It's the end of the month and that (usually) means two things:
1) I get paid tomorrow.
2) Time for more Hall of Fame inductees!
It's the year of Boston's Impossible Dream - fitting, or ironic, seeing as how they blew their 2011 Season last night in final game after pissing away the biggest lead in history (9 Games) every to be blown in September - but we've got one Gold, one Silver and one Revision from a previous month. Here we go:
The Red Ruffing GOLD STAR #39: Laughing in Purgatory
While I've been focusing more on the Economy and anti-Corporatism lately, I haven't entirely lost site of the second biggest part of my political agenda: the Separation of Church and state. Laughing in Purgatory is a blog about raising children in an atheist household in a (*wink*) Christian Nation. It is delightfully irreverent, and anti-religious and does a fantastic job of poking the nose of organized religion and singing the praises of raising our children to be rational, critical and free thinkers.
The Lloyd Waner SILVER STAR #37: The Bleacher Report
They're kind of like the Cracked.com of online Sports Magazine, with all kinds of top-10, top-50 and even top-100 lists spanning all major sports - Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey,Soccer, Golf, Boxing... you name it, they cover it all. Their writing style is fairly informal (even someone like me catches several typo's in each post) but it gives the feel of having a conversation with a well-informed amateur, rather than a high-and-mighty sports writer. It always makes for an interesting read, and it should be a regular stop for any sports fan.
And finally, a revision...
I'm hereby officially stripping Netflix of their Silver Star. (See me previous post for more info.) So...
The NEW Frank Chance SILVER STAR #13: The Chive
"Possibly the best site in the world." ~The Chive
They've got humor, sports, videos, pictures of girls... What's not to love? Cracked.com links to their stuff fairly often. Worth checking out.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Class Warfare, Math, Macroeconomics and Fairness
OK, so by now I'm sure we're all aware of President Obama's judgement that the [curiously named] "Buffett Rule" is NOT class warfare... It's MATH.
Bravo, Barry. It's about time you started calling out the Right on their bullshit.
I would like to give him (and everyone) one piece of advice though, when discussion taxation: Avoid the discussion of "fairness." I know, I know! And I've made fairness-based arguments in the past, linking multiples of the median income in this country to various levels on Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, for example. And these arguments are very effective at convincing people who already agree with you that you're right. They are not very persuasive with anyone who's not already on board. And I'm not conceding the fairness point - I do happen to be of the opinion that the rich in this country do not, in fact, pay their FAIR share of the tax burden. BUT... that's my opinion.
And there's the rub: One cannot objectively quantify "fairness." Whether or not something is "fair" relies entirely on the parties involve FEELING that it is fair. If someone FEELS or is OF THE OPINION that they're being cheated? Well guess what? That's one person who BELIEVES that "it" is not fair!
Fairness is an entirely subjective phenomenon.
Now... I will happily raise my hat and tip my glass to fellow working-class warrior, Elizabeth Warren. SHE got it right. And Conchobhar included some of the best parts of her speech a few posts back. It's truly great stuff but, alas, I fear the "Social Contract" may yet be a little bit too high-brow for the Average American these days. I heard a very well educated man trying to explain it the trainer in the Gym the other night - a black man, who definitely makes only a working-class wage, and yet was attacking the idea of taxing the rich! - and I could see that the argument was not the least bit persuasive. In fact, it came sounding like the kind of namby-pamby Liberal whining that the Right has so effectively charactarized ALL of the higher moral aspects of civilization as over the past 30 years or so.
And besides, I think there's a much better way to put it, and it comes right from the comments section of this very blog...
In response to Tax/Deficit post back in July, Steeve put it absolutely perfectly:
And there you go.
The reason we tax the rich? Because we can do so without impacting their daily spending decisions. And thus it cause no further economic pain, despite the Right's constant bed-wetting about it.
THIS is why you will inevitably end up taxing the rich. Because doing anything else, including significantly reducing spending, is economic suicide. The Right might want that, and Fox News might want that, but the American People do not.
So... STEEVE in 2012?
Bravo, Barry. It's about time you started calling out the Right on their bullshit.
I would like to give him (and everyone) one piece of advice though, when discussion taxation: Avoid the discussion of "fairness." I know, I know! And I've made fairness-based arguments in the past, linking multiples of the median income in this country to various levels on Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, for example. And these arguments are very effective at convincing people who already agree with you that you're right. They are not very persuasive with anyone who's not already on board. And I'm not conceding the fairness point - I do happen to be of the opinion that the rich in this country do not, in fact, pay their FAIR share of the tax burden. BUT... that's my opinion.
And there's the rub: One cannot objectively quantify "fairness." Whether or not something is "fair" relies entirely on the parties involve FEELING that it is fair. If someone FEELS or is OF THE OPINION that they're being cheated? Well guess what? That's one person who BELIEVES that "it" is not fair!
Fairness is an entirely subjective phenomenon.
Now... I will happily raise my hat and tip my glass to fellow working-class warrior, Elizabeth Warren. SHE got it right. And Conchobhar included some of the best parts of her speech a few posts back. It's truly great stuff but, alas, I fear the "Social Contract" may yet be a little bit too high-brow for the Average American these days. I heard a very well educated man trying to explain it the trainer in the Gym the other night - a black man, who definitely makes only a working-class wage, and yet was attacking the idea of taxing the rich! - and I could see that the argument was not the least bit persuasive. In fact, it came sounding like the kind of namby-pamby Liberal whining that the Right has so effectively charactarized ALL of the higher moral aspects of civilization as over the past 30 years or so.
And besides, I think there's a much better way to put it, and it comes right from the comments section of this very blog...
In response to Tax/Deficit post back in July, Steeve put it absolutely perfectly:
Raise taxes on everyone until they feel the tiniest pinprick of pain.
So you raise taxes 0.001% on most people and they feel immediate pain. Raise taxes 60% on the rich and they feel no pain at all. That's not my problem. Hell, it isn't anyone's problem.
And there you go.
The reason we tax the rich? Because we can do so without impacting their daily spending decisions. And thus it cause no further economic pain, despite the Right's constant bed-wetting about it.
THIS is why you will inevitably end up taxing the rich. Because doing anything else, including significantly reducing spending, is economic suicide. The Right might want that, and Fox News might want that, but the American People do not.
So... STEEVE in 2012?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Lessons from Solyndra
Right Wing screech-monkeys who haven't idea-one to offer with regards to the deficit, the economy, the environment or any other social problem (other than rich people in America not having enough money) find it easy instead to take advantage of those times when those who try inevitable stumble. And the most recent flavor of the week of this tactic comes to us compliments of the crack management team at Solyndra. Again, I'm a week behind on this, and many of you have probably already moved on, but for those who don't know, here's the short version: The Federal Government loaned Half a Billion Dollars to Solyndra, a solar panel maker. Two weeks ago (?) they filed for bankruptcy and that Half-Bil is now "up in smoke."
Cue the screech-monkeys:
Does the failure of Solyndra demonstrate the shortcomings of Green Energy?
Well... let me put it a different way...
Did the failures of Stanley Motors or Studebaker prove that the whole "horseless carriage" craze was just a passing fad?
Did the failure of Pets.com (and many, MANY other .com's) prove that this whole "Internets" thing Al Gore kept harping on about was just a flash in the pan?
Well... If you're reading this now, and/or happened to DRIVE ANYWHERE this week, you know that these statements are patently absurd. But there IS still an important lesson to learn here! In Climate discussions, there's always one of these same screech-monkeys claiming that we "can't even predict the weather TOMORROW, so how do we know what the CLIMATE will be DECADES from now?!" (And yes, despite its grammatical structure, that's a CLAIM, not a QUESTION. It's only a question if you're looking for an ANSWER. And screech-monkey's questions are ALWAYS rhetorical.) And I liken tomorrows weather to the climate (or the local weather to the global climate) as a single company's performance to that of the entire economy. That's very apt here.
As was the case with Automobiles or the Internet, there is little doubt that the TECHNOLOGY is going to be around for awhile, and that at some point will be a booming industry. That's relative easy to foresee. What's difficult? Is predicting WHICH COMPANIES will succeed in bringing that industry about. Consider Cars: Just after the turn of the last century, there were over 100 Companies making automobiles in this country alone. Today there are THREE. (And although I do recommend checking out the fine work being done by Tesla and Fisker, they aren't even a grain of sand on the mountain of the Big-3 yet. So, we'll stick with three.) So... back in ~1910, if you wanted to invest in the Auto Industry, despite being pretty sure that the INDUSTRY would thrive, you would have a damned hard time picking which COMPANY would. Same goes for the Internet: There was never any doubt that it would change the world and be HUGE. But who bought Yahoo! instead of Google? Who bought Pets.com? Who bought into any one of a thousand other .com's that rose and fell in the late 1990's and early 2000's?
What's my point? Well... I'm sort of conceding the next couple of points up the list, actually:
1) The gov't shouldn't get this involved in business, because 2) It smacks of cronyism and (as I've laid out) it's nearly impossible to consistently pick which COMPANY will succeed, even if you know that the INDUSTRY is growing - Warren Buffet not withstanding, but 3) he's not Obama's economic advisor! (That's three of their points conceded, in a post where I disagree with them! Dang!)
But hey: I'm a pretty green guy. I'm no eco-warrior, but I do believe that Global Warming is a legitimate threat and that we need to seriously get away from what I call the "burning shit" model of generating energy. So what do I suggest we do, if not directly support fledgling green-power businesses?
Well... there are a few things, and some of the philosophy borrows from Free-Market Libertarianism. And the rest runs precisely counter to it! Here's what might have been done instead:
1) Instead of making a Half-Billion dollar LOAN, why not put up a contract - FOR BID - for half a billion dollars worth of Solar Panels? Then let companies compete to see who can come up with the scratch to support it and deliver. Worst case? (They fail?) You don't pay a dime. Best case? You've got economic stimulus, new technology, competition, etc... (All those things the Right says they want) and at the same time, you're helping the environment: Use the panels at all federal buildings, military bases, state buildings, etc... And spur growth that way.
That's the Libertarian way, and I believe this is one instance in which their way is the better one. Here's another way:
2) Raise CAFE Standards, sign and ratify Kyoto II (or whatever the latest climate treaty is), pass Cap and Trade... or better: just penalize those companies that don't meet the new, stricter emissions and Carbon standards. Then? Go right back to the Libertarian way and let industry sort out for themselves how to make it all happen!
Why do I think this would work? I'll go back to my example of Cars and the Internet...
In the late 1960's, Ralph Nader started a national campaign to improve automotive safety. One of the things that came out of that was something known as FMVSS 209, aka: WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. (I'm an automotive seat belt engineer. So... Thanks for my job, Mister Nader, but you can still GFY for giving us George W. Bush. And the thing is, while you can't pass FMVSS 209 Testing without a seat belt (after all the regulation is FOR seat belts) it doesn't tell you HOW to make one. (Or WHO can make one.) Likewise, we have NCAP testing - this is where those 4-Star and 5-Star safety ratings come from. Now... you can't get a good Star-Rating without airbags. But the regulation does NOT tell you WHAT airbags you need, where to put them, or how to design them. And what we DO, as engineers, is to come up with better designs. We compete amongst our various companies to deliver BETTER safety restraints, and to do it CHEAPER and FASTER than the next guy. And today we have fewer automotive fatalites annually that we did in the 1950's. Not fewer per capita, mind you, or per mile driven, that's fewer OVERALL, despite having something like 10 times as many people on the road, each driving many times as many miles on average as they did way back when.
This approach? (Set a target and let industry figure out to meet it?) WORKS.
Now consider the Internet. When you consider the version that the legislation sponsored by former Vice President Gore helped bring about, it's fairly utopian: No one "owns" it, users generate their own content, all voices are equal, and anyone can use it as they see fit and as the technology they develop themself allows. And that's what been the key to it's success: At no point in time did the Government, or a company step in to decide exactly HOW things would run, or WHAT it could (and could not) be used for. No one pick and chose, and it wasn't managed.
And the way this applies to Solar Energy?
Well... Who's to say that Solyndra's designs were the best, or that they're the company that will succeed? Why pick and choose? Set the target and let the ENGINEERS do their work. Some companies will fail, but the TECHNOLOGY and the INDUSTRY isn't going away. In the meantime, there's no reason to start placing bets on individual firms with tax-payer money.
As for it all being Obama's fault?
Well, shoot... EVERYTHING is Obama's fault, isn't it?
;)
Cue the screech-monkeys:
- It's Obama's fault
- It shows [the Obama team] doesn't have any business sense
- We need investigations of this rampant cronyism
- This is why Gov't shouldn't get involved in business
- This proves green-energy is a bust
Does the failure of Solyndra demonstrate the shortcomings of Green Energy?
Well... let me put it a different way...
Did the failures of Stanley Motors or Studebaker prove that the whole "horseless carriage" craze was just a passing fad?
Did the failure of Pets.com (and many, MANY other .com's) prove that this whole "Internets" thing Al Gore kept harping on about was just a flash in the pan?
Well... If you're reading this now, and/or happened to DRIVE ANYWHERE this week, you know that these statements are patently absurd. But there IS still an important lesson to learn here! In Climate discussions, there's always one of these same screech-monkeys claiming that we "can't even predict the weather TOMORROW, so how do we know what the CLIMATE will be DECADES from now?!" (And yes, despite its grammatical structure, that's a CLAIM, not a QUESTION. It's only a question if you're looking for an ANSWER. And screech-monkey's questions are ALWAYS rhetorical.) And I liken tomorrows weather to the climate (or the local weather to the global climate) as a single company's performance to that of the entire economy. That's very apt here.
As was the case with Automobiles or the Internet, there is little doubt that the TECHNOLOGY is going to be around for awhile, and that at some point will be a booming industry. That's relative easy to foresee. What's difficult? Is predicting WHICH COMPANIES will succeed in bringing that industry about. Consider Cars: Just after the turn of the last century, there were over 100 Companies making automobiles in this country alone. Today there are THREE. (And although I do recommend checking out the fine work being done by Tesla and Fisker, they aren't even a grain of sand on the mountain of the Big-3 yet. So, we'll stick with three.) So... back in ~1910, if you wanted to invest in the Auto Industry, despite being pretty sure that the INDUSTRY would thrive, you would have a damned hard time picking which COMPANY would. Same goes for the Internet: There was never any doubt that it would change the world and be HUGE. But who bought Yahoo! instead of Google? Who bought Pets.com? Who bought into any one of a thousand other .com's that rose and fell in the late 1990's and early 2000's?
What's my point? Well... I'm sort of conceding the next couple of points up the list, actually:
1) The gov't shouldn't get this involved in business, because 2) It smacks of cronyism and (as I've laid out) it's nearly impossible to consistently pick which COMPANY will succeed, even if you know that the INDUSTRY is growing - Warren Buffet not withstanding, but 3) he's not Obama's economic advisor! (That's three of their points conceded, in a post where I disagree with them! Dang!)
But hey: I'm a pretty green guy. I'm no eco-warrior, but I do believe that Global Warming is a legitimate threat and that we need to seriously get away from what I call the "burning shit" model of generating energy. So what do I suggest we do, if not directly support fledgling green-power businesses?
Well... there are a few things, and some of the philosophy borrows from Free-Market Libertarianism. And the rest runs precisely counter to it! Here's what might have been done instead:
1) Instead of making a Half-Billion dollar LOAN, why not put up a contract - FOR BID - for half a billion dollars worth of Solar Panels? Then let companies compete to see who can come up with the scratch to support it and deliver. Worst case? (They fail?) You don't pay a dime. Best case? You've got economic stimulus, new technology, competition, etc... (All those things the Right says they want) and at the same time, you're helping the environment: Use the panels at all federal buildings, military bases, state buildings, etc... And spur growth that way.
That's the Libertarian way, and I believe this is one instance in which their way is the better one. Here's another way:
2) Raise CAFE Standards, sign and ratify Kyoto II (or whatever the latest climate treaty is), pass Cap and Trade... or better: just penalize those companies that don't meet the new, stricter emissions and Carbon standards. Then? Go right back to the Libertarian way and let industry sort out for themselves how to make it all happen!
Why do I think this would work? I'll go back to my example of Cars and the Internet...
In the late 1960's, Ralph Nader started a national campaign to improve automotive safety. One of the things that came out of that was something known as FMVSS 209, aka: WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. (I'm an automotive seat belt engineer. So... Thanks for my job, Mister Nader, but you can still GFY for giving us George W. Bush. And the thing is, while you can't pass FMVSS 209 Testing without a seat belt (after all the regulation is FOR seat belts) it doesn't tell you HOW to make one. (Or WHO can make one.) Likewise, we have NCAP testing - this is where those 4-Star and 5-Star safety ratings come from. Now... you can't get a good Star-Rating without airbags. But the regulation does NOT tell you WHAT airbags you need, where to put them, or how to design them. And what we DO, as engineers, is to come up with better designs. We compete amongst our various companies to deliver BETTER safety restraints, and to do it CHEAPER and FASTER than the next guy. And today we have fewer automotive fatalites annually that we did in the 1950's. Not fewer per capita, mind you, or per mile driven, that's fewer OVERALL, despite having something like 10 times as many people on the road, each driving many times as many miles on average as they did way back when.
This approach? (Set a target and let industry figure out to meet it?) WORKS.
Now consider the Internet. When you consider the version that the legislation sponsored by former Vice President Gore helped bring about, it's fairly utopian: No one "owns" it, users generate their own content, all voices are equal, and anyone can use it as they see fit and as the technology they develop themself allows. And that's what been the key to it's success: At no point in time did the Government, or a company step in to decide exactly HOW things would run, or WHAT it could (and could not) be used for. No one pick and chose, and it wasn't managed.
And the way this applies to Solar Energy?
Well... Who's to say that Solyndra's designs were the best, or that they're the company that will succeed? Why pick and choose? Set the target and let the ENGINEERS do their work. Some companies will fail, but the TECHNOLOGY and the INDUSTRY isn't going away. In the meantime, there's no reason to start placing bets on individual firms with tax-payer money.
As for it all being Obama's fault?
Well, shoot... EVERYTHING is Obama's fault, isn't it?
;)
Monday, September 26, 2011
I support David Lewis!!!
LOL. No, not really.
And again, having been out of circulation for awhile, I'm sure this clown is old news to y'all by now, but I HAVE to put my two cents in. For anyone who doesn't know, David Lewis is (apparently?) throwing his hat into the ring as a primary challenger to Speaker John Boehner. And if you want to laugh / cringe / feel sorry for a Conservative, you've got see to see this asshat's interview with Neil Cavuto - arguably one of the most sycophantic Conservative interviewers in the biz. Here's the link that I put up before. There are others. You can Google.
And the amazing thing to me was NOT this guy's absurd talking points. I mean, yeah, Planned Parenthood are a bunch of Nazi Babykillers, blah... blah... I did choke on my tea a bit when he called John Boehner a Socialist... That was new. Of course... if Speaker Boehner is a Socialist that only drives the last nail into the coffin of the word having any meaning at all, but it was interesting to see this guy go so far to the Right that even a Right Wing Bootlicker like Neil Cavuto felt compelled to make him look stupid...
...Which, as it turned out, wasn't all that hard.
Because, like I said, it was not so much about Right-Wing talking points that were too absurd for even Fox News. It was more about the way he DELIVERED them! Oh may God... Describing him as "cardboard" would insult the memories of the trees who gave their lives that we might have cardboard! Do you see that dull, vacant expression he's wearing in that picture (if you followed the link)? Yeah, I saw the interview when it aired and let me assure you, he wore that blank look the entire time. And "stilted" doesn't even begin to describe this fool's speaking style (or speech impediment, I'm not sure which.) It was like watching someone, who didn't actually speak English, read words - and even pronounce them correctly - having no idea that they were meant to link together and form sentences. The man's words were so disjointed, Cavuto seemed to have trouble even figuring out when to interrupt! It was painful.
In fact, if you'll pardon the archaic reference, I haven't seen someone look so shell-shocked, camera-shy and both mentally and emotionally unprepared for something since I watched Calvin Schiraldi pitch the last two games of the 1986 World Series. And if you saw that and remember it, you'll know what I mean. If you didn't/don't... It was like watching a middle-school student give a presentation, after forgetting the assignment and deciding to wing it... badly.
It was brutal.
And the whole time I'm thinking:
1) Only Fox would give this fool the time of day. And...
2) There is NO WAY that Fox will continue to give this fool air time!
...for the exact reason that I FULLY SUPPORT HIS CANDIDACY FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE!
Because he makes the Right, and the Republicans and the Tea Party look not only like Fascists, but MORONS. And I don't just mean to the people who know the difference. (Liberals.) Remember: This guy lost NEIL CAVUTO! This guy would make the Right look stupid TO THE RIGHT.
So you know what? I seriously propose that we on the Left enthusiastically support David Lewis for Speaker.
1) Any distraction for the Republicans is good.
2) John Boehner spends too much time in the tanning booths. It's not healthy. This might get him out of the House a bit.
3) By forcing these guys to debate, either the mainstream Republicans will be forced into accepting and acknowledging far more common-sense positions than they currently do (to distance themselves from this clown) or finally be revealed publicly as the whack-jobs we accuse them of being.
4) In the worst case (this idiot wins) he is too bloody incompetent to do any real harm to the country, but he would bring down the entire Republican Party along with him.
So PLEASE... JOIN ME in making DAVID LEWIS the NEW FACE of the REPUBLICAN Party and the TEA PARTY!!!!
And again, having been out of circulation for awhile, I'm sure this clown is old news to y'all by now, but I HAVE to put my two cents in. For anyone who doesn't know, David Lewis is (apparently?) throwing his hat into the ring as a primary challenger to Speaker John Boehner. And if you want to laugh / cringe / feel sorry for a Conservative, you've got see to see this asshat's interview with Neil Cavuto - arguably one of the most sycophantic Conservative interviewers in the biz. Here's the link that I put up before. There are others. You can Google.
And the amazing thing to me was NOT this guy's absurd talking points. I mean, yeah, Planned Parenthood are a bunch of Nazi Babykillers, blah... blah... I did choke on my tea a bit when he called John Boehner a Socialist... That was new. Of course... if Speaker Boehner is a Socialist that only drives the last nail into the coffin of the word having any meaning at all, but it was interesting to see this guy go so far to the Right that even a Right Wing Bootlicker like Neil Cavuto felt compelled to make him look stupid...
...Which, as it turned out, wasn't all that hard.
Because, like I said, it was not so much about Right-Wing talking points that were too absurd for even Fox News. It was more about the way he DELIVERED them! Oh may God... Describing him as "cardboard" would insult the memories of the trees who gave their lives that we might have cardboard! Do you see that dull, vacant expression he's wearing in that picture (if you followed the link)? Yeah, I saw the interview when it aired and let me assure you, he wore that blank look the entire time. And "stilted" doesn't even begin to describe this fool's speaking style (or speech impediment, I'm not sure which.) It was like watching someone, who didn't actually speak English, read words - and even pronounce them correctly - having no idea that they were meant to link together and form sentences. The man's words were so disjointed, Cavuto seemed to have trouble even figuring out when to interrupt! It was painful.
In fact, if you'll pardon the archaic reference, I haven't seen someone look so shell-shocked, camera-shy and both mentally and emotionally unprepared for something since I watched Calvin Schiraldi pitch the last two games of the 1986 World Series. And if you saw that and remember it, you'll know what I mean. If you didn't/don't... It was like watching a middle-school student give a presentation, after forgetting the assignment and deciding to wing it... badly.
It was brutal.
And the whole time I'm thinking:
1) Only Fox would give this fool the time of day. And...
2) There is NO WAY that Fox will continue to give this fool air time!
...for the exact reason that I FULLY SUPPORT HIS CANDIDACY FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE!
Because he makes the Right, and the Republicans and the Tea Party look not only like Fascists, but MORONS. And I don't just mean to the people who know the difference. (Liberals.) Remember: This guy lost NEIL CAVUTO! This guy would make the Right look stupid TO THE RIGHT.
So you know what? I seriously propose that we on the Left enthusiastically support David Lewis for Speaker.
1) Any distraction for the Republicans is good.
2) John Boehner spends too much time in the tanning booths. It's not healthy. This might get him out of the House a bit.
3) By forcing these guys to debate, either the mainstream Republicans will be forced into accepting and acknowledging far more common-sense positions than they currently do (to distance themselves from this clown) or finally be revealed publicly as the whack-jobs we accuse them of being.
4) In the worst case (this idiot wins) he is too bloody incompetent to do any real harm to the country, but he would bring down the entire Republican Party along with him.
So PLEASE... JOIN ME in making DAVID LEWIS the NEW FACE of the REPUBLICAN Party and the TEA PARTY!!!!
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Fuck Netflix
Sorry. I've been away, so this is pretty much old news by now, but 've got to put my two cents in about the recent price hikes at Netflix.
Now... Let me assure you that this is not about the mere fact that they raised priced. That's cool, and it's hardly the first time. (Thought they've never been this dramatic!) But I'm all for companies doing whatever they need to to make as much money as possible. That's Capitalism, after all. That's the free market. And as Liberal as I am, excepting those few services that I do not believe should be influenced by a profit motive (medicine and incarceration leap to mind, for example) I have seen no other economic system that will bring us the goods and services that we was as efficiently and effectively as Capitalism. (Call me a Free-Market Liberal, I guess.) And this was a company that at one time impressed me enough that I put them in my Hall of Fame! So if they need to raise a little more revenue? Hey: Who am I to complain?
Well...
I'm a customer, for starters.
And one who was at one time so impressed with them that I put them in my Hall of Fame!
Now... WHY did I do that? What made them different from so many other companies that I've had satisfactory dealings with over the years?
Well... for starters, like I said when I originally inducted them, they slew big blue: The Bankrupted Blockbuster. And I HATE, HATE, HATED Blockbutser with a seething passion!
But it was the WAY that Netflix evolved that was what really impressed me. It was the changes they brought about that really made me believe they could be different. For one? No bricks and mortar, at all. And they came about at a time when very few companies managed to pull that off successfully. eBay and Amazon managed it, as did a couple of search engines, but overall, even today, a large portion of online commerce still happens at the websites of stores that still actually have stores. They proved that there was yet another business sector that could succeed as an entirely online company. That's an accomplishment worth acknowledging.
Another way in which they were different was in the amount of customer focus they had... at least... up until about six months ago, or thereabouts.
Netflix.com allowed Netflix MEMBERS to write reviews for movies. Sure Amazon did this as well, but Netflix created what felt like a close community. A group of people who were ranked according to their similarity to your own tastes in an effort to help you discover movies that you might not otherwise had, and to steer you towards those that should hold a particular appeal to you.
What's more, they relied on this community to drive their content. Not just on their website, but in their inventory. It is because they realized just how wide and varied people tastes were that they built the largest selection of titles anywhere in existence - at one time 50% larger than Blockbuster online's, and FORGET about the Blockbuster STORES. You think you could walk into a Blockbuster and find any Kurosawa Movies? Or European Films? Or obscure classics? Or Anime? (Other than fucking Dragonball?) The only thing I could ever find at Blockbuster was a series of shelves with hundreds of copies of the same handful of new releases, with every single one of them out. Yaaaay!
Netflix realised the potential that can be tapped when you truly consider the desires of your entire customer base, rather than just following what the bean counters in the boardroom would consider a wise investment. ("Why should get this movies that only 100 or so people would even want to see? Who the fuck is this Kobayashi guy, anyway?!) Blockbuster made us wait for the latest Hollywood garbage. Netflix DELIVERED fims and series that we wanted to see.
And that is what this latest move by them so perplexing. They say it's about new technology, and the digital future and all that, but... Well, I just don't get that. It seems to me that their not only ignoring their customers to an almost George Lucasian extent, but it seems they've thrown out ALL boardroom logic as well! I wish I could just chalk this up to greed, but I can't. This is just... stupidity.
Lemme splain...
Remember that whole thing about bankrupting Blockbuster? Yeah, you see that's an impressive achievement even putting aside my boiling, acidic, venomous hatred for them. It impressive because I can think of no other industry that had been so dominated by a single company that the home video industry had been by Big Blue. Sure there were still the occasional mom-and-pop stores, and Hollywood Video, but nothing and nobody could hold a candle to Blockbuster's market share or profitability. The were a giant. No: They were GODS.
And along comes some kooky little company that has nothing but a websites and a focus on their customer base of film geeks and they BANKRUPTED THEM. So, let me ask you something: If you have a business plan that successful enough to knock off one of the most dominant monopolies in the history of American Commerce... WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU EVER CHANGE IT?!
And yeah... predictably their customers are PISSED. And they've lost millions of subscribers. Not me. Not yet. But show me some who offers the same thing for less? Shit, I'll leave in a heartbeat now. And I've not only been a loyal customer, I've been a CHEERLEADER for them! I've advertised and advocated for them! They've been my absolute bloody HEROES and I have not been shy about telling people about it! And I don;t only feel ripped off, I actually feel BETRAYED, as these Red Bastards start acting like the very same Blue Bastards they knocked off! And WHO am I to go to?
Well, I don't know. There's nobody that's really there yet. (I'll cut my own leg off before going back to Blockbuster!) Netflix achieved something close to a monopoly, and they KNOW it. But here is where some of that Boardroom mentality might have come in handy. Not only do their higher prices drive away their current customer base, but hey help bring about the very competition that will eventually bring them down, they way they did to Blockbuster! They are becoming the engineers of their own royal screwing!
Consider this...
You want to start an online movie rental business. But the current going, market rate for this service is $16-$18 for three movies out a time as well as streaming. And you're thinking, "No way. Without that massive, existing customer base, I could never get my infrastructure off the ground at that rate!" And no doubt a lot of people were thinking that. Otherwise, it stands to reason that someone other than fucking Blockbuster would have been creeping up behind them by now. But if that going rate, for that exact same package, is suddenly raised to $28 a month? Holy shit, did they just do you a HUGE favor! Because THAT? Is a price you can beat! And if you can beat and get even close to that $18 (say... $20?) and offer movie rentals AND streaming? Well now your kicking all ass, because they only offer these services separately now, for anything close to a reaosnable price: 2 movies at a time from "Qwickster" -OR- streaming movies from Netflix. (Or pay $28 dollars a month to keep both!)
And that's what so STUPID (not greedy, stupid) about this: It's not only pisses off their customers but it throws a life-line to any potential competition out there! WHY would you EVER want to do that?! How can you seriously expect to make MORE MONEY taking that path?!
So... for their blatant stupidity in these matters,and so blind a disregard for the will and voice of their customers, I'll be taking Netflix out of my Hall of Fame. It's really an embarrassment now to have it there. I can defend eBay more easily than I can defend Netflix, and that's saying something! So when I get around to doing the Gold Star's this month, they'll be out. I'd take them out now, except that I haven't figured out who to put in their place yet. If they return to sanity sometime in the future? Meh... maybe they'll go back in. But I doubt. I don;t think I'll ever be able to see them as anything but just another blind and stupid corporation anymore.
Now... Let me assure you that this is not about the mere fact that they raised priced. That's cool, and it's hardly the first time. (Thought they've never been this dramatic!) But I'm all for companies doing whatever they need to to make as much money as possible. That's Capitalism, after all. That's the free market. And as Liberal as I am, excepting those few services that I do not believe should be influenced by a profit motive (medicine and incarceration leap to mind, for example) I have seen no other economic system that will bring us the goods and services that we was as efficiently and effectively as Capitalism. (Call me a Free-Market Liberal, I guess.) And this was a company that at one time impressed me enough that I put them in my Hall of Fame! So if they need to raise a little more revenue? Hey: Who am I to complain?
Well...
I'm a customer, for starters.
And one who was at one time so impressed with them that I put them in my Hall of Fame!
Now... WHY did I do that? What made them different from so many other companies that I've had satisfactory dealings with over the years?
Well... for starters, like I said when I originally inducted them, they slew big blue: The Bankrupted Blockbuster. And I HATE, HATE, HATED Blockbutser with a seething passion!
But it was the WAY that Netflix evolved that was what really impressed me. It was the changes they brought about that really made me believe they could be different. For one? No bricks and mortar, at all. And they came about at a time when very few companies managed to pull that off successfully. eBay and Amazon managed it, as did a couple of search engines, but overall, even today, a large portion of online commerce still happens at the websites of stores that still actually have stores. They proved that there was yet another business sector that could succeed as an entirely online company. That's an accomplishment worth acknowledging.
Another way in which they were different was in the amount of customer focus they had... at least... up until about six months ago, or thereabouts.
Netflix.com allowed Netflix MEMBERS to write reviews for movies. Sure Amazon did this as well, but Netflix created what felt like a close community. A group of people who were ranked according to their similarity to your own tastes in an effort to help you discover movies that you might not otherwise had, and to steer you towards those that should hold a particular appeal to you.
What's more, they relied on this community to drive their content. Not just on their website, but in their inventory. It is because they realized just how wide and varied people tastes were that they built the largest selection of titles anywhere in existence - at one time 50% larger than Blockbuster online's, and FORGET about the Blockbuster STORES. You think you could walk into a Blockbuster and find any Kurosawa Movies? Or European Films? Or obscure classics? Or Anime? (Other than fucking Dragonball?) The only thing I could ever find at Blockbuster was a series of shelves with hundreds of copies of the same handful of new releases, with every single one of them out. Yaaaay!
Netflix realised the potential that can be tapped when you truly consider the desires of your entire customer base, rather than just following what the bean counters in the boardroom would consider a wise investment. ("Why should get this movies that only 100 or so people would even want to see? Who the fuck is this Kobayashi guy, anyway?!) Blockbuster made us wait for the latest Hollywood garbage. Netflix DELIVERED fims and series that we wanted to see.
And that is what this latest move by them so perplexing. They say it's about new technology, and the digital future and all that, but... Well, I just don't get that. It seems to me that their not only ignoring their customers to an almost George Lucasian extent, but it seems they've thrown out ALL boardroom logic as well! I wish I could just chalk this up to greed, but I can't. This is just... stupidity.
Lemme splain...
Remember that whole thing about bankrupting Blockbuster? Yeah, you see that's an impressive achievement even putting aside my boiling, acidic, venomous hatred for them. It impressive because I can think of no other industry that had been so dominated by a single company that the home video industry had been by Big Blue. Sure there were still the occasional mom-and-pop stores, and Hollywood Video, but nothing and nobody could hold a candle to Blockbuster's market share or profitability. The were a giant. No: They were GODS.
And along comes some kooky little company that has nothing but a websites and a focus on their customer base of film geeks and they BANKRUPTED THEM. So, let me ask you something: If you have a business plan that successful enough to knock off one of the most dominant monopolies in the history of American Commerce... WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU EVER CHANGE IT?!
And yeah... predictably their customers are PISSED. And they've lost millions of subscribers. Not me. Not yet. But show me some who offers the same thing for less? Shit, I'll leave in a heartbeat now. And I've not only been a loyal customer, I've been a CHEERLEADER for them! I've advertised and advocated for them! They've been my absolute bloody HEROES and I have not been shy about telling people about it! And I don;t only feel ripped off, I actually feel BETRAYED, as these Red Bastards start acting like the very same Blue Bastards they knocked off! And WHO am I to go to?
Well, I don't know. There's nobody that's really there yet. (I'll cut my own leg off before going back to Blockbuster!) Netflix achieved something close to a monopoly, and they KNOW it. But here is where some of that Boardroom mentality might have come in handy. Not only do their higher prices drive away their current customer base, but hey help bring about the very competition that will eventually bring them down, they way they did to Blockbuster! They are becoming the engineers of their own royal screwing!
Consider this...
You want to start an online movie rental business. But the current going, market rate for this service is $16-$18 for three movies out a time as well as streaming. And you're thinking, "No way. Without that massive, existing customer base, I could never get my infrastructure off the ground at that rate!" And no doubt a lot of people were thinking that. Otherwise, it stands to reason that someone other than fucking Blockbuster would have been creeping up behind them by now. But if that going rate, for that exact same package, is suddenly raised to $28 a month? Holy shit, did they just do you a HUGE favor! Because THAT? Is a price you can beat! And if you can beat and get even close to that $18 (say... $20?) and offer movie rentals AND streaming? Well now your kicking all ass, because they only offer these services separately now, for anything close to a reaosnable price: 2 movies at a time from "Qwickster" -OR- streaming movies from Netflix. (Or pay $28 dollars a month to keep both!)
And that's what so STUPID (not greedy, stupid) about this: It's not only pisses off their customers but it throws a life-line to any potential competition out there! WHY would you EVER want to do that?! How can you seriously expect to make MORE MONEY taking that path?!
So... for their blatant stupidity in these matters,and so blind a disregard for the will and voice of their customers, I'll be taking Netflix out of my Hall of Fame. It's really an embarrassment now to have it there. I can defend eBay more easily than I can defend Netflix, and that's saying something! So when I get around to doing the Gold Star's this month, they'll be out. I'd take them out now, except that I haven't figured out who to put in their place yet. If they return to sanity sometime in the future? Meh... maybe they'll go back in. But I doubt. I don;t think I'll ever be able to see them as anything but just another blind and stupid corporation anymore.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Been away...
Had a family-related scare on 9/12 and have been out of town. There's some stuff I'd like to get into, though it will hardly be timely by the time I get around to posting it. I just figured I'd check, say that everything's OK for the time being, and that I'll probably be back to posting on Thursday and over the weekend, both here on IMHO and on Utopia as well.
Coming up...
- Netflix (BOO!)
- David Lewis (ROTF, LMAO!)
- Solyndra, Taxing the Rich and "Class Warfare"
Coming up...
- Netflix (BOO!)
- David Lewis (ROTF, LMAO!)
- Solyndra, Taxing the Rich and "Class Warfare"
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Good Speech
Heard the President's speech tonight, while working out at the gym.
Leaving out any of the accumulated baggage, and forgetting for the moment about the last two and half years? It was a good speech. A damned good speech. A GREAT speech, even. Diplomatic, yet pointed. Practical but passionate. Statesmanlike, but also partisan the best possible way: He called out Republicans mainly by reminding them of the truly great things that they once stood for. He made the case for eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the richest Americans, pointing out that it's not partisan, nor is it class warfare, but rather a case of simple math. He pointed out that the proposals in his Jobs Plan are (again) things that Republicans and Democrats alike believe in. And yet, this time his calls for bi-partisan action came off not as him being weak, but rather as him shaming Republicans, and managing to do so without sounding preachy! Tonight he had strength. Tonight, he had spirit! THIS was the man I voted for! (I don't know where he's been for th past two and ahlf years, but... I'll get to that.)
It came as no surprise that there were several moments where the Left Side of the chamber was brought to their feet. What DID surprise me were the numerous times that two or three on the Right side of the chamber had the courage to stand up as well. And one time (not including when he was finished (LOL)), he had the entire chamber on its feet.
Save for one man...
And that might have been the best part of the whole speech: Watching that great, bronzed cocksucker Speaker John Boehner twisting uncomfortably in his seat the entire time, looking like he had a bad case of hemorrhoids throughout the whole address, and KNOWING that Obama was winning with his audience...
...And I don't mean his audience in the chamber.
Remember that whole, stupid pissing match they got into over whether the speech was going to be last night or tonight? Well... Obama looked weak (again) and Bohener looked like a dick (again) over the whole stupid thing. But they way it worked out? Most anyone who would have thought it was to the Coppertone Man's credit that he was sitting on his ass all night, looking like a fool? WERE THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY OFF WATCHING FOOTBALL!!! The people most likely to have seen John Boehner looking like he was sitting in a chair that someone had peed in beforehand were the ones most likely to hate him for it!
So top marks...
...for the speech.
We'll see (and more likely, we won't) if this translates into action.
And once again, we are reminded of what ClassicLiberal so aptly refers to as "the tragedy of Obama."
Because, Mister Presdient, the time to put your boot-heel to the necks of the Conservative movement was just over two and a half years ago. The opportunity to suffocate the life out of the Right, turn this country around and start moving FOREWORD again was handed to you 32 months ago on a polished silver platter and you squandered it. And perhaps the greatest example of why he has failed, and why this too will also likely fail was offered by Orrin Hatch beforehand:
In other words:
...Oh wait, YES I HAVE!
And I don't think it's all about race. In fact, I don't think it's about race at all.
Their behavior over the past two years is because they recognized the threat to their party's future and to their entire philosophy that you and your popularity represented.
The tragedy here is that YOU never recognized the threat that THEY represented to you, to your presidency and to your country!
Still...
I won't have it be said that I don't give credit where I think it's due.
It was a good speech.
Leaving out any of the accumulated baggage, and forgetting for the moment about the last two and half years? It was a good speech. A damned good speech. A GREAT speech, even. Diplomatic, yet pointed. Practical but passionate. Statesmanlike, but also partisan the best possible way: He called out Republicans mainly by reminding them of the truly great things that they once stood for. He made the case for eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the richest Americans, pointing out that it's not partisan, nor is it class warfare, but rather a case of simple math. He pointed out that the proposals in his Jobs Plan are (again) things that Republicans and Democrats alike believe in. And yet, this time his calls for bi-partisan action came off not as him being weak, but rather as him shaming Republicans, and managing to do so without sounding preachy! Tonight he had strength. Tonight, he had spirit! THIS was the man I voted for! (I don't know where he's been for th past two and ahlf years, but... I'll get to that.)
It came as no surprise that there were several moments where the Left Side of the chamber was brought to their feet. What DID surprise me were the numerous times that two or three on the Right side of the chamber had the courage to stand up as well. And one time (not including when he was finished (LOL)), he had the entire chamber on its feet.
Save for one man...
And that might have been the best part of the whole speech: Watching that great, bronzed cocksucker Speaker John Boehner twisting uncomfortably in his seat the entire time, looking like he had a bad case of hemorrhoids throughout the whole address, and KNOWING that Obama was winning with his audience...
...And I don't mean his audience in the chamber.
Remember that whole, stupid pissing match they got into over whether the speech was going to be last night or tonight? Well... Obama looked weak (again) and Bohener looked like a dick (again) over the whole stupid thing. But they way it worked out? Most anyone who would have thought it was to the Coppertone Man's credit that he was sitting on his ass all night, looking like a fool? WERE THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY OFF WATCHING FOOTBALL!!! The people most likely to have seen John Boehner looking like he was sitting in a chair that someone had peed in beforehand were the ones most likely to hate him for it!
So top marks...
...for the speech.
We'll see (and more likely, we won't) if this translates into action.
And once again, we are reminded of what ClassicLiberal so aptly refers to as "the tragedy of Obama."
Because, Mister Presdient, the time to put your boot-heel to the necks of the Conservative movement was just over two and a half years ago. The opportunity to suffocate the life out of the Right, turn this country around and start moving FOREWORD again was handed to you 32 months ago on a polished silver platter and you squandered it. And perhaps the greatest example of why he has failed, and why this too will also likely fail was offered by Orrin Hatch beforehand:
“If (the payroll tax cut) is standing alone, I think that might have some success,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “If it's lumped in with a whole bunch of big spending programs that builds Washington at the expense of the rest of the economy he’s not going to have much support from me or any other Republican.”
In other words:
"We'll take whatever you're going to give us for free, but don't expect anything in return."And that's the rub isn't it? That has been the issue fro day number one - though I've never heard any Republican say it quite this plainly...
...Oh wait, YES I HAVE!
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”And AGAIN...
Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, October 25th, 2010
“Well that is true, [making Obama a one-term President is] my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country."
Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, July 10th, 2011Mister Obama, they will NOT stop playing politics, for the simple reason that they want you to fail more than they want the COUNTRY TO SUCCEED. You will never have their support. You will never see anything from these traitorous scumbags other than their best efforts to sabotage your Presdiency, and progressive politics by extension (even though you haven't actually ever USED any). They will never be honest. They will never do right. They will never stop trying to make you fail, and no sacrifice is too great for them!
And I don't think it's all about race. In fact, I don't think it's about race at all.
Their behavior over the past two years is because they recognized the threat to their party's future and to their entire philosophy that you and your popularity represented.
The tragedy here is that YOU never recognized the threat that THEY represented to you, to your presidency and to your country!
Still...
I won't have it be said that I don't give credit where I think it's due.
It was a good speech.
Monday, September 5, 2011
The Democrats could learn from this...
At some point in the 1984 campaign, Ronald W. Reagan was quoted as saying that he'd like to arm-wrestle Walter Mondale. IOW: He called out Mondale's manhood.
Mondale replied that "The American people would rather hear about arms control, than arm wrestling."
Good one, poindexter!
See... Most Democrats just can't talk trash!
Look at the 2004 campaign, with the Swift-Boat veterans spreading all kinds of slander and insult, and John Kerry did not once call them out on it! As close as that election was (the closest RE-election of all time!) if instead he had come out swinging? I truly believe he would have won. But they just don't get it! I believe it was that same year that Saxby Silver-Spoon Chambliss was talking the same smack about Max "I left three of my limbs in Vietnam" Cleland. But did Cleland get up and kick ass? (OK: remain seated and kick ass?) No more than Kerry did. And this was a guy who could have kicked the shit out of Saxby Fairyboy Chambliss from his fucking wheelchair!
And go figure that both men lost.
Because in America? We'd rather have someone who [looks] strong and is stupid than someone who appears weak, but is smart. I can't imagine what else might be behind the popularity of Governor Robert E. Perry and Congresswoman Loony Bin Bachman (who look to be next year's answer to 2008's McCain / Palin.)
But seriously... The Democrats just don't know how to talk smack! Obama especially!
"Yes, we can!" he said...
...and "Yes! Weak hand!" they realized!
So it is with that in mind that the following Cracked Article is recommended as required reading for all Democrats:
The 10 Greatest Uses of Trash Talk in the History of War
My personal favorite?
In the Third Sacred War, when Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great) sent the following warning to Sparta:
The Spartan's official reply was:
Who can blame Philip and Alexander for spending the rest of their lives fighting wars as far away from Sparta as possible?!
Mondale replied that "The American people would rather hear about arms control, than arm wrestling."
Good one, poindexter!
See... Most Democrats just can't talk trash!
Look at the 2004 campaign, with the Swift-Boat veterans spreading all kinds of slander and insult, and John Kerry did not once call them out on it! As close as that election was (the closest RE-election of all time!) if instead he had come out swinging? I truly believe he would have won. But they just don't get it! I believe it was that same year that Saxby Silver-Spoon Chambliss was talking the same smack about Max "I left three of my limbs in Vietnam" Cleland. But did Cleland get up and kick ass? (OK: remain seated and kick ass?) No more than Kerry did. And this was a guy who could have kicked the shit out of Saxby Fairyboy Chambliss from his fucking wheelchair!
And go figure that both men lost.
Because in America? We'd rather have someone who [looks] strong and is stupid than someone who appears weak, but is smart. I can't imagine what else might be behind the popularity of Governor Robert E. Perry and Congresswoman Loony Bin Bachman (who look to be next year's answer to 2008's McCain / Palin.)
But seriously... The Democrats just don't know how to talk smack! Obama especially!
"Yes, we can!" he said...
...and "Yes! Weak hand!" they realized!
So it is with that in mind that the following Cracked Article is recommended as required reading for all Democrats:
The 10 Greatest Uses of Trash Talk in the History of War
My personal favorite?
In the Third Sacred War, when Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great) sent the following warning to Sparta:
"You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army on your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people and raze your city."
The Spartan's official reply was:
"If."Now THAT'S bad-ass!
Who can blame Philip and Alexander for spending the rest of their lives fighting wars as far away from Sparta as possible?!
A little research goes a LOOONG way...
This goes for both Progressives and Regressives alike, the difference being that we're actually willing to DO a little research from time to time, rather than just blindly posting and linking to every email that hits our in-box. And, yes, I am aware that I have made some mistakes here as well. Again, the difference is that when someone points them out to me, I'm far more likely to say "Huh, yeah, good point!" or "Thanks for the tip" than I am to go off on on a tirade, asking why people are "defending the enemy" or some such thing. IOW: It's is important to me to get it RIGHT. First and foremost, I want my arguments to be based in fact more than I care about whether or not they're Liberal. So, seriously: If someone sees something here that's bullshit, by all means: CALL ME OUT ON IT! (You don't usually get that offer from most Right Wing Bloggers!)
So... What's this all about? Well... a couple weeks back I came across a blog called The Economic Collapse. And by what I can only describe as blind luck the first two articles I came across blamed [the economic mess du jour] largely on Republicans and the Democrats that went along with them. So I though 'whoa-hey! Another liberal blog!' And I was all set to put it up for a Gold Star. Yeah... Um... Good thing I dug a little deeper. LOL. The first tell-tale sign was all the ads for Silver, Gold and Platinum Coins and 'Emergency Food' across the top. That's... a little bit too Glenn Beck-ish for me. So I read further, and... Yeah... This one's a hall of SHAMER, big time.
Hoo-boy...
Article after article of intellectual dishonesty, writ large. And don't get me wrong... Some of these? DO manage to make some good points! But these are lost in a sea of blaming Liberals ("Socialists," actually) and distorting the claims just enough to take them beyond the realm of 'interesting examples' and right into the territory of the truly absurd. And there is one such post that I want to use to show you just how low-down and intellectually dishonest they are. This is from "Suffocated By Red Tape - 12 Ridiculous Regulations That Are Almost Too Bizarre To Believe." I'd like to take this on, point by point, to show how they operate and display exactly what the author is NOT telling you. Because... if you're making a "good point" there should be no reason to be intellectually dishonest about it! If you're RIGHT, you shouldn't have to LIE. Also, I'm going to *star* some of these. The ones that get *starred* I'll have a little more to say about at the end. And remember: These are all (supposedly) the fault of LIBERALS, those damned Socialists!
Also? (*)
Also? (*)
(That's a *star*, BTW, not an asshole! The asshole is they guy who wrote this drivel!)
But we're right back to classic intellectual dishonestly, writ large. A few points, from that very same story they linked, that were left out? (1) This this really all started in provisions under the 2008 GEORGE BUSH budget. (That damned liberal!) and (2) There's a floor that leaves out the smaller retailers. As usual, this is another classic case of them exaggerating the effects of something that BUSH did, and then blaming it on "liberals." And fine... maybe Obama contributed to it further. Fine. But again: Why can't we just be honest and tell the whole story if we're going to debate it?! WHY DO THEY HAVE TO LIE?!
Second, all kidding aside? Why do these people have a problem with their customer's being able to make an informed decision?! I mean... back in the disease-infested milk example, they though people could make informed decision on their own. So fine: I can choose to eat crap out of a vending machine. Or... maybe I won't... If I know how many empty calories are in that shit! This isn't about the overtime, or the regulations. This is about business doing less volume if people start making MORE INFORMED CHOICES. That is why this is a problem for the Right.
Sorry folks, between the overtime and cost avoidance by getting the obesity problem under control, I'm filing this under the "DAMNED GOOD IDEA" category.
And thirdly: Every single year? I seriously doubt that. The calorie count of the Snickers Bar has been a universal constant since 1947. (Yeah, I just made that up.) I don't think they'll ever offer that much variety.
He goes on to say that "no matter what changes are made a lot of companies will still not want to set up shop in the United States until something is done about all of these ridiculous regulations." Umm... My company does business in Europe, Japan, the Gulf Coast Countries (GCC) and China. And I can assure you that ALL of them have just as many regulations as we do and then some. (Socialist Europe? Communist China?) India's 10 times as bad as we! The only places with LESS regulations? Africa and South & Central America. IOW: 3rd world shit-holes where the people largely get screwed over by the utter LACK of regulations! And yeah, I'm generalizing, and there are lots of very nice places in those regions as well. But the overall standard of living is MUCH LOWER than it is in the U.S., Europe, Japan and even China and India. And - as I work in the field of automotive safety - I can tell you, as a matter of absolute, verifiable fact - that the cars sold in those markets are a LOT LESS safe that they are in the U.S. or Canada. They sell shit in Mexico that would fail FMVSS regulations big time. I know of cars there that are guaranteed to severely injure or kill you in the case of a crash.That's something else these John Stossel types will never tell you!
OK... so what's the deal with all the (*)'s?
Well... Licensing and fees and professional requirements and regulations are something that B-Schools call, "Barriers to entry." (MBA, University of Michigan, 2006, with Honors - if you're wondering.)
Now... are these Liberal? Well... the Right wants to tell you they are because most of them are revenue streams for Cities and States. Plus, supposedly, no Liberal ever saw a piece of Red Tape (or a tax) that they didn't like. And I suppose... from a certain point of view... in some instances, there might be some validity to that. (You know, in the binary world of the Right Wing Conservative.)
But ask yourself this: Why does a Liberal care about how many interior decorators there are in Texas? Why does a Liberal care about how many tour guides operate in Washington D.C.? Why does a Liberal care about how many sources there are for hand-made caskets?
Really? WE DON'T.
Liberals don't have a shit to give about where the Pumpkins and Christmas Trees in Lake Elmo, Minnesota come from.
Seriously.
These are nothing more than BARRIERS TO ENTRY. These are things that BIG BUSINESS sets up to deter potential new competitors from entering the market! $300 (or whatever the licensing fee is) is nothing to an established firm. But if it prevents a new firm from starting up? THAT could be worth big money in terms of decreased completion. (Less advertising needed, higher prices can be charged, etc...)
But... But... Isn't that PROTECTIONISM? And isn't protectionism a LIBERAL thing?
Yes, I suppose it could be called protectionism. But if you call it that, then you've already disproven that protectionism is something that's engaged in only by Liberals! And keeping smaller competitors out of a given market is night-and-day next to to trying to keep jobs from going to China. NAFTA? Not Liberal. (Global) Free Trade? Not Liberal! These are anti-protectionism measures that screw over American Workers and they were written by Republicans, backed by Big Business! Clinton may have signed them into law, but who ever accused Bill Clinton of being a Liberal?! (Other than the same idiots who call Obama one?!)
And remember the Right's own narrative: Liberals hate Big Corporations, right? We hate Big Business!
Then... Why is it our fault when Big Business pushes for licensing fees and regulations that keep smaller competitors out of the market?
Answer? IT ISN'T!
And if these fools would get their heads out of their asses for just two seconds and turn of Fox news, they might realize that there are plenty of Liberals who would be more than happy to GET RID of a lot of these regulations! (Save for those that protect consumers, but that still leaves a TON of common ground!) See.. By blaming LIBERALS, more and more Conservatives get elected. And (remember our narrative) those are the pro-Big Business types. And contrary to what this Right-Wing blogger is telling you, these "absurd regulations" are mostly things that deter competition for Big Business.
Now is that bullshit? Yes, it certainly IS.
But is it LIBERAL? Um... NO FUCKING WAY!!!
We want to STOP big business's influence on the Government!
No one wants to disentangle Corporatism and Corporate Interests from Government more than LIBERALS do! And you don't hear the big companies complaining about these things! It's always the LITTLE GUY! Well, you know how we always say that 98% of America is voting against their economic interests? Well, this is a perfect example of that! Big Business backs Republicans. Republicans talk a good game, but do NOTHING to eliminate the regulations, and the Little Guy gets screwed because he's so convinced that LIBERALS are behind all this! SINCE WHEN DID LIBERALS START RULING THE WORLD?! (Especially the parts of it called "LOUISIANA" and "TEXAS!") Blaming Liberals is just propaganda by those same Big Businesses trying to prevent the very people they're screwing over from ever electing the right people to fix the mess! As long as the little guy keeps thinking the Democrats are against him, he'll keep voting for the Party who's REALLY against him!
Some of the regulations actually make sense, and were merely misrepresented, as I pointed out. But the rest of them are barriers to entry, nothing more. They're things that mostly benefit Big Business. Again: To a huge company the cost is minuscule. But keeping out smaller, nimbler, cheaper competitors? THAT'S key to their very survival! Yet they try to blame these anti-competitions measures on the OPPOSITION of the very Party that Big Business generally backs! And to the extent that Democrats do this too? Shoot... That's just Democrats acting like Republicans! And we hate them just as much!
And don't let some Right Wing Liar (or Fool) try to tell you otherwise!
So... What's this all about? Well... a couple weeks back I came across a blog called The Economic Collapse. And by what I can only describe as blind luck the first two articles I came across blamed [the economic mess du jour] largely on Republicans and the Democrats that went along with them. So I though 'whoa-hey! Another liberal blog!' And I was all set to put it up for a Gold Star. Yeah... Um... Good thing I dug a little deeper. LOL. The first tell-tale sign was all the ads for Silver, Gold and Platinum Coins and 'Emergency Food' across the top. That's... a little bit too Glenn Beck-ish for me. So I read further, and... Yeah... This one's a hall of SHAMER, big time.
Hoo-boy...
Article after article of intellectual dishonesty, writ large. And don't get me wrong... Some of these? DO manage to make some good points! But these are lost in a sea of blaming Liberals ("Socialists," actually) and distorting the claims just enough to take them beyond the realm of 'interesting examples' and right into the territory of the truly absurd. And there is one such post that I want to use to show you just how low-down and intellectually dishonest they are. This is from "Suffocated By Red Tape - 12 Ridiculous Regulations That Are Almost Too Bizarre To Believe." I'd like to take this on, point by point, to show how they operate and display exactly what the author is NOT telling you. Because... if you're making a "good point" there should be no reason to be intellectually dishonest about it! If you're RIGHT, you shouldn't have to LIE. Also, I'm going to *star* some of these. The ones that get *starred* I'll have a little more to say about at the end. And remember: These are all (supposedly) the fault of LIBERALS, those damned Socialists!
#1 The state of Louisiana says that monks must be fully licensed as funeral directors and actually convert their monasteries into licensed funeral homes before they will be allowed to sell their handmade wooden caskets.(*) This is a prime example of a BARRIER TO ENTRY. I'll explain what that is at the bottom. Is it bullshit? Usually, yes. Is it LIBERAL? Oh, hell no! But, more on that farther down.
#2 The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.(*) This also falls under the 'barrier to entry' category, but there's some intellectually dishonesty thrown in for good measure. See... take a good look at the story he linked to. First of all, it's $50 per year or $300 for life. Second of all, it's not a tax on BLOGGERS, it's a licensing fee for BUSINESSES. Is it excessive, when applied to bloggers? Well... sure USUALLY. But how much money do Arianna Huffington or Matt Drudge make from their blogs? If you're GOOD AT IT, then it might not be so excessive. And? If you don't want to pay? Just don't sell ads. No big deal there - especially if those ads only net you $11 a year! In Google's AdSense's terms, it would take you just over NINE YEARS to get paid AT ALL at that rate! So why even bother? (Disclosure: I should make my first hundred, and finally get paid, after 2 years of blogging, in about a month or so.) Just take the ads down and your "Free Speech" is completely untouchable. (Remember: It's "free" speech, not "paid" speech!) And, OK, fine... Do I think it's a dumb law? Or one that needs to be altered or amended? YES. Yes, I do. But if you're going to argue that - and I think it SHOULD be argued - WHY do you have to be dishonest about it? The law is absurd enough on its own! If you have to distort the reality even more to make your point, MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT!
#3 In the state of Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch. In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.Nanny-state bullshit? Perhaps. (Although after recently going through crown-extension surgery, and getting three different holes drilled in the same tooth by a guy who I thought was being pretty chincy with the Novocaine? Man: BRUSH YOUR TEETH, KIDS! Because that SUX!) Here's the thing... If the STATE provides the toothpaste? And the kids (presumably) own toothbrushes? HOW, exactly, is this "suffocating" the day-care businesses? Seems to me that this is actually a GOOD program, that works JUST FINE, and it's the John Stossel Conservatives who are whining over nothing. And considering that Medicaid covers dental, it would seem this is a good cost-savings measure as well. But.. you know... never let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
#4 If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days.All I can say is, one: (*). And two: The sentence is absurd, but the motivation behind ALL of the (*)'s entries is hardly a LIBERAL one. (I'll get to that at the end.)
#5 A reader named Gene recently shared his regulatory horror story with us....I'm not going to dignify "Gene's story" with a response, other than to say that "anecdotal evidence sure is convincing, isn't it?" I can't verify ANY of these claims, nor do I know ANYTHING about "Gene" or his "Business." If there's any legitimacy to this, maybe they should have found an example from a verifiable source, no? Just sayin'.
Also? (*)
#6 Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk.Damn! I'm never even UP by 5 O'Clock in the morning! Although... I suppose that's what makes it a such a good time to have a raid! OK, putting aside that the link provided is to the "World Nut Daily," I was able find this story elsewhere, so we can assume it's legit. First of all: You can sell Raw Milk, if you slap a warning label on it. DID they? I don't know. It doesn't say. They say they don't sell to the public, but it's unclear if that's true or not. (And the fed's had to find out SOME HOW, right?) And while I'm all for letting people make their own choices - bad as those choices may be - I'm going to take on these "natural food" whack-jobs (many of whom are Liberal, yes, I know) right now and recommend that they look up a guy name Louis Pasteur, and learn a little bit more about what the world was like before he came along. Raw milk, unregulated, is dangerous. Period. And arguing otherwise is the closest thing Liberals have to dogma. (Actually, I'll come right out and say it: Vegan, Organic, Gluten-Free, All-Natural, etc...? Is nothing more than Un-Scientific Liberal dogma. And it's every bit as full-of-shit as Conservative Dogma is.) But whatever. Maybe their milk wasn't germ infested. OK, fine. But what about everyone else's? Folks, these regulations are in place for a GOOD REASON: Public Health. Do I have a problem with some aspects of the corporate dairy industry? You betcha: The use of Hormones, for example. But PASTEURIZATION is not one of my qualms. (And the "raw eggs" example is just stupid, because pretty much everyone COOKS their eggs before they eat them.) In any case, this is a perfect example of a regulation that a LIBERAL GROUP (crunchy vegan's, whole-food hippies) would be perfectly happy to strike down! (But which this liberal would disagree with them on.) And that shows two things: (1) "Liberals" are an intellectually and philosophically diverse bunch, unlike the single-minded Conservatives. And (2) You can therefore hardly blame Liberals, in general, for this regulation no matter how you feel about it! There's COMMON GROUND here between Libertarians and certain (somewhat extreme) Liberal Sub-Groups! (Although this is one time I'm thanking God that they haven't bothered to find it!)
Also? (*)
#7 In Lake Elmo, Minnesota farmers can be fined $1,000 and put in jail for 90 days for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees that are grown outside city limits.(*). Just... (*).
(That's a *star*, BTW, not an asshole! The asshole is they guy who wrote this drivel!)
#8 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.This the one that REALLY pissed me off. $500 fine, just for being a good guy, huh? No good deed goes unpunished, huh? Well, buried deep down in this more honest story about what happened is a little detail that the Right-wing blogger left out: Far from freeing the netted whale properly, he found that he was unable to do this and merely cut his lines, letting the whale swim away still tangled in the nets! Hmmm... It seems to me that if the guy couldn't do the job PROPERLY, maybe, just maybe, he should have, oh... I don't know... called state authorities and waited for them do it! Also not mentioned? The fact that the fine was reduced from $100,000 (holy crap!) down to $500. So, again, far from this being a case of the State Bureaucracy running amok, it is actually an example of the use of discretion to make sure the laws don't get applied inappropriately. Can we have a debate about the necessity of these laws? Sure we can. Can we have a debate about the appropriateness of the penalties? Absolutely. But WHY can't we at least have an intellectually honest one?!
#9 In the state of Texas, it doesn't matter how much formal interior design education you have - only individuals with government licenses may refer to themselves as "interior designers" or use the term "interior design" to describe their work.Another classic case of (*).
#10 Deeply hidden in the 2,409-page health reform bill passed by Congress was a new regulation that will require U.S. businesses to file millions more 1099s each year. In fact, it is estimated that the average small business will now have to file 200 additional 1099s every single year. Talk about a nightmare of red tape! But don't try to avoid this rule - it is being reported that the IRS has hired approximately 2,000 new auditors to audit as many of these 1099s as possible.Part of me would love to say, "See? The stimulus worked! Thousands of new jobs!" But, I'm afraid that some asshat from another other blog might come by and read what I have to say, and I'd hate for them to use that [throw-away joke] as an example of "how Liberal's think." (But watch someone do it anyway!) And another part of me would be perfectly have to concede this one single point and agree that it's bullshit. And yet another part of me wants to say "boo-frickin-hoo..." A little bit of paperwork, "oh my farquing guard!"
But we're right back to classic intellectual dishonestly, writ large. A few points, from that very same story they linked, that were left out? (1) This this really all started in provisions under the 2008 GEORGE BUSH budget. (That damned liberal!) and (2) There's a floor that leaves out the smaller retailers. As usual, this is another classic case of them exaggerating the effects of something that BUSH did, and then blaming it on "liberals." And fine... maybe Obama contributed to it further. Fine. But again: Why can't we just be honest and tell the whole story if we're going to debate it?! WHY DO THEY HAVE TO LIE?!
#11 The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin makes it incredibly difficult to go out of business. In order to close down a business. Milwaukee requires you to purchase an expensive license, you must submit a huge pile of paperwork to the city regarding the inventory you wish to sell off, and you must pay a fee based on the length of your "going out of business sale" plus a two dollar charge for every $1,000 worth of inventory that you are attempting to sell off.Finally a point I might concede. This one does seem a bit stupid. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find much else on it, so I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I am left wondering, however, how this can possible be enforced. My lease is up, I close my doors, I walk away. If that's really a crime? The yeah, I'll give them this one. But hitting 1 for 11 (.091) won't keep you a roster spot in any league that I'm aware of! (And tongue-in-cheek I might quip that this might keep some business from going under!) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
#12 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is projecting that the food service industry will have to spend an additional 14 million hours every single year just to comply with new federal regulations that mandate that all vending machine operators and chain restaurants must label all products that they sell with a calorie count in a location visible to the consumer.First, the joking: LOOK! The Stimulus is working! All that overtime! (And in all seriousness? This WOULD have that effect. And that's not necessarily a bad thing!)
Second, all kidding aside? Why do these people have a problem with their customer's being able to make an informed decision?! I mean... back in the disease-infested milk example, they though people could make informed decision on their own. So fine: I can choose to eat crap out of a vending machine. Or... maybe I won't... If I know how many empty calories are in that shit! This isn't about the overtime, or the regulations. This is about business doing less volume if people start making MORE INFORMED CHOICES. That is why this is a problem for the Right.
Sorry folks, between the overtime and cost avoidance by getting the obesity problem under control, I'm filing this under the "DAMNED GOOD IDEA" category.
And thirdly: Every single year? I seriously doubt that. The calorie count of the Snickers Bar has been a universal constant since 1947. (Yeah, I just made that up.) I don't think they'll ever offer that much variety.
He goes on to say that "no matter what changes are made a lot of companies will still not want to set up shop in the United States until something is done about all of these ridiculous regulations." Umm... My company does business in Europe, Japan, the Gulf Coast Countries (GCC) and China. And I can assure you that ALL of them have just as many regulations as we do and then some. (Socialist Europe? Communist China?) India's 10 times as bad as we! The only places with LESS regulations? Africa and South & Central America. IOW: 3rd world shit-holes where the people largely get screwed over by the utter LACK of regulations! And yeah, I'm generalizing, and there are lots of very nice places in those regions as well. But the overall standard of living is MUCH LOWER than it is in the U.S., Europe, Japan and even China and India. And - as I work in the field of automotive safety - I can tell you, as a matter of absolute, verifiable fact - that the cars sold in those markets are a LOT LESS safe that they are in the U.S. or Canada. They sell shit in Mexico that would fail FMVSS regulations big time. I know of cars there that are guaranteed to severely injure or kill you in the case of a crash.That's something else these John Stossel types will never tell you!
OK... so what's the deal with all the (*)'s?
Well... Licensing and fees and professional requirements and regulations are something that B-Schools call, "Barriers to entry." (MBA, University of Michigan, 2006, with Honors - if you're wondering.)
Now... are these Liberal? Well... the Right wants to tell you they are because most of them are revenue streams for Cities and States. Plus, supposedly, no Liberal ever saw a piece of Red Tape (or a tax) that they didn't like. And I suppose... from a certain point of view... in some instances, there might be some validity to that. (You know, in the binary world of the Right Wing Conservative.)
But ask yourself this: Why does a Liberal care about how many interior decorators there are in Texas? Why does a Liberal care about how many tour guides operate in Washington D.C.? Why does a Liberal care about how many sources there are for hand-made caskets?
Really? WE DON'T.
Liberals don't have a shit to give about where the Pumpkins and Christmas Trees in Lake Elmo, Minnesota come from.
Seriously.
These are nothing more than BARRIERS TO ENTRY. These are things that BIG BUSINESS sets up to deter potential new competitors from entering the market! $300 (or whatever the licensing fee is) is nothing to an established firm. But if it prevents a new firm from starting up? THAT could be worth big money in terms of decreased completion. (Less advertising needed, higher prices can be charged, etc...)
But... But... Isn't that PROTECTIONISM? And isn't protectionism a LIBERAL thing?
Yes, I suppose it could be called protectionism. But if you call it that, then you've already disproven that protectionism is something that's engaged in only by Liberals! And keeping smaller competitors out of a given market is night-and-day next to to trying to keep jobs from going to China. NAFTA? Not Liberal. (Global) Free Trade? Not Liberal! These are anti-protectionism measures that screw over American Workers and they were written by Republicans, backed by Big Business! Clinton may have signed them into law, but who ever accused Bill Clinton of being a Liberal?! (Other than the same idiots who call Obama one?!)
And remember the Right's own narrative: Liberals hate Big Corporations, right? We hate Big Business!
Then... Why is it our fault when Big Business pushes for licensing fees and regulations that keep smaller competitors out of the market?
Answer? IT ISN'T!
And if these fools would get their heads out of their asses for just two seconds and turn of Fox news, they might realize that there are plenty of Liberals who would be more than happy to GET RID of a lot of these regulations! (Save for those that protect consumers, but that still leaves a TON of common ground!) See.. By blaming LIBERALS, more and more Conservatives get elected. And (remember our narrative) those are the pro-Big Business types. And contrary to what this Right-Wing blogger is telling you, these "absurd regulations" are mostly things that deter competition for Big Business.
Now is that bullshit? Yes, it certainly IS.
But is it LIBERAL? Um... NO FUCKING WAY!!!
We want to STOP big business's influence on the Government!
No one wants to disentangle Corporatism and Corporate Interests from Government more than LIBERALS do! And you don't hear the big companies complaining about these things! It's always the LITTLE GUY! Well, you know how we always say that 98% of America is voting against their economic interests? Well, this is a perfect example of that! Big Business backs Republicans. Republicans talk a good game, but do NOTHING to eliminate the regulations, and the Little Guy gets screwed because he's so convinced that LIBERALS are behind all this! SINCE WHEN DID LIBERALS START RULING THE WORLD?! (Especially the parts of it called "LOUISIANA" and "TEXAS!") Blaming Liberals is just propaganda by those same Big Businesses trying to prevent the very people they're screwing over from ever electing the right people to fix the mess! As long as the little guy keeps thinking the Democrats are against him, he'll keep voting for the Party who's REALLY against him!
Some of the regulations actually make sense, and were merely misrepresented, as I pointed out. But the rest of them are barriers to entry, nothing more. They're things that mostly benefit Big Business. Again: To a huge company the cost is minuscule. But keeping out smaller, nimbler, cheaper competitors? THAT'S key to their very survival! Yet they try to blame these anti-competitions measures on the OPPOSITION of the very Party that Big Business generally backs! And to the extent that Democrats do this too? Shoot... That's just Democrats acting like Republicans! And we hate them just as much!
And don't let some Right Wing Liar (or Fool) try to tell you otherwise!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Is that really Dick Cheney?
Interesting headline and photo on MMFA today:
Is THAT really Dick Cheney?
THIS GUY?
When the hell did he start looking like Max Von Sydow?!
If he wasn't such a scumbag, whose plane ticket to The Hague I'd glady spring for out of pocket, I'd almost be concerned about him!
WTF???
OTOH, since it is Dick Cheney we're talking about, all i can say is that I hope it's inoperable, and "fuck 'im."
Is THAT really Dick Cheney?
THIS GUY?
When the hell did he start looking like Max Von Sydow?!
If he wasn't such a scumbag, whose plane ticket to The Hague I'd glady spring for out of pocket, I'd almost be concerned about him!
WTF???
OTOH, since it is Dick Cheney we're talking about, all i can say is that I hope it's inoperable, and "fuck 'im."
Gold Star Awards. August, 2011
MADE IT! lol
This was a weird month. I started it with only a handful of reserve sites left for the HoF - nothing I was really excited about, just some sites I keep in my back pocket in case I run out of ideas. Well... I ran out of ideas! Then about six or seven different sites, blogs, web comics, etc... All came to my attention at once and I'm set with enough Golds and Silvers to carry me though the end of the year! The only question was who to put into which month. LOL. That's of particular importance this month, since the year is 1966 and the lone inductee is...
The Ted Williams GOLD STAR #38: Potholer54
I don't know how I managed to have missed this channel for so long. I got linked to it recently via a comment on MMFA, and the minute I started watching I was HOOKED. Complex Science about Climate Change, the Creation of the Earth and the Universe, the beginning of life on this planet, Human Evolution, and other things, all boiled down to perfectly digestible short documentaries that even the most brain-dead Right Winger can understand. And beyond the fact that they are FASCINATING in and of themselves, they represent a solid argument that no Right-Wing True-Believer can deny or debunk, especially since he often specifically addresses the very talking points and urban myths that those on the Right try to use to discredit the Science they can't accept. Very well done, and a FANTASTIC resource for arguing with Conservatives. I HIGHLY recommend subscribing.
Also... I want to thank everyone who's read and commented on Utopia. If you haven't checked it out yet, please take a look. I'd love to hear what you have to say, even if it's only to tell me that it's an incoherent mess! But please feel free to leave comments there, here or email me at niceguy9418@usa.com. (That goes for anything, anytime, BTW, not just that!) I'm not always on top of every comment and email, but I do try to reply as soon and as often as possible. And thanks again to ALL of you, for all of your participation in this conversation over the past two years. (It will be two years, officially, in just one more week - 9/7/11.)
This was a weird month. I started it with only a handful of reserve sites left for the HoF - nothing I was really excited about, just some sites I keep in my back pocket in case I run out of ideas. Well... I ran out of ideas! Then about six or seven different sites, blogs, web comics, etc... All came to my attention at once and I'm set with enough Golds and Silvers to carry me though the end of the year! The only question was who to put into which month. LOL. That's of particular importance this month, since the year is 1966 and the lone inductee is...
The Ted Williams GOLD STAR #38: Potholer54
I don't know how I managed to have missed this channel for so long. I got linked to it recently via a comment on MMFA, and the minute I started watching I was HOOKED. Complex Science about Climate Change, the Creation of the Earth and the Universe, the beginning of life on this planet, Human Evolution, and other things, all boiled down to perfectly digestible short documentaries that even the most brain-dead Right Winger can understand. And beyond the fact that they are FASCINATING in and of themselves, they represent a solid argument that no Right-Wing True-Believer can deny or debunk, especially since he often specifically addresses the very talking points and urban myths that those on the Right try to use to discredit the Science they can't accept. Very well done, and a FANTASTIC resource for arguing with Conservatives. I HIGHLY recommend subscribing.
Also... I want to thank everyone who's read and commented on Utopia. If you haven't checked it out yet, please take a look. I'd love to hear what you have to say, even if it's only to tell me that it's an incoherent mess! But please feel free to leave comments there, here or email me at niceguy9418@usa.com. (That goes for anything, anytime, BTW, not just that!) I'm not always on top of every comment and email, but I do try to reply as soon and as often as possible. And thanks again to ALL of you, for all of your participation in this conversation over the past two years. (It will be two years, officially, in just one more week - 9/7/11.)
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Worst. Movie. Ever.
OK, not really but it was pretty bad.
I love a good Samurai movie. Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress, Rashomon, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Throne of Blood and Kobayashi's Samurai Rebellion and Hara Kiri are all among my favorite movies of all time. (I wasn't as high on Kwaidan, but it's still really good.) And I hold Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura and Tatsuya Nakadai in as high esteem as I do any western actors. The classic samurai flics are truly great works of art, and it's a shame that so many Westerners miss out on them.
So when I read about Kihachi Okamoto's Sword of Doom, staring both Mifune and Nakadai, on Netflix, there was no way I wasn't going to check it out.
*ugh*
Now... don't get me wrong: There's a lot of good stuff going on for the first 95% of the movie. The script is fine, the character's are interesting, the acting's top notch and the cinematography is great. It's the final scene and the "ending" (notice the quotes?) that turned it all into a collosal waste of time.
The plot (very, very short version): Nakadai plays a sociopathic samurai who's killed every man he's ever fought. He kills a rival in what supposed to be merely a match, but which turned into a duel. He then takes the man's wife, first in a rape scene which pans to the side and uses the most balant (bordering on the absurdly obnoxious) symbolism for sex (forced or otherwise) that I've ever seen, and then as his own wife. Fast forward, he goes on to do a lot of bad stuff (includeing eventually killing this same woman, and abandoning their child) and we are treated to scenes of his old rival's younger brother training under an Iaido Sensei, played by Mifune. (And it's implied, more than once, that we'll be treated to a climactic showdown between the two.)
But instead, the evil Samurai's gang checks into a hotel, has a bit of a party after which Nakadai's character goes crazy and starts killing them. When's he's about 3/4 of the way done (I lost count, the scene drags on for liek seems like forever, but he kills like 30-some guys) there are a few more left, he's mostly dead (cut several times, bleeding, staggering) and he looks into the camera, looking all angry and crazy... AND THEN IT ENDS!
What the fuck?!
Does he kill them? Do they finally take him down? WHO FUCKING KNOWS?!
But more to the point, what the fuck was with the training montage scenes with rival's brother and Mifune? There is absolutely no reason to even HAVE them, OR Mifune's charecter AT ALL, if instead of a showdown, he's just going to go crazy and kill HIS OWN MEN, and then on top of that the movie ends before he even finishes the job, or gets killed himself!!!
Think about Rocky IV, for a moment... terrible movie, I know, but bear with me. How much worse would it have been if, just before the fight between Balboa and Drago, the Russian boxer goes crazy in his training camp, kills his trainers, kills half of the cops and military folks that come in to get him, and just as some more come in, and he's straining to escape his restraints... THE MOVIE JUST ENDS?!
(Now that I think about it, that might have actually made Rocky IV a BETTER movie! LMAO! But you would still be left wondering what was up with all the training montages if the two were never going to fight!)
So Sword of Doom SUCKS.
Watch ANYTHING by Kurosawa or Kobayashi before seeing this piece of crap.
(cue ClassicLiberal to come in and tell me why I'm wrong. LOL)
I love a good Samurai movie. Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress, Rashomon, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Throne of Blood and Kobayashi's Samurai Rebellion and Hara Kiri are all among my favorite movies of all time. (I wasn't as high on Kwaidan, but it's still really good.) And I hold Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura and Tatsuya Nakadai in as high esteem as I do any western actors. The classic samurai flics are truly great works of art, and it's a shame that so many Westerners miss out on them.
So when I read about Kihachi Okamoto's Sword of Doom, staring both Mifune and Nakadai, on Netflix, there was no way I wasn't going to check it out.
*ugh*
Now... don't get me wrong: There's a lot of good stuff going on for the first 95% of the movie. The script is fine, the character's are interesting, the acting's top notch and the cinematography is great. It's the final scene and the "ending" (notice the quotes?) that turned it all into a collosal waste of time.
The plot (very, very short version): Nakadai plays a sociopathic samurai who's killed every man he's ever fought. He kills a rival in what supposed to be merely a match, but which turned into a duel. He then takes the man's wife, first in a rape scene which pans to the side and uses the most balant (bordering on the absurdly obnoxious) symbolism for sex (forced or otherwise) that I've ever seen, and then as his own wife. Fast forward, he goes on to do a lot of bad stuff (includeing eventually killing this same woman, and abandoning their child) and we are treated to scenes of his old rival's younger brother training under an Iaido Sensei, played by Mifune. (And it's implied, more than once, that we'll be treated to a climactic showdown between the two.)
But instead, the evil Samurai's gang checks into a hotel, has a bit of a party after which Nakadai's character goes crazy and starts killing them. When's he's about 3/4 of the way done (I lost count, the scene drags on for liek seems like forever, but he kills like 30-some guys) there are a few more left, he's mostly dead (cut several times, bleeding, staggering) and he looks into the camera, looking all angry and crazy... AND THEN IT ENDS!
What the fuck?!
Does he kill them? Do they finally take him down? WHO FUCKING KNOWS?!
But more to the point, what the fuck was with the training montage scenes with rival's brother and Mifune? There is absolutely no reason to even HAVE them, OR Mifune's charecter AT ALL, if instead of a showdown, he's just going to go crazy and kill HIS OWN MEN, and then on top of that the movie ends before he even finishes the job, or gets killed himself!!!
Think about Rocky IV, for a moment... terrible movie, I know, but bear with me. How much worse would it have been if, just before the fight between Balboa and Drago, the Russian boxer goes crazy in his training camp, kills his trainers, kills half of the cops and military folks that come in to get him, and just as some more come in, and he's straining to escape his restraints... THE MOVIE JUST ENDS?!
(Now that I think about it, that might have actually made Rocky IV a BETTER movie! LMAO! But you would still be left wondering what was up with all the training montages if the two were never going to fight!)
So Sword of Doom SUCKS.
Watch ANYTHING by Kurosawa or Kobayashi before seeing this piece of crap.
(cue ClassicLiberal to come in and tell me why I'm wrong. LOL)
Gotta love that free-market health care!
I'm not going to go into the details of why for-profit, free-market health DOES. NOT. WORK.
(And is just ill concieved and improperly motivated, right for the start.) We all know these already.
But here's another recent example of the failure of market forces to provide adequate health care.
(And is just ill concieved and improperly motivated, right for the start.) We all know these already.
But here's another recent example of the failure of market forces to provide adequate health care.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
I Don't Believe in Miracles
Nobel Laureate and one of a very few people who “get it” (or tell the truth) anymore, Paul Krugman, wrote an excellent piece the other day in the NYT debunking the myth of the “Texas Miracle” that has supposedly happened under Governor Rick / General Robert E. Perry. It’s great piece and although it doesn’t go far enough (to use one of his own famous critiques) I recommend that everyone read it, just I as Recommend reading pretty much ANYTHNG this man writes. (Barry? Are you listening?)
And last night the Gym some ass-hat two machines down from me not only had Fox News On, but had it turned UP. (Usually the TV's are muted and just show subtitles.) So I got to listen to a marvelously fact-free response from the four members of the Fox Panel who HAVE NOT won Nobel Prizes in Economics. Devoid of rational response, or evidence to support their so called “miracle,” they report to calling [Krugman's analysis] the “Alien Invasion” theory suggesting either that Krugman credits illegal immigration ALONE for ALL of Texas’ growth, or that he was suggesting that little green men, perhaps from Mars, were somehow to thank. And of course, the average Fox viewer is more likely to hear that explanation and think, “Wow, that Krugman sure is a nut!” rather than, “Wow, these Fox peoples sure are stupid!” Because remember:
A LIBERAL WILL TELL YOU WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS WRONG.
A CONSERVATIVE WILL TELL YOU WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS LIBERAL.
(As an aside, between how pissed off I was getting listening to Fox and the Trainer playing the Greatest Hits of the Rocky movies with one his clients, I did have a really good workout!)
(Another aside - I couldn't find a transcript of the Fox segment, but while looking for one, I found almost the next best thing: This Idiot's Blog. Check it out, although preferably not right after you've eaten! We got a future Hall of Shamer here, for sure.I'm curious to see if he has the balls to let my comments post(he did! good on him!), and the chops to respond to them. Or come here! If he does, who knows? It might get interesting.)
Well, anyway, I’m all for debunking “Miracles” as anyone who understands my Humanist and Skeptical Philosophy already knows. And I heard an EXCELLENT story on NPR this morning that started where Krugman left off and ran with it, showing even more reasons why the “Texas Miracle” is unlikely to apply to the broader economy. You can find a transcript and audio HERE, but here are some of the highlights:
1) Population Growth: Texas has had an influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, yes, but also many people moving there from other States. And, as Mister Krugman pointed out, it’s not like EVERY STATE’S population can grow based on people moving there from OTHER STATES. So, either it IS (or will have to be) an actual “Alien Invasion,” as Fox sarcastically put it, or it won’t work. Nice work there, Fox.
2) Public Sector growth has been every bit as robust as Private Sector growth. Liberals would be neither surprised nor bothered by this, but remember: He’s promising small Government. Apparently what’s been good for Texas will NOT in fact be good for the rest of the Country – at least according to him and his Tea-Backers.
3) The overwhelming majority of the private sector jobs have paid minimum-wage or less. Governor Perry, please, despite what your Tea-Backer and Supply-Side buddies will tell you, we don’t just want jobs. We want GOOD PAYING JOBS. Filling the economy with part-time, minimum wage jobs (or worse) is NOT what we’re looking for!
4) Despite all that Public Sector Growth – that the Right isn’t even prescribing? Texas ranks 49th in per pupil public school spending, and 50th – tied with Mississ-fucking-ssippi (or as my father-in-law calls it: The states that keep West Virginia from being LAST in anything) in the percentage of adults that go without health insurance.
5) Texas residence still go without many of the services that residents of every other state enjoy. Remember folks, because this is his recipe for success: Sub-Minimum Wage Jobs, and no Public Services. THAT’s the Texas “Miracle.”
6) Perry's “Enterprise Fund,” which gives taxpayer money to companies to come to, or expand in, Texas. *ugh* OK, putting aside that this is little more than Rick Perry giving tax-payer money to the company’s that back his campaign (alone enough to warrant his removal from office) this might sound a bit familiar. In one of the rare instance in which I agree with the tea-baggers, another word for this is… duh-dah-daaaaaah: STIMULUS. (You know: That thing they want to GET RID OF so we can have MORE JOBS?) (Idiots.) And in one of those rare instances that I agree with Rick Perry, depending on how this is administered this can be a good thing. Of course, I’d prefer public works projects to strait corporate giveaways, but, in a rare instance where Paul Krugman and Rick Perry would agree, the economic effect is largely the same: IT CREATES JOBS. But, of course, this will likely be off the table when it comes to the rest of the country. The Tea Party Republican Retards have no intention of spending any money to fix anything. (At least, not while Obama's in office.)
And finally, the one that PISSES ME OFF THE MOST…
7) What kind of companies thrive in Texas? What are the biggest employers there, the ones driving most of that jobs growth? Well…Enron, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Shell Oil, Texaco… You see the pattern yet? Mostly Oil Companies and other Energy Companies. And those guys have been doing great while the rest of the country’s economy remains in the shitter. Why? BOWEL-BASHINGLY HIGH GAS PRICES, THAT’S HOW!!!! These companies have made it their business model to siphon off as much of the rest of country's growth as possible! Well… OK… I’ll say potential growth, because with these greedy little fuckwads operating the way they do, they rest of the country will basically NEVER GROW AGAIN. Does that sound alarmist? Think about it. Since ~2005 or thereabouts (I've noticed it pretty clearly since the days after Hurricane Katrina) the pattern has gone in lockstep perfection:
1: Gas prices go up =>the economy slows.
2: Slow economy => no jobs => less demand => gas prices drop.
3: Low gas prices mean people have more money, as they are no longer being strangled by the oil companies. (Thank you, Mister Keyenes!)
4: More money => more demand => economy starts to improve.
5: Economy improves, demand goes up => GAS PRICES GO UP.
6: GOTO 1
And it doesn’t make a difference whether the oil is foreign or not. (Shell is a Dutch company. They still employ a lot of Texan-Americans.) The problem is that oil and gas (energy) prices will ALWAYS act as drag on the economy. They will ALWAYS be a negatively correlated indicator. Until we break their stranglehold we will not be able to escape this pattern. It’s like a tax on the rest of the economy, but one who’s rate actually goes up to the point that it kills growth as soon as there IS any. And nowhere has this kick-in-the-balls been more evident than in my home state of Michigan. High gas prices killed the SUV. That’s great for the environment, don’t get me wrong. It needed to happen, and it was inevitable that big-Auto would need to transition off of them. But the gas prices have gone back down since then! They slowed the economy and were really what kicked off the mortgage crisis. (Not the kindling, of course, just the spark.) And the two brought the Big Three automakers to the brink of bankruptcy. And we haven’t had a robust recovery – because the Republicans and big oil won’t LTE US!
Nice going.
Oh yeah… and as for the whole Low-Tax, low Regulation business environment?
8) Texas job growth has not kept pace with its population growth: They have higher unemployment that the high-tax, highly regulated, robust public service providing states of New York and Massachusetts. (You remember Massachusetts, right? The state with near-universal health care coverage, compared to Texas’ rank of dead last?)
So THAT’S his recipe folks:
• Shitty, Low paying jobs
• No public services
• Little to no health insurance
• Underfunded schools
• High gas prices
You know what? If THAT shit works? I just might start believing in “miracles!”
And last night the Gym some ass-hat two machines down from me not only had Fox News On, but had it turned UP. (Usually the TV's are muted and just show subtitles.) So I got to listen to a marvelously fact-free response from the four members of the Fox Panel who HAVE NOT won Nobel Prizes in Economics. Devoid of rational response, or evidence to support their so called “miracle,” they report to calling [Krugman's analysis] the “Alien Invasion” theory suggesting either that Krugman credits illegal immigration ALONE for ALL of Texas’ growth, or that he was suggesting that little green men, perhaps from Mars, were somehow to thank. And of course, the average Fox viewer is more likely to hear that explanation and think, “Wow, that Krugman sure is a nut!” rather than, “Wow, these Fox peoples sure are stupid!” Because remember:
A LIBERAL WILL TELL YOU WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS WRONG.
A CONSERVATIVE WILL TELL YOU WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS LIBERAL.
(As an aside, between how pissed off I was getting listening to Fox and the Trainer playing the Greatest Hits of the Rocky movies with one his clients, I did have a really good workout!)
(Another aside - I couldn't find a transcript of the Fox segment, but while looking for one, I found almost the next best thing: This Idiot's Blog. Check it out, although preferably not right after you've eaten! We got a future Hall of Shamer here, for sure.
Well, anyway, I’m all for debunking “Miracles” as anyone who understands my Humanist and Skeptical Philosophy already knows. And I heard an EXCELLENT story on NPR this morning that started where Krugman left off and ran with it, showing even more reasons why the “Texas Miracle” is unlikely to apply to the broader economy. You can find a transcript and audio HERE, but here are some of the highlights:
1) Population Growth: Texas has had an influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, yes, but also many people moving there from other States. And, as Mister Krugman pointed out, it’s not like EVERY STATE’S population can grow based on people moving there from OTHER STATES. So, either it IS (or will have to be) an actual “Alien Invasion,” as Fox sarcastically put it, or it won’t work. Nice work there, Fox.
2) Public Sector growth has been every bit as robust as Private Sector growth. Liberals would be neither surprised nor bothered by this, but remember: He’s promising small Government. Apparently what’s been good for Texas will NOT in fact be good for the rest of the Country – at least according to him and his Tea-Backers.
3) The overwhelming majority of the private sector jobs have paid minimum-wage or less. Governor Perry, please, despite what your Tea-Backer and Supply-Side buddies will tell you, we don’t just want jobs. We want GOOD PAYING JOBS. Filling the economy with part-time, minimum wage jobs (or worse) is NOT what we’re looking for!
4) Despite all that Public Sector Growth – that the Right isn’t even prescribing? Texas ranks 49th in per pupil public school spending, and 50th – tied with Mississ-fucking-ssippi (or as my father-in-law calls it: The states that keep West Virginia from being LAST in anything) in the percentage of adults that go without health insurance.
5) Texas residence still go without many of the services that residents of every other state enjoy. Remember folks, because this is his recipe for success: Sub-Minimum Wage Jobs, and no Public Services. THAT’s the Texas “Miracle.”
6) Perry's “Enterprise Fund,” which gives taxpayer money to companies to come to, or expand in, Texas. *ugh* OK, putting aside that this is little more than Rick Perry giving tax-payer money to the company’s that back his campaign (alone enough to warrant his removal from office) this might sound a bit familiar. In one of the rare instance in which I agree with the tea-baggers, another word for this is… duh-dah-daaaaaah: STIMULUS. (You know: That thing they want to GET RID OF so we can have MORE JOBS?) (Idiots.) And in one of those rare instances that I agree with Rick Perry, depending on how this is administered this can be a good thing. Of course, I’d prefer public works projects to strait corporate giveaways, but, in a rare instance where Paul Krugman and Rick Perry would agree, the economic effect is largely the same: IT CREATES JOBS. But, of course, this will likely be off the table when it comes to the rest of the country. The Tea Party Republican Retards have no intention of spending any money to fix anything. (At least, not while Obama's in office.)
And finally, the one that PISSES ME OFF THE MOST…
7) What kind of companies thrive in Texas? What are the biggest employers there, the ones driving most of that jobs growth? Well…
1: Gas prices go up =>the economy slows.
2: Slow economy => no jobs => less demand => gas prices drop.
3: Low gas prices mean people have more money, as they are no longer being strangled by the oil companies. (Thank you, Mister Keyenes!)
4: More money => more demand => economy starts to improve.
5: Economy improves, demand goes up => GAS PRICES GO UP.
6: GOTO 1
And it doesn’t make a difference whether the oil is foreign or not. (Shell is a Dutch company. They still employ a lot of Texan-Americans.) The problem is that oil and gas (energy) prices will ALWAYS act as drag on the economy. They will ALWAYS be a negatively correlated indicator. Until we break their stranglehold we will not be able to escape this pattern. It’s like a tax on the rest of the economy, but one who’s rate actually goes up to the point that it kills growth as soon as there IS any. And nowhere has this kick-in-the-balls been more evident than in my home state of Michigan. High gas prices killed the SUV. That’s great for the environment, don’t get me wrong. It needed to happen, and it was inevitable that big-Auto would need to transition off of them. But the gas prices have gone back down since then! They slowed the economy and were really what kicked off the mortgage crisis. (Not the kindling, of course, just the spark.) And the two brought the Big Three automakers to the brink of bankruptcy. And we haven’t had a robust recovery – because the Republicans and big oil won’t LTE US!
Nice going.
Oh yeah… and as for the whole Low-Tax, low Regulation business environment?
8) Texas job growth has not kept pace with its population growth: They have higher unemployment that the high-tax, highly regulated, robust public service providing states of New York and Massachusetts. (You remember Massachusetts, right? The state with near-universal health care coverage, compared to Texas’ rank of dead last?)
So THAT’S his recipe folks:
• Shitty, Low paying jobs
• No public services
• Little to no health insurance
• Underfunded schools
• High gas prices
You know what? If THAT shit works? I just might start believing in “miracles!”
Monday, August 15, 2011
Check it out...
So... I hear that despite the voice of the people in Iowa, the Ayatollah Bin Bachmann is apparently not a factor in the Race for the GOP Nomination. It looks like it's Perry vs. Romney. Actually, it's not surprising that the GOP would't blatantloy discout the will of the people, nor that they would marginalize one of there, given that she is of the fairer sex.
Anyway there was an interesting picture of Rick and Mitt there next to link on homepage that went to the article and it got me thinking... I don't think The Separatist from Texas is any more electable than Loony Bin Bachman. He might seem that way to the Right, given that Bachmann's an idiot and all. (Where do the Right find these bimbos, anyway? Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann... I swear if my entire sample size of women came for those on the Right, I probably think all women were pretty fucking stupid as well!) But anyway... HERE's why I don't think General Robert E. Perry can win:
(And you're welcome to copy the picture but it's MINE, so make sure to let 'em know where you found it!)
OK, so the last one isn't really relevant. (Well, it is to OBAMA, but not to Perry.) Anyway, strang how easy it was to connect one ignorant Texes shitheel to another. Thought I'd share.
Cheers!
-------------------------------
NOTE (added later, ~11:PM): So I'm checking back in and the ad-bot is showing ads for Rick Perry. *head-slap*
Anyway there was an interesting picture of Rick and Mitt there next to link on homepage that went to the article and it got me thinking... I don't think The Separatist from Texas is any more electable than Loony Bin Bachman. He might seem that way to the Right, given that Bachmann's an idiot and all. (Where do the Right find these bimbos, anyway? Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann... I swear if my entire sample size of women came for those on the Right, I probably think all women were pretty fucking stupid as well!) But anyway... HERE's why I don't think General Robert E. Perry can win:
(And you're welcome to copy the picture but it's MINE, so make sure to let 'em know where you found it!)
OK, so the last one isn't really relevant. (Well, it is to OBAMA, but not to Perry.) Anyway, strang how easy it was to connect one ignorant Texes shitheel to another. Thought I'd share.
Cheers!
-------------------------------
NOTE (added later, ~11:PM): So I'm checking back in and the ad-bot is showing ads for Rick Perry. *head-slap*
Sunday, August 14, 2011
A GREAT Article
THIS is a GREAT article.
And the best part of it is the last part, so if you don't want to read the whole thing, skip to page 2 and scoll down to:
"How Will I Know When I've Become an Adult?"
It's a great question, and I think I agree with him 100%, both in theory and from looking at my own life when he boils it down to:
And it is with that firmly in mind that I would like to tell all Republicans to GROW THE FUCK UP!!!
And the best part of it is the last part, so if you don't want to read the whole thing, skip to page 2 and scoll down to:
"How Will I Know When I've Become an Adult?"
It's a great question, and I think I agree with him 100%, both in theory and from looking at my own life when he boils it down to:
You know you're an adult, not just when you're able to put the needs of others above your own, but when you're able to do it without giving a single thought to what they "owe" you in return. You realize that, at some point you weren't even aware of, you became the tap instead of the bucket. And then you look back and hate your younger self for living under the delusion that somehow a world full of buckets could function.
And it is with that firmly in mind that I would like to tell all Republicans to GROW THE FUCK UP!!!
Friday, August 12, 2011
Do the Right’s Thing
A couple posts ago, I mentioned how I felt that the best parallel to what President Obama has done in the past two years with regards to his negotiations on economic policy, health care and other issues was Henry Clay, brokering compromises with the Slave States to preserve the Nation at the expense of preserving a great evil. And, of course, as history went on to show, this is impossible. It’s a contradiction. And the ability to compromise is only to your credit if your opposite’s position has some merit and both sides give something up and both sides gain something. I suppose it could be argued that Clay’s compromises failed only the first test, but it beyond any doubt that Obama’s have failed both. And this is evidence of a larger trend that goes way beyond merely Obama, as I would include both Clintons, Reid, Bauchus, Nelson and possibly quite a few other Democrats, and the Party as a whole, in the following statements:
As the Republicans have moved farther and farther to the RIGHT, the Democrats hacve responded by moving to the Right.
And this is a dangerous phenomenon, for than just the obvious reasons of… well… the fact that the Right is inherently dangerous. It is worth remembering that before the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democrats who dominated the Southeast and were the Social Conservatives, while the Republicans dominated the Northeast and were the fiscal Conservatives. (For what it’s worth the Mid-West has always been a battle ground, the Mountains have always been Republican, and the West Coast was also mostly Republican, at least at the Presidential level, up until the early 1990’s.) Anyway, the great switch happened after the Civil Rights Act: Noreasters became Democrats, while Rednecks started voting Republican. And while there was a great shift in Party affililation, each party still had its Conservative and Liberal wings. And thus there remained some Democrats that were to the Right of some Republicans (the last of the Dixiecrats and the last of the Yankee Republicans, for example) and vice-versa. So while the Civil Rights Act changed the geographic political landscape, I do not necessarily mark it as the moment when our currently toxic political environment began to form. It gave the Right an opportunity, but it would be another decade and a half before someone would finally seize on it:
RONALD W. REAGAN.
It was Ronald W. Reagan that cobbled together the Republican Coalition that lives on to this day of Libertarians, Funny-Mentalists and Chicken-Hawks – three groups that basically had mutually exclusive agendas, at leats before the first two sold out. (Also, I read somewhere recently where someone pointed out that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pots and have sex. I KNEW there was a reason I could tolerate the Libertarians! LOL). And it was Regan who stamped out all the intra-Party bickering and forged the iron-clad lock-step Republican unity that live on to this day. “Do not speak badly of your fellow Republican” was his mantra, and his victory in 1980, followed by the 2nd biggest landslide in history in 1984 showed them the wisdom of this.
The Republicans moved to the Right, and the Democrats figured it might be a good idea to follow suit.
Now, the one thing about the politics of ideologues, about those who hold their ideology as sacred, is that there is a constant need to differentiate oneself for the opposition. To the one who is the farthest to the Right, in this case, goes the prize. So as the Democrats moved to the Right, the Republicans had to respond by moving even farther to the Right!
See how that works?
The Republicans PULL the Democrats to the Right, and each time this happens the Democrats then PUSH the Republicans farter to the right! Where does it end? Well, in complete and utter insanity for one thing. Only it doesn’t END there: It perpetuates there. And this was on full display listening to the latest brand of Corporate Nationalists on dis play last night in Iowa.
For example, Michelle Bachman saying she stuck to her “principles” and opposed raising the debt ceiling. Apparently her “principles” include not paying her bills. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage out of “principle,” what do you think? And here she is, saying she’s opposed to the fact that President (1) caved to Republicans on (2) an issue entirely create whole-cloth out of nothing, in order that (3) our country to do something as basic as fulfill its existing obligations to its creditors and the public.
She’s OPPOSED to that.
Well… so am I, I guess! I mean… Obama never should have let the Republicans make an issue out of this in the first place. But somehow I doubt that my objections and those of the Crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota have anything in common.
She went on to criticize Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (not very Reaganesque of you, Michelle!) for endorsing “Cap-and-Trade,” another Republican idea that was invented to oppose the once Liberal policy of “Cap,” and then again for endorsing the individual mandate in “Obama-care.”
Pawlenty for his part deflected, calling it “Obomney-care” and saying he opposed it and then turned to the former Massachusetts Sellout, Mitt Romney.
Romney then insisted that there were “significant differences” between what they did in Massachusetts and what Obama did.
Yeah: For one thing? “Obama-care” includes things that eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry – denial of coverage, preexisting conditions, dropping people, etc… So the most glaring difference between the two? Are the things that most people actually LIKE about “Obama-care.” Another difference? In Massachusetts there were subsidies lined up to assist people who couldn’t afford it. In “Obama-care” we’re apparently going to use “markets.”
See what they did there? Obama moved to the Right, and the Right had to respond by moving farther to the Right!
How far to the Right does Obama really want to push these people anyway?
And how much farther are the Democrats willing to be pulled?
A few facts to consider:
1) Congress historically gets a below 50% approval rating from the public. And this has only been trending worse and worse and worse over the past few decades.
2) While Americans generally self-identify as “Conservative,” issue polls have shown that the bulk of Americans, typically over 60% favor the position which is represented by the Liberals.
Now… Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, people’s general dissatisfaction with Congress have anything to do with a growing feeling, as both parties move to the Right of the General Public that they don’t feel like they have adequate representation? Or ANY? That their Candidate or their Representative doesn’t fight for polices that will actually help them? Or benefit them?
Well gee…
I would say that, in a country that wants the Liberal Position 60% of the time, and the “new-Liberalism,” according to this mythical “Liberal Media” that I keep hearing about, includes:
1) Taking Republican ideas on Health Care
2) Taking Republican ideas on Taxes
3) Taking Republican ideas on Entitlements
4) Taking Republican ideas on Environmental Protection
5) Taking Republican ideas on Foreign Policy
And the “new Conservative” involves rejecting these ideas as being “too liberal” and finding a new position even farther to the Right?
Well… It’s no surprise to me that people don’t feel well represented. It’s no surprise to me that Congress gets increasing negative approval ratings as they keep drifting to the Right. We’ve gotten to the point that their absurdly chosen poster child for Liberalism is actually to the Right of most of America! And it’s no surprise to me that there is no end in sight. But moving farther to the Right is not, can not be and has never been the answer to the problem. That we have BOTH parties moving farther and farther to the Right IS the problem!
And maybe it’s coming time for us to have a Tea-Party of our own.
Maybe tell the Right that they’ve Taken Enough Already!
(*sigh* If only the media would report something that generally resembled reality)
I’ll end with one more example of this, from the Iowa Debate…
Mitt Romney said that “he wouldn’t eat the dog food Obama was serving,” in reference to the “debate” about the debt ceiling and the “deal” that was finally worked out. See what he did there? I mean, just as with Loony Bin Bachman, I AGREE that it was ‘dog food.’ BUT, it’s only because Obama never should have given the Republicans the time of day on it! If caving into Republican demands and letting them frame the issue and dominate the debate and giving them everything they want in exchange for what amounts to routine housekeeping is the “new liberal?” Where does that leave the Republicans to go?
Note to Obama: The Right will always seek to distinguish itself from the Left. And, accurately or not, the Democrats will continue to be labeled as the Left. So you will not get the Republicans to stop running to the Right by chasing them there! You are embracing their insanity and only making them more crazy! If you want to “bridge the partisan divide” try using a ROPE, like in a tug-of-war, and try PULLING ON IT for a change! Right now? You’re chasing a moving target who, right or wrong, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to be anywhere near you! And the closer you get, the faster they run! You can’t go on trying to be just like someone who will only, ever seek to differentiate themselves from you! You will never achieve that, nor will you ever get them to stop! So stop chasing them! Stop PUSHING them farther to the Right! The Republicans have only, EVER shown a desire to Negotiate with Democrats when the Democrats actually OPPOSE them! SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COUTNRY AND PROGRESS, PLEASE: START PULLING!
Before there’s nothing Left!
Worst Democrat since Andrew Johnson.
As the Republicans have moved farther and farther to the RIGHT, the Democrats hacve responded by moving to the Right.
And this is a dangerous phenomenon, for than just the obvious reasons of… well… the fact that the Right is inherently dangerous. It is worth remembering that before the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democrats who dominated the Southeast and were the Social Conservatives, while the Republicans dominated the Northeast and were the fiscal Conservatives. (For what it’s worth the Mid-West has always been a battle ground, the Mountains have always been Republican, and the West Coast was also mostly Republican, at least at the Presidential level, up until the early 1990’s.) Anyway, the great switch happened after the Civil Rights Act: Noreasters became Democrats, while Rednecks started voting Republican. And while there was a great shift in Party affililation, each party still had its Conservative and Liberal wings. And thus there remained some Democrats that were to the Right of some Republicans (the last of the Dixiecrats and the last of the Yankee Republicans, for example) and vice-versa. So while the Civil Rights Act changed the geographic political landscape, I do not necessarily mark it as the moment when our currently toxic political environment began to form. It gave the Right an opportunity, but it would be another decade and a half before someone would finally seize on it:
RONALD W. REAGAN.
It was Ronald W. Reagan that cobbled together the Republican Coalition that lives on to this day of Libertarians, Funny-Mentalists and Chicken-Hawks – three groups that basically had mutually exclusive agendas, at leats before the first two sold out. (Also, I read somewhere recently where someone pointed out that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pots and have sex. I KNEW there was a reason I could tolerate the Libertarians! LOL). And it was Regan who stamped out all the intra-Party bickering and forged the iron-clad lock-step Republican unity that live on to this day. “Do not speak badly of your fellow Republican” was his mantra, and his victory in 1980, followed by the 2nd biggest landslide in history in 1984 showed them the wisdom of this.
The Republicans moved to the Right, and the Democrats figured it might be a good idea to follow suit.
Now, the one thing about the politics of ideologues, about those who hold their ideology as sacred, is that there is a constant need to differentiate oneself for the opposition. To the one who is the farthest to the Right, in this case, goes the prize. So as the Democrats moved to the Right, the Republicans had to respond by moving even farther to the Right!
See how that works?
The Republicans PULL the Democrats to the Right, and each time this happens the Democrats then PUSH the Republicans farter to the right! Where does it end? Well, in complete and utter insanity for one thing. Only it doesn’t END there: It perpetuates there. And this was on full display listening to the latest brand of Corporate Nationalists on dis play last night in Iowa.
For example, Michelle Bachman saying she stuck to her “principles” and opposed raising the debt ceiling. Apparently her “principles” include not paying her bills. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage out of “principle,” what do you think? And here she is, saying she’s opposed to the fact that President (1) caved to Republicans on (2) an issue entirely create whole-cloth out of nothing, in order that (3) our country to do something as basic as fulfill its existing obligations to its creditors and the public.
She’s OPPOSED to that.
Well… so am I, I guess! I mean… Obama never should have let the Republicans make an issue out of this in the first place. But somehow I doubt that my objections and those of the Crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota have anything in common.
She went on to criticize Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (not very Reaganesque of you, Michelle!) for endorsing “Cap-and-Trade,” another Republican idea that was invented to oppose the once Liberal policy of “Cap,” and then again for endorsing the individual mandate in “Obama-care.”
Pawlenty for his part deflected, calling it “Obomney-care” and saying he opposed it and then turned to the former Massachusetts Sellout, Mitt Romney.
Romney then insisted that there were “significant differences” between what they did in Massachusetts and what Obama did.
Yeah: For one thing? “Obama-care” includes things that eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry – denial of coverage, preexisting conditions, dropping people, etc… So the most glaring difference between the two? Are the things that most people actually LIKE about “Obama-care.” Another difference? In Massachusetts there were subsidies lined up to assist people who couldn’t afford it. In “Obama-care” we’re apparently going to use “markets.”
See what they did there? Obama moved to the Right, and the Right had to respond by moving farther to the Right!
How far to the Right does Obama really want to push these people anyway?
And how much farther are the Democrats willing to be pulled?
A few facts to consider:
1) Congress historically gets a below 50% approval rating from the public. And this has only been trending worse and worse and worse over the past few decades.
2) While Americans generally self-identify as “Conservative,” issue polls have shown that the bulk of Americans, typically over 60% favor the position which is represented by the Liberals.
Now… Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, people’s general dissatisfaction with Congress have anything to do with a growing feeling, as both parties move to the Right of the General Public that they don’t feel like they have adequate representation? Or ANY? That their Candidate or their Representative doesn’t fight for polices that will actually help them? Or benefit them?
Well gee…
I would say that, in a country that wants the Liberal Position 60% of the time, and the “new-Liberalism,” according to this mythical “Liberal Media” that I keep hearing about, includes:
1) Taking Republican ideas on Health Care
2) Taking Republican ideas on Taxes
3) Taking Republican ideas on Entitlements
4) Taking Republican ideas on Environmental Protection
5) Taking Republican ideas on Foreign Policy
And the “new Conservative” involves rejecting these ideas as being “too liberal” and finding a new position even farther to the Right?
Well… It’s no surprise to me that people don’t feel well represented. It’s no surprise to me that Congress gets increasing negative approval ratings as they keep drifting to the Right. We’ve gotten to the point that their absurdly chosen poster child for Liberalism is actually to the Right of most of America! And it’s no surprise to me that there is no end in sight. But moving farther to the Right is not, can not be and has never been the answer to the problem. That we have BOTH parties moving farther and farther to the Right IS the problem!
And maybe it’s coming time for us to have a Tea-Party of our own.
Maybe tell the Right that they’ve Taken Enough Already!
(*sigh* If only the media would report something that generally resembled reality)
I’ll end with one more example of this, from the Iowa Debate…
Mitt Romney said that “he wouldn’t eat the dog food Obama was serving,” in reference to the “debate” about the debt ceiling and the “deal” that was finally worked out. See what he did there? I mean, just as with Loony Bin Bachman, I AGREE that it was ‘dog food.’ BUT, it’s only because Obama never should have given the Republicans the time of day on it! If caving into Republican demands and letting them frame the issue and dominate the debate and giving them everything they want in exchange for what amounts to routine housekeeping is the “new liberal?” Where does that leave the Republicans to go?
Note to Obama: The Right will always seek to distinguish itself from the Left. And, accurately or not, the Democrats will continue to be labeled as the Left. So you will not get the Republicans to stop running to the Right by chasing them there! You are embracing their insanity and only making them more crazy! If you want to “bridge the partisan divide” try using a ROPE, like in a tug-of-war, and try PULLING ON IT for a change! Right now? You’re chasing a moving target who, right or wrong, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to be anywhere near you! And the closer you get, the faster they run! You can’t go on trying to be just like someone who will only, ever seek to differentiate themselves from you! You will never achieve that, nor will you ever get them to stop! So stop chasing them! Stop PUSHING them farther to the Right! The Republicans have only, EVER shown a desire to Negotiate with Democrats when the Democrats actually OPPOSE them! SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COUTNRY AND PROGRESS, PLEASE: START PULLING!
Before there’s nothing Left!
Worst Democrat since Andrew Johnson.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
I work for a Japanese company. In America (Detroit area) but it's a Japanese firm. And one of the things I've learned about the Japanese from working there is that is you ask them ANYTHING or ask them FOR ANYTHING, the will ALWAYS ask you, "Why?"
Now, in the West, "Why?" is a very confrontational question. Every time I hear "Why?" my minds follows it up with "...the hell do need [or need to know] that?!" I don't know if everyone feels that strongly about it, but I think you'll agree that if you ask me a simple, strait forward question and I answer why "Why?" it kind of puts you on the defensive, no? (Truth be told, in my experience, it really pisses most people off!)
Well... Anyway, they don't do it to be difficult pricks. (Although there's no shortage of people that seem to think that they do! LOL) They do it because they genuinely want to give you the best possible, most complete answer / information the first time so you will not be misled, and they will not waste your time. (And possibly so you won't come back and bother them again! LOL) And really, although it takes some getting used to when you hear it every. fucking. time, it's really not a bad philosophy. Really? When you think about it, it's almost always the PERFECT question to ask!
Now I mention that, because as part of my work (as an engineer) we often have to solve problems. And one of the Japanese methods (which I'm sure has been adopted in the west in some places or companies as well) of problem solving is called the FIVE WHY'S. It is believed that to get to the real root cause of any problem, you have to ask "Why?" at least FIVE TIMES.
Now... Take, for example: The Mortgage Meltdown of 2008. (Although extremely racist, this exercise is a lot more fun if you read the following questions with a Japanese accent.) (And, yes, I know that I'm going to hell for that.)
WHY did the economy tank?
(1) A lot of people were losing money on mortgage backed securities and the real estate bubble.
WHY were so many affected? (Or Why a was there bubble?)
(2) A lot of bad and risky loans were being written by the banks.
WHY were the banks writing these loans?
(3) They were making money from them. They were a huge source of revenue.
WHY were they making money off of them? (That's more of a HOW question, but it still works.)
(4) The were combining them with other loans into securities and were able to break up and sell the resulting product at a higher rate than it was truly worth.
WHY were they able to sell them as more than they were worth?
(5) Because the Bond Ratings Agencies were giving them AAA / Investment grade ratings even though they were hard too value, and no one knew what was really IN them.
Now...
Did you notice how I was able to go five layers deep without any real politics or opinion or partisan judgement coming into play? Of course, I can't go any farther without interjecting my own political "bias" (notice the "quotes" - I know that's just the bias of reality!) interfering with the analysis. But there you go: Five "why's" got us down to a pretty good route cause, with statements that (1) Even the most blatant partisan could not really argue the veracity of (though some of the dumber ones will try) and (2) has no judgement, no liberal-this or progressive-that necessary to reach this route cause. The mortgage meltdown happened because the ratings agencies inflated the grades of and overvalued these inherently risky assets. (If you're buying something and you don't know what it's worth or even what it really is? THAT'S RISKY. PERIOD!)
So I found it interesting, and I had to kick myself for not thinking of this myself the other day in my downgrade post, to read MMFA's take on the U.S. downgrade:
Attention Media: S&P Lacks Credibility
And it hit me like a thunderbolt! Of course! These are the same clowns who basically, single handedly tanked the U.S. economy, into a deep recession that, while it ended, at leats officially, we are still reeling from the effects of, and are now heading into another one... THANKS TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE! They ruined Bush (not that he needed much help) and now they're ruining Obama (again, not that he needs much help!)
And yet the reaction by the Conservative media is all over the map!
CNN's Erickson Giddy About Downgrade Of U.S. Credit Rating
(what a rooting for failure scumbag!)
After Cheering Default, Bolling Laments Potential Effects Of Downgrade
Make up your fucking mind, you "Party of Personal Responsibility" HYPOCRITE!
Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Orchestrating Decline Of America
Ok... I have to stop here, because this is just bat-shit fucking psychotic on multiple levels. First of all... "Yeah... because nothing gets a President re-elected like a really shitty economy, huh Rush?" And second of all, in the plane of prime material reality, on the planet EARTH, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that this was orchestrated by ANYONE other than CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS simply because they knew their Corporate Media would the the "right" story / Right's story and people would blame Obama. Not that they'd really needed the propaganda machine here anyway: Blaming the President for a shitty economy is practically the American Past time!
Nostradumbass Uses Downgrade To Claim Vindication Of His Conspiracy Theories
Well, whoopdie-do for your crystal ball, Glenn! The Republicans have been trying to prevent recovery and orchestrate a full blown collapse since Obama took office! The only risk you were taking in that bet was whether or not they would succeed! (And we've know they would for some time, because Obama has all the spine of an invertebrate!) Of course... given you infinite wisdom into these matters... why are you consistently wrong on who RESPONSIBLE for it? Who's REALLY destroying this country, Glenn?! And what REALLY caused it Glenn? What POLICIES? (I'll give you a hint: The start with "Aw" and rhyme with "Posterity.")
Yeesh.
Yeah, it was a good "Media Matters Day" for me. On my lunch break, of course. ;)
I also finished Chapter 11 (ironically, LOL) of Utopia today over lunch as well. That puts me two Chapters ahead of what's posted so far, I just need to figure out how far to space out posting them. In any case, it's days like today that are my inspiration for writing it. Listening to these liars is one thing - makes me throw up in my mouth a little - but knowing how many glassy-eyed, brain-dead zombies there out there LISTENING to these frauds, and BELIEVING them... It just drives me fucking crazy. And Edward serves as an indulgence of those feeligns. Days like today make writing that - especially knowing what's to come - really, really fun.
Evil, yes. (And if you don't see it yet, you will.)
But F-U-N!
Now, in the West, "Why?" is a very confrontational question. Every time I hear "Why?" my minds follows it up with "...the hell do need [or need to know] that?!" I don't know if everyone feels that strongly about it, but I think you'll agree that if you ask me a simple, strait forward question and I answer why "Why?" it kind of puts you on the defensive, no? (Truth be told, in my experience, it really pisses most people off!)
Well... Anyway, they don't do it to be difficult pricks. (Although there's no shortage of people that seem to think that they do! LOL) They do it because they genuinely want to give you the best possible, most complete answer / information the first time so you will not be misled, and they will not waste your time. (And possibly so you won't come back and bother them again! LOL) And really, although it takes some getting used to when you hear it every. fucking. time, it's really not a bad philosophy. Really? When you think about it, it's almost always the PERFECT question to ask!
Now I mention that, because as part of my work (as an engineer) we often have to solve problems. And one of the Japanese methods (which I'm sure has been adopted in the west in some places or companies as well) of problem solving is called the FIVE WHY'S. It is believed that to get to the real root cause of any problem, you have to ask "Why?" at least FIVE TIMES.
Now... Take, for example: The Mortgage Meltdown of 2008. (Although extremely racist, this exercise is a lot more fun if you read the following questions with a Japanese accent.) (And, yes, I know that I'm going to hell for that.)
WHY did the economy tank?
(1) A lot of people were losing money on mortgage backed securities and the real estate bubble.
WHY were so many affected? (Or Why a was there bubble?)
(2) A lot of bad and risky loans were being written by the banks.
WHY were the banks writing these loans?
(3) They were making money from them. They were a huge source of revenue.
WHY were they making money off of them? (That's more of a HOW question, but it still works.)
(4) The were combining them with other loans into securities and were able to break up and sell the resulting product at a higher rate than it was truly worth.
WHY were they able to sell them as more than they were worth?
(5) Because the Bond Ratings Agencies were giving them AAA / Investment grade ratings even though they were hard too value, and no one knew what was really IN them.
Now...
Did you notice how I was able to go five layers deep without any real politics or opinion or partisan judgement coming into play? Of course, I can't go any farther without interjecting my own political "bias" (notice the "quotes" - I know that's just the bias of reality!) interfering with the analysis. But there you go: Five "why's" got us down to a pretty good route cause, with statements that (1) Even the most blatant partisan could not really argue the veracity of (though some of the dumber ones will try) and (2) has no judgement, no liberal-this or progressive-that necessary to reach this route cause. The mortgage meltdown happened because the ratings agencies inflated the grades of and overvalued these inherently risky assets. (If you're buying something and you don't know what it's worth or even what it really is? THAT'S RISKY. PERIOD!)
So I found it interesting, and I had to kick myself for not thinking of this myself the other day in my downgrade post, to read MMFA's take on the U.S. downgrade:
Attention Media: S&P Lacks Credibility
And it hit me like a thunderbolt! Of course! These are the same clowns who basically, single handedly tanked the U.S. economy, into a deep recession that, while it ended, at leats officially, we are still reeling from the effects of, and are now heading into another one... THANKS TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE! They ruined Bush (not that he needed much help) and now they're ruining Obama (again, not that he needs much help!)
And yet the reaction by the Conservative media is all over the map!
CNN's Erickson Giddy About Downgrade Of U.S. Credit Rating
(what a rooting for failure scumbag!)
After Cheering Default, Bolling Laments Potential Effects Of Downgrade
Make up your fucking mind, you "Party of Personal Responsibility" HYPOCRITE!
Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Orchestrating Decline Of America
Ok... I have to stop here, because this is just bat-shit fucking psychotic on multiple levels. First of all... "Yeah... because nothing gets a President re-elected like a really shitty economy, huh Rush?" And second of all, in the plane of prime material reality, on the planet EARTH, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that this was orchestrated by ANYONE other than CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS simply because they knew their Corporate Media would the the "right" story / Right's story and people would blame Obama. Not that they'd really needed the propaganda machine here anyway: Blaming the President for a shitty economy is practically the American Past time!
Nostradumbass Uses Downgrade To Claim Vindication Of His Conspiracy Theories
Well, whoopdie-do for your crystal ball, Glenn! The Republicans have been trying to prevent recovery and orchestrate a full blown collapse since Obama took office! The only risk you were taking in that bet was whether or not they would succeed! (And we've know they would for some time, because Obama has all the spine of an invertebrate!) Of course... given you infinite wisdom into these matters... why are you consistently wrong on who RESPONSIBLE for it? Who's REALLY destroying this country, Glenn?! And what REALLY caused it Glenn? What POLICIES? (I'll give you a hint: The start with "Aw" and rhyme with "Posterity.")
Yeesh.
Yeah, it was a good "Media Matters Day" for me. On my lunch break, of course. ;)
I also finished Chapter 11 (ironically, LOL) of Utopia today over lunch as well. That puts me two Chapters ahead of what's posted so far, I just need to figure out how far to space out posting them. In any case, it's days like today that are my inspiration for writing it. Listening to these liars is one thing - makes me throw up in my mouth a little - but knowing how many glassy-eyed, brain-dead zombies there out there LISTENING to these frauds, and BELIEVING them... It just drives me fucking crazy. And Edward serves as an indulgence of those feeligns. Days like today make writing that - especially knowing what's to come - really, really fun.
Evil, yes. (And if you don't see it yet, you will.)
But F-U-N!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)