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 am responding to this blog post by Matthew Yglesias, who is an interesting and intelligent fellow -- except that his economic
views tend to be colored more with a philosophical predilection than are flavored by a view of history.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
even if we manage to halt the slide into recession we’ll have created a situation in which it’s difficult to return again to
We ain't halting this slide. Every volcano must run its course, and right now the pyroclastic flow is still not near completion.
Also, government providing funds for an end result is different than government paying off the debts of the company, or buying
the shares of the company, or appointing officials to the management of the company.
Acting like this is a fluke or an historical aberration is indicative of someone who doesn't know the history of laws and
government interaction with the legal basis of the marketplace over the last 350 when we were a few British colonies on the East
coast, or the same said history for the entire 4,000 years of human civilization.
Corn is subsidized by the government. So are you. That's why you get "deductions" and "Standard deductions" on your tax form.
So are various vegetable crops, and peanuts, and steel, and even the big daddy, oil. More than 1,000 companies are allowed to
use Bermuda banks to skirt the tax laws. When toxins from China were found in baby food, when spoiled meat and poisoned
spinach spread across the nation, government actions had everything to do with the banning and recalls.
Selling government bonds and using government debt instruments as elements in the portfolio baskets of companies is an
And don't you ever wonder why a lot of "public service ads" appear on radio shows and various advertising outlets, ... yes, just
like the favored national newspapers back to the Andrew Jackson days, government business is another form of subsidization.
Did someone say Halliburton?
Government is always involved, one way or another. We however make the choice as to how government -- we the people -- is
involved and to what extent. We can choose the best use of resources or we can deny that those resources exist and call it
socialism like it was a whore.
And furthermore ... as for this comment ...
A lot of this talk has an air of socialistic hubris about it...outside of a relatively narrow range of utility-type activities,
[state-owned enterprises] are collosal flops
Utility-type activities only??
The post office
The National Forest Service
The Coast Guard
The National Guard
With all due respect, Mr. Yglesias, Me-thinks you applied the philosophical principle to thickly.
Thursday, 6 November 2008 at 2h 26m 23s
After eight years of having Republicans call me an un-American troop-hating fag-loving socialist, after months of John McCain
embracing the hate to a level where his own supporters were calling out for Barack Obama to be assassinated, no one is going to
be permitted to tell me with a straight face that "oh you know, both sides do it."
Your side was abominable. Your side was hateful. Your side race-baited. Your side gay-baited. Your side lied like we've never
seen in recent presidential campaign history. Your side used a tax-cheat who would do better under Obama's tax proposal to be
your everyman on the issue of taxes. Your side, in a veiled effort at race-baiting, said Obama doesn't put his country first. Your
side had the audacity to call Obama a socialist. Your side suggested he was a Muslim. Your side suggested he was a terrorist.
Your side suggested he was Osama bin Laden.
Spare me the crap about how both sides do it. You people are a disgrace, you've been a disgrace for eight long years, and all
your hate and lying and venom and vitriol finally bit you in your collective fat ass.
Democrats don't do nasty, and they certainly don't do it well. Lord knows I wish they did, but they don't. Republicans elevate it to
a religion. You are the party of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Angry, bitchy, bitter and elitist. What do we
have to compare? Jesse Jackson, I often hear from my Republican friends. Um, maybe in 1980 when he was relevant. It's been 28
years, got any other examples? Michael Moore, you say? What has Michael Moore said - name one thing - that's comparable to
the filth that regularly issues forth from Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter and, of late, McCain and Palin?
Democrats, when they skewer (which isn't often enough), do it with biting truth. Republicans skewer, early and often, with vicious
lies. It goes back to a more general philosophy that liberals have: If we just tell them the truth, the people will agree with us.
Republicans are far less sanguine. They know that a good lie beats the truth any day of the week.
[SOURCE:John Avarosis | Americablog | 5
Thursday, 6 November 2008 at 1h 56m 1s
Nader is a poser
He may have done some good in the 1970's and 1980's when he was younger, but he's not the same person now.
wonder if someone has something on Nader (blackmail) because otherwise, WTF (what the f**k) is he talking about in this Fox
Really. It is quite pathetic.
Notice how Ralph's left eye ( on the right side of the screen) is droppy whenever he talks. Could this be cognitive dissonance
from the right side of his brain?
You tell me.
Ralph has now become a puppet, squawking about the duplicity of so-called reformers in order to avoid his own duplicity.
Thursday, 6 November 2008 at 1h 34m 54s
The Palin spending spree
NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously
reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous
profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But
instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as
Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a
wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their
credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent
"tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some
articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting
Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.
A Palin aide said: "Governor Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that
staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense. Nasty and false accusations following a defeat say more
about the person who made them than they do about Governor Palin."
McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on
clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech
Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.
If you click the link, the following is on page 2 at the very bottom of the bullet list.
When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a
good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You
know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that
you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What
I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my
house. It's because of something collective'."
Yeh, like Brian Williams knows something about "personal".
Systematic problems cannot be effectively managed if the method is dependent upon voluntary behavior.
We can't just advertise actors or real people who show us "the way" on the television. Some people will respond, but many others
will not. Yet the impression of the effect is still the same, because everyone will "see" the same advertisements. This is not how
you solve systemic problems.
If you want to improve the entire system, you can't think that a small percentage of the elements that create the system will
change the system if the remaining elements don't change. When you clean the house, you don't clean a small percentage of the
house and actually call it clean.
The only way to treat a systematic problem is to involve 100% of the elements that make up the system in the collective solution
to the systematic problem. The necessary functions of the government need to be paid for? Solution: assess taxes on every
single citizen, maybe even while taking into account income. Want to make sure everyone has access to sanitation and water?
Make a law that mandates every abode has to have running water and needs to get inspected by a government official.
I've spoken about this many times. The idea that we can run a government based on voluntary compliant with the law is
Joe "the plumber" says its a matter of "principles" whenever he was asked why people making more than $250,000 (less than 2%
of the entire population) shouldn't pay more taxes. He'll talk about how people who "work hard" shouldn't be penalized in order
to help others who don't work. "Why should my hard earned money pay for someone else?" is the typical rhetorical question this
line of argument will use to unhinge the notion of collective responsibility. This is the selfish position. I makes my money and I
owns my property.
But it is also the most dysfunctional, because we are all connected and interdependent whether we like it or not. The right-wing
conservative belief in "liberty" and "freedom" from government presumes otherwise, and here is the important point: their linking
to those words are through the filter of this presumption. The idea that the roads they drive on, the toilets they flush, and the
telephone systems they use have anything to do with government and collective responsibility is vanished from these "principles".
Self-flattery will always use the most elated words as justification for selfishness.
Sunday, 2 November 2008 at 17h 32m 40s
Palin falls for prank phone call from French President
This is hella funny. She actually thinks President Sarkozy is calling her.
Friday, 31 October 2008 at 0h 9m 43s
Just another good ole boy
Village Voice::14 May
''[The Wall Street Journal's John Fund] was supposed to spend Thanksgiving with me and didn't,'' she recalls. ''I questioned him
when he got home and he beat me up. I was cowering in the corner. He was screaming. He said, 'Get out, bitch,' and he left, and I
called the police. He came back and beat me up again. When the police arrived, I was shaking and crying and very upset. He was
very calm. A lady officer walked in and asked me if I was on drugs. John told me that none of the charges would stick.'' In mid
January, the mainstream media first reported on Fund's alleged abuse.
Around that time, Pillbury says, she moved out and Fund agreed to give her money to help pay her bills. He watched her write
checks from his account and deposit them in her account. Soon after, she says, ''I found out that my accounts were frozen and he
told me that they were going to stay frozen until I contacted these members of the media and gave them papers saying that I had
lied about the abuse.'' She says the bank did not return her calls. Says Pillsbury-Foster, ''This is obviously part of a pattern of
abuse and attempted control, and yet the D.A. refused to listen to her.''
The California Federation of Republican Women holds its big two-day conference down in Ontario (San Bernardino County) over
the weekend -- but the private buzz isn't about President Bush, it's about John Fund. If the name escapes you, he's the Wall
Street Journal's online columnist who -- after taking aim at Bill Clinton's sexual exploits -- wound up with his own tabloid
troubles. Fund's fun in the sun began with an affair with Melinda Pillsbury-Foster some two decades ago. It ended in 1998 when
Fund took up with Pillsbury-Foster's grown daughter, who accused him of getting her pregnant and then asking her to have an
abortion -- all of which he's denied. Fund was later charged with domestic abuse, but a judge dismissed the case in December.
Bradblog(with video):18 May 2007
John Fund is an evil, unrepentant liar who despises democracy and the very American values that it represents.
[SOURCE:Cynthia Cotts | Village Voice | 14 May
[SOURCE:Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross | SF Chronicle | 5
Friedmann | Bradblog.com | 19 May 2007]
with John Fund | Bill Maher Show | 18 May 2007]
His eyes get tight and very deep with the darkness of deception. Funny how he resurfaces in 2007 with all the turmoil of 2002-
2003 behind him. But of course.
Friday, 31 October 2008 at 23h 5m 57s
They call her Digby
This writer is always dead onto something interesting. I have personally never read anything from her that is not relevant and
profoundly interesting. Digby is a sweet additive to our
We live in a world where the right wing ruthlessly and without mercy degrades and attacks by any means necessary what they
perceive as the enemy, and then uses the great principles of democracy and fair play when the same is done to them. They leave the
rest of us standing on the sidelines looking like fools for ever caring about anything but winning.
Click here and read about how the
McCain campaign volunteer base consists of 1,000 national volunteers and Barack Obama has 5 million.
Makes you wonder how it is possible the McCain campaign can win. The volunteers of Obama dwarf the Republicans. The voter
turnout in the primaries and in the early voting is polling more than 2 to 1. Even the McCain campaign itself is showing signs of
acknowledging the coming event.
I don't want to jinx anything. We will find out in 5 days.
Definitely these 23% are ignorant -- which is completely due to the pathetic Texas School system : the void filled in by 24-7
commercial television. If you got your ed'ucation from TV, imagine the boundaries of your global and historical understanding.
But here is what is potentially wrong with this poll.
For starters, the "poll" of 550 votes itself doesn't really tell us much, because it's statewide, and with that small a sample, it
would be tough to correlate the ignorance with the location or type. It is very possible that the percent of those who believe
could be higher in different parts of the state. This poll is really limited to a macro-perspective.
It would also be interesting to know how the poll samples were collected. "A statewise survey of 550 registered voters" means
what? Did they make phone calls? Did they interview voters? Did they have the voters fill out forms? All we know is that the poll
was conducted from Oct 15 to 22. Did they make phone calls at specific time intervals, or during specific times? Were the phone
numbers from land-lines or were the calls random numbers? How many non-responses were there?
Most importantly: Did they do a stratified organizing of the sample to ensure the ratios of the various groups are correctly
proportional? If the percentages in the poll increase or decrease in certain ares, care must be taken that the ratio of the samples
are as close as possible to what they are in the larger population. All sample gathering and analysis techniques must use a
known proportion from the larger population (called a parameter) to base the sample analysis on.
You can't just take the first 550 people who respond to your call and call it a day because Clustering is quite possible and
potentially influential with such a small sample. Anything less than 1% has the potential to be affected by clusters sort of like the
first 500 flips of a coin : it is more probable that you will not have exactly 250 heads and 250 tails, and there will be runs of 5 to
6 similar tosses and maybe 10 straight (or more) during the 500 tosses. The problem of clusters in a small sample is that you
might get 10 such events that aren't balanced because the nature of chance the order of events can never be guaranteed.
In order to decrease the potential bias due to the cluster effect all good statisticians must pair the samples to actual ratios that
exist in the larger population. If 20% of Texas live in the panhandle, 60% live in East Texas, and 30% live in the south by
Galveston, then the ratios of location should exist in the survey. So if you want a sample size of 600, you take 60%, 20%, and
30% of the 600 to get the numbers you need from each region (360, 120, & 180).
There are two ways to do a survey that wants to mitigate the cluster effect:
1) Know what the numbers you have to have and keep doing the survey until all the numbers you need are reached. You will
probably have more than you need in some of the categories, so randomly remove samples until you reach the correct number.
2) Make calls to each region and stop when you get the required count. In this method the entire region is put into groups and a
certain number of random calls go to each region until the number from each group is reached.
It is not clear whether the University of Texas poll did any of these things.
By the way, the so-called margin of error is just 3 times some number called the standard error. Divide the 4.2 by 3 and you get
1.4. This is the average distance from the mean for all of the samples. Squaring 1.4 equals 1.96, which is the average sum of
squares of the differences between the average and the samples. Multiplying by 550 is 1078, and now taking the square root
you finally get the important number : 32.83. (Trust me if you don't understand).
32.83% (or .3283) is the sample standard deviation. Notice that 3 times this number is damn close to one. This essentially
means that anything between 0 and 1 is possible. The average of the numbers between 1 (yes) and 0 (no) is 0.23, with the
average distance from 1 and 0 (representing all the people who answered yes or no) being represented by the important number
Now, since the two numbers subtracted from 0.23 are either one (yes) or zero(no), we are actually just adding a bunch of squared
0.23 and 0.77 values. The square root of this sum after being divided by 549 is .3283. The ratios here are 18% and 82% (.3283-
.23 divided by .77-.23).
This means that we should expect clustering within the population anywhere between 18% and 82%, with the average being
32.83% not 23%.
Most of these surveys really aren't worth their namesakes. Did you realize "a margin of error of 4.2%" actually means the sample
has a high potential for bias due to clustering?