The world was shocked, animated, and maybe appalled with the awarding and acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by President Barack Obama. Citizens of inner-Chicago, while no doubt saddened by their inability to host the Olympics, may now take pride in the peaceful triumph of their esteemed Community Organizer, who has risen well above the rampant violence in Chicago and continues to lead by example. In his acceptance speech, Obama said he was both humbled and honored to receive the award. While admitting he may not have done enough yet to equally share company with the “transformative figures” who have also draped the peaceful medal over their peaceful shoulders, he was nonetheless resolved: "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." No peace pipes were passed around the White House Garden, but the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament as enough of a qualification, despite his comparatively short stay in international politics.
It is difficult not to be preoccupied with Obama’s inexperience and greenhorn credentials on the international stage, much less as President, but this really is a secondary concern. The deadline for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations was February 1st, 2009, which means that Obama was actually nominated only two weeks into his presidency. Taking into account that he is currently pushing for a troop surge in Afghanistan, people may be well skeptical of declaring him the most peace-loving person of 2009, but the Nobel Prize Committee, it must be remembered, is not behaving without precedent.
The “transformative figures”, Obama’s peaceful prize predecessors, are as diverse in cause and origin as they are supposedly peaceful. Al Gore’s acceptance in 2007 received a lackluster reception, perhaps because the runner-up who helped sixty Jews escape Nazi concentration camps seemed a bit more deserving, and if Obama is to bring a new climate to politics—as the Committee suggested—he may indeed be unable to share Al Gore’s company. Woodrow Wilson received the Prize for his peaceful involvement in World War I, and in fact, ever since the Nobel Prize Committee gave to award to themselves in 1928, they have embarked on a peaceful journey of epically unsettling proportions. The International Labor Organization (international communist party) received the award in 1969, and three separate persons, each in a different decade, have been awarded for bringing peace to the Middle East. The United Nations Peace-Keeping forces shared the award in 1988, despite Alfred Nobel’s stipulation that recipients should have done the most for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies". To counterbalance, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, rebutted Nobel’s opinion on his own prize, citing "mobilization of troops from countries all over the world as a tangible expression of the world community's will to solve conflicts by peaceful means". It is strangely fitting and perfect then, that a peace prize having nothing to do with peace, is gifted to a U.S. President who has nothing to do with America.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Water water everywhere, but no one needs a drink
Last month India’s Moon Impact Probe, onboard the maiden voyage of Chandrayaan 1, confirmed trace amounts of water on the moon’s surface. The US space agency and NASA corroborated the findings, and top Indian scientist G Madhavan Nair expressed pride in the “path-breaking discovery”. This may have come as sharp relief for those who have become belatedly bored with the water features Earth has to offer, but unfortunately the moon-water is embedded in the surface of minerals and rocks.
Though NASA missed the water with their 1969 walkover, they’ve followed up the Indian find with an Impact Probe of their own. The imposing LCROSS device detonated in the crater Cabeus A at 11:30 GMT on October 9, the idea being that any residue ice would be shot up above the lunar surface by the impacting probe, where sunlight would break it into easily detectible oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The water, thought to be sublimated at the bottom of craters after several million years of meteor impact, could have been essentially refrigerated by virtue of the constant shadow, and scientists think there now could be some billion tons locked up near the Moon’s South Pole. Cabeus A, near the South Pole, is shaded and easily visible from Earth—the 2 second long impact flash was visible to those with household telescopes. NASA crashed the rocket and a satellite into the moon's surface on Friday morning in a $79 million mission. It will be some weeks before all the data from the satellite can be analyzed to determine if there is indeed water on the moon.
While this is well and good, NASA’s recent machinations still and unabatedly beg the question, why? As the fifty billion dollar space station looms overhead without production or purpose, it is appropriate that one wonders at the feverish expense going into the rather mundane space exploration. Even now, there are fanciful talks of establishing an international moon base for eventual shuttle launches to Mars and further expansion (though not necessarily useful) of the space station. Now a moderate expense like the Hubble Telescope seems to be well worth the amazing celestial photos it’s captured, and hey if NASA wants to launch some probes every once in a while that’s fine too—it’s good to stay busy, but especially now in these times of economic and political upheaval, where is it appropriate to draw the line?
Many students and professors alike, especially here at UD, will rightly insist that learning is an excellent virtue and an end in itself, and furthermore one can’t well put a price on excellent education. It seems in Man’s nature to explore and test his surroundings, and while that should not necessarily be curbed, perhaps it should be redirected to Man’s more immediate surroundings. After all, more is known about the moon’s surface already than the ocean floors, and apart from any potential resources that may be there discovered (not to mention there’s lots and lots of water already) a more direct study of life—tangible and reactionary—can be carried out.
Though NASA missed the water with their 1969 walkover, they’ve followed up the Indian find with an Impact Probe of their own. The imposing LCROSS device detonated in the crater Cabeus A at 11:30 GMT on October 9, the idea being that any residue ice would be shot up above the lunar surface by the impacting probe, where sunlight would break it into easily detectible oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The water, thought to be sublimated at the bottom of craters after several million years of meteor impact, could have been essentially refrigerated by virtue of the constant shadow, and scientists think there now could be some billion tons locked up near the Moon’s South Pole. Cabeus A, near the South Pole, is shaded and easily visible from Earth—the 2 second long impact flash was visible to those with household telescopes. NASA crashed the rocket and a satellite into the moon's surface on Friday morning in a $79 million mission. It will be some weeks before all the data from the satellite can be analyzed to determine if there is indeed water on the moon.
While this is well and good, NASA’s recent machinations still and unabatedly beg the question, why? As the fifty billion dollar space station looms overhead without production or purpose, it is appropriate that one wonders at the feverish expense going into the rather mundane space exploration. Even now, there are fanciful talks of establishing an international moon base for eventual shuttle launches to Mars and further expansion (though not necessarily useful) of the space station. Now a moderate expense like the Hubble Telescope seems to be well worth the amazing celestial photos it’s captured, and hey if NASA wants to launch some probes every once in a while that’s fine too—it’s good to stay busy, but especially now in these times of economic and political upheaval, where is it appropriate to draw the line?
Many students and professors alike, especially here at UD, will rightly insist that learning is an excellent virtue and an end in itself, and furthermore one can’t well put a price on excellent education. It seems in Man’s nature to explore and test his surroundings, and while that should not necessarily be curbed, perhaps it should be redirected to Man’s more immediate surroundings. After all, more is known about the moon’s surface already than the ocean floors, and apart from any potential resources that may be there discovered (not to mention there’s lots and lots of water already) a more direct study of life—tangible and reactionary—can be carried out.
Case Study: Cuba
As healthcare reform continued to dominate the political maneuverings and current events here in the U.S., Congresswoman Diane Watson decided the issue was heading south, and accordingly urged fellow California Democrats to hearken the Cuban example. Watson recently accused conservative opposition of blocking Healthcare reform out of malicious racism, but conversely had only the best to say about the Cuban regime. After lauding Cuban healthcare, along with mass murderer Che Guevara, Watson, amidst applause and encouragement from fellow congressmen, described Fidel Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." Assuming Watson has met all of the foremost Democratic and Republican leaders alike, this is a particularly alarming mindset. Watson may not be aware that Castro himself ousted a man who was, like Obama, 50% black, but nonetheless the current administration may be taking Watson to heart.
In addition to lifting travel restrictions and allowing remittances to the island from Cuban-Americans, the U.S. and Cuba are now coordinating to resume uninhibited postal services. This should come as sharp relief to many Cubans, who for more than remittances are in desperate need of toilet paper. The cash strapped country, which imports 60% of its food supply (now being rationed) and approximately 80% of its toilet paper, does not have the financial resources to continue its foreign dependencies. Apart from decreasing the food ration, the only reassurance thus far issued by Castro’s government is that by state-run Radio Rebelde, which currently maintains that, “an important importation will be attained at the end of the year”. Raul Castro, who replaced his ailing older brother Fidel as president, also has complained that Cuba's productivity is too low, and to the wailing and gnashing of communist teeth he is putting more state-owned land in private hands and pushing for salaries to be based on productivity. With the global economic downturn, a particularly harsh hurricane season, and a tradition of being unproductive, the largest Caribbean island is in dire straits.
President Obama recently compared his Health Care schematic to the general Postal Service in the U.S—the government owned USPS running nicely alongside the private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL. This was supposed to be an assuring example of cooperation between public and private sectors (though of course it’s still illegal for anyone but the USPS to go door-to-door). However, this may take on new meaning as UPS and FedEx are, and will still be, barred from business in Cuba, whereas the USPS going to be granted exclusive business access, in addition to German owned DHL. In the spirit of ornery rebellion therefore, and more importantly in the spirit of humanitarian aid for the Cubans and their constipated economy, conscientious and caring Americans should cover all Cuba-bound mail-planes/boats with toilet paper. With Castro initiating capitalist policies and Watson pushing to emulate Cuba, maybe a trade is in order (now that it’s possible). America can airmail Watson and some TP, as long as it’s USPS, and get some celebratory cigars.
In addition to lifting travel restrictions and allowing remittances to the island from Cuban-Americans, the U.S. and Cuba are now coordinating to resume uninhibited postal services. This should come as sharp relief to many Cubans, who for more than remittances are in desperate need of toilet paper. The cash strapped country, which imports 60% of its food supply (now being rationed) and approximately 80% of its toilet paper, does not have the financial resources to continue its foreign dependencies. Apart from decreasing the food ration, the only reassurance thus far issued by Castro’s government is that by state-run Radio Rebelde, which currently maintains that, “an important importation will be attained at the end of the year”. Raul Castro, who replaced his ailing older brother Fidel as president, also has complained that Cuba's productivity is too low, and to the wailing and gnashing of communist teeth he is putting more state-owned land in private hands and pushing for salaries to be based on productivity. With the global economic downturn, a particularly harsh hurricane season, and a tradition of being unproductive, the largest Caribbean island is in dire straits.
President Obama recently compared his Health Care schematic to the general Postal Service in the U.S—the government owned USPS running nicely alongside the private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL. This was supposed to be an assuring example of cooperation between public and private sectors (though of course it’s still illegal for anyone but the USPS to go door-to-door). However, this may take on new meaning as UPS and FedEx are, and will still be, barred from business in Cuba, whereas the USPS going to be granted exclusive business access, in addition to German owned DHL. In the spirit of ornery rebellion therefore, and more importantly in the spirit of humanitarian aid for the Cubans and their constipated economy, conscientious and caring Americans should cover all Cuba-bound mail-planes/boats with toilet paper. With Castro initiating capitalist policies and Watson pushing to emulate Cuba, maybe a trade is in order (now that it’s possible). America can airmail Watson and some TP, as long as it’s USPS, and get some celebratory cigars.
Renaissance Men in Venice
Acclaimed film directors Oliver Stone and Michael Moore were again throwing their weight around in the international film circuit, and rocking the boat in Venice. The once mighty commercial Republic sunk all the faster as Moore, Stone, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez concentrated their considerable mass (in the spirit of socialism) at the annual Venice Film Festival. Moore’s film, Capitalism: A Love Story, along with Oliver Stone’s latest documentary South of the Border, debuted in a nifty, four-hour, commercial free proclamation of the evils of capitalism, extortion by America, and the virtues of Hugo Chavez and his proclaimed, “Latin American Renaissance”.
Moore’s film unequivocally concluded that, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." Stone echoed Moore’s blatant criticism, particularly targeting the American policies in Latin America while praising Chavez’s counteraction: “I hope you realize how dynamic he is in the movie. What I like about the film is you see how sincere he is on camera. You don't see a guy who is a phony. He's not a dictator." Moore let his standard publicity stunts and political analysis circulate with typically minimal objectivity, but Stone and Chavez really lit up the red carpet scene with their sincere dynamism.
After Chavez’s dramatic entrance, during which he threw flowers, blew kisses, and took pictures—of himself, Stone addressed reporters saying, "I think the movie, if you've seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez.” The film itself received criticism for poor editing, sporting several scenes wherein cameramen were unintentionally visible. Apparently, Stone has sacrificed the meticulous approach in film for the bombastic in his PR campaign. According to Stone, his movie will only show things to people who watch it—fair enough—and furthermore will cover up what Stone saw as harsh generalities with more amicable blanket statements of its own.
When asked why he didn’t present any opposing viewpoints of Chavez, Stone coldly replied, “There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect”. Fellow filmmaker George Lucas knows more than anyone that the Dark Side is cunning. Two Sith there always are…a master, and an apprentice. It is very curious because, in this instance, the dark side is the generally liberal media and Latin American ex-patriots—some Sith somewhere is acting very duplicitously. Where is that chancellor Palpatine? Obama’s policy on cloning is shaky at best, but he’s already called for a civilian army: "We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."…the Jedi are going to feel this one.
Moore’s film unequivocally concluded that, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." Stone echoed Moore’s blatant criticism, particularly targeting the American policies in Latin America while praising Chavez’s counteraction: “I hope you realize how dynamic he is in the movie. What I like about the film is you see how sincere he is on camera. You don't see a guy who is a phony. He's not a dictator." Moore let his standard publicity stunts and political analysis circulate with typically minimal objectivity, but Stone and Chavez really lit up the red carpet scene with their sincere dynamism.
After Chavez’s dramatic entrance, during which he threw flowers, blew kisses, and took pictures—of himself, Stone addressed reporters saying, "I think the movie, if you've seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez.” The film itself received criticism for poor editing, sporting several scenes wherein cameramen were unintentionally visible. Apparently, Stone has sacrificed the meticulous approach in film for the bombastic in his PR campaign. According to Stone, his movie will only show things to people who watch it—fair enough—and furthermore will cover up what Stone saw as harsh generalities with more amicable blanket statements of its own.
When asked why he didn’t present any opposing viewpoints of Chavez, Stone coldly replied, “There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect”. Fellow filmmaker George Lucas knows more than anyone that the Dark Side is cunning. Two Sith there always are…a master, and an apprentice. It is very curious because, in this instance, the dark side is the generally liberal media and Latin American ex-patriots—some Sith somewhere is acting very duplicitously. Where is that chancellor Palpatine? Obama’s policy on cloning is shaky at best, but he’s already called for a civilian army: "We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."…the Jedi are going to feel this one.
People's Republic of New York
New York, once an eminent icon of the United States, has become an embarrassing case causing liberals and conservatives alike to cringe (plastic surgery not preventing). Similar to California, New York benefits from extensive natural resources and a large population, but through a gross, extensive, and long-term abuse of fiscal policy and dead-end social intervention, it is bankrupt. Its state debt is second only to California, but Governor Patterson, who is planning to run again for the position, insists this is due to vindictive racism. It may be best to ignore Albany, and most people probably do, but New York City is another matter entirely. With its famous skyline and infamous Wall Street, New York is often thought of as the pinnacle of economic initiative and the place wherein America’s tremendous wealth is centered. While this may be exaggerated or debatable, there are nonetheless few people who look at the Empire State Building and aren’t impressed by the capability it signifies. The financiers in New York often come under criticism for lacking any egalitarian perspective, and whether or not this is fair, some may well have finally sold out.
This past Wednesday, October 2nd, marked the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, and the Empire State Building was bathed in the red and yellow towards its honor. The most iconic building in North America was illuminated with Communist colors while they goose-stepped in Beijing. The lighting ceremony itself is not unusual or a particularly reserved procedure (it recently shone celebratory colors for the Wizard of Oz jubilee), but this is nonetheless a most disconcerting display. In the midst of the current obsession with the floundering economy, and as China is mobilizing troops along the Indian border, the tallest building in America is covered in communist totalitarian propaganda. People would be far more alarmed if a poster of Mao had been plastered on the Statue of Liberty, and while that is admittedly more extreme, the demoralizing and apathetic mindset witnessed in New York can easily lead to further ethical abandon.
The ESB Lighting Partners sub-committee maintains that, “The program is designed to achieve the best and most constructive publicity for the Empire State Building and its Lighting Partners. All special lighting requests are considered based on the merit of their cause, the benefit of their use of the special lighting and their treatment of the Empire State Building’s iconic image for the event and on an ongoing basis.”
Perhaps the powers that be really want China to keep buying U.S. bonds. Maybe moral fiber in New York is irrevocably tarnished, or maybe people just don’t think that advertising Chinese communism is that big of a deal. This repulsive (and tax-funded) display, in accordance with ESBLP, acknowledges that the act was intended, deliberately, to publicize China PR, and that celebrating the 60th anniversary of one of the most destructive and abusive regimes mankind endures is a cause of merit. China hasn’t only been gifted a pass on accountability, it’s had the iniquitous ideology for which it stands directly focused on the tower’s iconic presence.
This past Wednesday, October 2nd, marked the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, and the Empire State Building was bathed in the red and yellow towards its honor. The most iconic building in North America was illuminated with Communist colors while they goose-stepped in Beijing. The lighting ceremony itself is not unusual or a particularly reserved procedure (it recently shone celebratory colors for the Wizard of Oz jubilee), but this is nonetheless a most disconcerting display. In the midst of the current obsession with the floundering economy, and as China is mobilizing troops along the Indian border, the tallest building in America is covered in communist totalitarian propaganda. People would be far more alarmed if a poster of Mao had been plastered on the Statue of Liberty, and while that is admittedly more extreme, the demoralizing and apathetic mindset witnessed in New York can easily lead to further ethical abandon.
The ESB Lighting Partners sub-committee maintains that, “The program is designed to achieve the best and most constructive publicity for the Empire State Building and its Lighting Partners. All special lighting requests are considered based on the merit of their cause, the benefit of their use of the special lighting and their treatment of the Empire State Building’s iconic image for the event and on an ongoing basis.”
Perhaps the powers that be really want China to keep buying U.S. bonds. Maybe moral fiber in New York is irrevocably tarnished, or maybe people just don’t think that advertising Chinese communism is that big of a deal. This repulsive (and tax-funded) display, in accordance with ESBLP, acknowledges that the act was intended, deliberately, to publicize China PR, and that celebrating the 60th anniversary of one of the most destructive and abusive regimes mankind endures is a cause of merit. China hasn’t only been gifted a pass on accountability, it’s had the iniquitous ideology for which it stands directly focused on the tower’s iconic presence.
Where Has it Ghandi?
Realistically, Gandhi’s policy and the Indian Independence movement were destructive for the sub-continent. India, as a country, is imaginary. It’s a conglomeration of disagreeable nationalities, creeds, and castes, placed on the world map by an arbitrary line drawn by civil service elite. The movement lacked majority support but was promulgated by British neglect. Until the unification, de-centralized government presided and each distinct culture was left to self-government provided they all traded with Britain and ceased slave trading. The conception of a homogenous India without regarding the peoples, cultures, and prejudices of the nation was swept up in the socialist agenda of the Congress Party (former IIM).
Gandhi’s own world view reflected such prejudices. He advocated keeping the entire country together, under arms, if necessary. He protested suffrage for the untouchables, one of the ethnic castes, and supported the invasion of all Portuguese controlled areas in modern India. The Indian constitution, which Gandhi presided over, displayed a disregard for constituent wishes and traditions. Additionally, only civil servants can appoint new civil servants, thus perpetuating the stagnant aristocracy. Indira Gandhi, his granddaughter, invaded Pakistan and violently curtailed the Sikh rebellion, killing five hundred participants in the sacred Golden Temple and causing a Sikh alliance with the Hindu Nationalists.
Because of legal definitions, British-Asian territories were all made different nations upon independence; Malaysia, Burma, Nepal, Hong Kong, and Bhutan. Ethnic disunity had surfaced before independence in India. The Muslim population was against independence due to majority Hindu control, while the Hindu Nationalists strove to create a theocracy. The concentrated Muslim areas soon seceded to Pakistan in a very bloody exchange, while the Hindu Nationalists took Gandhi’s quote to heart, “Be the change you want to see in the world”, and shot him. The Cashmere, a Muslim populated and desirably productive area, held a referendum to become part of Pakistan, and was then invaded by India, which had written in constitutional protection of the area from by-ins by non-Cashmeries. The area was since partitioned between India, China, and Pakistan.
To compound the problems, there is totalitarian control of the electrical industry and artificial property rents assigned by local civil servants, which keeps rents low and development lower. Additionally, the Nationalist party is gaining strong support for the upcoming election, and is pushing to end the slaughter of beef, nationally, and annex all of Cashmere from Pakistan, as well as ban the conversion from Hinduism (to Islam or Christianity). Violent communist insurgencies in the eastern provinces have added to the social unrest while local communist regimes have controlled three states since the founding. Their influence has now spread into Nepal with funding from China, and recently taken control of the Nepalese government. Decreasing exports, Christian persecutions, and hyper inflation all compound the undesirable situation, which has caused considerable damage to attempts at peace and prosperity in the area. India is a contrivance, an amalgamation of irreconcilable cultures, and should be allowed to desist for the betterment of all within its borders.
Gandhi’s own world view reflected such prejudices. He advocated keeping the entire country together, under arms, if necessary. He protested suffrage for the untouchables, one of the ethnic castes, and supported the invasion of all Portuguese controlled areas in modern India. The Indian constitution, which Gandhi presided over, displayed a disregard for constituent wishes and traditions. Additionally, only civil servants can appoint new civil servants, thus perpetuating the stagnant aristocracy. Indira Gandhi, his granddaughter, invaded Pakistan and violently curtailed the Sikh rebellion, killing five hundred participants in the sacred Golden Temple and causing a Sikh alliance with the Hindu Nationalists.
Because of legal definitions, British-Asian territories were all made different nations upon independence; Malaysia, Burma, Nepal, Hong Kong, and Bhutan. Ethnic disunity had surfaced before independence in India. The Muslim population was against independence due to majority Hindu control, while the Hindu Nationalists strove to create a theocracy. The concentrated Muslim areas soon seceded to Pakistan in a very bloody exchange, while the Hindu Nationalists took Gandhi’s quote to heart, “Be the change you want to see in the world”, and shot him. The Cashmere, a Muslim populated and desirably productive area, held a referendum to become part of Pakistan, and was then invaded by India, which had written in constitutional protection of the area from by-ins by non-Cashmeries. The area was since partitioned between India, China, and Pakistan.
To compound the problems, there is totalitarian control of the electrical industry and artificial property rents assigned by local civil servants, which keeps rents low and development lower. Additionally, the Nationalist party is gaining strong support for the upcoming election, and is pushing to end the slaughter of beef, nationally, and annex all of Cashmere from Pakistan, as well as ban the conversion from Hinduism (to Islam or Christianity). Violent communist insurgencies in the eastern provinces have added to the social unrest while local communist regimes have controlled three states since the founding. Their influence has now spread into Nepal with funding from China, and recently taken control of the Nepalese government. Decreasing exports, Christian persecutions, and hyper inflation all compound the undesirable situation, which has caused considerable damage to attempts at peace and prosperity in the area. India is a contrivance, an amalgamation of irreconcilable cultures, and should be allowed to desist for the betterment of all within its borders.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Wake Up and Smell the Roses
Having been caught snoozing on camera during a number of Mr. Obama's cabinet meetings, top economic adviser Larry Summers was finally prodded into comment about the apparently failing stimulus, and the increasing public sentiment that it isn't helping.
In defense of his administrations spending and its results, Summers had some reassuring news: "The number of people searching for the term “economic depression” on Google is down to normal levels. Searches for the term were up four-fold when the recession deepened in the earlier part of the year, and the recent shift goes to show consumer confidence is higher".
As unemployment now tops 10% in 16 states, and 15% in Michigan, we can only conclude that people in those states have no access to Google or no concept of 'economic depression'. There is also the possibility that people in those states simply prefer an alternative Search Engine, like Ask Jeeves. Since these unemployment rates are the highest they've been since the early 1980s, one wonders, how would Larry Summers have qualified a successful stimulus back then? Less people buying Encyclopedias letters E and D?
When pressed for a more enumerated defense, Summers continued in a more professional fashion: “More than $43 billion in immediate tax relief has reached households and businesses. Another $64 billion has been channeled into the economy through aid to state and local governments, expansions in social programs, and spending on education, housing, and transportation projects. In addition to the amount that has already been paid out, another $120 billion in spending has been obligated by the federal government and is on track to begin working its way into the economy.” Now coupling this statement with plucky Joe Biden's recent assurances yields a whole big pile of contradiction. The top economic adviser and top Vice President really need to coordinate better.
According to Summers, people weren't worried about relief for their households or businesses, but rather about the philosophical underpinnings of 'economic depression'. The primarily contentious issue, unemployment, designates that $64 billion channeled to education and housing irrelevant, and Joe Biden told us all to avoid public transportation anyway lest we contract H1N1 and become swine. The pending, or rather, "obligated" $120 billion (what else would it be obligated for I wonder??) will apparently become autonomous and work itself into the economy as it best sees fit, which granted may be better than the Left trying to direct it. Well, at least that $120 billion is working, because Michigan sure isn't.
In defense of his administrations spending and its results, Summers had some reassuring news: "The number of people searching for the term “economic depression” on Google is down to normal levels. Searches for the term were up four-fold when the recession deepened in the earlier part of the year, and the recent shift goes to show consumer confidence is higher".
As unemployment now tops 10% in 16 states, and 15% in Michigan, we can only conclude that people in those states have no access to Google or no concept of 'economic depression'. There is also the possibility that people in those states simply prefer an alternative Search Engine, like Ask Jeeves. Since these unemployment rates are the highest they've been since the early 1980s, one wonders, how would Larry Summers have qualified a successful stimulus back then? Less people buying Encyclopedias letters E and D?
When pressed for a more enumerated defense, Summers continued in a more professional fashion: “More than $43 billion in immediate tax relief has reached households and businesses. Another $64 billion has been channeled into the economy through aid to state and local governments, expansions in social programs, and spending on education, housing, and transportation projects. In addition to the amount that has already been paid out, another $120 billion in spending has been obligated by the federal government and is on track to begin working its way into the economy.” Now coupling this statement with plucky Joe Biden's recent assurances yields a whole big pile of contradiction. The top economic adviser and top Vice President really need to coordinate better.
According to Summers, people weren't worried about relief for their households or businesses, but rather about the philosophical underpinnings of 'economic depression'. The primarily contentious issue, unemployment, designates that $64 billion channeled to education and housing irrelevant, and Joe Biden told us all to avoid public transportation anyway lest we contract H1N1 and become swine. The pending, or rather, "obligated" $120 billion (what else would it be obligated for I wonder??) will apparently become autonomous and work itself into the economy as it best sees fit, which granted may be better than the Left trying to direct it. Well, at least that $120 billion is working, because Michigan sure isn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
