Will the return of the prodigal son lead to a return of "The Freak"?

Like most Giant fans, I love Tim Lincecum. Because of the personal nature of this story, no doubt I will be rooting even harder for him to succeed in 2015 than ever before.

from SF Sun Times:
Giants Spring Training: Look out for these three players | San Francisco:

3. Tim Lincecum Tim Lincecum signed a contract back in 2013 through 2015 for 2 yrs/$35M (14-15). That is an absurd amount of money for a man who averaged above a 4.5 ERA over his last three seasons. Lincecum hasn’t been great since 2011, when he had a 2.74 ERA. This is his last chance at redemption and Giants organization and fans will be monitoring him closely to see if he’s worthy of returning for next season. 

 From SF Chronicle: 

 If Lincecum cannot reverse course after posting ERAs of 5.18, 4.37 and 4.74 the past three seasons, and losing his rotation spot late last summer, he will enter free agency as the “once great pitcher who lost it.” Lincecum said the way 2014 ended — in the bullpen, worthy of one garbage-time appearance in the postseason — motivated him to do what he called a “180-degree flip” and undertake a rigorous offseason throwing program under Chris Lincecum’s direction.

'via Blog this'

Good for Timmy that he swallowed his pride and remembered who he was and where he came from.

Good for the Giants if this turns from Return of the Prodigal Son to Return of The Freak. And good for both Timmy and his Dad. Cynics will say that this is only happening because Timmy is in his walk year and ready to ring the register, but if this back story is true, it connects the dots to Lincecum's performance decline since 2011 quite neatly.

His dad helped Timmy build his unique delivery. I can see that under the circumstances -- especially the last three years of futility -- perhaps both the big league treatment he's been getting as well as giving to his pops, have combined to weigh Timmy down both physically, emotionally and psychology which caused his mechanics to deteriorate and drift away from him.

We shall see if this season, at least for the Lincecum's sake, Father Knows Best.




from mlb.com
http://m.giants.mlb.com/news/article/109633740/anthony-castrovince-tim-lincecum-enters-camp-with-renewed-confidence

Lincecum enters camp with renewed confidence

Father, son repair mechanics, relationship in effort to reclaim starting role

There were times this winter when the father had to step outside for a cigarette, figuring it better to rip a heater than to let an argument with his son get too heated. And in those moments, the son would air out his own frustration by firing fastballs at an empty net.
This was how the Lincecum men -- father Chris and son Tim -- learned how to let their differences dissolve as quickly as they'd arise. A quick smoke break for dad, and then it was back to the business of repairing a two-time Cy Young Award winner who had lost his way.

"We both like to butt heads," Tim Lincecum said Wednesday, "and we both like to argue. My dad's always right, and I can't ever convince him that he's wrong. So I'm not going to take that away from him."

What the son instead took away from his offseason was a renewed appreciation for his father -- the man who essentially crafted the unorthodox mechanics that made Tim a "Freak" in both name and numbers -- and a renewed confidence in his mechanics and mindset.

What the father took away from 2 1/2 months' worth of work (49 throwing sessions in all) with his prodigal son was a sense that we're going to see a much different Tim Lincecum in 2015 than we did in 2014.

"This is the most he's ever worked in the offseason since he's been in the Majors," Chris said. "I love the fact that he was so diligent about being there. He wanted to be there, even when he didn't want to be there, when he was tired or sleepy or whatever. This is the first time I've seen him with that chip on his shoulder."

That Timmy, now 30, reported to Scottsdale Stadium on Wednesday in great shape and has let his hair grow long again and is optimistic about the year ahead makes him the typical first-day-of-Spring-Training tale.

Yet the father-son element -- a sort of Springsteenian repairing of relations between two men who were "too much of the same kind" -- adds nuance and substance to the story.

Shortly after Tim opened up to a group of reporters on the afternoon of the defending champs' pitchers and catchers report date, his dad sat in the grass outside the stadium, chain-smoking Winstons and talking about those throwing sessions at N-S Performance in Seattle. Some people -- mostly professional pitching coaches -- will shiver at the thought of a guy throwing 49 times in the wake of a full-season slate, but the elder Lincecum has always believed in throwing more, not less. Certainly, his thoughts on pitching have long been considered unorthodox (he likes to say he believes only in icing his Bourbon and Sevens, not the throwing arm), but who among us could possibly argue with where those philosophies took young Timmy?

With his career at a low point at the end of '14, when the Giants essentially made a championship run without him, Lincecum himself could no longer argue with the obvious, either. Like so many of us, he had valued his independence in adulthood. He wanted to be his own man. And that meant turning his back on his dad. They'd talk on the phone after his starts, but they hadn't actually worked together since Lincecum was at the University of Washington. And Tim hinted that he let the personal relationship go astray, too.

Chris didn't seem to mind the personal differences nearly as much as the baseball separation.

"Yeah, I'm his father, and that's one hat I wear," he said. "But I'm the guy who taught him how to pitch. That's the other hat. Why not come back to the source that knows? If that was his next-door neighbor or some old coach in high school or whoever, why wouldn't he go back to that source? Well, it's because -- as I'm sure is the case with anybody and their parents -- there's that breaking away or rite of passage. But if he was [mad] at the dad, that's one thing. He shouldn't have stayed away from the coach."

Timmy said going back to his dad a couple weeks after the Giants' third parade in five years was one of those "tail between the legs" moments we all have in life, but it was worth it. His dad is a stickler for detail, documenting and videotaping every pitch thrown in that Seattle gym and making it known to his son every time the delivery was even slightly awry. That discipline was something Lincecum freely admits was lacking, and the stats from his last three seasons -- a 4.76 ERA and adjusted ERA+ 27 points below league average -- make it clear something had to change in order for Lincecum to return to his old numerical norms.

"[Chris] knows my mechanics even better than me," Lincecum said. "They've been out of whack for a while now. I think repetition is the big thing for me. Going out there and continuing to do the right mechanics and knowing why they're doing it is another big thing for me. Growing up with my dad, we talked about how it was more that I listened to what he said as opposed to knowing what he meant, and I think this year I got a bigger understanding of my mechanics and why my body needs to be in certain positions."

It's probably not a stretch to say the Giants -- even with a stash of starters supposedly seven deep -- could have a lot riding on the results of this reunion. Madison Bumgarner was the star of October, but it remains to be seen if the workload that accompanied that starring role comes at a cost in 2015. More to the point, Tim Hudson and Matt Cain are both coming off surgical procedures, Jake Peavy was running on fumes by the end of October, Ryan Vogelsong isn't getting any younger and Yusmeiro Petit might be better situated to a long-relief role.

Lincecum might actually be the biggest question mark of them all, and the ongoing question among some evaluators is whether he, too, might be better suited to a relief role at this stage of his career. But the Giants -- publicly, anyway -- have been adamant all winter that Timmy is and will be in the rotation, and the work he was putting in behind the scenes adds some credence to that confidence.

We'll see if this sappy spring storyline morphs into regular-season reality, if Lincecum's winter work is as positive in public practice. But it was hard not to listen to father and son alike on Wednesday and not come to the conclusion that "The Freak" is in a really good place -- physically, mentally, mechanically and emotionally.

Once again, Chris was lighting up a cigarette outside the building where his son goes to work. Only this time, this wasn't a timeout because the two were butting heads. In fact, on the subject of Lincecum's 2015 potential, father and son are very much in agreement.

"This," Chris said, "is a good year for him."

Baseball ahead of other leagues in fighting PEDs - Philly.com

The conundrum that MLB finds itself in unfortunately is that by being in the lead in the PED fight, they are in the trail position as far as PR and public perception.

Right now, the international problem is looming over this sport like no other.

The different enforcement standards vis-a-vis Amercian players and their Latino counterparts allows for exactly the kind of un-level playing field that the fight AGAINST steroids and PED's was meant to prevent.

When this thing moves to the forefront, and it will again with the Biogenis names set to be released, it is going to reignite the debate. This time it will be a whole lot more virulent.

from Philly.com:
Baseball ahead of other leagues in fighting PEDs - Philly.com:

The science of getting away with doping always seems to stay a half-step ahead of the science of catching dopers, and the financial gains that hang in the balance for the players involved encourage them to test the system.

"As an ex-athlete, I understand what it takes to compete, and if you feel you are competing with less of an arsenal than others, they can be tempted to want to enhance their position one way or the other," Amaro said. "We hope we're getting it out of the game, but that's the nature of competition, that's human nature, that's the nature of capitalism, or whatever you want to call it."

Of the players reportedly under investigation, almost all are of Latin descent. Eleven of the 12 major leaguers suspended for violating the drug policy since 2009 are Latin. Just looking at the Phillies, four of the five organization players suspended since the program began - Pablo Ozuna, J.C. Romero, Freddy Galvis, and Carlos Ruiz - are Latin. (Kevin Frandsen was suspended in 2012 for a test result that contained the stimulant found in Ritalin.)

Are Latin players more likely to cheat, more likely to get caught, or the victims of a system that offers less protection for players who are often trying to navigate their profession in a second language?

"I don't know. Maybe they see other Latin players getting to the big leagues and having success, or were selected for the baseball academies, and they feel they have to keep up," said Amaro, who is of Cuban and Mexican descent. "It might be there are different standards in some Latin countries. You don't even need prescriptions to get some of the things that are banned here. It could be a lack of education on the real issues. But I can tell you that in our organization, a lack of being educated about the issues is not an excuse."

'via Blog this'

This graphic shows why we have our educational priorities misplaced

I would say the same the same thing if the baseball coach was the highest paid employee in all 50 states.

This is just messed up. Plain and simple. I understand that some of the money comes from the unbelievable revenues the sports generate, but my goodness, here we could share the wealth a little bit better.

Maybe make the lot of some the athletes a little bit better. Or help out some of the so-called minor sports a bit  more. Liberals and the OWS crowd carp endlessly about income inequality and this is the best they can do within the heartland of liberalism / socialism that dominates the halls of academia. Do as I say, not as I do.

It's embarrassing regardless of who is at fault.

from Deadspin:
Infographic: Is Your State's Highest-Paid Employee A Coach? (Probably):

You may have heard that the highest-paid employee in each state is usually the football coach at the largest state school. This is actually a gross mischaracterization: Sometimes it is the basketball coach.

Based on data drawn from media reports and state salary databases, the ranks of the highest-paid active public employees include 27 football coaches, 13 basketball coaches, one hockey coach, and 10 dorks who aren't even in charge of a team.

'via Blog this'

RIP: Margaret Thatcher - On socialism and the misunderstanding of "income inequality" (pay attention OWS'ers)

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

This 2-minute exchange ( and the Acton blog entry posted below ) explains why the current administration would not send a representative to her funeral. They are deathly afraid that she would expose them for the frauds they are even from the grave. It's all for the best, they are still working feverishly here at proving that their brand of "trickle-up" economics somehow works better than "trickle-down".  

Say what you will about "Reaganomics" or "trickle-down" theory, it turned around a much worse economic condition -- the one Reagan inherited from Carter, Nixon and the Great Society spend-thrift and true racist Lyndon Johnson -- than this administration inherited and it did it much faster and more convincingly. The proof is that Reagan was re-elected by a "true landslide" proportion, winning forty-nine states to his opponents one and winning by a larger margin than 51% - 49%. It was closer to 60/40. 

It also led to the eventual demise of the Soviets, the end of the Cold War ( and "duck and cover" ), the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the longest period of economic expansion that did not result result from fighting in and recovering from a World War. We got a heck of a lot more for our deficit spending back in the 80's, that's for sure. 

The "income inequality" picture has become worse under the Obama administration than under Bush according to most economists that I've read. I'm sure we can pass the blame off on somebody else or some circumstance or another -- the perma mind-set of the leftists entitlement culture, that of a victim. Wasn't me. He / she did it. The culture did it. The devil made me do it. Pass the blame and pass the buck.  

Thatcher and Reagan "got it". And that's why the leftists dislike both of them. Even after both are dead and buried. Because they left an example and a legacy that exposes their virulent B.S. for what it IS, WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE. And that's VIRULENT B.S. Keep trying to re-brand socialism and marxism. You can change the label or the pitch-man on a package of B.S. It's still B.S.

This current crop of pretenders to the throne ( Clinton, both Bushes and Obama)  have merely squandered it. As well as the "peace dividend" that they ( meaning Clinton and Daddy Bush, the original RINO ) inherited from Reagan. 

He could have at least sent Hillary and told her "that's how a 'real' woman" leads a country and had some fun with it. But noooooooo!!. Classless to the bitter end. 

RIP Margaret Thatcher. A giant among world leaders. She will go down in history as doing more for her country than this president can ever dream of having done for his. And that probably doesn't sit well with the President. So maybe it is best if he just stayed home.

The Incredibly Small and Ever-Shrinking President of the United States

He would no doubt look even smaller by comparison next to Maragaret Thatcher, even if she is dead.  

---

from Acton.org blog:

What Margaret Thatcher Understood About Income Inequality

by JOE CARTER on TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2013

http://blog.acton.org/archives/53033-what-margaret-thatcher-understood-about-income-inequality.html

Margaret Thatcher once told an interviewer, “Of course, I am obstinate in defending our liberties and our law. That is why I carry a big handbag.” During her time as Prime Minister, Thatcher’s handbag became an iconic symbol of her ability to handle opponents. The term “handbagging” even entered the Oxford English Dictionary (the verb “to handbag” is defined as: (of a woman politician), treat (a person, idea etc) ruthlessly or insensitively) to describe her rhetorical style.

Thatcher’s handbagging usually occurred during Question Time, the hour every day when members of the parliament ask questions of government ministers—including the prime minister—which they are obliged to answer. A prime example is in her last appearance as Prime Minister in the House of Commons, on November 22, 1990. Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes taunts her on the subject of income inequality.

Mr. Hughes: There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, in many ways, has achieved substantial success. There is one statistic, however, that I understand is not challenged, and that is that, during her 11 years as Prime Minister, the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent. in this country has widened substantially. At the end of her chapter of British politics, how can she say that she can justify the fact that many people in a constituency such as mine are relatively much poorer, much less well housed and much less well provided for than they were in 1979? Surely she accepts that that is not a record that she or any Prime Minister can be proud of.

The Prime Minister: People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.

Mr. Hughes: No.

The Prime Minister: Yes, it came out. The hon. Member did not intend it to, but it did.

As Thatcher might say, those concerned with income inequality many not intend for it to come out, but making the rich less rich is precisely what they want—indeed, it is the only thing that can solve the faux-problem of income inequality.

Consider the example given by Mr. Hughes that, “the gap between the richest 10 percent and the poorest 10 percent has widened substantially.” To simply the math, let’s say the bottom 10 percent in a country make between $0 and $10,000 a year while the richest 10 percent make an annual income of $100,000. That’s a minimum gap of $90,000 dollars.

Now imagine if the incomes doubled over a period of 10 years (and inflation stayed low). The poorest 10 percent would now make between $0 to $20,000 and the poorest would make $200,000. Everyone would appear to be better off yet income inequality also doubled. The gap is now $180,000—twice as much as it was a decade ago.

So is this a problem? It would only be a concern under three conditions: (a) if the income of the rich increased at the expense of the poor (through exploitation or injustice), (b) the increase was due to illegal activity, or (c) if you care about income inequality because you want to make the rich less rich, through confiscation or redistribution of income.

Preventing or correcting Condition B is a primary concern of the State while preventing or correcting Condition A is a primary economic concern of individual Christians. There are numerous Biblical injunctions and warnings against the injustice of allowing the rich to exploit the poor. But if that is not occurring, then Christians have no right to be concerned with how much income another person is generating. Jesus even told a parable about workers making different wages for the same work (Matthew 20:1-16). While the purpose of the parable was to teach us about the Kingdom of God rather than a managerial lesson on income parity, it does show that differences of income—even for the same work— is not inherently unfair.

Thatcher intuitively understood what her opponents were loathe to admit: They were less concerned about the plight of the poor than with the wealth of the rich. Even the liberal British expatriate Andrew Sullivan admits this was true of British liberals and socialists:

No culture I know of is more brutally unkind to its public figures, hateful toward anyone with a degree of success or money, or more willing to ascribe an individual’s achievements to something other than their own ability. The Britain I grew up with was, in this specific sense, profoundly leftist in the worst sense. It was cheap and greedy and yet hostile to anyone with initiative, self-esteem, and the ability to make money.

The clip below captures the left-liberal sentiment of the time perfectly. Yes: the British left would prefer to keep everyone poorer if it meant preventing a few getting richer. Envy, even when is it disguised as egalitarianism, is a deadly sin. It is corrosive to the soul to envy the wealth of one’s neighbor and destructive to society when we desire the State use it’s power to redistribute the wealth of citizens simply to achieve the goal of more equalized incomes. Ms. Thatcher understood that concerns about income inequality were really about envy. She knew envy was consuming her opponents across the aisle, even though they couldn’t see what was hiding in their own hearts. We need to follow her example and expose income inequality for what it is, before it consumes our own nation as it did Great Britain.

 Sounds like we could use a woman like Margaret Thatcher over here:
http://blog.acton.org/archives/52979-10-memorable-thatcher-quotes-on-economics-and-freedom.html

“I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society – from a give-it-to-me to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.” (Speech, 1984)

 “My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.” (The News of the World, 9/20/81)

 “I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.” (Women’s Own magazine, 10/31/87)

 “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.” (This Week, 2/5/76) 

 “As Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990 I had the opportunity to put these convictions into effect in economic policy. We intended policy in the 1980s to be directed towards fundamentally different goals from those of most of the post-war ear. We believed that since jobs (in a free society) did not depend on government but upon satisfying customers, there was no point in setting targets for ‘full’ employment. Instead, government should create the right framework of sound money, low taxes, light regulation and flexible markets (including labour markets) to allow prosperity and employment to grow.”  (The Path To Power)

 “Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.” (Sunday Times, 5/1/81)

Of Jobs, Debts and Budgets | Richard Mills | FINANCIAL SENSE

How Crony Capitalism Corrupts the Free Market | David Stockman

Stockman finally gets it. He's a favorite of the lefties because he pounds (distorts?) the supposed failings of  Reagonomics from time to time. Of course, he was an architect of the budget during those years so.......part of the problem / part of the solution / 20-20 hindsight / rewriting history and legacy, IDK.

He sounds smarter talking Austrian economics to Mises members. Almost as smart as Ron Paul.


Of Jobs, Debts and Budgets | Richard Mills | FINANCIAL SENSE:

“The plain fact is that we are warehousing a larger and larger population of adults who are one way or another living off transfer payments, relatives, sub-prime credit, and the black market. My suspicion is that this negative trend and many others like it get buried by the monthly change chatter from mainstream economists and on bubble vision, and that these monthly deltas are so heavily manipulated  as to be almost a made-up reality. Call it the economists’ Truman Show.” David Stockman, Former Reagan budget director talking about the BLS jobs reports"

John Taylor, Taylor Rule discoverer says,
"We could get into a situation like Greece, quite frankly. People have to realize it is a precarious situation. The debt is going to explode if we don't make some changes. What seems to be more important is that people can get back on track, the country can get back on track, with just some sensible adjustments. I argue just bring spending back to where it was in 2007. That's not so long ago. We've had an enormous spending binge in the last few years. If we undo that binge, shouldn't be that hard, we can get back to some sensible pro-growth policies.”

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff co-authors of “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” are sceptical of any fix and think we should get use to present conditions because nothing is going to change for the good anytime soon.
President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2012 would have increased the country’s  debt by nine trillion dollars over ten years - even Democrats rejected it. Obama will deliver his new budget this Monday, last year he claimed one trillion dollars in deficit reductions from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but that money hadn’t even been approved.

'via Blog this'

THE SIX PROBLEMS WITH MODERN PROGRESSIVE / SOCIALISM

Normally, I try to avoid the comments section of any blog / article I read, but I make an exception for Zero Hedge. This little gem is one of the reasons why. Rick Santelli beating down that idiot Freidman was an added bonus.

from Zero Hedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/rick-santelli-tells-arch-globalization-advocate-friedman-he-idiot 

The Six Problems With Modern Progressive/Socialism

1) You really didn't learn everything you needed to know in kindergarten:  Progressive/Socialists love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner's view of the world.  If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it.  If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they're against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets.  Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political leaders who are making life and death decisions that may still have ramifications fifty years from now.

2) "Progressive/Socialists hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for Progressive/Socialists and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter:  Somewhat ironically, given the hostile relationship that has developed between the Left and Christianity, Progressive/Socialist beliefs have more in common with religious doctrine than a political agenda.  There is no significant debate on the Left about the aims of their agenda -- and the only "sins" believers can commit against their religion are no longer being politically useful, deviating from doctrine, or worst of all, cooperating with conservatives in some fashion.  No matter how much evidence piles up that big government doesn't work, that welfare destroys families, and that socialism doesn't bring prosperity, it makes no impact on Progressive/Socialists because their dogma is based on faith, not logic.

3) "It is not human nature we should accuse but the despicable conventions that pervert it." -- Denis Diderot:  There is no dream more eternal in the Progressive/Socialist heart than completely remaking human nature.  If we could all just care about the person across the world as much as we do our families, we could live in a utopia! Unfortunately, in practice, human nature tends to be quite a bit more difficult to subvert than in the Progressive/Socialist imagination.  That's why, despite more than 5,000 years of human civilization, very little progress has been made in this area - but, oh, the Left is still trying.  One day, if they just spend enough money on the right government programs, all the wars will end and everyone will be living in identical million dollar mansions while we spend our days humming tunes from the latest Woodstock Tribute Album.

4) "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive." -- Sir Walter Scott: Like freaky religious cults, Progressive/Socialists have become adept at hiding their more abhorrent views from the public until it's too late.  It's common to see Progressive/Socialists adamantly deny that they hold a position over and over again only to completely switch sides the moment they have one more vote than they need to pass legislation. Whether it's lying about their opponents or what they believe, honesty is certainly not considered to be the best policy on the Left.

5) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye." -- Matthew 7:3-5: Despite the fact that Progressive/Socialists love few things better than to cry "hypocrisy," there is a rather bizarre disconnect between what modern Progressive/Socialists seem to believe about themselves and how they behave. Progressive/Socialists believe that they're compassionate, but only with other people's money. They tie themselves in knots trying to come up with valid reasons why terrorists hate the United States, but they never give a moment's thought to whether the people who dislike them might have a point.  They pat themselves on the back for helping minorities, but never stop to consider that Progressive/Socialist policies have done more damage to black Americans in the last fifty years than the KKK could have done in a millennium.  Somehow, stunning hypocrisies of this sort, which are too numerous to recount, never seem to be bother anyone on the Left.

6) "Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do." -- Benjamin Spock:  It's great to have a healthy self-image, but there's not much to be said for thinking you're smarter than the collective wisdom and traditions passed down through human history just because you happen to read the Daily Kos.  Unbecoming arrogance of this sort permeates modern Progressive/Socialism.  The most grave of decisions are undertaken by the modern Left without the slightest regard for the potential consequences.  Past disasters created by similar bouts of whimsical thinking, of which there are many, are treated as acts of God untethered from mere human decision making and prompt no self reflection whatsoever.  That's because to the modern Progressive/Socialist, the real world results of their policies are secondary in importance to the amount of positive self-esteem generated by supporting that policy.

In summary, GROW UP!

Eric De Groot: The Trends Clearly Show The Worm Has Turned In The Labor Market

Chart 1:  Birth/Death Model (BDM) Contribution to Nonfarm Net Payrolls (NFP) Added/(Lost)

The only problem I had with former GE CEO Jack Welch's comments were "what took him so long"?

These numbers have been manipulated for political effect for the past two - three years. The most recent iteration is just the final pomp-pomp waving, get out the vote effort for Team Obama. A "he may have lost the debate but he killed Osama, saved GM and gosh darn it, saved the whole economy" type of affirmation.



If you really want to understand what the figures mean, the hyper-partisan mouth breathers are not the place to go. Bloomberg, with it's Obama-gushers or CNBC with it's "battle of the talking-heads" won't work either.

Read guys like Erik DeGroot, Doug Sort and Mish Shedlock, who are outside the mainstream, but provide solid, honest economic analysis.


Eric De Groot: The Trends Clearly Show The Worm Has Turned In The Labor Market:

For anyone not completely incapacitated by election year rhetoric and/or politics, please consider the following:

2010-2012 economic recovery has produced far fewer jobs than 2004-2006 (chart 1). 

          The 2003-2007 economic recovery was considered extremely weak.

The US driven by generations of excessive spending, ever-increasing socialism, and uncompetitive international taxation has slowly transformed its economy and labor force from the manufacturing to service hub of the world.  Service-producing jobs as a percentage of nonfarm payrolls have increased from 60% to 86% since 1953 (chart 2).  American have come to know this economy as swapping Made in the USA for Designed in the USA label and a steady decay in real hourly earnings and standard of livings for generations.

 No matter how the statiticians jigger the labor numbers to hide the trends, the worm has turned in the labor market.  The jobs creation histogram which studies both job creation/(destruction) and labor force participation peaked in early 2012 (chart 3)."

'via Blog this'

A Closer Look at the September Employment Report

By Mike "Mish" Shedlock

October 5, 2012

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/guest/Shedlock-121005-September-Employment-Report.php

Grossly Distorted Statistics

Given the complete distortions of reality with respect to not counting people who allegedly dropped out of the work force, it is easy to misrepresent the headline numbers.

Digging under the surface, the drop in the unemployment rate over the past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage. Things are much worse than the reported numbers indicate.

Only 114K New Jobs,
But the Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8%

By Doug Short

October 5, 2012

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Unemployment-and-the-Market.php


This is a lot more folks than just Jack Welch questioning the reliability / accuracy of the numbers. The conspiracy of the numbers shell-game does not have to come from the BLS itself BTW. It's more a failure of the methodology in the context of the current environment that has made the number so politically charged. The folks on the other end of the "household survey" could be distorting the number.

from the Economic Collape blog:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/a-jobs-report-conspiracy

The following is a sampling of skeptical quotes about this jobs report....

Former GE chief Jack Welch

Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers

Chapwood Capital Investment Management Managing Partner Ed Butowsky

I feel like I’m watching a movie. There is no way in the world these numbers are accurate.

Neil Irwin of the Washington Post

"Weird that payrolls are exactly on forecast but household survey is far better."

Conn Carroll, senior editorial writer for the Washington Examiner

While it is highly improbable that BLS conspired to cook the books, there is still a huge 756,000 job gap between the number of jobs employers told the Labor Department they created in September (114k), and the number of Americans who told the labor department that they got new jobs (873k).

U.S. Representative Allen West

I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here. Somehow by manipulation of data we are all of a sudden below 8 percent unemployment, a month from the Presidential election. This is Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book "Rules for Radicals"- a must read for all who want to know how the left strategize . Trust the Obama administration? Sure, and the spontaneous reaction to a video caused the death of our Ambassador......and pigs fly.

Gluskin Sheff's David Rosenberg

That the 7.8 percent jobless rate takes it to the level that prevailed when the President took office in January 2009 has raised many an eyebrow. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. But I don't believe in the Household Survey either. 

This notoriously volatile indicator has become even more so in recent months. It showed a 195K slide in July and a 119K decline in August, to only then reveal a massive 873K surge in September.

Radio host Laura Ingraham

"Jobs #s from Labor Secretary Hilda Solis are total pro-Obama propaganda--labor force participation rate at 30-yr low. Abysmal!"

Americans for Limited Government

"Either the Federal Reserve, which has its fingers on the pulse of every element of the economy, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics manufacturing survey report are grievously wrong or the number used to calculate the unemployment rate are wrong, or worse manipulated. Given that these numbers conveniently meet Obama's campaign promises one month before the election, the conclusions are obvious."

Rick Santelli of CNBC

"I told you they'd get it under 8 percent — they did! You can let America decide how they got there!"

BTW, here's more fuel for the "conspiracy" fire. How can we take any of these numbers seriously? How can this thing called inflation be 2% under one methodology, 5% under another and 9% under another.



from Blacklistednews.com:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Inflation_Rate_Is_A_Lie_Too/21894/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Can we believe any of the economic numbers that the government is feeding us these days?  Most of the focus recently has been on the bizarre jobs report that the government released last Friday, but the truth is that the inflation rate is a lie too.   In fact, the way that the government calculates inflation has changed more than 20 times since 1978.   The government is constantly looking for ways that it can make inflation appear to be even lower. 

According to John Williams of shadowstats.com , if inflation was measured the same way that it was back in 1990, the inflation rate would be about 5 percent right now.  If inflation was measured the same way that it was back in 1980, the inflation rate would be about 9 percent right now.  But instead, we are expected to believe that the inflation rate is hovering around 2 percent.  Well, anyone that goes to the supermarket or fills up their vehicle with gasoline knows that prices are going up a lot faster than that.  Just about everything that we buy on a regular basis is steadily becoming more expensive, and so most Americans are not buying it when government officials tell us that there is barely any inflation right now.

John Williams is not the only one doing research into these inflation numbers.  According to the American Institute for Economic Research, the real rate of inflation was about 8 percent last year.  The following is an excerpt from a story that was recently posted on the website of Pittsburgh's NPR news station....

The federal government says that consumer prices rose moderately last year, but if you think the cost of everyday purchases increased more than that, then you’re probably right according to the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI) was up 3.1% in 2011. However, AIER’s Everyday Price Index (EPI) indicates most Americans saw their day-to-day costs increase by 8%. That’s because the EPI excludes housing, automobiles, furniture, appliances and other items purchased occasionally.

 All using methods that the government has used in the past? Because it serves THEM, not US to portray inflation as lower, therefore they FIND a method that makes it so.

 It's been going on for decades folks, by both parties.

I hate to break the news to some of you folks who still believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Obama, but your government lies to you. This administration is just more brazen about it than most.

Coming from the guy who was described -- by one of his current BFF's -- as the "Biggest Fairy Tale ever", why should we really be surprised  that we feel like we are living in an Alice in Wonderland world. BTW, Clinton blisters the media and their rose-colored glasses in the same rant.

Bill Clinton on Obama: Big Fairy Tale

The (ever) growing list of Obama lies:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/08/busted_team_obama_caught_lying_about_cancer_ad

http://visiontoamerica.com/12437/wh-spokesperson-okay-fine-weve-been-lying-about-romneys-tax-plan/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/06/21/four_pinnochios_for_latest_obama_attack

Why I love Allen West!!

In three minutes, he illustrates where we are headed as a nation. And the idiot media acolyte responded with a moronic "Wait, What?!?" type of follow-up question. As if he didn't hear or understand the answer.

This is why we are in the mess we are in. 

This is another reason why he was my VP pick over Paul Ryan.

The republic cannot survive so much dependency

Commentary: What the 47% who rely on government must know

By Rep. Allen West

Sept. 18, 2012, 7:31 p.m. EDT 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-republic-cannot-survive-so-much-dependency-2012-09-18 

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Gov. Mitt Romney's comments about the percentage of Americans who have grown economically dependent on the government for their sustenance, and as a result, see little benefit in changing course, is neither new nor outrageous.

More than 170 years ago, the French political thinker and writer, Alexis de Tocqueville saw this coming, and warned of its dangers in his most famous writing, Democracy in America. Here is an excerpt below:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

Our public treasury cannot sustain further "largesse." Our national debt has ballooned to more than $16 trillion. The top 25 percent of wage earners contribute 87 percent of all tax revenue and it is numerically impossible to tax them sufficiently to pay for this expansion of federal government – let alone pay down our debt. For another viewpoint, read Rex Nutting's column on the 47%.

Our entire fiscal and monetary policy is now based on one simple axiom: What we cannot tax, we borrow, and what we cannot borrow, we print.

The path we are on in 2012 is perilous and unsustainable. We must change course.

This November, Americans will not simply be choosing one man or another as president, they will be choosing the future direction of these United States of America.

The question is not whether one candidate is nicer or more likable or even easier to relate to. The fundamental question all Americans must ask themselves is what kind of a nation shall we be? And what does it mean to be an American?

Since 2009, our nation has changed dramatically. Work force participation is at a 31-year low, and millions of Americans have simply given up looking for a job. While 43 straight months of unemployment at or above 8% is dismal enough, it is not even the whole awful truth.

The true level of unemployment, based on the U6 computation rate (including unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged workers) is now at 14.7%, climbing more than 3 percentage points since President Barack Obama took office.

Despite our federal government's borrowing over a trillion dollars each of the last three years in order to expand "investment" and "stimulate our economy," we now have a record number of Americans in poverty and a record number on food stamps.

The fact is, the Obama administration is fostering a nation of dependency.

As a result, the very foundations of our nation, and the principles upon which this Republic prospered and succeeded, have been turned upside down.

Instead of unleashing the indomitable American spirit of free enterprise, this administration and their liberal progressive acolytes seek to punish success, by taxing those who create jobs and produce goods and services, and re-distributing it to those who do not.

Sadly, those Americans who depend so heavily on government programs seem the most unaware that the programs upon which they rely on are in danger of disappearing altogether. As Margaret Thatcher stated so eloquently, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "

It is not "compassionate" to promise more and more government benefits when it is our children and grandchildren who will be forced to pay for them. It is not "caring" to encourage greater and greater dependence on a system destined for collapse without reform.

Many of the 47% to which Gov. Romney referred (actually closer to 48.6%) must understand it is the liberal progressive policies of President Obama that have forced them into dependency. Their path to prosperity lies with economic freedom and an unfettered market, not more government and bureaucracy.

In this election, Americans must wake up to the facts, and more importantly, to the reality of what lies ahead if we do not reform our mandatory spending programs, reduce the regulatory red tape strangling our small businesses, institute sound fiscal and tax policies, and slow down the growth of the welfare nanny-state.

Allen B. West is a Republican congressman from Florida.

2 U.S. Supreme Court Justices – And Numerous Other Top Government Officials – Warn of Dictatorship

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-19/2-us-supreme-court-justices-%E2%80%93-and-numerous-other-top-government-officials-%E2%80%93-w 

Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter told University of New Hampshire School of Law that the "pervasive civic ignorance" in the U.S. could bring dictatorship:

I don't worry about our losing a republican government in the United States because I'm afraid of a foreign invasion. I don't worry about it because of a coup by the military, as has happened in some other places. What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed people will not know who is responsible, and when the problems get bad enough — as they might do for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown — some one person will come forward and say:  'Give me total power and I will solve this problem.'

That is how the Roman republic fel.  Augustus became emperor not because he arrested the Roman senate. He became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved.