Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 07:05am PT
|
oh, how the mighty have fallen (and the libs celebrate):
Special Editorial: Surrender to North Korea
William Kristol
December 18, 2014 8:35 AM
In October 1940, Americans flocked to movie theaters to see Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator, mocking the most powerful tyrant on the globe. In December 2014, movie theaters and then the production company cancelled the release of The Interview because of threats of terror from a tinpot, though totalitarian and evil, tyrant who rules a weak and decrepit nation.
It's not that there is (unfortunately) no precedent for this: consider the Mohammed cartoons. It's not that movie theaters don't have to be attentive to the well-being of those who attend their movies. It's not that there isn't something ridiculous about the lack of Western interest in a totalitarian dictatorship's starving millions of its people, while its attempt to prevent an American movie from being shown makes the front pages.
Still. The surrender to North Korea is a historical moment. It's far more significant than President Obama's announcement the same day of his opening toward Cuba. That is merely another sign of an administration's strategically weak and morally rudderless foreign policy. The capitulation to North Korea could be—unless we reverse course in a fundamental way—a signpost in a collapse of civilizational courage.
In his 1978 Harvard speech, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn saw it all, and said it all:
“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course, there are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.
“Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and in their statements, and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable, as well as intellectually and even morally worn it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and with countries not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
“Should one point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 07:21am PT
|
Bill Kristol hasn't been right about anything in at least 10 years...he and Dick Morris, what a pair.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 08:51am PT
|
Sony, the same company that sold the chinese our submarine propeller secrets...
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2014 - 11:08am PT
|
Normalizing trade with Cuba has broad support in the U.S. if, for no other reason, it will help the Cuban people who have been victims of the Castros for half a century. Normalizing diplomatic relations is a different story, but that distinction gets lost so I won't discuss it further.
Instead, I have to share an open letter I read this morning. I love reading what Scots write, partly because they're generally so literate, and partly because my grandfather was educated there before returning to Armenia. Not that the rest of this thread doesn't constitute comic relief, but I found this letter from a person working at the Royal Bank of Scotland to Russell Brand, quite hilarious:
Dear Russell,
Hi. I’m Jo. You may remember me. You may even have filmed me. On Friday, you staged a publicity stunt at an RBS office, inconveniencing a hundred or so people. I was the lanky slouched guy with a lot less hair than you but (I flatter myself) a slightly better beard who complained to you that you, a multimillionaire, had caused my lunch to get cold. You started going on at me about public money and bankers’ bonuses, but look, Russell, anyone who knows me will tell you that my food is important to me, and I hadn’t had breakfast that morning, and I’d been standing in the freezing cold for half an hour on your whim. What mattered to me at the time wasn’t bonuses; it was my lunch, so I said so.
Which is a great shame, because I’d usually be well up for a proper barney with you, and the points you made do actually deserve answers. Although not — and I really can’t emphasise this enough, Russell — not as much as I deserve lunch.
Before I go any further, I should stress that I don’t speak for RBS. I’m not even an RBS employee, though I do currently work for them. What follows is not any sort of official statement from RBS, or even from the wider banking industry. It is merely the voice of a man whose lunch on Friday was unfairly delayed and too damn cold.
So, firstly, for the people who weren’t there, let’s describe the kerfuffle. I didn’t see your arrival; I just got back from buying my lunch to discover the building’s doors were locked, a film crew were racing around outside trying to find a good angle to point their camera through the windows, and you were in reception, poncing around like you were Russell bleeding Brand. From what I can gather, you’d gone in and security had locked the doors to stop your film crew following you. Which left us — the people who were supposed to be in the building, who had work to do — standing around in the cold.
My first question is, what were you hoping to achieve? Did you think a pack of traders might gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing champagne, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes — and you, Russell, would damningly catch them in the act? But that’s on Tuesdays. I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you’re challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullsh#t, is that you don’t have an appointment.
Of course, Russell, I have no idea whether you could get an appointment. Maybe RBS top brass would rather not talk to you. That’s their call — and, you know, some of your behaviour might make them a tad wary. Reputations are very important in banking, and, reputation-wise, hanging out with a guy who was once fired for broadcasting hardcore pornography while off his head on crack is not ideal. But surely a man who can get invited onto Question Time to discuss the issues of the day with our Lords & Masters is establishment enough to talk to a mere banker. And it would be great if you could. Have you tried, Russell? Maybe you could do an interview with one of them. An expert could answer your questions and rebut your points, and you could rebut right back at them. I might even watch that. (By the way, Russell, if you do, and it makes money, I would like a cut for the idea, please. And I’m sure it would. Most things you do make money.
But instead of doing something potentially educational, Russell, you staged a completely futile publicity stunt. You turned up and weren’t allowed in. Big wow. You know what would have happened if a rabid capitalist had just turned up unannounced? They wouldn’t have been allowed in either. You know what I have in my pocket? A security pass. Unauthorised people aren’t allowed in. Obviously. That’s not a global conspiracy, Russell; it’s basic security. Breweries have security too, and that’s not because they’re conspiring to steal beer from the poor. And security really matters: banks are simply crawling with highly sensitive information. Letting you in because you’re a celebrity and You Demand Answers could in fact see the bank hauled in front of the FCA. That would be a scandal. Turning you away is not. I’m sorry, Russell, but it’s just not.
Your response to my complaint that a multimillionaire was causing my lunch to get cold was… well, frankly, it was to completely miss the point, choosing to talk about your millions instead of addressing the real issue, namely my f*cking lunch. But that’s a forgivable mistake. We all have our priorities, Russell, and I can understand why a man as obsessed with money as I am with food would assume that’s what every conversation is about. Anyway, you said that all your money has been made privately, not through taxation. Now, that, Russell, is actually a fair point. Well done.
Although I can’t help but notice that you have no qualms about appearing on the BBC in return for money raised through one of the most regressive taxes in the country, a tax which leads to crippling fines and even jail time for thousands of poor people and zero rich people. But never mind. I appreciate that it’s difficult for a celeb to avoid the BBC, even if they’re already a multimillionaire and can totally afford to turn the work down. Ah, the sacrifices we make to our principles for filthy lucre, eh, Russell? The condoms and hairspray won’t buy themselves. Or, in my case, the pasta.
And then there is that film you’re working on, isn’t there, for which I understand your production company is benefitting from the Enterprise Investment Scheme, allowing the City investors funding your film to avoid tax. Was that the film you were making on Friday, Russell, when you indignantly pointed out to me that none of your money comes from the taxpayer? Perhaps it had slipped your mind.
And, of course, you’ve been in a few Hollywood films now, haven’t you, Russell? I take it you’ve heard of Hollywood Accounting? Of course you have, Russell; you produced Arthur. So you are well aware that Hollywood studios routinely cook their books to make sure their films never go into taxable profit — for instance, Return Of The Jedi has never, on paper, made a profit. Return Of The f*#king Jedi, Russell. As an actor, and even more so as the producer of a (officially) loss-making film, you’ve taken part in that, you’ve benefitted from it. (While we’re on the subject, I hear great things about Hollywood’s catering. I hope you enjoyed it. Expensive, delicious, and served (at least when I dream about it) nice and hot.)
But still, you’re broadly right. Leaving aside the money you make from one of the most regressive of the UK’s taxes, and the tax exemptions your company uses to encourage rich City investors to give you more money, and the huge fees you’ve accepted from one of the planet’s most notorious and successful tax avoidance schemes, you, Russell, have come by your riches without any effect on taxpayers. Whereas RBS got bailed out. Fair point.
Here’s the thing about the bailout of RBS, Russell: it’s temporary. The plan was never to bail out a bank so that it could then go bust anyway. That would be too asinine even for Gordon Brown. The idea was to buy the bank with public money, wait until it became profitable again, then resell it, as Alastair Darling clearly explained at the time. And that is still the plan, and it does appear to be on course. Not only that, but it looks as if the government will eventually sell RBS for more than they bought it for. In other words, the taxpayer will make a profit on this deal.
Of all the profligate pissing away of public money that goes on in this country, the only instance where the public are actually going to get their money back seems an odd target for your ire. What other government spending can you say that about, Russell? What other schemes do they sink taxpayers’ money into and get it all back, with interest? And how many people have you met who have actually been right in the middle of working to make a profit for the taxpayer when you’ve interrupted them to cause their lunch to get cold?
As for bonuses, well, I’ll be honest: I get an annual bonus. I’m not allowed to tell you exactly how much it is, but I will say it’s four or five orders of magnitude smaller than the ones that make the headlines. It’s very nice — helps pay off a bit of credit card debt (remember debt, Russell?) — but, to put it in terms you can understand, I’d need to work for several tens of thousands of years before my bonuses added up to close to what you’re worth.
But here’s the key thing you need to know about bonuses, Russell: they come with conditions attached. My salary is mine to do with as I will (I like to spend a chunk of it on good hot food). My bonus my employer can take back off me under certain conditions. Again, I do not speak for RBS, so cannot say anything about the recent FX trading scandal or PPI or any of that sh*t. But, in general terms, bonuses have conditions attached, such as “And we’ll claw back every penny if we discover you were breaking the rules.” And yes, it does happen. The only bonuses that make the news are the ones that get paid. But, every year, bonuses either don’t get paid or are even taken back off staff for various reasons, including misconduct. I’d’ve thought, Russell, that anyone who wanted bankers to be accountable would approve of the scheme.
And now, if I may, a word about your manner.
Much as I disagree with most of your politics, I’ve always rather liked you. You do a good job of coming across as someone who might be fun to be around. Turns out, that’s an illusion.
Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That’s pretty f*#king aggressive, Russell. I’m sure you’re aware of the effect. Putting one’s face that close to someone else’s and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight. Regardless of our veneer of civilisation, when someone does that to us, it causes instinctive physical responses: adrenaline, nervousness… back down or lash out. (Or, apparently, in the case of the celebrity bikes you like to hang out with, swoon.) I’m sure that, like turning up with a megaphone instead of an appointment, such an aggressive invasion of personal space makes for great footage: you keep talking to someone in that chatty reasonable affable tone of yours, and they react with anger. Makes them look unreasonable. Makes it look like they’re the aggressive ones. Makes it look like people get flustered in the face of your incisive argument. When in fact they’re just getting flustered in the face of your face.
I’ve been thinking about this the last couple of days, Russell, and I can honestly say that the only other people ever to talk to me the way you did were school bullies. It’s been nearly a quarter of a century since I had to deal with such bastards, so I was caught quite off my guard. Nice company you’re keeping. Now I think about it, they used to ruin my lunchtimes too.
One last thing, Russell. Who did you inconvenience on Friday? Let’s say that you’re right, and that the likes of Fred Goodwin need to pay. OK, so how much trouble do you think Fred faced last Friday as a result of your antics? Do you think any of his food got cold, Russell? Even just his tea? I somehow doubt it. How about some of the millionaire traders you despise so much (some of whom are nearly as rich as you, Russell)? Well, no, because you got the wrong f*cking building. (Might want to have a word with your researchers about that.) Which brings us back to where we came in: a bunch of admittedly fairly well paid but still quite ordinary working people, admin staff mostly, having their lives inconvenienced and, in at least one case, their lunches quite disastrously cooled, in order to accommodate the puerile self-aggrandising antics of a prancing multimillionaire. If you had any self-awareness beyond agonising over how often to straighten your f*cking chest-hair, you’d be ashamed.
It was paella, by the way. From Fernando’s in Devonshire Row. I highly recommend them: their food is frankly just fantastic.
When it’s hot.
If only I could write like that!
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2014 - 11:32am PT
|
My presidency is entering it's fourth quarter. Interesting things happen in the fourth quarter.
Welcome back, Barack. We missed you.
P.s.- I saw my new favorite bumper sticker the other day. It read "If Obama was the answer, how stupid was the question?" The question, of course, was "Should a Republican be President?" Twice!
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2014 - 05:18pm PT
|
We hoped and changed.
Still,not one of you have told me what Republicans have done right.
|
|
rlf
Trad climber
Josh, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2014 - 11:37am PT
|
Yet another steaming pile of mindless shit! This whole thread.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2014 - 12:54pm PT
|
SLR...First time i've been wrong on supertopo...My source was a retired squid ( vietnam era ) from the Nautilus...
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2014 - 07:10am PT
|
Everybody has one.
Facts can hurt.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 05:58am PT
|
I like these facts..
US Economy Grew at Fast 5 Pct. Annual Rate in Q3
WASHINGTON — Dec 23, 2014, 8:39 AM ET
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer
Associated Press
The U.S. economy grew at a sizzling 5 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the fastest in more than a decade, boosted by strength in consumer spending and business investment.
The Commerce Department on Tuesday sharply revised up its estimate of third-quarter growth from a previous figure of 3.9 percent. Much of the strength came from consumer spending on health care and business spending on structures and computer software.
It was the fastest quarterly growth since the summer of 2003. It followed a 4.6 percent annual growth rate in the April-June quarter.
Most economists think growth is slowing to an annual rate of around 2.5 percent in the current October-December quarter. They foresee growth around 3 percent in 2015.
That would be the strongest figure since the economy expanded 3.3 percent in 2005, two years before the Great Recession began.
The 2007-2009 downturn, the worst since the 1930s, cost millions of people their jobs. Since then, the economy has struggled to regain full health. Even after the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has turned in mediocre growth rates averaging 2.2 percent annually.
But many analysts think growth is finally set to accelerate as more businesses have grown confident about hiring. The country is on track to have its healthiest year for job growth since 1999. In November, employers added 321,000 jobs, the biggest one-month increase in three years.
With more people working and having money to spend, solid gains are expected in consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 07:29am PT
|
Crankster! Great to have more good news like you posted.
I am so tired of the "nabobs of negativity."
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 06:46am PT
|
What a year!!!
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 10:15am PT
|
If you really believed that it was a troll, would you continue to feed it?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
|
Prattle, trolling, who cares?
I'm just passing on good news about the economy. Like cheaper gas to drive to the crag.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2014 - 10:43am PT
|
I have some friends sailing around the world, and got a recent email from them from the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.
Just a short quote to irritate the Muslim haters:
But for today these issues are under control, thanks to a well organized government and an array of social programs that ensure every inhabited island has power, water, access to fuel, and all the necessities for a safe life.
It is one of the few countries we’ve visited where there isn’t even a hint of corruption anywhere, and we’ve found this 100% Muslim population to be the most honest dealing and straight forward people weÕve ever met. There are simply no rip-offs, no back handers for government officials, and if we dropped a wallet from our pocket, we’re certain the locals would ensure it’s prompt return. How this culture of honesty came to exist amidst a region with such rampant corruption is an interesting social question. Perhaps it’s rooted in Muslim tradition, or perhaps it’s the nature of life in a tiny remote island village, where a reputation for dishonesty could have lifelong penalties.
Our mingling with the locals has again been a highlight of our time here so far, and another example of how our lingering prejudices are being systematically deconstructed by the people we meet on our journey.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2014 - 05:10pm PT
|
Oil Crash: Don’t Believe the Happy Clatter
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: December 23, 2014
There is a mushrooming false narrative taking over the business airwaves: lower oil prices lead to lower prices at the pump which put more cash in consumers’ pockets which will lead to a more robust economy in the United States in 2015.
Yes, there are certainly lower prices at the pump. Yes, that gives consumers more disposable income. But it will decidedly not lead to a more robust economy in the United States for very long.
This isn’t a little speed bump in oil prices. This is one of the most dramatic and rapid crashes in a key industrial commodity in history. Since June, the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the domestic crude oil produced in the U.S., is down by 47 percent. The price of the internationally traded crude oil, Brent, is down by a similar figure.
If this price collapse were happening in just crude oil, it could be shrugged off as a supply glut problem attributable to growing shale production in the U.S. and over production among OPEC members. But other industrial commodities are in freefall as well. Iron ore prices are down 49 percent this year while copper has declined 15 percent. The price of natural gas is down 30 percent in just the past month, including a plunge of 9 percent just yesterday.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that a broad gauge of industrial commodity prices entered a gradual decline in June and then began to plunge in September. That chart looks suspiciously similar to the price action in industrial commodities in the same time period in 2008 – which signaled an early warning to the greatest economic collapse in the United States since the Great Depression. (See charts below.)
Industrial commodity prices are a leading indicator of things that are more than pesky details to economic stability. A robust manufacturing sector and robust consumer demand is simply not compatible with crashing industrial commodity prices.
Plunging industrial commodity prices are compatible with the sharp decline in the interest rate on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note and the fact that yields on similar maturity sovereign debt in Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France and Ireland set all-time lows this month.
You are no doubt thinking by now that the U.S. stock market is also supposed to be a reliable barometer of economic vitality – looking out on the horizon by about six months.
Sorry. You’re confusing the stock market barometer of yesteryear with today’s cacophony coming from high frequency traders, artificial intelligence algorithms, co-located computers, dark pools, and over $1 trillion in corporations buying back their own stock. It might be helpful to remember that the Dow Jones Industrial Average went from 12,000 to 13,000 between March and May of 2008 before entering a plunge that would take it to the 6500 range by March of 2009. (It should be noted, however, that frothy markets can become frothier than the current one before reality sets in.)
Federal Reserve Chair, Janet Yellen, has climbed out on a very precarious limb in this debate. Both the December 17, 2014 statement from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and Yellen in her press conference that day, characterized the collapse in energy prices as “transitory.” The FOMC statement read: “The Committee expects inflation to rise gradually toward 2 percent as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of lower energy prices and other factors dissipate.” Nothing about the charts below gives an impression of “transitory” conditions.
Not everyone at the Federal Reserve is part of the happy clatter crowd. On October 13, 2014, Chicago Fed President, Charles Evans, spoke before the annual conference of the National Council on Teacher Retirement in Indianapolis. Evans expressed skepticism that an economy can be robust with the tepid growth in wages happening in the United States. Evans stated:
“…it is hard to imagine a robust labor market without solid growth in wages. With productivity growth of around 1 to 2 percent and an inflation target of around 2 percent, we should be seeing wages and benefits rising at around a 3 to 4 percent rate. But that is clearly not the case. Although some in-demand occupations may be experiencing stronger wage growth, overall compensation growth has been around 2 percent over the past six years. Taken altogether, these and other measures lead me to conclude that there remains significant underutilization of labor resources — and likely somewhat more slack than what is indicated by the unemployment rate alone.”
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/12/oil-crash-dont-believe-the-happy-clatter/
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!