This is a response I made to some commentary by someone who is hopelessly 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 he's smart.

-----------
You don't know what Capitalism is or even understand the "rules" you think exist.

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.

Number One
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.

Number Two
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 really benefit.

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 context.

BOHICA MO-FO.

The purpose of prayer is the leftover remnants of a tribal ritual in which all 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.

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 responsible.

But you should read a recent Village Voice article by Giuliani expert Wayne Barrett.

"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
— 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 both failed."
— 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 greedy."
— 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

Yesterday, you do a front page 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. [LINK] 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 serve him."

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 are doing."

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.

Like Duh.

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" ?

[LINK]

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,

Ginardo Napoli

Another economic myth that has forgotten its ancestors and crept into the 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 Republicans 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.

I love baseball. I spend a lot of time paying attention to what the players do 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 advertizement? 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 works?

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 media bosses.

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 this letter.

Sincerely,

Gino Napoli

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.

Go Mike. Go.

Click here for Michael Moore's factual destruction of the hit piece that CNN was paid to air by their Big Pharma advertisers.

It's simply amazing how these so called "experts" like Sanjay Gupta are supposed to appear as unbiased devotee's to the truth, when 95% of what they say turns out to be unambiguously false or downright dishonest. The overpaid spladed news host turns to the jackal in experts clothing who agrees. Hey, how about that. And notice how confident the wide smiling liars present themselves.

But look into the eyes and you see the fire of satan burning bright.