+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's rant tie. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mossad's head speak out. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New version of the ant and grasshopper.
Sent to me by a friend and avid fellow memo reader.(See 3 below.)
And:
While we are busy ridding ourselves of traditional values why not ---? (See 3a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Melanie Phillips and the vanity charade. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Off to Athens!
+++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Further to my comments on risk in investing. Just because you buy into a bond fund, is not buying less risk. It completely depends on what the fund invests in. There are funds that only buy government and A rated bonds, and there are others that are called unconstrained, and many others in between. Buying bonds individually is generally very costly as there is often a big mark up or spread if done this way. If you buy an unconstrained fund, you get various non US governments and lower rated companies. If all goes well the returns are higher, but the risk of default is much higher. Therefore. they tend to act more like stocks than bonds. Holding cash is much better than an unconstrained, or similar fund if you are concerned about rising rates and do not want to own stocks. The S& P index has gone up for more months in a row in this latest period than since 1928, and volatility has been less than at any time since 1885, according to B of A. Another study shows that when stocks have been fairly stable as to ups and downs, and have generally been up as we have seen, then a small 5% dip has a much greater negative impact on investors than a bigger dip in times when stocks have generally been much more volatile. The variation from the standard deviation over the past year or so, has a real impact on the psychological reaction of investors. In the crash in 1929, the Dow fell only 13%, but it was 12.75 times the standard deviation from how much returns had been varying form the typical level. So the lesson is, if and when the market drops 5% or more on a given day anytime in the near term, don’t let the talk of the end of the world rattle you. It might be the start of a major sell off, but you need to understand the reason for the dip before you act. There have been many occasions in the market when stocks dropped a lot in a morning, only to rally the same day, or days later. You need to understand what is the cause, but also to decide if you are a long term investor who can just wait out the dip, or if you need the cash, and so should get out of everything right away as the dip starts. There are no rules. It is all dependent on what the facts of the moment are, and how comfortable you are to wait out the event. We are currently in a situation where tax reform just happened, all major countries are experiencing good growth, ISIS has been mostly defeated, there is now some small chance N Korea will be contained, and Iran has so much internal trouble it is possible it will not be able to launch any big terror threats in the near term, and the Fed has signaled it will not raise rates excessively. Corporate earnings are growing nicely as is GDP. All in all, there is no reason to expect a major crash in the market. In the very short term.
Keep in mind that we are coming to the 10 year anniversary of the crash in October, 2008. What will happen after October, assuming the market is still around where it is today or better, the funds and money managers will start to tout their 10 year record. After we get past the 2008 downturn numbers, then starting in early 2009, the ten year returns will go from an average 82% measured to the end of 2007, to 198% at the end of November 2018 according to S&P. That would skew the returns advertised to the far upside vs the average annual return over the 10 year term on stock returns from 6.2% to 12% not including dividends. So just because of the calendar moving on vs the crash, funds and brokers will be touting very different returns even thought it is simply a calendar difference. Over the very long term, stocks generally return 9% or better. Bottom line, don’t buy the BS. Make your own informed decisions and remember, in the stock market, the past is not a good indicator of tomorrow when any black swan can happen to the downside or the upside as we see happening now. Trump’s election was a black swan to the upside for the stock market. For the left resistors and the media, it is a black swan to the downside. In investing, you are on your own at the end of the day. It is your money and your responsibility to decide how to invest it, and when to be in, and when to be out. Some advisors are very good and do well, but most are not, or are average to the market, which is why index funds are so popular today.
Now that the Russia collusion story is proven to have been concocted, and obstruction is a legal nonstarter, we are moving on to- he is mentally unfit and under the constitution can be removed from office. Since this goes nowhere either, there will be some new story ginned up shortly, once the book story dies off, as it is already doing with the apology by Bannon. Tillerson and Sessions did not resign, Mueller was not fired, and fake news goes on to Oprah, while in the real world, companies continue to add to the list of bonus payers and wage increases due to the tax bill, combined with the February start of less withholding, shoring up-“it’s the economy, stupid”. It does appear that the real collusion was Hilary, the DNC, and Fusion with the Russians, and the pay to play through the foundation. There is also the tech guy who now admits he lied to the FBI and he really did wipe the emails, but got immunity from Comey, so now he can tell the truth with no consequences. The next few months will get interesting as the Dems claim looking into the DNC and Hilary is just a distraction, and the Republicans will be rolling out the things that really were going on with the Dem side. In the end we can conclude what we already know. Washington is a cesspool of corruption and egomania, with everyone lying about everything and a mass media that is so biased as to lack any credibility. I believe the good thing about the stories about Trump being mentally unfit causes Xi, Putin, Kim and the mullahs to have to really believe he really might launch a nuke attack on N Korea or Iran. That is far better than those same people knowing that Obama was afraid to do anything, including even verbally backing the 2009 Iran revolution, so they had free run of the world while he was in office, and created the mess we are in today. Quote of the day -Jim Mattis when asked by a reporter what are his concerns—"I have no concerns, I create concerns for others”. That is the approach we needed in the defense secretary. Between he and Trump, our adversaries now have to be concerned.
Take note that for all the no carbon laws and restrictions in CA, and the proposed law to outlaw fossil fueled cars in 2040, the fires undid all the rules, and more, that had been put in place. CA and NY can pass all the very costly laws they wish, but in the end Nature will decide what happens, as she always has done.. In the meantime CA and NY are making it too costly to live and operate, and businesses are moving out. Now that taxes are no longer deductible, they have to change their policies. It will not get resolved through lawsuits and charitable deductions, or high payroll taxes. None of this is realistic or practical to implement. They charge too much because they regulate and give away too much to people who do not deserve it, or should not be here. They made a decision to have all these programs, and to be a sanctuary state, so now they have to pay for it, and they don’t like that.
| Mossad chief: Israel has eyes, ears and more in Iran |
Iranians are "galloping into the Middle East unhindered with a vast array of forces via land and air corridors," warns Yossi Cohen • "We are starting to see dramatic changes in the American understanding of the strategic threats posed by Iran," he says.
The Iranian regime is expanding its sphere of influence across the Middle East, Mossad Director Yossi Cohen warned Tuesday at a Finance Ministry conference.
Cohen said Israel is closely monitoring the Islamic republic's steps domestically and abroad, and has "eyes, ears and more, even inside Iran."
Speaking of the recent wave of violent protests in Iran, Cohen said: "The average Iranian citizen went out to protest because of the economic situation, and the expectation that President Hassan Rouhani would improve the economy. That's what's brought them out to the streets. We don't need to start speculating, even though I would, of course, be very happy to see a social revolution in Iran.
"That's something that could perhaps happen, maybe in the future, maybe tomorrow. With that, we must understand that the protesters are facing dark forces."
Cohen said the Iranian economy had been in crisis prior to the nuclear deal but is now flourishing. Iranian citizens, however, are not enjoying the fruits of this economic boom because more and more funds are being invested in defense, intelligence and "what we call Iran's expansion in the Middle East and beyond," Cohen said.
Arab leaders are growing increasingly concerned over Iran's expansion, he said. The Iranians are "galloping into the Middle East unhindered with a vast array of forces via land and air corridors" to spread their vision of Islam.
Cohen also discussed U.S. President Donald Trump's possible amendments to the nuclear deal with Iran and praised him in contrast to his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose policy was to "lead from behind."
Obama's approach created a problem, the Mossad chief told the audience.
"The war never ends and Russia returned to the region after many years. From Israel's perspective this is a challenge," he said.
"Over the past year, we are seeing a good change on the part of the U.S., which takes the Israeli interest into greater consideration and will perhaps facilitate a good change of direction from our perspective. In our view, we are starting to see dramatic changes in the American understanding of the strategic threats posed by Iran."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
By Nancy Kirkpatrick
AND THE
GRASSHOPPER
Two Different Versions .....
Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION:The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and
laying up supplies for the winter.The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter,
so he dies out in the cold.MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter.The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC
show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with
a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is
allowed to suffer so?Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah
with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green..'ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome.Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright
has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake.President Obama condemns the ant
and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and thePope for the grasshopper's plight.Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has
gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper,
and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer.The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and,
having nothing left to pay his retroactive
taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to thegrasshopper.The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopperdoesn't maintain it.The ant has disappeared in the snow,
never to be seen again.The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize and ramshackle, the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest
of the free world with it.MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2018 and 2020
I've posted this because I hope
you are an ant!
3a)
America’s Next Bright Idea: Abandoning Monogamy
By Peter Heck
If there is no ultimate moral authority beyond our own happiness, these things make sense.
The New Scientist recently ran a very scholarly article that asked the startling question whether or not we should simply abandon monogamy as a social institution since not many people actual adhere to it anymore. The author, Jessica Bond, argued:
The lifelong commitment of two people to one another may be the fairy-tale ending, and an ideal of Western society. But monogamy is a relatively modern development, and hardly a sure path to happiness. Is it time we explored the alternatives?
Throughout our early history, polygyny, or one male with several females, was routine. One idea for how monogamy came to dominate is that as we evolved larger brains, keeping babies alive required more effort and food. The children of men who were spread across too many families were less likely to survive.
She goes on to cite the depressing statistics of how many couples are unfaithful to one another both in the United States and the United Kingdom. Her point is fairly simple: since monogamy seems to be so hard for us, maybe we should just start developing a new paradigm where open relationships without monogamous commitment are accepted and encouraged.
This mentality is vintage 21st century Western Civilization: if something is hard, let’s just find an easier way to do it. Got a problem with underage drinking? Since older teenagers can’t stop themselves, let’s just lower the drinking age. Don’t want the work of raising a child? Since people still want to have sex whenever, wherever, and with whoever, let’s just legalize and build an entire industry of child killing.
Of course, all of this reasoning is built upon the back of the humanist/materialist worldview. If there is no ultimate moral authority beyond our own happiness, these things make sense. The path of least resistance is not only preferable, identifying and choosing it is moral and admirable.
But there is, of course, another option. And that is to recognize that just because something seems hard, just because something might go against our human nature, that doesn’t mean it’s not right. In fact, if the humanist/materialist worldview is wrong, and the Biblical Christian worldview is right, doing right almost always goes against human nature because our tendency is to yield to temptations that satisfy our base instincts but leave us empty and unfulfilled.
This perspective would tell us that the reason monogamous relationships fail is not because there is something wrong with marriage. It would tell us that the reason they fail is because there is something wrong with us. Namely, sin. And it would also tell us that the solution to this failure is not to embrace it, encourage it, or give up and surrender to it as the new normal. Rather we should work to correct our sinful desires.
When it does, may those of us who find peace and joy by clinging to the Biblical view be there ready to point them to our better way.
4)Hollywood protest was another vanity parade
Stars who dressed in black at the Golden Globes were simply advertising their hypocrisy
By Melanie Phillips
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/hollywood-protest-was-another-vanity-parade-3hpmnntl9
Never mind the movies: the theatricality and demand for applause at the Golden Globe awards in Los Angeles at the weekend took place on the red carpet. Actors wore black outfits to signal their solidarity with victims of the sexual harassment scandals that have consumed Hollywood.
It’s hard to recall a more egregious display of vanity signalling than the black dress protest. It was “please snap me while I pose in my conscience”. MeToo! MeToo!
Shortly before the awards there was a crisis. Forget Iran, Syria or North Korea. So many Hollywood consciences needed to be on display that designers and stylists were reported to be running out of black attire and having to rush in more from their fashion bases in New York.
One stylist who dresses Mariah Carey told The Hollywood Reporter: “We are all fighting for the same black dresses.” MeToo! MeToo!Oprah Winfrey’s hair stylist said the pressure was “incredibly stressful”. Another said stylists would be having sleepless nights over how to showcase their clients in black garments. “It has to be creative. How can I stand out?”
How indeed. You’ll be relieved to know that Angelina Jolie was in feather-trimmed black tulle, Laura Dern was in black Armani and Gal Gadot wore a tuxedo-inspired Tom Ford gown.
Whatever happened to the idea that women shouldn’t be defined by what they wear? According to Eva Longoria, wearing black was “a moment of solidarity, not a fashion statement . . . This time the industry can’t expect us to go up and twirl around.” Oh but they did, Eva, they did; this time, though, it was a meaningful twirl.
It didn’t stop, though, at mere attire. Many female actors brought a female activist as a date and chose to be photographed arm-in-arm with other women.
This was solidarity not just against men outed as sex-pests but against all men. Receiving a lifetime achievement award, Oprah Winfrey spoke about “a culture broken by brutally powerful men” whose “time is up”. Now Oprah is being touted as the Democratic presidential candidate for 2020. SheToo!
The hypocrisy is epic. Many actors expressing such outrage use sexual chemistry to attract the predatory male movie executives they then profess to despise. They habitually wear outfits that leave little to the imagination, split upwards or downwards or utterly transparent. What’s more, many of the movies and TV series in which they appear, some of them having forgotten to put on any clothes at all, have long crossed the line into soft porn.
Among all the exaggerated outrage, however, there have been victims of real, horrific, sexual violence. Yet many of those blustering in black at the Globes knew about this behaviour but kept quiet about it in order not to jeopardise their careers.
When Roman Polanski won the Oscar for best director in 2003, he wasn’t present at the ceremony. He had fled to France after being charged in 1977 with rape, sodomy and other offences against a 13-year-old girl, and had pleaded guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
When his award was announced, however, Meryl Streep, among others, leapt to her feet to give him a standing ovation. No matter: there she was at the Globes displaying her principles and courage by wearing a long black gown instead.
Where is this outrage going to draw a line? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is in disarray over the fact that, having expelled Harvey Weinstein for his sexual aggression, they face similarly having to ban dozens of A-listers — Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck and many more — who have been outed (with some denials) in the Great Casting-Couch Terror.
The director Woody Allen has been accused by his adopted daughter Dylan of molesting her. David Krumholtz, who co-starred in Allen’s recent film Wonder Wheel, tweeted a few days ago that he deeply regretted doing so as it was “one of my most heart-breaking mistakes. We can no longer let these men represent us in entertainment, politics, or any other realm. They are beneath real men.”
When feminists objected that it was a bit late now to have second thoughts, Krumholtz said he had donated his Wonder Wheel salary to the protesters “without a tweet”. Which he nevertheless told us.
Laura Dern used her acceptance speech for her best supporting actress award to urge: “May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.”
Yet the causes regularly promoted by such luvvies — climate change, Black Lives Matter, anti-colonialism, anti-Islamophobia, LGBT issues — are being advanced by condign retribution, such as character assassination or social and professional ostracism, against any who dares speak against them.
Moreover, Hollywood’s finest don’t don black outfits to protest against men in the developing world who not only abuse but slaughter women, men and children.
Millions of women around the world really do suffer in cultures where male violence towards women is a given; but on those victims, these Hollywood hypocrites are silent.
In cultures they choose to present as victims of western colonialism, they simply ignore the all-too real oppression of women. They profess “solidarity” with oppressed women; but of course, it’s really all about themselves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment