Thursday, July 30, 2015

BloggeRhythms

Another day’s arrived, and more suspicious background information has surfaced regarding the president’s nuclear deal with Iran.
 
Adam Kredo @washingtonfreebeacon.com, reports that, “Senior Iranian officials are accusing the Obama administration of lying about the details of the recent nuclear accord in order to soothe fears among U.S. lawmakers and Americans about the implications of the deal, which will release billions of dollars to the Islamic Republic while temporarily freezing its nuclear program, according to reports from Iran’s state-controlled media.
 
“When addressing claims this week by the administration that the deal shuts down Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, Iranian officials scoffed and said that the Obama administration is misleading the public in order to sell the deal.
 
Hamid Baeidinejad, an official in the Iranian foreign ministry and one of the country’s nuclear negotiators, said the Obama administration’s comments, “were meant to placate an American domestic audience. The remarks by the western officials are ambiguous comments which are merely uttered for domestic use and therefore we should say that there is no ambiguity in this (nuclear) agreement.”
 
However, what Mr. Baeidinejad doesn't seem to understand is that the “deal” was never intended to protect, or even appeal to, the American public. The POTUS’s objective from the beginning has been to please Valerie Jarrett, the Kerry’s, and the Iranian government.
 
Which, perhaps, is why dcwhispers.com reported on July 16, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said of the administration’s negotiators: “Rank amateurs and the most dangerous kind of arrogance. China dominated these negotiations from the beginning to the end and the White House seemed more than happy to let it happen.”
 
As for the rest of the news, much is dedicated to the growing list of troubles dogging the Clintons, which brings us to today’s update.
 
FoxNews.com reports that, “Donations to the Clinton Foundation by Swiss bank UBS increased tenfold after Hillary Clinton intervened to settle a dispute with the IRS early in her tenure as secretary of state, according to a published report.
 
“According to the Wall Street Journal, total donations by UBS to the foundation grew from less than $60,000 at the end of 2008 to approximately $600,000 by the end of 2014. The Journal reports that the bank also lent $32 million through entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs it launched in association with the foundation, while paying former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of corporate question-and-answer sessions with UBS Chief Executive Bob McCann.”
 
Which means that for Republican presidential candidates, the task of campaigning against Bill's wife is getting far simpler. All they have to do is sit back, keep their mouths shut, and let her own history knock her totally out of contention.  
 
In that regard, Zeke J. Miller @time com reports about a Quinnipiac University poll released today, showing “Across nearly every key metric, from trustworthiness to caring about voters to leadership, Clinton has seen an erosion in public approval, as likely Republican rivals have erased her leads in the poll. Clinton has a net -11 favorability rating in the poll, with 40% of the American public viewing her positively and 51% negatively, with more than 50% of independents on the negative side.
 
Having held a significant lead for many months, ”If the election were held today, Clinton would be tied with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in the poll—down from significant leads in a May 28 survey—but would top the current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.”
 
And what’s even worse for her, “57% of Americans now viewing her as neither honest nor trustworthy.”
 
On the other hand, the leftist media still protects her without question, as pointed out by Rush in a short item on FB today that speaks volumes.
 
Rush said that, according to the press, “Tom Brady admits that he replaced his legal cell phone, and he must be guilty. And over here, Hillary Clinton destroys her illegal e-mail server, and she must be innocent.”
 
In the meanwhile, though, an article appearing on my alma mater’s website indirectly confirms how out of touch Bill’s wife is with the nation’s changing economy, likely reflection of her advancing age.   
 
Arun Sundararajan, a professor at New York University’s School of Business wrote an article in the Guardian, titled, “The Gig Economy is Coming. What Will It Mean For Work?” 
 
Inadvertently making today’s point, Professor Sundararajan wrote that, “Jeb Bush, took a well-publicized Uber ride to signal solidarity with the company, another, Hillary Clinton, was more cautious in her support. In a speech laying out her economic plan, she said: “This on-demand, or so-called gig, economy is creating exciting economies and unleashing innovation. But it is also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.” 
 
The professor then goes on to explain how the gig concept works by presenting examples, and answering his own questions, as follows: 
 
“Does this suggest a shift towards a textbook market economy? Granted, Uber, Airbnb, Etsy and TaskRabbit are quite different from organisations such as Apple, BP or Sainsbury’s. Because you aren’t actually renting a space from Airbnb, taking a ride in a car owned by Uber or buying a product made by Etsy. The platform simply connects you with a provider of space, a driver of a vehicle or a seller who runs a virtual shop. 
 
“But these platforms are by no means merely the purveyors of [Adam]Smith’s invisible hand. Rather, the hand they play in facilitating exchange is decidedly visible. Uber, not individual drivers, sets prices. Airbnb trains its hosts to be better providers of hospitality. Etsy facilitates seller community building. All of them provide user-generated feedback systems, creating a high-quality consumer experience. Much like an organization building a brand might.” 
 
And therefore, If Bill’s wife, or her advisors, were able to comprehend the technology, she’d understand that gig economy significantly helps overcome income inequality, one of her stated platform objectives, Because, as explained by economist Thomas Piketty, “the main driver of sustained economic inequality over the past two centuries has been the concentration of wealth-producing “capital” in the hands of a few. This seems less likely if the economy is powered by millions of micro-entrepreneurs who own their businesses, rather than a small number of giant corporations.”
 
So, once again we have a Democrat point of view on a subject, the economy, that they simply don’t understand, or choose to construe to their political theorizing. And it seems that, regardless of the concept at hand, the more that individuals are able to gain by becoming individually independent economically the more Democrats are against it. Which is even true of not only Bill's wife, but Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden too, if they’re reading this.
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment