A question frequently asked: "Do you have a bio somewhere on the web that could be read?"
There is a crying need for intellectuals to constitute a worldwide network. We are living in unique times, when good thinking can be broadcasted to the entire planet, as never before.
Naturally people searching for a better grasp on reality, look for authority, but that is more than a bit self contradictory. Authority is so yesterday, because, as long as there is progress, authority comes short, and this is good.
Denying authority is related to the biography question. I deliberately do not provide with a bio. I am motivated by thinking, and the product of my thoughts ought to stand on its own, even if I am small and ridiculous, green with yellow spots, hermaphrodite, young, old, of Aztec descent, or a Tagalong speaker... I am tired, and I would like other people to be tired from the nationalism, religionism, sexism, ageism, etc. (Also there is a security aspect: somewhat incredibly, I was assaulted with lethal violence more than once. Contrarily to my friend Obama, I am not provided with bodyguards)
To get to the truth, it is necessary to avoid arguments based on authority. There is a number of reasons for this:
1) Yesterday's glory does not reveal necessarily tomorrow's truth. In the most important, cases, quite the opposite; yesterday's certainty is, all too often, tomorrow's lie.
2) Having satisfied previous authority, or authorities, is generally the way to become an authority, in turn. Feynman contemptfully noticed that the business of deciding who would become an authority was the Academy of Science's main activity. Then he resigned.
Those authorities may, or may not, be endowed with higher values. For example if a head of state elevates someone to a position of authority, that does not mean generally it is deserved, or even that the head of state ought to be an authority. Even Ernst Roehm contested Hitlers' authority in the matter of Nazism (Hitler therefore visited Roehm in the cell he had imprisoned him in, and shot him to death, a sure way to terminate the socialist interpretation of national-socialism.).
3) There is a psychological characteristic in human being, a desire to be economical, a trick from billions of years of evolution. Some call it lazyness. Brain work consists into brain rebuilding, and thus is energy intensive. Believing saves energy, comparatively to verifying things. Thus people often prefer instead to believe vast mental schemes rather than checking where they logically came from. So people are drawn to live at the feet of authority rather than in a dialogue with thinking. Both forms contradict each other, and one has to chose, whether to become, emotionally, a believer rather than a criticizer.
To believe with the heart is often the best choice, but then the next question is which kind of heart. The naive and touching heart Pascal found solace with, of the haughty mien of the Athenians at the pinnacle of their power?
To destroy the authority argument, Socrates used to say that he knew nothing, a polite way to say that they knew nothing. I am a bit more honest, and will humbly recognize that I know plenty of things. But I will not publish a bio. Lest it looks authoritative, I guess...
My way to destroy the authority argument is just to argue. People have to learn to distinguish between the plausible, and what is not so. A form of meta learning.
PA
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
WHY GDP IS UP WHILE EMPLOYMENT IS DOWN
From Paul Krugman's excellent blog (August 21, 2009):
"Barara Kiviat asks, is this a recovery or isn’t it? The answer is yes.
I’ve been pointing out for a long time — well before the crisis hit full steam — that recoveries ain’t what they used to be. Basically, the standard definition of a recovery is that it’s when GDP starts to rise; but “jobless recoveries”, in which unemployment keeps worsening long after GDP has turned around, have become the new normal. Bill Clinton was able to run on the economy, stupid, well into an alleged economic recovery; the 2001 recession formally ended in Nov. of that year, but it didn’t feel like a recovery until the second half of 2003.
I really don’t understand why anyone is surprised that it’s happening again."
***
Here is my own take on it, to explain that apparently strange phenomenon:
As the hyper rich gets ever hyper, more and more of the rise in GDP is absorbed by them. So, recovery after recovery, the hyper rich climb up the ladder of owning more and more of everything. This is in part caused by the ever greater "efficiency" of the economy, meaning the decent jobs of yesteryear are gone to developing nations. Every down cycle is a pretext to augment said "efficiency", and sending more jobs away, or diminishing their cost.
Hence the effect that is observed, of recovering GDP ever more accompanied by sluggish recovery in employment and its quality.
It would be good to look at median income instead of GDP to evaluate the depth and nature of economic crises. My bet is that, averaged over all and any twenty year periods, the present crisis of median income would reveal itself to be greater than the one centered around the 1930s...
This will go on, until it is understood by the People who vote that plutocracy is global, although law is only local. Thus global plutocracy can "navigate" (a concept Barack Obama loves), around local law, just as any long wavelength wave can navigate around small isolated obstacles...
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
"Barara Kiviat asks, is this a recovery or isn’t it? The answer is yes.
I’ve been pointing out for a long time — well before the crisis hit full steam — that recoveries ain’t what they used to be. Basically, the standard definition of a recovery is that it’s when GDP starts to rise; but “jobless recoveries”, in which unemployment keeps worsening long after GDP has turned around, have become the new normal. Bill Clinton was able to run on the economy, stupid, well into an alleged economic recovery; the 2001 recession formally ended in Nov. of that year, but it didn’t feel like a recovery until the second half of 2003.
I really don’t understand why anyone is surprised that it’s happening again."
***
Here is my own take on it, to explain that apparently strange phenomenon:
As the hyper rich gets ever hyper, more and more of the rise in GDP is absorbed by them. So, recovery after recovery, the hyper rich climb up the ladder of owning more and more of everything. This is in part caused by the ever greater "efficiency" of the economy, meaning the decent jobs of yesteryear are gone to developing nations. Every down cycle is a pretext to augment said "efficiency", and sending more jobs away, or diminishing their cost.
Hence the effect that is observed, of recovering GDP ever more accompanied by sluggish recovery in employment and its quality.
It would be good to look at median income instead of GDP to evaluate the depth and nature of economic crises. My bet is that, averaged over all and any twenty year periods, the present crisis of median income would reveal itself to be greater than the one centered around the 1930s...
This will go on, until it is understood by the People who vote that plutocracy is global, although law is only local. Thus global plutocracy can "navigate" (a concept Barack Obama loves), around local law, just as any long wavelength wave can navigate around small isolated obstacles...
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Thursday, August 20, 2009
AWE, NOT GDP!
WHY THE USA IS IN A GREAT DEPRESSION NOW.
(Although the upper class will get out of it in a few months!)
***
It is high time to use more sophisticated measures than GDP.
In particular GDP does not consider efficiency (traffic jams augment it). I proposed to use AWE (Absolute Worth Energy).
Meanwhile it may be good to consider the median income. It has been going down for a very long time in the USA, on a real basis (including the inflation in the cost of everything, not just the CPI). Looked at it that way, on a 20 year period, the present times compare unfavorably with any period centered around the 1930s.
In this light, the great depression is now.
Globalization without global law will lead to convergence of the income distribution, on a worldwide basis, thus the USA's wealth pyramid will look more like India, in the long run, than that of the 1950s America.
King Louis XV of France used to say: "Apres moi, le deluge!" After me, the flood... He did not care. Plutocrats tend to reason that way, because all the money to them now is the balm they use for their absence of worthy passions. The vision thing is no tool they enjoy, as it would reveal them to be empty inside.
"No drama Obama" converges towards the exact same psychological profile... Meanwhile the society and economy is losing its essential substance, California, for example throwing, literally the baby out, rather than the putrid bath...
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
(Although the upper class will get out of it in a few months!)
***
It is high time to use more sophisticated measures than GDP.
In particular GDP does not consider efficiency (traffic jams augment it). I proposed to use AWE (Absolute Worth Energy).
Meanwhile it may be good to consider the median income. It has been going down for a very long time in the USA, on a real basis (including the inflation in the cost of everything, not just the CPI). Looked at it that way, on a 20 year period, the present times compare unfavorably with any period centered around the 1930s.
In this light, the great depression is now.
Globalization without global law will lead to convergence of the income distribution, on a worldwide basis, thus the USA's wealth pyramid will look more like India, in the long run, than that of the 1950s America.
King Louis XV of France used to say: "Apres moi, le deluge!" After me, the flood... He did not care. Plutocrats tend to reason that way, because all the money to them now is the balm they use for their absence of worthy passions. The vision thing is no tool they enjoy, as it would reveal them to be empty inside.
"No drama Obama" converges towards the exact same psychological profile... Meanwhile the society and economy is losing its essential substance, California, for example throwing, literally the baby out, rather than the putrid bath...
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
DEBATE ON FREE WILL MODIFIED.
We do not know whether electrons have free will.
It looks as if they could. I do not believe they do, but it looks as if they could, from all what we presently know.
In the famous 2 slit experiment, the quintessential Quantum experiment, electrons have a more or less greater probability to land here or there, but, within those expansive bounds, it looks as if they do what they please...
The age old debate on free will has thus been modified. Before we can address the problem of human free will, we have to address the problem of electronic free will, because our body contains 10,000 trillion trillions electrons.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
It looks as if they could. I do not believe they do, but it looks as if they could, from all what we presently know.
In the famous 2 slit experiment, the quintessential Quantum experiment, electrons have a more or less greater probability to land here or there, but, within those expansive bounds, it looks as if they do what they please...
The age old debate on free will has thus been modified. Before we can address the problem of human free will, we have to address the problem of electronic free will, because our body contains 10,000 trillion trillions electrons.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
FASCISM AT HARVARD.
WHEN HARVARD PROFESSORS PLAGIARIZE FROM ADOLF HITLER HIMSELF.
***
Paul Krugman in his blog, August 17, 2009:
"I really had no intention of writing more about Niall Ferguson. Regular readers may recall that he wrote an article in the Financial Times that began,
President Barack Obama reminds me of Felix the Cat. One of the best-loved cartoon characters of the 1920s, Felix was not only black. He was also very, very lucky. And that pretty much sums up the 44th president of the US …"
***
OK. I have bought some of Ferguson's books, in hardback form, as they came out. I also have a serious problem with Professor Ferguson (and, by extension, Harvard university).
The following was sent to Krugman's blog, and I am trying to write a much expanded version for http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/. But days have only so many hours...
***
Ferguson is a historian in the sense that Hitler was a historian. The former follows the later closely. Ferguson’s thesis about WWI is that it would have been better if Britain had stayed out of the war. It is not new: Russel invented it, was condemned to spent 18 months in jail during WWI for advertizing it. Hitler had been given guarantees, by Ferguson-like British traitors, that Britain would stay out of France’s offensive maneuvers in 1939. He could not believe it when Britain joined France, and declared war to the Nazis. Apparently, not enough Brits had been taught by Ferguson-like professors.
This thesis, that Britain ought to have betrayed her sister democracy, France, is grotesque and deeply offensive to the spirit of democracy.
The day after Imperial fascist Germany had attacked several democracies deliberately (becoming the first country to fire a shot in WWI), Earl Grey, the British foreign minister, delivered an excellent discourse to the Commons explaining why Britain had to get into the war. It is not that Britain was anxious to go to war, foaming at the mouth. As the Secretary of State for War, Field-Marshal Kitchener, pointed out with relish: "I am proud to stand with such courageous men as my colleagues in the Cabinet. They have no Army and have declared war against the mightiest military nation in the world."
It is no mystery that Imperial fascist Germany had engaged in a holocaust in Namibia (led by Goering, father of Herman). White supremacists loved fascist Germany just for this general inclination of being willing to free vast swathes of the planet for the white “Western” man of the Germanic variety, after exterminating the natives.
Hitler pursued that work. Ferguson is sad, because, according to him, the West, by not adopting fascism, has degenerated. All people of the same persuasion will find this sort of “historical work” very good. I hold, though, that this mentality got 100 million people killed, among other nefarious effects.
By the same standard, I will suggest that the same sort people who find Ferguson so good should consider the remarkable historical work of Adolf Hitler (this is meant to be ironical), as found in “Mein Kampf”.
That such people are allowed to teach the young in the most prestigious places is testimony to the power of plutocracy, and the fact that it is racist and fascist at heart.
So, let me repeat: it is not France and Britain, the two and only very large democracies in Europe, which created the terrible war of 1914-1945. France (with Belgium, Luxembourg, Russia) was attacked by the fascists, by surprise. Everybody knew that Britain and France had been in the process of getting reunited and operating as a unit for a century, leading them to joint military operations (invasions of China and Russia, among others). This close relationship had crystallized more recently with an explicit alliance (”Entente Cordiale”).
What created the First World War was the fascist, racist spirit that penetrated imperial fascist Germany.
That spirit had not been crushed by WWI. So it revived right away. The failure of the intervening Weimar republic was partly due to the fact that it conceded all the main points to the fascist opposition, preferring to accuse France, and Britain having chosen the wrong side. Much better to create gigantic inflation, rather than standing on principle in the internal German debate. (This is a bit similar to Barack Obama conceding to Big Pharma and eschewing the public plan before even starting negotiations on health care.)
Ferguson says that civilization would have been improved by accepting that this fascist spirit triumphed. It is a misunderstanding about what advances civilization most. Civilization profits more from democracy, not oligarchy. Civilization was made to benefit from the mindwork, and physical work of the many. But then, Ferguson is an oligarchic product (elite private school, etc.), and therein his bread and butter. He does what he is paid for.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
***
Paul Krugman in his blog, August 17, 2009:
"I really had no intention of writing more about Niall Ferguson. Regular readers may recall that he wrote an article in the Financial Times that began,
President Barack Obama reminds me of Felix the Cat. One of the best-loved cartoon characters of the 1920s, Felix was not only black. He was also very, very lucky. And that pretty much sums up the 44th president of the US …"
***
OK. I have bought some of Ferguson's books, in hardback form, as they came out. I also have a serious problem with Professor Ferguson (and, by extension, Harvard university).
The following was sent to Krugman's blog, and I am trying to write a much expanded version for http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/. But days have only so many hours...
***
Ferguson is a historian in the sense that Hitler was a historian. The former follows the later closely. Ferguson’s thesis about WWI is that it would have been better if Britain had stayed out of the war. It is not new: Russel invented it, was condemned to spent 18 months in jail during WWI for advertizing it. Hitler had been given guarantees, by Ferguson-like British traitors, that Britain would stay out of France’s offensive maneuvers in 1939. He could not believe it when Britain joined France, and declared war to the Nazis. Apparently, not enough Brits had been taught by Ferguson-like professors.
This thesis, that Britain ought to have betrayed her sister democracy, France, is grotesque and deeply offensive to the spirit of democracy.
The day after Imperial fascist Germany had attacked several democracies deliberately (becoming the first country to fire a shot in WWI), Earl Grey, the British foreign minister, delivered an excellent discourse to the Commons explaining why Britain had to get into the war. It is not that Britain was anxious to go to war, foaming at the mouth. As the Secretary of State for War, Field-Marshal Kitchener, pointed out with relish: "I am proud to stand with such courageous men as my colleagues in the Cabinet. They have no Army and have declared war against the mightiest military nation in the world."
It is no mystery that Imperial fascist Germany had engaged in a holocaust in Namibia (led by Goering, father of Herman). White supremacists loved fascist Germany just for this general inclination of being willing to free vast swathes of the planet for the white “Western” man of the Germanic variety, after exterminating the natives.
Hitler pursued that work. Ferguson is sad, because, according to him, the West, by not adopting fascism, has degenerated. All people of the same persuasion will find this sort of “historical work” very good. I hold, though, that this mentality got 100 million people killed, among other nefarious effects.
By the same standard, I will suggest that the same sort people who find Ferguson so good should consider the remarkable historical work of Adolf Hitler (this is meant to be ironical), as found in “Mein Kampf”.
That such people are allowed to teach the young in the most prestigious places is testimony to the power of plutocracy, and the fact that it is racist and fascist at heart.
So, let me repeat: it is not France and Britain, the two and only very large democracies in Europe, which created the terrible war of 1914-1945. France (with Belgium, Luxembourg, Russia) was attacked by the fascists, by surprise. Everybody knew that Britain and France had been in the process of getting reunited and operating as a unit for a century, leading them to joint military operations (invasions of China and Russia, among others). This close relationship had crystallized more recently with an explicit alliance (”Entente Cordiale”).
What created the First World War was the fascist, racist spirit that penetrated imperial fascist Germany.
That spirit had not been crushed by WWI. So it revived right away. The failure of the intervening Weimar republic was partly due to the fact that it conceded all the main points to the fascist opposition, preferring to accuse France, and Britain having chosen the wrong side. Much better to create gigantic inflation, rather than standing on principle in the internal German debate. (This is a bit similar to Barack Obama conceding to Big Pharma and eschewing the public plan before even starting negotiations on health care.)
Ferguson says that civilization would have been improved by accepting that this fascist spirit triumphed. It is a misunderstanding about what advances civilization most. Civilization profits more from democracy, not oligarchy. Civilization was made to benefit from the mindwork, and physical work of the many. But then, Ferguson is an oligarchic product (elite private school, etc.), and therein his bread and butter. He does what he is paid for.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Saturday, August 8, 2009
HEALTH SCARE?
GIVEN ENOUGH CORRUPTION, A MORAL BLACK HOLE FORMS...
***
FRANK RICH wonders: "Is Obama Punking Us?" As Rich abstracts it: "While it’s unlikely that the chorus of President Obama’s most strident doomsayers will be proven right, there is growing cause for concern that the president is not the reformer he promised to be."And the NYT invited me to "Share your thoughts." So here it is:
***
The day after his election, Obama went to work at a hedge fund. At this point, I had a sinking feeling: Obama did not even try to hide the truth about himself. That brazen display was right in the middle of the collapse of finance, most of it caused by HEDGE FUND LIKE ACTIVITIES by a handful of major bankers and a few traders in conspiracies such as AIG and Goldman Sachs. These activities involved enormous leverage of public money, thanks to the fact that banks are mysteriously allowed by the government to create money, and give it to whoever they want (surprisingly, they start with themselves and their friends).
Then Obama brought in the biggest Goldman Sachs team that ever was, the Rubin team. It had been busy, under Clinton, demolishing Roosevelt's great financial architecture (The Banking Act of 1933). After bearing fruits, and receiving their rich rewards under Bush, Summers and company were back at work, apparently to push things much further. This time money was directly taken from the People, no need for subtilities anymore.
And here we are, a year later. Summers was already, de facto, in power a year ago, all what was done in the meantime, the 24,000 billion dollars given, lent or promised to their corrupt friends in finance (what Obama calls the "financial system", in a surrealistic touch), was accomplished in accord with Rubin, and the Rubin team. Geithner was already second in command behind Paulson, when they acted on their Goldman Sacks plot, destroying Lehman (instead of nationalizing it), Goldman's competitor, while setting up a machination with AIG.
So we are here a year later, and the People has been enslaved with higher spending and borrowing, and there is strictly nothing to show for it which is positive. The thieves are getting tax payer money for their mansions, private jets and tax heavens. And Obama celebrates this as "saving the financial system".
Without debate, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan. Never mind that he is sending people to die for a Muslim constitution there (a blatant violation of the separation of church and state).
Obama now says cost has to be contained in the health care system. But his wife Michelle, and friend, Valerie Jarrett, were sitting on an hospital board, raking up a fortune. They are just lawyers. They are not doctors of medicine, just lawyers. In a country such as France, they would be on trial for corruption. In, the USA, they sit in the White House, looking pretty.
The spouse of the ex-mayor of Paris got $30,000 for a 40 page report; last week she got condemned to 9 months in jail, on the ground that $30,000 for 40 pages was obvious corruption. Obama and Jarrett, named by politicians through what would be called in France political "influence trafficking", got millions playing doctors on a hospital board, and then people wonder why health care is so expensive in the USA? Just put one Jarrett and one Obama per hospital board, and you break the health care system.
Two other advisers of Obama on health care are calling for cuts in health care. No, they are not accusing corruption and lawyers paid by corrupt hospitals to play doctors, and raking millions in their uneducated hands.
One of Obama's advisers says that health care cost too much, because there is too much research, and he proposes to cut back on new treatments, and research. He claims two-thirds of the augmentation of cost comes from there. New medical technology. But that was always the case, so what is he truly saying?
The other health adviser of Obama is outright saying that he wants to give medical treatment according to a "priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated". He gave lots of statements about refusing treatment to infant and older people. No doubt that this will improve the mortality rates of infants, which are already abysmal in the USA, all the way down to Hades.
Even the Nazis never dared say anything of the sort in public. I am not exaggerating: this Ezekiel Emanuel made an outright attack against the Hippocratic oath. His brother the Chief of Staff today said that progressives were "f..king stupid" to not see how right all of this was. (Rahm the Chief made 16 million from a bank in 2 years: his children will survive the cuts.)
Killing children for money, as Emanuel proposes to do, is also a form of racism, because no doubt those who the plutocratic system has made filthy rich will have no trouble paying doctors to save their babies.
A week ago, I was laughing with everybody when a gentleman insisted that "government takes its hands out of my Medicare". But now I have encountered Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel would have done better to stay discrete and silent, like his predecessor, Dr. Mengele. And I am not laughing anymore. Emanuel makes Rubin look like a humanist, and Goldman Sacks like a charity. Once again, and to my dismay, the warning signs are there.
Details, with plenty of quotes of the "health" advisers, will be put on my site ASAP. I do not know why this is all happening. Obama talks the talk, but he walks into Hades. Things such as these have happened in history before. Let's not forget that Mussolini had a long career as a socialist, before getting to power. Once there he tried to fight Hitler. In the end he finished as the exact opposite of all he had initially claimed he stood for. Hitler himself claimed to be a socialist (but, secretly he was the exact opposite, and he was financed, organized and supported by some of the richest families in Germany and the USA).
Who is financing Obama, already? Well, if you believe it's the small people, as the propaganda has it, you may have dementia. And people with dementia do not get health care, in the "complete lives system" of the good Doctor Emanuel. Your prognostic is not good.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
***
FRANK RICH wonders: "Is Obama Punking Us?" As Rich abstracts it: "While it’s unlikely that the chorus of President Obama’s most strident doomsayers will be proven right, there is growing cause for concern that the president is not the reformer he promised to be."And the NYT invited me to "Share your thoughts." So here it is:
***
The day after his election, Obama went to work at a hedge fund. At this point, I had a sinking feeling: Obama did not even try to hide the truth about himself. That brazen display was right in the middle of the collapse of finance, most of it caused by HEDGE FUND LIKE ACTIVITIES by a handful of major bankers and a few traders in conspiracies such as AIG and Goldman Sachs. These activities involved enormous leverage of public money, thanks to the fact that banks are mysteriously allowed by the government to create money, and give it to whoever they want (surprisingly, they start with themselves and their friends).
Then Obama brought in the biggest Goldman Sachs team that ever was, the Rubin team. It had been busy, under Clinton, demolishing Roosevelt's great financial architecture (The Banking Act of 1933). After bearing fruits, and receiving their rich rewards under Bush, Summers and company were back at work, apparently to push things much further. This time money was directly taken from the People, no need for subtilities anymore.
And here we are, a year later. Summers was already, de facto, in power a year ago, all what was done in the meantime, the 24,000 billion dollars given, lent or promised to their corrupt friends in finance (what Obama calls the "financial system", in a surrealistic touch), was accomplished in accord with Rubin, and the Rubin team. Geithner was already second in command behind Paulson, when they acted on their Goldman Sacks plot, destroying Lehman (instead of nationalizing it), Goldman's competitor, while setting up a machination with AIG.
So we are here a year later, and the People has been enslaved with higher spending and borrowing, and there is strictly nothing to show for it which is positive. The thieves are getting tax payer money for their mansions, private jets and tax heavens. And Obama celebrates this as "saving the financial system".
Without debate, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan. Never mind that he is sending people to die for a Muslim constitution there (a blatant violation of the separation of church and state).
Obama now says cost has to be contained in the health care system. But his wife Michelle, and friend, Valerie Jarrett, were sitting on an hospital board, raking up a fortune. They are just lawyers. They are not doctors of medicine, just lawyers. In a country such as France, they would be on trial for corruption. In, the USA, they sit in the White House, looking pretty.
The spouse of the ex-mayor of Paris got $30,000 for a 40 page report; last week she got condemned to 9 months in jail, on the ground that $30,000 for 40 pages was obvious corruption. Obama and Jarrett, named by politicians through what would be called in France political "influence trafficking", got millions playing doctors on a hospital board, and then people wonder why health care is so expensive in the USA? Just put one Jarrett and one Obama per hospital board, and you break the health care system.
Two other advisers of Obama on health care are calling for cuts in health care. No, they are not accusing corruption and lawyers paid by corrupt hospitals to play doctors, and raking millions in their uneducated hands.
One of Obama's advisers says that health care cost too much, because there is too much research, and he proposes to cut back on new treatments, and research. He claims two-thirds of the augmentation of cost comes from there. New medical technology. But that was always the case, so what is he truly saying?
The other health adviser of Obama is outright saying that he wants to give medical treatment according to a "priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated". He gave lots of statements about refusing treatment to infant and older people. No doubt that this will improve the mortality rates of infants, which are already abysmal in the USA, all the way down to Hades.
Even the Nazis never dared say anything of the sort in public. I am not exaggerating: this Ezekiel Emanuel made an outright attack against the Hippocratic oath. His brother the Chief of Staff today said that progressives were "f..king stupid" to not see how right all of this was. (Rahm the Chief made 16 million from a bank in 2 years: his children will survive the cuts.)
Killing children for money, as Emanuel proposes to do, is also a form of racism, because no doubt those who the plutocratic system has made filthy rich will have no trouble paying doctors to save their babies.
A week ago, I was laughing with everybody when a gentleman insisted that "government takes its hands out of my Medicare". But now I have encountered Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel would have done better to stay discrete and silent, like his predecessor, Dr. Mengele. And I am not laughing anymore. Emanuel makes Rubin look like a humanist, and Goldman Sacks like a charity. Once again, and to my dismay, the warning signs are there.
Details, with plenty of quotes of the "health" advisers, will be put on my site ASAP. I do not know why this is all happening. Obama talks the talk, but he walks into Hades. Things such as these have happened in history before. Let's not forget that Mussolini had a long career as a socialist, before getting to power. Once there he tried to fight Hitler. In the end he finished as the exact opposite of all he had initially claimed he stood for. Hitler himself claimed to be a socialist (but, secretly he was the exact opposite, and he was financed, organized and supported by some of the richest families in Germany and the USA).
Who is financing Obama, already? Well, if you believe it's the small people, as the propaganda has it, you may have dementia. And people with dementia do not get health care, in the "complete lives system" of the good Doctor Emanuel. Your prognostic is not good.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Thursday, August 6, 2009
ANGER WITH A CAUSE IS REASON WITH A FUTURE.
DO NOT SAY THAT ANGER IS BAD, THINK ABOUT WHY THEY GOT ANGRY.
***
Paul Krugman hopefully opines that:"A close look at recent protesters indicates that cynical political operators are exploiting cultural and racial anxiety in the health care reform debate."
Unfortunately, there is much more to it, and Obama and his happy crew can only blame themselves. I am 100% for universal health care, but these leaders are doing everything wrong, and the People sense it. Let me explain a bit.
***
Well, human beings do not act out of logical chains only. Those logical chains (neuron inter connects: axons, etc.) are built through glial activity. Glial cells are more emotional. They direct neuronal (hence logical) growth. Emotions first, diffusely, then logics to give it a skeleton.
So emotions build up first. And Obama, unfortunately, did a lot of things to make both his supporters and his opponents angry.
On health care we have Dr. Emanuel, the brother of the Emanuel who made 16 million dollars from a bank, between two political jobs, in 2 years. That second Emanuel is Obama’s Chief of Staff. Emanuel the brother is a doctor . He apparently uttered talk which was clearly intent on rationing the elderly (compare with Bush, who brought medical drugs to the elderly). There are no words to qualify how despicable such talk is.
Obama had no problem promising those who destroyed the economy 24,000 billion dollars, so that they could keep their haughty commandeering of American destiny, and giant incomes. But then Obama said health care had to be fully paid for. Although, once subtracted some present give away to private companies, the Obama plan would cost only 50 billion dollars a year, or so.
Obama has no problem borrowing like a drunken sailor so that his Muslims can win over the “extremist” Muslims he does not like in Afghanistan. Never mind that he spends 5 billion a week, and that the war will be lost. Killing Afghans should be free, curing American should be expensive.
I am for universal health care, as all really civilized countries have. It's indeed a quation of civilization. But, for Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama, it was a question of money. Big money, for themselves. Big influence, for themselves. Taking care of others? Perhaps. But of themselves? Surely, big time. Never mind that they were not qualified.
France, full of elderly citizens, and attached to the concept of humanity, would never limit care for the elderly (I saw this with many elderly members of my family). Any politician uttering anything that way, or in the way of reducing care, would be out of politics in France immediately. Even if the president (there would be riots marching on the presidency, which would probably burn down, and the police would not interfere).
I am thoroughly familiar with the French and US health care system, my best friend is a US doctor. But the US system stinks to high heavens, and it stinks of money. And what do we see around Obama? People who, although not doctors, and having no medical background, got paid enormously to sit on private hospital boards.
Such people, in France, would be on trial. In the USA, they sit in the White House. So people are angry? Well, may be they sense something French justice has learned to recognize.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
***
Paul Krugman hopefully opines that:"A close look at recent protesters indicates that cynical political operators are exploiting cultural and racial anxiety in the health care reform debate."
Unfortunately, there is much more to it, and Obama and his happy crew can only blame themselves. I am 100% for universal health care, but these leaders are doing everything wrong, and the People sense it. Let me explain a bit.
***
Well, human beings do not act out of logical chains only. Those logical chains (neuron inter connects: axons, etc.) are built through glial activity. Glial cells are more emotional. They direct neuronal (hence logical) growth. Emotions first, diffusely, then logics to give it a skeleton.
So emotions build up first. And Obama, unfortunately, did a lot of things to make both his supporters and his opponents angry.
On health care we have Dr. Emanuel, the brother of the Emanuel who made 16 million dollars from a bank, between two political jobs, in 2 years. That second Emanuel is Obama’s Chief of Staff. Emanuel the brother is a doctor . He apparently uttered talk which was clearly intent on rationing the elderly (compare with Bush, who brought medical drugs to the elderly). There are no words to qualify how despicable such talk is.
Obama had no problem promising those who destroyed the economy 24,000 billion dollars, so that they could keep their haughty commandeering of American destiny, and giant incomes. But then Obama said health care had to be fully paid for. Although, once subtracted some present give away to private companies, the Obama plan would cost only 50 billion dollars a year, or so.
Obama has no problem borrowing like a drunken sailor so that his Muslims can win over the “extremist” Muslims he does not like in Afghanistan. Never mind that he spends 5 billion a week, and that the war will be lost. Killing Afghans should be free, curing American should be expensive.
I am for universal health care, as all really civilized countries have. It's indeed a quation of civilization. But, for Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama, it was a question of money. Big money, for themselves. Big influence, for themselves. Taking care of others? Perhaps. But of themselves? Surely, big time. Never mind that they were not qualified.
France, full of elderly citizens, and attached to the concept of humanity, would never limit care for the elderly (I saw this with many elderly members of my family). Any politician uttering anything that way, or in the way of reducing care, would be out of politics in France immediately. Even if the president (there would be riots marching on the presidency, which would probably burn down, and the police would not interfere).
I am thoroughly familiar with the French and US health care system, my best friend is a US doctor. But the US system stinks to high heavens, and it stinks of money. And what do we see around Obama? People who, although not doctors, and having no medical background, got paid enormously to sit on private hospital boards.
Such people, in France, would be on trial. In the USA, they sit in the White House. So people are angry? Well, may be they sense something French justice has learned to recognize.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
AN IDEA AMERICAN CLUNKERS CAN CASH ON
WHY NOT GET REAL SMART, AND DO AS IF OTHER PEOPLE HAD BRAINS TOO?
Cash for clunkers is an old FRENCH idea. It was used several times in France over the last decade, with great success. It's used presently, with lots of variants (primes for very low CO2 emission cars, for cars more than 10 years old, etc...). The present clunker French program is supposed to expire at the end of 2009.
Cash for clunkers was long derided as typical French "Colbertism", or "dirigisme" (Colbert was a famous French finance and industry minister of the 17th century; some of the capitalist firms he helped then are still around today, and profitable, such as the giant Saint Gobain).
German governments long detested the cash for clunkers idea, viewing it as a French crutch, and other Europeans tried to block it as unfair business practice. This year, though, with its car industry dying, Germany adopted it with elan, splurging with enormous payments for every single vehicle. It was a resounding success: the German car industry is reviving.
This brings us to a more general point: why does not the government of the USA just study what is being done in Europe, on the other side of the pond, especially by the big countries?
In Europe the big countries themselves spend a huge amount of effort trying to duplicate successful strategies of smaller countries.
There is no shame in using others' solutions. There is shame in thinking the USA has it all figured out, though. The USA could gather enormous inspiration, by just studying French society and government in detail (France, for a number of reasons, including the long republican and revolutionary traditions in common, is the closest, more easily imitable model for the USA.)
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Cash for clunkers is an old FRENCH idea. It was used several times in France over the last decade, with great success. It's used presently, with lots of variants (primes for very low CO2 emission cars, for cars more than 10 years old, etc...). The present clunker French program is supposed to expire at the end of 2009.
Cash for clunkers was long derided as typical French "Colbertism", or "dirigisme" (Colbert was a famous French finance and industry minister of the 17th century; some of the capitalist firms he helped then are still around today, and profitable, such as the giant Saint Gobain).
German governments long detested the cash for clunkers idea, viewing it as a French crutch, and other Europeans tried to block it as unfair business practice. This year, though, with its car industry dying, Germany adopted it with elan, splurging with enormous payments for every single vehicle. It was a resounding success: the German car industry is reviving.
This brings us to a more general point: why does not the government of the USA just study what is being done in Europe, on the other side of the pond, especially by the big countries?
In Europe the big countries themselves spend a huge amount of effort trying to duplicate successful strategies of smaller countries.
There is no shame in using others' solutions. There is shame in thinking the USA has it all figured out, though. The USA could gather enormous inspiration, by just studying French society and government in detail (France, for a number of reasons, including the long republican and revolutionary traditions in common, is the closest, more easily imitable model for the USA.)
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)