Entropy is setting in and Obama will lose this election

I tend to shy away from predicting the future.  If I’m right, the future was probably so obvious that everyone else had the same prediction.  If I’m wrong, I should have known better, and I end up walking away sadly scraping the egg from my face.

All morning, though, I’ve been toying with a post about the fact that I think November 2012 is going to be a blow-out election for Romney.  Originally, I thought he’d run a competent campaign (I’ve always had faith in his competence) and sort of ooze by Obama in a small victory.  With five months to go, though, I started revising that thought.  Day by day, especially this week, I’ve had a bizarre mix of metaphors running through my brain:  the walls are caving in, the dike is cracking, the avalanche is beginning its descent, etc.  Regardless of image, the point is the same:  a slow breakdown in a system is followed by a speedy collapse.

Politically, one of the best examples of the speed with which entropy occurs when a natural or man-made organism runs out of the energy to hold itself together is the Soviet Union’s collapse.  It was only in retrospect that people understood how rotten and fragile the USSR was.  It had been sold to us as a nation and political system every bit as hardy as the United States.  That’s why, in establishment eyes, Reagan committed the ultimate sin when he called the USSR an Evil Empire.  The establishment thought to itself “Never wave a red flag in front of a raging bull.”  Reagan, however, knew two things.  First, that something rotten to its core will disintegrate at the slightest touch and, second, that the USSR was just that rotten.  Reagan, and then Bush 41, tapped and tapped and tapped away at the weakened Soviet carapace and then, overnight it seemed, the Wall fell and the Iron Curtain vanished.

Precisely the same thing is happening with the Obama campaign.  It is imploding.  It was a bubble, a facade, a Potemkin village.  It’s essential fragility is making itself increasingly obvious.

I thought that earlier today and then I had that thought reinforced when I wandered over to HuffPo and saw this front page:


Keep in mind as you look at that screen shot that HuffPo one of Obama’s friends.  But it’s also a business (even though it’s run by people who view business as an activity for them, the elites, but not for all the peons who need to be under government control).  And a business goes with a big, big headline:  Total Mess.

“Total Mess” doesn’t just describe the world economy on Obama’s watch.  It describes the Middle East on his watch.  And it describes his own implosions:  the boastfulness, the arrogance, the ignorance, the viciousness. The campaign is stumbling from one incompetent moment to another.

Those closely allied with Obama are falling too.  Watching the Elizabeth Warren debacle, which has finally made it to the MSM, is almost embarrassing.  She can’t open her mouth without humiliating herself with another stumbling lie or explanation.  The only thing that saves the Warren spectacle from being truly embarrassing, as opposed to almost embarrassing, is the fact that Warren had this downfall coming.  An academic and political career built upon dishonesty and arrogance should flame out spectacularly.  The people of Massachusetts may yet step in to save Warren, but the public humiliation will never go away.

And how about the Wisconsin story?  It’s not just that Gov. Walker leads in the recall polls.  The really big story is that, given the choice not to join public sector unions, workers aren’t joining those unions, and they’re not joining in droves.  This means that, for all the corruption at the top — both within the State House and the Union shops — the ordinary workers didn’t feel they were getting a benefit.  If they had, they would have checked off that little contribution box without the necessity of political coercion.  Perhaps people are starting to figure out that, when the union bosses raise the funds that put the politicians in office, who then pay off the union bosses, the only ones who benefit are the politicos and the bosses.  The reality is that nobody likes either of those groups very much.

More than Obama’s flame-out, we’re also seeing Mitt Romney run a nimble, aggressive, and likeable campaign.  His team is getting responses up in minutes or hours.  Romney himself, having been shaped in the primary crucible, is more fluent in his speech and more accessible in his presentation than he’s ever been before.  He’s also adroitly side-stepping each of the traps that the Obama-ites think that they’ve oh-so-cleverly baited for him.

The snowball is rolling bigger and faster.  The avalanche is going from a whisper to a thunderous roar.  The dike’s cracks are widening into unstoppable failures.  Romney will win and Obama will lose.  And the win will be big and the loss will be a significant blow to Progressive politics.  To finish on a schadenfreude note, I will not regret seeing the most arrogant man ever to occupy the White House, and moreover a man whose arrogance was completely unjustified, take a well-deserved and public fall.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    My Mom and I were on our way to one her many medical appointments while listening to Tom Sullivan. She’s really worried about Obama being re-elected and asked what I thought. I said he will lose in November. She asked why I was so sure. You don’t sweat the small stuff; he’s sweating bricks over the small stuff, I answered. Now Mom is telling me about the small stupid things Obama and his folks are doing and isn’t so scared. 

  2. SADIE says

    “I’ve had a bizarre mix of metaphors running ….”
     
     
    I only had one, it was a Drudge Headline “Tornado Warning in DC” that prompted it. Today, June 1, is the first official day of the hurricane season, which ends November 30. The economy took a “soaking” between a very “windy” job report and the DJ barometer taking a dive. My running gag among friends is that the job of meteorologist insures that she/he can get it wrong everyday and still gets paid. The NWS gives each tropical storm/hurricane a name and I think Obama deserves one, too. I was playing with Hugh {as in Hugh Idiot}. :)
     
     
     
    If the weather from the WH continues, we’ll have a *perfect storm by November 6.
     
    *a critical or disastrous situation created by a powerful concurrence of factors .

  3. Charles Martel says

    We must not make the mistake of pushing Obama so hard against the ropes that it arouses bleeding heartedness. We don’t want a sympathy vote rescuing this vile little man.
     
    Romney should remember his Mexican roots and handle Obama the way an expert matador manipulates a bull. Slowly build the audience’s admiration as he draws out ever more snorts of helpless rage from El Potus.  

  4. gpc31 says

    I’m beginning to allow myself some hope, the same way I felt when Scott Brown gained momentum against Martha Coakley.
     
    Regarding Obama’s downfall, I’m beginning to feel like the dog in the Far Side “Cat Fud” cartoon:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/32027022@N05/3157903758/
     
    I continue to think that the fate of Eric Holder is the canary in this administration’s coal mine.  Scandals have a funny way of emerging during periods of political weakness; indeed, scandals are pursued seriously only when the prosecutors think that they can win.  Foes are emboldened and allies defect.  Does anyone fear Obama?  (That is a different question than being fearful of the continued damage he might do to the country.)  And if or when Holder goes, there goes his legal cover….
     
     

  5. SADIE says

    “And if or when Holder goes”,….speaking of devil

     

    Florida was Settled by Criminals
     
    In American History they taught that Florida was a depository for European criminals; but how long does it take to purge them from the voter rolls? It would appear Republican Gov. Rick Scott has been doing his part to make voter rolls match up with eligible voters; even asking Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security Department to assist in this effort. So why are the feds, specifically Eric Holder’s Justice Department, telling Florida to cease and desist cleaning up the mess?

    “In a move that comes just months before the state could play a pivotal role in the 2012 presidential election, the U.S. Department of Justice contends that the state is violating federal law in its effort to identify and remove ineligible voters.”

  6. JKB says

    The moment will be when Obama’s transcripts are mysteriously published. Low or average grades will be the reason to justify the abandonment due to being conned.

  7. says

    “To finish on a schadenfreude note,I will not regret seeing the most arrogant man ever to occupy the White House, and moreover a man whose arrogance was completely unjustified, take a well-deserved and public fall.”

    I do not think that Obama would be psychologically unable to take such  a fall. If it appears very likely that he will lose, despite all possible dirty tricks, he will withdraw, probably in favor of Hillary.

  8. Oldflyer says

    Agree with you Book.  On my optimistic days I have felt for some time that the American people would catch up with Obama.  I never felt that he commanded a political juggernaut; but rather benefited from a perfect storm generated by the economy in the fall of ’08, the feel good aspects of voting for a Black man, and McCain’s own political ineptitude.
     
    I do believe that Romney will keep the pressure on, and deep down I expect Obama to wilt.  On the other hand, there are so many scenarios that can be orchestrated from the White House.    I would not be surprised at a “wag the dog” episode with military action against Iran if it looks like he is in serious trouble.  Probably a half-hearted effort just enough to rally the people to him, and stir up trouble; then a bail-out before the job is finished.
     

  9. swedishlady says

    I really appreciate this blog. And the name of the blog, “Bookworm room”, is very nice. I am new here and I hope that you accept a non American peeking in. I lived in the US during the eighties, my son and daughter were born there, and I have kept my interest and love of the US although I have  moved back to my home country. I share your view of Obama, he is a disaster, that´s why I come here to read your interesting articles and comments.

  10. Danny Lemieux says

    I would prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

    Although I am very encouraged by events (Romney channeling Breitbart, who would have thunk it?), a lot can still happen between now and November. There was a time when Clinton, too, seemed on the ropes early in his first election bid and he came roaring back. We can’t anticipate how other world or domestic events will intrude to affect the outcome.

    It will be interesting to see how Obama reacts to the first real threat to his narcissistic self image. Ditto for the people around him.

    I would hate to see the country and world disintegrate around him, as I believe that he is capable of doing great harm on his way down.

  11. Zhombre says

    Love the matador metaphor, Charles Martel.  I’m of the opinion support for Romney will grow and support for Obama will crater and not all the hasty scaffolding and backfill provided by the media will save his Kenyan/Indonesian Chicago-machine-tooled butt. 

  12. Beth says

    I’m with Oldflyer–nothing would surprise me.  Because I don’t believe Obama is where he is on his own, my feeling is that his investors will do anything.  Never let a crisis go to waste and all that.
    As for his heightened sense of self-image, he’s not the only one–it’s pervasive throughout those who believe in him; from those in Congress all the way down to my relations who voted for him.  They are enlightened and we are the slugs.  None of them will take a defeat lightly. 
     
     
     

  13. jj says

    Y’all enjoy yourselves – I’ll remain the official pessimist.  I have seen the American people do so goddam many stupid things and walk open-eyed into some goddam many dumb-ass problems – problems a half bright gerbil would manage to avoid – that having sunk to the level required to have elected him the first time I don’t see anything that prevents them doing it again.  (Who’s your husband voting for, Book?)  And David Axelgrease – who really is the shitweasel Rove was accused of being – has not yet had his say.
     
    I can think of 11,000 reasons not to re-elect the little son of a bitch – but 9,000 of them were in place before anybody did the first time – four years ago.  They did it anyway.  I am not so complacent.

  14. SADIE says

    “I believe that he is capable of doing great harm on his way down”.

    He’s already done incredible damage standing in place. He’s not beyond writing himself a “pardon” on the way out with Eric Holder’s pen, the other POS. 

        

  15. Duchess of Austin says

    This is kind of off topic but I was wondering what you all think about whether or not Obama will actually allow Presidential debates with Romney.  I have a bet with a friend and I say Obama will *never* agree to debates.  He’ll find a way to weasel out of them because Romney will pound him with his own record.  IMO it would be unwise for Obama, as the incumbent with a horrible record, to agree to the debates because it couldn’t possibly go well for him.
     
    I would be interested and grateful to see how the readers of this blog feel about it.
     
    Duchess

  16. SADIE says

    Ann Althouse at Instant Pundit received a very “odd” mailer about her neighbors and their political contributions.
    She isn’t the only one. Prof. Jacobson shares another “odd” email from a reader. Althouse’s mailer was from the “Greater Wisconsin Political Fund” – who and what they are is anyone’s guess. The other mailer, from the link, identifies two Harvard researchers with links to laws, legalities, researchers, etc.
     
    Just letting you know your neighbors’ political contributions

  17. SADIE says

    POTUS will agree to at least two debates, unless he really has a hankering for another “first”. I can’t see how he could worm his way out of them. Then, again, I never understood how he wormed his way in.

  18. says

    Sadie….the Harvard “researchers” have a web site here.

    I put “researchers” in quotes because it is not clear to me what valid research purpose is intended to be served by the study and because the “ethics” person at Harvard to whom I put this question via email did not respond.

    It also seems odd that this website is not under Harvard’s dot-edu domain.
     

  19. SADIE says

    David Foster

    I failed to notice the absence of dot.-edu, but the web page looked “odd” enough without a logo. Well..looks like we have some very “odd researchers” as I don my deerstalker hat to hear Mrs. Hudson say,  “I believe that they are really after us.”
       

  20. Charles Martel says

    If Obama refuses to debate Romney, he will be walking into a far bigger trap than the one he’ll be walking into if he does agree to debate. Romney and the GOP can immediately point out that Obama, the supposedly smartest man ever to be president, shouldn’t be afraid to face an opponent who will have been bloodied and slandered every step of the way by a sycophantic mass media. After all, don’t Obama’s extraordinarily high grades from Occidental and Columbia, not to mention his SAT scores, indicate a genius-level intelligence?
     
    Oh, wait. Nobody’s ever seen The One’s college transcripts. But everybody’s seen Romney’s. Hmmmmmm.
     
     

  21. says

    Welcome, Swedishlady.  Please make yourself at home here. 

    On the merits, I’m with jj.  Obame has a bully pulpit, a billion dollar war chest, a vast dependent population that is very afraid the Republicans will end the gravy train and a complicit media.  Not to mention a large number of followers who are not above cheating.  If he can’t win with those advantages I’ll be very surprised.  

  22. Mike Devx says

    Duchess, I think Obama has to debate.  It’s an unavoidable part of the process. But I do think he’ll keep it to the minimum number of debates possible.

    DQ, the reasons you listed are all the good reasons why you cannot count Obama out in November.

    However:
    – Obama’s not very good at the bully pulpit.  Obama is very good at first impressions, but he wears on you quickly. After four years, everyone has seen and heard everything they want to see and hear.  His schtick really doesn’t work all that well anymore.

    – The billion dollar war chest.  It’s real, and that flood of TV advertising always does have an effect.  But there have been a surprising number of races in the last two years where the challenger was outspent 4-1 or 10-1 and still won. So it’s an advantage – or perhaps better to say, it’s a threat – but possibly not a decisive one.

    – Cheating.  A real risk, especially with electronic voting.  Democrats have refined low-tech cheating with voter registration rolls and “vote early and often” and the voting-when-dead phenomenon.  But that tends to only work when the election is close within a State.  High-tech cheating will be risky because you have to plan it and execute it for months, and if anyone finds out during all those months before the actual election, then you will be DEAD in the water.  I think hi-tech cheating is coming, and we’ll need to be vigilant, but I’m not sure the risk is high yet.

    – The vast dependent population that fears the end of the gravy train.  This one is interesting to me.  We know that we’ve reached the tipping point where half of the people are on the government dole and receiving significant benefits.  Many people tend to discuss them as if they were a mindless horde (much like zombies on another thread here!) who will all act in unison to protect their gravy train.  But I’m not so sure.  A significant portion of them WILL do just that.  But I think an equally significant number of them will actually vote based on the overall economy and the overall sense of the country headed in the wrong direction.  That group may be on the dole, but they’re not mindless yet.  

    Obama may be counting on their gratitude.  What he may find, instead, is that enough of them are worried or pissed off, enough, seeing that the country is going to hell in a handbasket, knowing that they are worse off than they were four years ago, and don’t see enough hope for their children… and they’ll march right in there and pull that lever against Obama.  He may end up quite surprised.

    It’s going to be interesting!
     

  23. says

    Thanks for the thoughtful responses and I’d be interested in hearing from others on these ideas.  As for events, I still believe that the news will be more positive than negative in the months between here and election day.  For example, the price of oil has dropped from $108 a barrel to $83 a barrel.  By election day, this drop will be reflected in the price of gas.  And gas prices dropping from $4 to $3 a gallon would surely benefit Obama’s campaign greatly. 

    I do completely agree that events, whichever way they turn out, will have a profound effect on the result.  

  24. Mike Devx says

    The price of oil and gasoline is interesting to me.

    It responds to the current economy because of the manner in which people are consuming it.  If the current economy is worsening, people start using less and less gasoline, and the price drops.

    Similarly it responds to current world events.  When the drumbeats of war against Iran are beating, the price rises due to fear that (for example) the Strait of Hormunz will be closed by Iran deliberately blocking it by sinking ships.

    But the oil and gasoline market is also affected by predictions for the future in both the economy and world events.  Hedge bettors (aka speculators) bid the price up or down as well, based on where they think the economy is headed, or what is likely to happen soon.

    The price of gas has fallen sharply due to events in the EU and surprising economic weakness in China; but not because of what HAS happened in the EU or in China, but because (I think) of what is predicted to happen in the EU and China.  They are factoring in, months ahead, where events are headed.

    The amazing weakness of the jobs report caused the stock market to plunge, not because of the jobs number itself, but because predictions had been that we were on the economic rebound, and those jobs numbers were SO terrible, that it’s clear that there will be no rebound over the next four to six months.  Expectations were unrealistically high, so the stock market was too high, and they quickly corrected.

    The drumbeats of war against Iran have at their lowest ebb in quite a while, for a few weeks now, also causing the price of oil and gas to drop.

    In sum, I think the professional traders are way ahead of us.  They’ve factored in Greece and Spain and Portugal, etc, and China, already.  The price of gasoline won’t go MUCH lower unless events prove even worse than predictions – if the economic downturn is far worse than expected – and the predictions have been dire for weeks now.

    If Bibi Netanyahu were as immature and vindictive and shallow as Obama, he could really screw Obama over.  Along about mid- to end-September, he could deliberately ratchet up the war fears with public pronouncements and mobilizations and civilian drills.  The “world” would respond with its usual immature frenzy.  If Netanyahu kept it up for a month a half, the price of oil and gas would skyrocket and stay high through the US election, harming Obama significantly.

    But Netanyahu won’t do that, because he’s not Obama; and Israel doesn’t telegraph their intentions when facing hostility such as that from Iran, nor when preparing to strike at the murderous genocidal threat that Iran would pose.

    So Greece will continue to flounder, and Spain will continue to paint itself ever more tightly into an inescapable corner, and China will continue to struggle along with their current economic woes, all for the next five or six months.  And all this is probably already factored into the current low cost of oil by the realists in the market.  I don’t see the price of oil dropping much further.  (In fact, because I think the fears of an EU implosion are premature – not wrong, but premature – I think the price of oil is going up again soon.)
     

  25. Charles Martel says

    While the price of gas may drop by election day, $3-per-gallon gas is no real consolation to people who cannot find employment in a depression economy. Obama has prolonged this depression, and that’s really all that Romney has to hammer at. 
     
    Also, Israel will most likely attack Iran before the election. Although we cannot know how that will affect oil prices, it’s safe to say that they will go up. Add to that Obama’s sheer incompetence: Even if he were to join the United States to Israel’s war, he would botch it. A war-weary U.S. population would not suffer his inevitable ineptitude to the point of rewarding him with another four years of golf rounds and shopping sprees for his bodaciously bingo-winged spouse.

  26. says

    But, CM, it’s all about trends.  The unemployment rate has been declining for many months as millions of new jobs are created.  Then one bad month comes along (and even then a few net new jobs are created), the rate ticks up a barely visible 0.1%, and everybody panics, because the trend has been reversed.  If gas goes from $4 to $3 just before election, people will see it as mioving in the right direction and as reason to give Obama another 4 years to finish the job.

    BTW, I can’t think of a rational definition of depression in which this is a depression.  Spain and Greece are in a depression.  We’re not.  As a technical matter, we’re not even in a recession, though I’ll grant you it sure feels that way.    

  27. Charles Martel says

    DQ, let’s say it really is all about trends. Do trends take into account people’s individual emotional states? We’ve been told for two years now that we’re not in a recession, although you’ll grant that it “sure feels that way.” (“Doc, look, my leg’s been severed!” “No, no, Mr. Martel, see that sliver if skin extending from your leg to your thigh? That means you’re still connected!”)
     
    So, who are we to believe? Our loving husband (the mass media and experts”) or our lying eyes (our own bad economic circumstances)? I suppose you could make the case that the terribly abstract news that somebody somewhere has gotten a job will make us hopeful enough that lightning will strike us if we just vote for Obama.
     
    I’m with Book on this one—there simply aren’t enough lies left in Obama’s quiver, including statistics, that will allow him to retain the edge he had in 2008.

  28. Duchess of Austin says

    Obama can’t run as the outsider this time, either.  Or the “blank canvas” that everybody can pin their hopes and dreams (and their mortgage) on.  Now he *is* the establishment and unless he drags the stinking corpse of GWB out of the closet to run against, he’s pretty much screwed.  This is why I don’t see him agreeing to any debates.  He will do the same thing he did over the whole “matching funds” thing he did to McCain.  He said he would take them and then as soon as McCain committed to it, he bailed.
     
    My money says he’ll say that he’s “too busy running the world” to bother to debate with Romney, or some such excuse.  I just don’t see where its to his advantage to even agree to ONE debate.  Romney, or anybody else, would wipe the floor with him.  All Romney has to do is pound him with his own record and what’s Obama gonna do?  Point to Romney and say “well, you’re rich!!?”  IMO it would be political suicide for Obama to debate.
     
    The only real accomplishments he has to run on is Obamacare and getting Bin Laden.  If SCOTUS kills that one this month…what can he possibly point to in a debate as an accomplishment?  47 unaccountable czars?  His foreign policy record?  (yeah right)  Hugo Chavez will be dead by November so maybe he can claim credit for the cancer that killed him….
     
    My question is this…if Obama is the most brilliant politician we’ve ever had as POTUS (and I’d say that this title would arguably go to Bill Clinton) why would he commit political hari-kari by agreeing to a debate since he’s the incumbent?  That doesn’t make sense to me, a mere mortal, so how could it make sense to Obama’s handlers?

  29. Mike Devx says

    DQ says:
    > But, CM, it’s all about trends.  The unemployment rate has been declining for many months as millions of new jobs are created.  Then one bad month comes along (and even then a few net new jobs are created), the rate ticks up a barely visible 0.1%, and everybody panics, because the trend has been reversed.

    DQ I don’t have the numbers, but it is not my impression that “millions of new jobs” have been created over these “many months” recently.  Most of the months, the number of jobs created have been below the population ratio number – something around 250,000 jobs would be created each month just to keep pace with the rising population in the US.  And most months, that hasn’t happened.

    The unemployment rate has been falling mostly because discouraged workers drop out of seeking jobs.  And they then simply are no longer counted.  They disappear from the statistics.  They’re still out of work, but they’re not counted. But the unemployment rate still drops, just a little. 

    In this most recent report, a mere 60,000 jobs were created, which is a terrible number.  How can you say that “even then a few net jobs were created”?  That doesn’t make sense, not when you need 250,000 jobs just to keep breaking even.

    Then you say, “the rate ticks up a barely visible 0.1%”.  Unless you’re in a collapse where the economy is hemorrhaging jobs – as it was in early 2009 – the job rate just doesn’t change quickly in any one month.

    A president and Congress can set policies that 1. provide long-range stability and predictability and 2. encourage job growth.   Obama has gone out of his way to violate both of these conditions.  It is entirely predictable that businesses will not be hiring.

    Did you see Obama’s latest speech video?  The “furnace thing-a-ma-jig” video.  I liked the way he went all faux-black after people laughed. How transparent.  But what really caught my eye was that he wanted to give everyone $3,000 dollars.  “We could all use an extra $3,000 in our pockets, you know?” he says.  That’s an obvious true statement, but HOW would Obama put $3000 in everyone’s pocket?  How?  You typically do that by dropping taxes, but Obama certainly has no intention of dropping taxes. No, the Magical Obama is going to come up with this money… from where? … and redistribute it to everyone by having the government hand a redistribution check to “everyone” apparently.  So on the eve of an election, he’s handing out free money, printed off the printed presses, or stolen from the “rich”….   (who don’t have enough to give everyone else a free $3000, no matter how you define “the rich”.

    It’s blatant election year idiocy.  Our national debt is above 100% of GDP, climbing to the dreaded 120% of GDP, and Obama is going to hand out $3000 dollars-from-nowhere to “everyone” just before an election?  Nuts!

    As Charles M says, the quiver is empty of arrows, if this is all Obama has.  You sort of expect the Obama campaign to be holding back its big arrows until later in the campaign, in August-October, but one gets the feeling that they’re not holding back anything.  That they simply have NOTHING.

     

  30. says

     
    Thanks, Mike.  Well done.
     
    I would only add that as the long-term unemployed run out of their 99 weeks of eligibility, the number of “disabled” has been skyrocketing. 
     
    Unemployment is only as “low” as it is because vast numbers of folks who don’t have employment are not being counted as unemployed.
     
    And BW…..?  From your lips to G-d’s ears.

  31. Mike Devx says

    Yeah, Earl, I’ve heard that the real unemployment rate is somewhere in the range 15% – 20%.

    It’s hard to count because you don’t know if they still WANT to work but can’t find it, or are they actually comfortable and simply choosing not to work or look for work?  For example, at the end of a software contract, sometimes I’ll take two or three months off before the next gig.  I’m “unemployed” during those months in a sense, but I’m not one of those discouraged people who have given up looking.

    Surveys indicate that most of them are discouraged and have simply stopped looking; they want to work, but they cannot find it.
     

Trackbacks

  1. Monday morning links…

    Why Anchoress wants you to read Sigrid Undset Britain’s Already Dead, It Just Hasn’t Been Buried Yet – Don’t be fooled by the pomp of the Queen’s royal Diamond Jubilee flotilla this weekend. Britain is a country rotting from the inside. Boa…

  2. Watcher’s Council nominations…

    The Right Planet – Memorial Day Tribute: My Granddad The Noisy Room – Silencing the Clarions The Colossus of Rhodey – The times — they are a changin’ Joshuapundit-Obama: ‘Some Of My Best Friends Are Jews’ The Independent Sentine…

Leave a Reply