Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Wednesday, 5 March 2008 at 19h 36m 5s|
While listening to the radio
I am listening to this radio call-in talk show, called Clout, where the host Richard Greene
excellent job of letting all kinds of people come on the show and talk about what they think and
want to say. Congrats Richard.
This guy comes on ranting and raving about how Hillary didn't mean anything about this and that,
and then so what, because Obama needs to toughen up and wise up, and that he is so sick of
constantly hearing everyone tell Hillary to quit, like she is gonna break the party, and blah,
blah. Richard allowed Brent Budowsky comment, and then let the man have his say, and back and
forth. Brent was very judicious and warm in his statements. This man appeared to not hear a
damn thing anyone else was saying. All he did was complain, while heatedly trying to convince
everyone that Hillary is the one to trust, because no matter what, "we can't let another Republican
take the Presidency in 2008."
Everyone agrees with that last statement. But it is commpletely disconnected with everything else
the man tried to say. Even when Richard and Brent 120% agreed with him, it wasn't enough. It become
obvious after 5 minutes, when Richard politely moved on to another caller. Then I got to
thinking. Maybe that man was paid to act that way. Maybe the whole point was to try to inflame
listeners of the radio show with some contrived thought process. It explains a whole lot.
That's what television and corporate media are. They disperse ways of thinking that permit weak
minded people to cheerlead and hold beliefs that are anti-thetical to their existence.
|Wednesday, 5 March 2008 at 22h 42m 39s|
Somebody please tell me what Hillary Clinton's problem is?
- She gets a picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan Muslim robe when he recently made an
official visit to Kenya last year, and sends it to smear merchant Matt Drudge.
- She recently makes a verbal statement that she has national experience, John McCain has
national experience, but Obama, he just made a good speech.
- She accuses him of plagarizing when her own speeches are replete with phases her own speech
writers write, and use from other great speeches in American History.
- Back when John Edwards was still in the primary, I think the 2nd debate, she accused her two
opponents of acting like Republicans when they questioned her on specifics about her policies,
INSTEAD of answering the question. John Edwards replied calmly that he was just asking policy
- Then, she answers "No, as far as I know" when asked the question "Is Obama a Muslim?" The
correct response is "No" followed by a "and even if he is, what does it matter. In this country,
we have a constitution, and we don't have a religious test in order to be considered qualified for
public office." That's what Hillary should of said. But instead, her instinct was to make a
slippery statement that is a mild innuendo about religion.
This is how the current Republican party acts. Democrats don't do this. Democrats don't send
pictures to the Republican smear merchant machine. Democrats answer questions about specifics in
their policy. Democrats politely elaborate and address the criticisms others have about the
specifics in their policies. Democrats do not raise red herrings and deflect the questions about
specifics by accusing others of acting unfair when they ask questions. Democrats also don't accuse
others of what they themselves do.
This really disgusts me. I don't like seeing this kind of instinct in someone who runs for polical
office. What you are seeing is a women who is so desirous to become President that she is willing
to act like a Republican. Maybe that's why she has been enabling George Bush all this time. Who
voted for Anthony Alioto and John Roberts. Where was she when the Militiary Commissions Act
of 2006 occurred? (NOTE: Google search link, choose wisely.)
I'm not saying Obama is free of a certain amount of compromise himself, but he doesn't act like
this in pursuit of the throne. He might get into a fake skirmish with Paul Krugman about what his
health-care policies are or are not, but nothing personal occurred in that skirmish. Obama didn't
elude that Krugman is just an ivory tower man of books who hides behind a newspaper column. No.
He didn't go that route in order to have a victory. He just "respectfully disagreed" and didn't
attack the man in order to attack the policy.
Understand the difference. These two individuals are under the most intense stress that any human
being could experience in a life-time. At these times. people respond to stress instinctively, so
how people respond during the duress of a political election is quintessential to how they are as
And I'm not liking the person I see in Mrs. Hillary Clinton. She has gone a long way in
undermining what happy notions I may have had or stated in the past. Going forward, I really am
disgusted by this, and mind you, I really haven't mentioned about 2 to 5 more things about
Hillary's actions too. The four above should be quite fine to make my point.
But all that being said, if Hillary secures the nomination, I will vote for her, and I will focus
upon her positives. Lyndon Johnson was a bastard and a cut-throat son-of-a-bitch himself, but
guess who got Medicare passed. All these one-dimensional purists out there who want the whole
package need to wake the hell up and realize that we are talking about the Supreme Court. Plain
and simple. The current law-breakers and fascist appointments in the government will multiply like
the German National Socialist party when it went from 6 to 25 to 134 representatives and got the 81
year old General President to annoint Hitler as Chancellor, in only 5 years. If there is any
government or non-out sourced job at a decent wage left.
Another Republican and you can kiss this country and its constitution goodbye, while looking
forward to a hundred years of self-destruction wars. There really is no choice.
|Friday, 22 February 2008 at 5h 8m 30s|
Sex and companionship in modern America
I just figured out what it is about Sex that drives Americans crazy, and why Sex tends to dominate
our politics either because some politician is having an affair with a young girl, or because some
homophobe is secretly having gay sex.
Mind you this is something only a single male could figure out at 3:45 am, but the problem in
America is actually quite simple. Nobody here is having sex. And those couples (married or not)
who have sex, are actually dissatisfied with the sex half of the time. It's either too quick or
too boring or the feelings for the other person are gone and the sex can't compensate.
Yep, that's it. Look around. The guys are all desperate and the babes are all wishing for Mr.
Right despite the Mr. So-So's they tend to date. We American's pay too much attention to sex
because we are trying to overcompensate for are own dissatisfactions. We are lonely and seeking
companionship, and sex is the consolation prize.
If you look much closer however, you realize that the problem is not really about sex. It's about
the lack of close relationships with others, and the proponderance of unfulfilling superficial
relationships. You have a conversation with someone once, then when you see them again, you get a
blank stare. The other person is too shell-shocked to admit to the former conversation. People
actually categorize their relationships with others, and if you aren't in that special category you
get the vouchsafed acknowledgement. And saying hello or good morning to complete strangers is a
dying vestige of a culture that existed before 24 hour cable TV distorted our understandings of
personal interaction. You don't learn about people by watching Television shows, nor do you gain
any better understanding of yourself.
|Saturday, 9 February 2008 at 9h 41m 45s|
Outsourcing torture and detention camps
The CIA's secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the
waterboarding of terrorist suspects, according to testimony yesterday from the CIA director and two other people familiar with
Many of the contractors involved aren't large corporate entities but rather individuals who are often former agency or military
officers. However, large corporations also are involved, current and former officials said. Their identities couldn't be learned.
According to two current and former intelligence officials, the use of contracting at the CIA's secret sites increased quickly in the
wake of the 9/11 attacks, in part because the CIA had little experience in detentions and interrogation. Using nongovernment
employees also helped maintain a low profile, they said.
[SOURCE: Digby | digbysblog | 8 February 2008]
How come the "liberal media" isn't all over this revelation that came out of a Congressional hearing this week? "Using
nongovernment employees also helped maintain a low profile" ... yea, I bet.
When are American's going to realize that rogue elements are operating independent of the government. Cliques of political
elites are enabling decisions with winks and nods that are out of their control. Is this really to help better fight the "terrorists" ?
Consider how the contracting process has already corrupted the military operations in Iraq. Consider the history of rogue
intelligence operations since the growth of the Intelligence establishment since World War Two. In almost every single case, the
secretive actions back-fire and force government policy-makers to deal with the resulting mess.
Here's a brief list:
- Bay of Pigs
- Secret missions into Laos and Burma during Vietnam
- assassination of Panamanian Trujillo leads way to oligarchy and puppet dictator Noriega
- creation of the Shah of Iran leds to Iranian revolution
- support of bin Laden in early 80's in Afghanistan
In all of the above cases, secretive actions by rogue elements in the national security/defense establishment created the
groundwork for the eventual blowback which occurred. This is why open democratic processes are necessary. Because the
short-sighted, group think of insiders will only perceive their own limited self-interests, colored by human biases that can only
be exposed when done in the open. The policy of promoting corrupted elements in foreign nations involves unsavory methods
like murder and propaganda that do not attract the love and admiration of the very foreigners the policy is supposed to be
helping. Were the Iranians supposed to be happy when the United States funded and supported the torture-driven police state of
Iran for over 20 years when the Shah was in charge?
|Saturday, 9 February 2008 at 9h 11m 14s|
So much for funding corporate bailouts
The credit squeeze, which seemed brutally bad only a few months ago, is getting worse.
Consider Solutia, a chemical company that filed for bankruptcy back in 2003, and got bankruptcy court approval for an exit plan
just three months ago. That plan was based in part on a financing commitment for $2 billion from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and
That commitment was signed in late October, but now the banks say the market has gotten worse and they will not make the
loans. Solutia sued the banks this week, trying to force them to fork over the money even if they cannot sell the loan to others, as
they had intended to do. Citigroup says the suit is without merit.
Regardless of how that suit turns out, it is an indication of how much harder it has become to get financing for highly leveraged
companies. In recent years, companies that ran into problems could almost always get loans to rescue them. Now they can’t. And
that is before a recession hits most industries.
The number of corporate bankruptcies filed by leveraged borrowers so far this year is greater than the total filed in all of 2006
and 2007, Standard & Poor’s Leveraged Commentary and Data reports.
Norris | New York Times | 8 February 2008]
|Monday, 4 February 2008 at 17h 36m 42s|
The politics of hope
“Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire; what led the greatest of
generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young women and young men to sit at
lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause.
Hope-hope-is what led me here today - with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story
that could only happen in the United States of America. Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the
belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are
not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should
Barack Obama after winning the Iowa caucus in January 2008
|Saturday, 2 February 2008 at 10h 10m 45s|
Bill Clinton on the NCLB fiasco
"The President made a deal with Senator Kennedy and neither one of them meant to mess it up," Bill Clinton told a crowd of about
400 teachers and students in Texarkana.
"The deal was supposed to be, we will give the schools more money and get rid of two programs that Bill Clinton actually started --
hiring more teachers in the early grades which actually does help performance and help schools with construction needs if they are
overcrowded," he said.
"And we will not put anymore money in the after school programs, which does help, and we will raise school performance by telling
people their money depends on how their kids do on tests and we are going to give five tests five years in a row, and we will cut the
states a check based on how they are doing. And then the law kind of winks at the state of Arkansas and says, 'don't worry about it
too much because you get to pick the test and the passing score.' Now think about that you get the worst of all worlds," Clinton
[SOURCE: | ABC News blog | 1 February 2008]
|Saturday, 2 February 2008 at 10h 1m 48s|
Here's Lincoln Chafee, ex-Republican congressman from Rhode Island who did not support the invasion of Iraq. Mr.
is one of the few Republicans who have a conscience that isn't intimately connected with Karl Rove's asshole. He recently
published a book where he decries the inability to form government policy over the last 8 years.
"The top Democrats were at their weakest when trying to show how tough they were," writes Chafee. "They were afraid that
Republicans would label them soft in the post-September 11 world, and when they acted in political self-interest, they helped
the president send thousands of Americans and uncounted innocent Iraqis to their doom.
"Instead of talking tough or meekly raising one's hand to support the tough talk, it is far more muscular, I think, to find out what
is really happening in the world and have a debate about what we really need to accomplish," writes Chafee. "That is the hard
work of governing, but it was swept aside once the fear, the war rhetoric and the political conniving took over."
Chafee writes of his surprise at "how quickly key Democrats crumbled." Democratic senators, Chafee writes, "went down to the
meetings at the White House and the Pentagon and came back to the chamber ready to salute. With wrinkled brows they gravely
intoned that Saddam Hussein must be stopped. Stopped from what? They had no conviction or evidence of their own. They were
just parroting the administration's nonsense. They knew it could go terribly wrong; they also knew it could go terribly right. Which
did they fear more?"
[SOURCE: Dan Froomkin | Washington Post | 1 February
Everyone had access to the same information in 2002. We knew that Iraq was not a threat and did not have weapons of mass
destruction. But the fear of looking weak in the corporate controlled media dominated the minds of the weak-kneed politico's
who voted for this god damn war -- or for the Patriot Act, or the Military Commissions Act of 2006, or the Medicare
"Modernization" Act of 2003/4, or the Bankruptcy "Reform" Act of 2005, or ....
They voted for these despicable measures because they were afraid of being called weak by the corporate media. Now all of
these measures are going to have to be changed in the next 4 to 8 years. Except now the fight against the false framing of the
issues by the corporate media will be that much more difficult.
If I were President, the first act I would make would be to cancel every single piece of legislation passed by the Republicans
during the reign of Dubya Bush. I don't care how unprecidented or politically infeasible that would be. The laws are horrible
extensions of oligarchical authoritarianism and should be repealed.
|Friday, 1 February 2008 at 20h 46m 31s|
Who do I want for President
The more I listen to him, the more I trust that Obama truly has an understanding of the entire
problem that is Washington. As much as I love Hillary, the ability of Obama to make his point with
clarity and reason puts him one step over.
I admit that I do have reservations about Obama's views on Health Care. I realize that the Health
Insurance industry is ruthless, and that it would be unwise to say that you will pursue National
Health Care. However an intelligent individual cannot escape the savings of efficiency inherent to
a nationalized payment system. The costs would drop 60% because cost would no longer inhibit
people to get preventative health care, the overhead of hundreds of insurance bureaucracy would be
removed. Hospitals would no longer have to carry the burdens of the malignant health insurance
payment system. I believe Obama gets this, and says as much when he talks about cost efficiency.
He will also be the unequivocal bring the troops home now candidate, and be smart with how we use
our military power, which is exactly what we need to defeat Saint McCain.
God help us if the Republicans appoint another Supreme Court judge. That's how important this
election really is.
|Friday, 25 January 2008 at 13h 19m 2s|
The banks need for capital to cover losses
Here's what Peter Hahn, renowned economics professor gura in London (Cass Business
say about the current economic conditions in light of the recent French bank Societe Generale which
lost 7 billion, and is on the verge of bankrupcy unless they raise 50 billion in new capital.
"Si cela peut arriver à une banque innovatrice et bien gérée comme cette institution, il est clair
que les banques sont amenées aujourd'hui à prendre trop de risques. L'augmentation de capital pour
se prémunir contre les mauvaises surprises de ce type est plus que jamais à l'ordre du jour."
Roche | Le Monde | 25 January 2008]
My translation: If this happens to a bank as innovative and well managed as this [the Societe
Generale] institution, it is clear that the banks are being lead today to take too much risk. The
accumulation of capital to prepare against future bad investments of this type is more than ever
the order of the day
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS