Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been incommunicado for three weeks and is now in Cuba for medical treatment. Today he made an appearance on Venezuelan television (reportedly recorded in Cuba) and confirmed the rumors: he has cancer. It’s not clear what kind, but prostate cancer was rumored. Fausta has the video and a translation.In other news, the EU released its new (bloated) budget, prompting Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden to complain about the excessive spending. Meanwhile, Brussels has proposed an EU-wide VAT to help pay for all its nifty programs.
Also, the case against former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn may be falling apart. The NYC police reportedly think that the main witness against Mr. Strauss-Kahn lacks credibility, after repeatedly lying to investigators.
To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.
Thanks to AC, C. Cantoni, Erick Stakelbeck, Fausta, Fjordman, JD, Van Grungy, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.
Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.
Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.
5 comments:
Someone the other day explained to me the concept of Ponzi Financing.
Effectively securing new debt for the purpose of servicing old debt, as a means to keep a failing company afloat for a while longer.
The idea is that a company seeing future economic growth can keep itself alive long enough to experience profits and resume solvency.
Risk is if the economy doesn't improve and they don't benefit from it if it does, they just end up farther in debt and eventually bankruptcy.
This parallels what Pres. Obama is doing with the U.S., trusting that his economic policies will fuel economic growth, and thereby pay of all his new debt... problem is, over the past 4 years, our Fed Income based on GNP has remained the same (withing a 1% margin). The same 1% margin was experienced by Pres. Bush's intiatives previously. Telling is that under Bush the Fed Income was about 18% GNP, while under Obama it's been about 15%. Obama's policies have lost us 3%. But that's another story.
In context of this thread, EU appears to be attempting the same Ponzi Financing scheme.
Problem is, it works primarily based on luck. We'd have better odds going to Las Vegas and hoping for a jack-pot at the $1 slot machines.
Obama's problem, and the EU's is that value is fixed. If an economy is developed so that it can sustain 15% income to it's government, simply changing currency (printing more paper), changing tax code, or changing taxes, isn't going to change the value of that economy nor change the 15% value of that nations Federal Income.
It can only cause inflation, and some short-term benefit... as long as the Nations economy maintains confidence in the direct. What Obama has done here is cause inflation, without any short-term benefit, primarily because he hasn't gained nor maintained any confidence from the business community. He has been successful and destroying economic confidence, and chasing new businesses over-seas.
EU is facing the same problem, betting on raising confidence in the business community, but in fact driving confidence down.
I hope the West loves inflation without benefit, because that's what were getting with the current crop of leaders we've elected/appointed or just been stuck with.
Dymphna,
About Debbie Schlussel:
I don't know her that well, and have not followed her that closely. I have been able to discern more or less to my satisfaction that she is about as tough against Muslims as anyone and doesn't indulge in hedging her language with the usual qualifiers in that regard which I have over the years to my dismay seen from nearly everyone in the Anti-Islam Movement.
I also notice she's a bit volatile and emotional and seems easily distracted by peripheral issues, which may or may not be a liability. She doesn't seem to care about kissing keester in order to be liked; which oftimes is itself a likeable trait.
Personally, I know an Internet friend who goes by the moniker "Nobody" or "Infidel Pride", and from experience, I trust his judgment implicitly, and he is a fan of Schlussel with regard to her anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bonafides.
You never know, though; she could turn around tomorrow and post something that makes me doubt her cred.
Thanks for this explanation, Hesperado. I'll have to revisit. However, as usual, you & I have different perspectives:
have been able to discern more or less to my satisfaction that she... doesn't indulge in hedging her language with the usual qualifiers in that regard which I have over the years to my dismay seen from nearly everyone in the Anti-Islam Movement.
Obviously we'll have another of those agree-to-disagree places. I believe strongly in the judicious use of qualifiers, don't see them as 'indulging'. Otherwise language ends up being a blunt instrument. As in "hatchet job".
Consider this small example of what I learned watching the Baron's work as a painter. In his decades of landscape painting he never used black or white. He didn't even have tubes of those "non colors" in his tool box. Instead he achieved the effect of shadows and light by fooling the eye via the contrast of minute bits of color.
In order to do that, he had to understand how vision worked --i.e., the underlying physiology of visual perception. As a number of ppl said, if you lived with one of his paintings then after a while it changed how you SAW the world.
Those folks were/are right. I can't see wholly as he sees, but now I can grasp parts of his perception. This aesthetic education has transformed my seeing into something more active than it once was.
There must be parsing...up to a point. It's just that we often disagree what that point 'should' be and where on the path we will (pecefully) diverge.
BTW, congratulations on your neologism "worseworse". It appears to be serendipitous, but no less worthy for that.
Dymphna,
My particular comment about "indulging in hedging language with the usual qualifiers" is specifically and only with reference to Islam & Muslims. Because of the singular nature of the dangers an indeterminate number of Muslims pose and several features of that singular nature, I think we must treat Islam and Muslims precisely with a blanket generalization of prejudice (where the putative existence of harmless Muslims becomes irrelevant collateral damage).
When it comes to Islam & Muslims, it is black and white. Shadings and hues in this regard tend to reinforce the PC MC paradigm which in turn institutionalizes (legally and politically) and inculcates (culturally) the growing infiltration of Muslims into the West which over the decades an indeterminate number among them will exploit in order to wreak horrific havoc in various places in the West.
Hesperado--
After reading the Center for Security Policy's empirical study of mosques in America, I'm going to hold off a "blanket generalization". Now maybe those more or less 20% of mosques that didn't preach violence is too low a figure to be (catchword coming up) sustainable. IOW 80% are preaching jihad.
Personal anecdote again: a couple we've known for several decades came to dinner not long ago. The talk got around to Muslims bec. we were discussing an Iranian immigrant family we both knew. We patronized his convenience store for many years.
So this couple said, "well how about them?" And I replied, "what about them. Two nice people do not change a dangerous phenomenon in this country"...
Didn't move any hearts or minds, but later I was annoyed with myself for not thinking to ask why they didn't mind the fact he beat his wife -- the signs were obvious to all.
At any rate, we're fighting a rear guard action at this point with all the bureaucracy of govt, private charities, etc., lined up against us. All busy opening the borders and shoving in immigrants before the whole thing goes sideways.
So we have to carefully choose our battles. And our choices have to change as the battlefield changes. Thus, I'm not prepared for the blankets yet & I'm going to push back against Sharia as much as I can, despite distractions.
I'll leave the other stuff to Ned. He's got more stamina.
Post a Comment