Charlie's Chatter

Well, it happened again in southeast Texas. A man was killed by his wife when she intentionally ran down her husband with her car and then rolled over him several times. Why did she kill him with her car? According to a Houston Chronicle web site, witnesses reported that the couple was having marital problems and had been arguing. Is it possible that the man had been seeing another woman? No further details on that as of yet.
      That brings to mind another similar murder which happened just over 8 years ago. A Houston-area woman named Clara Harris killed her husband after learning that he was cheating on her. How did she kill him? Well, she struck him with her automobile, a Mercedes, and then ran over him several times.
      Moral: You married guys had better watch out! Whatever you do do NOT cheat on your wife. In fact, in order to be sure, you had better treat you wife very, very well.

I have always thought that both Islam and the Jewish religion share the same “God of Abraham”. In their respective “Holy Books” – the Hebrew bible for the Jewish people and the Koran for Islam – some of their contents are similar. For instance, both books state that Adam and Eve were the first humans, created by God. Nevertheless there are more differences than similarities between these two “books”. The religious practices between the two religions are different, but there are a few similarities. When applied to “secular life”, the two religions also have some things in common. The differences arise from their ancient beliefs and traditions, many if not most of which continue on to the present day. But the similarities also arise from ancient beliefs and traditions, many of which continue on to the present day. (In the case of the Jewish people, it is important to note that the majority of Jewish people today no longer actively practice their religion. However, most so-called “Orthodox” Jews, to include those sometimes called “ultra-orthodox” and Hasidic Jews, most certainly do continue practising their religion, usually in an intense manner. In the rest of this blog post, I only refer to these latter groups of Jewish people.)
      So, do Muslims and Jews have much in common? Do they at least have “something” in common? Well, consider these practices:

1. Both Muslims and Jews abhore pork and pork products.
2. In their respective places of worship – synagogues and mosques – the women are kept separate from the men.
3. When in public, women are always expected to dress very modestly – arms and legs fully covered, and with at least some kind of scarf covering their hair.
4. Many ultra-orthodox Jewish people even forbid men and women to be together in public, as do Muslims.
5. In both of these religions, the status of women is less than that of men, not only within the actual practice of their religion, but also within the home and secular life.

Again, I must point out that the above “similarities” do not apply to the majority of Jewish people today, even within Israel. However, they do apply to most “Orthodox” Jews, of which there are several types.
      This news article describes one group of Jewish people living in Kiryas Joel, a village in New York state. It demonstrates a couple of the things of which I wrote about above.

By now most of those who keep up with the news know that the former Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, died in a plane crash. What would normally have been amazing to me is that many if not most of the news articles on Ted Stevens used words such as “devoted”, “dedicated”, “distinguished” and “revered” when describing this politician. Well, I can certainly understand how most Alaskans would thank this guy. After all, for nearly seven years Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, during which time Alaska had the highest amount of federal spending per capita of any state in the union. During his 40 years as a Senator, he brought many billions of federal dollars to the state. That’s taxpayer money, I suppose. (Or maybe some of it came from the Chinese when they bought US Government Treasury securities.) It’s a darn shame that the famous “bridge to nowhere” which he tried to have built in Alaska with taxpayer federal money never came to pass.
      I know that Ted Stevens was criticized outside of Alaska for indulging in pork-barrel spending at the expense of American taxpayers. But after all, what else is a Senator to do? He or she is supposed to bring at least some federal money to their home states, and the more the better, at least for their state. By the same token, U.S. Representatives are supposed to bring at least some federal money to their home districts. After all, that is why most citizens vote for them – to “bring home” money, goodies and federally-financed projects which provide jobs. It’s a darn shame that the esteemed, distinguished, devoted and dedicated Senator Ted Stevens saw his Senate career end amid a corruption trial in 2008. In 2008, Stevens was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of failing to properly report gifts, a felony. The charges related to renovations to his home and alleged gifts from a corporation. The indictment followed a lengthy investigation by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. A federal jury convicted him on seven counts. Before his sentencing, thankfully the Obama administration vacated all charges against the former senator based on what Attorney General Eric Holder called “prosecutorial misconduct.” Since Ted Stevens was a Republican, whereas Obama and Holder are Democrats, I certainly do believe that there was “prosecutorial misconduct”.
      Don’t you just love those politicians?

In yesterday’s blog post, I mentioned that Obama hosted an “iftar” — the special evening meal observed during Ramadan — Friday night in the White House. During that dinner he gave a speech during which he made references to the project to build a “Muslim cultural center” and mosque near “ground zero” in New York City. I even quoted one statement of Obama’s which I found on this web site. The first part of that quote on my blog yesterday was as follows:

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

Today, Sunday August 15th, I watched a very short video on a television news program which showed Obama delivering that part of the speech which I included above. This short video clip actually showed Obama saying the following:

“But let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes. . . (interruption by applause) that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

So, the original quote that I found on that web site was very slightly inaccurate. Obama actually preceded his words with his oft-repeated phrase “let me be clear“, and he did not use the adjective “same” when he referred to the “right to practise their religion”. (Yes, I know, just before those sentences he did speak a few words about the 9/11 attacks and the hardship and suffering that they caused to many people.) What is amazing to me, and what I do now believe, is that Obama often uses the phrase “let me be clear”. In fact, there are several short phrases that he frequently uses. He uses them so often that one jokester suggested a new game called “Barack’s Bullshit Bingo”. Each bingo player would buy a bingo card, and most of Obama’s frequent short phrases would be on each bingo card, although in different orders on each card. One such bingo card is shown below:


I find it amazing that the first phrase in the upper lefthand corner of the above bingo card is Obama’s stock phrase “Let me be clear” !
In fact, I have heard Obama say most of the phrases on that bingo card many times. Apparently much of his “skilled” rhetoric does consist of memorized, stock phrases that have now become trite when coming from Obama.
    Concerning Obama’s remarks about that mosque, this statement from Representative Peter King is right on the money: “It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero. While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much. The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately the President caved into political correctness.”

It has recently been reported that the automobile company Government General Motors Company soon plans an IPO – an “Initial Public Offering” of common stock for sale to the general public. Given the history of “General Motors”, especially its recent history, what fools would buy that new stock? In case people are not aware of it, the “old” stock in General Motors is now either worthless or almost worthless. One recent news report said that Dan Akerson will soon be the new CEO of General Motors Company. He will replace Ed Whitacre
as of September in an abrupt shake-up GM announced just a day before it had planned to file for a politically charged stock offering expected to be one of the largest ever. Good grief! One of the largest ever! Well, if it turns out to be a successful IPO, all I can say is that there are a lot of fools out there. (Come to think of it, there are many people who bet money at casinos, knowing full well that they will lose more money than they will win, at least over a period of many hours if not days. That includes this fool who visits a casino at least three times a year. Well, some people have said that the “stock market” is sort of like a casino, the only difference being that in the long run a few people will actually make money in the stock market.)
    For those who are not aware of recent past history, General Motors Corporation changed its name to Motors Liquidation Company in July 2009 in connection with the sale of substantially all of its assets pursuant to Section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Court’s sale order dated July 5, 2009. Motors Liquidation Company (MTLQQ.PK) and its subsidiaries completed the sale of substantially all of their assets to the “new” General Motors Company on July 10, 2009. None of the publicly owned stocks or bonds issued by the former General Motors Corporation, including its common stock formerly traded as “GM”, are or will become securities in the General Motors Company (“new GM”), which is an independent company. All of these securities relate to Motors Liquidation Company and will be treated in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the rulings of the Bankruptcy Court. As stated on the Motors Liquidation Company web site, management continues to remind investors of its strong belief that there will be no value for the common stockholders in the bankruptcy liquidation process, even under the most optimistic of scenarios. Stockholders of a company in chapter 11 generally receive value only if all claims of the company’s secured and unsecured creditors are fully satisfied. In this case, management strongly believes all such claims will not be fully satisfied, leading to its conclusion that the common stock will have no value.   (Gosh, I wonder if that means that at least the bondholders will get some of their money back.)
    On August 13, 2010, the “old” GM stock, now trading under the Motors Liquidation Company with the pink sheet symbol MTLQQ.PK, closed at just over 43 cents a share. Evidently some holders of the “old” GM stock still have some faint hopes that some value will eventually accrue to their stock. Or perhaps they are fools.
    Keep in mind that the new Government General Motors Company received about 50 Billion dollars from the federal government as a bailout. In return the government received stock in this “new” General Motors Company. One stated intent is for the federal government to get its bailout money back (taxpayers’ money) by eventually selling its stock on the open market. One recent news report said that some securities analysts are saying that the Obama administration may be pressuring GM to sell shares soon to influence the November congressional elections and make the government’s controversial “investment” look smart! Gee, would Obama and his administration do such a thing? Surely not! Heck, the “new” General Motors Company even announced a profit for the last quarter; not a huge profit, but not a tiny one either. I do wonder to what extent the “new” General Motors is hampered by union wages and benefits, and union pensions. I do not know, and I will not take the time to do the research. Nevertheless, I still think that all of this has been primarily a boondoggle.

When it comes to the apprehension of illegal aliens undocumented workers, many people who find such apprehension a bad policy often use the argument that many of those apprehensions result in at least a temporary separation of a mother from her children. It often does not matter how young (or old) the children are, or how long the separation will be, but the cry goes out, “How horrible that this poor mother is separated from her children !“. In extreme cases, some use phrases such as “babies snatched from their mothers’ bosoms”. Keep in mind that people who use this argument are against the apprehension of these illegal aliens undocumented workers, insisting that these “poor people” should just have been left alone by the authorities. Well, I find all that very odd.
      Keep in mind that these mothers have broken the law. Sure, being an illegal alien undocumented worker is not really a major crime, such as a felony. It is not even something very, very bad such as murder. But a law has been broken, and although it is not a serious crime, it is not a very minor one either such as running a stop sign.
      Given all of that, why do I not hear the same arguments used when a woman who is a United States citizen is separated from her children because she has committed a crime? It is not uncommon for women who are citizens to be arrested and jailed for “minor” crimes, such as shoplifting a 20 dollar item or selling an ounce or two of marijuana. And yet if these women have children, although they too are thus separated from their children, one seldom hears complaints about that. In fact, sometimes a few people do say that such a woman “should have thought about her obligations to her children” before she committed her minor crime. But when they do so, they almost never castigate the authorities who arrested her in the first place. As I said, if anything, they blame the woman. Well, why does not the same thing hold true for an illegal alien undocumented worker? Should not that woman have thought about her obligations to her children? Surely she knew that she was running a risk by being in this country illegally, with a consequent risk to her children.

Given the oil drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico for which British Petroleum (BP) bears major responsibility, Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, has been subject to a lot of criticism in the American media. A lot of criticism. One recent example which has been heavily publicized is the fact that Tony Hayward “took time off” from his job for several hours on a weekend “to attend a glitzy yacht race around England’s Isle of Wight”, as the Huffington Post describes it.
      Hmm…   I wonder what our Dear Leader Obama did during that weekend. After all, as the President of the United States, he has much, much more on his plate than does Tony Hayward. Not only does Obama have the oil spill to contend with, but also Afghanistan and his Generals, the G20 summit in Toronto, the Senate confirmation hearing of his nominee for the Supreme Court Kagan, and much more. Well, as best I can determine, Obama went to a Washington Nationals baseball game on Friday night of that weekend, and the next day he went out for a round of golf which supposedly lasted about four hours. Gosh, all that fun and entertainment for Obama during the same weekend when Tony Hayward was severely castigated by most of the American media for spending several hours at a yacht race! Well, I guess our Dear Leader needs his rest and relaxation. After all, he is in no way actually responsible for all those millions of birds, fish and other wildlife which are being injured and killed by the oil spill.
      Come to think of it, I wish Obama did nothing but rest, relax and enjoy entertainment for himself and his family. I wish he gave no speeches, signed no legislation, and appointed no one to any vacant government post or newly-created government post. If he were to do anything of consequence, I wish he would turn in his resignation.

SOCCER ??? What kind of a ridiculous game is that? Not worth watching. As “something to do” which is healthy, I guess it is okay for young children and their soccer moms.

It is said that Obama’s speech from the Oval Office was an attempt to take advantage of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in order to further Obama’s “green energy” goals. One of the parts of his speech was as follows:

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.”

Wow !   Yes, by all means let us do whatever is necessary to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and instead rely on clean energy, green energy and renewable energy such as solar, wind and water. However, his speech was said to be long on big picture and short on detail. He did not make any specific requests, and he made no mention of cap-and-trade. According to this article, Senate Democrats, who are considering several versions of energy legislation, were looking to President Obama to give some clear direction Tuesday night in his speech from the Oval Office, but some complained to their allies Wednesday that they didn’t get it. Some Democrats complained that Obama “only muddied the waters” with his Oval Office speech. In other words, Obama did not tell us what is necessary to specifically do in order to use less fossil fuels and instead use more “clean” energy.
      Well, I think we must take into account not just Obama’s latest speech, but also all the other things that he has already accomplished. For example, according to this article, the Obama administration more than doubled spending on cycling and walking initiatives to $1.2 billion last year alone as it seeks to coax Americans out of their cars. Spending on biking and walking projects rose from less than $600 million in 2008. Twenty years ago, the federal government was spending only $6 million a year on such projects. See? From a measly 6 million dollars 20 years ago the federal government under Obama is now spending more than one Billion dollars in one year alone! That is truly a huge increase for nothing but biking and walking “projects”!
      Well, the way our economy is going, with the federal government taking more and more control of our lives and our economy, I don’t think we will have to worry too much about using too much fossil fuels. Our standard of living under our increasingly “progressive” government will drop, and more and more of us will be forced to use bicycles because we will not be able to afford an automobile and the fuel that it will need. This reminds me of my knowledge of recent history – poor, undeveloped countries have a huge percentage of people who only have bicycles in order to get around; they can not afford automobiles and mass transit is not often available. In fact, from my own personal experience in Europe, where I spent over two years of my life 15 years after the end of World War II, in Western Europe there were still a lot of people who did not own automobiles and instead used bicycles whenever mass transit was not available. Too many could not afford automobiles, and I could see that their standard of living was much less than that in the United States at that time. Again from my personal experience in Europe over the past ten years, this is no longer the case. Sure, there are a few apparent exceptions, such as in the city of Amsterdam where bicycles are widely used. But that is not because the Dutch can not afford automobiles, but rather because many streets in Amsterdam do not allow the passage of automobiles, and of those which do some of them are narrow streets which make automobile use very inconvenient. So relax. As our standard of living goes down in the United States because of Obama and most politicians and bureaucrats, more bicycle paths will already be available for our use. And of course the location of these paths will be such so as to result in shorter commutes. Oh, and of most importance, just about the only energy required to use a bicycle is that which comes from human muscle power; in other words, from food. Ain’t that great?

I am a retired old man, living off of Social Security and a small private pension. I do have some savings, but not a lot. Financially, my only advantage is that I have no debts other than a few monthly bills which I pay off every month. Well, I could certainly use more money, and my old age and poor health prevent me from getting a paying job. So what must I to do to get more money?
      I thought that president Obama would somehow give me money. After all, during the presidential election campaign, Obama told “Joe the Plumber” that Obama’s attitude is that “if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Well come on Obama, spread some of it around to me. Why even Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, just recently said that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. Now if they were to pay their fair share, then they would of course pay much more, and Obama could give me some of it. I guess that I just need to be patient. The economy will certainly be better next year, and then the rich will be paying more in taxes. Patience, Patience.
      When it comes to raising taxes and redistributing wealth, a few people are against that. Well they are clearly mistaken. Those people of course include all of the rich. They also include some pundits, such as Thomas Sowell who railed against Obama because Obama recently said that, “At some point, you have made enough money.” (I think Obama was talking about Wall Street “reform” when he said that.)
      I want some of that money that the rich now have! After all, that would only be “economic justice”, which is sometimes called social justice !