Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Sunday, 2 December 2007 at 18h 24m 46s|
The plight of the real Republicans
From today's Cal
Majority by Sean Barry.
"What should the Republicans do if they want to keep the White House in '08?
Grit their teeth, swallow their pride and nominate John McCain, and have him
pick Mike Huckabee as his running mate, writes David Broder. McCain-Huckabee
may not win California, but the least you can say about these two is that they
have integrity, and a sense of humanity. Aint going to happen though."
And this is from the "dean" of Washington DC conventional thinking, David
Broder. Broder is an ancient columnist opinion writer for the Washington Post
that gets syndicated throughout the circuit of national newspapers as
the "common wisdom" (the Sacramenton Bee is one of these.)
Here's how Broder
begins his piece:
If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009,
it's pretty clear what it would do. It would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts
and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee for vice
president – and president-in-waiting.
Those two are far from front-runners. They trail Mitt Romney in Iowa and New
Hampshire and lag behind Rudy Giuliani in national surveys of Republican
voters. But, in a series of debates, including last week's CNN/YouTube
extravaganza. McCain and Huckabee have been notable for their clarity,
character and, yes, simple humanity.
From everything I have heard on the campaign trail, it's obvious that they are
the pair who have earned the widest respect among the eight Republican
Now I am not a fan of Broder. Frankly I often think of him as the "bought"
safety opinion for the upper class corporatists that are comforted by a
perception of his "conventional" wisdom. But to be fair, Broder is a saavy man
and can be perceptive when he is not framing something on behalf of the
elitists that craft Washington DC mainstream thinking. The fact that Broder is
speaking the truth actually accentuates the fact of the absolute depravity of
the modern Republican party.
Whoa, Debra Saunders agrees with Broder. This means that the push is on from
the minions attached to the fax machine -- so it can't be traced, email is more
vulnerable because it resides in the memory of the receivers machine. The
wicked lying witch of The San Francisco Chronicle is trying to salvage her own
reputation after being a cheerleader for bad ideas and palpitating over the
corrupt morons in her party for too long. Will some real conservative please
stand up? This woman is bankrupt. Nothing she says or has said is worthwhile.
|Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 8h 8m 57s|
It's coming sooner than you think
to read a
conservative Libertarian discuss the Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act. This
act will prevent nothing, as the above article explains but what it does is
very scary. Notice how the national media has said nothing about this, not a
peep, which is even more scary.
The Act was signed 400-6 by weak-kneed Legislators who don't read the bills
they sign. Democratic apologist Jane Harman sponsored the bill.
(NEWSFLASH to anyone reading -- I am not a Democrat. I am not a liberal or a
socialist either. I fervently believe in a free market and democratic society.
I am an American steeped in the tradition of Thomas
Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison. Ya dig.)
The Act creates a roving commission of 10 commissioners selected by Congress
who will hold hearings
all across the country. People will be summoned to testify and prove they
are "real" Americans. Assets can be frozen and anyone who helps the defendent
can also have their assets frozen. Worse, after 18 months, these commissions
will become privatized and private corporations will be performing these
This happened during French Revolution when Robespierre and the Radical
Jacobins set up the Committee of Public Safety to purge the non-patriots from
the French streets. After 2 years and tens of thousands of guillotined
citizens the "Reign of Terror" ended.
In our country, the HUAAC (House Un-american Activities Committee) was set up
in the 1930's by a Russian spy and a Southern racist (its true, look it up) to
investigate communism in America. In the 1950's when the alcoholic Senator Joe
McCarthy terrorized innocent victims in the State department, whole
groups of people were called up. Many people were blacklisted and lost their
jobs because of the hysteria -- Lucille Ball was one, J. Robert Oppenheimer
another -- for no substantive reason.
This Act will NOT prevent nuts and crazy people from doing anything. But what
it do? Read the conservative libertarian position from the link above to find
out. Here is a brief snippet:
As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to
define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist,"
ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion
protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators.
In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim
organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which
groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to
suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process.
Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will
undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel
Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every
rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their
associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to
investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors
at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the
Israeli occupation, but it will be easy to use the commission formula to sweep
them all in for examination.
The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It
has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and
created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and
everything to counter the alien threat.
Yes, it can happen here people. It is already happening here. Get your head
out of your (ass) television and wake up.
|Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 0h 29m 44s|
Why did Trent Lott resign
with 5 years left in his term?
Come on now. How obvious does this have to be? But I admit, I did not know
the entirety of the depravity at work. Turns out there are 3 probable reasons.
the link here[SOURCE: Think Progress]
- The change in the lobby law -- and possible further changes -- will occur
at the end of the year. How soon does Mr. Lott get swooped up for a million
dollar a year salary by a "lobby" firm -- which is another way of saying
- A brewing connection with the very Veco Oil Alaskan tycoon Bill Allen who
corrupted Ted Stevens and got enmeshed in the Feds bribery net.
- Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine attests he has evidence of Trent Lott's
extra-marrital affairs (via Prostitutes?)
Actually, what Lott can do is drop out of sight for a couple of years, and then
step quietly into some lobby firm or get hired as part-time "consultant" with a
million dollar a year salary, after the storm passes. He won't be held to the
changes in the laws because he left in 2007, before the law takes affect.
And when you hear Lott at the press conference yakkin up the weak reporters
salavating high hinnie-ness, Lott talks about perhaps dabbling into teaching
just like his folks, getting all down-home folksie while he pretends to
represent the common man. Then he brings up the "football team" at Ole Miss --
he knows his home-boys well.
What a slimy, weasel.
What has Trent Lott ever done for the people? Nothing. He's in this for the
money. He has been a shameful Senator for Mississippi and represents a blemish
(or skid mark) on the history of this nation.
|Thursday, 8 November 2007 at 20h 14m 56s|
The American deficits are financed by China
Here is a translation of some of an article in Le Monde. [Click here]
China's savings finance consumer debt and the deficits of the the United
Have poor countries become the new bankers to the rich nations? The
spectacular growth of the reserves in Asian nations (1,400 million dollars from
China alone at the end of the year 2007 ...), the accumulation of petro-dollars
in the Persian Gulf nations and in Russia, the anticipated re-issuances of the
debts of Argentina or Brazil [translator's note: which have
traditionally been made by American banks] makes one think that developing
nations will henceforth finance industrial nations.
"On the morality of the plan, this situation is rather shocking," judges
Dominique Plihon, economics professor at Paris XIII and the president of the
Scientific Council of Attac. The flight of capital towards the Northern
countries in effect hitches the development of emerging economies who are far
from being able finance their own needs to ameliorate their infrastructures.
This paradox is only partially true. The receipts of direct foreign
investments published by the Conference of Nations United on Commerce and
Development(CNUCED) attests to it: industrial nations received 857 millions of
dollars of captial in 2006, but they also exported even more (1,022 millions).
For developping nations, the situation is reversed: they have received more
(379 millions) than they have exported (174 millions).
"In fact," Boris Cournede surmises (economist in the Political economy and
money division of the Organization of Cooperation and Developing economies
(OCDE), "The deficit with a running balance is an especially American
Phenomenom. IN the United States, the deficiat will attain 842 millions of
dollars this year. The interesting thing is that it is financed by China's
commercial surplus and by oil-rich nations, when in other times, these dis-
equilibriums would exist
between developing countries.
This is confirmed by Patrick Artus, chief economist at Natixis ... "Latin
America and the European Union are in a general equilibrium. The first ran
deficits to finance their development, but the traumatism of the debt crisis
was so hard that Latin American countries prefer no longer to have debts -- at
the risk of slowing down their growth -- rather than revive the strict budgets
and unemployment which result."
"WE have arrived at an astonishing situation" which has been going on for many
years, commented Xavier Musca, a treasury director. Certain emerging
countries, with China at the head, have invested massively in American
Treasuries. China has financed a very large part of the colossal deficit of
the [United States].
Now what this means for us concerns what happens to all those dollars and
treasury bonds in the hands of foreign nations, China in particular. Currently
they are slowly getting sold and the result is a gradual devaluation of the
dollar. This makes the money supply within the United States fragile because
it will be needed to support the value in the foreign markets.
Economists call this a "credit crunch" but all that really means is that cash
reserves are being drawn down in order to pay for goods and bills that are now
more expensive because the value of dollars has depreciated. Businesses with
assets in the millions and having to service debts are having increased
expenses, and thus bank reserves are being drawn down, which makes less
available for banks to extend credit. But banks get the double-whammy, because
when the foreign exchange rates plummet,large businesses or persons with
international portfolios suffer a percentage loss from assets that are valued
I think we're in trouble. The markets have been wobbly all year, and with the
oil prices spiking damn near $100, the costs of everything are going to
accelerate, and this can't help the already bad economic situation.
Hold on to your ass, the real shit is coming.
|Wednesday, 7 November 2007 at 17h 57m 44s|
The French resist
Right now the French are damn near in revolt. Of course you probably don't
know that because the American press is obsessed with stupidity like hormones
sold to Baseball players in 2003 that was not illegal or against baseball rules
at the time.
The train drivers just came off strike. The Fisherman are pissed because the
price of gas is driving them out of business. And the students in 8
universities (and some faculty) are striking because a new law is allowing
private funds to fund the schools.
When our government leaders pass bad laws (the bankruptcy bill, the medicare
destruction bill, et cetera) we Americans passively get pissed, if we even know
what's going on at all. We don't have a heritage of community and labor
organizations like the French. We are organized by the Television.
Think about it. You know it's true.
Anyway, you gotta love the French because they don't just protest, they give
the reasoning behind why they protest. Here's the reason why the French are
protesting the Education privatization bill : (you'll have to trust my French
translation) [from Le Monde]
"If one includes the main budget – which isn't supplemented –, the late
payments to the teacher, researchers, and the other contracts, not much
remains", detailed Bruno Julliard. "Especially for the student groups, the
increased budget don't apply to things that specifically concern the
students : cash, housing aide, and staff recruitment....
Furthermore the law implies that school will have to gain new functions for
which the schools will have to recruit qualified personnel. The 2008 budget
however includes nothing for these needs....
This is what happens when you actually educate all of the citizens rather than
starve the educational system of the nation.
|Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 20h 9m 16s|
So much for the market solving everything
In his latest article, David Kay Johnson
reports that 2 separate studies showed that "Retail electricity prices have
risen much more in states that adopted competitive pricing than in those that
have retained traditional rates set by the government."
The price spread grew from 1.09 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.09 cents, her
analysis showed. It also showed that in 2006 alone industrial customers paid
$7.2 billion more for electricity in market states than if they had paid the
average prices in regulated states.
Electric customers are a captive audience. There is no real competition for
the customers, who have to pay the electric bill to the electric company that
provides the electricity. The idea that competition amoung businesses to
provide electricity to the power grid would change this reality was
proposterous from the start. Instead, it is in the interest of all of the
to increase the prices since demand for their electricity product has no other
This is the problem with ultra-market ideologues. They misunderstand the
inherent power-relationships in society. Competition might make a better
product, but it does not solve or even understand social stresses and
situations at all. In fact, as the studies prove over a period of 16 years,
competition can exascerbate social relations and make system integration and
investment difficult because the priorities of profits and portfolios will
overrule the long-term goals of society.
The neigh-sayers and true-believers will talk about gradual improvements or try
to tie the higher prices to the overall energy situation, but again they miss
the point. Energy is such an important commodity, that we shouldn't outsource
energy production and distribution to private for-profit entities whose goals
are to make money and accumulate customers. The funds are funnelled out of the
communities who rely on them for their electricity, and thus don't get re-
invested in the community. The capital-intensive nature of the energy business
makes it a natural monopoly. There is no real competition possible because
there will always be a small number of very large firms who have to collude or
coordinate to avoid ruinous price wars.
The mantra of de-regulation was really just another way to allow other large
corporations to get a piece of the action, and that's why the prices in
deregulated states are 37% more than in the regulated states.
|Monday, 5 November 2007 at 22h 50m 6s|
It all started with Reagan
Gerald Ford in his recent book.
[REAGAN was] a superficial, disengaged, intellectually lazy showman who didn't
do his homework and clung to a naive, unrealistic and essentially dangerous
[Reagan was] "probably the least well-informed on the details of running the
government of any president I knew."
If any fool tells you that Reagan ended the Cold War, tally 1 more point for
stupid idiot. Gorbachev and the people of Eastern Europe ended the Cold War.
All Reagan did was go to a few Summits at the instigation of Gorbachev, and
Gorbachev was able to negotiate despite the ignorance of Reagan and the
bloviating arrogance of the American delegation that came with Reagan.
Reagan allowed appointments up and down the federal bureaucracy who were
incompetant, inferior, and corrupt. Fortunately there were occasional
exceptions, but that was due to George Schultz and Vice President George
Herbert Walker Bush. Reagan read speeches and had no idea what was going on in
his administration. That's why Iran Contra happened.
|Sunday, 4 November 2007 at 22h 32m 15s|
That mean ole Clinton
From the ABC News
Washington Post poll
Percentage of Americans who Prefer a New Direction
Yea, oh that same Clinton was even 66% approval on the eve of impeachment for
having sex with a 21 year-old intern.
- After Bush 75%
- After Reagan 55%
- After Clinton 47%
But they still drag him out like a funky, rotten old teddy bear they've had
since they were 3 years old. Cause they are still 3 years old.
|Sunday, 4 November 2007 at 22h 21m 22s|
My feller citozens ...
|Sunday, 4 November 2007 at 17h 20m 11s|
The jobs are weaker due to statistics
From Floyd Norris at the New York Times.
Over the last 12 months, the government’s current numbers indicate that the
private sector added an average of 115,000 jobs a month. But 80 percent of
those jobs came from the statistical adjustments....
Most of those jobs — 103,000 of them, before seasonal adjustment — were added
by the statisticians, not reported by employers. (It should be noted that,
before seasonal adjustment, there were 201,000 jobs added, so this is just more
Why add jobs? It is an effort to include jobs created by new companies not
surveyed, less an estimate for jobs lost at companies that went out of business
and therefore did not respond to the survey.
It is also worth noting that the govertment’s other survey, of households, has
not found those jobs. Over the last 12 months, it has found about 50,000 new
jobs a month. In October, it found employment declined by 250,000 jobs.
In other words, the jobs numbers are based completely upon how businesses fill
out forms and paperwork. If they don't respond, or if they are less than
accurate, the number of jobs added per month is not actually counted by
government officials. It comes from voluntary questionaires.
What statisticians do is assume the ratio of employees to employees added are
the same, with perhaps some economic sector adjustments. It's a messy
estimate, given that the original data is flawed, but in times of normal
economic activity, a 5% margin of error is possible. When economic conditions
change or when the economy is in transition, the ratios are impossible to
ascertain with certainty.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS