21 July 2014

Stock market parallel 1929 and 2014 - and then along came Ukraine and Gaza

May 2012: Pattern recognized


 Update 2014: The pattern continues

Dumbing down society or just de-verticalizing it?

From "Legally Speaking: Putting Legalese on the Endangered List," John G. Browning, The South East Texas Record

U.S. government came out with a new law recently. Previously, the feds might have described it like this: 

“Pursuant to regulations promulgated hereunder and commencing in accordance with the statute signed herein by President Barack Obama, the federal government shall be precluded from writing the pompous gobbledygook heretofore evidenced, to the extent practicable.”

Confusing enough? Now, under the Plain Writing Act, the U.S. government has to adopt a new approach in writing documents produced for the public—speaking in plain English.

[In 2010], President Barack Obama signed the Act. By July, each federal agency must have a senior official charged with overseeing plain writing and must describe on its website the efforts it is making toward writing in clear, easy-to-understand English.

The law will be in full effect this October, when all new or substantially revised documents produced by the government for the public must be written in plain English (don’t worry, bureaucrats proficient in government double-speak: you will still be allowed to speak in your nonsensical tongue when writing internally).
Cass Sunstein, a member of the Obama administration and prominent legal scholar, says “It is important to emphasize that agencies should communicate with the public in a way that is clear, simple, meaningful and jargon-free.”
The benefits of improving government writing are obvious, according to Sunstein.
Poorly written directives, he says, discourage people from applying for benefits they’re entitled to, make the rules hard to follow, and ultimately waste money and resources because of time spent explaining things to confused citizens and fixing avoidable mistakes.
Annetta Cheek, the chairwoman of the Center for Plain Language and a writer of federal regulations during the Clinton administration, helped author the new government guidelines for plain writing.
As she points out, federal employees have a tendency to write with their bosses and government lawyers in mind rather than the public.
“Most of what the government writes has too much stuff,” she says.
The average person just wants to know ‘what are you doing for me or to me?’”
Government writing will never be confused with great literature; as Cheek’s guidelines for federal writers acknowledge, “People do not curl up in front of a fire with a nice federal regulation to have a relaxing read.” However, Cheek says, the government can certainly do a better job communicating requirements, how to obtain benefits, health and safety tips, and other helpful information.
What will these changes mean for you? For starters, you won’t see statements like this:
“Timely preparation, including structural and non-structural mitigation measures to avoid the impacts of severe weather, can avert heavy personal, business and government expenditures. Experts agree that the following measures can be effective in dealing with the challenges of severe winter weather.”
Instead, you’ll probably see something like this: “Severe winter weather can be extremely dangerous. Consider these safety tips to protect your property and yourself.”
Nor will you find the Pentagon brownie recipe that droned on for 26 pages about “regulations promulgated hereunder,” “flow rates of thermoplastics by extrusion plastomer,” and ingredients that “shall be examined organoleptically."(more)

26 March 2014

Empowered Women of the West

This evening, I'm in a restaurant in Berlin. Admittedly, I'm alone, because the girl who should be here with me didn't say that she had to work until the day of my 1000 kilometer trek in. However, to my left is another woman; in between shoving mouthfuls of cheese pizza into her fat cheeks, she keeps interrupting her man when he speaks. Otherwise, her eyes are glued to her phone.

To my right is a slimmer, more attractive woman. Her pupils are dilated, her cheeks flushed. Her voice is soft and meek. She is agreeing with her guest's every remark, mimicking his every gyration. She is also fumbling with her wine glass. It's an interesting spectacle considering that, several minutes ago, the guest confirmed to her that he is married...

For the modern woman, "married" means something out of reach and valued by another. Modern women don't like to be told they can't have things of value. Humble is not in their vocabulary. So, compounded by sensory impulses through the wine and candlelight, the situation is driving the lady crazy.

That same week, I met two girls who were dancing up to men in a bar and shutting the men down. The one girl looked over at me disapprovingly. I told her I wasn't even interested. At that point, she looked shocked and didn't know what to do...so she kneed me in the balls. I was incapacitated for the next few seconds, but it was clear that she wanted to put me under her. All Western notions of acceptable behavior be damned - how dare I reject the queen after she had judged me.

She reappeared later in the night and shouldered me as she was passing by. A half hour later, I saw her again, pointing at me from the other side of the bar. This time, she was latched onto a burly man in a sweaty muscle shirt. Judging by her expression, It was clear that now she wanted to show me she could claim whoever she wanted; but I also knew she was playing the role of "damsel in distress" to get him to fight me.

Of course, in terms of chivalry, her plea for him to "fight for her honor" was like asking somebody to hold the door for you just to slam the next person's fingers in it. But it takes years to realize that, in the West, women abuse the concepts designed to help protect them because they want to feel important and see the world revolve around them. So the ignorant burly man stumbled over to "protect the innocent woman's honor". As he approached, he pushed me and barged into a mammoth of a man who, incidentally, had noticed my dialect and was in the middle of asking me about my German. Disturbed, the two exchanged heated words, but the confrontation quickly fizzled out as the burly man realized he was greatly outsized. I'm sure the woman wasn't happy, but I did not care to see what she would do next. I had had enough bullshit for one evening. So, I finished my coffee and left. Needless to say, my balls are hurting as I write...

When did Western women become such irresponsible, selfish, rude, entitled, egotistic sociopathic pieces of trash? Is such female behavior also typical in, for example, the Muslim world? Why or why not?