Dave's worse than Barry O
As we all know, hypocrisy is the rule in world politics today. Everyone tries to twist the truth around to suit themselves, and they are even prepared to tell outright lies, hoping they will not be caught out. Mr Obama is one of the leaders in such tactics. As this is an election year in the United States, in order for Obama to be re-elected the voters have to be deceived into thinking that there is a “recovery” taking place in America. Of course, there is no such thing, but Obama is trying to pretend that there is. He begins by referring to the “gains” in the stock market. But the public is no longer investing in the stock market. 80% of trades in the market today are high frequency computer trades. The public lost its money in 2008, and has fled. Furthermore, total New York Stock Exchange volume is 69% lower than in 2008, and volume is 29% lower this year than last. Prices no longer have any serious meaning.
Obama goes on to allege that consumers are “borrowing again”. That is not true either. The figures for credit use have increased only because Mr Obama has changed the loan programme calculations, whereby student loans are now counted as part of the total borrowings. It is not comparable to anything before last year.
Then there are the “lower” employment figures. Again, the Bureau of Labour Statistics has completely changed the metrics as of January, and none of the current percentages are relatable to anything prior to this year. Furthermore, the January unemployment data is heavily adjusted for “seasonal variations”. The true data shows that the economy lost 2.7 million jobs in January, while 1.2 million people magically left the workforce.
Take next the much vaunted auto sales. Those are counted when the manufacturer dumps cars on a dealer. It is called “Inventory Stuffing”. It has no relationship to actual sales to consumers. So it appears that Obama’s re-election strategy hinges on asking people to believe his data, rather than their own eyes. Will it work?
But the award for Biggest Hypocrites of the Month must go to the Cameron Government, as it has been revealed that, after denouncing every dictator in the world, they are giving Mr Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the worst and most vicious dictator in the world, $126 million a year. Hard to believe, but they admit it.
Aegean evasions
There has been an amusing change in people’s attitude towards the Greeks. Originally, they were vilified for being extravagant and dishonest. But recently commentators in the West have developed sympathy for them, and have even suggested that the “beating up of Greeks should stop”. These people are turning logic upside down. It is important to understand that the Eurozone is not asking Greece for money – it is offering to give Greece money. Now, if Greece does not want the money, and prefers to default, there is no problem. They can just refuse the money. But if they choose to take the money, then they have to do what they are told. You cannot have it both ways.
In truth, the “beating up” of Greece has not even begun. The UK has a population of about 65 million people, and there are approximately 500,000 civil servants. Greece has a population of about 11 million people, and if they had a proportionate number of civil servants, they would have between 80,000 and 90,000. But, they have 790,000 civil servants. These people were all put on the public payroll during successive Socialist Governments, and naturally they all vote Socialist. Although Greece has been negotiating with the Eurozone for two years now, not a single civil servant has been sacked. Just recently, the government announced they would be “reducing” the number of civil servants. How many? Only 1,000, half of whom were due to retire anyway.
The point is that the important sacrifices have not even begun to be made. The Eurozone leaders have only now woken up to this, and they are now asking the Greeks to get rid of 150,000 civil servants over three years. But there are two problems. One is that under the Constitution of 1974, the government is not allowed to sack any civil servants. And second, the Left is infuriated, because the votes of these civil servants and their families are what is keeping them in power. That is the explanation of the torching and petrol bombing by the Communists. But there is still another problem, which is that under the Constitution, the employees of state-owned companies, such as the state-owned refinery, or the state-owned shipyard or plentiful etcetera, are also considered “civil servants” in the sense that they too cannot be sacked. That pushes the total of government employees to well over 1 million people – nearly one third of the working population of Greece.
No, the “beating up” has not begun.
The Man Said It
The arguments regarding the ordination of women priests, and women bishops, continue, and are splitting the Anglican Church, but there is one important point which is never mentioned. Those who support the ordination of women try to give the impression that they are “modern”, and that the ordination of women had never been suggested before because of “discrimination”. Discrimination by whom, one asks: presumably by Christ? But that is not true. The truth is that women priests have existed since the very beginnings of religion, and all the pagan religions had women priests. It was Christ who chose not to have women priests in the Christian Church.
Now, where does that leave those who support the ordination of women? Are they saying that Christ intended to have women priests, but that He forgot? Or are they saying that He was too stupid? And how do they get around all the statements in the Bible that make it clear that God did not want women priests? For example, Genesis III:16, ‘Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee’; the First Epistle to Timothy II:12, ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence’; 1 Corinthians XIV:34, ‘Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law’.
It seems that advocates of the ordination of women think they know better than Christ.
Money for something
There has been a lot of fuss recently about “workfare”. Some people think it is very unfair to make people work for “nothing”. One’s view of this matter depends how one views the “benefits” that the government pays to the unemployed. If one thinks that people have a “right” to benefits, then perhaps they can argue that workfare makes people work for nothing. But “benefits” are not a right. They are gifts from the government under certain conditions – conditions which are decided by the government. In such a case, how can there be anything wrong in asking people to do some work in return for the benefits they receive? It is like a man giving his son an allowance, and asking him occasionally to mow the lawn, or to rake the leaves. The young girl, Miss Reilly, who has gone to court about this matter, states she merely ‘wants to be paid’, but that is not the point. The point is that she is already being paid (by the rest of us) without working. Legally speaking, she does not have a leg to stand on, but courts do not always follow the law any more.
An American lawyer who is now in the financial world, Demetri Marchessini lives in London.