Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Rape and mutilation: Is this true...?
While traipsing through some corners of the internet where I normally do not traipse, I came across two startling (and vividly written) paragraphs on a feminist blog. The author was shocked by the contents of a Halloween "haunted house" walk-through attraction:
My question is this: Are rape scenes really all the rage at spook houses right now? Or are we dealing with yet another case of an ideologist misrepresenting a single example as a trend?
I do not patronize such establishments, preferring to spend my Halloweens visiting alleged "real life" haunted locales. It's the one night of the year when I drop the skeptical curmudgeon persona and go ghost-chasing. (S'fun. And anyone who would deny me a little holiday fun can go screw.)
After some cursory googling, I could find no evidence supporting the notion that rape and genital-mutilation scenes are now de riguer at Halloween spook-houses. Oddly enough, the only articles which discuss rape scenes tend to focus on "Hell Houses" erected by fundamentalist Christian churches. However, my research is preliminary. Connoisseurs of such entertainments are in a better position to answer the question: Has this country institutionalized seasonal rape dioramas?
The piece quoted above does link to an adults-only "Chamber of Horrors" in Georgia which maintains this site. The very first photograph on that site (upper left-hand corner) depicts a classic tableau of female dominance/male submission. However, most of the other images do show women undergoing torture. Not my cup of tea. I'll remember these images next time some southerner tries to persuade me of the moral superiority of his ever-so-Christian co-regionalists.
I do agree with the passage about cinematic torture-porn -- a subject which I intend to address at length one of these weekends. At what point do we confess a causal link between that stuff and this stuff? Permalink
I suppose all of you readers are saying to your computers, “Duh, Nine Deuce, it’s a haunted house. What did you think was going on?” But you must remember that I haven’t been in a haunted house since maybe 1989. At that time, the average haunted house was just a series of dark halls in which drama club dorks with masks and plastic axes would jump out at you and say things like, “You’d better run for your life!” in their best attempt at a spooky muahahaha voice. Even when I was eleven that shit was basically whatever the opposite of scary is. But now it’s 2009, and we live in a world in which movies like Hostel, Saw 1-76, and the Halloween remakes (which are Rob Zombie joints, in case you didn’t know) make millions of dollars. I should have known that would affect the goings-on at the nation’s haunted houses. Stupid me.The writer then ladles on the usual ideological yada yada: "Is there really anyone out there who still denies the fact that pretty much everyone hates women?" Yeah. Me. I so deny. But I also recognize that hyper-paranoid assertions of that sort make some women feel better about themselves, just as many NOI members feel a great psychic steam-release when they assert in public that everyone with white skin is the devil.
Apparently, in the modern haunted house scene, rape is where it’s at. Kerry and Natethaniel told me that the haunted house’s “attractions” included a woman being brutally gang raped, women being tortured, women being murdered, a woman’s torso with the genital area completely mutilated, an exploding ass (I forgot to ask what sex the exploding ass was), and so on and so forth. All of the above came with plenty of blood. My friend Steve said that a better name for the haunted house might be “The Mutilated Vagina House,” and I asked him, rhetorically, why there weren’t more mutilated penises in the mix. He replied that no one would come, and he was right.
My question is this: Are rape scenes really all the rage at spook houses right now? Or are we dealing with yet another case of an ideologist misrepresenting a single example as a trend?
I do not patronize such establishments, preferring to spend my Halloweens visiting alleged "real life" haunted locales. It's the one night of the year when I drop the skeptical curmudgeon persona and go ghost-chasing. (S'fun. And anyone who would deny me a little holiday fun can go screw.)
After some cursory googling, I could find no evidence supporting the notion that rape and genital-mutilation scenes are now de riguer at Halloween spook-houses. Oddly enough, the only articles which discuss rape scenes tend to focus on "Hell Houses" erected by fundamentalist Christian churches. However, my research is preliminary. Connoisseurs of such entertainments are in a better position to answer the question: Has this country institutionalized seasonal rape dioramas?
The piece quoted above does link to an adults-only "Chamber of Horrors" in Georgia which maintains this site. The very first photograph on that site (upper left-hand corner) depicts a classic tableau of female dominance/male submission. However, most of the other images do show women undergoing torture. Not my cup of tea. I'll remember these images next time some southerner tries to persuade me of the moral superiority of his ever-so-Christian co-regionalists.
I do agree with the passage about cinematic torture-porn -- a subject which I intend to address at length one of these weekends. At what point do we confess a causal link between that stuff and this stuff? Permalink
Hunted houses might be outrageous, but not as outrageous as:
THE INFLUENCE GAME: Bishops shape health care bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_catholic_lobby
It was Stupak who told Pelosi last Friday that if she wanted a deal on the health bill, she'd be well advised to invite the bishops' staff, who were already in his office, to her table. "I said, 'Well, they're here, and they're one of the key groups you want to have on your side, so why don't we just bring them in and work this out," Stupak said.
Pelosi did, and the result was a final measure that — much to the outrage of abortion rights supporters — bars a new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases or rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger, and prohibits any health plan that receives federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. If women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they'd have to buy it separately, as a so-called rider on their insurance policies.
THE INFLUENCE GAME: Bishops shape health care bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_catholic_lobby
It was Stupak who told Pelosi last Friday that if she wanted a deal on the health bill, she'd be well advised to invite the bishops' staff, who were already in his office, to her table. "I said, 'Well, they're here, and they're one of the key groups you want to have on your side, so why don't we just bring them in and work this out," Stupak said.
Pelosi did, and the result was a final measure that — much to the outrage of abortion rights supporters — bars a new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases or rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger, and prohibits any health plan that receives federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. If women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they'd have to buy it separately, as a so-called rider on their insurance policies.
"At what point do we confess a causal link between that stuff and this stuff?"
Nail on the head, sir. Although the culpability must be shared with 1st person shooter videogames and that lovely game where one gets to drive around killing prostitutes and shoot at cops....
Nail on the head, sir. Although the culpability must be shared with 1st person shooter videogames and that lovely game where one gets to drive around killing prostitutes and shoot at cops....
Oh please. Violent video games do not make people violent. There's no evidence of that matter how many Jack Thompsons would wish otherwise. That particular argument has as much credibility as the idea that rock and roll is corrupting our youth. Sociopaths sometimes play video games. They might also listen to Avenged Sevenfold, but I wouldn't try to claim causality between that and their desire to mutilate kittens.
I knew there would be an exchange like this. That's why I was careful to phrase my question the way I did.
I did not say: "Do you think THIS causes THAT?" I asked: "At what point do we confess that this causes that?"
If you can't spot the difference in meaning, read the last paragraph again.
What I'm getting at is this: Regardless of what your feelings right now might be, is there ANY conceivable study, any conceivable piece of research that WOULD transform your beliefs?
I think that this problem is a bit like the question of whether ESP exists. If you are personally inclined to say "Yes, it does," then the evidence presented by Rhine all those years ago will suffice. If you are personally inclined to say "No, don't be ridiculous -- of course ESP doesn't exist," then not only will you say that Rhine's methodology was flawed, you will say the same thing about every other experiment that has been done or will be done, if the results of those experiments run contrary to your preconceptions.
That said...
I don't know whether societal acceptance of tortureporn, and its easy acquisition by minors, leads to kids callously burning other kids. I don't know whether tortureporn triggers outrages like Columbine. I honestly do not know.
But...
I DO think that any research which offers conclusions contrary to the stance you have right now (whoever you might be and whatever your stance might be) will be rejected.
So again I ask: At what point do we confess that our preconceptions are wrong? If you think there is no causality between tortureporn and real life brutality, at what point will you admit: "I've seen fresh data, and science has proven me wrong"? On the other hand, if you think that there IS causality, at what point will you say "Science has proven me wrong"?
In today's culture, is there any point at all to the search for "evidence"? Maybe Steve Colbert is right: The only thing that matters to most people nowadays is gut instinct.
I'll bet that most readers will completely misunderstand the question that I'm asking here. I'm NOT asking for your opinion about either tortureporn or ESP or anything else of that nature. I'm posing an epistemological question: What are your standards of evidence? Isn't it true that those standards change depending on whether they conflict with your biases?
I did not say: "Do you think THIS causes THAT?" I asked: "At what point do we confess that this causes that?"
If you can't spot the difference in meaning, read the last paragraph again.
What I'm getting at is this: Regardless of what your feelings right now might be, is there ANY conceivable study, any conceivable piece of research that WOULD transform your beliefs?
I think that this problem is a bit like the question of whether ESP exists. If you are personally inclined to say "Yes, it does," then the evidence presented by Rhine all those years ago will suffice. If you are personally inclined to say "No, don't be ridiculous -- of course ESP doesn't exist," then not only will you say that Rhine's methodology was flawed, you will say the same thing about every other experiment that has been done or will be done, if the results of those experiments run contrary to your preconceptions.
That said...
I don't know whether societal acceptance of tortureporn, and its easy acquisition by minors, leads to kids callously burning other kids. I don't know whether tortureporn triggers outrages like Columbine. I honestly do not know.
But...
I DO think that any research which offers conclusions contrary to the stance you have right now (whoever you might be and whatever your stance might be) will be rejected.
So again I ask: At what point do we confess that our preconceptions are wrong? If you think there is no causality between tortureporn and real life brutality, at what point will you admit: "I've seen fresh data, and science has proven me wrong"? On the other hand, if you think that there IS causality, at what point will you say "Science has proven me wrong"?
In today's culture, is there any point at all to the search for "evidence"? Maybe Steve Colbert is right: The only thing that matters to most people nowadays is gut instinct.
I'll bet that most readers will completely misunderstand the question that I'm asking here. I'm NOT asking for your opinion about either tortureporn or ESP or anything else of that nature. I'm posing an epistemological question: What are your standards of evidence? Isn't it true that those standards change depending on whether they conflict with your biases?
All of the research I have ever read to date is that there is no causal relationship between non-violent porn and violence against women. There seems to be very little out there on violent porn and violence against women. But there is some research on how violent sexual predators are formed. Aside from any genetics that may be at play, there is some research on how attachments are made or not made in childhood in that makes a person a violent predator. I also have read some interesting research that violent predators use violent porn images for three reasons: 1 to stimulate themselves; 2 to lower the destroy resistance in their victims; and 3 as a teaching tool for their victims.
There was also one British study that said there was a short term effect on young children of violent images. But I did not have time to read it in depth.
The effect on young children with any porn as always been my chief concern.
As to your question of would any research change my opinion, I think yes.
There was also one British study that said there was a short term effect on young children of violent images. But I did not have time to read it in depth.
The effect on young children with any porn as always been my chief concern.
As to your question of would any research change my opinion, I think yes.
That may be true for your Roberta. But increasingly, it is not true for the average American citizen. Most people would rather slit their own throats than admit that they might be wrong.
I mean, have you ever tried to convince an Alex Jones fan that the Illuminati is a myth?
I'm ignoring the material in your earlier paragraphs because it is of little interest to me at the moment. Right now, I'm more intrigued by the issue of epistemology.
I mean, have you ever tried to convince an Alex Jones fan that the Illuminati is a myth?
I'm ignoring the material in your earlier paragraphs because it is of little interest to me at the moment. Right now, I'm more intrigued by the issue of epistemology.
Added note: Maybe the Alex Jones thing was a tired example. I pick on him a lot.
So let's ask the same question in a different way: Do you think any evidence -- even a million-buck study conducted by the finest universities -- could convince the feminist author quoted in this post that she is wrong when she says that everyone hates women?
This problem has been gnawing at me all day. Seems to me that if we can't answer the question of "what constitutes sufficient evidence?" -- if we can't cobble together an answer to Pilate's query -- then all of our other queries are moot.
So let's ask the same question in a different way: Do you think any evidence -- even a million-buck study conducted by the finest universities -- could convince the feminist author quoted in this post that she is wrong when she says that everyone hates women?
This problem has been gnawing at me all day. Seems to me that if we can't answer the question of "what constitutes sufficient evidence?" -- if we can't cobble together an answer to Pilate's query -- then all of our other queries are moot.
For some reason I zeroed in on the ESP experiment Dr. Peter Venkman was doing in Ghostbusters.
As to the other question, if I understand it, psychiatry is still a soft science. When you drop a cannonball (no pun intended) off the leaning tower of Piza it hits the ground every time. The science of the mind hasn't reached that certainty yet. As long as there is room for doubt?
As to the other question, if I understand it, psychiatry is still a soft science. When you drop a cannonball (no pun intended) off the leaning tower of Piza it hits the ground every time. The science of the mind hasn't reached that certainty yet. As long as there is room for doubt?
Another reading comprehension post... he said as he awaits his copy of Call of Duty.btw I remember when comic books incited kids to violence and before that Karloff's Frankenstein caused people to kill children.
"This problem has been gnawing at me all day.
Gee. A whole day. Wow.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm thinking this way: we know a lot about viruses and immunization, right? Yet, why does the same polio vaccine, administered to poor starving people in an undeveloped environment, and to healthier people in a developed environment, produce disease in the former and immunity in the latter?
Gee. A whole day. Wow.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm thinking this way: we know a lot about viruses and immunization, right? Yet, why does the same polio vaccine, administered to poor starving people in an undeveloped environment, and to healthier people in a developed environment, produce disease in the former and immunity in the latter?
Gary, let's just say that I have periods in my life where that question seems to be THE question, and all others seem irrelevant.
Then the phase ends, and I start thinking about other things.
But I keep coming back...
Post a Comment
<< Home
Then the phase ends, and I start thinking about other things.
But I keep coming back...
We've peaked
According to the Guardian, a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency says that U.S., in an effort to forestall panic buying, has deliberately fudged the numbers concerning how much oil we have left. If this source is correct, then the fields now producing some 70 million barrels a day will be reduced to less than 30 million barrels a day by 2030.
Game over, dude. We need a new game. Permalink
Game over, dude. We need a new game. Permalink
This has been going on for a very long time. Oil and Drugs are primary world wide products. Oil is openly marketed by companies using corruption embedded with conspiracies within Government(s)for profit taking and Drugs are world wide marketed coverty by our own government and others. Our problem is that drugs are being targeted to our children! I personally know people who are directly involved in the World Wide Drug Market.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
I dunno. I'm feeling railroaded.
Our gummint deliberately lied about rebates for efficient furnaces and boilers. In point of fact, there are no widely available 90% efficient oil furnaces, so the rebates are ONLY for home owners converting to gas.
And what happens when we're all stampeded into the next energy pen? More of the same. Still cattle. Veal, in fact.
Our gummint deliberately lied about rebates for efficient furnaces and boilers. In point of fact, there are no widely available 90% efficient oil furnaces, so the rebates are ONLY for home owners converting to gas.
And what happens when we're all stampeded into the next energy pen? More of the same. Still cattle. Veal, in fact.
Then again, I'm sure this story isn't a precursor to another round of market manipulation during the heating oil season. That would be foily.
Google "peak oil," Joseph. With relatively new techniques, however, we have better sources of natural gas than we do oil. And we will not run out of oil quickly -- but the theory is that we are probably producing about as much as we ever will.
djmm
djmm
Peak oil is known as a hoax even in conspiracy theory circles. They been screaming peak oil for ages. The simple fact is that they don't know how much oil is left. It's always been this way. Have the numbers been fudged? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean peak oil is happening now.
Expenential demand means that peak oil will happen at some point. It's been predicted this would happen at least 30 years ago. Hasn't happened. It was predicted it would happen 20 years ago. Didn't happen. On and on. It was at its highest in the late 90's and early 2000's. Now, it's just ridiculous and I feel sorry that you mentioned this as I know you like to avoid conspiracy theories. This one is so bad even conspiracy theorists don't touch it anymore.
Expenential demand means that peak oil will happen at some point. It's been predicted this would happen at least 30 years ago. Hasn't happened. It was predicted it would happen 20 years ago. Didn't happen. On and on. It was at its highest in the late 90's and early 2000's. Now, it's just ridiculous and I feel sorry that you mentioned this as I know you like to avoid conspiracy theories. This one is so bad even conspiracy theorists don't touch it anymore.
No offense, Mr X, but a comment like yours reminds me of the last line of "The Son Also Rises." The Guardian is a reputable journal, better than most, and when they say they've spoken to someone important at the IEA, I believe they have done just that.
Does that make it so? No. Does that make the story worth watching? Yes.
Does that make it so? No. Does that make the story worth watching? Yes.
30 years ago? that's bullshit. Hubbert said it would happen around now (and they called him a conspy guy when he said that US domestic oil would peak as well-- of course, once everyone realized he was right they started to listen to him, a little...
"even in conspiracy circles"
Well, if the tin foil hatters, Michigan Militia, Holocaust deniers and the AEI all say it's a crock then ...then what exactly? Thanks for that Mr. X
FWIW this is the chart Hubbert made in 1956: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg
30 years ago my ass...
but y'all wanna stay warm this winter-- build one of these: http://www.instructables.com/id/Solar-Heater/ you can even do it cheaper, with black paint a bunch of tin cans and one pane of glass if you needed to... no oil. no greasy kids stuff.
Then again, in the conspy circles I hear the sun doesn't really exist, it's just aerosols of Bromium and Edward Teller's ashes
spewed from gray government jets...
and solar thermal heat was actually invented by the nazis with stolen UFO technology modified by the Mayans..
"even in conspiracy circles"
Well, if the tin foil hatters, Michigan Militia, Holocaust deniers and the AEI all say it's a crock then ...then what exactly? Thanks for that Mr. X
FWIW this is the chart Hubbert made in 1956: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg
30 years ago my ass...
but y'all wanna stay warm this winter-- build one of these: http://www.instructables.com/id/Solar-Heater/ you can even do it cheaper, with black paint a bunch of tin cans and one pane of glass if you needed to... no oil. no greasy kids stuff.
Then again, in the conspy circles I hear the sun doesn't really exist, it's just aerosols of Bromium and Edward Teller's ashes
spewed from gray government jets...
and solar thermal heat was actually invented by the nazis with stolen UFO technology modified by the Mayans..
Ooookay, Bob...I'll check it out...
In the meantime, I want to apologize to Hemingway fans. I meant, of course, "The SUN Also Rises."
One day I'll learn how to write comments at something less than white-hot speed. Then I won't make any typos.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
Post a Comment
<< Home
In the meantime, I want to apologize to Hemingway fans. I meant, of course, "The SUN Also Rises."
One day I'll learn how to write comments at something less than white-hot speed. Then I won't make any typos.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
Bravery (updated)
I've admired Colleen Rowley -- former FBI agent and 9/11 whistleblower -- for years. But I never expected her to be brave enough to endorse a book like this. Bravo!
Update: I also have to congratulate Dennis Kucinich for the courage he has shown regarding the House health care reform bill. Check out his interview with Amy Goodman:
Update: I also have to congratulate Dennis Kucinich for the courage he has shown regarding the House health care reform bill. Check out his interview with Amy Goodman:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it’s better than what we have now?Permalink
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No. Actually, it’s not, because it locks us into a for-profit system that the government subsidizes... This bill doesn’t effectively moderate what they can charge for premiums or co-pays or deductibles. It just says people have to have insurance. Well, insurance doesn’t necessarily equate to care, and care comes at a cost.
I read quite a bit of the original bill, gave up; nothing of this latest 2K version, which in any case is not final.
The heart of the proposal is loosely based on the Swiss system (exchanges between Swiss insurers/officials/academics with the US on this matter have been heavy.)
In CH, employers pay nothing, each individual has private insurance. All health insurers must offer a package called BASIC, which has a co-pay of 700 dollars (about) in one year, plus a deductible one can pick from 300 to 2.5K. It basically covers everything except dental / elective surgery / spas / psychoanalysis/ few ‘other’ that aren’t really health. Insurees are free to choose their insurer; but the BASIC package is so tightly controlled by the Gvmt. (and negotiations between the different parties - docs, patients, pharma, etc.) the differences aren’t consequent, and ppl hardly ever change their insurance. There are no pre existing conditions clauses and I have never heard of an insurance refusing a bill except when said bill was fraudulent, or a double bill, etc.
The differences with the prop are:
Doctors / hospitals are paid by the ‘act’ and the price is fixed. Med. pers. are thus either micro-entrepreneurs (who can choose to work more or less, perform high costs stuff or not...) or salaried workers, all thus pretty much on Fixed Pay. (And none are rich, except the small number who operates on Saudi princes or French movie stars.)
Insurers can’t make big money from the BASIC: if they do (by lucky accident or whatever) they must keep reserves for bad years or bail out other cos. who did poorly. (I’m simplifying wildly to get the spirit across.) They make money by complementary insurance.
There are no fines for the uninsured. If caught uninsured (and nobody is going around looking for them), the State insures you automatically in the cheapest plan, and you then get bills from them...if you don’t pay it goes eventually to the BK courts, like for any other long unpaid debt... if you are young, uninsured, and get sick, you get insurance right away.
Those who can’t afford the premiums (which are high!) can, and do, apply to Social Services, which is an entity separate from health care. They may then be paid a subsidy (whole or partial) for these costs they cannot bear. (Or may get help with rent, a free wheel chair, etc.)
In this way (and others too long to go into) the tax payer (state) pays about 30% of the overall costs. This is much less than in the US, which in fact has very strongly ‘socialized’ medecine, in the shape of emergency room, *military* and VET care, prisoner care, Indian care, indigent care, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, and other programs. Generally, here, judged to account for 50% of the cost...this a thorny topic so I won’t link, it all gets hyper complicated, and the distinction between private/public is not the most germane one.
I don’t think the Swiss system is good, but the Swiss ppl have voted many times to maintain it.
Ana
The heart of the proposal is loosely based on the Swiss system (exchanges between Swiss insurers/officials/academics with the US on this matter have been heavy.)
In CH, employers pay nothing, each individual has private insurance. All health insurers must offer a package called BASIC, which has a co-pay of 700 dollars (about) in one year, plus a deductible one can pick from 300 to 2.5K. It basically covers everything except dental / elective surgery / spas / psychoanalysis/ few ‘other’ that aren’t really health. Insurees are free to choose their insurer; but the BASIC package is so tightly controlled by the Gvmt. (and negotiations between the different parties - docs, patients, pharma, etc.) the differences aren’t consequent, and ppl hardly ever change their insurance. There are no pre existing conditions clauses and I have never heard of an insurance refusing a bill except when said bill was fraudulent, or a double bill, etc.
The differences with the prop are:
Doctors / hospitals are paid by the ‘act’ and the price is fixed. Med. pers. are thus either micro-entrepreneurs (who can choose to work more or less, perform high costs stuff or not...) or salaried workers, all thus pretty much on Fixed Pay. (And none are rich, except the small number who operates on Saudi princes or French movie stars.)
Insurers can’t make big money from the BASIC: if they do (by lucky accident or whatever) they must keep reserves for bad years or bail out other cos. who did poorly. (I’m simplifying wildly to get the spirit across.) They make money by complementary insurance.
There are no fines for the uninsured. If caught uninsured (and nobody is going around looking for them), the State insures you automatically in the cheapest plan, and you then get bills from them...if you don’t pay it goes eventually to the BK courts, like for any other long unpaid debt... if you are young, uninsured, and get sick, you get insurance right away.
Those who can’t afford the premiums (which are high!) can, and do, apply to Social Services, which is an entity separate from health care. They may then be paid a subsidy (whole or partial) for these costs they cannot bear. (Or may get help with rent, a free wheel chair, etc.)
In this way (and others too long to go into) the tax payer (state) pays about 30% of the overall costs. This is much less than in the US, which in fact has very strongly ‘socialized’ medecine, in the shape of emergency room, *military* and VET care, prisoner care, Indian care, indigent care, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, and other programs. Generally, here, judged to account for 50% of the cost...this a thorny topic so I won’t link, it all gets hyper complicated, and the distinction between private/public is not the most germane one.
I don’t think the Swiss system is good, but the Swiss ppl have voted many times to maintain it.
Ana
Colleen Rowley, and Dennis Kucinich are heros to me as well. I would add Scott Ritter to the list.
Would like to read Joseph's opinion on Scott's arrest one day as to weather or not it was just an effort to discredit him.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Would like to read Joseph's opinion on Scott's arrest one day as to weather or not it was just an effort to discredit him.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Obama says GOMER
Perhaps the purpose of passing health care reform NOW NOW NOW is not so much to institute socialized medicine (as the teabaggers believe) but to get rid of already-existing socialized medicine.
We already have socialized medicine, of a sort, for the poor. The system too hold during those misty pre-Reagan years, when this country was saner, more charitable and more prosperous. The system is inefficient in that it provides only emergency care, not preventative care. And emergency room physicians are required only to stabilize the patient, who may require more comprehensive treatment.
Still, the impoverished need access to that emergency room. They don't pay for the emergency care they receive. They can't be sued for payment, because lack of property makes them judgment-proof; if they are lucky enough to possess an old car, they may be living in it.
Until we return to Keynesianism -- which we won't -- the numbers of the impoverished will continue to grow. That may be the plan. Even if there is no plan, that's where we are going. We will see growing income disparity, growing unemployment, a growing lumpenproletariat to keep wages low and job insecurity high.
Right now, the uninsured are billed three times higher than are insured patients. Usually, the taxpayers pick up the tab. (Michelle Obama helped to run a hospital in Chicago which did this sort of thing routinely.)
You can see the problem -- the real health care crisis. If you double the number of lumpenproles, you double the number of people reliant on socialized (emergency) medicine. The true owners of this nation would prefer for members of the peasant class to crawl into some corner and simply...die.
The Pelosi/Obama bill may, in effect, keep more poor people out of that ER. Call it the GOMER bill. GOMER is doctors' slang: Get Out of My Emergency Room.
Those without regular jobs take any temp gig they can find. Businesses large and small are firing regular employees and hiring freelancers. Right now, there are some eight million "independent contractors" in the work force. Some freelance by choice. Many freelance because they have no other option, because times are tough and a gig is a gig. I strongly suspect that the number of freelancers will swell during the next five years -- it may even double.
The public option is supposed to take care of all those workers not covered by employers or Medicare. Will it?
No.
In the first place, the public option will probably die in the Senate. Even if it survives, the public option will still cost money -- monthly payments which many cannot make. A freelancer may find work only half the year. Millions of Americans are "food insecure" -- that is, hungry. They can't afford health care -- hell, they can't even afford a dollar cheeseburger at BK.
And what about their dependents?
Consider this: If you fall off the social grid for a while -- if you spend a period homeless, living in your car, living in a friend's garage or on a sofa (and millions live such lives right now) -- you will likely stop paying taxes. Shocked? Then you've never been in that situation. When you're sleeping under a bridge, you have other things on your mind besides filling out a 1040.
When those who have fallen off the grid do find some form of freelance or "under the table" work again -- earning maybe $800 a month, just enough to survive -- they avoid filling out tax forms. They hide from the IRS not because they don't want to pay money to the government (they probably will owe little or nothing), but because they fear having to explain their "missing years" to the authorities.
"You see, sir, I didn't fill out my tax form that year because..." Yow. No-one wants to say those words. Ever. Better to stay under the radar as long as possible.
Those in this situation tell themselves that they'll make things right with Uncle Sam as soon as they start earning some decent money -- something more than $800 a month. Enough to hire a lawyer.
How many people are in this situation? I don't know. Perhaps nobody knows. I do know that roughly 140,000,000 citizens filed tax returns last year -- in a country of 300 million.
Consider the fictional case of Ellen. She spent a few years jobless, depressed and pretty much homeless. She got by somehow -- lived with a friend, shacked up with a guy she really didn't like, spent some time sleeping in an old Chevy Cavalier.
Now she's making some money again -- not much, well under $1000 a month. She is an "independent contractor" and the income is insecure. But she is (usually) able to pay $500 a month for rent and utilities in a shared apartment. She's not really back on her feet, but she has regained some small measure of dignity, even though she eats a lot of pasta.
Is she going to pay for health insurance? Probably not. Screw the mandate: This is survival. Will she apply for a hardship exemption? No -- for a reason which you've probably already figured out.
One night, Ellen is eating pork roast. (It's cheap.) And she feels something awful: A blockage in the esophagus. The food has gotten stuck on its way down, and now she feels as though someone shoved a boulder beneath her rib cage. She can't eat another bite. She can't even swallow her own saliva. She's in constant discomfort-bordering-on-pain.
Although she may not know the term, she suffers from a food bolus. A growing number of Americans experience this unhappy phenomenon.
What will happen to Ellen? Well, she could wait it out, despite the extreme discomfort. The bolus might dislodge itself within a day or two. Then again, it could stay right where it is. If it doesn't budge or dissolve, she'll eventually die.
She should go to the ER right away. But will she?
Under today's system of socialized emergency medicine for the poor, she probably would go to the hospital within 24 hours. But under Pelosi's plan, she knows that stepping into that hospital mean paying an unpayable fine, because she can't afford to be on a health plan. And she's terrified to fill out any forms giving out her personal information, because the last year she filled out a tax form was the year she "fell off the grid."
So she stays home, spitting out her saliva every minute, unable to sleep, feeling ready to die. Maybe she ends up doing just that.
Well, screw Ellen. She didn't pay taxes. She didn't really contribute to the economy. It's not as though society owed her a decent job or a social safety net. Let the bitch die. Too bad the taxpayers have to fork over the money to put her underground.
Ellen's story has millions of variations, and all of them will play out in the coming years.
The jobs are not coming back, because both the Republicans and the Democrats consider the remedies (protectionism, Keynesian job-creation) ideologically impermissible. If there are X number of Ellens out there right now, there will be 2X by 2015. For most of those Ellens, the awful health care system we have now is preferable to the proposed reforms.
Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have sent a message to all of those Ellens: Get Out of My Emergency Room!
One final note: What about those who have stepped a few rungs above Ellen on society's ladder? Well, the failed Massachusetts experiment tells us what to expect from Pelosi's hellish admixture of mandates and penalties. Across the nation, we'll be hearing many more complaints like this one:
No-one will listen to those fringe-dwelling bloggers who insist that single payer -- the only workable system -- was never given a chance. Permalink
We already have socialized medicine, of a sort, for the poor. The system too hold during those misty pre-Reagan years, when this country was saner, more charitable and more prosperous. The system is inefficient in that it provides only emergency care, not preventative care. And emergency room physicians are required only to stabilize the patient, who may require more comprehensive treatment.
Still, the impoverished need access to that emergency room. They don't pay for the emergency care they receive. They can't be sued for payment, because lack of property makes them judgment-proof; if they are lucky enough to possess an old car, they may be living in it.
Until we return to Keynesianism -- which we won't -- the numbers of the impoverished will continue to grow. That may be the plan. Even if there is no plan, that's where we are going. We will see growing income disparity, growing unemployment, a growing lumpenproletariat to keep wages low and job insecurity high.
Right now, the uninsured are billed three times higher than are insured patients. Usually, the taxpayers pick up the tab. (Michelle Obama helped to run a hospital in Chicago which did this sort of thing routinely.)
You can see the problem -- the real health care crisis. If you double the number of lumpenproles, you double the number of people reliant on socialized (emergency) medicine. The true owners of this nation would prefer for members of the peasant class to crawl into some corner and simply...die.
The Pelosi/Obama bill may, in effect, keep more poor people out of that ER. Call it the GOMER bill. GOMER is doctors' slang: Get Out of My Emergency Room.
Those without regular jobs take any temp gig they can find. Businesses large and small are firing regular employees and hiring freelancers. Right now, there are some eight million "independent contractors" in the work force. Some freelance by choice. Many freelance because they have no other option, because times are tough and a gig is a gig. I strongly suspect that the number of freelancers will swell during the next five years -- it may even double.
The public option is supposed to take care of all those workers not covered by employers or Medicare. Will it?
No.
In the first place, the public option will probably die in the Senate. Even if it survives, the public option will still cost money -- monthly payments which many cannot make. A freelancer may find work only half the year. Millions of Americans are "food insecure" -- that is, hungry. They can't afford health care -- hell, they can't even afford a dollar cheeseburger at BK.
And what about their dependents?
Consider this: If you fall off the social grid for a while -- if you spend a period homeless, living in your car, living in a friend's garage or on a sofa (and millions live such lives right now) -- you will likely stop paying taxes. Shocked? Then you've never been in that situation. When you're sleeping under a bridge, you have other things on your mind besides filling out a 1040.
When those who have fallen off the grid do find some form of freelance or "under the table" work again -- earning maybe $800 a month, just enough to survive -- they avoid filling out tax forms. They hide from the IRS not because they don't want to pay money to the government (they probably will owe little or nothing), but because they fear having to explain their "missing years" to the authorities.
"You see, sir, I didn't fill out my tax form that year because..." Yow. No-one wants to say those words. Ever. Better to stay under the radar as long as possible.
Those in this situation tell themselves that they'll make things right with Uncle Sam as soon as they start earning some decent money -- something more than $800 a month. Enough to hire a lawyer.
How many people are in this situation? I don't know. Perhaps nobody knows. I do know that roughly 140,000,000 citizens filed tax returns last year -- in a country of 300 million.
Consider the fictional case of Ellen. She spent a few years jobless, depressed and pretty much homeless. She got by somehow -- lived with a friend, shacked up with a guy she really didn't like, spent some time sleeping in an old Chevy Cavalier.
Now she's making some money again -- not much, well under $1000 a month. She is an "independent contractor" and the income is insecure. But she is (usually) able to pay $500 a month for rent and utilities in a shared apartment. She's not really back on her feet, but she has regained some small measure of dignity, even though she eats a lot of pasta.
Is she going to pay for health insurance? Probably not. Screw the mandate: This is survival. Will she apply for a hardship exemption? No -- for a reason which you've probably already figured out.
One night, Ellen is eating pork roast. (It's cheap.) And she feels something awful: A blockage in the esophagus. The food has gotten stuck on its way down, and now she feels as though someone shoved a boulder beneath her rib cage. She can't eat another bite. She can't even swallow her own saliva. She's in constant discomfort-bordering-on-pain.
Although she may not know the term, she suffers from a food bolus. A growing number of Americans experience this unhappy phenomenon.
What will happen to Ellen? Well, she could wait it out, despite the extreme discomfort. The bolus might dislodge itself within a day or two. Then again, it could stay right where it is. If it doesn't budge or dissolve, she'll eventually die.
She should go to the ER right away. But will she?
Under today's system of socialized emergency medicine for the poor, she probably would go to the hospital within 24 hours. But under Pelosi's plan, she knows that stepping into that hospital mean paying an unpayable fine, because she can't afford to be on a health plan. And she's terrified to fill out any forms giving out her personal information, because the last year she filled out a tax form was the year she "fell off the grid."
So she stays home, spitting out her saliva every minute, unable to sleep, feeling ready to die. Maybe she ends up doing just that.
Well, screw Ellen. She didn't pay taxes. She didn't really contribute to the economy. It's not as though society owed her a decent job or a social safety net. Let the bitch die. Too bad the taxpayers have to fork over the money to put her underground.
Ellen's story has millions of variations, and all of them will play out in the coming years.
The jobs are not coming back, because both the Republicans and the Democrats consider the remedies (protectionism, Keynesian job-creation) ideologically impermissible. If there are X number of Ellens out there right now, there will be 2X by 2015. For most of those Ellens, the awful health care system we have now is preferable to the proposed reforms.
Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have sent a message to all of those Ellens: Get Out of My Emergency Room!
One final note: What about those who have stepped a few rungs above Ellen on society's ladder? Well, the failed Massachusetts experiment tells us what to expect from Pelosi's hellish admixture of mandates and penalties. Across the nation, we'll be hearing many more complaints like this one:
I am uninsured because even though I work full time I can not afford health insurance. My salary barely covers rent, childcare & utilities so I have not been to a physician in more than 10 years. During that time I have been to the ER once when I needed stitches. I paid for that visit out of my own pocket. Now I'm paying $1000 year penalty to the state on my taxes because I cannot afford to spend 50 percent of my weekly income on insurance. Ditch the whole insurance requirement. it's NOT working.Eventually, health care reform -- if passed in the Senate -- will fail. The pundits will then all say with one voice: "We tried socialized medicine and it didn't work."
No-one will listen to those fringe-dwelling bloggers who insist that single payer -- the only workable system -- was never given a chance. Permalink
Dear Leader Song
He calls this thing a “health care bill”
For Dems it is a poison pill
Mmmm mmmm mmmm
Barack Hussein Obama!
He says abortion must be paid
By working girls who just got laid...
Mmmm mmmm mmmm
Barack Hussein Obama!
I would love to have a business where the federal government said “buy my product or go to jail.”
So, Democrats are the patsies for the insurance companies? Leave it to the insurance industry to publish the WellPoint study ONE WEEK prior to the House vote. The study reveals the actual facts about how bad this shitty little insurance industry bill really is for the middle class. Damn, the GOP is gonna loooooove this, and they BOTH are getting their cake and eating it too. The insurance companies have pulled an astute political move that the Democrats don't appear to understand. 2-3 years from now, the Democrats will look like the evil-doers while the GOP does a righteous “I told you so” dance over Obama's Lucifer-ish deal with the insurance industry to not to run Harry and Louise commercials in exchange for his promise to throw people in jail for not buying their cost prohibitive, mandatory insurance policies.
He calls this thing a “health care bill”
For Dems it is a poison pill
Mmmm mmmm mmmm
Barack Hussein Obama!
He says abortion must be paid
By working girls who just got laid...
Mmmm mmmm mmmm
Barack Hussein Obama!
I would love to have a business where the federal government said “buy my product or go to jail.”
So, Democrats are the patsies for the insurance companies? Leave it to the insurance industry to publish the WellPoint study ONE WEEK prior to the House vote. The study reveals the actual facts about how bad this shitty little insurance industry bill really is for the middle class. Damn, the GOP is gonna loooooove this, and they BOTH are getting their cake and eating it too. The insurance companies have pulled an astute political move that the Democrats don't appear to understand. 2-3 years from now, the Democrats will look like the evil-doers while the GOP does a righteous “I told you so” dance over Obama's Lucifer-ish deal with the insurance industry to not to run Harry and Louise commercials in exchange for his promise to throw people in jail for not buying their cost prohibitive, mandatory insurance policies.
I don't like the current health care bills - for very different reasons than you do - but I think your example of Ellen is a good reminder of a possible unintended consequence of how the bills are written.
However I can't get the math to work out in your last example of the person who is uninsured. She says she's paying $1000 a year to the State in penalties because she can't afford to pay 50% of her weekly income for health insurance.
As far as I can tell from the Mass website, there's no way her penalty can be more than twice what the cheapest possible premium would cost her. So if she's paying $1000 a year she could buy a policy for $2000 a year. If that's 50% of her total income, she's making $4000 a year. If that's 50% of her take-home then even if all her other taxes are taking 50% of her income (unlikely at her salary level) she's making $8000 a year. Even if she's paying a double penalty for herself and her spouse she's making $16000 a year.
She has at least one child so she doesn't hit 150% of the poverty level unless she makes $21,864. Below 150% of the poverty level she pays no penalty.
I don't see how her situation can be what she describes in the comments. What am I missing?
However I can't get the math to work out in your last example of the person who is uninsured. She says she's paying $1000 a year to the State in penalties because she can't afford to pay 50% of her weekly income for health insurance.
As far as I can tell from the Mass website, there's no way her penalty can be more than twice what the cheapest possible premium would cost her. So if she's paying $1000 a year she could buy a policy for $2000 a year. If that's 50% of her total income, she's making $4000 a year. If that's 50% of her take-home then even if all her other taxes are taking 50% of her income (unlikely at her salary level) she's making $8000 a year. Even if she's paying a double penalty for herself and her spouse she's making $16000 a year.
She has at least one child so she doesn't hit 150% of the poverty level unless she makes $21,864. Below 150% of the poverty level she pays no penalty.
I don't see how her situation can be what she describes in the comments. What am I missing?
Great post, Joseph. Having been, more than once, unable to afford to use the health insurance I had to buy, this is exactly the sort of scenario that scares me about the current "reform" bills. (It's not the only thing. The supposedly "strong" regulations placed on insurance companies are actually not all that strong.)
Thank you for this post. This bill spits in the face of the self-employed, self-unemployed, free lancing, independent contractors. Many of us don't know from month to month what our income is, so how will we know what level of subsidy we qualify for? Do we have to adjust our premiums on a month to month basis?
I have also been in the unfortunate position of being gouged for paying hospital bills out of pocket. The key phrase there is that I PAID my hospital bills even though I was 'gasp' uninsured. It was cruel to charge me more for the same services than someone who was having their care paid for simply because they worked for the government, a corporation or were union. So many of us are just hanging on, and yet many of us have something to lose. If you have a home or some business property or even a savings account, you often don't qualify for any help until you are destitute.
Post a Comment
<< Home
I have also been in the unfortunate position of being gouged for paying hospital bills out of pocket. The key phrase there is that I PAID my hospital bills even though I was 'gasp' uninsured. It was cruel to charge me more for the same services than someone who was having their care paid for simply because they worked for the government, a corporation or were union. So many of us are just hanging on, and yet many of us have something to lose. If you have a home or some business property or even a savings account, you often don't qualify for any help until you are destitute.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
A Facebook mystery
As readers know, I am no fan of social networking sites. I'm especially un-fond of Facebook, which was founded by the CIA's In-Q-Tel subsidiary.
Nevertheless, I just received a perplexing Facebook invite. Perhaps someone out there can help me to understand this enigma.
Someone whom I will here call "Jane Codfish" sent me the invitation. I don't know her. Never heard of her. Her public page reveals that she is Australian with an interest in left-wing politics. Jane is not mysterious in and of herself. But the invite also contains the words "See who else has invited you to Facebook," followed by six names and images (or avatars) -- and this is where the oddness begins.
One of those people is somewhat known to me on a personal level. Call her Elvira. She once took care of my dog for a while. She has never invited me to join Facebook (she respects my suspicions, even though she does not share them) and she has never written to me using her Gmail account, the only email account of hers that Facebook should know about. Her rare online writings do not reference me in any way.
Another of the six is Prissy Patriot, a no-longer-operational blogger who, like me, looked into the rumor that Dick Cheney was a client of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's. If I recall correctly, PP and I both interviewed Palfrey. I don't recall ever corresponding with Prissy Patriot.
The other four "invites" came from four people unknown to me. I can discover no connection whatsoever.
How could Facebook have divined the direct personal connection between Elvira and myself, even though that link has left no cyber-trail? And how could Facebook have known that Prissy Patriot and I were linked only in our shared pursuit of the Dick Cheney rumor?
Can Facebook read minds? Or does Facebook simply read a whole bunch of private email, using data mining software to knit together evanescent connections? Does this very post fit into some eldritch Facebook scheme? There is something really, really, really weird going on here...
Permalink
Nevertheless, I just received a perplexing Facebook invite. Perhaps someone out there can help me to understand this enigma.
Someone whom I will here call "Jane Codfish" sent me the invitation. I don't know her. Never heard of her. Her public page reveals that she is Australian with an interest in left-wing politics. Jane is not mysterious in and of herself. But the invite also contains the words "See who else has invited you to Facebook," followed by six names and images (or avatars) -- and this is where the oddness begins.
One of those people is somewhat known to me on a personal level. Call her Elvira. She once took care of my dog for a while. She has never invited me to join Facebook (she respects my suspicions, even though she does not share them) and she has never written to me using her Gmail account, the only email account of hers that Facebook should know about. Her rare online writings do not reference me in any way.
Another of the six is Prissy Patriot, a no-longer-operational blogger who, like me, looked into the rumor that Dick Cheney was a client of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's. If I recall correctly, PP and I both interviewed Palfrey. I don't recall ever corresponding with Prissy Patriot.
The other four "invites" came from four people unknown to me. I can discover no connection whatsoever.
How could Facebook have divined the direct personal connection between Elvira and myself, even though that link has left no cyber-trail? And how could Facebook have known that Prissy Patriot and I were linked only in our shared pursuit of the Dick Cheney rumor?
Can Facebook read minds? Or does Facebook simply read a whole bunch of private email, using data mining software to knit together evanescent connections? Does this very post fit into some eldritch Facebook scheme? There is something really, really, really weird going on here...
Permalink
HEY KIDS, GET OFF THE LAWN!!!
[You're acting like a paranoid old man, I think. People, the individuals whose names are on the invites, invite you, the system doesn't. If you want to know why they invited you, call them. What the system does is called something else, not an invite, and it's based on who all your friends know (if enough of them know the same person, you probably know him/her, too).]
[You're acting like a paranoid old man, I think. People, the individuals whose names are on the invites, invite you, the system doesn't. If you want to know why they invited you, call them. What the system does is called something else, not an invite, and it's based on who all your friends know (if enough of them know the same person, you probably know him/her, too).]
if you let it, Facebook will send this out to ALL your email contacts ... to be linked to the Facebook world, all you need is some one else who is and has your email
First answer: Do you have a FB account? Because if you do, and your email is in someone else's uploaded email list, and that someone also has that stranger in her list, FB has an annoying habit of "suggesting" friends to you merely because you have a mutual friend. They don't know you don't know this person. And some people, in some insane quest to rack up as many "friends" as they can, will ask to friend you. Happens to me a lot. I just ignore them.
Second answer: I believe FB suggests "friends" who don't have FB accounts but are listed in the mutual friend's FB address book. This may be what is happening with you.
Second answer: I believe FB suggests "friends" who don't have FB accounts but are listed in the mutual friend's FB address book. This may be what is happening with you.
I'm a long time reader, but don't think I've ever commented before...
I have to agree that this Facebook stuff is pretty fishy. I didn't think much about the several invites I've gotten, until I read your post above. Then I realized that I've gotten invites from someone I'm only linked to via University. In other words, I went to graduate school and studied the same thing they are studying now, although they are in an entirely different graduate school. What's more, I've never met them, corresponded with them, or even share the same sub-disciplinary interests.
I thought that in my case Facebook harvested some addresses from emails that she might have received from academic sources, which might have had my email on it in a huge list of other emails. But I really don't know. And I'm too suspicious of Facebook to log into it to find out.
My husband is not as suspicious and is on Facebook. He too 'invited' me to join, although he knows my feelings about it. The invite went to a misspelled version of my name which was also used in the invitation from the academic I don't know. This is a common misspelling of my name and seems to be linked to my email address in Facebook now.
Heh, I'm making myself dizzy trying to explain. My point is, Facebook doesn't have my real name, but it has some name it gleaned via sifting through the 'net or email. Facebook has linked me, via my broad academic discipline, to someone I don't know. The pressure to join Facebook has been pretty high from my friends, relatives and workmates. I think I'll keep resisting.
Sima
I have to agree that this Facebook stuff is pretty fishy. I didn't think much about the several invites I've gotten, until I read your post above. Then I realized that I've gotten invites from someone I'm only linked to via University. In other words, I went to graduate school and studied the same thing they are studying now, although they are in an entirely different graduate school. What's more, I've never met them, corresponded with them, or even share the same sub-disciplinary interests.
I thought that in my case Facebook harvested some addresses from emails that she might have received from academic sources, which might have had my email on it in a huge list of other emails. But I really don't know. And I'm too suspicious of Facebook to log into it to find out.
My husband is not as suspicious and is on Facebook. He too 'invited' me to join, although he knows my feelings about it. The invite went to a misspelled version of my name which was also used in the invitation from the academic I don't know. This is a common misspelling of my name and seems to be linked to my email address in Facebook now.
Heh, I'm making myself dizzy trying to explain. My point is, Facebook doesn't have my real name, but it has some name it gleaned via sifting through the 'net or email. Facebook has linked me, via my broad academic discipline, to someone I don't know. The pressure to join Facebook has been pretty high from my friends, relatives and workmates. I think I'll keep resisting.
Sima
I think they do a lot of sophisticated data mining. I have never invited them into my gmail account, but they still suggest friends from my email whom I corresponded with from Craig's List ads. Also, if your friend has an alternate email listed on her gmail account, and has invited Face Book into her gmail, they may have taken that as permission to examine the other account as well.
Michael, you don't understand. I've talked this over at some length with "Elvira." She's as bothered as I am. She never invited me, and never wrote to me using her Gmail account.
The only possibility that comes to mind is that Facebook traced a message she wrote to herself at another email address. And then Facebook somehow got hold of all of THOSE email addresses.
That, I should think, is illegal.
And isn't it illegal for Facebook to have access to all of the addresses in her Gmail account?
The only possibility that comes to mind is that Facebook traced a message she wrote to herself at another email address. And then Facebook somehow got hold of all of THOSE email addresses.
That, I should think, is illegal.
And isn't it illegal for Facebook to have access to all of the addresses in her Gmail account?
I set up an account against my better instincts and basically dont use it but I was surprised when it suggested I might want to be friends with-a friend. I guess he uploaded his email account. I have no idea who most of the other people are who they suggest I might want to be friends with though.
It sounds like this has the makings for a great mystery/conspiracy novel.
It sounds like this has the makings for a great mystery/conspiracy novel.
Joseph,
When you take surveys or quizzes at Face Book, they tell you that to get the best answer they have to access all the information about you. I've since realized that means they go into your email, because they suggest as friends people who have responded to job ads I've posted or merchandise that I have wanted to purchase. These are people that I have no relationship with whatsoever. So, you definitely give them permission when you take quizzes and such - staples of Face Book life. They also suggest that you let them look through your email so they can find all of your friends, but I've never agreed to that.
When you take surveys or quizzes at Face Book, they tell you that to get the best answer they have to access all the information about you. I've since realized that means they go into your email, because they suggest as friends people who have responded to job ads I've posted or merchandise that I have wanted to purchase. These are people that I have no relationship with whatsoever. So, you definitely give them permission when you take quizzes and such - staples of Face Book life. They also suggest that you let them look through your email so they can find all of your friends, but I've never agreed to that.
Joe I had a revelation with LinkedIn that might shine some light on your query-- when on linkedin you want to add people to your connections, you can mine your email accounts (just like FB...) but I would always see a few names that i didn't know and was certain that i had never emailed.
Now, i know this part of the story will annoy you but-- wanting to know who these people were, i went to my gmail, and searched them. And lo and behold, someone i did know CC'd both of us on an email.
That was the sum total connection.
I have suspected that this will work with two people who have been BCCd together as well...
There is no way that FB does not have this function built-in. A facebooker volunteers their email address as a way to invite all their friends. Once InQFB is in, do you think they're going to only stay for that one session?
And its obvious that they have a program that says friends have invited you (i get them all the time too, and from people who know my similar disdain for fb). So, putting two and two together it would just make sense that if you and Elvira Codfish were ever CCd together, or even BCCd, then you're in their sights....
I just wish someone would find a way to end NAYMES once and for all. I have never signed up for them, and will never. I don't knwo what spider found my name and what asshole CTO thought that a spider is how they should start accounts and then they will come... if i ever meet that guy i will kick out all his teeth. Whats worse, their SEO is so top notch that it usually shows up in google searches BEFORE my own website.
Now, i know this part of the story will annoy you but-- wanting to know who these people were, i went to my gmail, and searched them. And lo and behold, someone i did know CC'd both of us on an email.
That was the sum total connection.
I have suspected that this will work with two people who have been BCCd together as well...
There is no way that FB does not have this function built-in. A facebooker volunteers their email address as a way to invite all their friends. Once InQFB is in, do you think they're going to only stay for that one session?
And its obvious that they have a program that says friends have invited you (i get them all the time too, and from people who know my similar disdain for fb). So, putting two and two together it would just make sense that if you and Elvira Codfish were ever CCd together, or even BCCd, then you're in their sights....
I just wish someone would find a way to end NAYMES once and for all. I have never signed up for them, and will never. I don't knwo what spider found my name and what asshole CTO thought that a spider is how they should start accounts and then they will come... if i ever meet that guy i will kick out all his teeth. Whats worse, their SEO is so top notch that it usually shows up in google searches BEFORE my own website.
lori, I've never done the quiz thing. Not on Facebook, not anywhere else.
I went over the privacy statement offered by Facebook. Nowhere does it say that Facebook has the right to access all the names and addresses in your Gmail or other email account.
Seems to me that if they can see those addresses they can also see all of the messages.
That's GOTTA be against the law!
What pisses me off is that everyone is simply taking this. A mere five years ago, there would have been outrage. But now we've been conditioned. "Oh. So they can read all of my private email. Big deal."
The apathy is infuriating.
Y'know what else? It's impossible to call or contact Facebook to ask questions about all of this.
I went over the privacy statement offered by Facebook. Nowhere does it say that Facebook has the right to access all the names and addresses in your Gmail or other email account.
Seems to me that if they can see those addresses they can also see all of the messages.
That's GOTTA be against the law!
What pisses me off is that everyone is simply taking this. A mere five years ago, there would have been outrage. But now we've been conditioned. "Oh. So they can read all of my private email. Big deal."
The apathy is infuriating.
Y'know what else? It's impossible to call or contact Facebook to ask questions about all of this.
Over the past month, I've been getting emails from FB (which I've never had anything to do with), which I've never opened because my ISP says they've been quarantined for viruses.
—g.
—g.
-g, There is a currently a scam email circulating that claims to be from facebook, but contains a link to a site that does "drive by" downloads (downloads various nasty things onto your computer without your knowledge or interaction, and installs them). This could be what is being flagged by your ISP. I get them here at work. They are not (most likely) from Facebook at all.
"(D)oes Facebook simply read a whole bunch of private email, using data mining software to knit together evanescent connections?"
Yes. There is no such thing as privacy on the internet.
Yes. There is no such thing as privacy on the internet.
Joe,
I know you don't have a FaceBook account. Your friend does and when your friend takes a quiz, she agrees to this:
"Allowing "WHAT ARE YOU BORN TO DO?" access will let it access your Profile information, photos, your friends' info and other content that it requires to work."
I suspect that if your friend has an emergency email address listed on their primary email account, that Facebook may access that account as well. I think the access the above statement allows is pretty wide ranging. Until someone objects, I don't think it'll stop either.
I know you don't have a FaceBook account. Your friend does and when your friend takes a quiz, she agrees to this:
"Allowing "WHAT ARE YOU BORN TO DO?" access will let it access your Profile information, photos, your friends' info and other content that it requires to work."
I suspect that if your friend has an emergency email address listed on their primary email account, that Facebook may access that account as well. I think the access the above statement allows is pretty wide ranging. Until someone objects, I don't think it'll stop either.
Be careful, Joe.
I had a strange worried moment yesterday that the Palfrey crazyness might come back into your life. I have this bad feeling this is about that more than it is about FB or its malfeasance.
I had a strange worried moment yesterday that the Palfrey crazyness might come back into your life. I have this bad feeling this is about that more than it is about FB or its malfeasance.
Once you sign up with Facebook, they try to get you to 'find friends' by searching through your email. You must supply them with your email addy and password and they 'import your friends' information.' They claim they will not store your password. As if the damage isn't already done at that point.
They will also import your AIM Buddy list and Windows Live contacts, as well as look up co-workers associated with the places of employment you mention AND current or past college/high school classmates.
All it takes is for one fool you've associated with at some point in your life to spill all their info to Facebook and then they've pretty much got YOUR info.
They will also import your AIM Buddy list and Windows Live contacts, as well as look up co-workers associated with the places of employment you mention AND current or past college/high school classmates.
All it takes is for one fool you've associated with at some point in your life to spill all their info to Facebook and then they've pretty much got YOUR info.
Anne -- I must register a strong NO. I'm not going to allow that axiom "There is no privacy on the internet" to justify shrugging my shoulders and allowing Facebook access to private email. It's against the law and we should be angry about it.
-> axiom;
when a geo of ibm, for example-
says something like this, he is spilling the beans.
He is probably selling something, not necesarily to You.
So he speaks out,what he KNOWS what
is possible in technical terms.
In cyberland the means of production are scientific.
They obey to natural laws.
There is no such thing as privacy
in maths.
As to the contrary, the mode of production over the course of human history has evolved into
(sorry) capitalism, which is neither social, nor logic.
So what we see is, each time that
that contradiction materialises,
seems to be against a "law" that we want to keep up.
The law of privacy was good for the
bourgeois against the aristocrats and
-but by the way, emancipated the proletarians, who were only just being put in existence,etc-
-and now privacy is sold as a privilege.
Information is informal.
There is one list here, that are the members.
There is the other, smaller list,
which are the out-opters.
The net is not to catch "universal adversary" - it is to filter out
the emerging humanity.
-i'd rather stop here.Tried to be positive.
when a geo of ibm, for example-
says something like this, he is spilling the beans.
He is probably selling something, not necesarily to You.
So he speaks out,what he KNOWS what
is possible in technical terms.
In cyberland the means of production are scientific.
They obey to natural laws.
There is no such thing as privacy
in maths.
As to the contrary, the mode of production over the course of human history has evolved into
(sorry) capitalism, which is neither social, nor logic.
So what we see is, each time that
that contradiction materialises,
seems to be against a "law" that we want to keep up.
The law of privacy was good for the
bourgeois against the aristocrats and
-but by the way, emancipated the proletarians, who were only just being put in existence,etc-
-and now privacy is sold as a privilege.
Information is informal.
There is one list here, that are the members.
There is the other, smaller list,
which are the out-opters.
The net is not to catch "universal adversary" - it is to filter out
the emerging humanity.
-i'd rather stop here.Tried to be positive.
Facebook's definition for "Friends" doesn't seem to match social reatity. In some respects it appears to present a delusional meaning much more than reality. Maybe for those people who long for "friendships" it may present an answer. However it's important to recognize who started this in the first place then second recognize what's going on within our country as well. Remember we're in the midst of a White House Coup where the Big Banks and CIA are involved!
I've had many experiences with Facebook. Some seem to coordinate with what other experiences I've had with respect to criminal activities around me. As a society we severely lack good discernment with knowing what is right from wrong and have become gawkers to the extreme. This is well fed by MSM and seems to have been developed by them as well. I feel our gawking problems and "dumbing-down" go together maybe there is something to think about here.
If you spend any time reading through the posts to articles over time you may notice similarities. Some of this seems to come with hired posters trying to create misinformation yet many read and believe them. Remember that posting on the internet to articles is also a social activity!
Same exists on Facebook along with a collection least important personal information who came my way through the "suggested" friends list. As our knowledge grows with what is happening to us, our interests for important information hopefully with grow as well. How much can any one person read in a day anyway?
There is more but I'm not allowed to talk about it at this time. I believe FB will surface eventually to show us what they were really tring to accomplish.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
I've had many experiences with Facebook. Some seem to coordinate with what other experiences I've had with respect to criminal activities around me. As a society we severely lack good discernment with knowing what is right from wrong and have become gawkers to the extreme. This is well fed by MSM and seems to have been developed by them as well. I feel our gawking problems and "dumbing-down" go together maybe there is something to think about here.
If you spend any time reading through the posts to articles over time you may notice similarities. Some of this seems to come with hired posters trying to create misinformation yet many read and believe them. Remember that posting on the internet to articles is also a social activity!
Same exists on Facebook along with a collection least important personal information who came my way through the "suggested" friends list. As our knowledge grows with what is happening to us, our interests for important information hopefully with grow as well. How much can any one person read in a day anyway?
There is more but I'm not allowed to talk about it at this time. I believe FB will surface eventually to show us what they were really tring to accomplish.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Another aspect - look how the concept of "friend" is being changed into what's practically a police term. "Who are this guy's main associates?"
Gotta wonder, with these FB kids, how many of their "friends" have they "added" themselves, and how many have been "added" for them?
Do they know? Do they even care?
Me, I'd never have a Gmail account, and trust Google about as little as I trust Facebook. Most of the people I email with aren't on Facebook. Well OK, I haven't asked most of them, but I should imagine that few of them are. As for receiving FB invites, the only person I've ever received those from has been my landlord - and if he thinks I'm his friend, well what an idiot he must be. I ended up using my mail client to block emails from FB.
Whether this a-hole knows the invites are being sent to me, is another question. I'm not going to ask him what the answer is. Maybe the idiot's MySchmuckMail program sends his entire address list to FB. Maybe a routine gets run to decide who his friends are, on his behalf. As a landlord, he shouldn't have any friends anyway - but the world ain't a fair place.
At least I can see the funny side when I get these pleas to be his friend on Facebook.
"Friend" seems less and less about intersubjectivity and more and more about following the pack, lugging corporate-determined attitudes and opinions around in what passes for your mind.
A similar point could be made about the big forum websites where people give and get "reputation" points.
It's less expensive than many people think to get a domain, run a mailserver on it, and run a proper mail client on your own PC. That's what I do, and I've been semi-homeless or worse for 3 years...
Last point - Microsoft's in the loop here too. I don't use Windows Live or Outlook, and I doubt there is an easy button-clicky way for me to "allow" FB or any other firm "into" my address book or mail file. ('Course, I may be wrong on that!)
b
Gotta wonder, with these FB kids, how many of their "friends" have they "added" themselves, and how many have been "added" for them?
Do they know? Do they even care?
Me, I'd never have a Gmail account, and trust Google about as little as I trust Facebook. Most of the people I email with aren't on Facebook. Well OK, I haven't asked most of them, but I should imagine that few of them are. As for receiving FB invites, the only person I've ever received those from has been my landlord - and if he thinks I'm his friend, well what an idiot he must be. I ended up using my mail client to block emails from FB.
Whether this a-hole knows the invites are being sent to me, is another question. I'm not going to ask him what the answer is. Maybe the idiot's MySchmuckMail program sends his entire address list to FB. Maybe a routine gets run to decide who his friends are, on his behalf. As a landlord, he shouldn't have any friends anyway - but the world ain't a fair place.
At least I can see the funny side when I get these pleas to be his friend on Facebook.
"Friend" seems less and less about intersubjectivity and more and more about following the pack, lugging corporate-determined attitudes and opinions around in what passes for your mind.
A similar point could be made about the big forum websites where people give and get "reputation" points.
It's less expensive than many people think to get a domain, run a mailserver on it, and run a proper mail client on your own PC. That's what I do, and I've been semi-homeless or worse for 3 years...
Last point - Microsoft's in the loop here too. I don't use Windows Live or Outlook, and I doubt there is an easy button-clicky way for me to "allow" FB or any other firm "into" my address book or mail file. ('Course, I may be wrong on that!)
b
Joe,
I'd like to address your concern that facebook is breaking the law via 'reading' email. The e-mail invite you received was from person A, in the content of the e-mail there are 6 friends of person A. These six friends are NOT co-inviting you. They are a short list of person A's friends. Given your passions etc does it surprise you that you may have common friends? I think this is a way to convince people to join, and avoid legalities. Not a blunt force grab, but a subtle con for one to give info away freely.
I primarily use FB for group things, bike races, parties concerts etc. Kinda like evite, but with broader stuff to view.
Purenoiz
I'd like to address your concern that facebook is breaking the law via 'reading' email. The e-mail invite you received was from person A, in the content of the e-mail there are 6 friends of person A. These six friends are NOT co-inviting you. They are a short list of person A's friends. Given your passions etc does it surprise you that you may have common friends? I think this is a way to convince people to join, and avoid legalities. Not a blunt force grab, but a subtle con for one to give info away freely.
I primarily use FB for group things, bike races, parties concerts etc. Kinda like evite, but with broader stuff to view.
Purenoiz
Purenoiz... Thanks, but "Elvira" has nothing to do with the person who sent me the invite. I should have made that clear. They are not friends.
Furthermore, Daniel Hopsicker tells me that when he signed up for Facebook, invites from him went out to everyone in his Gmail account (including me) -- even though he authorized no such thing!
Furthermore, Daniel Hopsicker tells me that when he signed up for Facebook, invites from him went out to everyone in his Gmail account (including me) -- even though he authorized no such thing!
http://www.channel3000.com/technology/21569629/detail.html
check out this article printed today Nov. 11th.
Some Facebook Applications Pose Privacy Risk
Online Quizzes Can Access More Information In Users' Profiles
Madison ACLU is involved.
Post a Comment
<< Home
check out this article printed today Nov. 11th.
Some Facebook Applications Pose Privacy Risk
Online Quizzes Can Access More Information In Users' Profiles
Madison ACLU is involved.
Nancy Pelosi: World's worst haggler (Added material)
This is mind-boggling. Blue Lyon quotes an email from HealthJustice, which was sent out in response to the withdrawal of the Kucinich amendment before yesterday's vote:
If I offered Nancy Pelosi ten bucks for her car, she'd give it to me for eight. If I were a Republican.
Update -- same planet, different universes: Indiana Republican congressman Mark Souder opposes the Pelosi Bill because
Speaker Pelosi felt that offering a single-payer amendment would open the floodgates to amendments proposed to limit abortion funds, restrict immigrant access to healthcare, and other regressive legislation.And in the end...? To get her bill passed, Nancy Pelosi agreed to an amendment that would prevent women from paying for abortions with private insurance procured through their employers. And the legislation will likely become even tougher on immigrants in conference.
If I offered Nancy Pelosi ten bucks for her car, she'd give it to me for eight. If I were a Republican.
Update -- same planet, different universes: Indiana Republican congressman Mark Souder opposes the Pelosi Bill because
It is only a matter of time before the public option drives out private insurance and government becomes the sole bill-payer for health care services.Oh, if only! The vampire squids of the insurance industry contribute nothing. That is the very reason why, on the other side of the aisle, Dennis Kucinich opposed the same bill:
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care.
But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.Let's repeat: The public option applies to only 6 million Americans. Meanwhile, 25 million Americans require some sort of assistance in order to have enough to eat. Pelosi expects them to pay for insurance premiums -- and if they don't, they could go to jail for five years. Permalink
No surprise, not at all. When Pooplosi embraced O instead of Hillary, people should have known that the democratic party was dead. Pooplosi pissed on women but unfortunately, women don't seem to care much. Women just keep voting for the label D no matter what. Until women stand up for themselves, Pooplosi and O will keep marching on their bellies. Oh, women will hear about protective rights and such. Shameful but who cares right? it is historic alright.
Reminiscient of Obama's technique of "preemptive capitulation"--i.e., betraying his base behind closed doors.
How did a bunch of cool people like us elect such sucky leaders?
How did a bunch of cool people like us elect such sucky leaders?
According to a CBO letter to Charlie Rangel, the cheapest coverage will be $5,300 per person or $15,000 per family. This "silver" level of coverage (had to be written by an insurance exec) will only cover about 70% of the policy holder's cost. So, on top of that mandated bill, or privatized tax, you will still have to shell out an average of 30% of your care out of pocket in co-pays, deductibles and above usual and customary services.
For this, we have to sell out the dignity of women to be treated just like another citizen and not chattel.
Yes, and the fines are horrific, too. It will be a self employed person's nightmare to comply when you don't even know what your income is going to be month to month.
Post a Comment
<< Home
For this, we have to sell out the dignity of women to be treated just like another citizen and not chattel.
Yes, and the fines are horrific, too. It will be a self employed person's nightmare to comply when you don't even know what your income is going to be month to month.
More health care questions and observations
1. How will the the homeless, the near-homeless and the seriously impoverished deal with these new health care mandates? Destitute people can't pay anything. Some 25 million Americans are "food insecure": How can anyone expect them to pay for a health insurance plan?
Today, if a poor person gets sick, he or she goes to a hospital for emergency treatment. Soon, anyone who visits that emergency room will do so knowing that he or she faces fines that no poor person can pay. Result: Many will die for lack of treatment.
2. The House has just made abortion unaffordable for most women, although the procedure remains technically legal.
A few days ago, I laughed at the "futurist" who predicted that the rich would soon evolve into a separate species. But now we find ourselves in a situation where abortion will be possible only for affluent women. This development would seem to solidify the connection between wealth and genetics, n'est-ce pas?
3. Most Americans still favor legal abortion, or so most polls tell me. So how will Americans react when they learn that the government will now forbid them from using private insurance to pay for a legal procedure?
4. The Republicans have argued all along that they do not want government interfering with health care. So how can they justify telling women what procedures they can and cannot have done, using their employers' insurance plans?
5. Isn't it stunning that a woman's right to abortion was limited by a Congress led by a liberal Democrat? By a female Speaker -- from San Francisco? Good bleeding Jesus, how does such a thing happen?
I believe that Nancy Pelosi entered public office with no desire to infringe upon a woman's right to choose. I am sure that her constituents don't want private insurers to be forbidden from covering abortions. Yet look at what just happened...! She sold out to the Republicans, who will continue to demonize her.
6. Why does the House debate anything? I watched a lot of the proceedings on CSPAN, and it was clear that nearly everyone who came to the podium was not going to budge from the talking points issued by their party leaders. So why bother with the charade?
7. California may be the reason why the Kucinich amendment was doomed. Our state legislature will vote for single payer. AH-nuld will oppose it, but AH-nuld's days are numbered. A successful single payer program in California will remove an enormous burden from businesses in this state. More companies will want to set up shop here. If California prospers, other states will follow suit.
8. Fantasy springs eternal. Over on D.U., people are arguing that health care reform legislation, however compromised, must pass because otherwise "Obama will be crippled." It's all about the O. Meanwhile, anything wrong with the bill must be blamed on the dreaded DLC -- as though the DLC has power and Obama does not. (And as though Obama himself were not sympatico with the DLC.)
These clowns have their script and they are sticking to it.
9. Some ladies on the Confluence discussed emigration to France, via marriage. A pleasant idea. Alas, I cannot marry my way into that country. I need another method.
I must admit that I spend a lot of time dreaming about the south of France. Every time I fire up Google Earth, I find myself in the Pyrenees, getting lost in the street-level photographs, mentally traveling up and down various byways while listening to Cesar Franck's "Ce Qu'on Entend Sur la Montagne." I know some of those locales pretty well by now. Every time I see an image of an ancient fort or church nestled beneath ice-capped mountains, I think: "Why can't I live there?"
Do you know that there is a town in the midi-Pyrenees called Condom? The big problem in that burg is tourists who steal signs displaying the city's name. And near the border, high in the mountains, is a quaint village with the coolest name ever: Oô. Wonderful scenery. Old buildings. Only 120 residents. How could you not want to live among them?
The dream of escape. We've all felt it. Permalink
Today, if a poor person gets sick, he or she goes to a hospital for emergency treatment. Soon, anyone who visits that emergency room will do so knowing that he or she faces fines that no poor person can pay. Result: Many will die for lack of treatment.
2. The House has just made abortion unaffordable for most women, although the procedure remains technically legal.
A few days ago, I laughed at the "futurist" who predicted that the rich would soon evolve into a separate species. But now we find ourselves in a situation where abortion will be possible only for affluent women. This development would seem to solidify the connection between wealth and genetics, n'est-ce pas?
3. Most Americans still favor legal abortion, or so most polls tell me. So how will Americans react when they learn that the government will now forbid them from using private insurance to pay for a legal procedure?
4. The Republicans have argued all along that they do not want government interfering with health care. So how can they justify telling women what procedures they can and cannot have done, using their employers' insurance plans?
5. Isn't it stunning that a woman's right to abortion was limited by a Congress led by a liberal Democrat? By a female Speaker -- from San Francisco? Good bleeding Jesus, how does such a thing happen?
I believe that Nancy Pelosi entered public office with no desire to infringe upon a woman's right to choose. I am sure that her constituents don't want private insurers to be forbidden from covering abortions. Yet look at what just happened...! She sold out to the Republicans, who will continue to demonize her.
6. Why does the House debate anything? I watched a lot of the proceedings on CSPAN, and it was clear that nearly everyone who came to the podium was not going to budge from the talking points issued by their party leaders. So why bother with the charade?
7. California may be the reason why the Kucinich amendment was doomed. Our state legislature will vote for single payer. AH-nuld will oppose it, but AH-nuld's days are numbered. A successful single payer program in California will remove an enormous burden from businesses in this state. More companies will want to set up shop here. If California prospers, other states will follow suit.
8. Fantasy springs eternal. Over on D.U., people are arguing that health care reform legislation, however compromised, must pass because otherwise "Obama will be crippled." It's all about the O. Meanwhile, anything wrong with the bill must be blamed on the dreaded DLC -- as though the DLC has power and Obama does not. (And as though Obama himself were not sympatico with the DLC.)
These clowns have their script and they are sticking to it.
9. Some ladies on the Confluence discussed emigration to France, via marriage. A pleasant idea. Alas, I cannot marry my way into that country. I need another method.
I must admit that I spend a lot of time dreaming about the south of France. Every time I fire up Google Earth, I find myself in the Pyrenees, getting lost in the street-level photographs, mentally traveling up and down various byways while listening to Cesar Franck's "Ce Qu'on Entend Sur la Montagne." I know some of those locales pretty well by now. Every time I see an image of an ancient fort or church nestled beneath ice-capped mountains, I think: "Why can't I live there?"
Do you know that there is a town in the midi-Pyrenees called Condom? The big problem in that burg is tourists who steal signs displaying the city's name. And near the border, high in the mountains, is a quaint village with the coolest name ever: Oô. Wonderful scenery. Old buildings. Only 120 residents. How could you not want to live among them?
The dream of escape. We've all felt it. Permalink
One other thing: remember the promise that this reform will not mess your existing coverage? "If you like what you have, you can keep it"
Not applicable to women covered for their reproductive rights care.
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/women-under-the-bus-long-live-healthcare-reform/
Not applicable to women covered for their reproductive rights care.
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/women-under-the-bus-long-live-healthcare-reform/
I've been telling any and all to get out before these other countries close the gates on refugees from the Big PX. If they are in college I tell them to get a language minor so they can teach English although it's importance will be dropping as the U S left behind.
I've written my Senators and Representative about getting a grant to cover the cost of leaving since they do it for business that wants to move manufacturing overseas.
The irony was lost on them.
I've written my Senators and Representative about getting a grant to cover the cost of leaving since they do it for business that wants to move manufacturing overseas.
The irony was lost on them.
I don't understand why Pelosi, Reid are pandering to the GOP at all. None of them would vote for a bill stemming from Democrats, whether it's health care reform or garbage collections when they can reframe it successfully as failure?
The only reason that progressive-liberals-crossovers-whatever you call them - demands end up being negotiable is because they know they have little choice.
When I vote, I'm usually presented with a choice of extremist rightwing zealot or conservative libertarian (sometimes masquerading as Democrat). The lesser of the evils wins.
I think Democrats have come very close to crafting a bill that no one wants in their desire to prove that they are centrists.
Someone should explain to them, they won so they can stop providing homogenized bills that ultimately prove there is no difference between the GOP and Dem's (or at least hire an ad agency with more imagination that "public option").
The only reason that progressive-liberals-crossovers-whatever you call them - demands end up being negotiable is because they know they have little choice.
When I vote, I'm usually presented with a choice of extremist rightwing zealot or conservative libertarian (sometimes masquerading as Democrat). The lesser of the evils wins.
I think Democrats have come very close to crafting a bill that no one wants in their desire to prove that they are centrists.
Someone should explain to them, they won so they can stop providing homogenized bills that ultimately prove there is no difference between the GOP and Dem's (or at least hire an ad agency with more imagination that "public option").
You might want to check out the http://www.lastingliberty.com/ piece on the healthcare debate : Bigger Than Healthcare
Scary stuff.
For anyone who has a choice, we are approaching time to "renounce your US citizenship" territory.
For anyone who has a choice, we are approaching time to "renounce your US citizenship" territory.
Speaker Pelosi is doing what she can or must, in her considered opinion, after she had the Democratic caucus leadership count the votes IN THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.
This was fairly clear when they didn't have the vote on the day expected, because they needed to reclaim balking members on the Democratic side of the aisle, still shy the 218 required for passage.
Evidently, there are either enough pro-life Democrats, or at least enough of those plus those afraid of pro-lifer opposition, to cause this bad policy to be necessary for passage in the House, given the bill's inclusion of some public option
If a single payer approach will show success, it should already have done so in Hawaii. I think California is less likely to show a successful result than Hawaii is (and hasn't yet, to my knowledge).
XI
Post a Comment
<< Home
This was fairly clear when they didn't have the vote on the day expected, because they needed to reclaim balking members on the Democratic side of the aisle, still shy the 218 required for passage.
Evidently, there are either enough pro-life Democrats, or at least enough of those plus those afraid of pro-lifer opposition, to cause this bad policy to be necessary for passage in the House, given the bill's inclusion of some public option
If a single payer approach will show success, it should already have done so in Hawaii. I think California is less likely to show a successful result than Hawaii is (and hasn't yet, to my knowledge).
XI
Saturday, November 07, 2009
The lying never stops!
I just turned on CSPAN's coverage of the health care debate. California's Buck McKeon (R) rumbled up to the podium and "quoted" Abraham Lincoln:"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong..."And so on. As we have discussed previously, the quote is a fake.
Let me remind you of some things that Lincoln actually did say (links provided in my previous post):
“Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do for themselves in their separate and individual capacities."Again I say: Sure sounds to me as though Lincoln would have supported single-payer.
Why do conservatives insist on living within a fake world consisting of fake quotes (Kaminsky's The Hoaxers cites plenty of examples), fake news (Fox), fake science (creationism, anti-global warming), fake fears (the Illuminati myth, the myth of Soviet aggression) and fake history (e.g., the "fundamentalist Founding Fathers" myth)?
It was also real, real cute to see Buck score Pelosi for not being bipartisan. After the experience of 2001-2006, no Republican will ever again have the right to complain about insufficient bipartisanship. Permalink
You don't have to be an ignorant fool or a pathological liar to be a republican ... just a republican politician.
Earlier in the "debate" John Shadegg (R-Arizona) pulled out an infant as a prop and started telling the camera why this baby doesn't like health care reform. I thought it was an embarrassing moment for our species but his performance got cheers and an ovation.
As you have argued, the Republicans are great at fighting the meme wars, but cannot govern. What does the "right" to complain about bi-partisan ship have to do with reality? It doesn't matter if it's ridiculous; it matters if the masses will BELIEVE it. Do you think they paid attention to the Democrats being shut-out of the legislative process during the GOP controlled years, and now judge Republican "lack of bipartisanship" complaints against it? Puh-leeze.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Questions on health care
The Pelosi-favored health care bill will come to a vote in the House very soon. Conciliation with whatever the Senate passes will come later. Right now, I have more questions than observations. My main questions are these:
1. Should we oppose this legislation vigorously, or can we try to reconcile ourselves to the argument that the few good aspects of this bill (specifically, the new rules on pre-existing conditions) outweigh the many bad points (a weak or non-existent public option, mandates, fines, no savings)?
2. Suppose a bill passes, and suppose there are major problems. Will the country say "Well, we tried socialized medicine and it failed"? I fear that the citizenry will say just that, even though the House bill does not come close to any reasonable definition of socialized medicine.
3. An allied question: Has the moment for reform passed? As mentioned in previous posts, I can sense the national mood shifting back its default mode: "Laissez faire cures all evils."
4. If the moment has passed -- and if the Pelosi/Obama bill dies the ignominious death that many claim it deserves -- what then? It's easy enough for lefties to say "Back to the drawing board. Next time, let's go for single payer." But how do you know that there will be a next time? If single payer was politically difficult or impossible in 2009, when the country was in a rare liberal mood, then how will it be possible in 2010 or 2011?
How will it be possible after Congress changes hands, as it likely will?
The teabaggers are growing louder by the hour. I recall how ugly the anti-Clinton rhetoric became in 1994 and 1995. The anti-Obama rhetoric will soon become (already is?) uglier still. I foresee more militias, more calls for secession, more weird conspiracy theories, more talk of a military coup, more craziness. Now imagine the effects of a new terror attack. Or a Starr-like grand jury investigation on one pretext or other.
This country could soon be in a mood to goosestep. Again I ask: If single payer was impossible in 2009, how will it be possible in 2010 or 2011?
My suspicion: Obama had but one shot at this thing, and he blew it. Permalink
1. Should we oppose this legislation vigorously, or can we try to reconcile ourselves to the argument that the few good aspects of this bill (specifically, the new rules on pre-existing conditions) outweigh the many bad points (a weak or non-existent public option, mandates, fines, no savings)?
2. Suppose a bill passes, and suppose there are major problems. Will the country say "Well, we tried socialized medicine and it failed"? I fear that the citizenry will say just that, even though the House bill does not come close to any reasonable definition of socialized medicine.
3. An allied question: Has the moment for reform passed? As mentioned in previous posts, I can sense the national mood shifting back its default mode: "Laissez faire cures all evils."
4. If the moment has passed -- and if the Pelosi/Obama bill dies the ignominious death that many claim it deserves -- what then? It's easy enough for lefties to say "Back to the drawing board. Next time, let's go for single payer." But how do you know that there will be a next time? If single payer was politically difficult or impossible in 2009, when the country was in a rare liberal mood, then how will it be possible in 2010 or 2011?
How will it be possible after Congress changes hands, as it likely will?
The teabaggers are growing louder by the hour. I recall how ugly the anti-Clinton rhetoric became in 1994 and 1995. The anti-Obama rhetoric will soon become (already is?) uglier still. I foresee more militias, more calls for secession, more weird conspiracy theories, more talk of a military coup, more craziness. Now imagine the effects of a new terror attack. Or a Starr-like grand jury investigation on one pretext or other.
This country could soon be in a mood to goosestep. Again I ask: If single payer was impossible in 2009, how will it be possible in 2010 or 2011?
My suspicion: Obama had but one shot at this thing, and he blew it. Permalink
If Congress wanted to fix the worst elements of our current system, they could have accomplished that with a three-page bill--not a 1000 page bill. Max Baucus the Obama-appointed leader on health care? What a sick joke on poor, deceased Teddy Kennedy. Somehow I think Teddy had in mind "health care for all", not "private industry health insurance for all". The current set of bills represent politics over people. My opinion: tank it. It's a loser. I think Artur Davis is correct: you only get one chance to make it right, and this isn't it.
grayslady
grayslady
Too often this country has accepted less then what's right and correct. Let this plan fail either in vote or in action and TRUST citizens to recognize it for what it is, another capitalist sell out of the consumers. As with all co dependency if you don't allow the bottom consequences to occur no change or recovery is possible.
"As mentioned in previous posts, I can sense the national mood shifting back its default mode: 'Laissez faire cures all evils.'"
I was thinking about the conservative preferred response to the financial crisis, to let a depression happen, and thought it is essentially the Christian Science response to illness. Conservatives pray to the free market, Christian Scientists pray to god, don't take any action and believe everything will be all right. The conservative response to the health care crisis is where they intersect with Christian Science.
I was thinking about the conservative preferred response to the financial crisis, to let a depression happen, and thought it is essentially the Christian Science response to illness. Conservatives pray to the free market, Christian Scientists pray to god, don't take any action and believe everything will be all right. The conservative response to the health care crisis is where they intersect with Christian Science.
The mandated purchase of private insurance, with fines for those who don't pony up, kills the whole deal for me. I was insured through my employers throughout most of my working life, but started my own business 3 years ago and cannot afford insurance. What we pay for my husband is already over 50% of our mortgage payment (and that isn't a fancy policy, just basic Blue Cross coverage); insuring both of us would put health insurance as the number one expense in our household. There is something really wrong, and the "solutions" being offered by the insurance company employees - er, I mean "our representatives in Congress" - will only make things worse.
--tle
--tle
Joe, you raise great questions and concerns. Unfortunately, Baucus/Bama & Co. never had the rest of us in mind with this insurance industry "reform" pay day that will, in conjunction with the great American jobs giveaway program to imported workers be the final kiss of death to this country's middle class. Key hustle points:
1. MANADATING everyone subsidize the death insurance industry while this administration cuts U.S. jobs and imports cheap workers and
2. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION COVERAGE
WILL BOTH BANKRUPT MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS
Forcing or mandating millions of people to buy health insurance is a guaranteed prescription for removing those already struggling in the middle class to welfare status. For the majority, the current option NOT to buy these insurance mafia plans has been the ONLY thing keeping them from losing their homes and putting food on the table.
But the "pre-existing condition" clause is perhaps the most cynical of all. THE PRE-EXISTING clause is a straw carrot to make this reform's cost-prohibitive medicine go down easy.
FACT: Yes, the bill's language states that no one with pre-existing conditions can be "denied" their cost prohibitive health coverage, and there is nothing that prevents insurance companies from forcing such mandated coverage at costs that most middle class people (being laid off in droves) can't afford. Nor does it state that insurance companies can't/won't limit vital procedures/surgeries past a certain level, anyway, just like the esteemed insurance industry already does today?
You ask how likely any progress can be made on the health care front if this dog of a reform bill doesn't pass. Isn't it Gore who is now openly saying "civil disobedience" is a good thing to spark change? Is that what we are down to? The clueless teabaggers will be the least of our worries to prevent the Have party from turning what's left of the middle class into soup kitchen refugees. This is not a health care bill, it is anything but the universal care we need to help us protect against health and financial crises and disaster.
You think Obama "blew it'? Obama never blew what he didn't want...
Sorry for all of us - but this dog don't hunt.
1. MANADATING everyone subsidize the death insurance industry while this administration cuts U.S. jobs and imports cheap workers and
2. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION COVERAGE
WILL BOTH BANKRUPT MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS
Forcing or mandating millions of people to buy health insurance is a guaranteed prescription for removing those already struggling in the middle class to welfare status. For the majority, the current option NOT to buy these insurance mafia plans has been the ONLY thing keeping them from losing their homes and putting food on the table.
But the "pre-existing condition" clause is perhaps the most cynical of all. THE PRE-EXISTING clause is a straw carrot to make this reform's cost-prohibitive medicine go down easy.
FACT: Yes, the bill's language states that no one with pre-existing conditions can be "denied" their cost prohibitive health coverage, and there is nothing that prevents insurance companies from forcing such mandated coverage at costs that most middle class people (being laid off in droves) can't afford. Nor does it state that insurance companies can't/won't limit vital procedures/surgeries past a certain level, anyway, just like the esteemed insurance industry already does today?
You ask how likely any progress can be made on the health care front if this dog of a reform bill doesn't pass. Isn't it Gore who is now openly saying "civil disobedience" is a good thing to spark change? Is that what we are down to? The clueless teabaggers will be the least of our worries to prevent the Have party from turning what's left of the middle class into soup kitchen refugees. This is not a health care bill, it is anything but the universal care we need to help us protect against health and financial crises and disaster.
You think Obama "blew it'? Obama never blew what he didn't want...
Sorry for all of us - but this dog don't hunt.
Great questions. Though I think a bill will pass as a single payer advocate I'd like to see the whole thing go down in flames. It is a bad bill as far as i can tell now.
I don't think Obama cares about health care-he is doing this because he made a deal to get elected.
I think this is Pelosi's health care bill and she essentially has signaled what it means. She wants to carve health care into granite and then the fine tuning comes later.
So I support the bill, without really knowing the details, because once an entitlement program starts it is almost impossible to kill it-all you can do is change it and I think this may be the only way in this country to get universal health care given the opposition. It wont come in through the front door-it will sneak in through the side window.
I think this is Pelosi's health care bill and she essentially has signaled what it means. She wants to carve health care into granite and then the fine tuning comes later.
So I support the bill, without really knowing the details, because once an entitlement program starts it is almost impossible to kill it-all you can do is change it and I think this may be the only way in this country to get universal health care given the opposition. It wont come in through the front door-it will sneak in through the side window.
Why not phase a single payer system in by expanding the CHIPs program to cove all children then every few years up the eligibility age?
This is a bad bill; from forcing people to buy insurance with punishment of higher taxes and perhaps jail time for not purchasing insurance to the lack of a real public option and everything in between it deserves to be defeated. A majority of Americans dislike Obamacare. Should it pass the repercussions in November 2010 will make last Tuesday’s elections look like sweetness and light. It is like the Democrats are both tone deaf and did not listen to voters last Tuesday and have a death wish too.
And no, a bad bill should not be passed or sneaked through a side window. If this bill passes both Houses and is signed into law it will mean Republican rule for the next 10-20 years. Republicans may well take both Houses next November if this bill passes. Additionally, since much of the bill does not take effect (except for the taxes portion) until 2013 the Republicans can make a lot of changes to the statute. And I am betting those would not be good either.
Kill the bill and start over from scratch. If you want true health care reform just open up Medicare for anyone who wants it. Simple. You don’t need 2000 pages and 111 new federal departments and threats of higher taxes and jail time.
Do the right thing! For once.
Post a Comment
<< Home
And no, a bad bill should not be passed or sneaked through a side window. If this bill passes both Houses and is signed into law it will mean Republican rule for the next 10-20 years. Republicans may well take both Houses next November if this bill passes. Additionally, since much of the bill does not take effect (except for the taxes portion) until 2013 the Republicans can make a lot of changes to the statute. And I am betting those would not be good either.
Kill the bill and start over from scratch. If you want true health care reform just open up Medicare for anyone who wants it. Simple. You don’t need 2000 pages and 111 new federal departments and threats of higher taxes and jail time.
Do the right thing! For once.
Friday, November 06, 2009
When will hell no longer be in session?
The Fort Hood massacre has spurred much ugly commentary. Indeed, the bigotry on display reminds us why anti-Obama liberals cannot join forces with the tea baggers.
The wisest and most troubling observations I've seen were published in Truthout:
Beyond that, I do not think it unreasonable to consider the stresses placed on a Muslim facing deployment to a Muslim country where Americans are not wanted. (Nothing in the previous sentence should be considered exculpatory, of course.)
For an excellent background briefing on Afghnistan -- the secret history of how it happened, and what we should do now -- I strongly recommend a series of interviews with Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story. Fitzgerald and Gould are fascinating speakers with a wealth of truly new information and insights. The interviews are here (#685, #683, and #680). Permalink
The wisest and most troubling observations I've seen were published in Truthout:
The soldier says that the mood on the base is “very grim,” and that even before this incident, troop morale has been very low.
“I’d say it’s at an all-time low - mostly because of Afghanistan now,” he explained. “Nobody knows why we are at either place, and I believe the troops need to know why they are there, or we should pull out, and this is a unanimous feeling, even for folks who are pro-war.”
The shocking story of a soldier killing five of his comrades does not come as a surprise when we consider that the military has, for years now, been sending troops with untreated PTSD back into the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.It will be argued that Hasan could not be suffering from PTSD because he was not under stress at the time of the shooting. But in his professional capacity, he often had to deal with trauma survivors -- and it is not uncommon for those working with psychiatric patients to begin to show some of the same symptoms.
According to an Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center analysis, reported in the Denver Post in August 2008, more than “43,000 service members -- two-thirds of them in the Army or Army Reserve -- were classified as nondeployable for medical reasons three months before they deployed” to Iraq.
Mark Thompson also has reported in Time magazine, “Data contained in the Army’s fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of US troops taken last fall, about 12 percent of combat troops in Iraq and 17 percent of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope.”
In April 2008, the RAND Corporation released a stunning report revealing, “Nearly 20 percent of military service members who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan - 300,000 in all - report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment.”
Beyond that, I do not think it unreasonable to consider the stresses placed on a Muslim facing deployment to a Muslim country where Americans are not wanted. (Nothing in the previous sentence should be considered exculpatory, of course.)
For an excellent background briefing on Afghnistan -- the secret history of how it happened, and what we should do now -- I strongly recommend a series of interviews with Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story. Fitzgerald and Gould are fascinating speakers with a wealth of truly new information and insights. The interviews are here (#685, #683, and #680). Permalink
First off, any counselor that takes on the symptoms of those they counsel is dangerously incompetent and needs to be in another line of work. Secondly, I'm a bit confused that somebody would be so agonized about being sent into a situation where they may have to kill for what they consider an invalid reason...so they go out and systematically gun down any complete stranger they come across.
I hope they hang this scumbag.
I hope they hang this scumbag.
Ummm - you've become obsessed with tea party movement people. Apparently now, the tea partiers are responsible for all that ails the country. If there's a racist reaction to the ft. hood shooting - those are tea partiers. Unemployment is highest on record, north of 10% - must be because of teapartiers. Clooney's movie flunks at the box office - it's all those tea partiers out protesting instead of going to see good film.
Jesu Christo - there is no more evidence that people who consider themselves "tea partiers" are going to react with racism to the ft. hood shooting than there is that your average democrat. There certainly is none in your post.
But, evidence - as opposed to your own knee jerk prejudice - doesn't seem to be the basis for your analysis of who a tea partier is or not. All I can say is if you want "anti-Obama" liberals to join you in turning away from the tea party movement, you probably have to do better than making prejudiced, over-generalized statements and labeling them as a crude sexual act.
You know - sort of like how you told the progs last year that they were nuts to think they could persuade people to support Obama by insulting them.
Jesu Christo - there is no more evidence that people who consider themselves "tea partiers" are going to react with racism to the ft. hood shooting than there is that your average democrat. There certainly is none in your post.
But, evidence - as opposed to your own knee jerk prejudice - doesn't seem to be the basis for your analysis of who a tea partier is or not. All I can say is if you want "anti-Obama" liberals to join you in turning away from the tea party movement, you probably have to do better than making prejudiced, over-generalized statements and labeling them as a crude sexual act.
You know - sort of like how you told the progs last year that they were nuts to think they could persuade people to support Obama by insulting them.
It's sad that when something like this happens, the bigotry that lays hidden in the darkest recesses of our minds, springs forth like a gusher!
People snap. Those that snap come in all colors, shapes, sex's and yes...religions. What happened at Ft.Hood was devastating but I fear it has given the bigots among us another reason to scream at the top of their lungs that "Moo-slims" are savages!
Soon, the wacky right and their enablers at "Fixed news" will be using this as a rally cry .
People snap. Those that snap come in all colors, shapes, sex's and yes...religions. What happened at Ft.Hood was devastating but I fear it has given the bigots among us another reason to scream at the top of their lungs that "Moo-slims" are savages!
Soon, the wacky right and their enablers at "Fixed news" will be using this as a rally cry .
Jay:
"First off, any counselor that takes on the symptoms of those they counsel is dangerously incompetent and needs to be in another line of work."
Perhaps, but the phenomenon has long been noted. I even recall reading about it in my Psych 101 textbook, lo these many years ago.
"Secondly, I'm a bit confused that somebody would be so agonized about being sent into a situation where they may have to kill for what they consider an invalid reason...so they go out and systematically gun down any complete stranger they come across."
What's confusing? He went buggo.
Considering the fact that we live under a crazy foreign policy made by crazy politicians, I'm surprised that more soldiers don't go crazy.
"First off, any counselor that takes on the symptoms of those they counsel is dangerously incompetent and needs to be in another line of work."
Perhaps, but the phenomenon has long been noted. I even recall reading about it in my Psych 101 textbook, lo these many years ago.
"Secondly, I'm a bit confused that somebody would be so agonized about being sent into a situation where they may have to kill for what they consider an invalid reason...so they go out and systematically gun down any complete stranger they come across."
What's confusing? He went buggo.
Considering the fact that we live under a crazy foreign policy made by crazy politicians, I'm surprised that more soldiers don't go crazy.
Anon, you keep saying the same thing, and I keep ignoring your advice. The tea baggers are right-wing scum who deserve no sympathy. They exemplify why I fear rebellion: Any revolution in this country is likely to be fascist.
The incident is like a nightmarish addendum to Catch-22. For me, it highlights yet another ongoing atrocity--how horribly we are abusing our warriors.
I'm some kinda peacenik, but it's heartbreaking to see this bravest and most vulnerable class of citizens being so terribly used.
According to the Hindus--whom I love because they don't sugarcoat things--we are living in the age of Kali. It's Kali Yuga, a dark and grim age, when humankind is very far from God. It means Hell will be in session for another 20,000 years.
Check out this description of Kali Yuga, written 5000 years ago:
Avarice and wrath will be common. Humans will openly display animosity towards each other. People will have thoughts of murder for no justification, and they will see nothing wrong with that mind-set. Lust will be viewed as being socially acceptable, and sexual intercourse will be seen as the central requirement of life, with the result that even 13 to 16-year old girls will get pregnant. Sin will increase exponentially, whilst virtue will fade and cease to flourish. People will take vows only to break them soon after. People will become addicted to intoxicating drinks and drugs. Men will find their jobs stressful and will go to retreats to escape their work. Gurus will no longer be respected and their students will attempt to injure them.
On the cheery side, they say Kali Yuga is an excellent period during which to achieve spiritual growth. With 20,000 years to mess around with, we'll all achieve enlightenment--if we don't go mad or get hit by a stray bullet first.
I'm some kinda peacenik, but it's heartbreaking to see this bravest and most vulnerable class of citizens being so terribly used.
According to the Hindus--whom I love because they don't sugarcoat things--we are living in the age of Kali. It's Kali Yuga, a dark and grim age, when humankind is very far from God. It means Hell will be in session for another 20,000 years.
Check out this description of Kali Yuga, written 5000 years ago:
Avarice and wrath will be common. Humans will openly display animosity towards each other. People will have thoughts of murder for no justification, and they will see nothing wrong with that mind-set. Lust will be viewed as being socially acceptable, and sexual intercourse will be seen as the central requirement of life, with the result that even 13 to 16-year old girls will get pregnant. Sin will increase exponentially, whilst virtue will fade and cease to flourish. People will take vows only to break them soon after. People will become addicted to intoxicating drinks and drugs. Men will find their jobs stressful and will go to retreats to escape their work. Gurus will no longer be respected and their students will attempt to injure them.
On the cheery side, they say Kali Yuga is an excellent period during which to achieve spiritual growth. With 20,000 years to mess around with, we'll all achieve enlightenment--if we don't go mad or get hit by a stray bullet first.
Aw, Joe. And here I thought there was reasonable thinking on this blog.
I'm one of those "right-wing tea-baggers"--a registered Democrat until a year ago--whose taxes have gone through the roof and whose business is hanging on by a thread, and I resent being called "scum."
So long.
I'm one of those "right-wing tea-baggers"--a registered Democrat until a year ago--whose taxes have gone through the roof and whose business is hanging on by a thread, and I resent being called "scum."
So long.
I am trying to understand how one can go from being a Democrat to joining forces with teabaggers. I can understand shifting to the right or left as a result of betrayal or events that question one's long held assumptions, but to swing 180 degrees is like cutting your nose off.....
It is also interesting that the same type of person would think nothing of calling someone like major Hassan scum. Imagine growing up in the US as a Muslim with an Arabic name, living through 9-11 and war on terror, being in the Army and having your patriotism questioned if not by your comrades but at least by the public, the Right and the MSM, have your God and religion and by extension yourself called savage on the one hand and on the other have everything you have been taught about American exceptionalism, American Democracy and election proccess, love of Freedom, religous tolerance, just wars and regard and respect for troops and their sacrifice, American justice and rule of law all dragged through the mud by the very people you are supposed to be protecting and......... you flip and go apeshit. What's so hard about understanding that?
It is also interesting that the same type of person would think nothing of calling someone like major Hassan scum. Imagine growing up in the US as a Muslim with an Arabic name, living through 9-11 and war on terror, being in the Army and having your patriotism questioned if not by your comrades but at least by the public, the Right and the MSM, have your God and religion and by extension yourself called savage on the one hand and on the other have everything you have been taught about American exceptionalism, American Democracy and election proccess, love of Freedom, religous tolerance, just wars and regard and respect for troops and their sacrifice, American justice and rule of law all dragged through the mud by the very people you are supposed to be protecting and......... you flip and go apeshit. What's so hard about understanding that?
Here is what is easy to understand, beeta. A man who took two oaths; one to do no harm and another to serve the country that provided him with the ability to accept the first. That man gathers weapons and sets out to kill as many unarmed comrades as he is able. He broke his vows to his profession, his country, and his God. Whatever real or imagined hardship you think he may have endured because of his name and his religion...it is nothing compared to what he has dealt out to others.
He deserves to die in disgrace at the end of a rope.
He deserves to die in disgrace at the end of a rope.
Beeta said:
"I am trying to understand how one can go from being a Democrat to joining forces with teabaggers."
Beeta, not all "teabaggers" (how I despise that term) are wingnut Republicans. Many of us are independents and even Democrats who have been squeezed to the breaking point. We're struggling to pay $1,5000-a-month expenses on income of $1,200, with no end in sight. We're exhausted, broke and scared.
I am not a far-right screwball. I've marched both locally and in Washington in protest of the war in Iraq and traveled a thousand miles to be a poll monitor for MoveOn. If I do that for social issues, why should I not do it for economic ones? Does being a social liberal make me ineligible to be a fiscal conservative?
As for Major Hassan, you can talk till the cows come home about stress and second-hand trauma but I'm not buying. Nothing...NOTHING can excuse that man's actions. Twelve innocents are dead because of him. "Scum" is too nice a term.
"I am trying to understand how one can go from being a Democrat to joining forces with teabaggers."
Beeta, not all "teabaggers" (how I despise that term) are wingnut Republicans. Many of us are independents and even Democrats who have been squeezed to the breaking point. We're struggling to pay $1,5000-a-month expenses on income of $1,200, with no end in sight. We're exhausted, broke and scared.
I am not a far-right screwball. I've marched both locally and in Washington in protest of the war in Iraq and traveled a thousand miles to be a poll monitor for MoveOn. If I do that for social issues, why should I not do it for economic ones? Does being a social liberal make me ineligible to be a fiscal conservative?
As for Major Hassan, you can talk till the cows come home about stress and second-hand trauma but I'm not buying. Nothing...NOTHING can excuse that man's actions. Twelve innocents are dead because of him. "Scum" is too nice a term.
Jay,
I am not defending what Major Hassan did. I am objecting to the idea that he is different than anyone else that went crazy and killed people based on his religion.
And speaking of breaking oaths, how many oaths did Bush break? How many did Cheney break? And Rumsfeld? How many innocent people died as a result of those broken oaths. I don't see many on the left or right shouting "Die Scum"!
I am not defending what Major Hassan did. I am objecting to the idea that he is different than anyone else that went crazy and killed people based on his religion.
And speaking of breaking oaths, how many oaths did Bush break? How many did Cheney break? And Rumsfeld? How many innocent people died as a result of those broken oaths. I don't see many on the left or right shouting "Die Scum"!
Creeper,
Why would you think that I would ever object to you being a fiscal conservative or for that matter protesting anything?
Protests organized by people like Michelle Buckman and Dick Army and the rest of the far right loonies are:
-not grass roots
-are financed by coorporations/organizations with clear anti regular Joe agendas
-used to channel people's anger and frustrations toward fake/imaginary foes to deflect attention from the real culprits
-used to propogate mis-information/lies about our Constitution, forign policy, proposed bills in Congress...etc
And these rallies have come to be known as "teaparty rallies".
You can be for anything, protest anything, but when you do it under the banner of the "tea parties", you will become part of the movement that misleads, misinforms, misdirects, socially/ economically/millitarily abuses not only Americans but all of the world.
Why would you think that I would ever object to you being a fiscal conservative or for that matter protesting anything?
Protests organized by people like Michelle Buckman and Dick Army and the rest of the far right loonies are:
-not grass roots
-are financed by coorporations/organizations with clear anti regular Joe agendas
-used to channel people's anger and frustrations toward fake/imaginary foes to deflect attention from the real culprits
-used to propogate mis-information/lies about our Constitution, forign policy, proposed bills in Congress...etc
And these rallies have come to be known as "teaparty rallies".
You can be for anything, protest anything, but when you do it under the banner of the "tea parties", you will become part of the movement that misleads, misinforms, misdirects, socially/ economically/millitarily abuses not only Americans but all of the world.
Beeta, there's nobody that despised Bush and his cronies more than I; but guess what, he's gone. See any change the last year. I sure haven't. I certainly don't see any objections from the Democrats who suddenly seem to have forgotten what we hated so much in the last presidency. From the beginning, Obots have labeled us racist and loonies. We are not going away. We are growing in frustration and anger. Be that as it may...exactly what is the difference between a man going around shooting people yelling "Alla Akbar" and a fellow going into a church and blowing away an abortion doctor? Both are scum in my outdated liberal morality and I'll be damned if I will spend one second defending them over the blood of innocents that they have shed.
Perry, give us a break. What is the source for this supposed 5000 year old translation? As if. Ancient people bemoaning 16 year old mothers? Hello. Normal marriage age back when.
Yeah Perry, give us the source of this alleged Kaleeyoubahhoo! Doesn't sound Amurehkin, if you ask me. And truth be told, Lerner and Loewe actually changed their names from Singh & Choudry just before they penned the famous pean to pedo (and few know this, but Rajesh Khanna recorded the ditty before Maurice Chevaliuer, for the Bolly-play "Aloo Gigipadam")
Jesus Zee! are you that ignorant of the rest of the world as you surely are about ancient India? Do you think that the western ideas of women as chattel was a planetary norm? Were you aware that in Vedic society women chose their husbands (Swayamvara), were allowed multiple husbands, and that child marriage was verboten?
Have you ever heard of an epic book (or play or great film by Peter Brook) called The Mahabarata?? Why do you think they wrote of the power of women, and how they were not only equal to men, but superior? 2,500 years later, who is the biggest saint on the scene? A chick! Named Gargi Vachaknavi, not only was she spiritual leader but was one of the 9 guides for the Raja Janaka. Now please, you think she was a sexualized 13 year old? ...just because in Europe only adult MALE Athenians citizens who had completed their training as ephebes had the right to vote, it means nothing about ancient India.
Things got fucked up for women commencing in the Indian Middle Ages, and continued to deteriorate as other cultures invaded (Muslim, Christian, British...) that's when you see child marriage, Purdah, Jauhar, the Zenana... all that crap. But you cannot say that the Vedas, or vedic society lived that way! Fuck. That's like saying Thomas Jefferson has a black lover, therefore Gerald Ford had black lovers. Same thing.
Unless you have some proof that Vedic society was misogynist, Zee, you are talking straight outta your ass.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Jesus Zee! are you that ignorant of the rest of the world as you surely are about ancient India? Do you think that the western ideas of women as chattel was a planetary norm? Were you aware that in Vedic society women chose their husbands (Swayamvara), were allowed multiple husbands, and that child marriage was verboten?
Have you ever heard of an epic book (or play or great film by Peter Brook) called The Mahabarata?? Why do you think they wrote of the power of women, and how they were not only equal to men, but superior? 2,500 years later, who is the biggest saint on the scene? A chick! Named Gargi Vachaknavi, not only was she spiritual leader but was one of the 9 guides for the Raja Janaka. Now please, you think she was a sexualized 13 year old? ...just because in Europe only adult MALE Athenians citizens who had completed their training as ephebes had the right to vote, it means nothing about ancient India.
Things got fucked up for women commencing in the Indian Middle Ages, and continued to deteriorate as other cultures invaded (Muslim, Christian, British...) that's when you see child marriage, Purdah, Jauhar, the Zenana... all that crap. But you cannot say that the Vedas, or vedic society lived that way! Fuck. That's like saying Thomas Jefferson has a black lover, therefore Gerald Ford had black lovers. Same thing.
Unless you have some proof that Vedic society was misogynist, Zee, you are talking straight outta your ass.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Why aren't we out?
As you probably know, Major Nidal Malik Hasan -- an Army shrink at Fort Hood -- "allegedly" went berserk and shot at his fellow soldiers, killing thirteen and wounding 30. He had just discovered that he was about to be deployed overseas.
Can you believe that this is going on nearly 9 1/2 months after Obama's inauguration? Why aren't we out? Permalink
Can you believe that this is going on nearly 9 1/2 months after Obama's inauguration? Why aren't we out? Permalink
Couldn't he have just said no? I don't mean that as a joke. He says no, and gets booted out of the army. He still has his life, and no one else is killed either.
This guy went to Va Tech..where there were also mass killings..look up Cathy O'Brien..she talsk about Va Tech!
According to a retired colleague of Major Hasan, the Major was increasingly opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was going through all possible channels to avoid the assignment to Iraq, which was scheduled for late November. Sadly, according to Major Hasan's colleague, the Major was very excited about Obama's election because he truly believed Obama's campaign promises to withdraw from Iraq.
I can't begin to imagine the stress that someone like Major Hasan was under: years of counseling those veterans returning from these illegal invasions with problems ranging from PTSD to alcoholism, with no end in sight. According to a friend of his from church, he was both a devout muslim and a patriotic member of the armed forces. These conflicts must have been tearing him apart. I feel so terribly sorry for both Major Hasan and his victims.
We've spent over $300 billion in Afghanistan alone, but we're told there isn't enough money for universal health care. I suspect we're all going slightly mad by now.
grayslady
I can't begin to imagine the stress that someone like Major Hasan was under: years of counseling those veterans returning from these illegal invasions with problems ranging from PTSD to alcoholism, with no end in sight. According to a friend of his from church, he was both a devout muslim and a patriotic member of the armed forces. These conflicts must have been tearing him apart. I feel so terribly sorry for both Major Hasan and his victims.
We've spent over $300 billion in Afghanistan alone, but we're told there isn't enough money for universal health care. I suspect we're all going slightly mad by now.
grayslady
C'mon, Joseph. You didn't really believe all that fairy tale about Obama the anti-war candidate, did you?
It was just campaign rhetoric, and bringing it up now is "playing gotcha."
It is kinda funny how all those Obots who could never, ever support Hillary because of her AUMF vote don't seem to care about the war anymore.
Kool-aid is a helluva drug.
It was just campaign rhetoric, and bringing it up now is "playing gotcha."
It is kinda funny how all those Obots who could never, ever support Hillary because of her AUMF vote don't seem to care about the war anymore.
Kool-aid is a helluva drug.
I gotta side with the Miyq-- I'm not saying that we would have pulled out any better with HRC or MccCaine who would have found just as many excuses as O to stay in.... and to tussle with Iran on Zion's behalf..
Really, Mr. Cannon, did you really think that 9 months after the puppet named O became potus that anything would be different?
I love how people say to me, well, he 'is trying' to reform health, he 'is trying' to fix the economy.. and to that i have two things to say one is that the verb "trying" implies failure (i tried my hardest... but we lost the game) but more so-- he appears to push far to the left for health care why? because he knows that nothing will happen but appearances, same with the pull outs, he talks it, shucks it and jives it (yeah, i said it! fuck you bots, that is a shuck and jive).. its the oldest trick in the dem book-- make it look like somethings happen, start a commission, have a hearing, put out a bill that's bigger than a phone book... great. and then we will say, well, he tried.
The only shock is that anyone actually believed that soldiers would leave Iraq. PT Barnum said it best; suckers every minute-- but really, didn't Carlo Collodi write some stories about puppts who lie? Geppetto, Mangiafuoco, and the 'Grillo parlante'? Is it much different than the puppets who lie to us today? Before it was a Disney abortion, it was a satire, right?
Really, Mr. Cannon, did you really think that 9 months after the puppet named O became potus that anything would be different?
I love how people say to me, well, he 'is trying' to reform health, he 'is trying' to fix the economy.. and to that i have two things to say one is that the verb "trying" implies failure (i tried my hardest... but we lost the game) but more so-- he appears to push far to the left for health care why? because he knows that nothing will happen but appearances, same with the pull outs, he talks it, shucks it and jives it (yeah, i said it! fuck you bots, that is a shuck and jive).. its the oldest trick in the dem book-- make it look like somethings happen, start a commission, have a hearing, put out a bill that's bigger than a phone book... great. and then we will say, well, he tried.
The only shock is that anyone actually believed that soldiers would leave Iraq. PT Barnum said it best; suckers every minute-- but really, didn't Carlo Collodi write some stories about puppts who lie? Geppetto, Mangiafuoco, and the 'Grillo parlante'? Is it much different than the puppets who lie to us today? Before it was a Disney abortion, it was a satire, right?
The Disney movie was great. And the original was dead serious -- a great big wallow in Italian Cat-lick guilt, complete with a transparently-disguised stand-in for the Virgin Mary.
Not booted out; locked up in a military prison and doubtless subjected to some of the very nasty treatment he'd have been used to giving forcibly to others in his capacity as army shrink.
As someone embarking on a career in mil intel once told me:
If you can't take a joke...don't join the army. Which goes for those he shot as well as Hasan himself.
The western press is having a field day screaming in its headlines that this guy is (was?) a Muslim. Can't remember a case where they acted similarly with a Christian or a Jew.
The various cults of pyschiatry work like other cults...I call it the Jesuit model...the lower-downs get shrunk by the higher-ups, and so on up the chain. 'Course, I'm sure he was no Reichian. Army psychiatrist ain't my favourite type o'person. OK I do believe in redemption and sure, this guy should have found some other way to get out of the army. But I wouldn't put this on the same level as some GI who goes similarly crazy, in the sense of forgetting who he's supposed to murder and who he's supposed to murder with.
That said, I wonder just who actually started the shooting at Fort Hood. As a brown-skinned Muslim who didn't like the American invaders' efforts in Iraq, Hasan would have had quite a few enemies. Insane 'hero' with numerous belt-notches included, very probably.
Second point of scepticism: is it actually true that this guy ever said he didn't want to go to Iraq? Might this just be bullshit? As in, some American soldier goes fuckin' crazy and shoots a load of people - except not in Arabia or Asia but in America itself - and oh yes, he's a Muslim, you know, and he went to the mosque (implication: what was he doing there?), and he was against the war (implication: some fucking traitors express their anti-patriotic beliefs publicly - even in the army itself - and still we let them!), and so on. The clear message being: remove the enemy within. I got fed up years ago with compulsively analysing news stories to try to form a view on what really happened. (Well, except very occasionally). More important is what's being done with the story.
And the message here is being communicated not just to Joe SixPack but, importantly, within Uncle Sam's military wing itself.
"Muslim groups fear backlash" say some headlines... Subtle, huh? Between the lines, there's the message that all Muslims have "groups" which either they belong to or which speak on their behalf, legitimately represent them. OK I know that's how a lot of people like things to be in America, and there are always 'groups' that want to gob off to the media, but it makes me think of how, in the early years after they came to government, the Nazis viewed Jewish Germans.
We get the idiotic spectacle of 'groups' 'racing' to 'condemn' the 'rampage'. As if...as if...? Who's calling the propaganda shots here? Easy for me say that, sure. But... "if you can't take a joke, don't get into politics" ? It's still the warmakers who control the press, and they are using this story...and if this isn't criticised head-on, the bastards will get stronger. Mustn't let a crisis go to waste. (Nothing like stating the obvious! :-) ).
b
As someone embarking on a career in mil intel once told me:
If you can't take a joke...don't join the army. Which goes for those he shot as well as Hasan himself.
The western press is having a field day screaming in its headlines that this guy is (was?) a Muslim. Can't remember a case where they acted similarly with a Christian or a Jew.
The various cults of pyschiatry work like other cults...I call it the Jesuit model...the lower-downs get shrunk by the higher-ups, and so on up the chain. 'Course, I'm sure he was no Reichian. Army psychiatrist ain't my favourite type o'person. OK I do believe in redemption and sure, this guy should have found some other way to get out of the army. But I wouldn't put this on the same level as some GI who goes similarly crazy, in the sense of forgetting who he's supposed to murder and who he's supposed to murder with.
That said, I wonder just who actually started the shooting at Fort Hood. As a brown-skinned Muslim who didn't like the American invaders' efforts in Iraq, Hasan would have had quite a few enemies. Insane 'hero' with numerous belt-notches included, very probably.
Second point of scepticism: is it actually true that this guy ever said he didn't want to go to Iraq? Might this just be bullshit? As in, some American soldier goes fuckin' crazy and shoots a load of people - except not in Arabia or Asia but in America itself - and oh yes, he's a Muslim, you know, and he went to the mosque (implication: what was he doing there?), and he was against the war (implication: some fucking traitors express their anti-patriotic beliefs publicly - even in the army itself - and still we let them!), and so on. The clear message being: remove the enemy within. I got fed up years ago with compulsively analysing news stories to try to form a view on what really happened. (Well, except very occasionally). More important is what's being done with the story.
And the message here is being communicated not just to Joe SixPack but, importantly, within Uncle Sam's military wing itself.
"Muslim groups fear backlash" say some headlines... Subtle, huh? Between the lines, there's the message that all Muslims have "groups" which either they belong to or which speak on their behalf, legitimately represent them. OK I know that's how a lot of people like things to be in America, and there are always 'groups' that want to gob off to the media, but it makes me think of how, in the early years after they came to government, the Nazis viewed Jewish Germans.
We get the idiotic spectacle of 'groups' 'racing' to 'condemn' the 'rampage'. As if...as if...? Who's calling the propaganda shots here? Easy for me say that, sure. But... "if you can't take a joke, don't get into politics" ? It's still the warmakers who control the press, and they are using this story...and if this isn't criticised head-on, the bastards will get stronger. Mustn't let a crisis go to waste. (Nothing like stating the obvious! :-) ).
b
OK Joe, I'll give you that--- the artwork in Disney's version is great, thanks to the brilliant Oskar Fischinger, and Grazia from Death Takes a Holiday as the Blue Fairy.
But really, aside from a great patina, they butchered Collodi's story, filleted all the social commentary; no serpents laughing themselves to death, no City of Catchfools, no terrible Dogfish.... and then if you were to consider what Disney did to the story, and compare it to Tolstoy's "The Little Gold Key or the Adventures of Buratino" it is hard to say that Disney's version was "great."
Good animation, ok, but as John Kennedy Toole once wrote; Ignatius growls that the picture he is seeing is "an abomination. Hollywood, I fear, is our contemporary Sodom and Gomorrah and we best avert our gaze."
Disney took some Montasio, some Fontina, and some Caciocavallo and gave us cheese-whiz. And yet even in that pablum, there's still a puppet who lies. Just like O.
But really, aside from a great patina, they butchered Collodi's story, filleted all the social commentary; no serpents laughing themselves to death, no City of Catchfools, no terrible Dogfish.... and then if you were to consider what Disney did to the story, and compare it to Tolstoy's "The Little Gold Key or the Adventures of Buratino" it is hard to say that Disney's version was "great."
Good animation, ok, but as John Kennedy Toole once wrote; Ignatius growls that the picture he is seeing is "an abomination. Hollywood, I fear, is our contemporary Sodom and Gomorrah and we best avert our gaze."
Disney took some Montasio, some Fontina, and some Caciocavallo and gave us cheese-whiz. And yet even in that pablum, there's still a puppet who lies. Just like O.
What I can't believe is Obama's "news conference" yesterday. Taking two and a half minutes to schmooze with the attendees of an Interior Department conference before even mentioning the tragedy at Fort Hood is an insult to every soldier in America.
Anonymous, your comments on the "stress" Major Hasan was under are proof positive that you've lost it completely. None of the soldiers he counseled did this, even though they were the ones with PTSD. Second-hand "stress"? Don't make me laugh.
Go post at the Great Orange Satan, where they were expressing sympathy for the shooter yesterday. You'll fit right in there.
Anonymous, your comments on the "stress" Major Hasan was under are proof positive that you've lost it completely. None of the soldiers he counseled did this, even though they were the ones with PTSD. Second-hand "stress"? Don't make me laugh.
Go post at the Great Orange Satan, where they were expressing sympathy for the shooter yesterday. You'll fit right in there.
Wait, I know the answer (and it hasn't been given yet)!
It's pretty simple, and once you read it, it's entirely dispositive of the question.
It comes down to math (my apologies!) and corrected memory, and the fact that 9-1/2 is less than 16 (to which I hope we all can agree).
-----------------------
New York Times
December 4, 2008
News Analysis
Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.
But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.
“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.
------------------
From this reporting, then-president-elect Obama claimed his prior campaign pledge was to remove COMBAT TROOPS IN 16 MONTHS, and the Times appears to agree.
XI
It's pretty simple, and once you read it, it's entirely dispositive of the question.
It comes down to math (my apologies!) and corrected memory, and the fact that 9-1/2 is less than 16 (to which I hope we all can agree).
-----------------------
New York Times
December 4, 2008
News Analysis
Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.
But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.
“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.
------------------
From this reporting, then-president-elect Obama claimed his prior campaign pledge was to remove COMBAT TROOPS IN 16 MONTHS, and the Times appears to agree.
XI
I agree with Bob Not Bob. As an aside, I can't recall a Jewish mass murderer-- leave out the Middle East.
"Leave out the middle east"
....as in outside of Palestine/Israel
from '48 to present? So then does King David count? When the deal was that if he kill Goliath, the Philistines would be the Israelites' slaves. But once David kills Goliath, he leads the Isseys and Hymies on a massacre 'till the Valley of Elah is flooded with Philistine blood ("and the Lord was pleased"). So does that count?
If not, what about Joel David Rifkin (killed 17 between 89-93) or Albert Hamilton Fish (1870–1936)? How about Son of Sam (or does adopted not count? because I'll tell ya this: adopted still get the tip of their schmeckeleh cut off)? Then there's The Lonely Heart Killer - Harvey Murray Glatman, and the Ruskies Kaganovich, and Yagoda? Both Jewish, both mass murderers.
And how about Kissinger? And that's not even looking at Wolfowitz or the PNAC...
I'm not saying that there is an issue of proportionality or over-representation, just sayin' that no group is above reaching the nadir on occasion.
Post a Comment
<< Home
....as in outside of Palestine/Israel
from '48 to present? So then does King David count? When the deal was that if he kill Goliath, the Philistines would be the Israelites' slaves. But once David kills Goliath, he leads the Isseys and Hymies on a massacre 'till the Valley of Elah is flooded with Philistine blood ("and the Lord was pleased"). So does that count?
If not, what about Joel David Rifkin (killed 17 between 89-93) or Albert Hamilton Fish (1870–1936)? How about Son of Sam (or does adopted not count? because I'll tell ya this: adopted still get the tip of their schmeckeleh cut off)? Then there's The Lonely Heart Killer - Harvey Murray Glatman, and the Ruskies Kaganovich, and Yagoda? Both Jewish, both mass murderers.
And how about Kissinger? And that's not even looking at Wolfowitz or the PNAC...
I'm not saying that there is an issue of proportionality or over-representation, just sayin' that no group is above reaching the nadir on occasion.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
BLOGGING WILL END
I'm not kidding. If the new worldwide copyright treaty is put into effect, goodbye blogging. And goodbye to YouTube and a lot of other services. Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing sounds the alarm about the new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, now being cobbled together in South Korea by the Obama administration -- in secret.
We don't yet know the full details, but -- so far -- we know this:
This is an issue on which we can all agree, regardless of political persuasion. Huffington Post calls the new treaty "A Patriot Act For the Internet":
This ain't that.
This is about free speech. This is about blogging. If every ISP has to hire an in-house police force, two things will happen: 1. Everyone's monthly bill will go way up. 2. Customers will be prevented from using services like Blogger.
Think about the quoted material in this very post. Have I followed the letter of the law? I don't know, and neither do you. The law has not determined just how many words one may quote under the "fair use" rubric. Instead of playing count-the-letters, the ISPs will simply tell customers not to blog. True, no sane individual could claim that my lengthy quotes did financial harm to either Boing Boing or HuffPo -- but if this treaty goes through, mere sanity will no longer matter.
This treaty will return us to the days when freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned a press.
People won't stand for this.
Barack Obama is about to become the least popular president in history -- and the Democratic party will get a rep as the party that tried to censor the internet. Permalink
We don't yet know the full details, but -- so far -- we know this:
* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.Any law that forces ISPs to police user infringement of copyright will also put an end to Myspace and Facebook. Not to mention a lot of ISPs.
* * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
This is an issue on which we can all agree, regardless of political persuasion. Huffington Post calls the new treaty "A Patriot Act For the Internet":
The entire U.S. tech sector has been publicly silent, as the Obama administration has co-oped them into trading silence for access to the secret documents.Obama came into office promising transparency. Ha! This guy's as transparent as concrete.
At this point, Congress needs to stand up and put an end to this appalling spectacle of secret legislation on a global scale. How can politicians claim to be all for transparency, and allow this indefensible violation of the public right to know proceed?
A large number of organizations and people have written President Obama asking that he end the secrecy of the negotiation.
All 40+ countries in the negotiation have access to the proposed text. And, there are processes for just about any corporate lobbyist with ties to the Administration to see proposed texts, if they sign tough legally binding non-disclosure agreements. So why is it secret from the public?Look, this thing isn't about pirated music or downloaded movies. I'm a content creator myself, and I know what it's like to be ripped off. Hell, I've seen posts from this very blog published on other sites without so much as a byline or a by-your-leave.
This ain't that.
This is about free speech. This is about blogging. If every ISP has to hire an in-house police force, two things will happen: 1. Everyone's monthly bill will go way up. 2. Customers will be prevented from using services like Blogger.
Think about the quoted material in this very post. Have I followed the letter of the law? I don't know, and neither do you. The law has not determined just how many words one may quote under the "fair use" rubric. Instead of playing count-the-letters, the ISPs will simply tell customers not to blog. True, no sane individual could claim that my lengthy quotes did financial harm to either Boing Boing or HuffPo -- but if this treaty goes through, mere sanity will no longer matter.
This treaty will return us to the days when freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned a press.
People won't stand for this.
Barack Obama is about to become the least popular president in history -- and the Democratic party will get a rep as the party that tried to censor the internet. Permalink
I wanted to share this article on dailypuma, but you don't have a share button.
Is that something you might consider?
Is that something you might consider?
Looking back at the Lutheran Reformation during the 1500's, it was the development of a printing press that allowed less expensive Bibles to be made available to the masses. This opened the eyes of many and allowed them to look at how they were being decieved. It was so bad during that time with corruption and "Gone Wild" everything that people took matters into their own hands. The Puritans came over to America in part to get away from the Reformation that was taking place in their home land. This is one reason why we have text in our Consitution that guarantees separation between Church and State.
Personally my family fled France around the mid 1600's since France was seeing seven Reformation wars. They fled to Luxembourg about 200 miles due east and built a family home that still stands to this day. What existed within my family through the generations were horrible stories of what happened that made them leave France. One story talks about the late night visits by angry mobs to their neighbors where everyone including the children were killed simply because they were Catholic. They said that living during that time was horrible and it was time to leave especially when it came close to home.
Looking back, it took a few hundred years to have information spread across the land that informed others of the truth. Today, the internet does it in a fraction of this time yet there will still be efforts to silence the truth. The reason is clear, it works really well but what it is they are trying to do?
I've been writing posts for a long time talking about us being in the midst of a White House Coup. I know from the family I was in that it's being run by the Big Banks and others. What's fueling the Coup in large part is the sale of huge Drug Sales where our Government leaders are directly involved with selling us drugs. Be aware that the plans aren't limited to just the US, they extend beyond our borders.
Considering that this is their plan, they may be expending a lot of energy to insure their plans end successfully. But it's important to realize that there is an opposition that exists that is successfully putting an end here and there to what is happening. Also realize that while those pushing the Coup are committing themselves deeper with all of us watching, they eventually and in many cases have alread reached a point where they can't get out. As slithery as they are, eventually they end up painting the picture of their own doom. It still needs a little time....
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Personally my family fled France around the mid 1600's since France was seeing seven Reformation wars. They fled to Luxembourg about 200 miles due east and built a family home that still stands to this day. What existed within my family through the generations were horrible stories of what happened that made them leave France. One story talks about the late night visits by angry mobs to their neighbors where everyone including the children were killed simply because they were Catholic. They said that living during that time was horrible and it was time to leave especially when it came close to home.
Looking back, it took a few hundred years to have information spread across the land that informed others of the truth. Today, the internet does it in a fraction of this time yet there will still be efforts to silence the truth. The reason is clear, it works really well but what it is they are trying to do?
I've been writing posts for a long time talking about us being in the midst of a White House Coup. I know from the family I was in that it's being run by the Big Banks and others. What's fueling the Coup in large part is the sale of huge Drug Sales where our Government leaders are directly involved with selling us drugs. Be aware that the plans aren't limited to just the US, they extend beyond our borders.
Considering that this is their plan, they may be expending a lot of energy to insure their plans end successfully. But it's important to realize that there is an opposition that exists that is successfully putting an end here and there to what is happening. Also realize that while those pushing the Coup are committing themselves deeper with all of us watching, they eventually and in many cases have alread reached a point where they can't get out. As slithery as they are, eventually they end up painting the picture of their own doom. It still needs a little time....
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Joseph, I know you must be upset...you left a typo in the first paragraph: Trade Agreement, not Traqde Agreement!
Check out an old post over at Tn Guerilla Women. Calvin Cline tried to shut down a couple of blogs making fun of his artificially photoshopped-skinny models, whose head ended up bigger than her hips.
One site caved and took down their post...the others not only left it up but challenged him on fair use and got even more attention.
I wonder what 4chan users have to say about this turn of events?
The cyber activists can wreak some havoc/fun.
Put "Scientology" in your tags for this story and maybe some of them will wander over and have something pointed to say!
Check out an old post over at Tn Guerilla Women. Calvin Cline tried to shut down a couple of blogs making fun of his artificially photoshopped-skinny models, whose head ended up bigger than her hips.
One site caved and took down their post...the others not only left it up but challenged him on fair use and got even more attention.
I wonder what 4chan users have to say about this turn of events?
The cyber activists can wreak some havoc/fun.
Put "Scientology" in your tags for this story and maybe some of them will wander over and have something pointed to say!
I have to say...I almost think, bring it on. It will bring the "told you so" comebacks almost to orgasmic levels. I will be smirking nonstop.
And there can be no excuses to hide behind.
And there can be no excuses to hide behind.
It was Ralph Lauren's lawyers who tried to shut down Boing Boing over the altered photos. Fortunately BB had an off-shore IPS and did not have to comply.
gormenghast
gormenghast
Gee Marty, I wish I knew the source of your optimism. To me it looks like things are getting worse by the hour.
Zee, it's Calvin 'Klein' as in "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins" and not 'Cline' as in CRAZY, as in "missing the bus."
It seems to me that you are over-reacting, Joseph. Consider:
* Most off the stuff posted on Facebook or YouTue is sh--t.
* Content creators are being screwed-over by the current situation.
* The way things stand, little people share, while big companies/organizations take, take take (Adsense/Google benefits from the current copy and paste culture, as do selfish culture consumers).
Enforcement of copyright would conceivably allow content creators to make a proper living off work that is their creation.
* Most off the stuff posted on Facebook or YouTue is sh--t.
* Content creators are being screwed-over by the current situation.
* The way things stand, little people share, while big companies/organizations take, take take (Adsense/Google benefits from the current copy and paste culture, as do selfish culture consumers).
Enforcement of copyright would conceivably allow content creators to make a proper living off work that is their creation.
Thanks, Bartleby...that was driving me nuts, but we can't correct our comment typos, alas. I'd actually typed "Kline" instead of Klein and knew that was wrong and somehow concluded it was the "K" that was off!
I'm a big fan of making ISP's responsible for policing the copyright infringement that they facilitate. Original blogging will not end -- people who clip incessantly from other people's intellectual property will end. As long as we agree that there's a fair law called 'copyright', there's certainly nothing wrong with policing actual infringement.
Trust me -- if you make a film and find that it's available on a torrent the night of it's release on DVD, you'd feel differently about this.
It doesn't end or even damage free ORIGINAL speech.
Trust me -- if you make a film and find that it's available on a torrent the night of it's release on DVD, you'd feel differently about this.
It doesn't end or even damage free ORIGINAL speech.
So, GI -- I take it you also would be in favor of suing the phone company if two people use the phones to plan to rob your house?
Phone company? What? That's quite a nonsensical stretch. I'd be a fan of suing the phone company for copyright infringement if they committed copyright infringement.
If wolves traveled down the same road every night to eat your cattle, thereby destroying your livelihood, you'd be all for the policing of that road.
You're condoning copyright infringement as 'not a big deal' because it's your blogging style to copy and paste constantly.
If wolves traveled down the same road every night to eat your cattle, thereby destroying your livelihood, you'd be all for the policing of that road.
You're condoning copyright infringement as 'not a big deal' because it's your blogging style to copy and paste constantly.
Idiot, thou'rt banned.
How dare you say that my style is copying and pasting? I may not be the finest blogger, but I do more original writing than -- well, just about anyone.
And the phone company can be used, has been used, for copyright infringement. The fault lies with the infringer, not with the company.
How dare you say that my style is copying and pasting? I may not be the finest blogger, but I do more original writing than -- well, just about anyone.
And the phone company can be used, has been used, for copyright infringement. The fault lies with the infringer, not with the company.
Dudes, Obama isn't going to let this happen. He's got a trick up his sleeve. Just wait and see. He's awesome.
Always looking for a quick buck the entertainment media companies want to put the onus on the web hosting companies rather than do it themselves.
While there is a real problem with auction sites and some e-tail sites selling pirate DVD's and CD's and a pain for the copyright owners to get them off the shelves, going after some one for failing to delete a 10 minute segment of a fan subbed anime?
While there is a real problem with auction sites and some e-tail sites selling pirate DVD's and CD's and a pain for the copyright owners to get them off the shelves, going after some one for failing to delete a 10 minute segment of a fan subbed anime?
I've always wondered why there's no way that one can copy and paste excerpts and have a marker that automatically footnoted the source. I don't know what the "share button" is that Alessandro Machi refers to, but I always prefer to cut and paste excerpts, not entire articles, and then either include the precise url ...or if the community knows the blog, credit the writer/blogger for people to go check out the entire thing.
Why is there no "excerpt button" developed that marks the source of cut and pasted material? It's been explained to me before, but I have a hard time believing such a thing couldn't be developed.
Why is there no "excerpt button" developed that marks the source of cut and pasted material? It's been explained to me before, but I have a hard time believing such a thing couldn't be developed.
"...I do more original writing than -- well, just about anyone."
Exactly. So why defend others' bad habits?
I think it's OK that ISP can be sued if it *Knowingly* distributes plagarized stuff.
The point is if someone tells the ISP something on a blog is plagiarized, they can go check it out and usually it will be obvious.
Anyway, that's more or less the way things work today, if you find your stuff has been plagarized in the US.
As for regimes using it as a means of censorship, perhaps. But if they want to censor stuff, there are other ways to do it.
Exactly. So why defend others' bad habits?
I think it's OK that ISP can be sued if it *Knowingly* distributes plagarized stuff.
The point is if someone tells the ISP something on a blog is plagiarized, they can go check it out and usually it will be obvious.
Anyway, that's more or less the way things work today, if you find your stuff has been plagarized in the US.
As for regimes using it as a means of censorship, perhaps. But if they want to censor stuff, there are other ways to do it.
"I've always wondered why there's no way that one can copy and paste excerpts and have a marker that automatically footnoted the source."
Actually, Huffington Post has just such a system. I have no idea how their code works, but I do know that when I take a quote from one of their stores -- even a small one -- extra text shows up when pasted into my post. The text tells readers to head back to HuffPo for more.
I always cut that out, since it would impede the flow. But I always provide a link going back to the original story.
Actually, Huffington Post has just such a system. I have no idea how their code works, but I do know that when I take a quote from one of their stores -- even a small one -- extra text shows up when pasted into my post. The text tells readers to head back to HuffPo for more.
I always cut that out, since it would impede the flow. But I always provide a link going back to the original story.
"I've always wondered why there's no way that one can copy and paste excerpts and have a marker that automatically footnoted the source."
->There is .. eh, there WAS..
it's a plug-in for IE, and all You had to do, was to give them a valid e-mail adress.
Its patented in the US.
It is the only thing anybody needs for writing on a computer.
I think its too efficient.
->There is .. eh, there WAS..
it's a plug-in for IE, and all You had to do, was to give them a valid e-mail adress.
Its patented in the US.
It is the only thing anybody needs for writing on a computer.
I think its too efficient.
->continuing, 6:10 AM ,cause my conection dropped- it was at :
My-eNotes.com: All rights reserved ©2001 web2one, Inc.
I don't think that picking up other peoples ideas and promoting them, as well as well as adding them to a personal context is bad,
as long as the original link to the original source is preserved.
- By the way, if anyone publishes
something, its published.
If you want to keep it private - contrary to public, why don't You
keep it private ?
- It's only human nature to share,
whereas privatizing is about the most unhumane thing one could imagine.
And if it is genuinely new, it is art.
Art, or any truth, by its very nature, cannot be copied, only multiplied.
And that's what should be done.
So the next ones in the collective
process of creating can quickly build on it.
Anything that you have to pay for
these days at some point got stolen from somebody or somewhere
("there is nothing new under the sun"-Salomon?)
I don't want to elaborate.
These are NOT my "original" ideas.
And as it would only mess up what I try to say, to quote all the sources that make me think like this, I'd better stop here.
Thanks for the inspiration.
(Pharisaens they are)
-oh-"there is no such thing as
'society',Mr.speaker : There is no such thing as 'privacy'-that was what I read in the editorial of
a widely distributed computer magazine about 20 years ago, and if
I remember right, it was the geo
of IBM in Germany at the time.
Editors
My-eNotes.com: All rights reserved ©2001 web2one, Inc.
I don't think that picking up other peoples ideas and promoting them, as well as well as adding them to a personal context is bad,
as long as the original link to the original source is preserved.
- By the way, if anyone publishes
something, its published.
If you want to keep it private - contrary to public, why don't You
keep it private ?
- It's only human nature to share,
whereas privatizing is about the most unhumane thing one could imagine.
And if it is genuinely new, it is art.
Art, or any truth, by its very nature, cannot be copied, only multiplied.
And that's what should be done.
So the next ones in the collective
process of creating can quickly build on it.
Anything that you have to pay for
these days at some point got stolen from somebody or somewhere
("there is nothing new under the sun"-Salomon?)
I don't want to elaborate.
These are NOT my "original" ideas.
And as it would only mess up what I try to say, to quote all the sources that make me think like this, I'd better stop here.
Thanks for the inspiration.
(Pharisaens they are)
-oh-"there is no such thing as
'society',Mr.speaker : There is no such thing as 'privacy'-that was what I read in the editorial of
a widely distributed computer magazine about 20 years ago, and if
I remember right, it was the geo
of IBM in Germany at the time.
Editors
Anonymous,
So the next ones in the collective
process of creating can quickly build on it.
What's the hurry?
Post a Comment
<< Home
So the next ones in the collective
process of creating can quickly build on it.
What's the hurry?
It's too late, baby
Good old Kommandante Markos is only about six months behind the curve:
Dennis Kucinich couldn't get his amendment -- the one which would allow states to opt for single-payer -- into the main House health care bill, because Pelosi stripped it out. He's hoping that someone will slide it in during conciliation. (Fat chance.) The Speaker will probably also block Weiner's single-payer bill. Pelosi does favor a public option; I'll grant her that. But she can't get a sufficient number of her fellow Dems to go along with the idea.
Meanwhile, just to be snippy, Boehner is working on a GOP bill that will be quite a bit worse than anything the Republicans have heretofore proposed -- indeed, the new plan makes John McCain's look like socialism. Boehner wouldn't be heading into such territory if he felt the slightest bit intimidated by the Dems.
The "Goldman Sachs Democrats" have failed the party. The situation cannot be salvaged. It's too late.
What to do? Here are my long-term ideas:
Liberals should do what the movement conservatives have done and are doing: Wage intra-party war. Get rid of the Goldman Sachs Democrats and put in some real Democrats. Out with the "progressives;" in with the liberals. End the influence of jackasses like Markos and Marshall; look for new blood. First control the party -- then wait to control the country.
Does this mean that the Republicans will regain control in the medium-term? Yup. It's already underway. Nothing can stop it. But as I said just yesterday: Republicans are great at fighting meme wars, but they cannot govern. Wait for them to get back in, then wait for them to fail.
Right now, liberals should give Obama nothing but sneers -- unless he changes his ways, which he won't. Liberals should demonstrate utter contempt for both the president and the tea-baggers. Permalink
Giving Republicans cover by stymying the reform agenda that won Democrats the 2006 and 2008 elections won't win them any conservative votes. In a base election, and 2010 will certainly be one, the party that better rallies its base will win. And abandoning the promises that got Democrats elected is a sure fire way to make sure that the activist base stays home and refuses to do the heavy lifting every campaign needs to win, and makes sure that less committed Democrats say "fuck it" and stay home on election night.Too late, too late. The damage has been done. Consider:
Dennis Kucinich couldn't get his amendment -- the one which would allow states to opt for single-payer -- into the main House health care bill, because Pelosi stripped it out. He's hoping that someone will slide it in during conciliation. (Fat chance.) The Speaker will probably also block Weiner's single-payer bill. Pelosi does favor a public option; I'll grant her that. But she can't get a sufficient number of her fellow Dems to go along with the idea.
Meanwhile, just to be snippy, Boehner is working on a GOP bill that will be quite a bit worse than anything the Republicans have heretofore proposed -- indeed, the new plan makes John McCain's look like socialism. Boehner wouldn't be heading into such territory if he felt the slightest bit intimidated by the Dems.
The "Goldman Sachs Democrats" have failed the party. The situation cannot be salvaged. It's too late.
What to do? Here are my long-term ideas:
Liberals should do what the movement conservatives have done and are doing: Wage intra-party war. Get rid of the Goldman Sachs Democrats and put in some real Democrats. Out with the "progressives;" in with the liberals. End the influence of jackasses like Markos and Marshall; look for new blood. First control the party -- then wait to control the country.
Does this mean that the Republicans will regain control in the medium-term? Yup. It's already underway. Nothing can stop it. But as I said just yesterday: Republicans are great at fighting meme wars, but they cannot govern. Wait for them to get back in, then wait for them to fail.
Right now, liberals should give Obama nothing but sneers -- unless he changes his ways, which he won't. Liberals should demonstrate utter contempt for both the president and the tea-baggers. Permalink
Too late Joe, regular folks(liberal ones) like me have been thinking that for a while now and if a real health care reform does not pass, there will be a lot more people who will sit at home or at best will vote selectivly for a few real democrats. Yesterday might have been an eye opener for some in the MSM or Congress or Obama(not sure about that either listening to the spin)but folks like me have been thinking and saying that(everytime I sign a pro health care reform petition, I add the sentiment in the comment box) for the last 3-4 months.
I got an email today urging us to contact our reps over the Weiner bill. Supposedly it's being voted on the end of this week, but none of the links and dates matched up, so I leave it to others to figure out. I have no definitive link, sorry.
And he can't spell "stymieing" either (a word about which I once corresponded with Encyclopaedia Britannica).
History and common usage have, I think, stymied your attempt to maintain the old, preferred spelling. "Stymying" is now everywhere, even in the dictionary.
I said Encyclopaedia Britannica, but meant the OED, where the relevant editor agreed that the logical 'stymieing' was used a lot. That was only a few years ago. Sure, today it gets less Google points than the alternative - but someone's got to stand up against the juggernaut :-)
b
Post a Comment
<< Home
b
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
When will the Obots APOLOGIZE to us?
Well, the conservatives are winning everything tonight. The only possible good news for Democrats might occur in the NY-23 race -- that's the one where the tea-baggers canned the official GOP candidate and put in one of their own Fruit Loops. The Kos Krowd will krow and kackle like krazy if Democrat Bill Owens pulls off a win -- but they won't tell you that Republican Dede Scozzafava remained on the ballot, and that she's pulling in some votes, despite her endorsement of Owens. If the right side of the ticket were not split, the ultra-conservative candidate would have won. (Update: Owens won.)
For months, the big "progressive" bloggers closed their eyes and ears to reality. The mainstreamers told us that the tea party movement was a loose coalition of kooks who could never have any lasting impact on the national conversation. They told us that only a few cranks would ever believe the oft-repeated lie that Barack Obama is a socialist. They told us that the public's attitude had changed, that Milton Friedman was out and Keynes was in.
Now, after the GOP has won big in this off-year election, Charles Krauthammer is crowing:
Everyone is talking about two classic far-right cranks -- Ayn Rand and W. Cleon Skousen. Those two quasi-psycho footnote figures are now considered profound thinkers. And Barack Obama, the man who gave us Summers and Geithner, is considered a bolshie.
I cannot freakin' buh-LIEVE this situation!
I'll repeat the main point of the post below: Obama had only about six months to lay on some old-school FDR-style liberalism. He blew it. Now one or both houses of Congress will go Republican next year. Watch it happen.
Obama's failure may be the most important, most distressing failure in the history of the Democratic party.
Obots? Are any of you reading this?
We warned you. We anti-Obama liberals spent an entire year warning you that the guy was about as fake as Pam Anderson's claim of all-natural cleavage -- and you bots responded by putting your hands over your ears while screaming "Racist racist racist!" Now look where you are. Your hero has given you the kind of deep-drill piledriver rogering that leaves you covered with bleeding anal fissures. Whaddaya think now?
We were right all along. When will you Obots admit it? Just say it. When will you smug bots finally take your humility pills? When will you apologize? Permalink
For months, the big "progressive" bloggers closed their eyes and ears to reality. The mainstreamers told us that the tea party movement was a loose coalition of kooks who could never have any lasting impact on the national conversation. They told us that only a few cranks would ever believe the oft-repeated lie that Barack Obama is a socialist. They told us that the public's attitude had changed, that Milton Friedman was out and Keynes was in.
Now, after the GOP has won big in this off-year election, Charles Krauthammer is crowing:
"You will remember after the 2008 election people talked ... about a new era, about the Republicans becoming a rump party of the south, even losing parts of the south, how this was the death of conservatism. ... Here we are a year later and we can see how ephemeral and one-shot 2008 was..."Much as I hate to admit it, Krauthammer is right. A year after the election, Barack Obama now fully owns the recession -- and the Republicans own the rebellion. Sure, that situation is unfair, but it is what it is. The right-wingers have cast off the W legacy of thievery, knavery and failure. They are now considered the party of ideas.
Everyone is talking about two classic far-right cranks -- Ayn Rand and W. Cleon Skousen. Those two quasi-psycho footnote figures are now considered profound thinkers. And Barack Obama, the man who gave us Summers and Geithner, is considered a bolshie.
I cannot freakin' buh-LIEVE this situation!
I'll repeat the main point of the post below: Obama had only about six months to lay on some old-school FDR-style liberalism. He blew it. Now one or both houses of Congress will go Republican next year. Watch it happen.
Obama's failure may be the most important, most distressing failure in the history of the Democratic party.
NO MORE GOLDMAN SACHS DEMOCRATS!
Obots? Are any of you reading this?
We warned you. We anti-Obama liberals spent an entire year warning you that the guy was about as fake as Pam Anderson's claim of all-natural cleavage -- and you bots responded by putting your hands over your ears while screaming "Racist racist racist!" Now look where you are. Your hero has given you the kind of deep-drill piledriver rogering that leaves you covered with bleeding anal fissures. Whaddaya think now?
We were right all along. When will you Obots admit it? Just say it. When will you smug bots finally take your humility pills? When will you apologize? Permalink
Rather than waiting for a bunch of foul-mouthed Philistines to apologize to us, I advise going round and telling the O-holes to shut the f*ck up--or explain why we should listen to a single thing they have to say about politics.
The progs are more or less aware Obama is a catastrophe, but unable to perceive they're the cause. You can cut the cognitive dissonance at HuffPo with a knife. I imagine it's the same at Democratic Underground, Buzzflash, and the other watering holes for bad progressives.
When the little pr*cks start blaming the Clintons for their failures, we must metaphorically smack them upside the head. Makes you wish we were drafting their asses.
The progs are more or less aware Obama is a catastrophe, but unable to perceive they're the cause. You can cut the cognitive dissonance at HuffPo with a knife. I imagine it's the same at Democratic Underground, Buzzflash, and the other watering holes for bad progressives.
When the little pr*cks start blaming the Clintons for their failures, we must metaphorically smack them upside the head. Makes you wish we were drafting their asses.
Apologize? hahaha. They're too busy whining that Zerobama is "screwing over" the "people who elected him." As if Zero didn't broadcast exactly what he was going to do in between the "hope" and "change" sloganeering. The best whiner is John Aravosis over at Americablog, crying that Zero didn't lift a finger to help save gay marriage in Maine. What part of campaigning with multiple homophobes did he not get? The worst whiners are the women...worst as in not a peep from them as abortion access is thrown under the bus. Alll that screeching about Palin and yet nary a word as Zero and Stupak decide that prolifers can stick their noses in other citizens' crotches and determine which legal medical procedures they'll deign to fund. And as Digby noted, after it's all over, the rightwingers will get to screech about the evil "liberal" health plan. Nope, throughout the entire 2008 campaign we couldn't sell, lend or giveaway a clue.
Perhaps you are right, but there is nothing in these election results to support it.
I agree that the NY-23 district win for the Democrats means little as for Democrats (although it may mean a lot for the GOP if their crazies reject the GOP candidates, split their votes, and lose a seat held by them since before Reconstruction days).
But likewise, the losses of the two statehouses means little as to the Obama/national party situation, given that Deeds ran away from Obama and was crushed anyway, and Corzine had many prior campaign promises utterly unfulfilled and started from some point in the 30s in the polls.
And, of course, had Obama done some New Deal/FDR-style policies, THOSE would be caricatured as Marxism, just as they were in FDR's day, and in the case of JFK.
Any Democrat pursuing Democratic policy planks will be so accused. It is not unique to Obama, and a President Hillary would have been equally subjected to the charge, imo.
XI
I agree that the NY-23 district win for the Democrats means little as for Democrats (although it may mean a lot for the GOP if their crazies reject the GOP candidates, split their votes, and lose a seat held by them since before Reconstruction days).
But likewise, the losses of the two statehouses means little as to the Obama/national party situation, given that Deeds ran away from Obama and was crushed anyway, and Corzine had many prior campaign promises utterly unfulfilled and started from some point in the 30s in the polls.
And, of course, had Obama done some New Deal/FDR-style policies, THOSE would be caricatured as Marxism, just as they were in FDR's day, and in the case of JFK.
Any Democrat pursuing Democratic policy planks will be so accused. It is not unique to Obama, and a President Hillary would have been equally subjected to the charge, imo.
XI
If Mr. Hopity-Changity doesn't get rid of his entire financial team by New Year day, he'll be another one termer in the mold of Carter & Daddy Bush.
And the fooking kossacks will blame it all on the racists.
And the fooking kossacks will blame it all on the racists.
By all means, let's ignore the exit polls in VA and NJ showing that Obama had little or nothing to do with the election.
Like the Tea Party loons, the O-bots have their own version of reality and will stick to it.
Too bad they didn't bother to vote this time around else the results may have been different.
That's the problem, the T-Pers were motivated by Faux Spews and went to the polls, the kossholes stayed in their basements eating their cheese puffs and typing Palin bashing screeds.
A comment about your previous post, there is a new world order only it isn't some secret society, they are listed on the NYSE and they are the proud owners of the Obama Wing of my former party.
Too bad they didn't bother to vote this time around else the results may have been different.
That's the problem, the T-Pers were motivated by Faux Spews and went to the polls, the kossholes stayed in their basements eating their cheese puffs and typing Palin bashing screeds.
A comment about your previous post, there is a new world order only it isn't some secret society, they are listed on the NYSE and they are the proud owners of the Obama Wing of my former party.
XI
I agree that any dem president who dared pursue a real democratic agenda would have been accused of being too socialist, but what democrats are upset about is that we got a president with that label and no agenda to show for it.
The fact that VA elected a Repub Gov or NJ kicked out a very unpopular Gov is not the news, the real news is that dems didn't show up to vote.
I agree that any dem president who dared pursue a real democratic agenda would have been accused of being too socialist, but what democrats are upset about is that we got a president with that label and no agenda to show for it.
The fact that VA elected a Repub Gov or NJ kicked out a very unpopular Gov is not the news, the real news is that dems didn't show up to vote.
In a few years it will be a great mystery how Obama got elected because no one will admit having supported him.
The Obots will deny being Obots, but they will never apologize.
The Obots will deny being Obots, but they will never apologize.
By all means, let's ignore the exit polls in VA and NJ showing that Obama had little or nothing to do with the election.
That's sad - it's only been a year and nobody cares about Obama anymore?
That's sad - it's only been a year and nobody cares about Obama anymore?
Much of the discussion is entirely ahistorical and almost weak-minded.
Democrats always turn out less than the GOP does-- always-- in off-year elections, mid-term elections for sure, and total off-years like this, even more so.
Some largish percentage of the '08 Obama vote were young people, and they turn out worse than anybody historically at all times. They're turned off? No, they're irregular and unlikely voters.
The out-of-power party always is more energized, and bad economic times are always tough on incumbents.
So all these things occur as is to be entirely expected, and vast conclusions are drawn uniquely about Obama? Even though the net result was two more seats in the House of Representatives for Democrats, the only electoral result that effects Washington?
I don't find any evidence that Obama much contributed to these results in any way, nor much of an analysis as to how he could have done something to have changed anything that occurred.
By this time in their respective terms, Clinton and Reagan had passed their own signature initiatives strongly desired by their partisans (Reagan his tax cuts, Clinton his tax increases), and both were still at or below Obama's levels (Clinton, well below, in the low 40s %s), as they both struggled in their bad economic circumstances. And indeed, although they eventually cruised to re-election, both men continued to look bad for another two years from the equivalent points in their presidencies.
Oh, if only Obama were more like Clinton? So he could be 10 points lower in the polls now? Openly 'triangulate' by attacking Democratic ideas?
XI
Democrats always turn out less than the GOP does-- always-- in off-year elections, mid-term elections for sure, and total off-years like this, even more so.
Some largish percentage of the '08 Obama vote were young people, and they turn out worse than anybody historically at all times. They're turned off? No, they're irregular and unlikely voters.
The out-of-power party always is more energized, and bad economic times are always tough on incumbents.
So all these things occur as is to be entirely expected, and vast conclusions are drawn uniquely about Obama? Even though the net result was two more seats in the House of Representatives for Democrats, the only electoral result that effects Washington?
I don't find any evidence that Obama much contributed to these results in any way, nor much of an analysis as to how he could have done something to have changed anything that occurred.
By this time in their respective terms, Clinton and Reagan had passed their own signature initiatives strongly desired by their partisans (Reagan his tax cuts, Clinton his tax increases), and both were still at or below Obama's levels (Clinton, well below, in the low 40s %s), as they both struggled in their bad economic circumstances. And indeed, although they eventually cruised to re-election, both men continued to look bad for another two years from the equivalent points in their presidencies.
Oh, if only Obama were more like Clinton? So he could be 10 points lower in the polls now? Openly 'triangulate' by attacking Democratic ideas?
XI
The polls showed that the economy was the number-one factor. If you want to believe that's "not about Obama" (who OWNS the economy he lied, cheated, and stole to be in charge of), well then, you must be an Obot.
"In a few years it will be a great mystery how Obama got elected because no one will admit having supported him."
Just like Bush. It's very difficult to find anyone who admits to having voted for Dubya, except for the loony far-righters who are actually proud of the fact. Obama voters will end up the same way: The shamefaced ones mumbling something about "but I hoped..." and the ragged loony fringe dead-enders who keep wandering around in dazed circles muttering that he hasn't had enough time and Hillary or McCain would have been worse.
"In a few years it will be a great mystery how Obama got elected because no one will admit having supported him."
Just like Bush. It's very difficult to find anyone who admits to having voted for Dubya, except for the loony far-righters who are actually proud of the fact. Obama voters will end up the same way: The shamefaced ones mumbling something about "but I hoped..." and the ragged loony fringe dead-enders who keep wandering around in dazed circles muttering that he hasn't had enough time and Hillary or McCain would have been worse.
No one cares about Obama personaly. Everyone cares about what Obama does bcz he is our President. He campaigned in NJ and not VA and both lost. Make of it what you want.
Disagree that Obama 'owns' the recession. (He will, eventually, I suppose, but doesn't yet.)
Why do I say that? Because the polling shows about 58% of the people still blame W for the economy. The number blaming Obama at this time is sizable and probably growing, but that number is less than half the number who still blame W (it's in the mid-20%s).
XI
Why do I say that? Because the polling shows about 58% of the people still blame W for the economy. The number blaming Obama at this time is sizable and probably growing, but that number is less than half the number who still blame W (it's in the mid-20%s).
XI
it won't make a bit of difference Joe. These so-called "Progressives" have their head so far up Obama's ass, nothing can remove the stink!
Post a Comment
<< Home
Obama blew it
Obama blew it.
Deregulation of the finance industry got us into our current mess. The time to impose new regs was over six months ago. The job can't be done now, because the teabaggers have successfully brainwashed a large section of the American populace into accepting the absurd "Obama the socialist" meme. Give the Republicans credit: They can't govern, but they sure know how to fight the meme wars.
Now, Treasury Secretary Geithner is talking about reforming the financial industry. The FDIC has a scheme of its own. Alas, as in the health care debate, the proposed reforms are worse than doing nothing.
An endless supply of free money for big bankers! Wheeeeeee!!
Here is a perfect example of the kind of fiendish behavior that Geithner wants to give eternal legal protection.
What should we do? Let's go back to Black:
That's what Paul Krugman recommended roughly a year ago. That's what a lot of smart people screamed for. At one time, the public would have applauded that move. We could have pursued that course of action in January, February, March...
...but I doubt that we could do it now. Obama blocked the idea, back when it was on the table. Now it's too late for him to change his mind, because the political winds have shifted and the public has reverted to its "Laissez faire solves all evils" default position.
Could Obama have made a worse mess? He had a historic opportunity and he blew it. Permalink
Deregulation of the finance industry got us into our current mess. The time to impose new regs was over six months ago. The job can't be done now, because the teabaggers have successfully brainwashed a large section of the American populace into accepting the absurd "Obama the socialist" meme. Give the Republicans credit: They can't govern, but they sure know how to fight the meme wars.
Now, Treasury Secretary Geithner is talking about reforming the financial industry. The FDIC has a scheme of its own. Alas, as in the health care debate, the proposed reforms are worse than doing nothing.
Unfortunately, both plans are lousy, says William K. Black, professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law.Call it socialism for the rich. Call it Antisocialism. Call it WorstImaginableSituationism. Call it what you will. What it comes down to is this: Financial institutions with a record of lying, cheating, and wheeling-n-dealing will now be allowed to do so with a guarantee that taxpayers will pick up the tab whenever things go wrong.
A former regulator who helped resolve the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980s, Black says the current reform plans take a terrible doctrine--Too Big To Fail--and write it into law.
Professor Black says Tim Geithner's plan includes a secret list of institutions that are too big to fail and that will always be bailed out no matter what.
An endless supply of free money for big bankers! Wheeeeeee!!
Here is a perfect example of the kind of fiendish behavior that Geithner wants to give eternal legal protection.
What should we do? Let's go back to Black:
A far better answer, Black says, is eliminating "Too Big To Fail" by seizing troubled financial institutions and restructuring them--the same thing the FDIC does with bankrupt banks. Contrary to the fears of the administration, this will not bring the system to its knees: It will resolve the problem quickly and cleanly, with no cost to the taxpayer.In other words, nationalize the "too big to fail" banks. Buy 'em. Take 'em. Clean 'em up. If need be, wipe 'em out. And fire (or jail) the fiends who packaged crap mortgages as Triple-A investment instruments.
That's what Paul Krugman recommended roughly a year ago. That's what a lot of smart people screamed for. At one time, the public would have applauded that move. We could have pursued that course of action in January, February, March...
...but I doubt that we could do it now. Obama blocked the idea, back when it was on the table. Now it's too late for him to change his mind, because the political winds have shifted and the public has reverted to its "Laissez faire solves all evils" default position.
Could Obama have made a worse mess? He had a historic opportunity and he blew it. Permalink
We should add no more regulation until we fix the problem with existing regulation, which has been captured by the banking industry. Until that problem is fixed, adding more regulation is pointless. Just look at how useless the SEC has been.
Nationalization is not the answer. Assuming it means gov taking control of the bank. You think the gov can do any better? The solution is for the bank to fail and settle in bankruptcy.
But I agree, Obama blew it!
Nationalization is not the answer. Assuming it means gov taking control of the bank. You think the gov can do any better? The solution is for the bank to fail and settle in bankruptcy.
But I agree, Obama blew it!
"Nationalization is not the answer. Assuming it means gov taking control of the bank. You think the gov can do any better?"
You bet. FDIC does it all the time. The Resolution Trust Company managed the S&L debacle rather well.
You bet. FDIC does it all the time. The Resolution Trust Company managed the S&L debacle rather well.
It may take pressure on a local level by desperate people to get local government to stand up to the national banks in their own community.
Why are we allowing the banks to bury people with stupid credit card interest rate charges on OLD, EXISTING credit card debt.
Anybody who can pay down their credit card debts should be incentivized to do it as fast as can be done. That is how to stabilize and begin to heal our economy.
Why are we allowing the banks to bury people with stupid credit card interest rate charges on OLD, EXISTING credit card debt.
Anybody who can pay down their credit card debts should be incentivized to do it as fast as can be done. That is how to stabilize and begin to heal our economy.
It was never Obama's aim to fix it!
He's here to ring in the Millennium for the New World Order or more appropriately for the New Age Movement.
He's here to ring in the Millennium for the New World Order or more appropriately for the New Age Movement.
If Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Kerry, and the other assorted bad actors that make up the New and Improved Democrat party are letting Wall Street Banksters run amok it isn't because they blew it. They are doing exactly what those people paid them to do, block reform until there is nothing left to loot.
I,m sure republican heads are spinning, trying to figure how they were elbowed aside from the moneyed special interests gravy trough.
I,m sure republican heads are spinning, trying to figure how they were elbowed aside from the moneyed special interests gravy trough.
The New World Order is a right-wing myth -- a John Birch meme. (And don't you DARE quote that stupid GHW Bush speech. He was referring to something else entirely. I've dealt with this many, many times.)
The New Age movement? Ridiculous. There is nothing "New Age" about Obama. In fact, the New Age thing often serves as a way to spread far-right fringe political ideas. The first time I ever saw the Protocols of Zion in print, it was in a New Age bookstore.
Stop chasing myths. Goldman Sachs is something REAL.
The New Age movement? Ridiculous. There is nothing "New Age" about Obama. In fact, the New Age thing often serves as a way to spread far-right fringe political ideas. The first time I ever saw the Protocols of Zion in print, it was in a New Age bookstore.
Stop chasing myths. Goldman Sachs is something REAL.
Yesterday I interacted with a 10-yr-old black boy (in an interview situation.) When asked who or what in effect ‘set up laws’, ‘made the rules’, ‘had the power to command the police’ he answered Obama (this is in Switzerland.) He was very moved, his eyes misted over. Obama, he added, was his hero, just to make his thinking crystal clear.
I warned ppl in this part of Europe about Obama. Nothing doing, of course. And they still love him - Republican oppo’ is seen as vicious, misguided, insane, etc. and part of the usual mess of US politics. He is the PRESIDENT and he will prevail. Quite. It is sadly abundantly clear that ‘we here’ don’t care about what happens to the ‘American people’ - they voted excellently, it is all very admirable, now they should get on with it.
The larger implications are not grasped, by the ‘public’ whatever that is, even in Switz. where the news each day has detailed articles about banking, insurance, UBS, Goldman, etc. and anti-US sentiment (because of the attack on Swiss banks - passport, visa shenanigans - new international accords - not to mention Iraqi refugees, *wars*, Palestine...) runs extremely high. Somehow, the two strands of opinion never meet!
Obama has not blown it. He is, within such a pov, or at least its caricature as presented here, simply a cool media figure; a paste cut-out who is to be respected, liked, even adulated. But not a person of power, divorced from it in fact. (Notwithstanding the posturing about ‘now like he is Prez he can do good stuff.’)
This attitude signals acceptance ...of I don’t quite know what. Bizarre and worrying.
Ana
I warned ppl in this part of Europe about Obama. Nothing doing, of course. And they still love him - Republican oppo’ is seen as vicious, misguided, insane, etc. and part of the usual mess of US politics. He is the PRESIDENT and he will prevail. Quite. It is sadly abundantly clear that ‘we here’ don’t care about what happens to the ‘American people’ - they voted excellently, it is all very admirable, now they should get on with it.
The larger implications are not grasped, by the ‘public’ whatever that is, even in Switz. where the news each day has detailed articles about banking, insurance, UBS, Goldman, etc. and anti-US sentiment (because of the attack on Swiss banks - passport, visa shenanigans - new international accords - not to mention Iraqi refugees, *wars*, Palestine...) runs extremely high. Somehow, the two strands of opinion never meet!
Obama has not blown it. He is, within such a pov, or at least its caricature as presented here, simply a cool media figure; a paste cut-out who is to be respected, liked, even adulated. But not a person of power, divorced from it in fact. (Notwithstanding the posturing about ‘now like he is Prez he can do good stuff.’)
This attitude signals acceptance ...of I don’t quite know what. Bizarre and worrying.
Ana
Its not too late to nationalise them. Just make them outline their own breakup - the living will. Then wait. The CRE bust will take 'em down for you.
Bear in mind some of these banks got scr*wed by government. Think of Wells Fargo. They didnt have to buy Wachovia. Some idiot in government told them too. They were stupid enough to listen. Now they are scr*wed too.
The only just solution is nationalisation. Before its too late. You still have time.
Harry
Bear in mind some of these banks got scr*wed by government. Think of Wells Fargo. They didnt have to buy Wachovia. Some idiot in government told them too. They were stupid enough to listen. Now they are scr*wed too.
The only just solution is nationalisation. Before its too late. You still have time.
Harry
We're not going to apologize. Obama won, with a few hurt feelings but he put the party together and won. Hillary (who is obviously a centrist anyway, would you really have expected radical change from her?) is part of his administration. I have criticized Obama. I do not approve of everthing any Obama supporter has ever said or done. But no apologies here. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Why I fear tea-baggers: Political web pages that suck
I learned about this hilarious site from Covert History. George Hutchins is running for Congress in North Carolina -- and although he hopes to present himself as a tough-guy Marine, his web page indicates that he has the flamboyant color sense of a 1968 San Francisco flower child. The loud graphics inform us that he is a teabagger who "Supports FOX NEWS!" and "Supports ISRAEL!" He also wants "MORE BETTER JOBS."
As you scroll down, the site becomes more disturbing. Hutchins claims that the best way to fight "OBAMA-NATION" is to repeal "the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act." The candidate also considers Jesse Helms a great leader, even though the late senator's name is spelled incorrectly. Apparently, Hutchins likes to see lots of color on web pages, not on human skin. (He also seems weirdly obsessed with the Brits, especially with "SIR WALTER RALEIGH.")
Maybe the Democrats created this page, and this candidate, in order to make the tea-partiers look ridiculous...
Normally, I would counsel Hutchins to visit Web Pages That Suck in order to learn what to do and what not to do. But that site, in its current incarnation, now sports a design which kind of...sucks.
UPDATE: Okay, this isn't political, but you'll want to read it anyways. Via the WPTS site, I learned about The Light of God Ministry, which is the -- and I mean the -- funniest thing I've seen on the web in many a month. It's the home of healer Ken Kluk, the apostle of the misplaced apostrophe: "Any Catholic that does not follow the teaching's of Pope Benedict and pray the Rosary everyday, is not one of God's Catholic's." In Kluk-vision, God rubs out all enemies of Kluk -- cops, DAs, judges, any local authority figure who has ever given KK a hard time.
But what if God whacks the wrong dude? It's possible:
As you scroll down, the site becomes more disturbing. Hutchins claims that the best way to fight "OBAMA-NATION" is to repeal "the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act." The candidate also considers Jesse Helms a great leader, even though the late senator's name is spelled incorrectly. Apparently, Hutchins likes to see lots of color on web pages, not on human skin. (He also seems weirdly obsessed with the Brits, especially with "SIR WALTER RALEIGH.")
Maybe the Democrats created this page, and this candidate, in order to make the tea-partiers look ridiculous...
Normally, I would counsel Hutchins to visit Web Pages That Suck in order to learn what to do and what not to do. But that site, in its current incarnation, now sports a design which kind of...sucks.
UPDATE: Okay, this isn't political, but you'll want to read it anyways. Via the WPTS site, I learned about The Light of God Ministry, which is the -- and I mean the -- funniest thing I've seen on the web in many a month. It's the home of healer Ken Kluk, the apostle of the misplaced apostrophe: "Any Catholic that does not follow the teaching's of Pope Benedict and pray the Rosary everyday, is not one of God's Catholic's." In Kluk-vision, God rubs out all enemies of Kluk -- cops, DAs, judges, any local authority figure who has ever given KK a hard time.
But what if God whacks the wrong dude? It's possible:
When we make a mistake and listen to Satan, it is not a sin. Because Satan deceived us. God understands this. Because he has made mistakes too.Nevertheless:
"Would you like to be shunned and outcast by every person of every nation? Even your name will be striken from everywhere, because the sight of your name is an obsenity. That is the next step for those screw with me."Yeah! Don't fuck with Kluk! Permalink
Monday, November 02, 2009
A generation of ghouls: Don't trust anyone under 20
Miami, Florida: A 15 year-old boy named Michael Brewer fights for life, with most of his body covered with second and third-degree burns. Five teen friends, one of them a mere 13, doused Brewer with alcohol and set him afire after Brewer snitched on a bicycle thief. The boy who led the attack was Matthew Bent, the son of Dennis Bent, who has a history of criminality and violence.
Richmond, California: A 15 year-old girl was gang-raped for over two hours during a high school homecoming while a dozen students watched. Although most students carry cell phones, none of the witnesses called for help. Some used their cell phone cameras to take commemorative photos. Social psychologists have coined the term "bystander effect" to describe this gross indifference to basic humanity, as though the application of a scientific-sounding label could explain the inexplicable. (At least they didn't use the word "syndrome.")
Mendota, California: Four year-old Alex Christopher Mercado was playing outside his home when a 14 year-old neighbor lured him into the neighboring house, drowned him, then stuffed the body into the dryer.
St. Martens, Missouri: Nine year-old Elizabeth Olten was found murdered in the woods. Police have taken into custody a 15 year-old girl, the older sister of Elizabeth's friend. The murder was planned; the accused described her preparations in a series of disturbing Twitter messages (recently removed). Commenters on a number of sites (including this one) have identified the accused as Alyssa Bustamante, although the name does not appear in press reports. In a Myspace blog entry dated December 14, 2008, Alyssa wrote a story which described a vicious assault on a "sweet, innocent young child" of eight named Elizabeth. Her YouTube profile lists "killing people, cutting" under "hobbies."
Pascagoula, Mississippi: Teenager Darwin Wells was convicted on October 29 of shooting Michael Porter, a 44 year-old man who had stopped at a gas station to ask for directions. Darwin was 16 when he committed the senseless murder; three teenaged friends were with him.
Winnepeg, Manitoba: Two teens (unnamed in press accounts), one of them a "petite girl," have been convicted of conspiracy to commit murder after they plotted to open fire on students in an auditorium. They also planned to use Molotov cocktails. The pair made a pact to kill each other if one party tried to back out of the plan. During sentencing, the young couple told the court that they were sorry.
Pontiac, Michigan: Two 15 year-old boys -- Thomas McCloud and Dontez Tilman, were convicted of murdering two homeless men in the 60s. (Tilman participated in only one of the killings.)
Philadelphia, PA: While out walking with friends, teenager Marcquis Walker-Williams, acting on a whim, decided to "catch a body" -- i.e., throw a punch and run. Walker-Williams killed Kwok Wai-Ho, 69. (According to the Urban Dictionary, "catch a body" is slang for murder.) At sentencing, Walker-Williams told the victim's family "We're Christians."
Yucaipa, California: A 16 year-old girl named Bianca Becerra, who had recently lost her infant son to illness, attended a Halloween party, where she was stabbed to death by another 16 year-old girl. The suspect's name has not yet been released.
Wells, Indiana: Four young men -- three of them teens -- are charged with killing Justin Sprow last Wednesday. Sprow was driving on a rural road when the assailants used their pickup truck to force Sprow to come to a stop. The assailants then fired shotguns into the vehicle.
Garden City, Kansas: A teenaged boy named Joaquin De Anda has been found mentally competent to stand trial for the murder of Julia Quintana, 16. Before dying of strangulation, she had been raped and sodomized; the body was dumped in a trash bin.
Cedear Rapids, Iowa: Teenager Tim Reynolds has been charged with shooting 38 year-old Christopher Pearson in the stomach. The victim survived. According to one report, the two had "an exchange of words" before the shooting.
Midland, Michigan: Steven J. Pribbernow, 15, has been found competent to stand trial for stabbing and killing his 17 year-old adopted brother Justin. The body was found just outside the garage. Steven Pribbernow is also charged with attacking an adult male and two children, who had been taken from their biological parents because those homes were deemed unsafe.
Hamilton, Ontario: A 16 year-old, unnamed in Canadian press reports, received a 21-month sentence for participating in the vicious gang rape of a 15 year-old girl. It is instructive to compare that sentence to the situation presented in this video. Permalink
Richmond, California: A 15 year-old girl was gang-raped for over two hours during a high school homecoming while a dozen students watched. Although most students carry cell phones, none of the witnesses called for help. Some used their cell phone cameras to take commemorative photos. Social psychologists have coined the term "bystander effect" to describe this gross indifference to basic humanity, as though the application of a scientific-sounding label could explain the inexplicable. (At least they didn't use the word "syndrome.")
Mendota, California: Four year-old Alex Christopher Mercado was playing outside his home when a 14 year-old neighbor lured him into the neighboring house, drowned him, then stuffed the body into the dryer.
St. Martens, Missouri: Nine year-old Elizabeth Olten was found murdered in the woods. Police have taken into custody a 15 year-old girl, the older sister of Elizabeth's friend. The murder was planned; the accused described her preparations in a series of disturbing Twitter messages (recently removed). Commenters on a number of sites (including this one) have identified the accused as Alyssa Bustamante, although the name does not appear in press reports. In a Myspace blog entry dated December 14, 2008, Alyssa wrote a story which described a vicious assault on a "sweet, innocent young child" of eight named Elizabeth. Her YouTube profile lists "killing people, cutting" under "hobbies."
Pascagoula, Mississippi: Teenager Darwin Wells was convicted on October 29 of shooting Michael Porter, a 44 year-old man who had stopped at a gas station to ask for directions. Darwin was 16 when he committed the senseless murder; three teenaged friends were with him.
Winnepeg, Manitoba: Two teens (unnamed in press accounts), one of them a "petite girl," have been convicted of conspiracy to commit murder after they plotted to open fire on students in an auditorium. They also planned to use Molotov cocktails. The pair made a pact to kill each other if one party tried to back out of the plan. During sentencing, the young couple told the court that they were sorry.
Pontiac, Michigan: Two 15 year-old boys -- Thomas McCloud and Dontez Tilman, were convicted of murdering two homeless men in the 60s. (Tilman participated in only one of the killings.)
Philadelphia, PA: While out walking with friends, teenager Marcquis Walker-Williams, acting on a whim, decided to "catch a body" -- i.e., throw a punch and run. Walker-Williams killed Kwok Wai-Ho, 69. (According to the Urban Dictionary, "catch a body" is slang for murder.) At sentencing, Walker-Williams told the victim's family "We're Christians."
Yucaipa, California: A 16 year-old girl named Bianca Becerra, who had recently lost her infant son to illness, attended a Halloween party, where she was stabbed to death by another 16 year-old girl. The suspect's name has not yet been released.
Wells, Indiana: Four young men -- three of them teens -- are charged with killing Justin Sprow last Wednesday. Sprow was driving on a rural road when the assailants used their pickup truck to force Sprow to come to a stop. The assailants then fired shotguns into the vehicle.
Garden City, Kansas: A teenaged boy named Joaquin De Anda has been found mentally competent to stand trial for the murder of Julia Quintana, 16. Before dying of strangulation, she had been raped and sodomized; the body was dumped in a trash bin.
Cedear Rapids, Iowa: Teenager Tim Reynolds has been charged with shooting 38 year-old Christopher Pearson in the stomach. The victim survived. According to one report, the two had "an exchange of words" before the shooting.
Midland, Michigan: Steven J. Pribbernow, 15, has been found competent to stand trial for stabbing and killing his 17 year-old adopted brother Justin. The body was found just outside the garage. Steven Pribbernow is also charged with attacking an adult male and two children, who had been taken from their biological parents because those homes were deemed unsafe.
Hamilton, Ontario: A 16 year-old, unnamed in Canadian press reports, received a 21-month sentence for participating in the vicious gang rape of a 15 year-old girl. It is instructive to compare that sentence to the situation presented in this video. Permalink
But why? Movies and video games? They are certainly more violent than they used to be.
Or...?
(Of course, there are millions of very fine young people...)
djmm
Or...?
(Of course, there are millions of very fine young people...)
djmm
You might find these related essays of interest. I especially like this fellow's blog title: the power of narrative. Reality has been replaced with narrative...
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/03/bullied-terrorized-and-targeted-for.html
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/11/depraved-violent-and-indifferent.html
In this most recent essay, I found his parallel between the onlookers of the gang rape and the onlookers of the tasering of that young man who questioned Kerry very striking. He's connecting some important dots.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/03/bullied-terrorized-and-targeted-for.html
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/11/depraved-violent-and-indifferent.html
In this most recent essay, I found his parallel between the onlookers of the gang rape and the onlookers of the tasering of that young man who questioned Kerry very striking. He's connecting some important dots.
and...
Toronto, Ontario
- A jealous teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend conspire to kill another teenage girl. They do, right outside of her home on New Years Day. (The victim's parents are cops.)
- A 23-yr old woman is grabbed in the lobby of her apartment building and raped and robbed in the stairwell by 6 teenage boys.
It's bloody frightening.
And it feels like it's reaching the point of no return.
juststoppingby
Toronto, Ontario
- A jealous teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend conspire to kill another teenage girl. They do, right outside of her home on New Years Day. (The victim's parents are cops.)
- A 23-yr old woman is grabbed in the lobby of her apartment building and raped and robbed in the stairwell by 6 teenage boys.
It's bloody frightening.
And it feels like it's reaching the point of no return.
juststoppingby
There has been an epidemic of youth violence since the 1980s. It peaked in the early 90s, but still continues:
Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General:
Summarizing our current situation:
We have a young generation which is incredibly violent, and staying that way.
They mar their flesh with grotesque body-piercings and tattoos.
They favor brain-damaging recreational drugs.
They think South Park is brilliant (see note on brain damage below).
They can't write a decent song to save their lives.
They pick crappy Presidential candidates--and fight dirty for them.
What a royal mess. Thank God there isn't a draft. I don't know how we'll take care of these young uns after the brain damage from cell phones kicks in.
Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General:
Summarizing our current situation:
We have a young generation which is incredibly violent, and staying that way.
They mar their flesh with grotesque body-piercings and tattoos.
They favor brain-damaging recreational drugs.
They think South Park is brilliant (see note on brain damage below).
They can't write a decent song to save their lives.
They pick crappy Presidential candidates--and fight dirty for them.
What a royal mess. Thank God there isn't a draft. I don't know how we'll take care of these young uns after the brain damage from cell phones kicks in.
You may be right Purple. I have heard of similar statistics. Violent crime is down over the last 20, 30 years. But we still have a problem here. Something is dreadfully wrong with some young people. I used to teach and couldn't even begin to relate to those kids. Not much was taboo with them, either. I think we are in the midst of some kind of mass mental illness. People are so extreme now, so unreserved, so willing to do anything. It is mind boggling. I think it is time for all Americans to just get back to the basics and leave this technologically advanced life style behind.
You just reinforced my hatred of and disgust with the human race, which, in my opinion, is a disease inflicted on the earth and the rest of its creatures. My friends and loved ones excepted, of course.
Jerome
Jerome
Another station stop on the Instant Gratification Railway?
Don't pay off that two year old car, we'll add what you own onto your new loan. (forget that you will owe more than the combined value of both autos).
Want that house but blew your down payment? We'll finance a zero down mortgage! (and bundle your worthless paper with others and sell it to some unsuspecting investors).
Want your political philosophy or candidate to prevail? Lie, cheat, steal, it's all good to get them elected. (and end up with a Bush or Obama stinking up the joint).
Restraint, the forgotten virtue, parents aren't instilling in their children.
William Golding was on to something.
Don't pay off that two year old car, we'll add what you own onto your new loan. (forget that you will owe more than the combined value of both autos).
Want that house but blew your down payment? We'll finance a zero down mortgage! (and bundle your worthless paper with others and sell it to some unsuspecting investors).
Want your political philosophy or candidate to prevail? Lie, cheat, steal, it's all good to get them elected. (and end up with a Bush or Obama stinking up the joint).
Restraint, the forgotten virtue, parents aren't instilling in their children.
William Golding was on to something.
Joseph -- Im curious how did you pull this particular list? Was it as simple as Google News / teen + homicide? What time frame does it cover, about?
What kind of numbers are there on juvenile homicide over the last ten / 20 / 30 /100 years, any idea?
I personally call this what happens when adult society abandons boundaries on what the Almighty Consumer Advertising Dollar is allowed to target.
We now allows the product advertising vampire fully free access to juvenile minds in their elementary schools, kitchens, family rooms, sleep rooms and every imaginable entertainment venue.. every minute of every day of their conscious lives. No other civilized nation rolls so completely over for corporate consumer predation like that.
Developing minds know perfectly clearly when they have been abandoned to the tender mercies of the almighty machine. When we dont shelter them from predation, they know they have no value beyond to be stripmined for their pocket money, force-fed Coke PS2s and Miley Cyrus and jammed on into the consumer hopper to get ground up with the rest of us.
Alienation from the world is what a sociopath is all about.
On the other hand, violent children arent new. We could all really use some statistical context for this.
What kind of numbers are there on juvenile homicide over the last ten / 20 / 30 /100 years, any idea?
I personally call this what happens when adult society abandons boundaries on what the Almighty Consumer Advertising Dollar is allowed to target.
We now allows the product advertising vampire fully free access to juvenile minds in their elementary schools, kitchens, family rooms, sleep rooms and every imaginable entertainment venue.. every minute of every day of their conscious lives. No other civilized nation rolls so completely over for corporate consumer predation like that.
Developing minds know perfectly clearly when they have been abandoned to the tender mercies of the almighty machine. When we dont shelter them from predation, they know they have no value beyond to be stripmined for their pocket money, force-fed Coke PS2s and Miley Cyrus and jammed on into the consumer hopper to get ground up with the rest of us.
Alienation from the world is what a sociopath is all about.
On the other hand, violent children arent new. We could all really use some statistical context for this.
I still think these cases are anomaly's.
Why not compile a list of police brutality? Especially with the use of Tasers?
Why not compile a list of police brutality? Especially with the use of Tasers?
Come on, let's be reasonable, Mr. Cannon. Every generation has it's share of scumbags. What, you don't think gang rapes happened in the 50s? My feeling is just that there weren't nearly as widely reported. Yes, there are violent kids now. There are also plenty of intelligent, hard-working kids who share the same values as the rest of us.
Post a Comment
<< Home
On the new "Stalinists": Watch out for that ice pick!
The bizarre race in New York's 23rd congressional district has engendered some equally bizarre commentary. In case you missed the news, here is a brief recap:
The 23rd district is rural, near the Canadian border, and has been safely Republican for ages. Needing a candidate to fill the vacant seat, a local Republican committee picked one Dede Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman with a conservative voting record. But it was not conservative enough on below-the-waist issues to please the tea-baggers, who decided to make a national example of Dede. After a wrenching intra-party fight, they "putsched" Scozzafava out, replacing her with one Doug Hoffman. He's a know-nothing carpetbagger, but he doesn't like gay marriage -- and that stance suffices to fetch him the Michele Bachmann/Glen Beck/Michelle Malkin stamp of approval.
To columnist Frank Rich of the NYT, this battle came as wonderful news. In a surreal column, Rich wrote:
The truly annoying aspect of this column is the fact that Rich himself, an alleged Democrat, is an old hand at intra-party bitch-fighting. BDBlue at Corrente links to this Bob Somerby column from 2006, which in turn provides links to many previous Daily Howler posts about Rich, who was one of the main mainstream trashers of Al Gore.
Somerby reminds us that it was Rich who invented the "Love Story" canard, which helped to create the utterly unfair media perception of Gore as a serial yarn-spinner. As you may recall, Gore was accused of lying when he said that he was the model for the protagonist of that book and film.
Let's return to the basic point of Rich's column. Have suicidal crazies overtaken the Republican Party? And if so, is that a good thing from the standpoint of Democrats?
Taking an anti-Obama stance in 2008 placed me on some strange mailing lists. A couple of days ago, I received a mass emailing from Richard Viguerie, the eminence grise of the tea bagger movement:
Viguerie is making sure that when the conservative re-ascent occurs, his conservatives will be the ones ascending. He is branding teabag pols as rebels -- a good strategy, since many Americans are feeling mighty rebellious. He is also re-branding the Dubya crowd as liberals-in-disguise, which is both awful history and great marketing.
Is Viguerie crazy? Like the proverbial fox.
Is he suicidal? No.
Is his movement helpful to Dems, as Rich claims? Hell no.
Should liberals -- true liberals -- mimic his tactics? Should we have an intra-party insurgency staged by Democrats who despise Obama's talk-like-JFK-but-act-like-W shtick? Hell yes!
If Rich can maintain his mainstream cred after taking a rhetorical ice pick to Al Gore, then I have every right to use similar weaponry on Obama and the Obots. Permalink
The 23rd district is rural, near the Canadian border, and has been safely Republican for ages. Needing a candidate to fill the vacant seat, a local Republican committee picked one Dede Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman with a conservative voting record. But it was not conservative enough on below-the-waist issues to please the tea-baggers, who decided to make a national example of Dede. After a wrenching intra-party fight, they "putsched" Scozzafava out, replacing her with one Doug Hoffman. He's a know-nothing carpetbagger, but he doesn't like gay marriage -- and that stance suffices to fetch him the Michele Bachmann/Glen Beck/Michelle Malkin stamp of approval.
To columnist Frank Rich of the NYT, this battle came as wonderful news. In a surreal column, Rich wrote:
The right’s embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P. On Saturday, the battered Scozzafava suspended her campaign, further scrambling the race. It’s still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it’s even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure. That’s bad news for even a Republican as conservative as Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose primary opponent in the Texas governor’s race, the incumbent Rick Perry, floated the possibility of secession at a teabagger rally in April and hastily endorsed Hoffman on Thursday.Rich writes as though that outbreak of pathology led to the Republican party's destruction. In fact, "fear of minorities" -- along with plenty of anti-government rhetoric, paranoia and inchoate rage -- pushed the south into the Republican camp, resulting in the Nixon presidency, the Reagan revolution, and the decades-long dominance of libertarian economics. Rage, unreason and appeals to race are strategies that work, at least on the right. (2008 proved that such tactics also skew left.)
The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats’ prospects next year. But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we’re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes.
The truly annoying aspect of this column is the fact that Rich himself, an alleged Democrat, is an old hand at intra-party bitch-fighting. BDBlue at Corrente links to this Bob Somerby column from 2006, which in turn provides links to many previous Daily Howler posts about Rich, who was one of the main mainstream trashers of Al Gore.
Somerby reminds us that it was Rich who invented the "Love Story" canard, which helped to create the utterly unfair media perception of Gore as a serial yarn-spinner. As you may recall, Gore was accused of lying when he said that he was the model for the protagonist of that book and film.
Let’s say it again—Rich was faking his basic facts in this damaging column (published on December 16, 1997). Two days earlier, his own New York Times had reported an interview with Love Story author Erich Segal—the only interview Segal gave on this fatuous topic. In this interview, Segal said that Gore had been one of the models for his book’s main character. (Segal knew Gore when Gore was in college.) In fact, in the interview (reported by Melinda Henneberger), Segal agreed with every word Gore said on the meaningless topic. But so what? Rich just knew what Gore had been doing in his fleeting remarks on this topic—remarks Gore had made to a pair of reporters. Mind-reading brilliantly, Rich clued us in. Gore had been “bragging” and “boasting,” Rich said. Gore had “inflated his past” in his comments; and Gore had done this in an “effort to overcompensate for his public stiffness by casting himself as the role model.” Uh-oh! As noted, Segal had already told the Times that Gore had been one of two role models. But Frankly, Rich had a better story, a story the brilliant pundit loved—and so he went ahead and told it.Rich calls Beck and Bachmann "Stalinists" for trashing the GOP nominee in a hitherto obscure sector of upstate New York. Yet in the late 1990s, Rich himself tried to do unto Gore as Stalin did unto Trotsky: The swoosh of the ice pick, the sickening thunk as it sinks into the back of the head. Love means never having to say you're a bourgeois deviationist.
Let's return to the basic point of Rich's column. Have suicidal crazies overtaken the Republican Party? And if so, is that a good thing from the standpoint of Democrats?
Taking an anti-Obama stance in 2008 placed me on some strange mailing lists. A couple of days ago, I received a mass emailing from Richard Viguerie, the eminence grise of the tea bagger movement:
"The GOP leadership's backing of Ms. Scozzafava was a slap in the face to Tea Party activists, town hall protesters, and conservatives across the country. The Washington GOP establishment's abandonment of fiscal responsibility led directly to the election of Barack Obama as President and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. The American people see the GOP leadership and establishment every bit as much a part of the problem as the Democrats.What mainstream pundits fail to realize is that the two-party system has, in essence, digitized American politics. Everything comes down to ones and zeroes, on or off, Republican or Democrat. If Obama and Pelosi fail -- which they probably will -- Americans will turn again to the Republicans, because there's no place else to go.
"Doug Hoffman and NY-23 is an earthquake in American politics, and is the first of many challenges to establishment Republicans that we will see for the 2010 elections and beyond. The stupid decision by Republican leaders to pour $900,000 into the NY-23rd race against a conservative has unleashed a fury that will lead to new GOP leadership.
"Conservatives anger at Washington-establishment Republicans will cost the national committees tens of millions of dollars as conservative money will start flowing directly to the Tea Parties and their candidates.
Viguerie is making sure that when the conservative re-ascent occurs, his conservatives will be the ones ascending. He is branding teabag pols as rebels -- a good strategy, since many Americans are feeling mighty rebellious. He is also re-branding the Dubya crowd as liberals-in-disguise, which is both awful history and great marketing.
Is Viguerie crazy? Like the proverbial fox.
Is he suicidal? No.
Is his movement helpful to Dems, as Rich claims? Hell no.
Should liberals -- true liberals -- mimic his tactics? Should we have an intra-party insurgency staged by Democrats who despise Obama's talk-like-JFK-but-act-like-W shtick? Hell yes!
If Rich can maintain his mainstream cred after taking a rhetorical ice pick to Al Gore, then I have every right to use similar weaponry on Obama and the Obots. Permalink
Not sure your last comment is sensible.
Rich's cred is Villager cred, since he is a Villager in good standing. As Somerby has explained at length, Villagers simply do not attack other Villagers, nor hold them accountable for anything they say. So guys like Frank Rich escape under cover of a code of omerta, with any mention of their complicity in unpleasant agendas white-washed from history by deliberate omission by their peers.
You are not a Villager, and therefore cannot avail yourself of their get-out-of-jail-free escape hatch.
Worse, you are a BLOGGER, and we know how the Villagers feel about that type.
XI
Rich's cred is Villager cred, since he is a Villager in good standing. As Somerby has explained at length, Villagers simply do not attack other Villagers, nor hold them accountable for anything they say. So guys like Frank Rich escape under cover of a code of omerta, with any mention of their complicity in unpleasant agendas white-washed from history by deliberate omission by their peers.
You are not a Villager, and therefore cannot avail yourself of their get-out-of-jail-free escape hatch.
Worse, you are a BLOGGER, and we know how the Villagers feel about that type.
XI
Trotsky was murdered in Mexico by a NKVD agent using an ice axe, not an ice pick.
Wiki adds this tidbit:
According to James P. Cannon, the secretary of the Socialist Workers Party (USA), Trotsky's last words were "I will not survive this attack. Stalin has finally accomplished the task he attempted unsuccessfully before."
Is James P. any relation to Joseph?
.
Wiki adds this tidbit:
According to James P. Cannon, the secretary of the Socialist Workers Party (USA), Trotsky's last words were "I will not survive this attack. Stalin has finally accomplished the task he attempted unsuccessfully before."
Is James P. any relation to Joseph?
.
myiq, I'm wondering about that myself. There is some slight physical resemblance, but only slight. James Cannon came from Kansas. My father was born in Michigan; the family later migrated to Ohio. We lost contact with that side of the family after my Dad's death, due to animosity between his mother and my mother. So I have no-one to ask.
I will admit off the bat that I haven't been following the upstate NY off-year congressional battle, but it's strange because the comments I've read from liberals and progressives have all taken as gospel truth that Dede was fought by conservatives groups because of her liberal social views. Except, when I have actually read and listened to what said conservative groups actually say about why they oppose her, 90% plus of it is about her vote for the stimulus and her being a GOP establishment tool. Even the Viguerie quote in this post only mentions these two issues, not any "below-the-belt" social stuff.
Again, I very well could be missing something because I've just started reading about this race this past weekend, so maybe conservatives were saying all sorts of stuff about her liberal social views and all of a sudden stopped and switched to her fiscal record. Or, maybe they are lying about opposing her based on fiscal grounds. (Although, I can't for the life of me understand why they would. They are never usually shy about engaging in culture wars.) But, there's been an awful lot of steroptyping by liberals and progressives of conservatives - even people who are just fiscal conservatives - and even from those who I read regularly and respect like Cannon. So, I'll wait 'till I see more proof that it's knuckle-dragging neanderthals stuck in the 18th century who opposed Dede.
Also - I have to say, the frequent use of the word "teabaggers" is really disturbing. It makes me queasy every time I hear it because i know that bloggers and pundits who use it know the sexual act it refers to and branding a whole, pretty large, group of people that way is one reason I haven't been back here as regularly.
(Why not just call them the golden shower party or the dirty sanchez party? Would be about as relevant and as childish as calling them teabaggers. Also, I am not quite sure what I feel about one of my favorite bloggers feeling the need to follow a trend started by Jeneane Garofolo.)
Again, I very well could be missing something because I've just started reading about this race this past weekend, so maybe conservatives were saying all sorts of stuff about her liberal social views and all of a sudden stopped and switched to her fiscal record. Or, maybe they are lying about opposing her based on fiscal grounds. (Although, I can't for the life of me understand why they would. They are never usually shy about engaging in culture wars.) But, there's been an awful lot of steroptyping by liberals and progressives of conservatives - even people who are just fiscal conservatives - and even from those who I read regularly and respect like Cannon. So, I'll wait 'till I see more proof that it's knuckle-dragging neanderthals stuck in the 18th century who opposed Dede.
Also - I have to say, the frequent use of the word "teabaggers" is really disturbing. It makes me queasy every time I hear it because i know that bloggers and pundits who use it know the sexual act it refers to and branding a whole, pretty large, group of people that way is one reason I haven't been back here as regularly.
(Why not just call them the golden shower party or the dirty sanchez party? Would be about as relevant and as childish as calling them teabaggers. Also, I am not quite sure what I feel about one of my favorite bloggers feeling the need to follow a trend started by Jeneane Garofolo.)
I like Bob Somerby's writing but don't go there too often as it is so depressing to read that the media hasn't changed for the better since I found his site some 10 years ago.
One thing about the TEABAGGERS is they are motivated and will turn out to vote. In an off year where locally they are predicting 25% going to vote they can have a big impact.
One thing about the TEABAGGERS is they are motivated and will turn out to vote. In an off year where locally they are predicting 25% going to vote they can have a big impact.
My first thought when reading the quotes from Rich is that he has it all wrong. This can't be good. When the R's come back in power, and it is only a matter of when, that will mean more right wing lunatics in charge.
Do people like Rich even understand that this really isn't a war between D's and R's or red states vs. blue states. This is about getting the best possible government we can get to move our country forward and make the people's lives better. Whacked out politicians with whacked out ideas are never good for any of us.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Do people like Rich even understand that this really isn't a war between D's and R's or red states vs. blue states. This is about getting the best possible government we can get to move our country forward and make the people's lives better. Whacked out politicians with whacked out ideas are never good for any of us.
Brooks and Churchill
I want to second what MJS at Corrente has to say about this ghastly pro-war piece by David Brooks. Brooks says of his (alleged) high-level military sources:
Neocons never understood Churchill's famed obstinacy, which was always tempered by reason. Churchill was a fierce opponent of Irish independence, yet he met with Michael Collins and signed the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921. Originally an admirer of Mussolini's Fascism, Churchill became the world's staunchest opponent of fascism. Of the Empire, he proclaimed that "I will not preside over a dismemberment" -- but eventually he came to understand that he would have to do just that.
Churchill uttered one of my favorite axioms: "I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." When ideology collided with fact, he chose fact.
In Afghanistan, the harsh fact is that we have already lost the battle for hearts and minds. We are not loved, we are not liked, we are not respected, and we are not wanted. Permalink
They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.In other words, "they" want Obama to be more like Dubya. In other words, "they" are insane. Non-insane people argue that Obama has been too similar to his predecessor.
Neocons never understood Churchill's famed obstinacy, which was always tempered by reason. Churchill was a fierce opponent of Irish independence, yet he met with Michael Collins and signed the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921. Originally an admirer of Mussolini's Fascism, Churchill became the world's staunchest opponent of fascism. Of the Empire, he proclaimed that "I will not preside over a dismemberment" -- but eventually he came to understand that he would have to do just that.
Churchill uttered one of my favorite axioms: "I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." When ideology collided with fact, he chose fact.
In Afghanistan, the harsh fact is that we have already lost the battle for hearts and minds. We are not loved, we are not liked, we are not respected, and we are not wanted. Permalink
"In Afghanistan, the harsh fact is that we have already lost the battle for hearts and minds. We are not loved, we are not liked, we are not respected, and we are not wanted."
Now if somebody can just convince Obama of that, he might actually make a correct decision and get us the hell out.
But don't hold your breath.
Now if somebody can just convince Obama of that, he might actually make a correct decision and get us the hell out.
But don't hold your breath.
Anon: If we withdraw -- it all goes to Hell.
If we stay -- it all goes to Hell.
I see no good options.
If we stay -- it all goes to Hell.
I see no good options.
Public support for staying in Afghanistan is a continuation of the absolute hubris of thinking that you know what's best for the people of a foreign region and can successfully nation build.
The people who actually make those foreign policy decisions only comprehend power and money. As long as there's something to pillage in Afghanistan (or its neighbors) that's worth the trouble of pillaging, our military will be there.
The only thing that will turn this around is a complete shift in power that demolishes US military and political influence. Starting a war with Iran might trigger this reversal when the slow-to-act nations in SW Asia finally see the writing on the wall and work together to expel the U.S.
The people who actually make those foreign policy decisions only comprehend power and money. As long as there's something to pillage in Afghanistan (or its neighbors) that's worth the trouble of pillaging, our military will be there.
The only thing that will turn this around is a complete shift in power that demolishes US military and political influence. Starting a war with Iran might trigger this reversal when the slow-to-act nations in SW Asia finally see the writing on the wall and work together to expel the U.S.
It surely looks like it's going to hell, why be there when that happens is my question. My favorite night club song at the end of a long night of dancing is ...'you, you, you...get the f123 out!!! you, you, you...'
Who was it said,"Afghanistan is where empires go to die".
Remember, the Russians failed and they were a lot more brutal that we could ever be.
Bush should have kept his eye on the ball, wacked Usama then bailed.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Remember, the Russians failed and they were a lot more brutal that we could ever be.
Bush should have kept his eye on the ball, wacked Usama then bailed.
