about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
“I’ve never been a ‘job creator,’ ” writes Nick Hanauer, who helped start several start-ups,
including aQuantive, which was sold to Microsoft for $6.4 billion. “I can start a business based on
a great idea and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I
have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.”
It’s this “feedback loop” between mass consumers and businesses that creates jobs.
“When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating
evolution,” he writes. “In fact, it’s the other way around.”
The spending of the rich can’t make up the difference for a gutted middle class. Hanauer said his
biggest expense is his jet, which doesn’t support many American jobs since it was made in France and
fueled with oil from the Middle East.
The answer, he says, is to tax the rich so their money can be used to improve the purchasing power
of the middle class.
[SOURCE:Robert Frank | Wall Street
Journal | 1 December 2011]
Another way you know that it wasn't really about economics is that the league's economic public case
for its position became more and more preposterous as the weeks went by, and even the public began
to notice that it was being taken for a fool. The hilarity hit high tide for me when David Stern
started going around explaining that 22 of his 30 franchises were losing money.
Tell me, do you suppose that when Stern sat down and chatted with the Nike corporation, or with the
People's Republic of China, to name only two of the wildly successful authoritarian operations with
which the league does its business, the first thing he explained while pitching the NBA to them was
that 73 percent of his league was in the red? Did you, at any time, expect to see Herb Simon, the
shopping-mall billionaire who owns the "small-market" Indiana Pacers — a team that he bought for $11
million and which is now estimated to be worth $269 million — swiping the leftover bourbon chicken
off abandoned plates in his various food courts unless the players surrendered to him a chunk of
Of course you didn't, because your mother didn't raise a fool when she raised you.
(Can the NBA produce financial documents testifying that Simon and his fellow plutocrats were
perilously close to selling apples on Fifth Avenue? Yes, because almost anyone could, if they hired
Philip K. Dick to do their accounting.)
And the third and most important reason why you know that the lockout was not really about economics
is that there was a lockout at all. Because 30 years of propaganda — thanks, Ronnie! — have
convinced most people under 50 that unions are for losers, it eluded many of the people covering
these events that lockouts are, and will always be, things willed into being exclusively by
management. They are not natural phenomena. They are never truly unavoidable. They don't "just
happen," and they certainly do not occur because "both sides" are at fault. Lockouts occur when
management believes that unions are too strong, and they occur when management believes that unions
are too weak, and they occur when management doesn't want a union to exist at all.
Lockouts are not devices of economic correction. That's just a byproduct. Lockouts are attempts by
management to exercise control over their workers. Period.
[SOURCE:Grantland.com | Charles A.
Pierce | 28 November 2011]
Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 18h 50m 22s
The idea of transference means "the action of transferring something or the process of being
transferred" . The branch of psychology called transference neurosis is "the redirection to a
substitute of emotions that were originally felt in childhood" . I got this idea from the
television series Law & Order that I will watch sporadically throughout the year, when I have time.
The show deals with human psychology and the devolution of unresolved social and personal issues
becoming transformed into monstrous consequences. The particular show involved an older gentleman
who transfered his traumatized notions of his mother having an affair with a jew into a hatred for
jews in general. The man thought his secretary mother was raped by the jewish owner rather than
becoming a willing accomplice, unable to admit that life is more complicated, irrational, and
hypocritical then what he might have wanted. The man devolved when his mother died and he carried
out a series of 7 deaths against hebrews -- which is a rather extreme end to this set of events, but
then what do you expect from a tv show that needs to attract eyeballs. To be fair, the show did a
good job evincing the characters involved in the script.
But it got me thinking about transference. This might be an innate human mechanism of dealing with
very painful events. We redirect the challenging emotions towards a substitute, for whatever
reason, and there are many different reasons. The mind makes its own connections and hypotheses of
events; therefore, the mind finds and accepts its own substitutes.
Emotions are like water. Some persons control their flow of water at a regular constant drip.
Others spray all over the place at different irregular intervals, or rush out, and some even turn
off the spigot for most of their entire life. But when emotions fill an underground reservoir of
pain, the deposits accumulate and grow. Soon the enormous amount of water has to go somewhere, and
where it goes may or may not be the choice of the water carrier. Drainage systems have to be
installed, and they are usually installed without any plan, on an as needed basis. So after a
while, the drainage system becomes dysfunctional and has to be rebuilt or re-routed. This involves
having to make decisions and choices that are difficult because of historical associations and
various other personal attachments. However, whatever decision that is made, dictates the drainage
construction and infrastructure (or lack thereof) that proceeds afterwards.
Ignoring the inevitable is the most frequent strategy. Lacking any absolutely necessary reason to
change or reassess, the human species will merely drift, carrying on the current traditions and
practices with which we have become imbued.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 2h 7m 12s
Reality sets in
Saturday, 19 November 2011 at 22h 50m 46s
Occupy San Francisco's Facebook page
Saturday, 19 November 2011 at 22h 31m 2s
19 attempts to evict versus 200 occupations.
We report you decide.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Click here for the source of the map provided by Daily Kos. The 200 events stem
from the 4th of October when the Kos post occurred.
Saturday, 19 November 2011 at 4h 39m 13s
Idiots and history
These guys who shoot these guns at public officials , going back to Ronald Reagan, are all nut bags.
Using violence against authority is counter-productive because it always produces a different
series of events other than anticipated, and once the desecration occurs the shame will be
inescapable. Adherents to the cause diminish. Violence is a tool for utterly impoverished
civilizations suffering underneath massive dictatorial regimes; but it is nevertheless is poor
choice. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi must be the way forward if any meaningful change is
to evolve. Minds do not change when sensibilities of the national institutions are desecrated.
But the fact still remains, crazy violence against public officials has been a fact in American
History going back to 1881 when James Garfield was shot outside a train station by a nut bag
supposedly upset because he thought he should be appointed consul to Paris despite lacking any
qualifications for the role.
Theodore Roosevelt became President when McKinley got it from another crazed moron. The
contemporary newspapers carried a speculation that the nut bag was angry about the Phillipines
occupation, but it is hard to know for sure. Myths do however at least say something about how a
sizable minority saw the event.
Burr was a very aggressively egoistic fellow who rubbed Hamilton the wrong way and Burr saw Hamilton
in particular as a foe and adversary. Jefferson was going to drop Burr as Vice President in the
1804 election, and Burr became sore after Burr failed in his bid for Governor because of what he
felt was a smear campaign organized by Hamilton. On July 11, 1804 the two met on a duel and
Hamilton was fatally wounded. A sitting Vice President had just shot and killed not only a
civilian, but also a very well regarded American and historically important figure in the creation
of the Republic, as well as political competitor.
This reminds me of when Dick Cheney once shot at de-winged pheasants in rural Texas and accidentally
wounded a friend of his who joined him. Cheney waited until the next day to break the news to the
press. Rumor was that Cheney was drunk.
But what happened in July of 1804:
Burr immediately fled to South Carolina, "where his daughter lived with her family, but soon
returned to Philadelphia and then on to Washington to complete his term as Vice President. He
avoided New York and New Jersey for a time, but all the charges against him were eventually