I'm still looking for a store that carries a Doris Kearnes Goodwin costume, actually, but she's clearly not as famous as this chap--you know, the one wearing the fez...
(Tongue is firmly planted in cheek)
There has never been a female timelord lead character and I'm just not built like Romana--and I'm certainly no shoo-in for River Song--so I guess I'll have to go as a zombie again, or the banshee I was last year. Considering the Celtic direction of the Mysterious Lab, I think I'll reprise the banshee. Now, why doesn't Hastings carry The Scarf?
UPDATE:
No Scare on the Square this year, so I think I'll just dress up to walk around to frighten wardsman Tammy Wilson, who claimed all the credit for a Lab creation and will certainly get the credit for killing it. Claims in the newspaper that it MAY be back next year, as it's being "reorganized". It'll have to, without the Lab. Let's see...what to wear...what to wear? Oh, I know. The thing that will scare the snit out of all the Baptists in power 'round here would be an Arab. But I'm a citizen of the planet, and know how a sari is folded, so how about this--sari skirt, pirate blouse, and hijab. For sure some idjit is gonna call me in for terrorism.
Speaking of which, the Mysterious Lab is running again that exquisite tribute to Trinka, and if you missed it the first time around, now is a good time to catch it again, and includes some appearances by the OKC legend Count Gregore. Trinka Dracul, the Vampire Maid, portrayed by the late Jaemi Young and still mourned. R.I.P.
We still miss you, Trinka.
And Happy Hmong New Year. Unless you're in Tulsa--you might have been one of the 5 that got shot.
On the talking head shows so far, all news around the globe comes to a screeching halt as Topic One, the government shutdown, overrides all else.
Once again I will state my own political stance, which is that of an independent who is liberal leaning and who worked for the Ralph Nader presidential campaign twice. As such, I also had a favorable view of Ron Paul until the rise of his son, with whom I find less that is agreeable, but because of Ron Paul I am registered as Republican and haven't changed that registration--and because only 3 parties are recognized in the State of Oklahoma (Democrat, Republican, Independent) I will not change my registration even though currently, I don't agree with much of what they stand for. Whereas in the State of Oklahoma, Democrats are conservatives too, I have no reason to switch, especially given that only Reps and Dems can vote in Oklahoma's closed primaries, not Independents.
Back when Ron Paul and Ralph Nader got together on the original version of the Tea Party, I was all for that; it has since been hijacked by the Koch brothers, and now I'm firmly against it, especially since Ron Paul has been backing his boy instead of standing on his original principles.
I also have a completely different take on economics than either party, although I'll take this time to point out that the Dow Industrials basically voted at the close of the last trading session by going bullish on news that there was a compromise in the works for opening government back up. It's my view that the Dow is being propped up and is still overvalued in terms of price-to-earnings ratio. after which you may conclude that the market thus announces that it's too government-dependent. Considering how privatized that the military has become, thanks to the same Republicans who want to make government smaller, it's also a conundrum even free-market people can't wriggle out of.
Think about it--when Clinton was president, the nation felt prosperous while the Dow Industrials celebrated breaking through the 8000 mark in trades. Today, we're over 15,000 and we're feeling fragile. I submit it's because, as the Pauls claim, that our currency is being devalued, but I also submit that it's not because of debt but because the rich have been exporting our currency AND taking it out of circulation by holding it in offshore tax shelters, and that's what's making the printing of more money necessary.
They need to start spending their piles and they need to start paying more taxes, at LEAST at the same rate as the rest of us have to. Face it--it's called "currency" because it has no value until it's used in trade, as in, "in circulation". A balance sheet is just a bunch of numbers on paper and just as worthless just sitting there.
A lot of rich folks, seeing the imminent devaluation of currency will buy gold with some of their stash, but guess what--not only is the demand pushing up the price of gold per ounce but so is the lower valuation of the currency. An ounce is still an ounce; currency is what's fluctuating and the good question to ask is, "is the price of gold skyrocketing because of intense demand or because of currency devaluation?" I submit that it's both, and that's a double-whammy. Gold has no value except in terms of currency. An English teacher would call that "recursive definition" or "circular definition". Were it a question, it would be a "begged question". But there's actually a triple-whammy afoot.
Supposing all rich people have an epiphany about the folly of hoarding all at once and start putting all those riches back into circulation? Well, we would have a collapse of currency valuation because of oversupply compared to demand of trade, now, wouldn't we.
And the rich will whine about how it's class war to blame them for the situation we're in both domestically and globally, but truth is that nobody living from paycheck to paycheck can hoard currency--only the rich have done that. Period.
As I've said, the Dow Industrials remain overvalued, but is this because our currency has lost value? One has to wonder. But I submit to you this: regardless of what the value of the currency is, the price-to-earnings ratio would remain the same regardless of currency valuation, and fact remains that it is too high, and pretty much across the Industrials board. Now here's a reminder that the Dow has two other indexes besides Industrials: Transportation and Utilities. Both of which have suffered similar perversions, though, so neither of those are quite the answer either.
Late night Sunday update, on the financial topic:
Watched the White House Chronicle interview of Hedrick Smith regarding his book, "Who Stole The American Dream" and heard him say a lot of stuff I already knew and had been saying (but who listens to me, eh?) like today's financial situation began with Ronald Reagan. I saw what Reagan was doing while he was doing it and thought back THEN that it was all bollocks. Anyway, if his book sounds as good as he did, I recommend that for reading whether you're main thing is finance, politics, or history. For me, it's all three and then some.
No comments:
Post a Comment