Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Thursday, 6 September 2007 at 4h 52m 41s|
Nawlins Napsters 2007 edition
Last year, the Nawlins Napsters won the 2006 Yahoo league.
This year ? We'll have to see. My two stud pitchers have hit the injury
knockout -- Cole Hamels and Erik Bedard. I made a stupid trade to grab Julio
Lugo that cost me Justin Verlander, so I deserve to lose. But baseball is
funny. I might get lucky.
Anyway, here are the standings and playoff schedule.
At least I was first place.
By the way, my good friend Chris is Chris Carthage. He's beat my butt bad both
times we met all year, and next week we might meet for the final rematch.
Dum da dump dump. Dum da dump dump duhnnnnnnn duhn.
Sound of a cool Pink Panther theme jazz beat ....
That includes you Kristen.
|Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 22h 25m 23s|
Responding to idiots
This is a response I made to some commentary
wedded to a defunct societal analysis. His moniker is "Capitalism rules",
which for him is just a cheeky campaign button. He's too cool to read the
books and get an education. He'll just strip a few slick quotes, and act like
You don't know what Capitalism is or even understand the "rules" you think
For you the rules get to change when they enable the creation of the
aristocracy of wealth accumulation at the expense of how the system allocates
the wealth. This is a fact of life, not some glorified "-ism." I know this is
hard for you to understand because you confuse a mantra of economic phrases
with an understanding of economic interaction.
In other words you really don't know what you are talking about.
For a perfect example of your retarded analysis, consider your pathetic spin on
Thom Hartmann's point that the Minnesota Republican tax cuts are a symptom of
the Reagan legacy.
They [the Minnesota Democratic legislators] would want to raise taxes. That
is what dems do, tax and spend.
They had plenty of money in their treasury but they did not want to allocate
any of it for their infrastructure.
Repeating the same slogan does not give strength to your argument. Investments
are necessary for the health and well-being of our nation so that local and
regional business can compete; AND so that our citizens can efficiently (note:
economic word) participate in society in a beneficial manner. Simplifying this
reality by calling it "tax and spend" indicates the short-term stupidity of how
you are a moron.
Here's an analogy. You refuse to spend money on toothpaste so you can have
extra cash for mixed drinks on Friday night. Then when your teeth fall out at
age 50 you blame everyone but yourself, including your fellow citizens who
tried to warn you.
You obviously do not understand the definition of "allocate." If you subtract
1 from 3 you get 2. If you do not raise taxes to pay for increased
investments, the money you "allocate" has to come from somewhere else. But you
can't replace the expensive radiator with the spare tire in the truck.
Likewise you can't skim or close other important investments in order
to "allocate" funds that should have come from a tax increase. That's why not
one Republican administration was ever able to cut "spending." It's more
difficult than your one-celled brain can contemplate.
And how much money are we really talking about here? How many people would
spend $50 a year for necessary investments? If you make more than $80,000 a
year after taxes, would you really see a $500 increase in taxes ($79,500
instead of $80,000) because that is essentially what the vetoed tax increase
came to. But instead, it's better to let the teeth rot because you are too
cheap to spend $3 a month on the toothpaste.
People like you are not only pugnaciously ignorant, but also short-sighted and
selfish. You don't care about this country. All you want to do is rub 2
pennies together and get a dime. The philosophical nonsense you spew is just a
justification for the corporate forms of oligarchy and greedy billionaires who
Get over yourself CApitalism Rules. All you know is a hand-full of memorized
phrases, like frozen sperm cells, completely irrelevant, stale, and out of
|Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 4h 20m 45s|
The purpose of prayer is the leftover remnants of a tribal
group members bonded together for purposes of survival or warfare. Dancing
around fires, tribal celebrations and rituals are a way for the group members
to bond together for the purposes of achieving a plentiful hunt or to prepare
for the battle with the invading tribe. This primitive communication system
eventually transferred to ritualization of death, either to enhance the road to
the afterlife or to symbolize the end.
Prayer has evolved in the modern world from these atavistic routes. However,
now that man has become vastly different from the roving bands of early
hominids, culture has replaced the primitive supernatural reference frames.
Understanding has become scientific and logical. Prayer has now become so far
removed from the origins that it can take a vicarious narcissitic turn in the
minds of some individuals who consider themselves religious... BECAUSE
communing with the great entity via suggestive direct communication to an
external other being is absolutely preposterous. Substitute desires and dreams
for prayers, then fill in the blank to the sentence "God answers your ______."
As if God's purpose is to please and serve your self-serving opinions.
This is a complete misunderstanding of God, in my opinion.
|Friday, 10 August 2007 at 17h 9m 58s|
The myths of Rudy Giuliani
Meet Rudy Giuliani.
He wants to be President, and his been touring the speaker circuit since 2001
making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to tout himself as a hero. So
dedicated to his speaking revenue, Rudy couldn't find time to work with the
Commission on Iraq and was fired. Money from speaking arrangements talking
about responsibility is more important to Giuliani than actually being
But you should read a recent Village Voice article by Giuliani
expert Wayne Barrett.
|Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 19h 42m 25s|
"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain
— John Maynard Keynes
"The only thing that can console one for being poor is extravagance."
— Oscar Wilde
"It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have
— Ken Hubbard
"The key to making money in stocks is not to get scared out of them."
— Peter Lynch
"If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100
million, that's the bank's problem."
— JP Getty
"You try to be greedy when others are fearful, and fearful when others are
— Warren Buffett
"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."
— Oscar Wilde
"A gold miner is a liar standing beside a hole in the ground."
— Mark Twain
|Thursday, 2 August 2007 at 20h 33m 1s|
My letter to Philip Bronstein, SF Chronicle editor in chief
Yesterday, you do a front
story on how Rumsfeld said there was "no cover-up" on the Tillman affair.
Here is the last paragraph:
"An Army investigation, announced yesterday by Army Secretary Pete Geren,
singled out Gen. Philip Kensinger, head of the Army's special operations
forces, for misleading investigators in the Tillman case. He received a letter
of censure and could be demoted from a three-star to a two-star general."
That was the only mention of Philip Kensinger in your article. There is no
mention that Kensinger ignored the congressional subpoena after publicly
stating he would do so.
Here is what Henry Waxman said in his opening statement:
"General Kensinger refused to appear today. His attorney informed the committee
that General Kensinger would not testify voluntarily, and if issued a subpoena
would seek to evade service. The committee did issue a subpoena to General
Kensinger earlier this week, but US Marshals have been unable to locate or
That statement occurred before 3pm. Was your deadline before 3pm or are you
and the newspaper called the Chronicle not interested in getting the whole
truth, rather than tiny morsels that get spun completely out of context?
The story is not that Rumsfeld says this and Congress persons say that. Your
article was just a gossip sheet, in which you meakly pose the issues and then
follow with a culled quote from some dissembling politician.
Here is an example. After you quote Rumsfeld explaining why he couldn't
remember by saying that there are 3 million personnel you follow with these two
oddly paired paragraphs.
"But lawmakers pointed out that Tillman was not an average soldier - he was
arguably the most famous soldier deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. When he made
headlines for giving up a multimillion-dollar contract with the National
Football League's Arizona Cardinals to enlist with the Army Rangers, Rumsfeld
had sent him a personal note, saying, "It is a proud and patriotic thing you
Some Republicans came to Rumsfeld's defense. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., called the
former defense secretary a hero for his response to the Sept. 11 attacks, and
said, "From the information you've provided, I don't see a cover-up."
Don't you find it wierd that that "lawmakers" who "pointed out" a few facts are
rebutted by the personal opinion of Rep. John Mica who analyzes the "provided"
information and says he doesn't "see" a cover-up. Well, hell, most criminals
don't "provide" you with the evidence. That's why you have investigations.
There is no mention about the doctor who did the original autopsy, no
information about that doctor's opinion, and no statement of the relevant
important details. Or did the uber-editors at the Chronicle censor that
information as "controversial" ?
Good god sir, when the statements of fact become controversial, we are no
longer free to have access to the truth. If your newspaper cannot provide the
information necessary to understand events, than what exactly is the purpose of
your newspaper, sir?
This is not news, and it is not even informative or relevant. It is shoddy
gossip at best, and deliberate obfuscation of the facts at worst.
With all due respect,
|Wednesday, 25 July 2007 at 17h 50m 17s|
Economic myths and public financing of elections
Another economic myth that has forgotten its ancestors and
mainstream as a fact. Increased corporate taxes do not get entirely passed
onto consumers. This is the justification used for not raising taxes or
closing loopholes in the tax system that enable a lot of corporations (I'll
have to look up the exact percentage) with a 0% tax rate. The current
corporate average tax rate is 7%.
The argument is simple. If Corporation A goes from tax rate "a" percent to tax
rate "b" percent, that corporation will pass on the added increase to its
customers by raising prices. However this is actually not true, as was known
in the 1700s by both Riccardo and Adam Smith. Total sales are a function of a
price that cause a total amount of persons who will make a regular purchase.
In a competitive environment where the quality of one product is not very
different from the quality of another, price is the main variable which
determines total sales. When the price raises, the number of total sales will
decrease, unless every single competitor raises prices exactly the same way.
It is this ability of competitors to absorb some of tax increase which
inhibits the corporations to pass on the tax increases to their customer,
because regaining lost sales is more difficult to overcome than absorbing a
small decrease in profits.
Those companies which raise their prices too much -- ie, pass on too much of
the tax increase -- will be vulnerable to the competitors who absorb more of
the tax increase. A competitor who absorbs more of the tax increase can
actually capture increased sales that will increase revenue.
The point is that in a competitive market, a tax increase cannot get passed
onto the consumer. In an oligarchical market (such as our energy industry),
where there are a small number of large firms, it is easier to pass on all tax
increases by raising prices, because customers will have no economic choice.
But even still, most customers will not change their market behavior due to
small increases in price. That a cup of coffee that used to be 75 cents is now
90 cents will not cause the coffee drinkers to go elsewhere, unless the cafe
across the street charges only 80 cents, but even still, loyalty is worth 10
cents for a large number of persons. That loyalty isn't always worth 10 cents
resolves again the proof that costs can't be pass on completely to customers.
Raising taxes however is a necessity when social investments like education and
economic infrastructure are in need. Our current federal government (and
in particular) has wasted the funds on crony capitalism (defense & FEMA
contractors), defunding the agencies (the SEC, IRS, FDA, ...) that protect us,
or selling off pieces of the government (National Parks.) Go to google and do
a news search on "sinkhole" and you will discover that there are at least 3
sinkholes a day somewhere in the United States.
This is why we need public funding of elections, so that politicians are not
paid for by people who influence what the government does for their own self-
serving ends. Public funding would actually be cheaper because it could be
organized and allocated based on a candidates ability to raise a certain
minimum of small individual donations. Television and radio networks would be
forced to offer so much time on the public airwaves, divided equally between
all candidates. Newspaper and periodical advertizements would be offered only
so much space, divided equally between all candidates. Debates would be
organized in every single district, with travel expenses of the candidates paid
for by the elections commission.
I don't have all the answers, but there are plenty of different ways of having
elections without the monetary influence which will not enable our leaders to
hide their true selves beneath public relations media campaigns.
|Saturday, 14 July 2007 at 21h 26m 27s|
The takeover has begun
|Thursday, 12 July 2007 at 0h 47m 57s|
A letter to Bud Selig
I love baseball. I spend a lot of time paying attention to what the
and who is playing well every year. But lately the corporate takeover of our
society has become invidious.
So I wrote a letter to Bud Selig. I got his address and sent it to him today.
Will he read it? I don't know, but I did leave my return address.
Here is the letter I wrote.
Dear Commissioner Selig,
When will insidious corporate collusion with baseball come to an end?
Creating ways to allow corporations to advertise is an ongoing disgrace.
I don't want to hear about cereal or exxon-mobil or DHL delivery or anything
not related to baseball when the game is being played on TV.
Does every inning have to pose some creative way to raise funds via a corporate
Next thing you know everytime the pitcher throws a pitch, it will be called the
Mastercard strike or the Federal-Express ball . . . or is that already in the
And now you even want baseball fans to pay for a "chance" dream trip with Joe
Shmuck (Buck) to the world series. Has mlb.com become mlb lottery central?
Okay, well here is my "dream" ... for free.
My dream consists of first firing generic self-presumed sports jock Joe Buck.
Hell, even Don Sutton's son is funny. Joe Schmuck's contrived, phony analysis
smacks of a public relations campaign crossed with a cosmetic specialist. He
acts like he knows all just because he's gotten a golden ride
in the media scene thanks to his father. Every sentence the man utters has to
present some concocted trivial issue at the expense of his own integrity. And
he is ridiculously un-entertaining when he isn't mouthing off the agenda of his
Why don't we just paste corporate logos on the eyeballs of these newscasters
who couldn't make it in the big leagues, but somehow think they
have a basis for their ridiculous opinions.
I have a dream that someday Major League Baseball will not be the scripted
rigid event that media corporations want so they can
hang advertising dollars everywhere in the name of profit.
When the priorities of the game become profit-driven only, you slowly eat away
at the soul of the things that gave life to the game, until suddenly there is
nothing left but a few bones and over-used anecdotes.
At least I can turn the sound off, but please spare me the revenue generating
hype. The great game of Baseball deserves better.
On a positive note, I do commend you on the excellent job you've done
integrating baseball through the web. You have done a good job, it's just that
I think you might be overlooking something, and that is why I am sending you
|Thursday, 12 July 2007 at 21h 20m 53s|
Why Arnold is a phony
Click here and here
for the story.
So after getting away with his serial-gropping and abhorent intimidation of
women in the film industry, Arnold comes to office on the back of accusing Gray
Davis of special interests, and then proceeds to fund raise from special
interests from Energy, Oil, and big Insurance firms. Twice the amount of Gray
Davis in fact.
Oh, but his wife is a third generation Kennedy. Yea, and how many love letters
get send to the satanist Night Stalker: Richard Ramirez.
Arnold enters office mouthing hard about how he is gonna do something "for da
people" by ending the $75 yearly car tax. The responsible person's who worked
for the state transportation balked at the deficit this would create in the
budget, but Arnie refused to increase taxes elsewhere. The very day Arnie
became governor, he made a big spectacle about removing this car tax.
Meanwhile he quietly dropped the $9 billion lawsuit against the Energy
companies that rigged the 2001 Energy crisis which left the state stuck with a
$14 billion deficit.
Eventually, the governor had to reinstate the car tax because he couldn't
figure out how make up the deficits, and he also realized that the state
transportation funds are what most local communities see. A lot of unfinished
construction projects all over the state would not be good for his political
future, you see.
His administration touted buying 1,138 "flex-fuel" vehicles for state
employees, without installing a single pump where they could actually be filled
with high-ethanol E85 fuel. And the state has failed to meet a deadline, set in
2003, to install solar energy equipment on state buildings by January 2007.
In fact, Arnie still drives a non-converted Land Rover. You'd think he'd want
to symbolize his image, but I suppose he believes the corporate media will
brainwash "da people" for him.
Fact is, Arnold fought the Carbon-Reduction bill that he currently gets credit
for in the national media. All year long Arnie's emmisaries to the legislature
quibbled over every single thing they could. They bickered over the meaning of
words. They broke-off contacts and then Arnie would go to a news camera and
talk about how the "Democrats" aren't negotiating in good faith, and need to
put party above politics. Then finally at the end of the summer when the
legislative session was nearing to a close, Arnie actually threatened to veto
the bill. But he thought better of it and signed.
And last week we find out how genuine was his intent to support the bill.
Arnie is pressuring liberal interpretations and postponements. Just like the
Clean Air Act was ignored by the 20,000 Coal fired Electric plants for 40
years, this law is being treated by Arnie as a ticket to "greeness" while he is
deconstructing the intent behind the scenes. He didn't even meet with the
chairperson of the implementation committee over the entire 18 months before
pressuring her to resign when she wasn't flexible enough. Read the links above.
Arnold is a phony. Currently he is trying to pretend like he cares about
Health Care for all citizens, until you actually bother reading to what his
interests are proposing. Basically, it is a subsidized payment scheme for
private insurance companies. The onus of the law is on the individual, who by
law will have to buy insurance. Instead of making all citizens part of a
single pool, the governor's plan wants to support private insurance premiums
and give price reductions for poor people -- which will only recreate the same
two-tiered system of care that currently exists.
Single-payer national health-care is very simple. Tax businesses and
individuals and build up a fund to pay for the costs of the health-care of the
citizens. The system would be cheaper for everyone, and would also run more
effectively because Hospitals and doctors could practice patient care instead
of taking the orders from the private insurance companies who haggle over the
bills so they increase share-holder profits. Arnie's health-care proposals
will once again distort the distribution of health-care by the allocation of
priorities to the profits of the insurance companies.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS