The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

I'm done. You support this you are not American and have no place in this nation.

Karla Molinar, a University of New Mexico student, said she participated in disrupting Trump's speech because she felt he was attacking members of her family who are living in the country illegally.

What part of illegal is difficult to understand?

This chick knowingly and admittedly participated in an act of extortion -- she participated in a violent protest in an attempt to force you, I, and everyone else in this country to give a "free pass" to members of her family who are breaking the law.

Extortion is defined in the law as attempting to force you to give someone something they are not entitled to through force, threats or blackmail and it is a crime.

In this case her family members are not entitled to be here; they are breaking the law.  Karla participated in attempting to disrupt the lawful speech of a political candidate through acts that did turn violent and lead to both intimidation and property damage for the expressed purpose, as she admitted to a national media outlet, of allowing her family to continue to break the law without consequence.

That facially appears to meet the legal definition of extortion and every single person involved in such an act ought to be brought up on charges, tried and jailed.

Folks, we will get exactly nowhere as a nation until we enforce the rule of law, and nowhere is this more-necessary than in examples like this where people are openly violating the law and then using threats and physical violence as a means to demand that they be allowed to continue doing so.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2016-05-24 11:53 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 211 references
 

You know the iconic scene from Up where the dog will stop paying attention to anything when it sees a squirrel, right?

Such it is with you and FaceFart when it comes to bias.

Facebook said its investigation showed that conservative and liberal topics were approved as trending topics at nearly identical rates. It said it was unable to substantiate any allegations of politically motivated suppression of particular subjects or sources.

But it did not rule out human error in selecting topics.

"Our investigation could not fully exclude the possibility of isolated improper actions or unintentional bias in the implementation of our guidelines or policies," Colin Stretch, Facebook's General Counsel, wrote in a company blogpost.

Uh huh. In the "meeting" Glenn Beck was said to be auditioning for Zuckerberg's manservant, just one step removed from getting under the table and blowing him on the spot.  Gee, how deranged have you become, Glenn?

The issue is not so much "trending topics" anyway. No, it's this sort of thing:

We wish this wasn’t true – but it looks like Mark Zuckerberg’s message hasn’t got through to Facebook’s employees. Conservative activist and Donald Trump supporter Lauren Southern was just kicked off the site for a totally inoffensive post noting its censorship of another conservative.

Got it?  She was banned for posting about another person being banned for calling out Facebook on censoring conservatives.  This was deemed in violation of "Community Standards."

Uh, what standards?  You mean the ones that say one must never criticize Facebook itself?  It appears so.

Remember, Facebook said such things don't happen.  They said there has been no bias and no "knowing" incidents of this sort.  Riiiight.

So here's the question: Who banned her for a month and why haven't they been immediately fired, the account reinstated and a formal apology provided?

I'll tell you why -- this was never about "trending news"; it has always been about removing those who disagree with the political slant of Zucker****er, including I note his desire to radically increase the H1b visa count and move big parts of his "monitoring" offshore to very cheap-labor places such as India and Pakistan where he can pay people $1 an hour or less.

Criticize any of that or amplify the speech of someone who has and you're risking being tossed.

Community Standards?  I'll give you mine:

You advertise on FaceBook and I will never buy anything from you -- and I will tell you why.

As for the few reasons I have to keep looking there for various events and such?  I'm going to be notifying those organizers as well, and if they choose to continue to use that as a sole source, well, perhaps I should stop patronizing and being a part of  (for those that are non-profits) those organizations too.

Facebook is free to choose how it runs its business.  But I'm free to respond, and this is it:

Bite me Zucker****er.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Gee, really?

In a damning report that accuses major public health bodies of colluding with the food industry, the National Obesity Forum and the Public Health Collaboration call for a “major overhaul” of current dietary guidelines. They say the focus on low-fat diets is failing to address Britain’s obesity crisis, while snacking between meals is making people fat.

Instead, they call for a return to “whole foods” such as meat, fish and dairy, as well as high-fat, healthy foods including avocados, arguing: “Eating fat does not make you fat.”

The usual riposte is to claim "science" has proved the opposite, and then damn the people directly (by accusing them of not following the guidelines.)  But, the facts say that the per-capita consumption of carbohydrates and vegetable oils has risen materially since the government (both her and there) started pushing both.

People always love to tell me "well, look at the traditional Chinese diet" which is, of course, supported by rice -- a very high-carbohydrate food.  Unfortunately as soon as you trot out that example you lose the argument immediately because China is undergoing a massive obesity and diabetes epidemic, and the cause is really quite-simple: You can eat a carb-based diet provided you are quantity limited; that is, you're a peasant.  As soon as you're not quantity-limited basing your diet on such foods has been repeatedly shown in populations worldwide to lead to explosive growth rates in both obesity and metabolic disorders.

It's very easy to point the finger at individual fat people and say "you're not counting your calories!"  The fact is that you can't accurately count calories with the precision required -- to avoid losing or gaining one pound over the space of a year you must be within 10 calories a day on an average basis.  That's a couple of potato chips or one tiny square of cheese and you simply can't be that accurate "by hand" even with extraordinary effort in your daily life.

30 seconds of thought, however, leads you to the inescapable conclusion that your body must know how to control intake to that degree on its own.  If it didn't everyone would have either starved to death or blown up like a refrigerator through history -- and they didn't as recently as 100 years ago.  Look at pictures from the early 1900s; you will find very few fat people.  Oh sure, there were some, but not many.

Foods labeled "light", "low fat", "reduced fat" or similar are those in which natural fats, usually saturated fat, have had those fats removed and replaced.  There are only three basic nutrients: Fats, carbohydrates and proteins.  Therefore if you remove fat you must replace it with something else and the cheapest option is carbohydrate.

So why does eating "low fat" food make you fat?  Carbohydrates, especially fast-acting ones, elevate insulin levels in the body which directly inhibits leptin signalling (the primary hormone that controls whether you feel hungry) and damages insulin response.  This in turn leads to higher insulin levels which further inhibits leptin signalling!

In other words eating starches and other fast carbohydrates makes you hungry sooner and more-strongly at the same time it damages your body's ability to respond to insulin and metabolize the carbohydrate you ingest.

Over time this both makes you fat since it is very hard to resist eating when you're actively hungry and when your insulin response is badly-enough damaged you're considered diabetic.

Oh by the way, even if you're not clinically diabetic (yet) you probably are accumulating nerve damage that is extremely bad news -- that leads to both amputations and blindness, and ultimately destruction of your kidneys which will force you onto dialysis (which, I remind you, is both expensive and time consuming, plus it doesn't really work all that well and thus leads to an utterly-miserable death in a few years.)  If you're overweight and get "tinglings" or similar in your extremities you have a problem and you'd better fix it because you're on the road to serious trouble.

Finally, please cut the crap regarding cholesterol, will you?  I tire of this sort of thing:

But Prof John Wass, the Royal College of Physicians’ special adviser on obesity, said there was “good evidence that saturated fat increases cholesterol”.

He added: “What is needed is a balanced diet, regular physical activity and a normal healthy weight. To quote selective studies risks misleading the public.”

Cholesterol is necessary in animals and further, anyone who claims to be a physician or a "professor" knows damn well that the very slides the NIH (in the US) and other "health authorities" have in their files on arterial cardiac disease show the occlusive build-up happens not at the inside surface of the artery but rather inside the wall itself.  This is hard evidence that it is inflammation that is being responded to by the body and not accumulation of anything flowing by in the bloodstream, as the latter would result in the build-up occurring not inside the wall but at the inside surface extending inward.  Think of a pipe that narrows due to calcium deposits; the calcium in the water flowing in the pipe accumulates on the wall and then builds inward.

This is what the public has been sold as the "model" for cardiac artery disease but those selling it know damn well that is not what happens because their own slides and textbooks show something completely different!

What promotes inflammation?  PUFAs -- that is, vegetable oils.

Stick yourself with a thorn and you know damn well your body will produce an inflammatory response; that's normal.

What is logically expected when you stoke that inflammatory response by consuming a large amount of PUFAs?

Duh.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

It's really not very hard to figure out folks.

Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of pandering to the gun lobby in a speech to a conference Saturday, organized by the Trayvon Martin Foundation to help families of gun violence victims, warning the audience about a Trump presidency that would put more children “at risk of violence and bigotry.”

Oh please.

"Little Tray" was apparently assaulting a man and was in the process of pounding his head on the sidewalk, a fact that was instantly evident in footage the media tried to bury by putting their damned logo over Zimmerman's head so people couldn't see the blood on the back of same.

Remember that?  I do, quite well.  A fist fight on grass does not produce a gash on the rear of your head; if you get hit you might get a bloody nose or similar, but how does someone you're having fisticuffs with tear open the rear of your skull?  They don't -- unless they knock you down, mount you and then start bashing your head against something solid.

That, incidentally, is the point at which shooting becomes legally defensible since the standard for shooting is imminent serious bodily harm or death.

Having your head bashed against concrete meets the standard.

That's why Zimmerman walked, and he should have.  I wrote extensively on this at the time along with the clear evidence that the media did their level best to conceal what appeared to be clear and convincing evidence that Zimmerman was being assaulted and justifiably feared he was going to die if he did not shoot.

Second, criminals don't give a damn about the law.  Want to talk to me about gun violence?  Illinois requires a state-issued license to buy or own any firearm or ammunition.  Long gun, handgun, anything.  No license, no gun or ammo, and if you get caught with either without said license you go to jail.  That's separate from the issue of handguns generally, which until a few years ago (and during the entire time I lived in Chicago) was flatly unlawful to own or possess inside the city limits unless you were a police officer or owned them since something like 1969 (when the law was passed.)

Of course criminals don't give a good damn about anything like that which is also why Chicago is one of the worst cities for gun violence generally and specifically.  And since criminals tend to not go to the range and maintain competency in their firearms (they're using them for illegal purposes, of course) they also have a disturbing pattern of accidentally shooting people they don't mean to and/or damaging their property.  That (innocent people getting shot) disturbs me far more than two gang-bangers deciding they want to settle their differences with flying lead, since both of them decided to live a criminal life.

Here are a couple of hints for you:

1. If you don't want to be shot, don't be a gang-banger, don't break into people's houses and don't steal things.

2. In addition, if you don't want to be shot don't live in places where politicians hide behind a dozen armed guards wearing body armor while telling you that you must submit to criminals who intend to rob,******or even murder you, none of whom give a damn about the law, while ignoring both the Constitution and your right to own the only means of deterring such aggression by said criminals.

It appears to be a fact that criminals don't fear the cops.  That's probably because when they get caught doing their evil things they are rarely locked up until they're not dangerous any more.  Witness the article I wrote on the "fine upstanding citizen" in Florida who was first caught carjacking, went to prison for it, was released and then decided he'd try sexually assaulting a minor.  He was sent to prison again but once again was released and this time shot and killed a Marshal that was coming to serve him with some sort of legal paperwork.

Of course everyone would like to blame that on the shotgun he used, right?  It isn't that despite being a two-time convicted felon we had not just one but two opportunities to never let that jackass out where he could hurt other people, nor was it evident that he had no intention of living in peace with the rest of society -- right?

The same is generally true of the gang-banger shooters in Chicago and elsewhere.  Most of them are not only known on a first-name basis to the cops (because they spend a hell of a lot of time in the back of their cars being transported and in courtrooms and jails) but most also have multiple felony convictions to their name before they shoot (at) anyone.  Yet we can't be bothered to lock up someone who believes that assaulting, robbing or even raping people deserves to be jailed until they're not dangerous any more.

Never mind the ridiculous and outrageous response of "parents" when one of these "fine, upstanding young men" gets his ass blown to Mars for a serious assault or worse.  It's always someone else's fault -- never theirs for acceding to the "lifestyle" of walking around with your pants halfway off your ass and stealing things or assaulting people for ****s and grins.  No, that's not the problem, you see..... it's the gun, an inanimate object, that's responsible.

But criminals do appear to fear being shot by citizens defending their lives and property, and whether they fear same or not there's this fact that is not subject to dispute or book-cooking: A felon shot in the commission of his or her felony is going to have trouble committing another crime.

And that really is, when you boil it down, the issue: Hillary, and others like her, think that those who commit violent felonies should be out free walking around to commit more of them, fully-aware that someone who intends to commit a violent felony doesn't give a damn about the law and thus will obtain and use all the guns he or she wants to.  After all, that spree of shootings, rapes and robberies serves their desire to disarm the population -- other than the criminals, of course, which is why people like her (cough-EricHolder-cough-cough) knowingly delivered hundreds of firearms to drug dealers, have not faced one indictment for doing so and further have done exactly nothing in terms of criminal sanction to the banks that have made possible the movement of hundreds of billions of dollars of said illegally-gained funds from those dealers over the last 20 years, much of which I've also documented in these pages.

Gee, guns (and ammunition) don't cost money by chance, do they?

**** you Hillary; the right to self-defense pre-dates not only this nation but all nations, and it does and shall exist literally forever, whether you respect it or not.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Oh look, only half the story...

International Business Machines Corp. this week quietly laid off employees, continuing a wave of job cuts the company announced in April.

IBM declined to say how many jobs would be cut overall. The total layoffs could affect more than 14,000 jobs, according to an estimate by Stanford Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi.

Ok, and bad enough, except for one tiny little problem.

How many H1b positions is IBM attempting to fill with foreigners at the same time they're laying off Americans?

Answer: From 2013 to 2015 the total was 27,398, #3 in the United States for said sponsors, and the rate of same has grossly increased in 2015 to roughly double that of 2014 and 2013.

Yeah.

Where's that part of the story, Marketwatch?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Dawn In America?

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.