward a better and more livable world, our politicians have failed. Certainly not all of them were, or, are insincere.

Nevertheless, they have failed to deliver. Today, we live in a more comfortable, but not a “better” world. Conflicts and wars are tearing us apart – whereas, peace and harmony remain issues for discussion among our elites.

In his historic speech in Cairo on June 4 this year, President Obama spoke about the need to “have the courage to make a new beginning”.

Later, during the UN General Assembly on Sept. 23, he emphasized, “The time has come for the world to move in a new direction.”

Interestingly, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose speech was boycotted by many, also expressed hope for “a global community filled with justice, friendship, brotherhood and welfare”.

Not long after, speaking at Harvard on Sept. 29, President Yudhoyono proposed the reinvention of “a new world”.

More recently, speaking in Egypt on Nov. 9, Chinese Premier Jiabao hoped the cooperation between China and the African countries would “contribute to the effort of building a harmonious world
of enduring peace and common prosperity”.

I do not doubt their good intentions, but neither can I close my eyes to the fact the world envisioned by them is still a far cry from their hopes.

Why?

President Sukarno, one of our founding fathers, found flaws in the way we handled our problems.

Speaking to the 15th UN General Assembly on Oct. 4, 1960, he said: “Any effort to solve our problems with violence, threat, or force would not only fail, but create problems of a more serious nature.”

He cited “equality” as the only solution. To him, equality was the quintessence of all human rights. He hoped for certain universally accepted guiding principles to usher in a new era of equality among nations. It was on these grounds that he wished to “build the world anew”.

Sukarno was a man of vision.

He was a dreamer, but not an unrealistic one. He knew the realization of this dream would only be possible if we all let go of our “petty grudges, and ill feelings toward each other…

“Eliminate the cause of war, and peace shall reign. Eliminate the cause of tension, and life shall be easy…

“It is not only to ensure the survival of this world, we have the task to build the world anew!”

Sukarno often cited Neo-Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism as threats to world peace and true emancipation. Many of us then, and even now, scoff at him, and consider his fears unfounded.

History, however, has proved otherwise. Neo-Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism are not only a living reality, but are also thriving at the cost of our ignorance.

To make things worse, even our politicians and highly paid diplomats are often unaware of this.They still relate Neo-Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism with certain western powers. They cannot see the tables turning. The imperial powers colonizing us are no longer western, but also eastern, and perhaps, our next-door neighbors, and darling friends.

George Bernard Shaw was, perhaps, right in saying that: “He knows nothing; he thinks he knows everything – that clearly points to a political career.”

Sukarno offered an indigenous “Indonesian Solution” to face the challenges ahead: Pancasila. “When I speak of Pancasila, I am actually speaking of our nation’s, at least, 2,000-year-old civilization.” He was bold enough to challenge the assembly to point out any flaw in what he offered; or, anything disputable or irrelevant to the modern age and its challenges. The entire assembly, instead, applauded “Sukarno of Indonesia” as he was then known.

Alas, we Indonesians have lost our self-pride. We no longer believe in the ideals of Pancasila, and in the virtues and values of our age-old civilization.

Our leaders find it more civilized to connect with much younger and less experienced civilizations. They forget that when those civilizations lived by raiding caravans, and had to have the divine guidance to divide their booty, we were already shipping our spices using our own flag carriers!

Sukarno explained the values imbibed in Pancasila in few simple words: Religiosity, Nationalism, Internationalism, Democracy, and Social Justice. These are universal values, and no man in his senses would possibly oppose these values.

Yet, I say, we have failed. Where have we gone wrong? Let’s move from being positive thinkers to having a positive and holistic attitude toward life and ask of our conscience, “Are we in a better position today than we were at the time of our independence?”

Simple mathematics: consider the current value of all the wealth, all the natural resources we had on Aug. 17, 1945, when we proclaimed our independence. And, consider the remnants we have, add the numerical value of all our developments, our reserves, add anything, everything, and consider all the loans, all the interests, and all the aid and charity we have received so far. You will be ashamed of calling yourself a son of the soil, as I am. Once, again, where have we gone wrong?

We are busy planning a new world, building, and reinventing it. Our orientation is outside. We want to change the world by changing the conditions outside, and by changing others.

I am reminded of a famous Jacob M. Braude quote: “Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have in trying to change others.”

President Mandela says the same thing: “One of the most difficult things is not changing society, but to change yourself.”

So, what do we do? Let us not despair. “Change your thoughts and you change your world,” says Norman Vincent Peale.

And, Mahatma Gandhi resonances, “Be the change in the world you want to see.”

As a nation, let us first of all agree that Pancasila is the only sane and viable solution to the challenges we face. Moreover, Pancasila connects us to the rest of the world, including those who follow different systems of governance.

Next, let us change our orientation from the outside, to the inside. The change must happen within us. For, it is when the individual changes, that society changes. And, when society changes, the nation changes. Finally, when nations change, the world changes.

Yes, we have to build the world anew, reinvent a new world, make a new beginning, move in a new direction, work toward a global community filled with justice, friendship, brotherhood and welfare, and a harmonious world of enduring peace and common prosperity. Yes, yes, yes, but we must begin with ourselves. You and I must change first!

ANAND KRISHNA – Spiritual Activist
http://www.aumkar.org

burn belly fat | skin tag removal | last longer in bed | online share trading | internet stock trading | anxiety cure | stop premature ejaculation | horse racing systems | lose stomach fat | remove warts

June 17, 2009

Obama’s Takeover of Auto Industry – GMC and Chrysler

Filed under: Politics — @ 1:22 pm

In an unprecedented move, never before done in the history of America, Obama announced his plans to get government control of private businesses. The two companies in question are GMC and Chrysler. He announced his plans in a televised speech on Monday, March 30th. This is after forcing the retirement of longtime CEO of GMC, Rick Wagoner. He did not, however, force the retirement of the head of the auto union who has greatly impacted GMC’s financial problems. Although Obama repeatedly said he does not want to have the government running the auto industry, this is exactly what he is doing. In fact, he is getting into micromanaging GMC by such actions as the government guaranteeing GMC’s service contracts.

Wagoner has worked all his life, 40 years, for GMC. He knows the business inside out. Obama’s beef is with him. Wagoner is too old-fashioned, wanting to continue to produce gas-guzzling pick-ups and SUVs. GMC has to change and produce light-weight green cars for tomorrow’s future. Apparently, in Obama’s book, pick-ups and SUVs have to go. Guess what? In 2008, the two top selling vehicles in America were GMC’s pickups and SUVs. No green car of any description made the top 10 list. Also, the Chevy Malibu was voted car of the year, 2008. Going further, twenty of GMC’s vehicles showed profits in 2008. Eleven of these were pickups and SUVs, and GMC vehicles are very popular overseas.* It doesn’t sound to me like Wagoner has done so badly. But this apparently does not faze Obama. Come hell or high water, and in spite of what Americans want, carbon-fueled vehicles have got to be replaced with green. SUVS AND PICKUPS ARE NOT IN AMERICA’S FUTURE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE AMERICAN BUYERS WANT.

Thus, Obama has taken it upon himself to gain control of American auto industries and FORCE THIS CHANGE! He is also forcing Chrysler, an American company, to join with Fiat, a foreign company, again a first in American history. This is in spite of the fact that Obama has pledged to bring back to America’s shores as much of America’s overseas business as possible. It seems to become clearer and clearer that Obama’s promises mean nothing. Chrysler has been given thirty days to comply and GMC sixty days. If they don’t, it’s bankruptcy. Chrysler and GMC should have done this first and avoided the middleman, the inefficient, bureaucratic, power-hungry United States Government. Can you name even one thing that the government runs efficiently?

Do you know what the scariest words are in the English language? “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Wake up America. One by one, Obama is toppling our freedoms like dominos in a line. Once we lose them, it will be hard to get them back.

Please give me your opinions about the government running America’s privately-owned auto industries.

*Facts from Rush Limbaugh, 3/31/09

Carolyn J. Fosdick, retired teacher, artist, conservative ghostwriter, and author of I Ride A Wild Horse currently spends her time writing on conservative issues and politics that are affecting our American way of life. Visit her newest blog for some insightful and thought-provoking ideas on political economics and for some solutions to some tough political questions.

News Media Bias – Do You Know What’s Really Going On?

Filed under: Media — @ 1:18 pm

Technology makes the instantaneous and virtually ubiquitous observation of world events possible, but evidence of bias in the news media can make you wonder whether you can believe what you see and hear. World news is being transmitted by a global media, through a prism of sometimes deliberate and sometimes inadvertent bias.

The most timely and blatant example of  bias in the media continues to be the coverage of President Obama, which began in earnest during his presidential campaign and has gathered momentum ever since. The mainstream media’s favoritism for Barack Obama during the general election was even more egregious than that alleged by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the democratic primary. Studies show that candidate Obama received more media coverage overall than other candidates and much less negative press than his opponents. The media’s extraordinary deference to the president often makes us wonder if the media is acting more as an eager extension of his public relations team than as a group of supposedly impartial journalists. They appear to be advocating rather than reporting on the president’s activities.

Members of the media would have us believe that the appearance of bias is a figment of our imaginations, but do not publicize the fact that more than a third of them identify themselves as liberal compared to less than ten percent who claim a conservative orientation. The media also does not readily admit that most journalists tend to vote emphatically democratic, and have done so for decades. Most interesting, however, is that although they fail to see bias in themselves, more than two-thirds of reporters, editors, producers, and executives of mainstream media outlets readily agree that Fox News is decidedly conservative. Are we really supposed to believe that the media’s obvious orientation toward liberal ideas and democratic candidates has no bearing on its objectivity? You may draw your own conclusions.

In addition to the obvious lopsided political orientation of the media generally, mounting commercial pressures in journalism are also causing many media sources to succumb to sensationalism in order to capture market share, attain popularity in ratings and ultimately to make profits. Is it any wonder that we question the integrity of our news media?

Bias takes many forms. Facts may be distorted in news stories or may be conveniently omitted. Newsworthy stories may be completely excluded from newspapers or TV programs or buried so far back in printed media, or so late in televised programs to insure that they are glossed over or missed altogether. Other sources of bias may be less obvious, such as when stories load up with expert testimony to support one viewpoint, or when stories use language to “spin” the facts to favor one side over another.

What is the average person to do in order to get to the truth? First, know the difference between news commentary or editorials and the news itself. The former is, by definition, opinion and likely to be biased; the latter is supposed to offer a balanced view of all sides of a story. Unfortunately, traditional news outlets, such as The New York Times, NBC, and many others, have blurred the line between traditional news reporting and opinionated commentary. On cable TV, chances are high that if a “news program” is interesting and entertaining, it is probably news commentary. Offerings such as “Hardball,” with Chris Matthews and “Hannity’s America,” with Sean Hannity are examples.

Second, ascertain the most knowledgeable sources and focus on individuals who substantiate their viewpoints with concrete examples or experience. I have found only a handful of politicians, government officials, industry experts, and media pundits that actually provide thoughtful insight and meaningful perspective on topics and issues. (Many commentators speak in generalities, make non-committal comments or repeat the mainstream view.) Verify the credibility of the sources you choose by researching their backgrounds and their affiliations on the internet. Understanding their backgrounds and professional ties may help you to verify expertise and identify conflicts of interest that may bias a source’s perspective on a topic.

Third, limit your news venues, such as newspapers, televised programs or internet-based media, to those offering the most substance and a broad range of perspectives. In addition, for national political, economic and societal matters, you should consider viewing C-SPAN, which televises congressional hearings, important speeches and other events on numerous topics. Although a time-inefficient medium, C-SPAN provides a valuable opportunity to hear directly from people creating the news, without the filter of a third party.

These are difficult times and decisions are being made today by our leaders that will have a far-reaching and profound effect on our lives for many years to come. As citizens of a free democracy, we have both a right and an obligation to get to the truth.

More articles by this author are available at http://joedelcasino.blogspot.com Books are available at http://www.Xlibris.com

Let’s Applaud Miss California

Filed under: Celebrities, Scandals — @ 1:17 pm

By Jacob Bodnar

Hopefully I wouldn’t be fooling anyone if I said that I didn’t watch the Miss USA pageant. As a matter of fact I don’t think I’d be fooling anyone if I said that no one watched the Miss USA pageant.

However, at least one person watched it, and they were able to see a great display of courage and honesty.

By now you’ve all seen what happened. Celebrity blogger and most irritating person in the world nominee Perez Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, a loaded question about gay marriage. Instead of dancing around the question and giving and middle-of-the-road politically correct answer, Prejean spoke her mind, and said she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman.

For the record, if she had danced around the question, I’m betting Perez would have nailed her for that too.

I should preface this column by saying that I support gay rights. Notice there was no mention of marriage there. I’ve come to the conclusion that marriage is between a man and a woman, that’s simply what it was intended for. Historically speaking it’s almost always been that way. I have no problem giving gay couples the same amount of government privileges that heterosexual couples receive, but I don’t think it’s the state’s job to define marriage. Hell, I don’t even think the state should recognize “marriage,” it’d be easier if marriage was left as a religious sacrament and everything was provided under the heading of a “civil union.”

Either way, I support gay rights. I half agree with Miss California, after all I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I’m not sure where she stands on the bigger picture of governmental rights, so I can’t say that I agree with her one hundred percent.

But that’s really not the point. My biggest peeve stemming from this ordeal has been the response to Miss California and her comments.

After the show, Perez Hilton made a video in which he called Prejean a “dumb b****.” Way to stay classy Perez. He claimed that she shouldn’t have expressed her opinion because it somehow alienated her as a contest.

Uh…what? Since when did speaking your mind and having an opinion count against you? If we ask that of our politicians why not ask it of everyone?

Of course the gay community was outraged over this incident. I’m sure there were some that respected her point-of-view, but all the ones I heard used the opportunity to call her names and poke fun. Their reaction only hurt their cause more.

I heard one person this week say that her answer was absurd because she was vying for Miss USA and her view should represent that of the entire country. Apparently the title of Miss USA transforms you into a blank screen in which the entire country will just project their beliefs onto.

Forget the fact that the country is split on the issue, America has been known as a country that speaks its mind. We shouldn’t be tearing Miss California down for being “oppressive” or a “dumb b****” we should be propping her up as someone who spoke her mind and didn’t dance around the question, especially while under immense pressure.

Others have said that they dislike Miss California not because of her answer but because she didn’t articulate it very well.

Please, that’s simply a smoke screen for hating her because of her opinion. I have no problem with people disagreeing with Miss California, like I said I might be one of those people, but can’t you at least respect her for standing up for what she believes it. After all that answer probably lost her the pageant, she gave up a dream so she could speak her mind honestly. That’s extraordinarily commendable. It’s so rare in this country we usually only seen courage and poise like that in movies.

Instead of tearing down Miss California lets applaud her. You may not agree with what she said, but at least give her the respect she deserves for saying it.

Jacob Bodnar is the host and producer of the weekly conservative podcast, The Current Podcast. His shows and columns can be accessed at http://www.thecurrentpodcast.com He also blogs at JacobBodnar.com

Public Dissent and Opinion Must Work Both Ways

Filed under: Opinion — @ 1:15 pm

By Lance Winslow

If we are to allow public dissent in our nation, and free speech, as providing in our Constitution, then we must allow equal rights to all, regardless of their political leanings. Social censorship is censorship, and often it is just as demoralizing to our Nation’s Conversation as laws against free speech might be.

An acquaintance of mine noted the other day and stated to me in a coffee shop conversation: “Today, if you write anything on a blog that is detracting to our one and only savior, President Barack Obama, you are sure to have your blog removed for “risky content” or “inappropriate content” but it was not long ago during President Bush’s reign in office that the socialist elite and persnickety bloggers were running around call him a NAZI. We have a set of double standards that is absolutely out of control,” he said, and he was a little angry about too.

It is true that for 8-years “Bush Hate Speech” prevailed, not only in public, but in Hollywood and the East Coast TV newsrooms. This didn’t serve anyone, it tore our nation apart, it divided us and although, this is hardly appropriate behavior from the left, it was allowed because we have free speech in America, which is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, what’s fair for one, is no longer fair for all. For if one says something negative about this President, they are hushed down immediately because it isn’t politically correct to question the authority of the left.

Indeed, my acquaintance is right in many regards and definitely politically when he talks about the double standards. We are going to allow folks to protest in the streets on a Communist Holiday in America, if we are going to allow 8-years of Hate Speech condemning our President, and if we are going to have to endure socialist commentary on our TV sets during this current Administration, then surely those who politically lean right ought to be able to speak their minds too. Think on this.

Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. Lance Winslow is also Founder of the Car Wash Guys, a cool little Franchise Company; http://www.carwashguys.com/history/founder.html/.

Powered by WordPress