atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#3343: I told you unemployment was going to go down regardless of reality!

Because Obama needs it to be under 8% by November, that's why, and it's going to happen. I expect the official--that is to say, the fudged, fiddled, and fornicated number--to be 7.9% in October.

If not lower. But certainly it'll be down at least as far as 7.9%.

The actual connection that this number will have with reality, though, is entirely a different story. The Obama administration will report it as whatever they've "adjusted" it to be, and the news media will uncritically report it without asking any inconvenient questions of Obama and his cronies.

The people to whom this number is most important will accept it as written without asking, "How can this be when I haven't had a job for two years?" The question won't even be, "Damn, there's jobs everywhere so how come I'm not finding one?" No, the thought (if one can call it that) will be, "Hooray! Obama's lowered the unemployment rate!" And any attempt to explain the falseness of the Obama numbers will be met with an uncomprehending stare, like a cave man seeing an airplane.

Sure, CNBC might have mentioned the reality on their web site or cable channel, but the mainstream media--CBS NBC ABC NYT--are going to scream "UNEMPLOYMENT DOWN TO 8.1%" at the top of their lungs, and then mutter somewhere at the end of the segment, "actual number of unemployed has risen". And their target audience won't hear that part because they'll already have moved on to other things.

Elizabeth Scalia on this:
It’s a game. The press understands all too well the power of a headline in creating perceptions. Outside of news junkies and the moderately curious, there are huge numbers of people who read a headline or a lede — or listen to a 30-second soundbite — and figure that’s the news; that’s what’s true. They don’t bother to read what is (and often is not) spelled out further in the story, and they never know about corrections to the blaring headlines of last week.
And there's Karl Denninger, too: "The Big Suck", he says.

"Let's look at the internals and the household numbers, because that's actual numbers instead of political crap." And, "This is just plain bad."

So the mainstream media--which is by now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party--is lying through its teeth as it parrots the Official Party Line which itself has no more connection to reality than a Michael Bay movie.

The press arrogates to itself the role of "watchdog", saying that without a free press the politicians can get away with doing whatever they want. They point at Watergate as an example of how well they do. They aggressively investigate and push every negative story that crops up about any Republican or conservative anywhere, and say, "Well, it's because that's our job! We're the watchdogs, you know!"

...and willingly turn a blind eye to fraud and deception in the Democrat party, and take every opportunity to minimize or ignore negative stories about Democrats.

It's not a coincidence.

* * *

The people who told me, time and again, that the media are "driven by money" and are "only doing what's popular", take a look at CNN's numbers and say that again. CNN was dubbed "the Clinton News Network" by Limbaugh and others in the 1990s; WTF, it was started by Ted "I'm So Liberal I Married Jane Fonda" Turner.

It's also not being watched by people inside the US because it's become obvious that if there is a pinnacle of honest, fair, balanced, and "middle-of-the-road" reporting, CNN is pretty much the farthest point from it. Cable news watchers are already consumers of "elite media" (in the sociologial sense) since access to cable news channels has to be bought; they've already demonstrated that they're interested in all the facts, not just the facts that the Propaganda Wing of the Democrat Party wishes to report.

...which is why Fox News is on top of the viewership ratings. Fox News is merely less leftist than the others are.

* * *

Incidentally--Ann Barnhardt talked about this and Vox Day reduced it, so here it is:

MF Global Mark II is on its way.

I'm thinking, actually, that CME will backstop this one exactly the way they didn't backstop the MF Global failure. Two reasons:

1) They got a lot of bad press over that.

2) They're not dumbasses. If people they dismiss as "amateurs" can read the writing on the wall I'm sure they can. A second MF Global would be--for the reasons cited!--very, very bad for the markets. Only a complete fool would let that happen.

Which is not to say that there aren't any complete fools in CME, of course. You can be the most brilliant man in history and still forget to wear socks.

So perhaps I should say that I would like to think that CME will backstop this one, because these guys are all highly trained specialists who have the intelligence to figure out the consequences of pulling the bullshit they pulled with MF Global.

I'd also like to hope that this company isn't stealing customer money to prop itself up for a few more days; but since the sitting government of this country has seen fit to let the financial industry take a runny, maggoty shit all over "rule of law" I don't have a lot of confidence in that hope, either.

* * *

This is why Secret Service agents shouldn't be sleeping with hookers on assignment.

...and lest you think I was making a silly joke about "baka-hookers" just remember that the islamic world practically defines itself by its love of suicide bombers. About the only reason that couldn't happen is that hookers generally do not wear trench coats in tropical countries.

* * *

Borepatch says, Vote Obama!

...his post is well-reasoned, but if I wanted to vote for Obama I'd be voting for Romney instead. I am not casting my vote for a Democrat. No way, nuh-uh.

My Mom voted for a Democrat once. She didn't like Senator Percy's attitude, so she voted against him...for Paul Simon. Jesus. And yeah, she regretted that decision for years afterwards.

It'll be interesting to see how this election plays out, though. I just hope it's in the intellectual sense, not the "chinese curse" one.

* * *

Is NASA's budget really the only place they can find to trim spending? This always bothers me. NASA's budget has hovered around $20 billion as long as I've been tracking government spending at all--and that's been about 25 years, now.

When I first started paying attention to this kind of thing, NASA was getting around $17 billion per year. Last year they got $22 billion; next year they get $19.57 billion.


Meanwhile, HHS and Social Security alone spend two million dollars per minute. You mean to say there isn't anything in there that can be trimmed? And this saves the government a measly $42 million--which isn't even half an hour out of the annual federal budget.

Meanwhile, the deficit is $1,300 billion. No! Wait! Now it's only $1,299.958 billion! We're saving money! Our out-of-control spending is handled, baby!

* * *

Lots of rumblies last night. It finally cooled off in here, so I was able to go to bed; but there was wind and it was blowing rain into the house, so I had to close the windows and doors.

I was just reaching to close the north window in my bedroom when this happened:


...and I jumped, almost knocking over the pedestal lamp. Whatever that lighting bolt hit, it was probably less than two hundred feet from where I was standing, because there was no real discernable delay between the flash and the extremely loud report. And the thunder was a single crack, no echo, no rumble, which means it was extra-close.

I don't know where the cats were, but I almost dove under the bed. Shit.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.