Search This Blog

Monday, February 28, 2011

Notables From The News

On Saturday I was at Starbucks with my hubby - my weekly outing - otherwise I am sitting at my computer trying to make extra money to get us out of debt or taking baby steps in my "get organized, get prepared project" or battling dirt, grime and ick in our home (I win the battle but seem to be losing the war). I always buy a newspaper on my Starbucks trip, and this time they had the Wall Street Journal, so I chose that over the local derailer dailies, The Ventura County Star and The Los Angeles Times - both excellent sources of misinformation and glaring omission.

A few items caught my attention which are worthy of mention and comment.

  1. Obama administration is pushing settlement to reduce loan balances for those who owe more than their house is worth. This sounds like a fabulous way of ensuring that banks stop lending money for home purchases unless you have a huge down payment. If you are a youngster and think you will someday own a home, you can forget it unless you make or inherit lots of money.

    Here is what I don't understand: Banks turn right around and sell these loans to Fannie and Freddie - I have read that those two hold 80 or 90% of all home mortgages in the US. So how is it that banks stand to lose money as stated in the WSJ? Isn't it the taxpayer who will ultimately foot the bill since Fannie and Freddie are backed by the Federal Government? Or those that bought those ingenious investments which bundled loans together then chopped them up and sold them off as mortgage backed securities? Did banks buy these?
  2. Gasoline sales accounted for10.34% of retail sales as gas prices rose and the cost of a barrel of oil hit $100 last week. If I am not mistaken, the last time oil prices spiked it slowed things down enough that we got the big financial crisis, so hold on to your hats folks - whatever is teetering could very well topple.
  3. Food price inflation - the real cause of the revolts occurring in the middle east - not an overwhelming desire for "freedom" - has arrived in your grocery store, too. Not that I need to tell you this - if you do your family's grocery shopping you know or suspected this already. It is not your imagination, food is getting more expensive. I used to buy 2 lbs of butter for $5 on special and now the specials offer 1 lb for $3.50. A loaf of sliced bread - Orowheat, for example is pushing $5 as well.
  4. Economic data for 2010 revised downward. Initially reported as 3.2% growth, the government now says it was only 2.8% after all. If you have been paying attention, this is somewhat of a habit of the reporters of economic statistics. Big headlines for the reporting of the 3.2% growth, the downward revision, page A-3 of the WSJ, bottom of the page, tiny 4 paragraph article with a camouflage title "Growth Seen At 2.8% Pace In Late 2010". You have to read the article to read that this is an revision of the earlier 3.2% growth figure. I guess the WSJ is joining the derailer crowd.
I get my information from several sources - none of which include the MSM. I have found them to be very accurate in predicting outcomes and adept at reporting the relevant - free from the irrelevant attention grabbers such as Lindsey Lohan or Charlie Sheen. For economic reporting done the old-fashioned way (ie correctly) I subscribe to Shadow Stats. I was expecting the report I noted in item (4) above because Shadow Stats said it would be so. I also follow the boys at who report things in a very dramatic fashion and lately have been touting their stock picks and investment wins rather loudly, but nevertheless called the food price inflation accurately at least a year ago. I also get Lee Bellinger's newsletter in paper format and finally to top it off and put it all together, I subscribe to Gerald Celente's Trends Journal

I do read the news put out by the usual suspects, but mostly to monitor what they are trying to get people to think, rather than to learn anything new. I used to read the Economist for news, but the derailers have taken that over too. I consider it to be an unreliable source for an accurate assessment of what is going on in the world. Beyond processed information, I have gotten into the habit of going to the source. If I read an article about a new law they are working on, at the Federal level, THOMAS is where you will get the no-spin version. Each state should have a legislative reporting service and site for you to get at the actual text of the bill in question. It is tedious, but in times like these, it is important to know what is really going on as opposed to what they want you to think is going on.

OK gotta go try and make some money now. See ya in the funny pages.


Thursday, February 24, 2011

Number Crunching - Low Interest Rates And Federal Interest Expense

Hello Everyone,

This is step 2 in my quest to figure out just how much the federal debt is going to affect the economy, and whether we are beyond the point of no return with regards to hyperinflation. First, let me explain the question I am asking and trying to answer. If, as my daughter's Columbia University Macro Economics professor asserts, the Fed can "mop up" all the excess liquidity it has been pumping into the economy by simply raising the discount rate, (effectively raising interest rates), what will that do to the Federal Governments financial predicament?

That the Federal Government (FG) is running a big fat deficit is common knowledge. In order to run this deficit - which means it is spending more money than in receives in taxes from you and me, the FG has to borrow the money. It does this by selling bonds to the general public of the entire world. In order to convince people to buy the bonds, the FG must offer an attractive interest rate. As anybody who has ever had a credit card, car loan, or mortgage knows, the interest rate you pay to borrow the money can make a big difference in a) your monthly payments and b) how much you actually end up paying for whatever it is you are buying. For example, if you have an equity loan of $100,000 at 2% interest (simple, per annum) you will pay $2,000 per year in interest (assuming you pay back no principle). This would work out to about $167 per month. If the interest rate in the second year rose to 4%, you would pay  $4,000 per year in interest or about $333 per month, at 6% $6,000/year or $500 per month. The point being that a nice manageable $167 at 2% starts to look uglier and uglier as interest rates rise.

I put together the following chart to see what our FG's credit card statements look like these days, and how they compare to prior years:

What I found is that annual federal interest payments to debt holders have declined by roughly half since 1993 - which can be attributed to the steady drop in interest rates over the same period. In fact, annual interest on the debt in 2009 was roughly the same as it was in 1999, despite our total debt having more than doubled. Since then, we have tacked on lots more so that we now have 3 times the amount of debt than we did in 1999.

So, back to the Fed mopping up all of that excess liquidity via increasing the interest rate. What is going to happen when the interest rate rises substantially, which it must for mopping purposes, to the amount the FG has to pay every month/year in interest to all of those bond holders? What will happen to all of those programs when annual interest payments triple so that we are paying 30, 40, 50% of all of our tax revenues just to meet the interest payments on our debt?  And don't forget that Social Security is now running a deficit and the Federal Government is paying some of that out of pocket (because that famous trust fund is full of federal debt- cute, dontcha think?)

So, although the Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent of the politicians, if they go a mopping, they  just might drive the FG into bankruptcy. So the question is, how likely is it that the Fed is willing to bring down the FG to save the economy from the inevitable inflationary effects of loose money? What will they do? Enquiring minds want to know...


PS. I am looking into the composition of our debt and trying to come up with some sort of model to play with to see how short-term/long-term debt w various interest rate assumptions affects things. If I come up with something reasonable, I'll post it.... but don't hold your breath.

PPS. I just read a Stanford study on the state of the California public employee pension funds which points out that those pensions are underfunded and underreported to the tune of $200 Billion. That's right, folks, $200 Billion dollarinos in the hole. We are currently fighting over how to plug a $20 Billion deficit which is really kind of funny when you think about it, and makes me wonder whether the governor is planning on selling our kidneys to rich Arabs and Chinese - I hear you can get as much as $40K for a kidney?

Wednesday, February 23, 2011


We have got to do something. The lunatics are now officially running the asylum.

I just read about this case in Colorado, where an 11 year old boy was arrested for drawing stick figures - as his therapist told him to do. (I wonder if this kid really needs therapy or whether he is exhibiting a normal reaction to being forced to deal with lunatics daily in what we still rather cynically call "school") and then there is this case in Los Angeles of a similar nature:
L.A School Child Forced Into Psych Ward - The 6-year old San Pedro student was placed in a 72-hour hold in a psychiatric hospital. SAN PEDRO (KTLA) -- A mother of two children is speaking out about LAUSD officials placing her 6-year old son in a 72-hour psychiatric hold because he drew what school officials considered to be a "disturbing picture."

And then there is another LA case where a boy is shot in the neck, and they take him to the nurse's office while they wait for paramedics, but leave him alone in a room for 40 minutes. Imagine, you are bleeding from a neck wound and are stuck in a room by yourself. That kid could have died there all by himself. This boy is black, and I think the other two boys are white. So is this how it is now in loopy-land? Completely overreact  and behave like a crazy person when a white male is involved, and just neglect black males and if they still manage to survive, well then send them to the hospital?

I also want to know why the boy who brought the gun to school felt he needed it for protection. I am sick of the "adults" hammering kids for behaving logically in an insane environment - just because the adults have completely lost control and have created a disaster.


PS - I have come to believe that it is child abuse to send your children to public school in this country.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Remember Chandra Levy?

I remember the summer that Chandra Levy disappeared - the media couldn't get enough of the story - it was everywhere you turned.  Now that her killer has been caught and sentenced, if you sneezed you would have missed that little report. It turns out that an illegal alien killed Chandra Levy.  This development makes a once national news making, headline grabbing story uninteresting to editors from sea to shining sea. Furthermore, the court transcript was heavily "redacted" before it was released.

We don't find out what happened then because the last 43 pages of Machen's 61-page sentencing memo are redacted. On the same day it was filed, Machen also filed a motion to seal Guandique's file. Why? What exactly does the U.S. attorney not want the public to know about Chandra Levy's killer? Read more at the Washington Examiner 

Why? Who knows. All I know is that we have a government that is not so much concerned with protecting the American people as they are with protecting themselves, and if they were doing their job, one of the few they actually have - protecting us from invasion, this girl would still be alive. So would Jamiel Shaw, and a growing list of other victims.

And don't forget to take note of the threatening letters being sent to legislators in Utah for trying to enforce the laws of this country. I wonder whether this will make national news? Doubtful. Now if the sender were a white guy who was once spotted drinking a can of iced tea...


Thursday, February 17, 2011

I Love Chris Christie

I love Chris Christie Oh Yes I do! He opens his mouth and tells it like it is! Finally somebody has the guts to tell the truth, so that is why I love Chris Christie ... la la la

shoo bee dooo...

you should love Chris Christie too! oh yeah...

Just thought I'd let you know.


Oink Oink

Ehh-heem,,, California?
If you are feeling sorry for the public employees in Wisconsin, here are a few items to consider:

  • Bus Driver John E. Nelson earned $159,258 in 2009, including $109,892 in overtime and other pay.
  • The Legislative Fiscal Bureau determined that the average compensation for a full-time Wisconsin public employee in 2010-11 is $76,500 per year. (legislative fiscal bureau memo 1/11/11)

Monday, February 14, 2011

South Carolina Lawmaker: Mexicans Work Harder Than Blacks And Whites

Robert Ford (D-Charleston), a black state Senator in South Carolina, argued last week against stricter immigration laws in his state saying that firmer laws would hurt South Carolina's economy because blacks and whites do not work as hard as Mexicans. The comments came during a state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held last week on an Arizona-style bill making its way through the South Carolina legislature.  According to an audio recording of the hearing Ford said, "I know brothers, and when I'm talking about brothers I'm talking . . . about black guys and they're not going to do that work at Boeing with all that dirt and stuff to be hauled to build that plant. Ain't no brothers gonna do that. Not like a Mexican will."  He followed these comments with additional disparaging remarks: "Now you know my blue-eyed brothers, pale-skinned brothers ain't gonna do no work. They ain't gonna do that kind of work . . . Ever since this country was built, somebody came in and did the work for us. That's America. It's a country of immigrants."

Quit reading my blog you lazy blacks and whites and do some work already!


Fraudulent Document Mill Busted In Virginia
Illegal Alien Kills 3 in Virginia 10 Years after Deportation Order
Senators Graham And Schumer Reunite To Push Amnesty

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Number Crunching - Federal Revenues By Source

I finally broke down and have been doing some of my own fact finding/ number crunching concerning the state of the economy, government spending, yada, yada. There are just way too many conflicting opinions out there, and everybody seems to be heavily invested in their own view of the world. I can promise you my blogs on this are going to be incredibly boring; nevertheless, I am posting my work as I do it in case anyone is interested. Also, I am hoping people point out errors in assumptions and general spreadsheet goofs - to which I am not immune.

All I want to know, is do I have to save every fricken penny we earn and stock up on food, guns and ammo or can I do some shopping, go on vacation, and generally enjoy life. Is that too much to ask? On the one hand, people are making a pretty good case for possible hyper-inflation, (Very Bad) and then my daughter reports back that her Macro-Econ professor at Columbia says no hyper-inflation and the guy on the radio is saying he thinks the DOW is undervalued and should be at 15,000 and I have to wonder whether these people are all looking at the same data. So, here goes nothing. I tentatively promise that if I try to make money off of my fabulous research here, I will let you know.

So here is what I am trying to figure out. Are we in such a precarious situation financially such that we are going to go spiraling off into a scenario of hyper-inflation, and do I need to buy a wheel barrel or 2 just to carry enough money to buy groceries. (If this happens, the guns and ammo reserves are mighty useful, because I guarantee that all Hell will have broken loose.)

Whether or not this happens, it seems to me, is dependent on 1) the overall state of the economy 2) the political will to tighten one's belt, 3) the actual state of Federal Finances 4) what those up-and-coming Social Security obligations really amount to, ditto for Medicare and 5) the prevailing interest rate the Federal Government (FG) faces when it rolls over debt obligations and finally, 6) just what the heck is the Federal Reserve really up to Mr. Berquacky? For purposes of this analysis I am ignoring the mess the States are in for the simple reason that they do not have a Berquacky at their disposal. I.E. can't print money or otherwise influence overall money supply.

Table E-2 Revenues by Major Source, 1971 to 2010 in Billions of Dollars - (Federal Revenues - how much the FG gets from tax payers - numbers in pink reflect changes in year to year values.)
So Table 1: Source CBO from a file called historicalTables(1).xls and a few others. Stuff in pink and green or any other color not black or white, I have added.

Here are a few points I found notable. The effects of the recession are clearly visible starting in 2008 as we see FG receipts of both personal and corporate income taxes decline from their levels in 2007. The situation worsens greatly in 2009 as both Personal Income Taxes (PIT) and Corporate Income Taxes (CIT) plunge.

Notice what happens with Social Insurance Taxes (SIT) - the overall receipts of (I am assuming these are SS and Medicare payroll taxes) SIT drop for the first time since at least 1971! During every downturn over the last 40 odd years, SIT never actually decreased year over year until 2009. That seems like it is significant.

Next I took the amount of the decrease in SIT and calculated some boundary numbers for jobs lost during this period which I show in this chart:
Some very rough estimates of implied job loss of decrease in FG SIT receipts.
To do this, I basically said, SIT is about 15.3% of payroll, where individual salary amount subject to the 15.3% maxes out at $106,800 - what is the number of implied jobs lost if I assume all jobs lost were at least $106,800? That gave me my "lower bound" of 2.2 million lost jobs. Then I assumed everybody made the median income which gave me 5.2 million jobs lost, and finally, I assumed everybody earned only the Federal Minimum Wage which gave me the absurd number of 16.9 million jobs lost. (If anybody tries to tell you there were more than 16.9 million jobs lost, they are FOS.) I found a CNN article reporting around 5.7 million jobs lost - so if they are to be trusted, we can tentatively conclude that the bulk of the lost jobs were in the salary range of the median income.

Something else that I need to check into... did anybody say that the economy grew in 2010? Because I do not see how that is remotely possible given the $26 Billion decline in SIT during 2010. We all know those taxes come straight off our paychecks - we don't even get the chance to try and not pay it - so if that drops by $26 Billion in 2010 that means that the bulk of the jobs lost happened in or are first fully reflected in 2010 numbers. Can anyone think of a reason why that is not the case? If so, please explain and provide back-up to prove your point.

I am working on a table showing FG interest expense in relation to various things which has revealed a few interesting little noteworthies. I need to find a good time series of GDP on the CBO site and a few other things I can't remember at the moment, but it should be ready soon.

The hard part is going to be figuring out just what really happens, step by mundane step, when the Fed does its thing. Any insight regarding such would be most welcome.

Ta for now.


Saturday, February 12, 2011

Think Our Yahoos Will Get The Message? Duh...

PARIS (AFP) – French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it. "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.

"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side. "If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.

"The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women... freedom for little girls to go to school," he said. "We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy said in the TFI channel show.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar have also recently said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants. Merkel in October said efforts towards multiculturalism in Germany had "failed, totally."

There just may be hope after all... How's your French?


Monday, February 07, 2011

Pick A Title - I Am At A Loss For Words

Al Gore's Montecito Estate courtesy of global warming. Actually modest by Montecito standards - I am sure he will upgrade once he has the US economy on the hook with the Cap and Trade scam he is heavily invested in. His company is based in the UK, did you know that? Yup. They have this funny law where foreign companies only have to pay a flat tax of  £50,000 - an especially good thing if you are planning on making a killing via forcing every business in the US to buy a license to hunt snipes. 

Camden New Jersey - Beneficiary Of Liberal Policies

Summer Home Of the Late Ultra-Liberal Ted Kennedy

Whatever happened to practice what you preach? I was no fan of Bush, but thank GOD neither Gore nor Kerry became President. I think we have had enough of the super wealthy trying to assuage their guilt by sticking it to the rest of us. I am not against rich people, but I loathe those who have it all and then demonize the process that got them all they have. Well, Kerry didn't make his money, nor did Kennedy. Gore made his by abusing his power. But it is Capitalism that is bad?


Must See TV

Friday, February 04, 2011

How Nancy Skinner and Charles Calderon Of The California State Legislature Killed My Home Business

February 4, 2011

Dear California Affiliate:

values your advertising efforts, and hopes to continue our business relationship for years to come.
However, we are writing to inform you the California state legislature has once again introduced bills which put our continued relationship in jeopardy.

There are two bills that deserve your attention. The first is AB 153 and the second is AB 155. If either AB 153 or AB 155 passes in any form, will have to sever its relationships with all California Affiliates before either bill becomes law. Both bills are currently in committee, and may pass any day.

AB 153 targets the affiliate relationship directly. This bill is similar to "affiliate nexus" bills we have seen in a few other states, modeled on the law first passed in New York. If AB 153 becomes law in California, it will mean that if we use your affiliate advertising services we would be required to collect sales taxes on all our California customer sales.

AB 155 contains traditional affiliate nexus language, similar to AB 153, but also has a tattle-tale reporting requirement similar to a law passed in Colorado last year (which was recently enjoined due to constitutional concerns).

We believe both bills are harmful to business, unconstitutional, and contrary to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. Where similar bills have passed in other states we have summarily terminated our affiliate relationships in those states rather than submit to the unconstitutional burdens these laws impose.

However, you can prevent this from happening in California. In many other states, the voices of local affiliate
advertisers were heard. They pointed out to their legislators and governors that such legislation was
unconstitutional, would be bad for local business and would not increase state revenues. Those bills were either not passed or vetoed by informed governors.

You may want to make your voice heard on the matter. AB 153 was introduced by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner who may be contacted by telephone (916) 319-2014. AB 155 was introduced by Assembly Member Charles Calderon who may be contacted by telephone (916) 319-2058. However, it is more important that you contact your state representatives, and any others you personally know, and tell them they should not support these unwise bills. We encourage you to do this without delay.

Again, values your advertising efforts and is hopeful that, like other states recently examining and rejecting this legislation, including California in previous years, will once-again see that these bills are bad for business and bad for California.


Jonathan E. Johnson III
President, Inc.


Thank you for your participation in the Boden USA Affiliate Program!

We've been watching the Internet Tax laws closely, as we do not have brick and mortar stores in the United States.

Your state has come up as one that is looking to introduce legislation.  If these laws pass, we may not be able to continue our relationship in the affiliate program, due to the fact that we cannot charge state tax on our website.  We wanted to give you notice as soon as possible about this, even if the legislation may not be passed for months.  If you plan on moving your business to another state or you have a way to exclude consumers from specific states, we may be able to work something out.

If the legislation does not pass, it will be business as usual.


And then there's The Home Depot's take:

Dear Affiliates,

The Home Depot is proud to do business with you and values our relationship.  It is in this spirit that I am reaching out to you as our collective online success is intertwined with the health of both of our organizations.

There has been a great deal of media coverage recently regarding the sales tax collection issue (e-fairness) and its impact on the overall affiliate marketing industry.  We understand that has said it will terminate its affiliate program in California if e-fairness legislation passes that requires them to collect sales tax due on purchases by California residents.

We want to make you aware that The Home Depot strongly supports the retail fairness legislation. As we all know, the decades old loophole is using to avoid sales tax collection was intended for catalogs, pre-dates e-commerce and was decided before the technologies we use today to simplify tax compliance were available.

It’s our view that success online and tax compliance are not mutually exclusive.  Even during this recession, last year The Home Depot collected and remitted nearly $750 million in California sales taxes, while employing over 39,000 Californians and enjoying and expanding relationships with California affiliates like you.  It’s because we are committed to the very communities where we live, work and play that we strongly support a change in the law that will strengthen the local business community and support job growth. 

Thank you for your partnership and support in 2010. We are committed to our collective success and look forward to continued sales growth for both of our organizations. 

Hal Lawton


Gosh, I almost fell for it. Of course the Home Depot collects and pays California sales tax....they have a gazillion stores in California. Duh. And frankly, what is the difference between buying something out of a catalog, the paper version, and a catalog, the online version?

If I weren't so hopping mad at our government and their lying, cheating, swindling ways, I would really appreciate The Home Depot taking this approach. But right now I wish The Home Depot would inflict as much pain on the greedy, two-faced, good for nothing layabouts in Sacramento as they possibly could. Heads on a stick, I say! (Actually, John and Ken say it everyday, I am just parroting - squawk.)

Sign me one pissed off Retro Housewife.

The Complicity Of The Main Stream Media In Perpetuating The Global Warming Scam

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

I discovered this site at 2:24 AM, Friday, February 4th, 2011. It is criminal that the American press has failed to mention the petition project's existence. Global warming is merely a pretext for leftists to widen the reaches of government control. Here is an interesting article from 1974 in the Time Magazine about the coming ice age. Read it and see if you think it sounds familiar.

If you read Time, Newsweek and now even the Economist and think you are being informed, think again. I understand how people can have differing political views. What I can't understand is how many people prefer to be lied to, or told only half of the truth. If this doesn't make you mad as hell, then you need to have your head examined.

Meanwhile, school children are being taught junk science in preparation for the new world order:

The Climate Generation Program, an outgrowth of the British Council’s Climate Champions program, is underway in a network of 60 countries. Its goal is to encourage young people to engage climate issues at local, national and international levels.
And the California Air Resources Board is still busy derailing the California economy. The Air Resources Board has California business out hunting for Snipes.

Amazing. The stupidity of this is mind-boggling.

Nite Nite.


Thursday, February 03, 2011

Althea Rae Shaw, Candidate for Los Angeles City Council District 10

Still No Justice For Jamil Shaw: June 2011 Doug McIntyre: Our Council Cares More About Bulbs Than Justice Any politician from Los Angeles who says they care about anything but themselves is a big fat liar. This case is such an egregious miscarriage of justice, it makes me want to walk right into the LA Mayor's office and puke all over his desk.

This post is about doing what I can to support Althea Shaw's candidacy for a seat on the Los Angles City Council in the upcoming March election. I don't live in LA, but I live close enough to eventually be affected by the state of things in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, which means they shamelessly violate the laws of the United States by providing a safe haven for people who do the same. Althea Shaw understands the cost of LA's sanctuary city policy better than most of us. Her nephew, Jamiel Andre' Shaw II, was brutally murdered a block away from his home by an illegal alien gangster, fresh out of the slammer where he had been sitting for the trivial little crime of assault with a deadly weapon. Jamiel's mother, btw, was risking her own life in Iraq in service to this hideously ungrateful country of ours at the time of her son's murder.

Althea Shaw's message is simple. She wants to make her community a safe place to live. A place where children can play outside without fear of being shot. I support that. That is what I demand for myself and my own family, as do most white, wealthy liberals in the state of California. The difference is that white wealthy liberals live in places like Santa Barbara, Montecito, Marin County, Beverly Hills, Santa Cruz, Carmel, Monterey, Cupertino, Napa Valley - you know, places where kids can play outside without fear of being shot. They also support politicians who support sanctuary city policies like the one which murdered Althea Shaw's nephew.

White, wealthy liberals support gunning down black kids because they are black. That is why Jamil Shaw was murdered, in case you were wondering. He had no gang connections, he had a bright future, was a Football Super Star, at Los Angeles High School. The dirty little secret of the California liberals is that black people are being used for target practice by the Latino gangs, but nobody wants to talk about that.

As a recovering white, wealthy liberal myself, my new political philosophy is to ask myself, am I voting for this because the negative aspects won't affect me whatsoever, but I get to run around pretending to be a magnanimous, caring person at the private school fundraiser luncheons I attend, or am I asking other Americans to tolerate that which I wouldn't tolerate for twenty seconds? I only vote for things I would want for myself, even if I can temporarily avoid the negatives of the pat-myself-on-the-back-and-feel-superior policy or candidate.

(Liberalism is the new, exclusive country club membership in California - it is a status symbol - like, I am so friggin wealthy and successful, I can afford to be a leftist. How gauche it is to concern oneself (publicly) with the preservation of one's wealth and status...)

The truth is, actually, that I am acting in my own self-interest by supporting Althea Shaw. As I said at the beginning, I don't live in Los Angeles, but I live close enough to eventually be affected by the state of things in Los Angeles. So, since I am letting her do all the hard stuff, I figure the least I can do is support her.

Have a nice day, I know you will.


Listen to internet radio with Jamielslaw on Blog Talk Radio

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

My Message To The Baby Boomers

Dear Baby Boomers,

I used to like your music. Now it makes me want to puke a little. It never really occurred to me that the drug-crazed hippie set would actually be in charge of the country someday; for some reason I assumed that the adults in charge would Prince William right over your entire generation, and leave you to do what you do best - contemplate your own navel. The last decades have been a rather rude awakening that those with the exaggerated sense of self-everything - worth, confidence, importance and esteem are indeed at the helm.

Still, as I watched the country go to hell in a hand-basket, it still hadn't really clicked. I think it was during the dot-com boom that I realized how little you people know as I listened to Boomer "Analysts" pontificate on how "earnings don't matter" when trying to determine whether a stock is overpriced or not.  It was clear that this was a generation of large children who were willing to take thousands of years of basic common sense and toss it in the dust-bin because the bloated self-esteemers think they know better.

Then came the real estate bubble. Having just, literally, minutes before, gone through a bubble in the stock market and the crash that follows, nobody sees the next crash on the horizon. The Boomers in charge start spending like it will last forever and reckless as ever, decide that everybody deserves a house, regardless of whether they have actually earned one. I knew the banks were in trouble just by the mail I found in our mailbox every day. Borrow, Borrow, Borrow was the message - "Bad credit OK". That banks were going to fail was not only foreseeable, it was the only possible outcome.

What I didn't know about was the fiasco on the other side of the country. Nobody in their right mind can think that bundling together a bunch of bad investments, and selling shares of the bundle is going to alter the outcome. The problem is that there is no diversification of risk if the underlying assets are sure to fail. If people don't make enough money to pay for a $1M home, after the teaser rate expires, the house will go into foreclosure. Even if they are not certain to go bad, they are all positively correlated in the event of of an economic downturn or spike in interest rates. It's kind of the same idea as to why insurance companies won't write earthquake insurance. If a big one hits, all the policies make claims at once. Buh bye.

Despite the obvious incompetence or flat out fraud behind our current troubles, there have been no consequences to any of the perpetrators. None. In fact they have been rewarded. This means it is going to happen again. If you reward a certain type of behavior, you are going to get more of that behavior. End of story.

Here in California, the only possible outcome of allowing millions of dirt poor foreigners break our laws and take advantage of our social services is a bankrupt state. Et vĂ²ila - what do we have? A bankrupt state. I am not mean, hateful, racist, homophobic or allergic to peanuts. That is just flat out how things work.

Everything you have gotten your hands on you have ruined. We are a nation which is more concerned with hurting somebody's feelings that ensuring that that person has the means to earn a living and put food on his or her table. Actions, or inaction as befits the state of things not only no longer speak louder than words, they are mute. Hypocrisy rules hand in hand with incompetence and stupidity.

So, here is what you need to know. I am not going to pay for your retirement or your old-age medical benefits. You are on your own. If you try to raise my taxes, I will pack up and leave. I have no problem living abroad. I will not vote for any tax increases, not here in California, not for the Federal Crooks not for the city or neighborhood watch. You want a cushy retirement? Talk to your kids. I am sick-and-tired of living in your wake of destruction and trying to pick up a few crumbs left over from your orgies.

I will support any politician who wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. I will never see a dime from either of those systems and you Boomers just do not deserve them. You have already gotten your share.


Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Janet Napolitano Has To Go

Janet Napolitano is either an idiot or a liar. We need neither of those in positions of power, therefore she should resign or be removed forthwith.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said U.S. communities on the border with Mexico are safer than most Americans believe.

This is what our CIA thinks:
A serious impediment to growth in Latin America remains the power of criminal gangs and drug cartels to corrupt, distort, and damage the region’s potential.  The fact that criminal organizations and cartels are capable of building dozens of disposable submarines in the jungle and then using them to smuggle cocaine, indicates the enormous economic scale of this activity. This poses a real threat to the national security interests of the Western Hemisphere.  In particular, the growing assault by the drug cartels and their thugs on the Mexican government over the past several years reminds one that an unstable Mexico could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions to the United States.  
There are entire areas in Arizona which are under effective control of the drug cartels. Our treasonous Department of Interior and BLM have forbid local law enforcement from entering those public lands out of "environmental concerns" - which is absurd given that the least of the concerns of the current occupiers of the public lands, the drug cartels, is the well-being of the environment.

Apparently, Janet Napolitano is not aware that signs have been placed on the edge of the US public lands warning would-be visitors to stay out of the area because the place is full of drug traffickers. One can only wonder about who Janet Napolitano is really warning:

Napolitano on Monday also warned Mexican drug cartels to keep violence on their side of the border. She said those who don't, "will be met with an overwhelming response."

By overwhelming response, does she mean really, really stern signs? Does she mean she will keep Americans out of the cartel controlled areas by force? Who does she think she is kidding? The only ones who have any reason to fear Janet Napolitano are American Citizens. We are paying her salary, folks. She is stabbing us in the back and treating us like fools.


PS - Perhaps if Ms. Napalitano finds it so difficult to build a fence on the border, she should enlist the help of a few of her comrades from the former Soviet Union, or North Korea even. They have no trouble whatsoever when it comes to fence building.