The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Topic list

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives

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.


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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-01-24 09:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 209 references
[Comments enabled]  

I've had plenty of things to take issue with this "Pope" since white smoke showed up at the Vatican, but this act is by far the most-outrageous I've heard from a Pope in my lifetime -- and brands him, forever, as a beast.

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — Pope Francis accused victims of Chile’s most notorious pedophile of slander Thursday, an astonishing end to a visit meant to help heal the wounds of a sex abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic Church its credibility in the country.

Francis said that until he sees proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the sex crimes of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, such accusations against Barros are “all calumny.”

Oh really?

May I remind you that the Vatican gave Cardinal Bernard Law sanctuary in Rome after he was implicated in covering up sexual abuse for decades with the very real risk of prosecution coming his direction?  

Not this Pope mind you, but Francis did not toss him out on his ass, or even better, force him to return to the United States and face justice, when he assumed the office.

Indeed, Bernard did exactly, when faced with scandal, what Francis just did -- he didn't give a crap about the abused but rather was more-interested in protecting the Church's reputation -- and wealth.

There is only so much that should be tolerated and my fuse is short when it comes to sexual abuse of kids.  I abandoned active involvement in the Church when this all came to light back in the early 2000s, penning a scathing set of letters to the Archdiocese here.

Man can corrupt anything -- and has in this case.  What may have been a great set of teachings has been turned on its ear for political and monetary expedience -- marriage, family, and covering up sexual assault of children to name just three examples.  Marriage is one of the worst; every single one where a Catholic Priest has signed a state-issued license is void for lack of honest entry into the sacrament, the Canon Law requirement for it to be valid.

Maybe this will shake the people awake and they'll cut the cash out from under this corrupted, putrid edifice of human filth.

I won't hold my breath waiting for it and no, you can't apologize after calling those who were abused slanderers either.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-01-22 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 304 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's really pretty simple.

Turn off your so-called "social media" accounts.  All of them.

See how many times you're invited to social events of any sort.

C'mon folks.  Those who claim to know and care about you -- who allegedly enjoy your company -- they have your phone number or email address, right?

Cut the crap.  If someone actually wants you to be present for something because they think you're worth their time and a valuable addition to whatever they have going on then it's worth the 15 seconds to toss you an email or text message -- right?

Say much less a phone call -- that might take a whole minute or two!

I know what you're going to find out if shut off those so-called "social" accounts:

You have very, very few actual friends -- or even acquaintances.

Your so-called friends won't take the time to spend 15 seconds of their "valuable" day to tell you about the party this weekend.  The race.  The get-together at the local bar.  The event that's held in a different place every week, but which you're allegedly a "valuable" part of, according to them.

15 seconds folks.

That's how long it takes to send a text, email, or make a quick call.

You won't get one tenth of the "invites" you got before.

Here's the truth, whether you like it or not:

None of the other 90% of what you knew about before were from people who gave a **** about you.  In fact they don't have a good damn care in the world if you're dead or alive.

None -- statistically -- of those so-called 'friends' on social media give a **** about you.

None of them.

Prove me wrong.

Turn off the accounts, and see whether all those people who supposedly like, care about, even love you bother to keep you in the loop.  Find out for yourself whether you're worth 15 seconds of your so-called "friends" day.

If you consider me a valuable part of whatever is going on and want me to be a part of it, you can spend the 15 seconds.

If I'm not worth that 15 seconds then you've told me everything I need to know about exactly how much you value my presence -- and the value you assign to my so-called "friendship."  I am sure as hell not wasting my life chasing people or so-called "events" where I'm that insignificant to the people who claim they "care" and "want me around" that they can't spend that 15 seconds to let me know about whatever it is.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-01-21 11:57 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 219 references
[Comments enabled]  

Screams the headline....

Misogynistic abuse against Cathy Newman is a symbol of the backlash against the MeToo movement

Abuse?  What abuse?

Let me see if I get this right: You have the absolute right to run a load of crap on television but any pushback and commentary centered on your nonsense and its idiocy is "abuse"?

Oh please.

For those angry at the recent resurgence of feminism, they have had to wait for their moment. It’s not easy to defend a serial rapist, or even a one-off rapist, although some people do – let’s not forget that 63 million people recently voted for an alleged offender as President. It’s not easy to defend a sexual harasser, either, although even more people do that. But it is very easy to attack Cathy Newman, the female journalist whose male editor thought it would be a good idea to interview Jordan Peterson.

So there's the not-so-subtle denunciation of a woman's ability to think and handle her own affairs right here, on display.  See, it was a "male editor" that thought it would be a good idea to interview Jordan Peterson.  It wasn't Cathy Newman's decision; why, she's just a slave to a patriarch that put her in front of a camera and demanded that she run the interview his way, not her own, or be..... what, exactly?

Since when do we call someone a victim after the fact -- unless, of course it wasn't after the fact..... Unless, of course, you consider Cathy Newman lesser; unable to deal with her own affairs, unable to comport herself in front of a camera, unable to discharge her job responsibility to run an interview in front of a camera with a potentially-hostile interviewee and not get steamrollered.  Why that responsibility belongs to her "male editor", not her, because she's just not capable of doing it herself.

See the bias yet?  No?  Then you're not looking.

On the one hand everyone wants to play the "virtue-signalling" game and make how women are exactly equal, without boundary or condition, to men in the workplace.  That's fantastic.  But then in the same paragraph suddenly this very successful and accomplished woman is unable to make her own decisions as to who to book as a guest and how to handle her interview!

In short, make up your mind.  Free speech is by its nature uncomfortable.  What are you doing being on television if you can't handle an interview with someone you know has a different view of a given subject than you?  More to the point why would you on one hand make the claim that women and men are both equally-competent and then infantalize the very woman who you want to put up on said pedestal?

Like so many loads of garbage these days run by those who cannot think and intended to generate nothing more than froth on one side of the aisle or the other, this piece fails logical consistency 101 within the first few paragaphs -- just like David Stockman's recent piece did.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)