Most of the world seems to think that Israel was created because of the Holocaust, but the fact of the matter is it was spawned before the Holocaust because of the fear for their life ( physical, spiritual and identity). Jews need a homeland to day just as much as they needed a homeland a century ago.
Are they safe in France, Holland, and Belgium were mobs scream death to the Jews and their property is destroyed by wanted acts of vandalism. Would those Jews who's ancestors came from nations like Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon be safe if their heirs returned to the land of their forefathers? No they would not.
Every time a crowd chants death to the Jews, destroy Jewish property they make a stronger case for Zionism.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Steve's barking; a simpletons version of climate change.
We all know that there is is this thing that we call climate change.
Some of us know ( including my self ) that' co 2 and methane gas ( that's become greater in the atmosphere due to fracking (?) ) act like glass does for a green house letting the suns heat in and trapping it so that it doesn't get out.
Now some who live in the Midwest and the East Coast this year may have a hard time believing that we 're going through a global warming period. This is not true if one lives on or near the Pacific Ocean in the US, or for that matter in the UK. Boy it's hot in those areas of the world.
Well we who believe that co2 in the atmosphere is a major contibutor of global change worry about the deforestation of the world, the co2s vacuum cleaner is being destroyed.
I understand that the electromagnet poles have moved ever so slightly, if true that also can help explain partial climate change, wind change and all that jazz.
The melting of the polar ice can explain climate change, the wind blows right things can make some parts be a little cooler in some parts of this planets and warmer in other.
Some of us know ( including my self ) that' co 2 and methane gas ( that's become greater in the atmosphere due to fracking (?) ) act like glass does for a green house letting the suns heat in and trapping it so that it doesn't get out.
Now some who live in the Midwest and the East Coast this year may have a hard time believing that we 're going through a global warming period. This is not true if one lives on or near the Pacific Ocean in the US, or for that matter in the UK. Boy it's hot in those areas of the world.
Well we who believe that co2 in the atmosphere is a major contibutor of global change worry about the deforestation of the world, the co2s vacuum cleaner is being destroyed.
I understand that the electromagnet poles have moved ever so slightly, if true that also can help explain partial climate change, wind change and all that jazz.
The melting of the polar ice can explain climate change, the wind blows right things can make some parts be a little cooler in some parts of this planets and warmer in other.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Steve's barking at a variation of the term for inflation
Every ex college person who took a course in economics knows inflation is when too much money chases too few goods.
We constantly look at too much money, with out defining what too much money is?
In places like San Francisco, New York City, and South Dakota we have inflation of housing (I imagine Russia Moscow is the same). There are people who command a great deal of money and have it, enough to push the price of housing up almost unaffordable to the rest of us folk. Now a majority of these folk are not rich by any imagination, it's just that they make much more then the previous average person who live in these places. As the amount of these more prosperous people come to these places to live they inflate the price of housing. Part of what I'm trying to say that part of the equation of inflation is the increase of need raise the price, the raising of price or prices the average Joe or Josephine would consider inflation.
Speaking of money, there are some, how should I say this, uh being kind, I'll just say people who look at the FEDS uh quantitative easing and say the FED is printing money, oh my, the end of the world is coming. Inflation is just around the corner. Stop it. The real term should be too much money in circulation going after a shortage of various products inflates the price of those products (usually).
The FED buying a product, (Bonds, and Notes) doesn't necessarily putting that money in circulation.
We constantly look at too much money, with out defining what too much money is?
In places like San Francisco, New York City, and South Dakota we have inflation of housing (I imagine Russia Moscow is the same). There are people who command a great deal of money and have it, enough to push the price of housing up almost unaffordable to the rest of us folk. Now a majority of these folk are not rich by any imagination, it's just that they make much more then the previous average person who live in these places. As the amount of these more prosperous people come to these places to live they inflate the price of housing. Part of what I'm trying to say that part of the equation of inflation is the increase of need raise the price, the raising of price or prices the average Joe or Josephine would consider inflation.
Speaking of money, there are some, how should I say this, uh being kind, I'll just say people who look at the FEDS uh quantitative easing and say the FED is printing money, oh my, the end of the world is coming. Inflation is just around the corner. Stop it. The real term should be too much money in circulation going after a shortage of various products inflates the price of those products (usually).
The FED buying a product, (Bonds, and Notes) doesn't necessarily putting that money in circulation.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Steve's barking at the enablers of death
If a teenager throws a rock at a man with a gun and gets shot who's to blame?
If another teenagers throws a rock at the same man with a gun and he also gets shot, who's to blame?
If you encourage other to throw rocks at this man and they get shot at aren't you part of the problem?
Some will say no, the man has a gun and that's much more deadlier then a rock.
Look at the agony of those who got shot, and oh by the way the man with the gun shot some teenagers who weren't throwing rocks at him.
I'm trying to understand, a thrown rock can injure and even kill but just because a person defends himself with a gun that person with is wrong.
Even though it is known that by throwing a rock at the man with a gun, the man is going to use it and fire on the person who throws the rock, if you don't expect injuries from the gun your a fool.
The way I see the battle in the holy land, the brothers and sisters of the Arabs that are being killed are blaming the wrong party, they should be cursing the rock throwers.That goes double for our holier then thou westerner's.
If another teenagers throws a rock at the same man with a gun and he also gets shot, who's to blame?
If you encourage other to throw rocks at this man and they get shot at aren't you part of the problem?
Some will say no, the man has a gun and that's much more deadlier then a rock.
Look at the agony of those who got shot, and oh by the way the man with the gun shot some teenagers who weren't throwing rocks at him.
I'm trying to understand, a thrown rock can injure and even kill but just because a person defends himself with a gun that person with is wrong.
Even though it is known that by throwing a rock at the man with a gun, the man is going to use it and fire on the person who throws the rock, if you don't expect injuries from the gun your a fool.
The way I see the battle in the holy land, the brothers and sisters of the Arabs that are being killed are blaming the wrong party, they should be cursing the rock throwers.That goes double for our holier then thou westerner's.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Steve's barking at the myth of a free market.
The reality of a free market is a myth.
Throughout history man has visioned various Utopian societies, whenever man has tried to put his theory in to practice, members of those societies have gone away disillusioned.
Let me start off by say that there has never been a truly free market.
Most humans have it in their DNA to cheat. To gain advantage over it's rival, a business would and does create a system that limits the funds for it's rivals. Cash rich companies sell a product at a loss there by stifling competition.
Trying to gain monopolies is only natural, and with no competition the seller sets the price.
During Prohibition the United States had a glance at the free market for liquor and guess what happened, various gangs sprang up and the free market in liquar died. In the present day one can look at the drug trade, gangs have virtual monopolies in variose areas of the country.
The myth that a totally free market system creates innovation. When a person looks at that statement from a distance one can shake his head in agreement. It's defiantly true in a sterile world, one needs to keep improving to be competitive, but if one is in a non competitive position innovation is squashed.
One can state well in a free market they'll always be competition, Only if companies can prove they can make a a profit or they can't find funding.
The first thing to go when profits aren't right is R and D and with it goes innovation.
In a free market new companies are formed all the time that are innovative.
New companies are formed it's true, but only if they can get the cash for their start up, hoping that there isn't collusion between existing companies and banks or with investors.
Did the monopolies of the early 20th century create more and better businesses or was America's economy on the verge of malaise? Yes American businesses and the economy was on the verge of malaise.
Did monopolies make for a freer market? No
Did the break up of the monopolies make for a freer market? Yes.
Those in America who shout that the politicians should have left businesses alone are in reality anti free marketers.
As bad as government is some times, with it's self-righteous bureaucrats, creates a freer market then those free market advocates would.
Throughout history man has visioned various Utopian societies, whenever man has tried to put his theory in to practice, members of those societies have gone away disillusioned.
Let me start off by say that there has never been a truly free market.
Most humans have it in their DNA to cheat. To gain advantage over it's rival, a business would and does create a system that limits the funds for it's rivals. Cash rich companies sell a product at a loss there by stifling competition.
Trying to gain monopolies is only natural, and with no competition the seller sets the price.
During Prohibition the United States had a glance at the free market for liquor and guess what happened, various gangs sprang up and the free market in liquar died. In the present day one can look at the drug trade, gangs have virtual monopolies in variose areas of the country.
The myth that a totally free market system creates innovation. When a person looks at that statement from a distance one can shake his head in agreement. It's defiantly true in a sterile world, one needs to keep improving to be competitive, but if one is in a non competitive position innovation is squashed.
One can state well in a free market they'll always be competition, Only if companies can prove they can make a a profit or they can't find funding.
The first thing to go when profits aren't right is R and D and with it goes innovation.
In a free market new companies are formed all the time that are innovative.
New companies are formed it's true, but only if they can get the cash for their start up, hoping that there isn't collusion between existing companies and banks or with investors.
Did the monopolies of the early 20th century create more and better businesses or was America's economy on the verge of malaise? Yes American businesses and the economy was on the verge of malaise.
Did monopolies make for a freer market? No
Did the break up of the monopolies make for a freer market? Yes.
Those in America who shout that the politicians should have left businesses alone are in reality anti free marketers.
As bad as government is some times, with it's self-righteous bureaucrats, creates a freer market then those free market advocates would.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Steve's barking: why I don't give to most organized charity
I hate to give to a charity were most of the workers make more money then me.
I hate to give to a charity that the CEO makes more then 600 thousand dollars.
I hate to give to a organization that spends most of it's money getting money.
I hate to give to a charity were the CEO justifies his or her salary by how much money they pull in.
The Red Cross recently was asked how they spend their money and the answer they gave it's a trade secret.
A trade secret, who the f*** do they think they are, Apple or GM, they're a blink en charity. If I'm giving money from my messily check to help tornado victims in Kansas I want to know at least 90 cents on the dollar is helping those victims. By the way who are they in compilation with, other charities?
Another charity that I'm not to happy with is the democratic party.
The only think they seem good for is fund raising. It seems to me that they pay their fun raises more money then they spend on the races that they are fund raising for. Even the guy or gal who calls me up is probably getting a piece of the pie.
It seems to me that truth in advertising I should know how much the money collected is payed to the professional fund raiser. If the money collected isn't told how it's spent then the charity should be taxed on how much it's spends even if the charities are political parties.
My family is pretty generous with it's money to charities, giving to such charities as United Way, Sloan Kettering, Political Candidates and on an on, but the best charity I give too are the beggers on the street, I at lest I know what they look like, even if they are cheats.
I hate to give to a charity that the CEO makes more then 600 thousand dollars.
I hate to give to a organization that spends most of it's money getting money.
I hate to give to a charity were the CEO justifies his or her salary by how much money they pull in.
The Red Cross recently was asked how they spend their money and the answer they gave it's a trade secret.
A trade secret, who the f*** do they think they are, Apple or GM, they're a blink en charity. If I'm giving money from my messily check to help tornado victims in Kansas I want to know at least 90 cents on the dollar is helping those victims. By the way who are they in compilation with, other charities?
Another charity that I'm not to happy with is the democratic party.
The only think they seem good for is fund raising. It seems to me that they pay their fun raises more money then they spend on the races that they are fund raising for. Even the guy or gal who calls me up is probably getting a piece of the pie.
It seems to me that truth in advertising I should know how much the money collected is payed to the professional fund raiser. If the money collected isn't told how it's spent then the charity should be taxed on how much it's spends even if the charities are political parties.
My family is pretty generous with it's money to charities, giving to such charities as United Way, Sloan Kettering, Political Candidates and on an on, but the best charity I give too are the beggers on the street, I at lest I know what they look like, even if they are cheats.
Steve's barking; why I will not vote for Hillary
I won't vote for Hillary because I'm an a** hole who thinks that it's time for a change.
I don't want to vote for a Clinton, or a Bush, fresh ideas from fresh people, not old ideas from leftover people..
Optimistic people, so no I will not vote Tea Party. I maybe forced to vote against the unpatriots and if Ms Clinton is the alturnitive, I'll just hold my noise and pull the Democrats lever, and do what I always do, vote against the most obnoxious canidates rather then vote for a particular canidate.
In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, in 2012 I voted against Mitt Romney. Now it probably dosen't mean anything to the winner, but at least in my mind I have my integrity intack.
I look at the Obama administration and tell myself if I wanted a Hillary Clinton administration I would have voted for her in the Democratic Primary. ( Maybe that's my problem, I'm a little touched in the head I speak to myself).
I don't want to vote for a Clinton, or a Bush, fresh ideas from fresh people, not old ideas from leftover people..
Optimistic people, so no I will not vote Tea Party. I maybe forced to vote against the unpatriots and if Ms Clinton is the alturnitive, I'll just hold my noise and pull the Democrats lever, and do what I always do, vote against the most obnoxious canidates rather then vote for a particular canidate.
In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, in 2012 I voted against Mitt Romney. Now it probably dosen't mean anything to the winner, but at least in my mind I have my integrity intack.
I look at the Obama administration and tell myself if I wanted a Hillary Clinton administration I would have voted for her in the Democratic Primary. ( Maybe that's my problem, I'm a little touched in the head I speak to myself).
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Steve's barking; the end of fighting in the Middle East will be..............
The way thing are going in the middle with fighting, the murdering and rape that goes on with the type of fighting that is happening in Iraq and Syria, I ask myself how can this insanity end (things appear to be so bad there it makes the Israel, Palestinian conflict seem like a minor bar room brawl).
My only guess is that the conflict will end before the end of 2015 not because of intervention on one side or another but because of disease.
There are new disease being discovered ever day, each more deadly then the other and with refugee camps and fighters coming in from every and all parts of the region an epidemic is inevitable.
An epidemic with diseases that can't be cured makes cowards of us all.
My only guess is that the conflict will end before the end of 2015 not because of intervention on one side or another but because of disease.
There are new disease being discovered ever day, each more deadly then the other and with refugee camps and fighters coming in from every and all parts of the region an epidemic is inevitable.
An epidemic with diseases that can't be cured makes cowards of us all.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Steve's barking at capitalist communist
Capitalist communism (?) can't be.
Capitalist communist must be those billionaires who are a disgrace to their class. Economic equality= blaspheme.
In the sixties when we were taught the superiority of American democracy over communism we were taught about freedom of speech that America had and the communist counties didn't. In the present day the rich have the ability to drown out those aren't rich lowering the voice of others.
We were taught about how the state would spy on the people. Present day America large corporation spy on the citizens (think of Face book, Google, Yahoo and the advertisers on those platforms).
We were taught that the people of the communist countries had to think one way just as as some of those cable news network seem to want the people who watch their network expect their viewers to do.
We were taught that the Soviet Union would tell the same lie over and over again that the people would believe. Sound familiar to those capitalist think tanks Cato institute, and the Heritage Foundation. I know they're called conservative think tanks but are they really.
Brings me to another warning of the evils of communist, they would use terms like freedom loving people while actually meaning those who are enslaved.Seems to me that I hear from capitalist who like to say freedom of choice when they actually mean freedom to choose what they want you to choose. Yes there are some liberals I know who aren't that rich but think the same way.
As I have said before, there are many capitalist who learned their lesson well from the Communist.
Capitalist communist must be those billionaires who are a disgrace to their class. Economic equality= blaspheme.
In the sixties when we were taught the superiority of American democracy over communism we were taught about freedom of speech that America had and the communist counties didn't. In the present day the rich have the ability to drown out those aren't rich lowering the voice of others.
We were taught about how the state would spy on the people. Present day America large corporation spy on the citizens (think of Face book, Google, Yahoo and the advertisers on those platforms).
We were taught that the people of the communist countries had to think one way just as as some of those cable news network seem to want the people who watch their network expect their viewers to do.
We were taught that the Soviet Union would tell the same lie over and over again that the people would believe. Sound familiar to those capitalist think tanks Cato institute, and the Heritage Foundation. I know they're called conservative think tanks but are they really.
Brings me to another warning of the evils of communist, they would use terms like freedom loving people while actually meaning those who are enslaved.Seems to me that I hear from capitalist who like to say freedom of choice when they actually mean freedom to choose what they want you to choose. Yes there are some liberals I know who aren't that rich but think the same way.
As I have said before, there are many capitalist who learned their lesson well from the Communist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)