Thank you for your interest in this blog. Libs and Cons at libsandcons.blogspot.com will resume posting new material in October 2010, as I will be living abroad in Seoul, South Korea.
Have a happy and prosperous year!
Dustin Newcombe
libsandcons.blogspot.com
01 November 2009
16 May 2009
Libs and Cons Help List: Federal, State, and Local Resources for Tough Times
Times is tough. Your Government's here to help!
Health Services
Health Services
- Medical Assistance at http://www.findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov
- Mental Health Assistance at http://www.whatadifference.org
- National Alliance on Mental Illness at http:// www.nami.org
- Public Housing near you at http://www.hud.gov/local/index.cfm
- Shelters near you at http://www.socialsecuritylaw.com/CM/Custom/TOCLowCostHousingResources.cfm
- State Benefits Programs at http://www.govbenefits.gov
- Social Welfare Services at http://www.socialwelfareservices.org
- Human Services Office at http://www.hhs.gov
- Your local office at http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/outreach/map.htm
- An application at: http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/food_stamp_state_application_forms_online.htm
- United Way at http://www.liveunited.org
- Salvation Army at http://www.salvationarmy.org
- Find your representative at http://www.congress.org (searchable database by zip)
13 May 2009
A Broken Record: Decomposing the Music of the Right
Dear Phantom de Comment,
As I've said, I don't mind the comments; keep them coming. But you're increasingly a coward masked by anonymity, afraid to own his fractured ideology.
It's a sad comment on our education system that you fundamentally do not understand basic economic pinciples, let alone those of the international variety.
I'll give you this: you understand your own bank account. So manage your own bank account up right and let somebody who understands economics talk about economics.
If your taxes happen to increase because you make $250k a year or more, work a little harder or a little smarter. Fortunately for you, with Obama in office, you you can probably maintain or even work a little less and your wealth will still grow. And just a little heads up, if you happen to be part of an ever decreasing population with disposable income, now would be a superb time for you to invest. In about five years, you'll be a very rich man.
But an economist you are not. Under an economic system of international opportunity funded by the developed world, even if your wealth were to decrease, you will experience little difference -- and perhaps even an increase --in your real standard of living. Do you understand what real means, like economically, or even in general? Spending money on other people may seem irrational and wasteful, but over time it expands the international consumption base.
For you this translates to an increase overall in your REAL standard of living. Furthermore, as the demand for the shit you sell if you are a salesperson or the shit you manufacture if you are a manufacturer increases, your earning potential increases, exponentially.
This is not rocket science. It's not brain surgery. It's not Reagonomics, Keynesanomics, or Socialism. It's not international charity or economic catastrophe. It is economics boiled down to its most basic and fundamental relationship: SUPPLY & DEMAND. If you do not understand the inverse relationship between supply and demand, you might go back to ninth grade and sit in on an economics class or two.
But perhaps its not the real standard of living that you gives you your rise.
Perhaps your rise is from the pedestal that you create for yourself by holding others down. Maybe your position on this pedestal makes you feel like a big man who can point big condescending fingers at others and say, "I'm right because I am not wrong." And despite how buffoonish this sounds it makes you feel good. That and the viagra-inspired dream of being wrinkle free and hard as a rock in the geriatrics ward may well be your driving force in life.
For me this isn't about being right, it's about doing what's right. Call it my bleeding heart, but I just care. I guess that's what makes me a lib and you a con. I care and you don't.
Some people measure experience in years, and others measure it in experience. I may be younger, but I have experienced a lot. Nevertheless, I've never been on welfare, I've never collected an unemployment benefit, I've worked hard since I was sixteen and haven't worked less than two jobs since I was a Freshman in college.
Even when I lost my job last year, I worked two shit jobs. When these jobs couldn't quit make the ends meet, I moved into my friend's living room and saw my car get repossessed. I've felt the consequences of my mistakes exacerbated by the fallout from others' mistakes. I'm a better person today because I made mistakes and felt the consequences of those mistakes. I'm lucky, too, because I got to go to college. And when things got really bad financially for me in 2008, I had family good enough to help me out with a loan when no one else would. So let me be clear in say how lucky I am.
But there are those who are far less privileged than me; I talk to them everyday in my current job as a case manager for a law firm specializing in Social Security Disability Benefits.
It is not uncommon to talk to disabled veterans who can't even get a disability benefit for conditions earned defending our country. I speak quite often with the hard working Americans who've done the grunt work that somebody's gotta do for the past 30 years and now suffer from degenerative disc diseases and spinal conditions that won't get any better over the two years they'll likely wait to get disability benefits and pay for treatment. Helplessly, they watch their prognosis deteriorate from "fair" to "poor" while they await a benefit to go get treatment, because in America you can't get treatment without a job, and you can't get a job with a disability. It's a vicious catch 22.
And the lucky few with terminal cases that actually do get awarded in a timely fashion would probably be shit out of luck had the Bush administration been successful in privatizing Social Security instead of merely sabotaging it for eight years. F*** me, frankly, because this blog isn't not about me versus you and your cronies. You may find peace of mind knowing that far worse things have happened to far better people than what happened to me last year.
And if I draw on my personal experiences experiences occasionally, it is because I'm just writing about what I know about. That's what make this my blog. So let me just say it again, clearly: this blog is not a pity party for me or any of my middle class friends. Yes, I occasionally decry a failed economy created, ironically, by a baby boom generation that benefited from Roosevelt's New Deal and access to affordable college and affordable health care. I may occasionally allude to an economic meltdown that will leave much of this greedy baby boom generation reliant on my generation to sustain a quality of life they feel they deserve. But these days I'm feeling ready and up to the lofty challenge.
I acknowledge that there is a bluff inherent in this blog that glorifies the Libs and marginalizes some Cons. But we as a nation have been failed by the Cons. And I make no secret that I have some fundamental problems with the Republican party, and specifically an undercurrent of "American exceptionalism" that sounds increasingly like a chorus sung by Klansmen of the Ku Klux variety.
Make no mistake, I am not Anti-American; I am anti-Dick Cheney, anti-Rush Limbaugh, and anti -Karl Rove and anti-their klan of designing henchmen.
I am pro-REAL AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, characterized by opportunity for those who work hard being able to achieve their full, individual achievement within the framework of widespread socioeconomic opportunity.
So to the phantom de blogger, whomever you may be, continue singing the music of the right if it makes you feel better... if it makes you feel somehow "right!" But I can assure you the only threat to your safety and precious bank account is your own experienced and shortsighted thinking.
Think of me, and think of me fondly,
The Lib Who Writes This Blog
As I've said, I don't mind the comments; keep them coming. But you're increasingly a coward masked by anonymity, afraid to own his fractured ideology.
It's a sad comment on our education system that you fundamentally do not understand basic economic pinciples, let alone those of the international variety.
I'll give you this: you understand your own bank account. So manage your own bank account up right and let somebody who understands economics talk about economics.
If your taxes happen to increase because you make $250k a year or more, work a little harder or a little smarter. Fortunately for you, with Obama in office, you you can probably maintain or even work a little less and your wealth will still grow. And just a little heads up, if you happen to be part of an ever decreasing population with disposable income, now would be a superb time for you to invest. In about five years, you'll be a very rich man.
But an economist you are not. Under an economic system of international opportunity funded by the developed world, even if your wealth were to decrease, you will experience little difference -- and perhaps even an increase --in your real standard of living. Do you understand what real means, like economically, or even in general? Spending money on other people may seem irrational and wasteful, but over time it expands the international consumption base.
For you this translates to an increase overall in your REAL standard of living. Furthermore, as the demand for the shit you sell if you are a salesperson or the shit you manufacture if you are a manufacturer increases, your earning potential increases, exponentially.
This is not rocket science. It's not brain surgery. It's not Reagonomics, Keynesanomics, or Socialism. It's not international charity or economic catastrophe. It is economics boiled down to its most basic and fundamental relationship: SUPPLY & DEMAND. If you do not understand the inverse relationship between supply and demand, you might go back to ninth grade and sit in on an economics class or two.
But perhaps its not the real standard of living that you gives you your rise.
Perhaps your rise is from the pedestal that you create for yourself by holding others down. Maybe your position on this pedestal makes you feel like a big man who can point big condescending fingers at others and say, "I'm right because I am not wrong." And despite how buffoonish this sounds it makes you feel good. That and the viagra-inspired dream of being wrinkle free and hard as a rock in the geriatrics ward may well be your driving force in life.
For me this isn't about being right, it's about doing what's right. Call it my bleeding heart, but I just care. I guess that's what makes me a lib and you a con. I care and you don't.
Some people measure experience in years, and others measure it in experience. I may be younger, but I have experienced a lot. Nevertheless, I've never been on welfare, I've never collected an unemployment benefit, I've worked hard since I was sixteen and haven't worked less than two jobs since I was a Freshman in college.
Even when I lost my job last year, I worked two shit jobs. When these jobs couldn't quit make the ends meet, I moved into my friend's living room and saw my car get repossessed. I've felt the consequences of my mistakes exacerbated by the fallout from others' mistakes. I'm a better person today because I made mistakes and felt the consequences of those mistakes. I'm lucky, too, because I got to go to college. And when things got really bad financially for me in 2008, I had family good enough to help me out with a loan when no one else would. So let me be clear in say how lucky I am.
But there are those who are far less privileged than me; I talk to them everyday in my current job as a case manager for a law firm specializing in Social Security Disability Benefits.
It is not uncommon to talk to disabled veterans who can't even get a disability benefit for conditions earned defending our country. I speak quite often with the hard working Americans who've done the grunt work that somebody's gotta do for the past 30 years and now suffer from degenerative disc diseases and spinal conditions that won't get any better over the two years they'll likely wait to get disability benefits and pay for treatment. Helplessly, they watch their prognosis deteriorate from "fair" to "poor" while they await a benefit to go get treatment, because in America you can't get treatment without a job, and you can't get a job with a disability. It's a vicious catch 22.
And the lucky few with terminal cases that actually do get awarded in a timely fashion would probably be shit out of luck had the Bush administration been successful in privatizing Social Security instead of merely sabotaging it for eight years. F*** me, frankly, because this blog isn't not about me versus you and your cronies. You may find peace of mind knowing that far worse things have happened to far better people than what happened to me last year.
And if I draw on my personal experiences experiences occasionally, it is because I'm just writing about what I know about. That's what make this my blog. So let me just say it again, clearly: this blog is not a pity party for me or any of my middle class friends. Yes, I occasionally decry a failed economy created, ironically, by a baby boom generation that benefited from Roosevelt's New Deal and access to affordable college and affordable health care. I may occasionally allude to an economic meltdown that will leave much of this greedy baby boom generation reliant on my generation to sustain a quality of life they feel they deserve. But these days I'm feeling ready and up to the lofty challenge.
I acknowledge that there is a bluff inherent in this blog that glorifies the Libs and marginalizes some Cons. But we as a nation have been failed by the Cons. And I make no secret that I have some fundamental problems with the Republican party, and specifically an undercurrent of "American exceptionalism" that sounds increasingly like a chorus sung by Klansmen of the Ku Klux variety.
Make no mistake, I am not Anti-American; I am anti-Dick Cheney, anti-Rush Limbaugh, and anti -Karl Rove and anti-their klan of designing henchmen.
I am pro-REAL AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, characterized by opportunity for those who work hard being able to achieve their full, individual achievement within the framework of widespread socioeconomic opportunity.
So to the phantom de blogger, whomever you may be, continue singing the music of the right if it makes you feel better... if it makes you feel somehow "right!" But I can assure you the only threat to your safety and precious bank account is your own experienced and shortsighted thinking.
Think of me, and think of me fondly,
The Lib Who Writes This Blog
11 May 2009
How To Fight Terrorism
Here are my top ten tools for fighting Terrorism:
1. Bring home our troops and secure our borders as we can try to control others actions but we can truly only control our own
2. Replace advanced interrogation techniques with advanced surveillance techniques
3. Lead the world in relinquishing nuclear weapons to the United Nations with unprecedented transparency
4. Exercise sound diplomacy and allow our perceived enemies to have a voice internationally
5. Eliminate religious doctrine from Government, and embrace religious freedom for all people
6. Spread socio-economic opportunity to those countries cast indefinitely in the shadows of the developed world
7. Advance and update the Geneva conventions to respond to terrorism today
8. A strong national guard and a united, synergistic international Army capable of swift action
9. Set concrete goals for international peace
10. Take all action necessary up to and including the last resort of military action tounderstand and eliminate the roots of terrorism
1. Bring home our troops and secure our borders as we can try to control others actions but we can truly only control our own
2. Replace advanced interrogation techniques with advanced surveillance techniques
3. Lead the world in relinquishing nuclear weapons to the United Nations with unprecedented transparency
4. Exercise sound diplomacy and allow our perceived enemies to have a voice internationally
5. Eliminate religious doctrine from Government, and embrace religious freedom for all people
6. Spread socio-economic opportunity to those countries cast indefinitely in the shadows of the developed world
7. Advance and update the Geneva conventions to respond to terrorism today
8. A strong national guard and a united, synergistic international Army capable of swift action
9. Set concrete goals for international peace
10. Take all action necessary up to and including the last resort of military action tounderstand and eliminate the roots of terrorism
10 May 2009
Dick Cheney's Implication: Let's Fight Terror with Terror
RE: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/us/politics/11cheney.html?_r=1&hpw
His name sounds like a title character leftover from a gay bondage superhero porn that went way over budget.
He rides saddle back with Karl "Messenger of God" Rove, like the ambiguously gay duo back to the future part two. Thet work to guarantee that Cheney's own gay daughter never gets to marry. They proliferate a notion of American morality viz a viz the legal eradication of "same marriage."
Daddy makes up for little Mary Cheney's troubles with the promise of a fat inheritance courtesy, no doubt, of Halliburton whose board he sat on prior to his position as VP of the United States of America. As VP, Cheney awarded some phat oil contracts in Iraq to this company despite the obvious conflict of interest. But there's was no time for Halliburton-gate in times of war, much less those that no no end.
Of course, who can forget this all occured following invasion of Iraq on the threat of a hoax that Dick Cheney perpetuated; to this day, we have not found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, much less one that presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. Nonetheless, Dick Cheney advanced a policy in Iraq made America, by definition, a terrorist nation. I wonder if Dick Cheney chuckled to himself late at night at how easy re-branding and marketing terrorism can be in America; "pre-emptive strike" isn't even that catchy of a campaign. But I guess catchiness isn't necessary when you have the federal budget, degrees of legitimacy, and the media at your disposal.
If it weren't enough to simply fight terror with terror, Vice President Dick Cheney then took unprecedented action to authorize internationally illegal interrogation techniques against prisoners of war that the Geneva conventions define as torture. He then led a similar semantics quelling campaign to redefine torture in America under the less emotionally inciting banner of "advanced interrogation techniques." Again, catchiness means little in marketing campaigns with limitless channels of distribution and the federal budget.
Today, in defiance of his own questionable definition of patriotism, Dick Cheney has become the de-facto leader of a campaign against President Obama. This is nothing short of a concentrated campaign discredit President Obama's authority as the leader of the free world and continue the fear-mongering that he orchestrated from behind the curtains of President George W. Bush as if America were Oz and he himself is the great and powerful wizard hereof.
(Somewhere between then and now, W realized that he had had been fooled too often by the old gas guzzlin' fart he appointed Vice President. W grew a brain somewhere and has since teamed up with Bill Clinton to give speaches domestically; internationally he triest to make it up to Canada here and there for a solo gig.)
Meanwhile, the Dickmeister continues to talk. In fact, he talks more now than he ever did when he ran the country. He's like the micro-machine guy back in the 80's only he's talking about more than toy cars. He's actually attempting to sabotage a sitting President who's doing a far better job of managing America in 100 days than old Dicky and his great and powerful President could manage in 2,920 days.
Unfortunately because of unacceptable behind-closed-doors policies like torture and terrorism, Dick Cheney's prophecy could well be of the self-fulfilling variety. I think even Cheney himself underestimated President Obama's ability to advance hope and change as quickly as he has. But America is not in the clear, and we should be ready to unite as a nation behind our President as he undertakes the necessary measures to restore America position as a nation of diplomacy and high moral standard internationally.
His name sounds like a title character leftover from a gay bondage superhero porn that went way over budget.
He rides saddle back with Karl "Messenger of God" Rove, like the ambiguously gay duo back to the future part two. Thet work to guarantee that Cheney's own gay daughter never gets to marry. They proliferate a notion of American morality viz a viz the legal eradication of "same marriage."
Daddy makes up for little Mary Cheney's troubles with the promise of a fat inheritance courtesy, no doubt, of Halliburton whose board he sat on prior to his position as VP of the United States of America. As VP, Cheney awarded some phat oil contracts in Iraq to this company despite the obvious conflict of interest. But there's was no time for Halliburton-gate in times of war, much less those that no no end.
Of course, who can forget this all occured following invasion of Iraq on the threat of a hoax that Dick Cheney perpetuated; to this day, we have not found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, much less one that presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. Nonetheless, Dick Cheney advanced a policy in Iraq made America, by definition, a terrorist nation. I wonder if Dick Cheney chuckled to himself late at night at how easy re-branding and marketing terrorism can be in America; "pre-emptive strike" isn't even that catchy of a campaign. But I guess catchiness isn't necessary when you have the federal budget, degrees of legitimacy, and the media at your disposal.
If it weren't enough to simply fight terror with terror, Vice President Dick Cheney then took unprecedented action to authorize internationally illegal interrogation techniques against prisoners of war that the Geneva conventions define as torture. He then led a similar semantics quelling campaign to redefine torture in America under the less emotionally inciting banner of "advanced interrogation techniques." Again, catchiness means little in marketing campaigns with limitless channels of distribution and the federal budget.
Today, in defiance of his own questionable definition of patriotism, Dick Cheney has become the de-facto leader of a campaign against President Obama. This is nothing short of a concentrated campaign discredit President Obama's authority as the leader of the free world and continue the fear-mongering that he orchestrated from behind the curtains of President George W. Bush as if America were Oz and he himself is the great and powerful wizard hereof.
(Somewhere between then and now, W realized that he had had been fooled too often by the old gas guzzlin' fart he appointed Vice President. W grew a brain somewhere and has since teamed up with Bill Clinton to give speaches domestically; internationally he triest to make it up to Canada here and there for a solo gig.)
Meanwhile, the Dickmeister continues to talk. In fact, he talks more now than he ever did when he ran the country. He's like the micro-machine guy back in the 80's only he's talking about more than toy cars. He's actually attempting to sabotage a sitting President who's doing a far better job of managing America in 100 days than old Dicky and his great and powerful President could manage in 2,920 days.
Unfortunately because of unacceptable behind-closed-doors policies like torture and terrorism, Dick Cheney's prophecy could well be of the self-fulfilling variety. I think even Cheney himself underestimated President Obama's ability to advance hope and change as quickly as he has. But America is not in the clear, and we should be ready to unite as a nation behind our President as he undertakes the necessary measures to restore America position as a nation of diplomacy and high moral standard internationally.
02 May 2009
Democratic Senators Ignore Constituents, Vote for Banks
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
01 May 2009
Don't Be Distracted: Torture and Flu Claim Their First Presidential Casualty
From Phil Gaskin, http://thepointsbeyond.blogspot.com/
Early last week I sent a message urging everyone to stay focused on the main goals of the President and to not get distracted by the side conversations like torture and now the flu.
What occurred last night is what happens when distraction to which President Obama has referred since the campaign occurs. Last night the Foreclosure Relief Bill was defeated in the Senate with 11 Democratic Senators voting against the Bill. The Banks bought out the Senators. The same banks that got money from the government. This defeat is a stinging blow to many Americans who are in need of help to avoid losing their homes. These include people with good intentions that have always paid on time and did not participate in irresponsible practices .
It is on Bills like this the Administration needs our voices and calls/emails to Congress, but this time the voices did not speak up. And due to the distractions exacerbated by mostly the far left including Olbermann, Maddow, Hartmann, Move On, etc. TV screens, email boxes and phone lines were filled with torture and flu conversations instead of things like this Foreclosure Bill. As I have said before torture punishments can and will be handled by the DOJ in due time as they should be. Regarding the flu, I think people are now seeing the overreaction and the distraction this was/is. The other pressing matters in the moment like the survival of American jobs and American's ability to keep their homes etc. are the key subjects on which we have to make sure we stay laser focused. Otherwise we are not working to support the agenda we want. We are not paying attention to Congress, and putting pressure on them to support the bills that help us, the American people.
Here is a list of the Democratic Senators that voted against the Bill. I am trying to get a list of the banks that fund these Senators. Please feel free to call their switchboards or email if so inclined. It is unconscionable that in the face or our crisis and with the bailout money gone to these banks that these Senators voted against this Bill.
The main number is 1-800-962-3524. Please be cordial to the wonderful switchboard operators, but let the Congress' staff know exactly how you feel.Those who voted for the banks:
Max Baucus, Montana: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Michael Bennet, Colorado: http://bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=TransitionalSiteEmailSenatorBennet
Robert Byrd, West Virginia: http://byrd.senate.gov/
Tom Carper, Delaware: http://carper.senate.gov/index.cfm
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota: mailto:senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Tim Johnson, South Dakota: http://johnson.senate.gov/contact/
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana: http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Ben Nelson, Nebraska: http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Mark Pryor, Arkansas: http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania: http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
John Tester, Montana: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/
Early last week I sent a message urging everyone to stay focused on the main goals of the President and to not get distracted by the side conversations like torture and now the flu.
What occurred last night is what happens when distraction to which President Obama has referred since the campaign occurs. Last night the Foreclosure Relief Bill was defeated in the Senate with 11 Democratic Senators voting against the Bill. The Banks bought out the Senators. The same banks that got money from the government. This defeat is a stinging blow to many Americans who are in need of help to avoid losing their homes. These include people with good intentions that have always paid on time and did not participate in irresponsible practices .
It is on Bills like this the Administration needs our voices and calls/emails to Congress, but this time the voices did not speak up. And due to the distractions exacerbated by mostly the far left including Olbermann, Maddow, Hartmann, Move On, etc. TV screens, email boxes and phone lines were filled with torture and flu conversations instead of things like this Foreclosure Bill. As I have said before torture punishments can and will be handled by the DOJ in due time as they should be. Regarding the flu, I think people are now seeing the overreaction and the distraction this was/is. The other pressing matters in the moment like the survival of American jobs and American's ability to keep their homes etc. are the key subjects on which we have to make sure we stay laser focused. Otherwise we are not working to support the agenda we want. We are not paying attention to Congress, and putting pressure on them to support the bills that help us, the American people.
Here is a list of the Democratic Senators that voted against the Bill. I am trying to get a list of the banks that fund these Senators. Please feel free to call their switchboards or email if so inclined. It is unconscionable that in the face or our crisis and with the bailout money gone to these banks that these Senators voted against this Bill.
The main number is 1-800-962-3524. Please be cordial to the wonderful switchboard operators, but let the Congress' staff know exactly how you feel.Those who voted for the banks:
Max Baucus, Montana: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Michael Bennet, Colorado: http://bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=TransitionalSiteEmailSenatorBennet
Robert Byrd, West Virginia: http://byrd.senate.gov/
Tom Carper, Delaware: http://carper.senate.gov/index.cfm
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota: mailto:senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Tim Johnson, South Dakota: http://johnson.senate.gov/contact/
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana: http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Ben Nelson, Nebraska: http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Mark Pryor, Arkansas: http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania: http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
John Tester, Montana: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/
27 April 2009
The Role of the United Nations in the Post-Wall Street World
The global village is no longer some mythical economic universe. The domino effect that began with a mortgage crisis in the United States and spurred an historic worldwide economic recession is tangible economic proof that our village knows no boundaries. If the United Nations once existed with the dubious purpose to facilitate diplomacy, it exists today with a clear purpose to facilitate international economy. The role of the United Nations must rise in significance to oversee the building of an international economic infrastructure to deliver health, knowledge and security to the world.
There are those who will argue that the idea of an international governing body will impede the sovereign rights of individual nations. No doubt individual nations will have to make concessions; in the short run, the biggest concessions will be made by those nations that have the most to concede. The fundamentals of strong economy, be it local, state, national or global, suggest that the opportunity cost of waiting for another global economic meltdown necessitates that we make these concessions with urgency. Everybody wins with a universal workforce and consumption base that is healthy, educated, and secure.
As the argument persists in the United States for and against an affordable health care system that approaches “socialized health care,” there are little who doubt that the collective health of American citizens continue to diminish. Globally, the picture is even worse. In Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the rapid spread of HIV and AIDS continues to devastate development. Potential consumers and workers here whither in the forgotten shadows of the developed world. The developed world must wake up and smell the roses among these withering populations. A healthy global workforce is a happy and productive workforce.
If a healthy global population provides the base of a healthy economy, an infrastructure for education can make global health sustainable. Education can provide an infrastructure for preventative health care by instilling healthy mental and physical habits. Reading, writing, math, science, economics, and history should be a matter of course in the development of all societies; today, even in many developed nations, such basic pillars of a good education are absent. The slope of global progress continues to flatten.
Despair arises in the absence of knowledge and health. Terrorism grows in places cast indefinitely in the shadows of the developed world, where your best opportunity for health, knowledge and security may well be within the underground lairs of violent fringe movements. Think how easily we all have been culled into a fringe movement in the discontent of our youth before judging the choices of a young man whose existence is fraught with famine, disease, and violence. It is a desire for security in a chaotic world that drives these men to the fringe; violence goes without saying for those who have never known peace. The global opportunity cost for the existence of an unhealthy and uneducated “third world” population both creates and exacerbates the threat of terrorism; it is a global economic hindrance regardless of the security of your borders. Military action is a short term and sometimes shortsighted solution. Economic opportunity may sound more like a fantasy than a pragmatic solution; it is both.
Health, knowledge, and security are the interdependent pillars of our global economy long overdue for a strong global infrastructure. The United Nation’s purpose has never been clearer: to develop a borderless economic strategy that responds to an international economy that knows no borders.
There are those who will argue that the idea of an international governing body will impede the sovereign rights of individual nations. No doubt individual nations will have to make concessions; in the short run, the biggest concessions will be made by those nations that have the most to concede. The fundamentals of strong economy, be it local, state, national or global, suggest that the opportunity cost of waiting for another global economic meltdown necessitates that we make these concessions with urgency. Everybody wins with a universal workforce and consumption base that is healthy, educated, and secure.
As the argument persists in the United States for and against an affordable health care system that approaches “socialized health care,” there are little who doubt that the collective health of American citizens continue to diminish. Globally, the picture is even worse. In Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the rapid spread of HIV and AIDS continues to devastate development. Potential consumers and workers here whither in the forgotten shadows of the developed world. The developed world must wake up and smell the roses among these withering populations. A healthy global workforce is a happy and productive workforce.
If a healthy global population provides the base of a healthy economy, an infrastructure for education can make global health sustainable. Education can provide an infrastructure for preventative health care by instilling healthy mental and physical habits. Reading, writing, math, science, economics, and history should be a matter of course in the development of all societies; today, even in many developed nations, such basic pillars of a good education are absent. The slope of global progress continues to flatten.
Despair arises in the absence of knowledge and health. Terrorism grows in places cast indefinitely in the shadows of the developed world, where your best opportunity for health, knowledge and security may well be within the underground lairs of violent fringe movements. Think how easily we all have been culled into a fringe movement in the discontent of our youth before judging the choices of a young man whose existence is fraught with famine, disease, and violence. It is a desire for security in a chaotic world that drives these men to the fringe; violence goes without saying for those who have never known peace. The global opportunity cost for the existence of an unhealthy and uneducated “third world” population both creates and exacerbates the threat of terrorism; it is a global economic hindrance regardless of the security of your borders. Military action is a short term and sometimes shortsighted solution. Economic opportunity may sound more like a fantasy than a pragmatic solution; it is both.
Health, knowledge, and security are the interdependent pillars of our global economy long overdue for a strong global infrastructure. The United Nation’s purpose has never been clearer: to develop a borderless economic strategy that responds to an international economy that knows no borders.
25 April 2009
On Torture: The Lib Said Con Said
I think there are few, if any whose last name is not Cheney or Rove, who argue that torture is a term that can be applied to some of the interrogation techniques utilized at Guantanamo Bay. There are certain overrriding themes that the details just can't muddle. And there are certain details that demand an answer; many are accountable but who is guilty?
However, there is a lot to be done to get America back on track and the lib said con said should not be the Administrations top priority. If an American law was broken it is up to the Justice Department to open an investigation. If an international law was broken, it is up to the United Nations to open an investigation and for the United States to comply with international law.
The investigation into the Cheney administration (operating under the alias Bush)'s use of torture will be blurry. The investigative process, however, is clear.
If President Obama chooses to micromanage an investigation with a clear process and a fairly predictable ending, he will do voters a grave disservice. He has bigger messes in the economy, the education system, and the health care system to clean up.
So in this justice push for terrorist, do not forgot about those whose justice could be threatened if President Obama himself spends too much time on the issue: the America people, jobless, broke, and broken.
However, there is a lot to be done to get America back on track and the lib said con said should not be the Administrations top priority. If an American law was broken it is up to the Justice Department to open an investigation. If an international law was broken, it is up to the United Nations to open an investigation and for the United States to comply with international law.
The investigation into the Cheney administration (operating under the alias Bush)'s use of torture will be blurry. The investigative process, however, is clear.
If President Obama chooses to micromanage an investigation with a clear process and a fairly predictable ending, he will do voters a grave disservice. He has bigger messes in the economy, the education system, and the health care system to clean up.
So in this justice push for terrorist, do not forgot about those whose justice could be threatened if President Obama himself spends too much time on the issue: the America people, jobless, broke, and broken.
22 April 2009
Dear Miss California,
I had the fortune of tuning into the Miss USA pageant just in time to see the crowning. You of the megawatt smile and compassionate eyes instantly became my spot on favorite to take the crown despite your frightful evening gown; my roommate was all about the more understated Miss North Carolina. When I heard your interview the next day, however, I have never been so happy to be wrong. I wrongly judged the book by its cover.
But we do walk on some common ground, you and me, like: we were both brought up as Christians, we both have opinions, and (excuse me for being presumptuous) we both have assholes.
You do have one thing on me, though; you've got all your civil rights.Once upon a time, my pretty, some assholes had some pretty interesting opinions.
Some assholes held the opinion that girls weren't qualified to vote.
Some assholes held the opinion that people who weren't white were commodities best traded.
Some assholes held the opinion that Jews were a threat to humanity.
Today, some assholes hold the opinion that gays are a threat to marriage.
Many American lives have been lost in centuries long battles against White Supremacy; many American lives have been fought to uphold the fundamental idea that all men are created equal.
What you fail to understand and what you need to understand is that you became a hot, blonde spokesmodel for White Supremacy this past Sunday. Your job offer from Fox News is probably in the mail.
You didn't lose because of your opinion. You are not Miss USA today because America no longer stands for the idea that people aren't created equal. America rejects White Supremacy; and whether you are a White Supremacist or merely ignorant is besides the point.
In the Christian church that I grew up in, Pastor Simpson taught us that we should be compassionate and we should not judge others lest we be judged ourselves. We all have our Judgment Day and its up to God to decide whether we get into Heaven.
So let's let God do his job, and you do yours. You should realize that you are NOT Miss USA today, because you don't stand for the fundamental principle on which the United States was created: That All Are Created Equal!
To be clear, this is America and you are entitled to your opinion; fortunately America is entitled to reject your opinion. No offense...
Sincerely,
Dustin Newcombe
Your #1 Fan For Five Minutes
libsandcons.blogspot.com
But we do walk on some common ground, you and me, like: we were both brought up as Christians, we both have opinions, and (excuse me for being presumptuous) we both have assholes.
You do have one thing on me, though; you've got all your civil rights.Once upon a time, my pretty, some assholes had some pretty interesting opinions.
Some assholes held the opinion that girls weren't qualified to vote.
Some assholes held the opinion that people who weren't white were commodities best traded.
Some assholes held the opinion that Jews were a threat to humanity.
Today, some assholes hold the opinion that gays are a threat to marriage.
Many American lives have been lost in centuries long battles against White Supremacy; many American lives have been fought to uphold the fundamental idea that all men are created equal.
What you fail to understand and what you need to understand is that you became a hot, blonde spokesmodel for White Supremacy this past Sunday. Your job offer from Fox News is probably in the mail.
You didn't lose because of your opinion. You are not Miss USA today because America no longer stands for the idea that people aren't created equal. America rejects White Supremacy; and whether you are a White Supremacist or merely ignorant is besides the point.
In the Christian church that I grew up in, Pastor Simpson taught us that we should be compassionate and we should not judge others lest we be judged ourselves. We all have our Judgment Day and its up to God to decide whether we get into Heaven.
So let's let God do his job, and you do yours. You should realize that you are NOT Miss USA today, because you don't stand for the fundamental principle on which the United States was created: That All Are Created Equal!
To be clear, this is America and you are entitled to your opinion; fortunately America is entitled to reject your opinion. No offense...
Sincerely,
Dustin Newcombe
Your #1 Fan For Five Minutes
libsandcons.blogspot.com
17 April 2009
When Exceptions Become The Rule
Republican Party leaders in Government and media almost uniformly align behind tea bagging parties to debunk the phantom of socialism and lobby for tax cuts to make the countries’ wealthiest wealthier. As they continues to solidify their “Party of No” reputation, I can’t help but wonder what they might be fighting for… They must stand for something more than just tax cuts extended to a minority of perfectly comfortable wealthy Americans, right?
If we go by the last eight years, it really looks like the Republicans may currently be fighting for unemployment, ,poor education, poor health care, and perhaps even World War III. You can call me crazy all you want. (Just don’t call me Rush Limbaugh.)
They are like a Party that has become irrationally ruled by exceptions instead of rules. They don’t just plan for contingencies and worst cases. They Govern and thereby create and expand the worst case.
Take terrorism, for example. According to Dictionary.com, terrorism is defined as:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
And terror is defined as:
1. Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
2. One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
3. The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
4. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
5. Informal An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.
Terrorism has always existed. Terror is predicated on one’s inability to predict the usually violent actions of another. After the unpredictable use of violence on 9/11/2001, for example, we emerged as a nation begot by terror. We were horrified and saddened by what we knew, but we were scared of what we didn’t know. (If President Bush deserves positive credit for one thing in his Presidency, it was with his firm, bipartisan response in the aftermath of these attacks.
Things went downhill fast.
The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is fundamentally terrorism. It formally tells the rest of the world that the United States reserves the right to engage in violence with another country without provocation. Internally this is pre-emptive; but externally this is terrorism. This does not necessitate or even imply that President Bush was, is, or ever will be evil. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, for one, supports pre-emptive warfare in part because of her childhood exposure to terrorism and violence waged against her family and close friends by the Ku Klux Klan. Who can blame her, really? Alas, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
Moms everywhere preach to their children the old cliche that two wrongs don’t make a right. I think maybe we should take this cliche a bit further to assert two wrongs don't just not make rights. They create larger, harder to contain wrongs. As far as terrorism is concerned, fighting it with more terror just creates an environment for expanding terror. The good intentions of terrorists occasionally help us understand and empathize with them, but they do not exempt or justify their actions.
Using exceptions as rules is a sad commentary on our times. I myself may have fallen victim to that certain cynicism that creates the environment for exceptions to become rules; there’s an obvious double standard apparent to me as I write. But I still believe most people are good even if they’ve done bad, that people are innocent until they’ve been proven guilty, and that exceptions and polemics have not become the rules. As long our culture continues to judge people by their worst game, the likelier we are to fall victims to exceptions like Al Queda or Sadaam Huessein, and miss out on rules like Ghandi or Kennedy and perhaps one day Obama.
If we go by the last eight years, it really looks like the Republicans may currently be fighting for unemployment, ,poor education, poor health care, and perhaps even World War III. You can call me crazy all you want. (Just don’t call me Rush Limbaugh.)
They are like a Party that has become irrationally ruled by exceptions instead of rules. They don’t just plan for contingencies and worst cases. They Govern and thereby create and expand the worst case.
Take terrorism, for example. According to Dictionary.com, terrorism is defined as:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
And terror is defined as:
1. Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
2. One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
3. The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
4. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
5. Informal An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.
Terrorism has always existed. Terror is predicated on one’s inability to predict the usually violent actions of another. After the unpredictable use of violence on 9/11/2001, for example, we emerged as a nation begot by terror. We were horrified and saddened by what we knew, but we were scared of what we didn’t know. (If President Bush deserves positive credit for one thing in his Presidency, it was with his firm, bipartisan response in the aftermath of these attacks.
Things went downhill fast.
The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is fundamentally terrorism. It formally tells the rest of the world that the United States reserves the right to engage in violence with another country without provocation. Internally this is pre-emptive; but externally this is terrorism. This does not necessitate or even imply that President Bush was, is, or ever will be evil. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, for one, supports pre-emptive warfare in part because of her childhood exposure to terrorism and violence waged against her family and close friends by the Ku Klux Klan. Who can blame her, really? Alas, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
Moms everywhere preach to their children the old cliche that two wrongs don’t make a right. I think maybe we should take this cliche a bit further to assert two wrongs don't just not make rights. They create larger, harder to contain wrongs. As far as terrorism is concerned, fighting it with more terror just creates an environment for expanding terror. The good intentions of terrorists occasionally help us understand and empathize with them, but they do not exempt or justify their actions.
Using exceptions as rules is a sad commentary on our times. I myself may have fallen victim to that certain cynicism that creates the environment for exceptions to become rules; there’s an obvious double standard apparent to me as I write. But I still believe most people are good even if they’ve done bad, that people are innocent until they’ve been proven guilty, and that exceptions and polemics have not become the rules. As long our culture continues to judge people by their worst game, the likelier we are to fall victims to exceptions like Al Queda or Sadaam Huessein, and miss out on rules like Ghandi or Kennedy and perhaps one day Obama.
16 April 2009
From Ann Coulter's Dot Com: The Gentle Musings of an Anti Semetic White Supremacist (week of April 15)
I had no idea how important this week's nationwide anti-tax tea parties were until hearing liberals denounce them with such ferocity. Nice use of reverse psychology here. Reality the tea parties were a joke. People like Krugman denounced them for their fundamentally wrong historical perspective. But what can you expect from party leaders so creative they re-brand Neo Naxi as Neo Con and think nobody will catch on. The New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote a column attacking the tea parties, apologizing for making fun of "crazy people." It's OK, Paul, you're allowed to do that for the same reason Jews can make fun of Jews. ...Speaking of Neo Nazism.
On MSNBC, hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have been tittering over the similarity of the name "tea parties" to an obscure homosexual sexual practice known as "tea bagging." Again you're almost as hip as the Queen of England, but not quite. Tea bagging is more of a drunken frat thing. Homosexuals like myself call it what it is: "licking balls." Different. Night after night, they sneer at Republicans for being so stupid as to call their rallies "tea bagging."
Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left wing blogosphere (vivid description of left wing bloggers here shows promise of a good writer) has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.
Except no one is calling the tea parties "tea bagging" -- except Olbermann and Maddow. Republicans call them "tea parties." Excellent point.
But if the Republicans were calling them "tea-bagging parties," the MSNBC hosts would have a fantastically hilarious segment for viewers in San Francisco and the West Village and not anyplace else in the rest of the country. On the other hand, they're not called "tea-bagging parties." (That, of course refers to the cocktail hour at Barney Frank's condo in Georgetown.)
You know what else would be hilarious? It would be hilarious if Hillary Clinton's name were "Ima Douche." Unfortunately, it's not. It was just a dream. Most people would wake up, realize it was just a dream and scrap the joke. Not MSNBC hosts.
The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes. Excuse Ms. Coulter, again, for being one of those unfortunate millionaires disgruntled at their tax hike; but hey even Ann might benefit in the end. After all, what would a Neo Nazi-Con Media Blogger be without a reason to cry wolf about taxes.
Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.
Obama's biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. (Again, Ms. Coulter must either have severe dementia or live in an alternate universe. Potaito, Potauto.) Among these is the Democrats' admiration for raising taxes on the productive. What country do you actually live in; or what alternate universe. You think CEO's of these failed companies are productive, or just fat. Go have intercourse with Rush Limbaugh and let's talk productivity.
All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter.
Even Bush had a "stimulus" bill that sent government checks to lots of people last year. Guess what happened? It didn't stimulate the economy. There is a difference here; Bush signed a lazy, wasteful stimulus bill while Obama signed a thoughtful stimulus bill that invests in the future. Obama's stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats. ("O" stands for Obama, not Oprah, but there's probably a lot of overlap.) I can't help but think this is somehow subtly racist; however, since I don't attend clandestine meatings of the Ku Klux Klan, then I can't be sure.
And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive.
Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy -- and the government will get less money. Apt description here, Ms. Coulter, of the culture of private enterprise. But big business already exists in an underground economy, they barter things like bonuses, corporate retreats, business lunches and dinners, and gifts.
The perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. (Are you scared that Reagan's dirty little secret might get out, since a tripling of the national defecit from 9 billion to 2.8 trillion dollars? Nice play.) If you casually mentioned that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government -- which they did -- you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan. Ms. Coulter, you are occassionally a walking satire of conservatism. Sometimes you are that confusing. (This became a less attractive wager in New York this week after Gov. David Paterson announced his new plan to tax bar bets.)
The lie at the heart of liberals' mantra on taxes -- "tax increases only for the rich" -- is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won't get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off. (Maybe if people got promotion and jobs during the Bush deregulation years, and weren't sliding roughshod into a depression, you'd have a point. Unfortunately we're not and you don't.) How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care. (Or they have off-shore tax shelters, like George Soros.)
California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance. (The Ms. Coulter creed: where history fails to support your argument write big words and cite fringe sources.)
In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control."
They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!"
In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona.
Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. You're acting as if the California problem is an outlier phenomenon and not a function of the nationwide economic meltdown created by bankrupt private sector leadership and poor oversight by the Bush administration. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" (Ms. Coulter, I can't help but think you're acting to "re-brand" the wealthy as "the productive class." There is nothing wrong with being wealthy; its the disconnect between performance/productivitiy and compensation combined with excessive job loss that leaves the leaders of the private sector largely bankrupt. Remember it is not that people just "lose" they're jobs; executives cut their jobs) for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof. Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. (Nice thinking here, Ms. Coulter. NOW you're on to something. You might throw ) Sure, the [Republican] governor will protest, but it is the best solution ...
California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. This is not a fact, Ms. Coulter, this is the Rovian Neo Nazi-Con Media Corps' marketing machine rolling out more bullshit. The rabbit died, (in one of the two wars that Bush left on Obama's plate) so now Obama is trying it on a national level.
That's what the tea parties are about.
Once again, the train of thought here leaves me speechless, but not quite. Ms. Coulter's continues to waste her Ivy League education here; Ms. Coulter's gross productivity is one poorly researched essay a week.
Work Cited:
Article published on AnnCoulter.com, COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
On MSNBC, hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have been tittering over the similarity of the name "tea parties" to an obscure homosexual sexual practice known as "tea bagging." Again you're almost as hip as the Queen of England, but not quite. Tea bagging is more of a drunken frat thing. Homosexuals like myself call it what it is: "licking balls." Different. Night after night, they sneer at Republicans for being so stupid as to call their rallies "tea bagging."
Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left wing blogosphere (vivid description of left wing bloggers here shows promise of a good writer) has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.
Except no one is calling the tea parties "tea bagging" -- except Olbermann and Maddow. Republicans call them "tea parties." Excellent point.
But if the Republicans were calling them "tea-bagging parties," the MSNBC hosts would have a fantastically hilarious segment for viewers in San Francisco and the West Village and not anyplace else in the rest of the country. On the other hand, they're not called "tea-bagging parties." (That, of course refers to the cocktail hour at Barney Frank's condo in Georgetown.)
You know what else would be hilarious? It would be hilarious if Hillary Clinton's name were "Ima Douche." Unfortunately, it's not. It was just a dream. Most people would wake up, realize it was just a dream and scrap the joke. Not MSNBC hosts.
The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes. Excuse Ms. Coulter, again, for being one of those unfortunate millionaires disgruntled at their tax hike; but hey even Ann might benefit in the end. After all, what would a Neo Nazi-Con Media Blogger be without a reason to cry wolf about taxes.
Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.
Obama's biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. (Again, Ms. Coulter must either have severe dementia or live in an alternate universe. Potaito, Potauto.) Among these is the Democrats' admiration for raising taxes on the productive. What country do you actually live in; or what alternate universe. You think CEO's of these failed companies are productive, or just fat. Go have intercourse with Rush Limbaugh and let's talk productivity.
All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter.
Even Bush had a "stimulus" bill that sent government checks to lots of people last year. Guess what happened? It didn't stimulate the economy. There is a difference here; Bush signed a lazy, wasteful stimulus bill while Obama signed a thoughtful stimulus bill that invests in the future. Obama's stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats. ("O" stands for Obama, not Oprah, but there's probably a lot of overlap.) I can't help but think this is somehow subtly racist; however, since I don't attend clandestine meatings of the Ku Klux Klan, then I can't be sure.
And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive.
Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy -- and the government will get less money. Apt description here, Ms. Coulter, of the culture of private enterprise. But big business already exists in an underground economy, they barter things like bonuses, corporate retreats, business lunches and dinners, and gifts.
The perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. (Are you scared that Reagan's dirty little secret might get out, since a tripling of the national defecit from 9 billion to 2.8 trillion dollars? Nice play.) If you casually mentioned that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government -- which they did -- you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan. Ms. Coulter, you are occassionally a walking satire of conservatism. Sometimes you are that confusing. (This became a less attractive wager in New York this week after Gov. David Paterson announced his new plan to tax bar bets.)
The lie at the heart of liberals' mantra on taxes -- "tax increases only for the rich" -- is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won't get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off. (Maybe if people got promotion and jobs during the Bush deregulation years, and weren't sliding roughshod into a depression, you'd have a point. Unfortunately we're not and you don't.) How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care. (Or they have off-shore tax shelters, like George Soros.)
California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance. (The Ms. Coulter creed: where history fails to support your argument write big words and cite fringe sources.)
In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control."
They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!"
In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona.
Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. You're acting as if the California problem is an outlier phenomenon and not a function of the nationwide economic meltdown created by bankrupt private sector leadership and poor oversight by the Bush administration. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" (Ms. Coulter, I can't help but think you're acting to "re-brand" the wealthy as "the productive class." There is nothing wrong with being wealthy; its the disconnect between performance/productivitiy and compensation combined with excessive job loss that leaves the leaders of the private sector largely bankrupt. Remember it is not that people just "lose" they're jobs; executives cut their jobs) for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof. Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. (Nice thinking here, Ms. Coulter. NOW you're on to something. You might throw ) Sure, the [Republican] governor will protest, but it is the best solution ...
California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. This is not a fact, Ms. Coulter, this is the Rovian Neo Nazi-Con Media Corps' marketing machine rolling out more bullshit. The rabbit died, (in one of the two wars that Bush left on Obama's plate) so now Obama is trying it on a national level.
That's what the tea parties are about.
Once again, the train of thought here leaves me speechless, but not quite. Ms. Coulter's continues to waste her Ivy League education here; Ms. Coulter's gross productivity is one poorly researched essay a week.
Work Cited:
Article published on AnnCoulter.com, COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
12 April 2009
Crazy Cures for Common Corporate Catastrophes
Below is a list of no-brainer cures for the common corporate catastrophes. More detailed explanations of these three suggestions will follow later this week.
1) National Board of Directors: A national board of directors designed to oversee the activities of corporations headquartered (or with significant business conducted) in the United States with the goal ensure that major business decisions are made long term economicwell-being of the corporation, its related stakeholders (including shareholders, employees, and the public at large), the United States. The board is open to any individual with citizenship (sole or dual) in the United States who successfully completes a rigorous executive fitness program administered by the Brookings Institute.
2) Rotating Boards: The Boards of Directors of a corporation must be certified, much like accountants (CPA). While the Chairman of a Board can remain in place as long as the shareholders vote them into office, Board members must rotate. Each Board member must serve a specific role, such as: stakeholder responsiveness, shareholder responsiveness, responsiveness to the economy at large, etc. To ensure smooth transition periods, the rotations should not happen en masse; board member rotations should be staggered.
3) Make the incorporation process more detailed and rigorous. By incorporating, the public becomes accountable for the failed business. The goal of making the incorporating process more rigorous is to decrease the number of corporations to indirectly decrease the risk exposure of business failure to the public at large. This would have the added benefit of creating more opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business.
1) National Board of Directors: A national board of directors designed to oversee the activities of corporations headquartered (or with significant business conducted) in the United States with the goal ensure that major business decisions are made long term economicwell-being of the corporation, its related stakeholders (including shareholders, employees, and the public at large), the United States. The board is open to any individual with citizenship (sole or dual) in the United States who successfully completes a rigorous executive fitness program administered by the Brookings Institute.
2) Rotating Boards: The Boards of Directors of a corporation must be certified, much like accountants (CPA). While the Chairman of a Board can remain in place as long as the shareholders vote them into office, Board members must rotate. Each Board member must serve a specific role, such as: stakeholder responsiveness, shareholder responsiveness, responsiveness to the economy at large, etc. To ensure smooth transition periods, the rotations should not happen en masse; board member rotations should be staggered.
3) Make the incorporation process more detailed and rigorous. By incorporating, the public becomes accountable for the failed business. The goal of making the incorporating process more rigorous is to decrease the number of corporations to indirectly decrease the risk exposure of business failure to the public at large. This would have the added benefit of creating more opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business.
Libs and Cons Money Rebound List: Get Real and Get Connected
A list of sustainable resources to help you rebound from the bankrupt economy--
1. JobFox: Your job hunt connection at http://www.jobfox.com/
2. Geezeo: Your budget connection at http://www.geezeo.com/
3. Zecco: Your cheap online trading connection at http://www.zecco.com/
4. TradeMonster: Your other cheap online trading connection at http://www.trademonster.com/
5. Ripoff Report: Avoid the hustle at http://www.ripoffreport.com/default.html
6. Yaaze.com: Your job networking connection at http://www.yaaze.com/
7. Fax Zero: One free fax a day at http://faxzero.com/
8. Network For Good: Your good karma at http://www.networkforgood.org/
If ever you find yourself in dire straights, find THE LIGHT (Libs and Cons sidebar)--
1. Psychiatric Health Centers (Free-Low Cost)
2. Medical Health Centers (Free-Low Cost)
3. Food Stamps
4. United Way
5. Wal-Mart $4 Prescription
6. Free Medication Foundation
7. Free RX Drug Card
1. JobFox: Your job hunt connection at http://www.jobfox.com/
2. Geezeo: Your budget connection at http://www.geezeo.com/
3. Zecco: Your cheap online trading connection at http://www.zecco.com/
4. TradeMonster: Your other cheap online trading connection at http://www.trademonster.com/
5. Ripoff Report: Avoid the hustle at http://www.ripoffreport.com/default.html
6. Yaaze.com: Your job networking connection at http://www.yaaze.com/
7. Fax Zero: One free fax a day at http://faxzero.com/
8. Network For Good: Your good karma at http://www.networkforgood.org/
If ever you find yourself in dire straights, find THE LIGHT (Libs and Cons sidebar)--
1. Psychiatric Health Centers (Free-Low Cost)
2. Medical Health Centers (Free-Low Cost)
3. Food Stamps
4. United Way
5. Wal-Mart $4 Prescription
6. Free Medication Foundation
7. Free RX Drug Card
10 April 2009
So What Exactly Is A Republican?
First, I want to be clear that when I talk about Republicans or Democrats, I'm speaking about leadership. My issue is not with voters. Voters vote for leaders based on platforms and ideas that they agree with. I have no issue with people who vote Republican. Hell in another year I myself might have voted for John McCain. I'm a huge fan of his.
Further, some of my best friends are Republicans. I've dated Republicans. I've had some great roommates who were Republicans. I may have been a registered Democrat and they a registered Republican; somewhere we found common ground that stands the test of time.
I think most of the people who vote Republican and most who vote Democrat are united in their vision for American Exceptionalism. I define American Exceptionilism not as "we are exceptional because we are American" but "we are Americans striving to be exceptional." There is a big difference. American Exceptionalism is not predicated International Mediocirty nor are we in any way some de-facto leader of Global Exceptionalism; we are a part of a movement toward Global Exceptionalism that is made up of a chorus of voices from around the world... In the end, some of us are Libs or Cons but we are above all just people united!
I do despise seven or so vocal de-facto leaders of the Republican Party that include: Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, and Ann Coulter. These people have read Mein Komf one too many times and think they can rebrand its core ideas as "Neo Con" and "American Exceptionalism" and force it upon Americans slyly and unconspicuously. And because these leaders are so vocal and so respected/feared by Republican leadership, taking them out of the equation is like taking Obama or Clinton out of the Democratic equation. You just can't do it.
And if Fox News is the voice of conservativism in America, then we all should be a little scared. I heard this on Fox News this morning: "Who is rich anymore anyway?" as if to imply nobody benefited from this recession. Yes perhaps the "value" of some portfolios went down; but the power of those individuals with relatively large portofolios went up, and the opportunity for those without portfolios went down. They may be failures, they may be without a big fat corner office, but a few CEO's and executives at a handful of "too big to fail" companies that just failed are still sitting pretty. This wasn't failure for them; this was early retirement.
But I think I'm getting a bit off point. So let me get back on...
Republicans aren't even Republians anymore. Republicans by nature should look a lot more like Democrats and Democrats should look a lot more like Republicans. Remember that most famous Republican, President Lincoln, fought to re-unite states. Lincoln was a "blue stater" fighting against slavery in "Red States." If you really examine the word republian, it is: re-public, which sounds a lot like big government to me. This is NOT Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party.
So what is a Republican? A person who votes for low taxes and small government?
So why are Republican leaders launching a campaign against the biggest middle class tax cut in history?
Why do Republicans leaders fight against big Government with one hand but play God and stand up against abortion and morality with another.
Do small governments bankroll trillion dollar wars on phony premecises (IRAQ) that they conveniently leave off the ledger? Do small government come equipped with big fat soapboxes to try and regulate abortion and homosexuality.
If I gleaned anything from the Republican response to the housing crisis it was this: people got themselves into this mess people should get themselves out of it. Going with this same line of thinking, shouldn't people be able to make their own decisions and end up in hell? Maybe some of these ultra right Republicans should do a little less PLAYING GOD, and do a little more BELIEVING IN GOD.
Free markets don't have black markets for drugs, because people are free to use drugs and ruin their own lives if they so desire. Legalizing drugs would also go a long way and helping you keep your guns in Wal Mart. If there's no black market for drugs, it eliminates a market ineffiency and a big driver of violence in America and Mexico. If Americans want to kill themselves with heroin, America can tax it heavily and invest the money into Drug Education and Rehabilitation Programs so that at least sober taxpayers don't have to carry the burden. OTC Oxycontin would be such a rush, wouldn't it Rush?
It is lack of transparency and inability to make the tough choices that left a great man like John McCain looking like John Quixote de la whateva this year.
Oh yeah, and if Republican party leadership decides that war is necessary rather than merely a good investment for the VP's oil company, part of the case you make with America to go to war is being upfront about the costs of war, both in money and human life.
When Republican leadership finally gets real, and lives up to its high minded platform, it may rebound in my lifetime.
But let's be real: you can't keep it real and keep Rove. Or his cohorts.
Further, some of my best friends are Republicans. I've dated Republicans. I've had some great roommates who were Republicans. I may have been a registered Democrat and they a registered Republican; somewhere we found common ground that stands the test of time.
I think most of the people who vote Republican and most who vote Democrat are united in their vision for American Exceptionalism. I define American Exceptionilism not as "we are exceptional because we are American" but "we are Americans striving to be exceptional." There is a big difference. American Exceptionalism is not predicated International Mediocirty nor are we in any way some de-facto leader of Global Exceptionalism; we are a part of a movement toward Global Exceptionalism that is made up of a chorus of voices from around the world... In the end, some of us are Libs or Cons but we are above all just people united!
I do despise seven or so vocal de-facto leaders of the Republican Party that include: Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, and Ann Coulter. These people have read Mein Komf one too many times and think they can rebrand its core ideas as "Neo Con" and "American Exceptionalism" and force it upon Americans slyly and unconspicuously. And because these leaders are so vocal and so respected/feared by Republican leadership, taking them out of the equation is like taking Obama or Clinton out of the Democratic equation. You just can't do it.
And if Fox News is the voice of conservativism in America, then we all should be a little scared. I heard this on Fox News this morning: "Who is rich anymore anyway?" as if to imply nobody benefited from this recession. Yes perhaps the "value" of some portfolios went down; but the power of those individuals with relatively large portofolios went up, and the opportunity for those without portfolios went down. They may be failures, they may be without a big fat corner office, but a few CEO's and executives at a handful of "too big to fail" companies that just failed are still sitting pretty. This wasn't failure for them; this was early retirement.
But I think I'm getting a bit off point. So let me get back on...
Republicans aren't even Republians anymore. Republicans by nature should look a lot more like Democrats and Democrats should look a lot more like Republicans. Remember that most famous Republican, President Lincoln, fought to re-unite states. Lincoln was a "blue stater" fighting against slavery in "Red States." If you really examine the word republian, it is: re-public, which sounds a lot like big government to me. This is NOT Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party.
So what is a Republican? A person who votes for low taxes and small government?
So why are Republican leaders launching a campaign against the biggest middle class tax cut in history?
Why do Republicans leaders fight against big Government with one hand but play God and stand up against abortion and morality with another.
Do small governments bankroll trillion dollar wars on phony premecises (IRAQ) that they conveniently leave off the ledger? Do small government come equipped with big fat soapboxes to try and regulate abortion and homosexuality.
If I gleaned anything from the Republican response to the housing crisis it was this: people got themselves into this mess people should get themselves out of it. Going with this same line of thinking, shouldn't people be able to make their own decisions and end up in hell? Maybe some of these ultra right Republicans should do a little less PLAYING GOD, and do a little more BELIEVING IN GOD.
Free markets don't have black markets for drugs, because people are free to use drugs and ruin their own lives if they so desire. Legalizing drugs would also go a long way and helping you keep your guns in Wal Mart. If there's no black market for drugs, it eliminates a market ineffiency and a big driver of violence in America and Mexico. If Americans want to kill themselves with heroin, America can tax it heavily and invest the money into Drug Education and Rehabilitation Programs so that at least sober taxpayers don't have to carry the burden. OTC Oxycontin would be such a rush, wouldn't it Rush?
It is lack of transparency and inability to make the tough choices that left a great man like John McCain looking like John Quixote de la whateva this year.
Oh yeah, and if Republican party leadership decides that war is necessary rather than merely a good investment for the VP's oil company, part of the case you make with America to go to war is being upfront about the costs of war, both in money and human life.
When Republican leadership finally gets real, and lives up to its high minded platform, it may rebound in my lifetime.
But let's be real: you can't keep it real and keep Rove. Or his cohorts.
08 April 2009
Rush Limbaugh, No Further Commentary Needed
This Foolish Neo Nazi Con Isn't Really Worth Chancing Carpal Tunnel. Enjoy! And By Enjoy, I Mean PRETEND That Nobody Actually Listens To Rush Limbaugh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDsbft2DtD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDsbft2DtD0
07 April 2009
From Ann Coulter's Dot Com: The Gentle Musings of an Anti Semetic Neo Nazi-Con
Ann Coulter's Anti Semitism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME
(Libs and Cons comments below in RED:)
Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys. (Once upon a time, not so long ago and not so far away, people got paid for performance. And those who didn't perform got fired. It's called accountability.)
It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money. (What terrible use of passive voice here, Ms. Coulter; I expected more from an Ivy League graduate. As writers, we both know that the passive voice is a crutch, so please let's try and prop up this argument... WHO GENERALLY AGREES?)
To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. (Translation: Stand by your corrupt CEO. Note under Obama's plan, most taxpayers benefit. Forgive Ms. Coulter, though, she's one of the unfortunate millionaires who may have to pay more.) The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work." (Ann in the era of the Ipod, it's less acceptable to sound like a broken record. Surely you jive with the time more than the Queen of England.)
Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing. (An interesting transition; not sure if the yang really flips the ying here. But good try, and your arrogant readers probably won't care.)
Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education? How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia?
What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America? (Ms. Coulter must be the foremost authority on hate in America. She bears the dubious distinction of being the most spite- and hate-filled polemicist in the Neo Nazi-Con media corps.) And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts. His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. (How dare people like Peter Singer and Nancy Reagan support stem cell research. Extremist liberal crazies will be our demise....aaaaaahhhhh! I'm not going to touch the killing and harvesting of children; but if this is indeed the case and not some abortion re-branding effort, he should be more than just fired. I have a feeling Ms. Coulter is merely sounding alarmist, as she does so brilliantly! Raise the terror-meter to bleach blonde!)
Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified. Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend. Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? (I believe that you've totally gone off point, unless you're employing some triangular reasoning pardigm to link Obama and necrophilia viz a viz GM; forgive me for being confused, but I don't believe your writing professor at Cornell would have accepted this absolutely ridiculous course of reasoning; nor does America. We're not as stupid as you think!)
That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy. (As judged by the self appointed moral authority herself, Ms. Ann Coulter!? I guess when you're argument back business men guilty of real financial bankruptcy, you must resort to solemn vapors of arguments that mean nothing, like "moral bankruptcy".)
When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available. (Why, Ms. Coulter, you're a genius; so do something with that Ivy League education and figure out what to do about our inferior "product." Then DO it!)
In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools. (Finally some actually numbers to support claims. Ms. Coulter's Cornell University Freshman year writing professor must be breathing a sigh of relief. Ivy League representin'!)
But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)
If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? (I'm confused... but that's frequently Ms. Coulter's goal: to confuse and sabotage rather than enlight.) Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?
Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.
Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?
How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on. (So Gavin Newsom should go before a congressional committee to defend his name, and the taxpayers in San Francisco should reject seeing their money invested taxpayers? Even some welfare recipients pay taxes too, ya know!)
Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?
Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out. (Obama should employ some of Bush's covert media controls and make sure writing as abysmal as this doesn't further decay the American education system that was pretty bad BEFORE "No Child Left Behind" was executed poorly and abysmally underfunded; no its just simply a mess. The problem isn't the personnel en masse, and its not the children; it's a Government and a systemic problem made worse by pockets of personnel issues.)
Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. (So are the leaders of the Republican party and the conservative media corps absolved of all accountability on the basis of some "I told you so; if not for Government there would be no President Bush" sort of circular reasoning?)
Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers. (Now here's an idea for you; fight FOR capitalism and examine these phantom methods that this omnipotent force called Capitalism clears out "dead wood." Cuz it sounds to me like that force, it turns out, may just be President Barack Obama beeeoch!)
Ann Coulter's article copied and pasted from http://www.anncoulter.com/, COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
(Libs and Cons comments below in RED:)
Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys. (Once upon a time, not so long ago and not so far away, people got paid for performance. And those who didn't perform got fired. It's called accountability.)
It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money. (What terrible use of passive voice here, Ms. Coulter; I expected more from an Ivy League graduate. As writers, we both know that the passive voice is a crutch, so please let's try and prop up this argument... WHO GENERALLY AGREES?)
To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. (Translation: Stand by your corrupt CEO. Note under Obama's plan, most taxpayers benefit. Forgive Ms. Coulter, though, she's one of the unfortunate millionaires who may have to pay more.) The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work." (Ann in the era of the Ipod, it's less acceptable to sound like a broken record. Surely you jive with the time more than the Queen of England.)
Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing. (An interesting transition; not sure if the yang really flips the ying here. But good try, and your arrogant readers probably won't care.)
Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education? How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia?
What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America? (Ms. Coulter must be the foremost authority on hate in America. She bears the dubious distinction of being the most spite- and hate-filled polemicist in the Neo Nazi-Con media corps.) And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts. His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. (How dare people like Peter Singer and Nancy Reagan support stem cell research. Extremist liberal crazies will be our demise....aaaaaahhhhh! I'm not going to touch the killing and harvesting of children; but if this is indeed the case and not some abortion re-branding effort, he should be more than just fired. I have a feeling Ms. Coulter is merely sounding alarmist, as she does so brilliantly! Raise the terror-meter to bleach blonde!)
Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified. Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend. Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? (I believe that you've totally gone off point, unless you're employing some triangular reasoning pardigm to link Obama and necrophilia viz a viz GM; forgive me for being confused, but I don't believe your writing professor at Cornell would have accepted this absolutely ridiculous course of reasoning; nor does America. We're not as stupid as you think!)
That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy. (As judged by the self appointed moral authority herself, Ms. Ann Coulter!? I guess when you're argument back business men guilty of real financial bankruptcy, you must resort to solemn vapors of arguments that mean nothing, like "moral bankruptcy".)
When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available. (Why, Ms. Coulter, you're a genius; so do something with that Ivy League education and figure out what to do about our inferior "product." Then DO it!)
In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools. (Finally some actually numbers to support claims. Ms. Coulter's Cornell University Freshman year writing professor must be breathing a sigh of relief. Ivy League representin'!)
But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)
If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? (I'm confused... but that's frequently Ms. Coulter's goal: to confuse and sabotage rather than enlight.) Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?
Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.
Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?
How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on. (So Gavin Newsom should go before a congressional committee to defend his name, and the taxpayers in San Francisco should reject seeing their money invested taxpayers? Even some welfare recipients pay taxes too, ya know!)
Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?
Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out. (Obama should employ some of Bush's covert media controls and make sure writing as abysmal as this doesn't further decay the American education system that was pretty bad BEFORE "No Child Left Behind" was executed poorly and abysmally underfunded; no its just simply a mess. The problem isn't the personnel en masse, and its not the children; it's a Government and a systemic problem made worse by pockets of personnel issues.)
Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. (So are the leaders of the Republican party and the conservative media corps absolved of all accountability on the basis of some "I told you so; if not for Government there would be no President Bush" sort of circular reasoning?)
Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers. (Now here's an idea for you; fight FOR capitalism and examine these phantom methods that this omnipotent force called Capitalism clears out "dead wood." Cuz it sounds to me like that force, it turns out, may just be President Barack Obama beeeoch!)
Ann Coulter's article copied and pasted from http://www.anncoulter.com/, COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
05 April 2009
Under Scrutiny: Reagan's Diplomatic Prowess Holds Up Where Reaganomics Fails
There is a fondness for Ronald Reagan made greater by perception than by his ability to successfully execute Reaganomics. Still he did force the Soviet Union to accept the illegitimacy of its communist government. In so doing he provided the world with one of the greatest examples of international diplomacy the world has ever seen. The iron curtain fell simply because Reagan traveled to the Berlin and demanded that it fall. Reaganomics may not hold up under scrutiny due, but that historical act of diplomacy solidifies Reagan’s legacy in my book.
And if you can use Reagaplomacy instead of expensive war mongering to achieve peace, you might successfully cut taxes you might save Rove all trouble and re-imaging record deficits and a fraudulent war when he edits the next Republican Presidential legacy.
That is if he's not serving community service time for crimes against America... sorry, hallucinated.
And if you can use Reagaplomacy instead of expensive war mongering to achieve peace, you might successfully cut taxes you might save Rove all trouble and re-imaging record deficits and a fraudulent war when he edits the next Republican Presidential legacy.
That is if he's not serving community service time for crimes against America... sorry, hallucinated.
Who Keeps Clogging the Toilet?: Stuck Up Bullpooh!
The difference between America’s economy through the fifties (perhaps even into the early 80's)and our's today is that we are a net importer; in other words our economy is based on consumption rather than manufacturing. When unemployment rates rise and the middle class loses its purchasing power, however, the result should come as not surprise. We've taken the consumer out of the consumer based economy.
Think about how many jobs banker of the year Kenneth D. Lewis could have created from an addition 4 billion dollar in assets when he acquired Merril Lynch. This is American Exceptionalism at its Machiavellian best! Kenneth D. Lewis doesn’t deserve an award; he deserves to be fired.
And since all the janitors probably got cut from the bottom line, whose gonna clean up all that pooh before another long, hot, humid New York summer amplifies the stench emenating from Wall Street. Certainly we don't expect classy guys like Ken Lewis to clean up their own pooh.
Think about how many jobs banker of the year Kenneth D. Lewis could have created from an addition 4 billion dollar in assets when he acquired Merril Lynch. This is American Exceptionalism at its Machiavellian best! Kenneth D. Lewis doesn’t deserve an award; he deserves to be fired.
And since all the janitors probably got cut from the bottom line, whose gonna clean up all that pooh before another long, hot, humid New York summer amplifies the stench emenating from Wall Street. Certainly we don't expect classy guys like Ken Lewis to clean up their own pooh.
01 April 2009
Six Neo Nazi-Con Fools For April 1st!
Libs and Cons Top Six Neo Nazi-Con Fools
1. http://www.rove.com/
2. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney
3. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
4. http://www.billoreilly.com/
5. http://www.anncoulter.com/
6. http://www.hannity.com/
1. http://www.rove.com/
2. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney
3. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
4. http://www.billoreilly.com/
5. http://www.anncoulter.com/
6. http://www.hannity.com/
21 March 2009
Libs and Cons Special Blog Series: When Smart People Fuel Stupid Economic Misconceptions
Misconception: The Stock Market and The Market are one in the same. Republicans seem to hold this idea of "the market" as if godlike in its command of business and economy. If the economy seems to be good, Republican credit themselves for their faith in the market, and they credit the market for its freedom and power. If the economy turns lousy, they point to cycles and tell us not to worry because the market will make everything right.
Reality: The Stock Market is one mechanism of exchange that makes up The Market.
The Stock Market is gambling with a bigger purpose. Over time, the stock market measures the markets functional success in spreading societal well-being. It operates essentially as a casino, albeit one that incorporates highly advanced mathematical slot machines and a dual business purpose. The first purpose is to raise cash to grow the business. People invest (or "bet" or "gamble") their money based on their perceived value of the business. It's kind of like a second mortgage for the business where the business pays its lenders back with good decisions that increase the value; the stock is liquid and lenders can cash it in for prevailing stock price at any given moment, The catch is the interest may be positive or it may be negative.
The number of lenders relates to the second function of the stock market as an executive check and the balance. In theory, a large, diverse pool of investors react to information (earnings reports, outlook, expansion, day-to-day operations) that determines the value of the stock. Since supply of the stock is essentially fixed, a stock's value is driven by demand for the stock which is driven by the ongoing success of the business. The stock market, however, is only as good as the speed and accuracy with which the business relays important information to investors. In the internet era, this should happen instantaneously; that it doesn't and that the market has essentially vomitted and shit simultaneously and uncontrollably speaks volumes on the speed and accuracy of the information provided to investors.
Compounding the problems we're witnessing today are bonuses structured to give executives large amounts of stock eventually gave them a controlling interest within shareholder pools that became shallow as the economy evaporated. This explains why shareholders were happy to reward the executives... The executives had in effect become the shareholders. In so doing, they manipulated the model to make it as inefficient as it could possibly get.
The market, on the other hand, is a system of exchange that can best be described as EVERYTHING. It's everything, it's everything that effects everything, it's everything that effects everything that effects everything. The market is the mechanism for economics; economics is the system for and measure of the expansion of societal well-being. Like the stock market, the efficiency of the market is only as good as the infrastructure for deliverying well-being to people; it can be measured by velocity, reach, and quality.
If the market is some omnipotent economic force that we should respect and fear as some Republican governers and talking heads seem to infer, then a bunch of executives just bought a one way ticket to hell. Enjoy your free business class upgrades while they last.
17 March 2009
Retention Bonuses or Hush Money...
AIG: Retention bonsuses? Ken Lewis: Banker of the Year?
For real. Once upon a time Wall Street may have been credible. Those times have passed.
AIG is not handing out retention bonuses; that is hush money so the fat can continue to cut the meat and try and convince us that its too fatty.
Ken Lewis could have made a 4 billion dollar TARP payment to the Government if he hadn't given it to his buddies when he bought that other pile of lard that once went by the name Merryl Lynch.
For real. Once upon a time Wall Street may have been credible. Those times have passed.
AIG is not handing out retention bonuses; that is hush money so the fat can continue to cut the meat and try and convince us that its too fatty.
Ken Lewis could have made a 4 billion dollar TARP payment to the Government if he hadn't given it to his buddies when he bought that other pile of lard that once went by the name Merryl Lynch.
Let AIG Fail--But Cut the Executive Fat First
AIG needs to fail, because they are the health care problem not the solution. From the ashes of AIG, let a new health care model rise up. This new model shall be predicated on incentives to prevent and cure. And let this new model of sound economics by way of expanding well-being be funded by bonuses fraudulently stolen from America designed to transfer wealth back up where it belongs.
Forgive me if I have trouble identifying with Republican senators who publicly decry Universal Health Care; in private I can't help but think this isn't more about their unlimited supply of viagra and botox.
Forgive me if I have trouble identifying with Republican senators who publicly decry Universal Health Care; in private I can't help but think this isn't more about their unlimited supply of viagra and botox.
Libs and Cons Special Blog Series: When Smart People Fuel Stupid Economics
MISCONCEPTION: OBAMA'S STIMULUS PERVERTS THE FREE MARKET
The bailouts, the stimulus, the suggestion of nationalizing a national bank has caused some Republicans to charge him with perverting the free market. So I know many highly opinionated yet fundamentally misguided Republican party leaders want us to believe that Obama has guided an economic downcycle into the Great Depression. And I know deep down they hope that their use of the word pervert wasn't an attempt to take back the meaning of the word, but was to linke Obama to the the suggestions that has been imbued in the word "pervert." But what's scary is the thought that they either truly believe that Bush was a perfectionist bent purifying the market. But his his economically inefficient rewarding of the Iraq oil contracts to Halliburton suggests otherwise. But why does this glaring detail go undiscussed among those high minded enough to aspire to such a pure economic ideology?
REALITY: FREE MARKETS DO NOT EXIST
A completely free market might be achievable when the global village achieves some sort of Utopian enlightenment en masse; in other words, not I’ll never see a wholly free market. Further actually a part of any free market, especially when it is the only entity capable of correcting a run of failures (aka Wall Street executives) as severe as those witnessed during this ridiculous meltdown. Republicans have accused Obama of perverting the market. Sorry, the market already in dire need of castration. Obama’s merely countering the perversion in the market with sound economic decisions. And to think that they do is not acceptable from parties for Government.
16 March 2009
Libs and Cons Special Blog Series: When Smart People Fuel Stupid Economic Misconceptions
MISCONCEPTION: SOCIALISM VS. CAPITALISM IS OUR BATTLE
This battle is a non issue; you're not with one or against the other. If this paramount battle between right and wrong touted routinely by the Republican indeed has no basis in reality, then it was necessarily created exclusively to divideto divide people and therein becomes an illustration of the polemics that run so deep in the Republican party.
REALITY: THERE IS NO BATTLE. LEADERS USE TOOLS BASED ON IDEOLOGY TO MANAGE THE ECONOMY.
Economic theories are neutral. Economic policy is only as good as the people executing it. An economy is a phenomenon of the people, services, and resources that make it up; tools based on free market or social economic theories contribute to the ongoing success. Sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes you need a screwdriver. If you refuse to use a hammer because it’s a hammer, you’re screwed when you discover that you accidentally got nails. I guess it’s a good enough excuse when you have people begging to let them do your work anyway.
Class Wars at Bank of America: The Overdraft Fee
Me and Mr. Overdraft are very well acquainted after two rounds fraudulent activity within six months that left my bank account off by $800. And try to make a customer phone specialist or automated telling mechanism understand how hard it is to manage your bank account (let alone look for a job) when you're out of work and your bank account is saddled with late fees that aren't your fault.
For what its worth, two months and five hundred dollars in the red later, the charges were reversed and idea that I was right after all did not leave me feeling good about my outburst at the local Branch Manager who robotically repeated to me policies and tools bank of America implements to help me make sure these situations do not arise in the future. Fortunately the idignity this schmuck felt when I threw the forty billion dollar bailout package in his face gave put my bank account in the red that day and didn't quite render my direct deposit obselete.
These are policies implemented by distinguished men like Chair-CEO-Pres Ken Lewis for whom $800 is a lunch. To his failed executive buddies at Merril Lynch, however, Ken is the reluctant philanthropist who helps his friends in their hour of "need," because some people need food and some people need filet, some people need shelter, and others need penthouses, and still some need shoes But don't tell them that the 4 billion dollars that that 4 billion dollar parachute was Ken's to give.
After my old boss passed in November, I struggled with some depression and failed to get the afidivit back to Bank of America by the deadline. So when I snapped out of it and found the source of my fraudulent activity, I acted quickly to make it right, but it was hard.
All I wanted was a provisional $171 credit added back to my account while the investigator conducted his investigation into my claim of fraudulent activity. While some told me parts of the process, nobody knew the process and nobody bothered to ask aroudn.And for all their posturing that they understand my situation... for all the action they told me to take that I took... it took months for them to pay attnention. My account would never have gone below $224 if not for the fraudulant activity.
I may share some blame with the supershoppers whose sprees caused my account to go over the limit. And Bank of America may have my best interest when they prioritize debits from my account biggest to smallest so that those mortgage payments that I won't be thinking about anytime soon have a better chance of clearing.
What I don't get is why the fee doesn't account for the size of the overdraft. So many of my overdrafts were like $2 or $3, and each was hit with a $35. In some cases it was merely a combination of timing and overdrafts that caused my account to go into the red instead of linger dangerously close to it.
And why does the bank charge not account for the size of the overdraft? Shouldn't the bank charge percentage ovedraft fees to make the punishment fit the crime?
There are some people who naturally don't have to worry about such things. But some do; in fact, more do every day. For some, like Ken Lewis, these battles concern amounts that wouldn't cover lunch. For some, these battles concern amounts that save their home.
But the embarrasment of being poor has lead to people everywhere being held unfairly accountable for small mistakes. Simultaneously, those at the top of the financial ladder fell no need to apologize for the failures that effect those toward the bottom. You might think that that with so many invaluable men who make millions of dollars individually each year to make lending decisions would be accountable for lending bad lending decisions.
And as for those who overdraw: I agree that consequences should follow actions; I just think that the consequences should mirror those actions.
For what its worth, two months and five hundred dollars in the red later, the charges were reversed and idea that I was right after all did not leave me feeling good about my outburst at the local Branch Manager who robotically repeated to me policies and tools bank of America implements to help me make sure these situations do not arise in the future. Fortunately the idignity this schmuck felt when I threw the forty billion dollar bailout package in his face gave put my bank account in the red that day and didn't quite render my direct deposit obselete.
These are policies implemented by distinguished men like Chair-CEO-Pres Ken Lewis for whom $800 is a lunch. To his failed executive buddies at Merril Lynch, however, Ken is the reluctant philanthropist who helps his friends in their hour of "need," because some people need food and some people need filet, some people need shelter, and others need penthouses, and still some need shoes But don't tell them that the 4 billion dollars that that 4 billion dollar parachute was Ken's to give.
After my old boss passed in November, I struggled with some depression and failed to get the afidivit back to Bank of America by the deadline. So when I snapped out of it and found the source of my fraudulent activity, I acted quickly to make it right, but it was hard.
All I wanted was a provisional $171 credit added back to my account while the investigator conducted his investigation into my claim of fraudulent activity. While some told me parts of the process, nobody knew the process and nobody bothered to ask aroudn.And for all their posturing that they understand my situation... for all the action they told me to take that I took... it took months for them to pay attnention. My account would never have gone below $224 if not for the fraudulant activity.
I may share some blame with the supershoppers whose sprees caused my account to go over the limit. And Bank of America may have my best interest when they prioritize debits from my account biggest to smallest so that those mortgage payments that I won't be thinking about anytime soon have a better chance of clearing.
What I don't get is why the fee doesn't account for the size of the overdraft. So many of my overdrafts were like $2 or $3, and each was hit with a $35. In some cases it was merely a combination of timing and overdrafts that caused my account to go into the red instead of linger dangerously close to it.
And why does the bank charge not account for the size of the overdraft? Shouldn't the bank charge percentage ovedraft fees to make the punishment fit the crime?
There are some people who naturally don't have to worry about such things. But some do; in fact, more do every day. For some, like Ken Lewis, these battles concern amounts that wouldn't cover lunch. For some, these battles concern amounts that save their home.
But the embarrasment of being poor has lead to people everywhere being held unfairly accountable for small mistakes. Simultaneously, those at the top of the financial ladder fell no need to apologize for the failures that effect those toward the bottom. You might think that that with so many invaluable men who make millions of dollars individually each year to make lending decisions would be accountable for lending bad lending decisions.
And as for those who overdraw: I agree that consequences should follow actions; I just think that the consequences should mirror those actions.
15 March 2009
Madoff Shouldn’t Go To Jail!
Much has been made of Bernie Madoff’s decision to plead guilty to his ponzii scheme. But will he go to rich person jail or back home to his posh penthouse in Manhattan to learn his lesson.
America needs to get smarter with its corporate punishments. Madoff isn’t a danger to society anymore; he did his damage. But there is something fundamentally not satisfying about sending this Wall Street Wacko to jail.
If I were the judge, I would make sure that Madoff became an example and that he learned his lesson in the limelight that he loves. ‘Bernie’s Redemption Journey’ would follow Bernie Madoff as he lives a life of forced philanthropy that will take him to all the poorest places in America where he would do 8 hours of volunteer work a day in exchange for three hot meals, a shower, and a place to sleep.
Madoff would do be forced to do the tough jobs that real people do and rarely receive recognition or compensation for. Every 6 months his mission would change and he’d have to adapt to the new set of conditions and hope that Americans far removed from yachts and diamonds would welcome a fraud.
After five years, Madoff would be subjected to a live parole hearing online conducted and decided by a random lottery of citizens across America.
THE RULES OF THE PUNISHMENT
--The production crew will not interact with Madoff. They’re the not-so-secret camera. Likewise Bernie will never be given the opportunity to address the camera. His interaction will simply the people approved as part of his current six month mission.
--Everything he needs, he must pay for in his service to others. He shall have no access to cash, credit, or a banking account.
--The costs of Madof'f’s sentence would be paid by advertisers instead of taxpayers. The cable or network home of the show will also be responsible for the upstart costs America’s economic education initiative and interactive classroom after the show achieves a minimum rating to-be-decided.
--If Madoff is granted parole, he would be moved to a court approved apartment in an undisclosed location where he will be given a certain monthly allowance that will meet his living expenses and a health insurance policy from a fund established using profits from his show.
--He will be forbidden to interact with any sort of financial sector business for the rest of his life. If efforts to do so are revealed he will be exiled to China.
So this may be a little ridiculous. But its economically sound. Who wouldn’t want to watch the old man serve someone other than himself the next few years.?
I would let his current wife (if there is one) keep her clothes and shoes and give her the option of ‘til death. Mr. Madoff would be permitted would be seized and liquidated. Some of this would go into an emergency mutual fund to assist those experience real effects as a result of Madoff’s scheme (retirees, for example).
I let Mr. Madoff pack one suitcase that would consist only of clothing and put him on a plane
12 March 2009
It's the Economy, Stupid! So What's Up With All the Stupidity?
It’s the Economy, Stupid! But What’s With All the Stupidity.
In retrospect, the speeches in that file of commencement encapsulated defining moments in recent history. Reading the points of view from those who paved my way revealed distinct shifts in tone, substance, and outlook every decade or so. Most striking was the high minded sense of duty apparent in speeches written during the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. High school students actually spoke of civics, diplomacy, ethics, and economy not only like they knew what they were talking about. They spoke of these subjects as if they mattered.
I won’t be winning any Nobel prizes anytime soon for groundbreaking economic theory. But economics isn’t that hard; and I don’t get why otherwise smart talking heads can’t shut up long enough to get their heads around the idea. If people actually paid mild attention to the economy and understood the inverse relationship between supply and demand enough to apply it, the economic meltdown would have been predictable.
Instead of a pre-emptive stimulus to the economy, the silly debate regarding a solution rages on. That debate exists at all is a scary sign that our elected officials fail to get the economy. Spending is not debatable; is where and how much to spend that you might find room for scrutiny. The efficiency and reach of the stimulus relates directly to how much capital flows back into a system low on cash and high on demand. To those who question spending in these times I can only recommend some good old fashioned economic study time. If they truly understand economics, then they are simply sabotaging America which is absolutely unacceptable.
Making matters worse, talking heads MSNBC remain unsure of the solution themselves, but nonetheless they have opinions. Thankfully Rachel Maddow got it. She just needs to say it often and say it loud so that the voice of reason can rise up among widespread misinformed banter. It’s great to know that Keynes had an economic theory that ran counter to Friedman’s economic theory; in the end, just learn the study the theories and go online and find some fun economic game site and play supply demand. Most people overthink economics, I think; so keep the idea that economics is easy in mind.
But since learning economics sounds more Herculean than it is, I’ve created a cheat sheet for all those talking heads out there to jump to at least sound like they know what their talking about. The Republican strategy to overcome the meltdown may well be hopeless, but they stay on point and the sound as if the know what their talking about.
To get talking heads started down the path of talking about the economy simply and accurately, I’ve created a little cheat sheet. It’s dedicated to the fine cheaters who bankrupt America, rewarded themselves, and blamed everyone else.
Economics is a measure of societal welfare, or happiness. Measures of the strength of an economy come in various forms like job growth and the stock market. Sound economic policy inherently is its own check and balance and system and measure. Economist peal various systems down to their fundamental cores to try and create tools that those engaged in economy can use to make it strong. Some tools have their core in capitalism and others use socialism. To take either one off the table leaves the economy exposed to failure. But theories do not fail on their own; what unites fundamentally capitalist tools and fundamentally socialist tools are they they are only as effective as the people who use them. Taking tools of socialism off the table because they are "socialist," is a lot like throwing out your hammer because screwdrivers are American and hammers aren't is stupid; if you get nails instead of screws, you're screwed and its not the screwdriver's fault that it can not hammer a nail. It is the toolman's fault for being stupid. Likewise, the economy has failed because... Well, I don't think we're quite ready for accountability yet.
If this is a shock to you, please check back daily for my Take Back the Economics Series to Take Back Economcis!
In retrospect, the speeches in that file of commencement encapsulated defining moments in recent history. Reading the points of view from those who paved my way revealed distinct shifts in tone, substance, and outlook every decade or so. Most striking was the high minded sense of duty apparent in speeches written during the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. High school students actually spoke of civics, diplomacy, ethics, and economy not only like they knew what they were talking about. They spoke of these subjects as if they mattered.
I won’t be winning any Nobel prizes anytime soon for groundbreaking economic theory. But economics isn’t that hard; and I don’t get why otherwise smart talking heads can’t shut up long enough to get their heads around the idea. If people actually paid mild attention to the economy and understood the inverse relationship between supply and demand enough to apply it, the economic meltdown would have been predictable.
Instead of a pre-emptive stimulus to the economy, the silly debate regarding a solution rages on. That debate exists at all is a scary sign that our elected officials fail to get the economy. Spending is not debatable; is where and how much to spend that you might find room for scrutiny. The efficiency and reach of the stimulus relates directly to how much capital flows back into a system low on cash and high on demand. To those who question spending in these times I can only recommend some good old fashioned economic study time. If they truly understand economics, then they are simply sabotaging America which is absolutely unacceptable.
Making matters worse, talking heads MSNBC remain unsure of the solution themselves, but nonetheless they have opinions. Thankfully Rachel Maddow got it. She just needs to say it often and say it loud so that the voice of reason can rise up among widespread misinformed banter. It’s great to know that Keynes had an economic theory that ran counter to Friedman’s economic theory; in the end, just learn the study the theories and go online and find some fun economic game site and play supply demand. Most people overthink economics, I think; so keep the idea that economics is easy in mind.
But since learning economics sounds more Herculean than it is, I’ve created a cheat sheet for all those talking heads out there to jump to at least sound like they know what their talking about. The Republican strategy to overcome the meltdown may well be hopeless, but they stay on point and the sound as if the know what their talking about.
To get talking heads started down the path of talking about the economy simply and accurately, I’ve created a little cheat sheet. It’s dedicated to the fine cheaters who bankrupt America, rewarded themselves, and blamed everyone else.
Economics is a measure of societal welfare, or happiness. Measures of the strength of an economy come in various forms like job growth and the stock market. Sound economic policy inherently is its own check and balance and system and measure. Economist peal various systems down to their fundamental cores to try and create tools that those engaged in economy can use to make it strong. Some tools have their core in capitalism and others use socialism. To take either one off the table leaves the economy exposed to failure. But theories do not fail on their own; what unites fundamentally capitalist tools and fundamentally socialist tools are they they are only as effective as the people who use them. Taking tools of socialism off the table because they are "socialist," is a lot like throwing out your hammer because screwdrivers are American and hammers aren't is stupid; if you get nails instead of screws, you're screwed and its not the screwdriver's fault that it can not hammer a nail. It is the toolman's fault for being stupid. Likewise, the economy has failed because... Well, I don't think we're quite ready for accountability yet.
If this is a shock to you, please check back daily for my Take Back the Economics Series to Take Back Economcis!
14 February 2009
When The Polemics Ruined America: The Divided States of Our Country
The Republican Party is headed down the wrong path.
Conman Karl Rove and Conman Dick Cheney carry flames fueled by Presidential Conman George Bush, Conman Sean Hannity, Conman Ann Coulter, Conman Bill O'Reilly, and Conman Rush Limbagh. Their flames light an all too familiar path for America; if we continue to follow these flames the morning sun will reveal a sad reality of regression to a pre-civil war America. Fortunately for the real patriots of our nation - liberals and conservatives alike who work hard to better themselves, their children, and their country - the fuel of white supremacy is running low.
White supremacy is a phenomenon of entitlement; it occurs when subsequent generations of wealth and power assume positions of wealth and power by virtue of "birthright" rather than "performance." An inability to perform combined with a desire to do better drives subsequent generations of wealth and power to undertake increasingly unethical and unlawful actions to acquire more wealth and more power. It follows that two generations removed from Lincoln's Gettysburg address, you do not have to be white to be a white supremacist, and you do not have to be black to be a slave to it.
After eight years of domestic and foreign policy spearheaded by the Republican party, our country is left in shambles - economically empty, socially backwards, and far more vulnerable to terrorism than we were prior 9/11. The marketing and PR spin machine of the Republican Party is working overdrive to diffuse and transfer blame to the left and sabotage the policy undertaken by the Obama administartion to stimulate our economy and unite our country. Karl Rove designed this machine and keeps it well oiled despite the ever increasing opportunity cost to America. The price of living divided in the United Sates of America continues to rise.
To look at the big Republican party picture, you may note one consistent trend: Opposition. In the recent Presidential election, for example, we saw two campaigns for "change;" only the strategy of the Republican party, when scrutinized, ran almost exclusively on oppostion to the Democratic party. Besides cutting taxes and remaining at war, we heard far too little Republican party policy and far too much Democratic apocolyptic mumbo jumbo. If you listend only to Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, you might think that the Senator Osama Terror Hussein of Illinois were running on the Democratic ticket. As President Obama has quickly revealed himself to be the President of the people far more than Presidential Conman George W. Bush, the Republican party has been careful to sabotage the policy and stand by the man.
What the Republican party lacks, above all, is a cogent policy argument that comprehensively stands up to scrutiny and succeeds in practice. Even under President Reagan himself, Reaganomics - the cornerstone of all Republican policy - fails in practice. Reagan's economic policies inflated the national deficit from 700 billion to 3 trillion; Reagan himself called this new debt the "greatest dissappointment" of his presidency.
The failure of the thin platform of the Republican party in practice reduces their criticism to polemics. According to Wikipedia.com, "polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosphical or political matters. It is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. The word is derived from the greek word polemikos which means 'warlike,' 'hostile.'" Perhaps betting on widespread American stupidity, Ann Coulter is a self-described "polemicists." I guess polemics necessarily run deep in a party for Government that runs on a position, in the end, determined to destroy Government.
Since you can't legitimately run for an office that you're bent on destroying, you must make people think you stand for something different. Enter Karl Rove, and his blasphemous marketing machine. The machine is conceptually simple, designed to channel packages of misinformation, wrapped in themes of patriotism, freedom, and morality, to the public for consumption. Inherently the packaging often touches a nerve among a cross section of our country where indvididuals work ever harder for ever less; politicians generically call this part of the country "middle America."
So pretty is the packaging that we feel too often ungrateful (perhaps even unpatriotic) to question what's inside. Those who open the package often find nothing. There is a void in "middle America"; I know this void well because I grew up in it. The void is as much a part of me as my desire is to fill it with something that is real and meaningful. This void should not be confused with stupidity, a hypothesis occasionally pushed by glib and untimately small minded liberals. The void occurs in the absence of opportunity. The Rovian marketing and pr machine pumps this void full of empty packages devoid of meaning and often full of hostitility. It gives people stuck in the void many things to fight against (terrorism, homosexuality, abortion, gun control) but little to fight for (opportunity).
For far too long, Republican hopefuls campaign not to govern but to win. These campaigns are won by pitting one party necessarily against another on issues that in the end are of little consequence for those that fight against it. This is polemics in practice. And when our city falls from its great hill, we should not blame polemics, we should blame the polemicists behind these polemics.
We've been fighting for eight years, and what we've been fighting for has become all to obvious:
--We fought to make the rich richer, despite their performance. And then we rewarded them for driving our economy into the ground.
--We fought for Halliburton oil contracts in Iraq, while new terrorist cells rose up in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
--We fought for insurance and drug company profits, while our collective health deteriorated.
If we continue to fight blindly for empty packages of patriotism, freedom and morality, the morning sun may well reveal the shackles of a new reality in America that's as old as time।
Conman Karl Rove and Conman Dick Cheney carry flames fueled by Presidential Conman George Bush, Conman Sean Hannity, Conman Ann Coulter, Conman Bill O'Reilly, and Conman Rush Limbagh. Their flames light an all too familiar path for America; if we continue to follow these flames the morning sun will reveal a sad reality of regression to a pre-civil war America. Fortunately for the real patriots of our nation - liberals and conservatives alike who work hard to better themselves, their children, and their country - the fuel of white supremacy is running low.
White supremacy is a phenomenon of entitlement; it occurs when subsequent generations of wealth and power assume positions of wealth and power by virtue of "birthright" rather than "performance." An inability to perform combined with a desire to do better drives subsequent generations of wealth and power to undertake increasingly unethical and unlawful actions to acquire more wealth and more power. It follows that two generations removed from Lincoln's Gettysburg address, you do not have to be white to be a white supremacist, and you do not have to be black to be a slave to it.
After eight years of domestic and foreign policy spearheaded by the Republican party, our country is left in shambles - economically empty, socially backwards, and far more vulnerable to terrorism than we were prior 9/11. The marketing and PR spin machine of the Republican Party is working overdrive to diffuse and transfer blame to the left and sabotage the policy undertaken by the Obama administartion to stimulate our economy and unite our country. Karl Rove designed this machine and keeps it well oiled despite the ever increasing opportunity cost to America. The price of living divided in the United Sates of America continues to rise.
To look at the big Republican party picture, you may note one consistent trend: Opposition. In the recent Presidential election, for example, we saw two campaigns for "change;" only the strategy of the Republican party, when scrutinized, ran almost exclusively on oppostion to the Democratic party. Besides cutting taxes and remaining at war, we heard far too little Republican party policy and far too much Democratic apocolyptic mumbo jumbo. If you listend only to Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, you might think that the Senator Osama Terror Hussein of Illinois were running on the Democratic ticket. As President Obama has quickly revealed himself to be the President of the people far more than Presidential Conman George W. Bush, the Republican party has been careful to sabotage the policy and stand by the man.
What the Republican party lacks, above all, is a cogent policy argument that comprehensively stands up to scrutiny and succeeds in practice. Even under President Reagan himself, Reaganomics - the cornerstone of all Republican policy - fails in practice. Reagan's economic policies inflated the national deficit from 700 billion to 3 trillion; Reagan himself called this new debt the "greatest dissappointment" of his presidency.
The failure of the thin platform of the Republican party in practice reduces their criticism to polemics. According to Wikipedia.com, "polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosphical or political matters. It is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. The word is derived from the greek word polemikos which means 'warlike,' 'hostile.'" Perhaps betting on widespread American stupidity, Ann Coulter is a self-described "polemicists." I guess polemics necessarily run deep in a party for Government that runs on a position, in the end, determined to destroy Government.
Since you can't legitimately run for an office that you're bent on destroying, you must make people think you stand for something different. Enter Karl Rove, and his blasphemous marketing machine. The machine is conceptually simple, designed to channel packages of misinformation, wrapped in themes of patriotism, freedom, and morality, to the public for consumption. Inherently the packaging often touches a nerve among a cross section of our country where indvididuals work ever harder for ever less; politicians generically call this part of the country "middle America."
So pretty is the packaging that we feel too often ungrateful (perhaps even unpatriotic) to question what's inside. Those who open the package often find nothing. There is a void in "middle America"; I know this void well because I grew up in it. The void is as much a part of me as my desire is to fill it with something that is real and meaningful. This void should not be confused with stupidity, a hypothesis occasionally pushed by glib and untimately small minded liberals. The void occurs in the absence of opportunity. The Rovian marketing and pr machine pumps this void full of empty packages devoid of meaning and often full of hostitility. It gives people stuck in the void many things to fight against (terrorism, homosexuality, abortion, gun control) but little to fight for (opportunity).
For far too long, Republican hopefuls campaign not to govern but to win. These campaigns are won by pitting one party necessarily against another on issues that in the end are of little consequence for those that fight against it. This is polemics in practice. And when our city falls from its great hill, we should not blame polemics, we should blame the polemicists behind these polemics.
We've been fighting for eight years, and what we've been fighting for has become all to obvious:
--We fought to make the rich richer, despite their performance. And then we rewarded them for driving our economy into the ground.
--We fought for Halliburton oil contracts in Iraq, while new terrorist cells rose up in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
--We fought for insurance and drug company profits, while our collective health deteriorated.
If we continue to fight blindly for empty packages of patriotism, freedom and morality, the morning sun may well reveal the shackles of a new reality in America that's as old as time।
11 January 2009
The Real Deal: Miton Friedman's Reagonomics
It's Keynes over Friedman as Democrats successfuly push the largest economic stimulus package in US History against the failure of the "free" market to manage executive pay.
But Friedman wasn't always so Reagon-o-miacal.
Milton Friedman's views changed radically, from New Deal proponent of taxes and government oversight to Reagonomic opponent of taxes and government regulation. His work is predicated on the economically simple notion that inflation is a phenomenon driven by money supply; in other words the more dollars we have, the less we value each individual dollar. This is clearly is one of the fundamental drivers of inflation, but it is far from the sole driver of inflation. Globalization seems to ever minimize the significance money supply plays in infliation as long as the increase in money supply remains steady. But this money supply fundamental seemed to lay the groundwork for Friedman's increasingly emphatic support of market deregulation. Government regulation become something of a scapegoat for inconsistences between Friedman's hypothesis and the phenomenon in practice. The global economy, however, seems far too complex for Friedman's work to shape fiscal policy rather than simply inform fiscal policy. This is a reason why Reagonomics, as shaped by Friedman's work, is doomed to fail in practice.
The truth is that the market is probably a far better manager of the economy than a partisan Government spread thin. If a free market is simply defined as a market in which citizens and companies do what they do best and "trade," however, the idea of a "free market" - a market free of regulation -fails in practice.
This failure has two clear determinites First, the free market does not exist. Period. In the global economy, a free market is borderless. It lacks tarrifs and other protectionist policies that benefits, for example, one country's workforce over another. Second, it relies on the notion of people doing what they do "best." Doing the best hinges on CEO's making business decisions that are in the best interest of the company and all its stakeholders (shareholders, stakeholders, etc.). Equally harmful are the common practices of nepotism, favoritism, indivudal greed, conflicts of interest, etc. I think possibly the stock market itself (or at least the blind focus on shareholder value) and likely derivatives markets hinder company's from achieving "the best."
There is a reason that most economic teachers teach "laissez faire" economics with apples and oranges. It's clear and it works. Unfortunately the global economy is far more than apples and oranges. In the absence of transparency, the execution of a successful deregulated economy requires far more hands than our Government as it stands has to offer.
FREE MARKET (minus) TRANSPARENCY = EXECUTIVE FREE FOR ALL.
But Friedman wasn't always so Reagon-o-miacal.
Milton Friedman's views changed radically, from New Deal proponent of taxes and government oversight to Reagonomic opponent of taxes and government regulation. His work is predicated on the economically simple notion that inflation is a phenomenon driven by money supply; in other words the more dollars we have, the less we value each individual dollar. This is clearly is one of the fundamental drivers of inflation, but it is far from the sole driver of inflation. Globalization seems to ever minimize the significance money supply plays in infliation as long as the increase in money supply remains steady. But this money supply fundamental seemed to lay the groundwork for Friedman's increasingly emphatic support of market deregulation. Government regulation become something of a scapegoat for inconsistences between Friedman's hypothesis and the phenomenon in practice. The global economy, however, seems far too complex for Friedman's work to shape fiscal policy rather than simply inform fiscal policy. This is a reason why Reagonomics, as shaped by Friedman's work, is doomed to fail in practice.
The truth is that the market is probably a far better manager of the economy than a partisan Government spread thin. If a free market is simply defined as a market in which citizens and companies do what they do best and "trade," however, the idea of a "free market" - a market free of regulation -fails in practice.
This failure has two clear determinites First, the free market does not exist. Period. In the global economy, a free market is borderless. It lacks tarrifs and other protectionist policies that benefits, for example, one country's workforce over another. Second, it relies on the notion of people doing what they do "best." Doing the best hinges on CEO's making business decisions that are in the best interest of the company and all its stakeholders (shareholders, stakeholders, etc.). Equally harmful are the common practices of nepotism, favoritism, indivudal greed, conflicts of interest, etc. I think possibly the stock market itself (or at least the blind focus on shareholder value) and likely derivatives markets hinder company's from achieving "the best."
There is a reason that most economic teachers teach "laissez faire" economics with apples and oranges. It's clear and it works. Unfortunately the global economy is far more than apples and oranges. In the absence of transparency, the execution of a successful deregulated economy requires far more hands than our Government as it stands has to offer.
FREE MARKET (minus) TRANSPARENCY = EXECUTIVE FREE FOR ALL.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)