Charlie Daniels getting it right again

Charlie Daniels

By Charlie Daniels | August 7, 2017 — CNS News

 

Politics is no longer public service. It is a jaded, high stakes game, played by power drunk career politicians who have only two priorities in their lives, and the prosperity and security of the United States is not one of them. Reelection and power have taken the place of patriotism and honor in an atmosphere where betrayal is acceptable and common sense is as scarce as unicorns.

Why did members of Congress try to make their voters believe that they felt the pain caused by Obamacare? Why did they lead us to believe it was “We’re all in this together,” knowing full well that 70 percent of their cost was subsidized, so they could buy the very best coverage with the lowest deductibles at a fraction of the cost that an ordinary citizen would pay for a high deductible, low coverage plan?

Folks, the reason is simple, those folks, with very few exceptions, don’t give a d— about us or the country. All they care about is winning, and they’d sell your whole generation down the drain if it meant they could keep their ivory towers for another season.

In fact, they’ve already done it. /…….

Continue at: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-politics-no-longer-public-service/

Despite all the talk from the critters in the swamp — breathing swamp gas — the last thing on earth they ever want is “a level playing field” with the people. Nope, they need the deck staked in every way against us: from campaign financing to legislating over not by the people. As Ted Poe of Texas always says, “and that’s just the way it is.”

The problem is not only that self-serving estabos of Swampland declared war on the people; but the greater problem is that, until Trump, no one was really fighting back. We weren’t getting anywhere in the battle. It always came up with the gains to them. Funny.

Now they are mad that we went a different way in 2016, against their severe protests and everything they could throw in our way. They’re expert obstructionists of the Swamp.

After the latest Senate failure, Mitch McConnell informs voters it is only our perception things are moving too slowly and aren’t getting done. We don’t understand the ebb and flow in the swamp ecosystem. Then he blames it on Trump’s inexperience. Where is his experience and what’s it worth? What happened to his “one-term” goal in ’09?

Advertisements

The Intellectual Idiot

I resisted the temptation to title it Intellectualized idiot.

Here’s a really interesting piece I only read recently. It may be a bit general and comes from a very accredited thinker/writer. I guess it was quite popular but I just discovered it.

He also requires anyone sharing it do so in full crediting it as extracted from his larger “Skin in the Game”. I only post the article, there are some updates to it at the link below.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

View story at Medium.com
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only did he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.

The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.

Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.

He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

The Blind and the Very Blind

Let’s suspend the satirical for a minute.

IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics[1] without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable (via negativa). But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind.

IYIs can be feel satisfied giving their money to a group aimed at “saving the children” who will spend most of it making powerpoint presentation and organizing conferences on how to save the children and completely miss the inconsistency.

Likewise an IYI routinely fails to make a distinction between an institution (say formal university setting and credentialization) and what its true aim is (knowledge, rigor in reasoning) –I’ve even seen a French academic arguing against a mathematician who had great (and useful) contributions because the former “didn’t go to a good school” when he was eighteen or so.

The propensity to this mental disability may be shared by all humans, and it has to be an ingrained defect, except that it disappears under skin in the game.

[1] Harm done by the healer.

See Original page source

The Central Factor is Time

Looking across the spectrum of all these problems today, the one common denominator and leading factor in all of our issues or problems seems to be time.

How many songs have been written about time? It’s the one known factor and one thing we have no control over. And time is pressing.

Plug time into anything and it gives you the known variables. How much time do we have? How much time does it take to fix it? How much time is necessary to get the desired results? How much time is being wasted by ignoring the problems? How much time is wasted for all sorts of reasons? In the end, does the clock have enough time available to turn the situation(s) around?

So many people may be looking for a new clock by now. Some may be resigned that it is not even possible anymore. Some are just complacent that it even matters — with so many other concerns upon them. But then, time alone will not fix things either. It can only make the problems a little older.

Just a few general thoughts about the general factor in all our issues, time. We don’t have much left in this election.

Yet there is one other thing that I noticed, politically. Democrats have this habit of overreaching. Of course that is only a byproduct of their politics. They are constantly trying to push the outer limits on everything — whatever it is — as far as they can go. So the natural extension of that is to overreach.

The problem is that it does not seem to bite them more often, if at all. They are now floating the idea of not just beating Trump and getting the White House, but that this could even be a wave election for them in Congress. See what I mean about overreaching? It never ends with Libs, progressives, socialists, whatever they call themselves.

RightRing | Bullright

Media doesn’t like On Line polls

Fox News threw out this disclaimer denouncing online polls. In part:

Politico reports on Fox memo.

“As most of the publications themselves clearly state, the sample obviously can’t be representative of the electorate because they only reflect the views of those Internet users who have chosen to participate,” Dana Blanton, Fox News’s vice president of public-opinion research, wrote in the memo to the channel’s politics team.”

But then it is filled with irony. The MSM (which Fox is now flirting with) cannot fairly represent or reflect the electorate’s opinion on anything, because they are so far removed from public opinion. The self-serving media echo chamber thinks it supposedly represents public opinion.(same as politicians) It’s a non-stop editorial page.

It went on to say:

“News networks and other organizations go to great effort and rigor to conduct scientific polls — for good reason.”

“They know quick vote items posted on the web are nonsense, not true measures of public opinion.”

But there are no disclaimers about it. They assert that their news is unbiased when nothing is further from the truth. They don’t care and are quite proud of their bias. In other words, they substitute their editorial bias for public opinion and claim to speak for it.

Still, they all love to pick on and bash on line polls for their participation. Yet their own polls are hardly better. And their coverage is far from scientific method. The message, then, is “trust our certified bullshit. We work very hard at distorting and slanting the news.

George Will the Team Player

I’ve occasionally been tempted to take a spirited personal issue with someone. Temptation won out in this case. It has been festering a while.

George Will is the quintesental lemon in a basket of oranges. No one knows exactly what it is doing there, and everyone is at a loss to explain the problem with it.

Will has an obsession with baseball often littering his columns with analogies to bring home his point. Sometimes it’s a strike and sometimes it’s a ball. But the man has a cultish crush on it as much as his lust for words.

He uses his high-brow style, occasionally citing ‘inside baseball’ factoids that co-opt his pros adding a sports flair to the editorial page. He short circuits his intelligence with vignettes proving baseball has been very good to George will.

Here is where the pine tar gets a little thick

His elite inside politics overdubbing of Washingtonian issues lends itself to criticism as ivory-tower academia crossbred with elitism. His writing is condescending to the masses he hopes to cleanse by his rhetorical palate. We are not as intelligent as he is.

So the irony is thick here in that today the tables have turned and Washington’s “inside baseball” politics is now the chief problem, not the anecdote to it.

It was not long ago that he declared the anger of people was off base. It was more like frustration, as far as the Dr Good-Will diagnosed it. We are having a childish pout.

I’m sure in certain sections of snobsville his critiques fit like a well-worn ball glove, but in other places they fall on deaf ears — bored as much with his rhetoric as with a rain delay at Wrigley Field, or by sipping watered-down Gatorade during a no-hitter.

I don’t suppose George would see the waste deep irony in his soliloquy. He has bashed inferior folks of rural America as “incapable of cognitive thought or rational argument.” He insisted people may only come into the Republican Party “on our terms, not theirs.” He referred to the grown-ups in the conservative movement, himself among them.

There’s that inside baseball mantra again that they just don’t understand how the game is played. Barring that problem would render their co-opting strategy unnecessary.

Birds of the feathered nest

Who could forget Obama’s words:

“It’s not surprising. Americans get bitter. They cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or their anti immigrant sentiment (racists) … as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Though dripping in arrogance, it is water drawn from the same trough Will drinks from.

So what this really comes down to is George Will is a poster child for the elite-ruling class establishment. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with it, while demonstrating how little is right about it. If not for their media-accommodated, cushy chairs of news punditry — covering the very DC cesspool they are immersed to their eyeballs in — they would lead hum drum but far less lucrative lives. Rather they’ve become self-anointed adherents in ‘lifestyles of the affluent and influential.’


The Last Refuge:

“…the John Birch society tapped into something, George Wallace tapped into something, and it was up to the grown-ups in the labor movement in the late 1940’s, and the grown-ups in the conservative movement in the 1960’s to read those elements the riot act, and say: come back in, but come back in on our terms because we are not going down the road you want to go”…

And George Will tapped into something, as noted, plugged in and then hard wired his worldview into it. He’s been running on that straight juice, with an occasional baseball analogy to break up the arrogance. In 2015, Will said “there is no frontrunner. There won’t be a Republican race to speak of until this course and vulgar man, who is at the center of this argument, is marginalized.” No frontrunner?

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary trails on campaign trail

This should make hillary spew her morning coffee. Oh, should but like Obama she’s too arrogant and in denial. Perhaps if her voters, the ones who don’t trust her either, wake up to say this is not what we were promised and what we signed on for?

Poll: Hillary Clinton in trouble in three key swing states

By Kelly Cohen – 7/22/15 | Washington Examiner

Hillary Clinton is trailing three leading Republican candidates in three key swing states.

In Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, the former secretary of state trails former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in hypothetical general election matchups, according to new Quinnipiac University polls released Wednesday.

Against Bush, Clinton trails 36 percent to 41 percent in Colorado, 36 percent to 42 percent in Iowa and 39 percent to 42 percent in Virginia.

more Washington Examiner

Commentary from the gallery

What we need with Hillary is something like the misery index for the economy. My theory was the Dems didn’t care about the trust factor. They vote for them anyway, almost in spite of it — maybe because of it. So I don’t hold my breath for distrust to take her down, alone. Must be more.

The Dems must be made to feel as depressed and pathetic as they really are for the country to get anywhere. But it is quite hard to give people a conscience when they have none. If they can just see the pile of manure they put in the middle of the room, and take in the aroma, maybe just maybe we can get some reaction out of them.

This is sort of like chem trails on planes. You can make all kinds of explanations or theories about them but one cannot deny seeing them with their own eyes. Seeing Hillary flounder in the polls is obvious to us. Can Dems make a good enough explanation for the cause to shake their confidence? Trustability does come to bear, but there is much more with Hillary. She is as polarizing and disconnected from normal, working class people as possible. It’s obvious. But she tries to mock CEOS and all while she is virtually in bed with them.

Will Soros pull the plug on Heiress Hillary at some point? Will he leave her to whither in the vine? Will the very support she is tied to finally say Basta Hillary, enough?

A case against her run.

Another question on Hillary remains. Why would she really want to run anyway? I’m being serious. She and Bubba — the Tookie of the charity world — have a pretty good racket er operation. Why does she really need to run? The answer of course is, you know, power and influence. The influence racket requires the power center to really have massive affect.

It worked great when she was Sec of State. If not for running for president, and her aspirations for the White House, they could be very comfortable. No hassles, raking in their piles of doe from all their connections. It is the influential political connection they need. But they still have that, Bubba has proved hugely popular, so is Hill for that matter. They could do well outside, like most institutionally connected liberals. And they would/do make it a family business. It crosses political lines. So why not just be happy in that high life they’ve extorted and built on the backs of America and its politics? (or the little people)

It’s a very lucrative racket for the grifters.

They also have their media connections and influence. What is lacking? Not much. No, the only possible reason — take altruism out — is that she wants access to the reins of power to get the greatest possible bang for the bucks. She really doesn’t care about people or anyone else. She thinks as long as she (or they) are at the center, then everyone else will be happy. Or as long as she is eating on the right side of the mushroom — like Alice in Wonderland — everything else automatically falls in place. Life will be good, people happy, the world comfortable in its chaotic bliss. Long as they benefit personally, what’s not to like?

Trump a go-go

Whether you like Trump or not, there are a few things that are hard to deny about him. I just wish the other candidates could learn and use some of the same stuff Trump uses. I don’t have a lot of confidence in that happening but it would be a good place to start.

Trump is not politically correct, and in a good way. They could all take a page from that book. He is not beholden to special interests. Well, few might be able to finance their own election but they could start with not pandering to the politically correct crowd. America has some respect for not getting bogged down. Run like the anti-politician or insurgent.

But then there is the final point or lesson from Trump. One needs to play to win. That seems like a moot point, but is it? After John McCain, and after Mitt Romney. We certainly know the Clintons, and Hillary particularly, play to win. Haven’t we come a long way to have to remind the candidate to play to win? It seems funny to have to say it.

Sure Trump has an ego, so what? Hillary doesn’t? It is not enough to run to place. No, I am not asking the candidates to turn themselves into a bombastic Lance Armstrong hybrid. But can’t they really want to win and defeat the opponent?

Not like we don’t have enough ammunition to use against Hillary, or Democrats for that matter. Why not run like you mean it? If they don’t believe in themselves, how is the rest of the country going to get behind them? It’s fundraising, cha ching.

The arguments are: ‘let’s not turn this into a sideshow.’ You mean it isn’t already? After Obama disgraced the office and after our pols let all this happen under their watch. ‘Let’s be serious and smart about this election.’ Let’s be smart enough to know what doesn’t work. And stop listening to Dems in choosing a candidate.

‘You cannot go out and offend people.’ No, that is not the objective. But this is the presidency, and under the circumstances we are strapped in. Face it, you are going to offend some people. Get over it. Some people are naturally offended… particularly the establishment type RNC or DNC and their kingmakers. Who among us is not offended by everything hoisted on us in the last 6-8 years, especially by Obama? The truth can be offensive.

RightRing | Bullright

Presidential posturing: candidates and gene pools

It seems like the last presidential election just ended, or maybe never ended, and we are all supposed to be lining up for another take on it.

Anyway no time like the present to run for president, I guess. All aboard!

Then there is Hillary Clinton who never stopped running. She’s been president-in-waiting since about ’97. That’s almost a 20 year-long campaign.

Not to be outdone, Republicans have a third incarnation of Bushes. Yea, keep the Bush fire burning even after getting burned by the first two Bushes. No offense to perpetual burning bushes.

Gee, isn’t there at least another family gene pool we can consider? Why yes, as a matter of fact, how about Mitt Romney again? His father ran and failed so that makes it his job to succeed. Then all bets are off. Have you looked at his family tree lately? The Bushes’ pale in comparison. And anyone carrying the Clinton name is guaranteed a run in the future.

Ron Paul didn’t make it but also started another family tradition. America it seems is full of genetic lines to the oval office.

Then we have Mike Huckabee who never can say no to running. So we have a nation littered with perpetual candidates, all ripe for the picking — at least according to them. It’s our greatest national resource it seems.

If it sounds pretty cynical, just consider all the details. We were once called the “New World”. Then consider Pogo’s theorem, “We’ve met the enemy and he is us.”

Jeb Bush has announced that he is considering a run, and I’m considering taking a shower. Of course he’s running, he’s had years to think about it.

Now Mitt Romney jumps up again to say he wants to run. He says he is the only person who can take on and beat Hillary. Where have I heard that? Isn’t it kind of presumptive to say Hillary will be the Democrat candidate? So the fun begins. Mitt just illustrates how it is so predictable. We knew before the midterms that Hillary was running, actually most of us knew it after last election.

Not to cheat the Jeb Bush verses Clinton prospect. This is a presidential election not Hatfields vs. McCoys. What’s Mitt going to say: “We don’t want to elect another Bush, we should nominate someone fresh and new”? Mitt’s usual arguments don’t seem to apply to Bush. What can Jeb say about Mitt?

Read my lips: No dynasties.

So if that sounds sort of depressing that’s because it is depressing. Even worse, most of us say that’s just the way it is and how our process works. Maybe that’s the problem. And before its over some smart person will say “we really don’t have any choice, either ____ or doom and gloom”. But wasn’t that the idea?

Now I didn’t even mention Christie who had his eye on running for years. We could hope Christie gets in. Maybe there is a spec of good in all this. If they get a three-way establishment race, that creates more opportunity for a real conservative to win. How many ways can they split the vote for us? Conservatives would have to line up to support a real conservative, that’s all, against the backdrop of Rinos’ whining “this just shows a conservative can’t win” mantra.

RightRing | Bullright

Oil illusions and/or delusions

(Part 1 of 2)
I posted a piece on the current oil price decline. I could be wrong on my interpretation. Now that I think more about it, I just don’t know.

There are many different angles and factors in the issue. I decided to list some of the variables in an attempt to put the pieces on the table to get a full view, not to prove one view or another. I just thought it would be interesting to see the components.

Basically there is a view catching wide reporting that the decline in prices have hurt the domestic oil industry, and in particular Texas. Some reports describe it as a Saudi war on Texas. The narrative is that Saudis are flooding the market with oil with the intent to hurt our production, namely shale and fracking businesses, which are more cost intensive than cheaper Saudi oil.

A lot of people believe that and follow that line of reasoning. I’m not so sure. I wrote the previous piece off the cuff in reaction to a couple reports I saw getting widely spread. A few days later and I see more reports from economists with the same perspective. It has me wondering am I the lone person who questions that? Did I miss something or am I making a mistake, as sometimes happens? Am I too quick to jump to conclusions or is my bias getting in the way? There can be different opinions.

By nature some reports are kind of hard to understand and complicated anyway. But then I am no economist, and many of these people are degreed academics. I generally have some healthy skepticism and especially when I see piling on a theme. In the end, maybe there is no correct view, and maybe it cannot be seen in just one way.

Supply and demand. This is the talking point that we have heard most in the last 6 or so years. They claim it is market forces driving the high consumer prices we have seen, and actually come to accept as the new normal. This explanation is so institutionalized that we had countless investigations on higher oil prices only to be told it is just supply and demand. Those investigations don’t reveal any gimmickry, so we’re told, and no market manipulation. In fact, reports are no one can manipulate the industry. The very idea would be absurd.

There are investors and traders and hedge funds, oh my. We hear they are the ones to blame for prices. They call them speculators. They bid the prices up to higher levels. There is an awful lot of trading going on.

Cheap oil flooding the market. In the latest analysis the Saudis are leveraging their low cost oil by flooding the market in an attempt to lower costs, making higher cost production less profitable, if at all. This will stop the investment in these processes and stop the industry in its tracks. This is the point of the current reports.

Consumer demand. We will buy something at a marketable price. But in theory the higher the price is the less you will buy, or the less you want to buy it. As prices moderate or come down, you sell more of it. So even in a down economy people will buy just what is necessary, sometimes taking from other expenses. Especially at rising, or higher prices, other goods are affected because they have less money to spend. So people cut back in discretionary spending or luxury areas to offset the higher prices at the pump. Plus they cut use of the product in any ways they can. But other areas of the economy have to be affected because a bigger chunk of the money is going to a particular necessity. For instance less for clothes, food, and less disposable income.

Subsidized economies. Some countries subsidize certain areas of the economy. Many oil rich countries have lower consumer prices due to government subsidies. Some governments own or control the resources and depend on those resources for revenue to fund their government.They make budgets and decisions based on price projections.

Taxes. the money paid to gov’t on refined goods. Higher prices bring higher taxes.

OPEC, a group of oil rich nations allying to make adjustments en masse on production etc.They meet frequently to discuss their issues and concerns. (That I compare them to the Genovese crime family is neither here nor there — they are what they are) They can move or function as a bloc. They have a union concept working for them.

Oil companies, international or domestic, that produce and explore for resources. (Or if you are a card carrying leftist, the bad guys) Private companies in this country making decisions based on a bottom line profit margin, which employ many people. They are involved in production, transportation, refining, storage etc.

Government, involved in regulating, making regulation, protecting resources and assets. Also dispenses permits and approvals, and has oversight capability. It also collects revenues on the business models, as well as on consumer goods, such as refined products.

Retail businesses: Stores that sell finished goods directly to the public consumers.

Fracking and shale oil newer and higher cost drilling operations.

Cost – benefit analysis study of the benefits derived from the cost of materials and production, and projections or decisions based on those factors.

Industry and bulk users corporations and industry that use a particular commodity as basic in their business models. Airlines, freight, energy companies.

Speculators or investors and put hedge funds in this bracket. People or companies investing in oil based on its price fluctuation or performance over a period of time. People buying futures as in any other market, who hope to make a profit. (Such as Hilary’s pork belly futures)

Now, the idea is not to make some grand conclusion by these factors. Just say these are some relevant tangents in the overall picture.

RightRing | Bullright

A rejection of radicalism

As someone else says “….this ain’t bean bag”. But then this is not politics, as commonly understood.

Well, politics is bad enough, I know, but this is far from your mom and pop’s politics. The Alinsky radicals don’t play “politics” that way either. This is part of the problem, and it is only my opinion for what its worth….your mileage may vary.

The point is if it isn’t conventional politics, it is radicalism. Something happened though which seems sort of odd to some people. We the people, the sane ones, saw Barack Obama coming. We knew in no time what he stood for — or what he didn’t. We knew he was a different animal, and the events just validated it.

Sure media played their games. But the people found out, researched and were vindicated by the events. We saw the fraud and misrepresentation. However, Washington doesn’t think and act the same way we do. If they learned of any of this they forgot it, or never grasped it. They assumed, as many still do, that it is just politics and it is not.

Sure progressives now are a lot of things, like extremists, but they are radicals. We need to let that soak in to the beltway mentality. You would think they would have caught on over this 6+ years. But there are some slow learners in there.

So now we have a big problem. One does not just play the same way with radicals. One cannot project the same political strategies and goals on them. The rejection of this radicalism is an ongoing effort, and something elections won’t solve by popular vote.

RightRing | Bullright

The marginal story

Everyone heard about cop killer Eric Frein in Pennsylvania but it seems to be relegated to the unimportant pile. Who cares? Only those in the Poconos, I guess. Has someone erected a wall around that region? To those in the area, sometimes it must seem so.

The reasons could vary. Maybe it doesn’t fit any stereotypes? It’s not a disgruntled black person railing against white privilege. That alone would make it a top national story.

But why is its status so minimized? The Liberal Left, of course, would want to use it to point to white militancy and anti-government terrorism. I doubt he has any dog in that fight. Still, media could turn him into some right-wing radical extremist. They could add him to the Timothy McVeigh syndrome. Expect that sometime in the future.

At the same time, Eric Frein doesn’t fit the Muslim radical stereotype from anything we’ve seen. So here we are with one cop dead and another in rehab after his attack at a state police barracks. It just doesn’t fit. Maybe it’s the ‘people aren’t interested’ excuse?

However, among residents in the oft-touted Poconos, he is very much a concern. Maybe it only matters to them as their problem? And he may matter to Pa state officials. Other than that, no one outside the area seems to give it much consideration. Yawn.

Remember the manhunt for Christopher Dorner in California that got great national media attention — possibly what these types of criminals want. Not advocating it but this case doesn’t, which sort of raises the question of what does he have to do to get the national spotlight? He’s already killed one state police officer, and severely injured another. The schools are on the lookout and some have had lock downs due to him. He’s on the loose and an occasional blurb comes from officials: ‘We’re on him, he’s cornered, we’ll get him.’

Have Jodi Arias and Oscar Pistorius sucked all available oxygen out of the room? (how long does their 15 minutes last anyway?) These two could not put out the media spotlight with a fire hose, if they wanted to. They slip off the front page, then get yanked right back in. Personally, I am sick of hearing about both of them, but they live on in the media.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it seems a story like this illusive cop killer on the run is front burner only to those in the community. Nothing to see … move along. Did you see that Nascar feud? Serial killings, ISIS, Kobane, Iraq, Ebola, CDC, travel bans, North Korea; maybe it is drowned out by other events? But Oscar and Jodi and Michael Brown, now that’s real news. Just an observation here….next!

RightRing | Bullright

“I’ll See you in New York”

This photo, apparently taken in front of the White House, was posted to Twitter with the caption, “#AmessagefromISIStoUS — We are in your state We are in your Cities We are in your streets You are our goals anywhere.” @Sunna_rev/Twitter

Not to worry, Obama’s Secret Service is checking it out.

“We have an intelligence division whose mission is to assess information that we receive every day for dangerousness or potential threat level,” Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told ABC News. “We are aware of the image and will take the necessary and appropriate follow up steps.” (my emphasis)

Another photo displayed a note handwritten in Arabic. It read, “Soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will pass from here soon,” followed by a Koran verse that read, “and Allah is perfecting His Light even though the disbelievers hate (that).”

Accented nicely with a verse from the Koran. How thoughtful, but more on that later.

Talk about mission creep in Iraq, but what I’m worried about is goalpost creep. Seems those darn goalposts just won’t stay where they are planted. For weeks Obama and his henchmen repeatedly called for Maliki to step down or go. Now that he is gone and replaced, goalposts are moving. Now the objective seems to be active political reform in the Iraq government and on forming a new coalition government. What do you know?

We knew Obama had no stomach for any action in Iraq. Yes, current events are twisting his arm but a reluctant, obtuse Obama stubbornly resists taking actions in Iraq. He continues to broadcast what he will not do — or be suckered into — but refuses to say what he would do to alleviate the ISIS problem? (Probably because he doesn’t intend to) At every corner or crossroads he digs in. Even Roosevelt saw the light eventually after swearing off entering WWII. But Obama is stuck on his “Happy days are here again” message.

Obama has his feet and evidently his head buried in the Caliphate sand. He defies any action, especially boots kind, in Iraq, now emphasizing those evolving political goals. I don’t see what one really has to do with the other? Political goals, while sounding lofty and diplomatic, will not abolish the ISIS threat upon them. I can just see ISIS sitting there planning strategy: “Now if Baghdad politics are reformed, we are in big trouble.” No doubt ISIS has an exit plan mapped out just in case.

It is a ridiculous notion that politics has sway over ISIS. Only in Obama’s mind. So all this talk about the politics of Baghdad is just talk, and a diversion. We all know the very real threat that ISIS poses in the Middle East and around the globe. So let’s talk about politics instead. Maybe Obama never met a problem he could not play politically. (remember never let a crisis go to waste)

Even in Slate.com they sense something amiss with Obama’s invisible ISIS strategy in Iraq. Mission Creep is a bad thing, but Muslim Creep, caliphate style, is tolerable? Maybe “boots on the ground” is not necessary but what about bombing the living hell out of this caliphate from hell? No to mission creep, yes to caliphate creep. What nonsense. Then treat only a few collateral symptoms of the evil disease.

Obama, it seems, is much more concerned about playing Constitutional Armageddon than abolishing Satan’s army on the rise. He sees utility to the former and the latter as counterproductive. He claims he will not be snookered back into a war in Iraq. Meanwhile, another no fly zone was issued over Syria as the threat increases.

But while all this consternation about what to do is taking place, many on the left are rushing to say that ISIS is afraid of badass Obama. The badass who said politics was the solution for Baghdad and Iraq. Yea, there goes that badass politician, he even sounds bad.

As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,” the President said.

“We do whatever is necessary to protect our people,” Obama said, adding, “We support our allies when they’re in danger.”

(AUg 7)”I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these. I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.”

As I write, there is a new update Obama has come out to issue another decree. Here are Obama’s own comments. Now it’s crunch time as a well-respected journalist was beheaded by ISIS (more defining and description)

“Let’s be clear about ISIL,” the president opened. “They have rampaged across cities and villages, killing innocent unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shi’a, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice another religion. They declare their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.”

“So, ISIL speaks for no religion … No faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.”

“The United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. We will be vigilant and we will be relentless,” said President Obama. “When people harm Americans, anywhere, we do what’s necessary to see that justice is done.”

“Let’s be clear” about what, descriptions? There has been nothing clear from Obama, whether it’s terrorism, his beloved Obamacare, or the border. It’s never clear.

He states the threat to conversion, then declares religion has nothing to do with it. Say what? You cannot deny the fact that they are Muslims of a declared caliphate. (I don’t think that’s a Lutheran thing) Remember when he stated that Americans in Pennsylvania “bitterly clinging to guns and religion?” Now he has a hard time pointing to the source of this Islamic evil.

We could really do without the Islam apologetic. Please! And he is completely wrong. What these people are doing is being done in the the name of this religion, Islam. In fact, Muslims should be informed “do you realize these heinous acts are done in the name of your religion?” That needs to come from members of Congress, too.

Second, Obama, spare us the explanations of the problem. We are well aware of it. But you come out and define the problem – as if that is to treat it. No, we don’t need definitions, we understand the very real evil. It doesn’t need explaining, they are doing that quite well.(and not from a golf course) It is you and your cauldron of Mo-Bro allies who refuse to acknowledge it as such. Don’t describe the problem.

Then he mentions justice. Lets get something else straight. They are beyond the justice scope. It’s mass genocide. This evil operates as justice of its own. Eric Holder came out to make similar pronouncements about criminal justice. We can only bring them destruction and extermination. That is justice.

One more thing. You authorized humanitarian aid but you have not authorized actions to significantly destroy ISIS, especially given numerous opportunities to do so. That is a big problem. “Humanitarian aid” is to kill and eliminate this evil scum from the earth. Killing it is both humane and justice. Call it humanitarian justice. You have no problem supporting abortion without limits, but you talk humanitarian concerns? Where is the justice in that?

Last but not least, what he is doing in his ‘as little as possible’ strategy, is de facto turning over the problem to Iraqi’s to deal with it. That is designating Iraq to be responsible for dealing with this international evil itself and eliminate it?

Now Holder declares he has an active criminal investigation, and that we have very long memories and reach. What the hell is that supposed to mean? I can’t even interpret that. Here’s another reminder, we still have the Blind Sheik in custody, plus these idiots just released a bunch of detainees. This is not a criminal act, this is pure evil. Justice? We can’t even get justice for the Benghazi four, or countless victims of the IRS or the crimes committed on people at the border. ISIS, al Qaeda and the bastion of the evil caliphate hope we have long memories, that is what terrorism is about.


They’re here ISIS tells us.

We now have a CIA chief who dismisses the reality and actually called the idea of a caliphate fictional, that its never going to happen.

Mohamed Elibiary on twitter posted a picture, a selfie, of himself on a motorcycle to mention his Republican roots in Texas. The bandana he wore was a symbolic American flag. So he wanted to show that he was just like everyone else. Maybe the scary part is that he can hold these views while trying to blend in as “normal” occupying one of the highest offices in DHS. That picture was after he caused so much stir for welcoming the rise of the caliphate. Maybe he and Brennan should get together. Oh heck, here it is in all its glory.

Recap:
Politics = it’s the politics of good vs evil

Humanitarian crisis = humanitarian aid is exterminating the evil

Criminal investigation = the only justice is eliminating this evil

If Eric Holder was in circa 1944, I could see him talking about an active “criminal investigation”. Imagine they said back then that “we’re going to allow concentration camps to operate but we’ll pursue criminals with our long memories, and may offer humanitarian aid to those lucky enough escape it.” Yea that’s the ticket.

“I’ll see you in NY”- ISIS

“And we’ll be waiting….if we don’t bring you, first” — Team Obama.

No word yet from the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center as to exactly what this threat– in your state, cities, and streets — could mean, since SPLC is now the authority on all domestic threats.

RightRing | Bullright

When trees become flowers and flowers become trees

I am not trying to be amusing here but there are some limits to physical abilities. Flowers can produce nectar and trees can produce nuts. (not all but you get the idea) I’m not talking physical laws of nature here but there is a point where one naturally just sticks with what one knows, or does best. And when they don’t some peculiar things take form.

Not so in the realm of human beings though. We’re more complicated than that. Psychologists will give you a soliloquy about the way humanity works — or reasons for our actions and/or emotions. But those can sometimes dismiss the stupid things people can do on a moments notice that appear to be unwarranted. Oh, we can go on indefinitely with examples of mistakes or misspeaks a person has done. Sometimes ridiculous, often absurd, and sometimes downright horrible. And in many cases, one should just stick to what one knows or does best. I’m not a psychologist, nor is this an attempt to play one.

But there are a few examples worth mention, in case you haven’t gotten my drift so far. One is the racing accident where Kevin Ward was killed by Tony Stewart’s car. Another is comments after the recent suicide of Robin Williams sparked public comment.

First up is the Kevin Ward accident. Everyone knows what happened by now. Then you have an ESPN ‘mic jockey’ making an outrageous analogy of those events with a larger chip he seems to have on his shoulder with Southerners.

“The sport has a unique culture that I’m not part of,” Cowherd concedes. “I’m not a gearhead. I’m not from the South. I’m not an eye-for-an-eye guy…. It’s a Southern delicacy. It doesn’t get ratings anywhere outside the South in the major cities.” — Breitbart

In the second, Gene Simmons of Kiss — rock and roll fame — lays into depression and suicide with his aggressively sharp tongue, without fear of offending anyone. He told listeners that he shared little compassion for their plight to harm themselves:

“For a putz 20-year-old kid to say, ‘I’m depressed. I live in Seattle.’ F–k you, then kill yourself. I never understand, because I always call them on their bluff. I’m the guy who says ‘Jump’ when there’s a guy on top of a building who says, ‘That’s it, I can’t take it anymore. I’m going to jump.’ Are you kidding? Why are you announcing it? Shut the f–k up, have some dignity and jump! You’ve got the crowd,” Simmons said. “By the way, you walk up to the same guy on a ledge who threatens to jump and put a gun to his head, ‘I’m going to blow your f—in’ head off.’ He’ll go, ‘Please don’t.’ It’s true. He’s not that insane.”–Rolling Stone

He was roundly and thoroughly rebuked from other rock stars to advocates for mental illnesses. An apology followed but that is not always the chosen prescription.

In rubbernecking the fatal Ward accident, whether speaking as a fan or family member, Ward’s aunt rants on the cause of Kevin’s death.

“Thanks for thinking of our family tony Stewart when you decided to be a d***!,” said Wendi Ward, aunt of driver Kevin Ward Jr., who was fatally struck when he exited his vehicle to confront Stewart during the caution flag of a dirt track sprint car race in upstate New York on Saturday.

Well, blaming Tony may substitute for blaming her nephew, or his actions. Much easier to lambast Stewart for his actions. Colin Cowherd blamed the Southern mentality of “eye for an eye”. (I think the phrase was around long before the South was settled)

But Cowherd’s statement is not a new phenomena, it has become increasingly common from ESPN, or sportscasters in general, to offer their opinions on all kinds of things from unemployment, to Southern philosophy, to Bob Costas’ rant about gun control. To Costas’ comments, Herman Cain tweeted:

“You tune in for a football game and end up listening to Bob Costas spewing sanctimonious dreck. #Terrible”

Amy Kremer said: “So I guess Bob Costas created a firestorm. Should have stuck to football.”

But no, I guess we are human beings, after all, and with that some feel an insatiable desire to venture outside their boundaries of expertise. Though sometimes caution is warranted.

Maybe they do it for ratings or the effects. Maybe it’s intentional, maybe they’re trying to be something they aren’t. Sometimes it seems a habit. Often they excuse it under the guise of widening awareness and public debate. Sometimes they apologize, as Simmons did, and other times they just dig in their heels to further expound on their intellect. I know, maybe if a race car mechanic opines on cross-dressing pseudo-lectuals, it will bring awareness to the problem or issue? Maybe…and maybe it will just make a fool out of himself, too?

The point is that sometimes people should stick to their abilities. No doubt its a phenomena that drives publicists and agents up a wall. And it would probably drive horticulturalists mad if it frequently occured in nurseries and greenhouses.

Sure, some may think I’m engaging in what I’m criticizing. But it is clear some of us should stick to what we know, and avoid reflexive pontifications — tempting as they might be.

What’s that, “want more cowbell” you say? Fine, then lets make it a trifecta.

We have Rob Reiner doing his impersonation of a DNC strategist. The master of political hackery masquerading as a Hollywood celebrity compares the Tea Party and Hamas.

“You look at the Congress right now in the United States. You’ve got a strong Tea Party group controlling the whole country, because they have a gridlock, they have a gridlock stranglehold on [Republican House Speaker John] Boehner. Boehner can’t make a move, and so for that reason, nothing gets brought up in the Congress.

So anytime you’re dealing with an extreme group, you cannot negotiate with them, and the way to do it is to eliminate it. With the Tea Party, you have to go through a political thing; you have to wait till 2020 to redistrict, but, uh, that is really tough stuff.”

Tough stuff? What is “tough stuff” is his twisted comparison. But that shouldn’t matter to the prescient politico, Rob Reiner. He can be forgiven as a Hollywood celeb from making such analogies. In fact, it is now almost as commonplace as sportscasters’ commentary about front-page news events. Sometimes nectar and nuts are just a bad combo.

RightRing | Bullright