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.
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/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)