Monthly Archives: November 2012
For starters, Research In Motion is in this smartphone battle to win it. While some analysts just simply cluessly regurgitate what they read or hear from equally clueless analysts without investing sometime to at least research them; other big time analysts/hedge fund managers have a huge vested interest in RIM’s downfall. They are either already betting or planning to bet against the stock prices positive movement. This can be a huge bet and the only way to get it right is to engage in some manipulative analysis of the market/business performance. Unfortunately, RIM has become a good moving target for these guys, because its situation perfectly fits into their bill.
Misek is just one of many folks that take part in deliberately redefining what the stock market is; that is, from a true market that was driven by genuine market fundamentals (as we used to know it in those days) into a market defined by artificial forces orchestrated by a group of well coordinated financial syndicate, with the sole intent of driving the market where they want it. Essentially, ordinary investors become gamblers by innocently taking part in this stock market – meaning you could win big, if you’re lucky or lose everything if you play into their hands. Mr. Misek knows too well how this works and he knows the full impact of comments made by him. Mr. Misek is also not the only one doing this, it is a systemic problem.
In the midst of all these overwhelming negativity, I silently hope that RIM pulls this off with the launch of BB10. I’m very certain that the sentiment would be reversed and all these guys will be forced to eat their words. Most importantly, be cautious out there and take research notes/analysis with a grain of salt. To put it simply; they don’t have any clue, they just go with the flow. Hopefully, the BB10 flow will drag them along.
Mitt Romney put up a performance I never expected. He lost big, sure, but he still picked up 206 Electoral College votes and garnered in excess of 59 million popular votes (still counting as of the time of writing this). I consider that respectable, considering that this guy had many ridiculous missteps during the primaries and general election seasons. Personally, I expected the electorates to be unforgiving to most of those missteps, simply because I see them as being fundamental definitions of what Romney is about. But of course, I respect that people moved on and still voted for him in that magnitude.
Romney is a guy you would normally want to like, but he makes it almost impossible. This guy changes his stance almost everytime he blinks, which is ridiculous, considering he was judged the winner of the first debate based on this pretext. Throughout the debate, I religiously followed the polls and I look at Romney and what he stood for, but I didn’t get it. How come the polls were so close, given that this guy almost knew anything about running a country? He was notorious for opening his mouth and just uttering whatever came out of it, with little or no thinking. Most recently, he had the gut to blame his loss on Obama’s “gift” to minorities, really? How could he say such a thing for God’s sake? Has he totally lost his mind? It’s so scary to think Americans could have voted for this thing in a heartbeat. He fails to talk about how he influenced his CEO friends to threaten employees who don’t vote for him and he used this to somehow reinforce his 47% claim. I sometimes joke to my wife that Romney is just as clueless as Palin, but he maintains a slight upper hand. He sure owes the minorities a public apology!
I’m sure a lot of people will be very familiar with the term “polarizing” more often than not. That’s a term that has been used many over the course of Obama’s candidacy back in 2008 and during his presidency up until now. A very thin line separates “divisive” and “polarizing”, but what people fail to point out at times is the fact that if you’re divisive, you’re most likely in control and are deliberately doing it for gains; while on the other hand, you’re totally powerless when you’re seen as being “polarizing”. Most times, this happens because of certain circumstances and of course, in Obama’s case, race is a huge factor.
The media likes to spin this as much as they like and sometimes, it’s erroneously implied that he deliberately created a polarizing figure in himself. That’s totally false! The Republicans know this problem exists and they sure take every advantage of it, which of course is expected in politics. What’s unusual is how this party uses this. The Republican party has some conservative ideologies that I connect with and appreciate; but on the flip side, they have some outrageously crazy ideologies that drive me nuts!
It remains to be seen how much longer the Republican Party will be in existence, especially with their recent loss to Barack Obama. As long as they continue to allow the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Lou Dobbs and the Tea Party to profess extremism and shape the party into that perceived to be anti-immigrant, racist and hateful; they will have a long way to go. Personally, I don’t agree with everything the President has done in the last four years, but hey, that’s what life is all about. What I find disgusting is the type of conservatism that has become the signature of this Republican party; they have become so reliant on negative enthusiasm or racial bias to win an election? In all I’ve written above, I have to acknowledge that this is not what every Republican out there is about, but it’s important for them to join in reshaping the party and bringing some sanity. Times have changed; this is no longer 1980 or 1988 when a simple war-mongering tactic could win elections – I recall I used to also get very excited whenever America was going to war with the enemy; those brainwashing hardly work these days, except for Bush Jr. whom we all know hardly won in his two elections.