Temprorary Insanity

And I don't mean the inauguration balls last night. Though "balls" might describe my opinion of them.

I mean snow. The white, cold stuff. And what the hell is wrong with people who decide to satisfy their urges to go running that they feel they must charge into the road at rush hour? Seriously! It is hard enough to dodge the oncoming cars veering into your lane because of cars parking outside of snow banks -- I just don't need to risk accidents because someone has to run.

The roads are congested at the best of time, but with snow -- and the lack of removal thereof -- they are considerably narrowed. But nonetheless, fitness freaks feel the need to run en-masse in the road further narrowing it. Use a treadmill. Put on cross country skis and find a track or make one. Try snowshoe running (there's a sport for you). But don't throw yourself at the mercy of a driver that may not even be able to see you, far less stop in time on an icy road. Its just stupid!

I don't want to hit anyone, and I really try hard not to ... but there may come a time when I simply cannot avoid the situation a runner might place me in: they suddenly dart out from behind a large snowbank into the road to run around it. Or, they run through a rotary -- AND TAKE THOSE iPOD EARPHONES OUT!!! So given the complete lack of any control of Boston traffic, the miserable state of snow removal, the idiocy of the average runner (running in traffic without being able to hear it), it must be that at least one or two runners get tagged every day here. And who is to blame? I have to tag the runner (Red Sox humor). By and large, they have no "requirement" to run on the ice and sludge, as opposed to the driver who has to get to work or deliver kids to school. The runner is making the decision to take a run in a given place and time, as opposed to the commuter who does it every day of necessity.

The runner is choosing to run on a road designed and designated for automobile traffic. There are no lanes for runners, there are no special traffic lights or signs for runners or other considerations ... runners are just not meant to be on the road, although we all try to get along and share. Those doing so are negligent at the least with respect for their corporeal existence, reckless more likely. A crass statement of entitlement to use the roads avoids the obvious: the runner is placing themselves at the mercy of the skill and alertness of the driver, a dubious prospect during the morning rush hour -- and evidence of temporary insanity in Boston. And given an equality of bad fortune and fault ... the runner dies. The car owner may have a law suit and some bodywork to take care of.

And at least most runners are trying to be alert. The walking commuter in Somerville and Cambridge uses the excuse of "snow" to simply walk out wherever they choose into the middle of the road. At fault? At least partly the indolent bastard that failed to dig out the sidewalk. You can get a parking ticket for 30 seconds of civil disobedience while you buy milk .. but does anyone do anything about the sidewalks? Does Cambridge own any snowplows to even try to widen the roads? Is anyone home? Or is everyone still in a warm and fuzzy cocoon with the inauguration of the least experienced President we have ever had?

Oh, yeah. Day One and a quick prayer that you are everything that you are cracked up to be ... and more. Also that you can keep Pelosi in her cage. In that respect, Mr. President, can I suggest that you keep a supply of wooden stakes and a mallet in the Oval Office? You might find them useful. Lots of zombies to go with the Vampire.

Where is the outrage?

One hundred seventy million dollars to swear in a President. Are you kidding me? In a troubled time we are going to spend $170 million so that someone -- no matter what their color or political party -- can swear on the Lincoln Bible to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States? Haven't you then already violated that sacred oath?

Where is the red brigades of the mainstream media now? Where is the outrage at excess so common associated with Republican assholes and fat cats? Is it OK because now it is our party's party? Are we complete hypocrites? Assholes ourselves? Does no one find this completely or even partially unacceptable?

Barack: I have cautiously supported you even though most of my support was initially targeted at denying Hillary any finger on the button of power. But now you are in the hot seat. You are meant to lead our country out of this mess ... and you have already stepped in a pile of poop in condoning this orgy of self-congratulation. Why? You were meant to be the change, the hope. Instead you are the epitome of Democrat "do as I say, don't do as I do" thought and practice.

Roosevelt in 1945 had his inauguration at the White House and served cold cuts afterward. Wilson barely had anything at all. Even Dubbya's 2004 shindig cost only $40 million. Why this? I don't give a rat's ass if you are the first African-American President: that is not a reason to squander money in an economy near free-fall. You are a symbol and so is this inauguration -- and so far, you are screwing it up. Imagine how presidential you would have looked if you had stood up and said that this was the wrong time to celebrate, that we serious things to do and problems to solve.

On the other hand:

This whole mess costs less than one F-22 Raptor. Any fighter jock can eject out of one of those after a goose-strike. It costs less than a day's fighting in Iraq. It costs less than (or about the same as) the golden handshake from Merrill for its outgoing CEO after he and his cronies killed off a venerable institution. It costs less than Bill Gate's weekly income. It costs less than the billions Bernie Madoff made off with -- or that he stole from charities in 2008.

Perhaps this is a feel-good operation to make the whole country proud. To show the world (like some bloated advert) that only in America could this story come to pass.

But really, the driving force must be the need to slake the thirst/venom of the Liberal Left accumulated through 8 years of Boosh. Pelosi needs her victory dance, Reid his celebratory strut, Dean his final boogie in the sunshine of publicity. This is the reward for 8 years of careful character assassination, deceit and lies designed to shift power leftwards once again. The faithful had to be rewarded no less than the Roman Emperors needed to provide the games of the Colosseum. Michelle Obama would castrate Barack if he tried to do away with her world-class gloat.

But what about Barack? Where is he really in terms of his development? Is this Macbeth? Is he a Dane? He is going to be somewhere where only a lunatic would want to trade places with him. The world is literally resting on his shoulders, not an enviable place. He is going to have to provide concrete solutions, a clarity of vision that so far has not been present. He inherits Iraq (basically solved -- if he does not now screw it up), Afghanistan (a real mess, largely due to Pakistan being a hotbed of perfidy) and Russia.

Barack has to get our economy moving again, solve the balance of payments problem, convince other countries to buy our debt, avoid either or both deflation and hyperinflation. Try to avoid a deficit beyond what is actually necessary, protect us from Islamic nut-jobs bent on our demise, and provide leadership to the World.

The papers (NYT) have portrayed him as the next best thing to the Messiah. He will need to be.

Ugly omens

I am worried. Far more worried than the official '09 rebounders, more worried than the gold bugs, and only slightly more worried than Bernanke. Obama and crew don't have a clue how bad it is -- or perhaps they do, but have better sense than to show it ... a very real possibility, but appointments such as Panetta would indicate otherwise.

What I am worried about is this: world trade is falling off of a cliff.

I have been reading about strings of freighters and tankers lying in the roads of major East Asian ports, freight rates for trans-Atlantic shipping falling well below cost -- all indicating that the grease of world trade has turned to sand. How bad is this? Well Japan saw a fall of 65% in their trade surplus in November, year over year, featuring a 26% drop in exports. And this surplus drop with oil being a half to a third of the previous year's cost basis. That is bad. Japan depends on exports and a surplus to stay afloat -- and buying U.S. Treasuries.

And the U.S. needs to sell a lot more Treasuries to pay for the massive spend to avoid deflation effort. So who will buy them? China's massive growth rate may shrink -- maybe not into negative growth (like Germany and Japan), but curbing an appetite to buy paper from those to whom it sells its junk.

I see the papers talking about the resilience of the Southeast Asian economies and how bad off the U.S. is comparison to them ... why the dollar should be on a par with Kleenex. But those ships are sitting outside Singapore, KL, Jakarta, Taipei, Hong Kong. And those economies absolutely depend on exports ... exports to ... where exactly? And Mexico? Which country is the largest trade partner? And which country is simply deciding to save for once?

So a tension is set up: to attract capital, U.S. rates either have to go up, or the worldwide options have to be so grim that there is simply is no other choice (that scenario is pretty good). But if there is no surplus to invest, then it won't matter what the rates offered are -- who cares what 30 year paper goes to if there is nobody around to buy it? Friends, this is a liquidity trap. "Print" tons of money that you haven't even borrowed (or can't borrow) to inflate the economy or stall it from collapsing. Say you do manage to halt the slide ... then you have the recipe for massive hyper inflation. Sure you can raise rates, but that kills the recovery.

And Europe? Why should they be any better off? No reason. None at all. Germany can't sell its overpriced goods abroad -- and won't commit enough to reinflate their own economy. At least Germans tend to buy German, so they don't bleed for the benefit of the Chinese. Spain, France and the Eastern EU are in far worse shape. The U.K. is trying the same thing as the U.S., and if it succeeds, then in about 3 years they will boom again while the Euro bloc sits in a pool of its own poop.

Why is the U.S. a better bet than most? Because in extremis the U.S. can both produce and consume domestically. We have resources. We have people. We have relatively cheap labor (or did have until Obama/Pelosi screws this one up). We could be relatively self-reliant, but Europe? No. Not a chance. And when you have to buy gas from Russia to heat your homes, you are in deep doo-doo indeed.

Oh, I forgot to mention this: once hyper inflation hits, there will be a massive dumping of US treasuries and other paper. As prices fall, rates go up. Commercial rates, too. Business cannot survive without some access to liquidity and there won't be any at rates anyone can afford. The final bubble will burst.

Corruption: thy name is Democrat (too).

Priceless. Geithner is to be confirmed to run Treasury ... Secretary of the Treasury. The same Treasury Department that oversees the IRS.

Obama's people say that it was a "hiccup." Nothing really, just a failure to recognize the the IMF had also paid him the portion that equates to the employer's liability for payroll, medicare, FICA, etc. This, notwithstanding the fact that the IMF sent him the money along with a statement outlining his responsibility to make that payment and the exact amount to pay.

So Geithner pays up his back taxes. Without the penalties and fines that you and I would have to pay ... and fails to amend the two years past the statute of limitations of three years. When called on it, he of course volunteered to amend and pay ... but only when he was called on it.

Then there is the "little, inconsequential" or "minor" (per NYTimes and NPR) matter of the employment papers of his household help. Her authorization to remain in the US working expired three months before she quit. In essence, she was an illegal alien working for Geithner. Not a big deal, perhaps ... but combined with the tax fraud, I'd say that together it shows a certain "rules are for the little people" attitude that ought to disqualify him from becoming one of the most powerful men in the world (yes, the world). And no way should he be the sphincter responsible for the other smelly cretins at the IRS: the official branch of Obama's income redistribution (socialist) strategy.

Sort of like Obama's kids going to private school -- or Blair's (a far worse and hyprocritical stance).If you are going to talk the Bolshie talk, then at least do the walk.

The propaganda

And it hurts to look at it ... I have children.

Thank you, the Daily Telegraph. But what about the Israeli children?

What about 6,000 rockets sent by Hamas, the elected government of these waifs, sent to kill Israelis BEFORE Israel attacked?

Hamas-sacre

The whole world thinks that Israel should stop killing poor, defenseless, Arab children in the Gaza Strip. Or at least the Western Liberal press does. But strangely, the Arab world, while calling for a cease fire and Israeli withdrawal, has been conspicuous by its criticism of Hamas for starting this little bout of slaughter. So who is right?

The unquestioned facts are that Hamas, far from being peaceable, have lived up to their pledges in the election of a couple of years ago and have sought to kill as many Israelis as possible. The have, conservatively, sent over 6,000 missiles over the fence to try and do as good a job of killing as possible. Now remember, Israel was meant to have security and peace by handing over Gaza to the Palestinians ... everyone told them so, and in particular, Liberals from America and Europe told Israel that this was essential. So Israel tried it. Looks like those evil, hawks in the Likud were right: the great unwashed was and is still stinky.

So Israel did what any self-respecting nation would do when a foreign enemy shoots 6,000 rockets at it: it attacked. Now, our wonderful Liberal news media around the world have portrayed the Israeli attack as barbaric ... those nasty Jews killing children, bombing hospitals, demolishing places of worhip. The Left forgets to mention that those spots are where the rockets are being stored and launched from. You see, Hamas cares not at all about the deaths of its citizens ... they are martyrs and useful props: you see the broken body of a child lifted from the rubble of a school and there is not a parent that will not rise in anger and revulsion as well as sympathy for the grief of the family of the dead.

But the anger is misplaced: the very parents of those children elected Hamas, they sent their kids to schools that are nothing better than weapons depots, launching sites and terror factories and condone the slaughter of innocent Israeli children. The rightful target of anger and fury is the government of the Palestians that have created this disaster, this tragedy. Why does the BBC not explain that Israel is merely sending ordnance back to the site from which the missile is being launched. Follow the smoke trail. We (and the Israelis) now have radar that can identify with great accuracy where a basketball is thrown in the air ... let alone a rocket.

And Israel has the courage to go after the weapons that kill Israelis ...we Americans are milksops that refuse to blow to smithereens the Mosque from which the Taliban shoot at our troops, or Moqtada el Sadr's thugs do their evil from. The crazy ones are not the Israelis ... we are. And we are afraid of those pictures of dead children, killed because some Mullah correctly calculates that we do not have the stomach for conflict. And the dead are U.S. soldiers instead.

So think about this rationally: picture one dead Palestinian or Afghan child lying on the ground, dead because his house was destroyed because his father kept IEDs there. Now picture a dead U.S. Marine on the ground, shot in the head by a Taleban sniper hiding in a Mosque. Which offends you more? IT may well be that you are more offended by the dead child ... in which case you likely live in Cambridge and voted for Deval Patrick. You likely think that we Americans should not be there and that the Twin Towers was our fault, or even a CIA plot to get us into war (the Rosie O'Donnell / Sean Penn thought stream). But for my part, that Marine was someone's child too, there to root out a culture that enslaves women, beheads unbelievers or Christians, promotes warfare against my right to self determination (Al Qaeda training camps) and wants me dead. The Marine died protecting me.

If you cannot see that Radical Islam IS the threat -- and one that Israel faces every day in the form of Hamas (paid for by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and ... China(!!??)) then, you are indeed blind and/or stupid.

Long time no blog....

Back from Holidays and stuff.

And plenty to rant and rave about.

#1. Russia.

Can anyone seriously believe that the Russians are not using heating gas as a strategic weapon? The EU is "shocked and furious" (so says the Daily Telegraph) and guess what the Russians will do about it? Nothing.

You see, the Ukrainians and the assorted Eastern Europeans are not shocked at all: they lived almost 50 years under the Soviet yoke and know exactly what sort of thugs the Russians are and the criminal character of their minds. It was only the grossest of Soviet mismanagement that allowed the USSR to fail and have "Russia" rise, Phoenix-like from the rubble (ruble, rouble...). Still, the people in charge are essentially the same: FSB, KGB, GRU ... firmly in power.

Putin firmly in power. A Chekist. A cut-throat viper of no morals whatsoever. Very clever, very determined and ultimately a foe of humanity. A walking devil.

So, dear European readers ... deal with the Devil and the Devil will own you. And believe me, if you think that you can negotiate with Putin, you are an idiot: he will take exactly as much from you as he thinks he can. And that is ... everything.

How to deal with him? Deny him the capital to run his criminal enterprise, deny him the financial capital and most importantly, the intellectual capital. Cut off the spying by the FSB, refuse to enter into "joint agreements" with his corrupt businesses, isolate him. Sure, an isolated Russia will be dangerous .. but a Russia feeding at your table will be more so: the Bear will take your food too. The old saw of keep your friends close and your enemies closer does not work here. This enemy (and they look at it that way, so you should too) is simply too deadly and plays by no rules with which you may be familiar.

Russia claims the Ukraine is cheating ... siphoning off gas destined for other countries. If so, it is understandable: they will freeze otherwise. If not, then it represents simple misdirection and propaganda designed to isolate the Ukraine. Once public opinion has turned against the "lying and thieving Ukraine," it is time for regime change to something a bit more Russian. And so the dominoes fall. And who will stop them? The EU, which relies on Russia for 30% of its energy needs? I think not. The U.S.? Don't be silly.

So, my Europeans "friends" ... I think that you had better learn a phrase or two of Russian.