Saturday, February 12, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Lyric Interlude > I am an American Conservative Shitheel.
http://enormousthrivingplants.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-am-american-conservative-shitheel.html
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
What do the Koran and the U.S. Constitution Have in Common?
¨ They both provide practical political instruction to large groups of fairly ignorant and feckless people, mainly in the form of establishing certain default expectations that are very powerful because they mold perception and experience, and provide practical labels that people use as a guide to reality.
¨ They are both regarded by their numerous devotees with the greatest awe as incomparable and unique, and their principal traits become ritualized and assume mythical proportions.
¨ Neither of them can be changed, although they adduce different pretexts for this peculiar common trait.
¨ They are both sacred relics from the time of our blessed ancestors who wrought no sin.
¨ Accordingly they are both completely outdated and should be discarded at the earliest opportunity in favor of something with more sex appeal.
¨ I mean, sheesh!
Rabbi Tech U. Pantzov provides practical answers for the despairing
masses who must endure the anguish of contemporary existence!
masses who must endure the anguish of contemporary existence!
Sunday, December 12, 2010
THE UNBEARABLE SMUGNESS OF THE KLEPTOCRACY
 |
FORMER REAGAN ADVISOR ANGRY BUSH 'BANKRUPTED AMERICA'
04/18/2007 @ 11:49 am
Filed by RAW STORY
Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett accused President Bush of "bankrupting" America and betraying the Reagan legacy in an interview on PBS's Tavis Smiley Show on Tuesday....
TAVIS SMILEY: Bruce Bartlett is a columnist who served as economic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and later Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department under the first President Bush. The most recent book is "Imposter: How George W. Bush bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.
...
TAVIS SMILEY: Did George W. Bush do all of that?
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: Bankrupt America? Yes, I think that we have had something like a $20 trillion increase in the national debt under this president's watch and I think that one of these days, I don't know when, but one of these days, the chickens are going to come home to roost.
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: … it appears in retrospect this president didn't really have any clear economic plan. A lot of things were done in an ad hoc basis or based solely on political considerations without much thought as to how all the pieces fit together.
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: . Secondly, I think a lot of the tax cuts were not well designed to help with economic growth and were really just the tax equivalent of pork barrel spending, just special deals for special groups. And as a consequence I don't think we have really gotten the economic benefits of the tax cuts
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: As an economist, you look at tax cuts, different kinds of tax cuts they have different effects on the economy. Some have very positive effects, some have virtually no effect at all. Some might have negative effects. If you look at the whole menu of all the different kinds of tax cuts that this president enacted, only some of them were really very helpful to economic growth and a lot of the others were not. They were just revenue that was lost to no purpose of any kind whatsoever.
...
BRUCE BARTLETT: . This president doesn't care one whit about the fiscal situation, doesn't worry at all about deficits or debt.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Global warming research for rank amateurs
Global warming research
conducted applying revolutionary
new seat-of-the-pants methodology
It's easy to be a global warming skeptic when you just want to sound tough. However businesses that have something to gain or lose by global warming are taking global warming very seriously indeed. Like insurance companies. And reinsurance companies. No scoffers at Munich Re. Read the article in Slate.
As usual, the political right is ignoring objective reality in order to support the profits of a handful of multinational corporations.
True, the ten commandments contain vital messages for today’s youth, like: “No graven images!” and “Keep the Sabbath holy!” Don't know what I would do without them commandments, no siree.
But on the other hand, saying that the thermometer is relentlessly rising, a proven scientific fact that no amount of right-wing propaganda can refute, THAT is not important. That is “junk science”. Glaciers are melting? A fluke!
So many Gates! This-Gate and That-Gate and the Other-Gate. So I decided to conduct an enquiry into global warming while avoiding any risk of data manipulation, such as that perpetrated by those horrid English scientists. (I'm still not sure what they are supposed to have done wrong.)
In a rapture of brilliance, I resolved to cut the Gordian knot by asking dozens of shopkeepers and farmers in a single town in Central America if it was now warmer than, colder than, or the same temperature as ten years ago. Without exception they all said it is now considerably warmer than ten years ago.
So I reported the results of my global warming research on a global warming skeptics' web site.
But, you guessed it: my methodology didn't cut the mustard either. The global warming skeptics were shocked, shocked! Shopkeepers! Farmers! Heaven forfend! Absolutely unacceptable!
You can’t win. Specifically, no matter what data you provide to prove global warming, it's never enough. I wonder why.
YOU CAN'T BEAT THE SHYTSEM
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Democrats Offer Stealth Liberalism
08/29/08 Wall Street Journal - Potomac Watch by Kimberley A. Strassel
http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2008/08/leading-people.html#Blog1
"If today's liberal storyline were correct, a proud "progressive" candidate should win voter acclaim with promises of higher taxes, government regulation, an encompassing health-care entitlement, protectionism and corporate-bashing. We can't know if that's the case, since the "progressive" Mr. Obama is doing such an excellent job of hiding those policies behind the conservative rhetoric of "choice," "tax cuts," "free trade" and "freedom."
Tequila Kid's reply: “Today's liberal storyline”, as you put it, is indeed accurate. You claim there's no way of telling whether voters prefer statist solutions or individualistic solutions. That claim is clearly false, and constitutes part of a mendacious conservative narrative intended to obscure the facts of America’s recent history.
In 2000 Al Gore won “voter acclaim with promises of higher taxes, government regulation, an[d] encompassing health-care entitlement”. More voters voted for liberal Gore than for ”conservative” Bush, despite an intense and ruthless campaign by the conservative mainstream media (especially The NY Times and The Washington Post) in favor of Bush. However the conservative élite – by resorting to Byzantine intrigues culminating in a judicial coup d'état -- overruled voters' preferences.
In my view freedom of collective choice is just as worth striving for as freedom of individual choice. But conservatives, who dominate the media -- thanks to the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few plutocrats, enabled in turn by pro-monopoly Republican legislation of the 1990s -- are opposed to freedom of collective choice. Their opposition takes the form of denying that such a freedom exists. The flimsy theoretical basis for this claim is to deny – within the sphere of economic theory -- the existence of public goods and of market failure.
If Obama disguises his collectivist policies as individualistic ones, that is because the politically correct conservative establishment has conducted a hysterical, decades-long witch hunt against collective decision-making by the majority through free elections. Thus Obama wishes to elude the opprobrium regularly meted out to those who challenge the cretinous free-market twaddle that in the United States has become a folk religion. The right wing denounces choices freely made by the electorate as the doings of sinister bureaucratic insiders. Conservatives wish to preserve the current system in which collective decisions are made in secret by a handful of plutocrats to further their own class interests.
It is a well-known fact that Americans overwhelmingly prefer a universal single-payer health care system. The economist and Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow conducted theoretical research into the economics of health care and concluded that a free market in health care is incompatible with inborn human values and is instinctively rejected by almost everybody.
Right-wing insistence on a private health care system is done principally pro forma, i.e. for show – since they know perfectly well that it is a chimera -- because it is required by their ideological cover story.
http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2008/08/leading-people.html#Blog1
"If today's liberal storyline were correct, a proud "progressive" candidate should win voter acclaim with promises of higher taxes, government regulation, an encompassing health-care entitlement, protectionism and corporate-bashing. We can't know if that's the case, since the "progressive" Mr. Obama is doing such an excellent job of hiding those policies behind the conservative rhetoric of "choice," "tax cuts," "free trade" and "freedom."
Tequila Kid's reply: “Today's liberal storyline”, as you put it, is indeed accurate. You claim there's no way of telling whether voters prefer statist solutions or individualistic solutions. That claim is clearly false, and constitutes part of a mendacious conservative narrative intended to obscure the facts of America’s recent history.
In 2000 Al Gore won “voter acclaim with promises of higher taxes, government regulation, an[d] encompassing health-care entitlement”. More voters voted for liberal Gore than for ”conservative” Bush, despite an intense and ruthless campaign by the conservative mainstream media (especially The NY Times and The Washington Post) in favor of Bush. However the conservative élite – by resorting to Byzantine intrigues culminating in a judicial coup d'état -- overruled voters' preferences.
In my view freedom of collective choice is just as worth striving for as freedom of individual choice. But conservatives, who dominate the media -- thanks to the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few plutocrats, enabled in turn by pro-monopoly Republican legislation of the 1990s -- are opposed to freedom of collective choice. Their opposition takes the form of denying that such a freedom exists. The flimsy theoretical basis for this claim is to deny – within the sphere of economic theory -- the existence of public goods and of market failure.
If Obama disguises his collectivist policies as individualistic ones, that is because the politically correct conservative establishment has conducted a hysterical, decades-long witch hunt against collective decision-making by the majority through free elections. Thus Obama wishes to elude the opprobrium regularly meted out to those who challenge the cretinous free-market twaddle that in the United States has become a folk religion. The right wing denounces choices freely made by the electorate as the doings of sinister bureaucratic insiders. Conservatives wish to preserve the current system in which collective decisions are made in secret by a handful of plutocrats to further their own class interests.
It is a well-known fact that Americans overwhelmingly prefer a universal single-payer health care system. The economist and Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow conducted theoretical research into the economics of health care and concluded that a free market in health care is incompatible with inborn human values and is instinctively rejected by almost everybody.
Right-wing insistence on a private health care system is done principally pro forma, i.e. for show – since they know perfectly well that it is a chimera -- because it is required by their ideological cover story.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Not the Eliot Spitzer scandal but the Banana Republican Party scandal
Indignant retort to the scribbler and régime apologist David Carr [1]
Apologists of totalitarianism can be easily identified by their habit of making mountains out of molehills while remaining conspicuously silent in the face of the most outrageously arbitrary and anti-constitutional shenanigans on the part of the state.
The true scandal is not that Mr. Spitzer hired the services of a prostitute -- which should not be illegal in the first place – but that Mr. Spitzer’ peccadilloes only came to light as a result of blatantly anti-constitutional persecution of Mr. Spitzer by the notorious Bush II régime, of odious memory, as a pretext for hounding Spitzer out of office.
That corrupt Republican potentate sicked the FBI on Mr. Spitzer, illegally and unjustly breaching his bank secrecy rights, as an act of retaliation for Mr. Spitzer’s revelation in the pages of the Washington Post that the Bush mob had been instrumental in blocking any federal or state law enforcement action to nip the mortgage crisis in the bud. [2] I will prudently refrain from speculating on the magnitude of the swag thereby plundered by the Bush mob.
As revealed by Mr. Spitzer, the corrupt Banana Republican régime around 2003 not only signally failed to prevent, but actually egged on the fraudulent schemes of Wall Street swindler outfits like Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, Bank of America, etc. in amassing vast illegal profits from granting and then securitizing fraudulent mortgages.
Thanks to the protection granted by the Bush mob and the festering corruption of the Banana Republican Party, swindler mortgages fueled a huge speculative boom that led to the present financial crisis, which threatens to blight the lives of a whole generation of human beings.
The issue is not “Client number nine”, as David Carr, the cynical scribbler and régime apologist of the NY Times, calls the then governor of New York. The problem is the domination of government by an infamous and parasitical financial oligarchy that uses shit-heel politicos like the nepo-oligarch Bush II as accomplices in its frenzied quest for boundless filthy lucre, come hell or high water.
Mr. Spitzer, as the victim of political persecution by the Banana Republican Party in its capacity as a tool of the parasitical financial oligarchy, which he courageously combated for many years in his capacity as New York Attorney General and consequently ex officio overseer of the fetid Wall Street swamp, should be spared as a matter of principle the indignity of being taunted with names like “Client number nine” by the scribblers of the now neoconservative NY Times.
Mr. Spitzer is a political dissident who has been illegally persecuted by our corrupt masters, and hence deserves the support, respect and admiration of all. He is the American Sinyavsky, the American Solzhenytsin, who denounced to the world the bottomless pit of corruption that is synonymous with the odious tyranny exercised by the oligarchy through its tools like the Banana Republican gangsters.
To join the meretricious rabble taunting Mr. Spitzer is to support the totalitarian rule of the parasitical financial oligarchy. It is to become an accomplice of the countless crimes of the ruling caste.
[1] Client 9 and Other Interested Parties, by David Carr, October 22, 2010, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/movies/24client.html?WT.mc_id=MO-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M173b-ROS-1010-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click&ei=5087&en=a06e98735e1656b6&ex=1303790400&pagewanted=print
[2] Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime. How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers, by Eliot Spitzer, New York governor, Washington Post, Thursday, February 14, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Apologists of totalitarianism can be easily identified by their habit of making mountains out of molehills while remaining conspicuously silent in the face of the most outrageously arbitrary and anti-constitutional shenanigans on the part of the state.
The true scandal is not that Mr. Spitzer hired the services of a prostitute -- which should not be illegal in the first place – but that Mr. Spitzer’ peccadilloes only came to light as a result of blatantly anti-constitutional persecution of Mr. Spitzer by the notorious Bush II régime, of odious memory, as a pretext for hounding Spitzer out of office.
That corrupt Republican potentate sicked the FBI on Mr. Spitzer, illegally and unjustly breaching his bank secrecy rights, as an act of retaliation for Mr. Spitzer’s revelation in the pages of the Washington Post that the Bush mob had been instrumental in blocking any federal or state law enforcement action to nip the mortgage crisis in the bud. [2] I will prudently refrain from speculating on the magnitude of the swag thereby plundered by the Bush mob.
As revealed by Mr. Spitzer, the corrupt Banana Republican régime around 2003 not only signally failed to prevent, but actually egged on the fraudulent schemes of Wall Street swindler outfits like Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, Bank of America, etc. in amassing vast illegal profits from granting and then securitizing fraudulent mortgages.
Thanks to the protection granted by the Bush mob and the festering corruption of the Banana Republican Party, swindler mortgages fueled a huge speculative boom that led to the present financial crisis, which threatens to blight the lives of a whole generation of human beings.
The issue is not “Client number nine”, as David Carr, the cynical scribbler and régime apologist of the NY Times, calls the then governor of New York. The problem is the domination of government by an infamous and parasitical financial oligarchy that uses shit-heel politicos like the nepo-oligarch Bush II as accomplices in its frenzied quest for boundless filthy lucre, come hell or high water.
Mr. Spitzer, as the victim of political persecution by the Banana Republican Party in its capacity as a tool of the parasitical financial oligarchy, which he courageously combated for many years in his capacity as New York Attorney General and consequently ex officio overseer of the fetid Wall Street swamp, should be spared as a matter of principle the indignity of being taunted with names like “Client number nine” by the scribblers of the now neoconservative NY Times.
Mr. Spitzer is a political dissident who has been illegally persecuted by our corrupt masters, and hence deserves the support, respect and admiration of all. He is the American Sinyavsky, the American Solzhenytsin, who denounced to the world the bottomless pit of corruption that is synonymous with the odious tyranny exercised by the oligarchy through its tools like the Banana Republican gangsters.
To join the meretricious rabble taunting Mr. Spitzer is to support the totalitarian rule of the parasitical financial oligarchy. It is to become an accomplice of the countless crimes of the ruling caste.
[1] Client 9 and Other Interested Parties, by David Carr, October 22, 2010, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/movies/24client.html?WT.mc_id=MO-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M173b-ROS-1010-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click&ei=5087&en=a06e98735e1656b6&ex=1303790400&pagewanted=print
[2] Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime. How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers, by Eliot Spitzer, New York governor, Washington Post, Thursday, February 14, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)