William Thien

Archive for February 2016

Two of the more unsettling phenomena to which the buying public has been subject for the last decade or more is the false market stimulated by low interest rates and fluctuating commodity prices.

For example, housing prices are falsely elevated when interest rates are low. Prior to the advent of ultra-low interest rates instituted seemingly in perpetuity by Alan Greenspan during the Clinton administration and beyond, the market was more commensurate with wages. But wages have not kept pace with inflation and what could be had for one price a decade ago in terms of a house is now just a shack by the railroad tracks today only a few years later.

Today the FED continues to keep interest rates low with the excuse that the economy is still not stable enough to begin raising rates regularly. The net effect is that inflation is stimulated substantially while real wages remain stagnant or negatively trending.

Another disturbing fact about the poorly managed economy is that commodity prices have struck the buying public substantially. Gas prices for example, though down recently, seem to be seeing an uptick again with an increase in the price of a barrel of oil. The news about the stock market and the economy being tied directly to oil prices suggests daily that low oil prices signify poor stock market performance, that there is a direct correlation and that oil prices must rise in order for the stock market and the economy to improve. What a bunch of BS. They aren’t talking about my economy or that of anyone else I know. That’s some form of economy.

Hold on a minute! Do you mean to tell me that the stocks in my retirement fund won’t perform well if the price of gas is cheap? That’s ridiculous!

Just last year they were saying that the stock market won’t perform well if interest rates go up and that was clearly evidenced at the mere whisper of an interest rate hike.

So, interest rates have to be low for the stock market to perform well but when interest rates are low inflation is stimulated beyond normal, which is bad for the buying public because as we all know, wages don’t even keep pace with normal inflation, let alone artificially stimulated inflation. And if oil prices are low the stock market won’t perform well, either. WTF?

What kind of investment is the stock market if it is no good for the regular investor to get into? If your retirement is sitting in an account that won’t perform well unless you are getting screwed on this end of retirement by high oil prices (hence gasoline prices) and have to pay severely at the pump, and artificially stimulated inflation by the FED which forces the prices of commonly purchased goods as well as big ticket items such as cars or houses to go up unnaturally high, then maybe it is time for the SEC to take a look at the markets because the FED is sure to muck things up if they do what’s right for the public and maybe it’s time for the DOJ to look into the other thing, too. Two industries should not have the entire economy under lock and key. What that means when only high oil prices will substantiate the market is essentially that money put into the market is actually working against you. That’s exactly what that is. If the market can’t withstand a downward trend in oil prices and you have to pay more at the pump just to buoy the market (which is the understated suggestion in all of the financial reporting), then the money you put into the market is working directly against you and it is working against you TWICE!

If you ask me, if the stock market can’t withstand a change in oil prices (the problem claimed this year) and the stock market can’t withstand an increase in interest rates (the problem claimed last year and a problem that is still holding because the FED is scared s-less to even talk about raising rates) then maybe my retirement fund needs put its money elsewhere because that is an indication of a weak investment Ponzi scheme if you ask me.

Each year the market has a new excuse! Interest rates one year, energy prices the next. As I said, the market should not be held under lock and key by just two industries.

One other thing. I just tried to order something online that cost me $3.95 to ship two years ago but this time they wanted $9.95, because the price of gas went up the carriers were saying all that time so they had to raise rates. The price of gas is back down again now. If you are going to use that excuse when prices go up, maybe you should bring your prices back down now, don’t you think? You can lower your rates again. The price of gas is back down again.

Business is one thing. That is something else entirely.

Don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

My books are also available as Nook Books at Barnes and Noble.

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Advertisements

For a long time I have believed there is some subtle although expensive connection between feminism and socialism/communism. If you look at the numbers, if you consider that most of the wealth distributed through social programs goes to women and that most of the legal activity resulting from federal programs designed to modify contemporary American society is used to cover programs used by women, there can be no question that there is a connection.

But do we really want to just boil it all down to the facts? People are always asking me to provide examples and facts but facts don’t always show the whole picture.

Here is an interesting story that supports those numbers and is in my opinion enough to demonstrate the connection between feminism and communism or socialism.

Last week we had a primary election here where I reside to replace a judge on the State Supreme Court. There were three candidates on the ballot, what is considered a conservative candidate and two candidates that are considered liberal. I won’t tell you yet the gender composition of the candidates or the racial composition until I tell you who I voted for.

I voted for the conservative. You might think that the conservative was the male candidate as it would seem there are more male conservative candidates in any election than female, and you’d be right actually, but that was not the case this time. The conservative option was a lady. The other two candidates, an African-American male and a white female are both liberals. So there were two white females on the ballot, one a conservative and the other a liberal, and an African-American male, also a liberal.

But that’s not the most interesting aspect of this little episode in politics. Confirmation of what I always thought was a connection between feminism and socialism/communism came in the form of a question from a female associate who asked me who I voted for, “did you vote for the male or the female?” I’m thinking, what difference should that make? The question demonstrated an obvious display of pure sexism on her part. But reverse-sexism is OK in the eyes of a feminist, even though reverse-sexism is really just plain old sexism, even if it’s in the reverse. Reversing it doesn’t mitigate its significance. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I voted for the lady, I replied. “Well good, you voted for ‘so and so’.” She was assuming I had voted for the liberal female and was angered when I said I voted for the conservative female.

She had always said I should vote for females too so they’d get their fair shake. But when I did, that wasn’t good enough. I had to vote for the liberal female as well. So I couldn’t satisfy the feminine political question by simply voting for a lady, I had to vote for the socialist lady as well, otherwise my vote was a vote for “the enemy.”

Hence, the connection between feminism and socialism isn’t just a fleeting and unavoidable one. There is a clear drive by feminists to also socialize the country. That’s how feminists obtain their “independence.” By strapping the rest of the country with their bills. That’s feminist independence today. Socialism. Maybe not fifty years ago when feminists merely wanted to leave the house and go to work, but it sure seems that’s what it is today. Now it ain’t all hi-highfalutin or real scientific like, but sometimes its best to go by instinct. I think this is one of those times.

There is something akin to communism in today’s brand of feminism and it is not just the numbers that tell the whole story.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

My books are also available as Nook Books at Barnes and Noble.

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Up until now the majority of one presidential candidate’s platform has been feminist issues and very little other platform material. The candidate opens with feminist statements in debates and nods in approval when one of the true believers poses a question regarding feminist issues. The candidate says women have it pretty rough in America with pay inequality and fewer prospects for jobs. I might agree that at one time things were unequal but that was due more to the nature of the human condition than to some arbitrary set of rules imposed by society.

This web site here http://she-conomy.com/facts-on-women suggests things aren’t so bleak.

Did you know women control close to 80 percent of the spending money in this country and senior women control three-fourths of the nation’s wealth? I don’t get it. If women control 80 percent of the spending money and three-fourths of the nation’s wealth, how can things be so bad for women? It doesn’t add up. In my opinion it is testament to the economic prowess of American women. So why all of the feminist caterwauling all of the time about income inequality, the remarks at work, the pandering in the media, the misrepresentation of gender facts in politics? Is there something else going on in America?

Check this web site out. These people make their living knowing who has money to spend and who doesn’t: http://she-conomy.com/facts-on-women

I doubt anyone would disagree that the current presidential primaries are exceptionally uncharacteristic of recent (the last fifty years perhaps), previous primaries and there can be no question that the expectations of the electorate are substantially and drastically different than during prior primaries.

I do not refer here to the ethnic or gender makeup of the candidates but rather their political persuasion, a more elemental political attribute.

Clearly the expectations of the electorate have taken a new direction with conservatives looking for a candidate that is party atypical while liberals have introduced an elementally more socialist candidate into the mix with both candidates doing quite well.

Ultimately what remains to be seen is if one or the other will have any effect on the political process whatsoever and the condition of the country.

If it is the case that real change follows with the election of one or the other, then the electorate will have achieved its goal because the numbers are so obviously in favor of change. If is not the case that real change follows, then what remains to be seen is if the country will choose another, perhaps less democratic method to bring about the desired change.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

My books are also available as Nook Books at Barnes and Noble.

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

It’s tax time again and I just wanted to share my most popular observation on taxes. The numbers have changed a bit as this essay has been posted each year about this time for five years but the significance of the observation hasn’t changed one bit. In fact, in the state where I reside withholding based on the number of dependents has become even more favorable.

An associate of mine was telling me that he had received a substantial tax refund this year and when comparing it to mine I was rather surprised as it was many thousands of dollars more. During the time that we have worked together, he has received close to a year’s salary in total tax refunds more than I. That’s substantial and a bit of an insult to me since we have the same position and are paid exactly the same. We are not businessmen so we do not have a large number of operating costs we can write off. We both make the same amount of money. He is married, I am not, but that was only a minor difference. The major difference between his tax return and mine was that he has five children.

On his tax return each of his children represented a large deduction to his earnings and as a result, he received a substantially larger tax refund than I did. At first I thought, OK, raising children is expensive these days, why shouldn’t he get some help from the government (that’s us the taxpayers, by the way)? But then the thought occurred to me (I didn’t tell him and I hope he doesn’t read my blog) that his children are going to public schools and at times he has used public services for medical support of his family. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. It is good that we offer the best public education in the world and can provide medical support to families in need.

But to give him a tax break substantially larger than mine when in fact he uses more public services than I do, uses more services in a substantially greater amount than I do, seems like foolish and definitely unfair tax policy. What is essentially happening is that I am paying for his children to attend school and to obtain free health care. The tax break, the deduction that he receives is possible because I do not receive the tax break. In essence I am paying to raise his children. That’s how they offer him a tax break. They take it from me in some way or another and give it to him in the form of a deduction.

In the region of the country where I live there is a bird that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds and then lets the other birds rear their young. The name of the bird is The Brown Headed Cowbird. It sneaks up to another bird’s nest when the other bird is away foraging and deposits its egg in the other bird’s nest. When the bird that is out foraging returns to the nest, more often than not they simply begin incubating the Brown Headed Cowbird’s egg along with their own and then they rear the fledgling as if it was their own. Sometimes the host bird can’t raise its own and is only able to raise the fledgling of the Brown Headed Cowbird due to diminished resources in that vicinity and the voracity of the Cowbird fledgling.

It occurs to me that much like the unwitting bird who is rearing the Brown Headed Cowbird’s egg, the invader’s egg, a parasite as defined by ornithologists, I am paying to raise the children of others. If you ask me, that is unfair tax policy. Some might say, well that’s just the way it is, and I myself, I’m not certain I have a problem with that really.

But perhaps many of the problems we have with balancing governmental budgets, many of the problems we have with massive abuses of the huge system of entitlements we have in this country stems from the perception that people have originating from the tax code. Can we afford to have another child? Heck yea! It’s a tax break! And as families have more and more children using more and more government services, we as a country are at a loss for how to pay for those services used because we in fact give people a tax break for using them. In a sense, that is what is happening. And similar tax policies apply to corporations as well for conducting certain types of business or using certain types of resources, natural resources even.

No business in their right mind pays people 100 percent of the cost of their products to purchase their products. You will not find one truly successful business that says, “we will give you five dollars for every hamburger you buy from us.” Instead of you paying us, we will pay you. Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? Until of course it comes time to pay all those people behind the counter, the servers, the ones cooking the food, the maintenance people. Where is the money? Well, boss, we gave it to the customers. Well, where are they? Get the money back! They are at the restaurant across the street eating with the money we gave them. Well whose harebrained idea was it to give them the money in the first place?

It seems to me that if we want to balance the country’s budget and the budgets of all of the states and municipalities we need realistic tax codes and policies that address budget disparities, tax policies that somehow seek payment for services used and not payment to the users, particularly the Brown Headed Cowbirds of America.

It’s only fair.

Or, how about this? Do you have a Brown Headed Cowbird living in your back yard? Check this box for your standard Brown Headed Cowbird deduction, and if you are a corporation, double the deduction.

Copyright © William Thien 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

My books are also available as Nook Books at Barnes and Noble.

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

I will keep this as brief as possible even though it is a rather lengthy subject.

Ever since I wrote the essay to be found here on this web site titled “IS THERE A NATURAL ORDER AMONGST THE SEXES?,” the feminists have really laid it on! I don’t think I can enumerate how many names feminists have called me and how often they have made disparaging remarks about me just in the last year and how many smear campaigns I’ve had to extricate myself from. Yet, I stand here today to tell you this story.

Knowing my position on many issues I am often approached and taunted by women and feminists about political matters in general. They will try to corner me on an issue just about anywhere, in public, at work, on the road with signs and bumper stickers and the like. What I’ve discovered is that there is clearly a feminist underground and they can be quite offensive in a physical sense, chasing you down the road, making false accusations, libeling you in public, you name it. They have the bully pulpit. If you defend yourself either verbally or god forbid, physically, they cry wolf and the constabulary buys it like a cheap Chinese suit. It’s almost like men have to just sit there and take it. It has gotten out of hand in my opinion, the united feminist front gag order on men.

I’ve been meaning to elaborate on this to you, but a while back one feminist cornered me when I was out with friends. I don’t know who invited her. After talking with me and the others for some time the issue of sharia law came up. If you don’t know what sharia law is, sharia law is a very strict legal code used by Muslim Clergy and aristocracies in the most devout Muslim countries. If you have heard of someone being beheaded or stoned to death, it is from the sharia where those forms of punishment originate.

As I mentioned, we were not alone and we were having one of those wandering, alcohol lubricated conversations when someone in the group piped in that sharia law was a form of religious insanity. Comments were made by others that sharia law certainly puts a halt to some types of behavior due to the severe nature of the punishment. Others said they couldn’t live in any country that endorsed that type of legal system.

The feminist, and this is crucial as you will later see, the feminist said she was entirely against chopping someone’s hand off for stealing or stoning a woman to death for committing adultery, two common punishments of the sharia. Another person in the group chimed in, “you don’t think it’s ok to remove a limb as a form of punishment?” Playing the devil’s advocate, he was. “Absolutely not!” The feminist growled. She was quite convincing, having practiced the look on her face for some time, I concluded.

The conversation focused on some of the more gruesome displays of sharia law and eventually the subject wandered off of sharia law and on to another subject, that of rape.

I don’t know how we got there, but there we were a group of men and women talking about the horrors of rape. Perhaps it was the feminist who led the conversation there as it is an issue feminists seem to focus on quite a bit. It is a sensitive issue to them and I would not disagree.

So there we were talking about rape and how horrible it was and we all agreed that it was a horrible, violent act.

We also talked about whether women could commit rape. The feminist opposed that viewpoint. She acted as if she seemed to believe that only men could truly commit sexually violent acts, rape and so forth, that it was really the privy of masculine behavior to commit such atrocities. This was a default position on her point and disagreement was clearly not allowed.

Nobody really disagreed with the feminist and she displayed a smug look on her face at that point as if she had won some eternal debate as an advocate for women for all time, whether they are right or wrong, you know, the sugar and spice and everything nice stuff, only the adult version.

The subject of how men should be punished for rape came up and maybe it was the truth serum that is alcohol upon which the feminist stumbled because she immediately snapped, “They should have their manhood chopped off!”

When only moments before we’d all pretty much agreed that removing a body part as a form of punishment meted out by sharia law was too severe a punishment for committing a crime, and stoning a woman to death was too severe for committing adultery, the feminist immediately offered castration as a form of punishment for rape, the removal of a male body part. She was in fact adamant in her tone and convinced that castration was the only suitable punishment.

Luckily for me, after immediately thinking of Sigmund Freud, I didn’t have to say anything because another brave fellow in the group immediately responded, “Hold it, just a minute ago you were against removing a body part as a form of punishment but suddenly when the subject of rape or adultery comes up, it’s ok to chop a man’s manhood off. Sounds kind of hypocritical!” And he was right. In that context it did sound hypocritical. A look of recognition of that fact appeared on everyone’s face, the women included. The women in the group kind of laughed it off and the men caught each other’s eye for a moment as they realized the subtle double standard that is feminism.

Realizing she’d dismantled her entire feminist platform in that one ridiculous exclamation, the feminist then got a glazed look in her eyes, hauled back and then hunched over and began vomiting quite violently at the side of the table right in front of all of us. A wide spigot of bright red wine and crackers spewed out of her gaping mouth on to the floor and we all repelled for cover in disbelief, grimacing at her as she convulsed in pain, a froth of stomach acid foaming out of the corner her mouth once she’d expelled all of the wine and appetizers.

When she’d finished she looked up at everyone and wiped her mouth with a napkin. Others in the establishment were looking at us in disbelief and quietly rumbling beneath their breath.

Nobody in our group said a word.

All I could think of was how sorry I felt for the feminist. Then I remembered what she was up to and what she was trying to do to men and that thought left my mind rather quickly as reality set in.

I was still thinking a bit about Sigmund Freud and I wanted to make the connection for everyone at the table yet I refrained because the other guy basically did that for me when he called the feminist out on her hypocrisy.

Then another thought came to mind, a quote I had heard a while back which I at one time attributed to Ben Franklin, but I can’t be sure any longer. Maybe you know it:

“Envy is the seed of hatred.”

I recall thinking also how sweet the wine was that night and how well it went down so I reached over and filled my glass once again.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

My books are also available as Nook Books at Barnes and Noble.

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Quite nearly all of my writings have some element even if remote concerning the sensitive and delicate nature of privacy rights.

One of the more interesting developments on the technology front regarding that matter is the ensuing battle between Apple Inc. and The FBI.

If you happen to be one of the few people unaware of the situation, The FBI has requested Apple provide a “back door” to the encryption technology that enables the complete destruction of all data on an Apple IPhone if excessive attempts to disarm the encryption technology are made by an unauthorized user, somebody that does not have the code to disable the screen lock.

If more than ten attempts are made to deactivate an IPhone’s security, all data on the phone is automatically destroyed, lost, making an IPhone belonging to a terrorist for example useless as a form of evidence in an investigation or as a source of information to be used in the prediction and or prognostication of future terrorist or criminal activity.

The matter is in the hands of the courts and Apple has appealed a recent decision compelling Apple to comply with The FBI’s request. Media pundits are predicting the matter has the foundation for a landmark ruling by The Supreme Court should Apple take the appeal as far.

I would like to examine the matter from a different perspective, one perhaps not so seemingly lofty yet in my opinion more contemporaneously significant.

To myself, and I’ve written to this extent here on this matter previously, the fact that a corporation is resisting the government’s attempt to circumnavigate one of its most significant product features, the encryption of a private citizen’s personal activities and information stored on one of its products which is in fact significant in its own right, to me this entire episode may not be the most significant aspect of such a disagreement between Apple and The FBI.

What I believe is more significant, what has the greatest weight in the balance of privacy rights on that stage today, what might make this entire episode between Apple Inc. and The FBI a mere exercise in the arena of privacy rights is the constant and endless collection, dissemination, and use of a citizen’s private data by quite nearly all internet properties, all corporations, and media sites on the internet today.

One could easily conclude that the disagreement between Apple and The FBI is merely a blip on that radar, a small, infinitesimal speck of significance when compared to the massive collection and dissemination of the private data of US Citizens which goes on RIGHT NOW, continuously and without the express written consent of each and every citizen merely because they have visited a web site or logged into their bank account online.

Such collection of a private citizen’s most personal and private information, such distribution of that information in an unrestrained, wholesale context clearly and without any doubt whatsoever leads me to believe that this entire episode between Apple and The FBI is merely a smokescreen meant to conceal that very massive and pernicious activity. Even if that was not the original intent, that is how the matter is being played by the media, one of the greatest actors, in fact that actor often most complicit in such egregious behavior against the privacy rights of ALL US citizens.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us not forget this, too.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

My books are also available as Nook Books at Barnes and Noble.

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

February 2016
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29  
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: