Jul 01 2014
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate" as i tweeted earlier, religion is now only about unapproved fucking
— Atrios (@Atrios) June 30, 2014
Jul 01 2014
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate" as i tweeted earlier, religion is now only about unapproved fucking
— Atrios (@Atrios) June 30, 2014
May 23 2014
David Brooks, also known here by the not so affectionate moniker of “Chunky Bobo”, has written a column so absurd that you just have to shake your head in stupefaction that this man still has a job-much less a respected position in American journalism. Like McMegan-it appears that Chunky Bobo has thrown in the towel on making democracy work-and has instead decided to go down the path that Lenin led the Russians down almost a 100 years ago.
According to Brooks, it is all the government’s fault-while the actual voters who are the machine that makes a good democracy work, are to be held guiltless:
It’s now clear that the end of the Soviet Union heralded an era of democratic complacency. Without a rival system to test them, democratic governments have decayed across the globe. In the U.S., Washington is polarized, stagnant and dysfunctional; a pathetic 26 percent of Americans trust their government to do the right thing. In Europe, elected officials have grown remote from voters, responding poorly to the euro crisis and contributing to massive unemployment.
According to measures by Freedom House, freedom has been in retreat around the world for the past eight years. New democracies like South Africa are decaying; the number of nations that the Bertelsmann Foundation now classifies as “defective democracies” (rigged elections and so on) has risen to 52. As John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge write in their book, “The Fourth Revolution,” “so far, the 21st century has been a rotten one for the Western model.”
Brooks’ solution. Send for the sycophants and call on the wisdom of Lee Kwan Yeu:
A new charismatic rival is gaining strength: the Guardian State. In their book, Micklethwait and Wooldridge do an outstanding job of describing Asia’s modernizing autocracies. In some ways, these governments look more progressive than the Western model; in some ways, more conservative.
In places like Singapore and China, the best students are ruthlessly culled for government service. The technocratic elites play a bigger role in designing economic life. The safety net is smaller and less forgiving. In Singapore, 90 percent of what you get out of the key pension is what you put in. Work is rewarded. People are expected to look after their own.
These Guardian States have some disadvantages compared with Western democracies. They are more corrupt. Because the systems are top-down, local government tends to be worse. But they have advantages. They are better at long-range thinking and can move fast because they limit democratic feedback and don’t face NIMBY-style impediments.
Really? China? A model for free people to follow? It is hard to believe Brooks actually wrote that line and believes it. Yet it would appear he does.
There is just one big problem with Brooks’ prescription-he has not examined all the side affects that come with the cure. While I am a believer that some of the Singaporean programs could be applied to good effect in the US- it is important to remember that Singapore is not, by any remote stretch of his Gaultian imagination a real democracy-or a place where equality and freedom of speech are thriving. There are more than a few facts that Brooks is leaving out of his narrative.
Specifically, Brooks slants his narrative to make it look like the Sinagaporean system does not have anything in place that he hates, such as universal access to health care. Or mandated ( and strongly enforced) mandates to pay in to both employers and employees. Ask yourself how that is going to go down with his teabagger friends. When Brooks makes the statement that 90% of Singapore’s pensions come from employees, he is either flat out lying, or showing his ignorance once again. ( A citizen is required to provide 20% of his income to his CPF fund, but he also gets an employer contribution of at least 5 and mostly 14%.). And it has to be looked at in context-Singapore provides services to its people that , based on Chunky Bobo’s other pronouncements, are an anathema to the true believer in Burkean Bells. Well financed and run public transportation for one.
And of course, either through ignorance or just plain deceitfulness-he ignores the fact that there is a tiered system of Singapore’s populations that would not welcome American ideas of equality of all under the law. Or put another way-a lot of Singapore’s progress is built on the backs of people who don’t enjoy the benefits of the government he suggests, and are in fact marginalized by the same government. Ask Filipinos and Bangladeshis how much of this Guardian State idea benefits them. This as they work for wages that are well below what their Chinese employers would ever see.
And you could also ask Mr. Brooks how much he enjoys a one party state, where criticism of the government is allowed, but only to a certain point. And folks who try to bring opposite view points are harassed and or sued out of existence. Kind of forgot that little detail, didn’t you David?
Brooks is wrong about what is broken. American Democracy is not broken-at least the model of it is not. The participants in that model however are badly broken-especially those residents of one political party, that to put it idly has gone completely insane. Our country used to get things done, now we have the most unproductive Congress in years. And its because of a collective freak out by people who ought to know better-over the election of a black man to the white house. As I have said before, I don't think it is necessarily racist-but it is part of an effort to marginalize one political party. It is crazy. And it happens because a certain percentage of the American population proves itself to be really stupid.
However, this is typical Bobo. He fancies himself as a member of the elite. He forgets that under Singaporean rules-he can't. He's not Chinese. But Bobo would never take the time to learn that.
Apr 15 2014
It’s a double whammy of depression, of late. On a personal note-the ongoing churn at my place of employ is making the ability to enjoy the choice location more than a little problematic sometimes. As the S.O. and I settle into the new house , the more we like many of its features. The one obvious down side has been the lack of internet connection-but the porch and view from said porch offsets it to a great degree. And after days like this one:
I need the peace and solitude it brings.
So I have that bit of downward pressure on my life-offset in great deal by location, but it’s not enough to overcome the frustration of knowing I am right, being right, and being unable to make the types of meaningful changes that need to be made.
Adding to the downward pressure on my spirit is the realization that I will be returning to the US of A-not by choice as much as lack of one. And that when I get there-the downward spiral of US politics will have continued its decline into abject stupidity.
Especially since as many pundits predict-the GOP may take the Senate as well as keep the House. Once that is accomplished, I fully expect the Congress of the United States to do nothing (something they are already doing), but they will begin a full throated effort to impeach Barak Obama.
It’s coming-you can rest assured of that. And since it takes 67 Senators to convict, and the odds of the GOP winning that many seats are virtually nonexistent, it will be another typically pointless gesture undertaken by the teabagger crazed loons who run and who support the current twisted political vision known as the Republican party.
The bulk of 2015 will be spent talking about it and the Fox Noise machine will kick into overdrive trying to convict the president in absentia, since they will be unable to achieve their real dream of ending his political career. (Remember these were the same people who were telling you that Romney was going to win big).
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), who has said there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, added: “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate. . . . Is there anything else we can do?”
Why, yes, there is, congressman: You can hold hearings that accomplish nothing but allow you to sound fierce for your most rabid constituents.
The Republicans in the House know there is no chance of throwing this president from office. Yet at least 13 of the 22 Republicans on the panel have threatened or hinted at impeachment of Obama, his appointees or his allies in Congress. They’ve proposed this as the remedy to just about every dispute or political disagreement, from Syria to Obamacare.
This kind of political fight is exactly the last thing the country needs right now-but when did the GOP ever make doing the right thing a priority? Certainly not since the middle of the 20th century.
So how will it happen? I predict they will use the “slow burn” technique. They will pass their 65th or so vote to repeal the ACA. When that gets vetoed as it surely must, it will set forth the following scenario: there will begin a series of hearings trying to establish that the President exceeded his executive authority by making decisions on extending deadlines and such. Using those as the pretext they will turn over to the House committee that does such things a resolution demanding the impeachment of Obama for exceeding his legal authority as President. ( When he in reality he has not even used his authority near enough). The old canards will be dragged out: Bengahzi, IRS, and all the rest of the nonsense that has been long been put to bed.) Fox will have hour after hour of commentary for its brain dead audience-hyping the idea of impeaching the President. Comparisons to Clinton's blowjobs will resound. This will all occur in May or June of 2015 with the actual trial set to occur in September of 2015 after the summer recess. ( allowing the illusion of justice and due diligence by allowing both sides time to prepare-it will also try to be timed so as to make Biden a real lame duck if they should get lucky and win).
Nothing of substance will be accomplished by the Congress in 2015. They will stall on the budget-and perhaps force another debt ceiling fight, hoping to use that to pile on in the process, leaving the country to tear itself apart politically. And in the end-the President will be acquitted, but there will be loads of sound bites that ultra conservative Presidential candidates can use repeatedly showing how the Kenyan usurper was never supposed to be in the job anyway. ( Popular vote or Electoral college results not with standing).
And Nate Silver will be pilloried again-for denying the Romney monster the victory they feel was rightfully his in 2012.
And in the meantime what happens to the country? Wages will continue to stagnate and more and more wealth will continue to move upward-aggravating the tepid economic recovery by seeing more and more Americans slide downwards in terms of purchasing power. In fact, the country could slip back into recession because of the turmoil the impeachment crisis will create in world markets. Holders of 401K's-like me-will see themselves condemned to working for the rest of our lives at unsatisfying jobs ( as the comic mentions above) because the value of our accumulated savings will tank.
And that will be all occurring before we get to 2016.
Now ideally, an impeachment drama would produce the kind of universal public outrage that will backfire on the GOP and make it a pariah in the elections of 2016. It can and should lead to a recognition of the flawed and selfish viewpoint of American Politics and economics that was legitimized by Mitt Romney in 2012 ( with his disgusting codification of the rhetoric that 47% of the American population are nothing but "moochers")-and seized upon by soulless men such as the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver , Paul Ryan.
But it won't. Primarily because that kind of outrage will come from an informed electorate-something the United States has not had for a long time. Only about 20% of us actually understand the issues in the proper context, and draw the correct conclusions from it. Another 30% subscribe to the "I got mine, so fuck you!" philosophy of the current teabagger controlled GOP-and the remaining 50% just can't be bothered to get up from the TV to learn anything. Or vote.
If that does not give you good reason to be depressed about the future of the land of my birth-you are not grasping the problem.
Its a bad news story, that could be easily fixed and could have been as long ago as 2009.
But it won't.
Welcome to the new dark ages.
Dec 11 2013
Yesterday afternoon, the Devil's apprentice himself, Paul Ryan ( Worthless Cocksucker-WI) and his Democratic counterpart Mrs Landingham (H/t to Charles Pierce for the term) announced they had reached a budget deal.
Some deal. Rather than go for the straightforward approach of repealing the rest of the Bush tax cuts and lifting the cap on Social Security ( and let me make this abundantly clear for the all the deficit scolds out there, worthless people that you too are, Social Security does not contribute to the deficit and its time you stupid people stopped saying that.)
Instead we get this bit of trickery designed to fuck a whole lot of us at the drive through:
In a move expected to save $6 billion, the Bipartisan Budget Act announced Tuesday by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., calls for reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees under the age of 62. Working-age military retirees would receive an annual pay adjustment that is 1 percentage point less than the rise in consumer prices. For example, the 1.7 percent COLA that took effect on Dec. 1 and will first appear in January checks would be just 0.7 percent for military retirees under age 62 but still be 1.7 percent for older retirees if the proposal were now in effect. The COLA reduction would be phased in three years. The December 2014 COLA would be reduced by 0.25 percent, the December 2015 COLA would be reduced by 0.5 percent and the full reduction would take effect with the December 2016 COLA. Disability retirees would not have their COLAs reduced. The plan could come to a vote in the House this week and, if it passes, be taken up by the Senate next week. The budget plan also saves $6 billion from changes in federal civilian retirement.
As Charles Pierce pointed out, once again the GOP gets to fuck over hard working people and steal, while the Democrats simply can pat themselves on the back for politely letting them do it.
Apparently, the nation once again avoided a Grand Bargain by the skin of its teeth, but what makes me nervous is the fact that, at the press conference, the ZEGS spent most of his time celebrating what his side had gained out of the deal, while Mrs. Landingham spent most of her time celebrating the fact of the deal, and stressing that The American People would be glad to see both sides working together.
This is how the scale generally gets loaded in Washington — Republicans get enough of what they want so as to rest up for the next big grab while the Democrats throw themselves a parade to honor how mature and grown-up they are. For them, the deal is an end in itself. For the Republicans, it is a means to an end. The fight gets fixed that way. For all the huzzahs, you can hardly hear the cries of the people who are being sold down the river.
I am one of those people being sold down the river-and just reiterates for me why the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver has to go. If you have been reading here for a while you know that I have no sympathy for Paul Ryan, wishing fervently that he would drop dead in the early morning DC weather. There to be run over by a passing bus in his last brief moments of consciousness. And that would not even begin to repay him for the evil he conspires to do.
And take a look at the sleazy way this evil man tries to justify his thievery:
"We think it is only fair that hard-working taxpayers, who pay for the benefits that our federal employees receive, be treated fairly as well. We also think it is important that military families, as well as nonmilitary families are treated equally and fairly," he said.
Got that boys and girls? It's a back handed insult at federal employees and military retirees, as he implies that they don't work hard and have not earned their benefits. ( As opposed to say, greedy corporate CEO's) Not to mention its a double whammy for them since they have not had a pay raise since 2009 AND a lot are already contributing 15% of their salaries (same amount I have contributed since I left the military) to our retirement accounts just to match the amount I would have been contributing were I still with my civilian corporation job. ( This due to the differences in how salaries are computed).
The Military coalition should be screaming bloody murder about this. So should a lot of other organizations. But they won't. It's for the children!
There are a whole bunch of other goodies tucked into this bill-many of them bad ideas that started not with politicians, but with budget hacks inside DOD. Who keep whining about treating people decently. And lets not even mention the abomination in the Defense bill that strips Convening Authorities of their authority to act in court martials. I'll have more on that tomorrow.
There is a special place in hell reserved for you, Ryan, and the rest of the herd. Please be speedily on your way.
Dec 09 2013
David Simon, speaking at a forum in Sydney Australia gave a very perceptive rundown about what ails the land of my birth. He points out very eloquently a theme that the Pope and others have been highlighting recently, namely that income inequality is dangerous and if we don't do something about it, we are risking the very nation we claim to love.
You can read the entire thing here-and you should. I want to copy it and stick it in the face of every person who whines about how "socialist" the country is. As I have said before-they don't even know what the word means.
America is a country that is now utterly divided when it comes to its society, its economy, its politics. There are definitely two Americas. I live in one, on one block in Baltimore that is part of the viable America, the America that is connected to its own economy, where there is a plausible future for the people born into it. About 20 blocks away is another America entirely. It's astonishing how little we have to do with each other, and yet we are living in such proximity.
There's no barbed wire around West Baltimore or around East Baltimore, around Pimlico, the areas in my city that have been utterly divorced from the American experience that I know. But there might as well be. We've somehow managed to march on to two separate futures and I think you're seeing this more and more in the west. I don't think it's unique to America.
I think we've perfected a lot of the tragedy and we're getting there faster than a lot of other places that may be a little more reasoned, but my dangerous idea kind of involves this fellow who got left by the wayside in the 20th century and seemed to be almost the butt end of the joke of the 20th century; a fellow named Karl Marx.
I'm not a Marxist in the sense that I don't think Marxism has a very specific clinical answer to what ails us economically. I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. He was good at figuring out what was wrong or what could be wrong with capitalism if it wasn't attended to and much less credible when it comes to how you might solve that.
You know if you've read Capital or if you've got the Cliff Notes, you know that his imaginings of how classical Marxism – of how his logic would work when applied – kind of devolve into such nonsense as the withering away of the state and platitudes like that. But he was really sharp about what goes wrong when capital wins unequivocally, when it gets everything it asks for.
That may be the ultimate tragedy of capitalism in our time, that it has achieved its dominance without regard to a social compact, without being connected to any other metric for human progress.
Mr Simon is writing about his astonishment that there are those who take utterly reprehensible ideas about abandoning the social compact and the original ideas of America as a commonwealth, in favor of a philosophy of out right selfish behavior.
That may be the ultimate tragedy of capitalism in our time, that it has achieved its dominance without regard to a social compact, without being connected to any other metric for human progress.
We understand profit. In my country we measure things by profit. We listen to the Wall Street analysts. They tell us what we're supposed to do every quarter. The quarterly report is God. Turn to face God. Turn to face Mecca, you know. Did you make your number? Did you not make your number? Do you want your bonus? Do you not want your bonus?
And that notion that capital is the metric, that profit is the metric by which we're going to measure the health of our society is one of the fundamental mistakes of the last 30 years. I would date it in my country to about 1980 exactly, and it has triumphed.
Capitalism stomped the hell out of Marxism by the end of the 20th century and was predominant in all respects, but the great irony of it is that the only thing that actually works is not ideological, it is impure, has elements of both arguments and never actually achieves any kind of partisan or philosophical perfection.
It's pragmatic, it includes the best aspects of socialistic thought and of free-market capitalism and it works because we don't let it work entirely. And that's a hard idea to think – that there isn't one single silver bullet that gets us out of the mess we've dug for ourselves. But man, we've dug a mess.
This is RMoney's 47% argument well refuted. But thanks to the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver and his buddies, the bad idea lives on and on.
And so in my country you're seeing a horror show. You're seeing a retrenchment in terms of family income, you're seeing the abandonment of basic services, such as public education, functional public education. You're seeing the underclass hunted through an alleged war on dangerous drugs that is in fact merely a war on the poor and has turned us into the most incarcerative state in the history of mankind, in terms of the sheer numbers of people we've put in American prisons and the percentage of Americans we put into prisons. No other country on the face of the Earth jails people at the number and rate that we are.
We have become something other than what we claim for the American dream and all because of our inability to basically share, to even contemplate a socialist impulse.
Socialism is a dirty word in my country. I have to give that disclaimer at the beginning of every speech, "Oh by the way I'm not a Marxist you know". I lived through the 20th century. I don't believe that a state-run economy can be as viable as market capitalism in producing mass wealth. I don't.
I'm utterly committed to the idea that capitalism has to be the way we generate mass wealth in the coming century. That argument's over. But the idea that it's not going to be married to a social compact, that how you distribute the benefits of capitalism isn't going to include everyone in the society to a reasonable extent, that's astonishing to me.
And so capitalism is about to seize defeat from the jaws of victory all by its own hand. That's the astonishing end of this story, unless we reverse course. Unless we take into consideration, if not the remedies of Marx then the diagnosis, because he saw what would happen if capital triumphed unequivocally, if it got everything it wanted.
As I said, the whole article is worth a read.
Oct 22 2013
Well we met our new "team mates" yesterday. As I expected it, it did not go well:
It was an interesting exercise in surrealism. Our current boss was basically pre-empted by the GS-15 who seeks to
enslave replace him. That issue has not been determined yet-but this guy acted like it had.
Then he went into an instructive little missive of how he and one of our flags went to visit John Deere last year, and told how they brought in an outside firm to help them "reorganize". And because of that experience we should not 'fear change".. ( BTW nice to know that you can afford the travel money for such little ventures-this while we beg for the merest of scraps).
Oh really? When our HR is telling us it knows nothing about this event-and when it does happen, one of the specific goals is a reduction of billets? My office mate and I just looked at each other in sheer amazement.
But I digress-he told us that little story to justify why he is turning to a contractor, one that works directly for him and depends on his decisions for continued work on said contract to organize this merger. He was not in the least happy when it was pointed out to him ( and the contractor person), that doing that is a blatant conflict of interest.
Perhaps a call to the IG might help?
Seriously, John Deere? That company has nothing in common with the organizations we work for. Unless it's veiled imagery for putting us all out to pasture.
Just blow me now.
Probably the most bizarre thing about the whole exercise, is that he seems to think we don't know exactly what happened-when in fact, everyone in the room knows what has transpired and what is transpiring. I mean after all, he's not the only one who talks to flag officers. An outside look? Really?
No one is afraid of change. They do have a desire not to do things just for stupidity's sake, however and that is what the logic behind this is. I've been though that more than couple other times.
The future days, suck they shall.
Sep 30 2013
Henry Hill: [voice over] Now he's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with a bill, to Paulie. Trouble with cops, deliveries, Tommy, he calls Paulie. But now he has to pay Paulie every week no matter what. "Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. The place got hit by lightning? Fuck you, pay me."
So tomorrow morning-if all goes as I expect it to. I will go into work, put my files in order, write a snarky "out of office" e-mail message, bemoaning the inability of Congress to do its Constitutionally appointed duty and passing along my sincere hope that every Republican member of Congress dies tomorrow night in a fire- and then I will shut down my computers, lock my files in the safe and head out the door to my car. And thus will begin the long lonely countdown to see if I can my next month's rent-and the house payment on the house in Shopping Mall.
No one, even the worst hater of Obama, should be rooting for a government shutdown. And yet- I have read some pretty messed up people advocating exactly that. "Shut the damn thing down for year!". These morons actually believe that a government shutdown would not affect them at all. I weep when I think that some of the stupid people saying this, also wear the ring. They may wear the ring all right-but they long ago forgot what it stood for, or the real basis for the concept of the "citizen soldier". These people make me ashamed sometimes to be an American and a graduate of my alma mater. Notice I said sometimes-before anyone lays into me. My alma mater has also produced many fine men-but some folks do lose their way.
I wonder if some of that blase' ignorance is caused by the fact that we do during shutdowns what we always do. We muddle through it. Consider this, all you nay sayers. Hard working men like Maurice will go to work tomorrow-with no guarantee of getting paid back for his work, because what he does is necessary to the safety of his community. He does not agree with me in the least about the administration-but he will still get screwed by the shutdown. The place I work at will have a military population doing twice the work it normally does. That will be repeated over 100's of locations.
Now to me-these things kind of miss the point. These mitigations allow shutdowns to happen. I keep thinking to myself, "Why not do the damn thing right? Have the government shutdown for real-all of it."
Air traffic would have to stop for lack of air traffic controllers.
Store shelves would rapidly become empty for lack of deliveries-or lack of safe products on its shelves.
Navy ships should just steam to the nearest port-and go cold iron.
Declare it open season for Mexicans to come streaming into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California-because the border patrol would not be on duty.
Watch the markets freeze up because of lack of federal funds. Or better yet, watch creditor nations sell just a small proportion of their American assets, they could send Wall Street into a tailspin, with unpleasant implications for the net worth of many Republicans and Democrats.
Watch literally thousands of Americans die on highways, and other venues for lack of safety inspections. If it went on long enough-some folks would die from tainted food.
Deny any guards at any government facility. Just leave the gates open and walk away. Open house for terrorists!
And lots lots more.
Now that would be a shutdown. It might actually put the fear of God in both Congress and the hapless tea party dimwits who encourage this kind of irresponsibility. I think it would ensure that any shutdown would be short.
"You are talking nonsense!", you say. Sure I am-but its no more or less nonsensical than the idea that a small group of privileged Americans get to hold the country hostage. These assholes think they have nothing to lose. Thanks to Republican legislatures back home they all have gerrymandered districts that protect them from any Democratic challenges.
And, I might add, some dedicated Federal workers- who contrary to the popular caricature of them as lazy moochers-have a strong sense of duty.
What we have in America when Congress screws the pooch tonight is not an immediate Armageddon. Rather its more like a slow stiffening of our country's body with rigor mortis. The country is dying all right-but instead of blowing up in an instant it just dies slowly.
Which gives the terrorists in Congress more time to play with matches in a dynamite magazine.
“Shut down” doesn’t really capture the impact of what’s more like a spending freeze that will gradually spread through the government like ice forming in water. That means its effects may creep up on citizens who don’t interact with the bureaucracy daily. Initially, a shutdown will be little more than a symbol of US dysfunction, but each passing day will make its economic impact more tangible, especially if prolonged squabbling spooks consumer and business confidence.
The shutdown is essentially a legal problem: Republicans in Congress refused to endorse a spending bill unless it delayed the Affordable Care Act, the law delivering health insurance to poorer Americans, which starts to take effect on Oct. 1. Now, when the new fiscal year starts, government officials won’t have the authority to spend new money.
The government doesn’t shut down “essential” services that protect life or would be more costly to suspend than keep going. That means soldiers stay on duty (though their pay is delayed) and nuclear reactors stay open, but most financial regulators and trade negotiators are sent home without pay. Medicare and Social Security will keep paying out, since they are paid for out of trust funds, though the checks may be late arriving. Many departments and contracts will be able to continue using money that is already appropriated before that, too runs out.
The longest shutdown was 21 days. I have reason to think that this one may be longer. Because we have never had a Congress this full of lunatics before. I hope I am wrong.
You can call this a lot of things, but "gridlock" should not be one of them. And you can fault many aspects of the President's response — when it comes to debt-default, I think he has to stick to the "no negotiations with terrorists" hard line. But you shouldn't pretend that if he had been more "reasonable" or charming he could placate a group whose goal is the undoing of his time in office.
The real question now is what Boehner, McConnell, et al. can do about their hard-liners. A lot depends, for Americans and many others, on their success or failure.
So I have one message to Congress, courtesy of Henry Hill:
Fuck you, pay me.
Sep 24 2013
I subscribe to Charles Pierce's first law of Blog Economics , namely: "Fk The Deficit. People got no jobs. People got no money."
Pierce rightly notes that with the suicidal plunge of the teabag wing of the Republican party over the ACA, " the deficit fetishists are back. Even Messrs. Simpson and Bowles have rolled away the stone. They have their commission's recommendations to wave around. The Fix The Debt frauds are wandering the Green Rooms. While all this scrambling about defunding the ACA is going on, it is very likely that the various cultists in Congress, at the instigation of the White House, might decide to start feeding Vaal again."
douchebags members in the tea party? But of course. But it also turns out there may have been another culprit all along.
Nearly four years ago, I began writing a novel, set in the aftermath of the Norman conquest of 1066. Before I began to write, I spent six months sitting in the Bodleian library poring over books and journals to familiarise myself with the period. I soon realised that, apart from the story of the Battle of Hastings that everyone learns at school, I knew hardly anything about the impact of the conquest. I began to understand, too, how much of that impact is still with us.
By the end of the process, I had come to a slightly disquieting conclusion: we are still being governed by Normans.
Take house prices. According to the author Kevin Cahill, the main driver behind the absurd expense of owning land and property in Britain is that so much of the nation's land is locked up by a tiny elite. Just 0.3% of the population – 160,000 families – own two thirds of the country. Less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land, running Britain a close second to Brazil for the title of the country with the most unequal land distribution on Earth.
Much of this can be traced back to 1066. The first act of William the Conqueror, in 1067, was to declare that every acre of land in England now belonged to the monarch. This was unprecedented: Anglo-Saxon England had been a mosaic of landowners. Now there was just one. William then proceeded to parcel much of that land out to those who had fought with him at Hastings. This was the beginning of feudalism; it was also the beginning of the landowning culture that has plagued England – and Britain – ever since.
The dukes and earls who still own so much of the nation's land, and who feature every year on the breathless rich lists, are the beneficiaries of this astonishing land grab. William's 22nd great-granddaughter, who today sits on the throne, is still the legal owner of the whole of England. Even your house, if you've been able to afford one, is technically hers. You're a tenant, and the price of your tenancy is your loyalty to the crown. When the current monarch dies, her son will inherit the crown (another Norman innovation, incidentally, since Anglo-Saxon kings were elected). As Duke of Cornwall, he is the inheritor of land that William gave to Brian of Brittany in 1068, for helping to defeat the English at Hastings.
And the Americans adopted a lot of British traditions-although the teahadists firmly deny it. Wealth inequality being one.
It might behoove our Galtian overlords to remember that England had more than a few ups and downs over the years in its quest towards total Plutocracy. "Though the Normans were never expelled, the spirit of the silvatici can be traced throughout later English history, from the Peasants' Revolt to the tales of Robin Hood. Not everyone takes conquest lying down. Today's elites might like to take note."
Jul 25 2013
There are times, only a few, that I think that the election of Barak Obama-while quite necessary from the stand point of stopping some of the lunacy of the Bush years-may have been a bad thing in the long term. Perhaps it would have been better to plunge on into the Great Depression that Grandpa McCain and
the worthless whore woman from Wasilla would have plunged us into.
Of course the problem with that line of thinking is that its nonsense, and besides which, McCain could have had a stroke and we could have had shit for brains as the first female commander in Chief.
Nope. It was the choice we made and we chose correctly among the available options.
Nonetheless, the election of Barak Obama has set into motion the largest lust for vengeance ever seen in this country since Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court house; the direct result of which is that the Republican party went insane. And when they do win a majority in Congress or the Presidency-stand the fuck by, life in the once proud United States is going to suck.
A lot. Take the altered reality of Hill Valley California in the altered timeline of Back to the Future part II, and times it by ten. That is the misery our Galtian overlords are waiting to inflict upon us.
The barbarians are at the gate-and I fear we will not be able to hold them off much longer. It might just be time to apply for that Thailand retirement Visa and drop off the face of the earth.
Charles Pierce provides us a glimpse of the trailer from the disaster movie that will be shown when it happens:
Of course, all of what he's railing against here has been going on since 2010, when the American people put their brains in a jar and elected a House Of Representatives full of Louie Gohmerts and a Senate minority for which Bob Bennett of Utah was Che Guevara. (Emphasis mine-SS) The president has paid a fearsome price for neglecting his primary duty as the leader of his party — to make the Republican party pay an even more fearsome price for rendering itself into the retrograde monkeyhouse. If he had fulfilled that duty as leader of his party, he would have been better able to fulfill his duties as leader of the country. Now, he's pushing back against a resistless tide of complete, unfettered vandalism and lunacy, as best expressed in the lead story in today's Times, in which the House majority produced its wish-list that absolutely will become law the first chance they get to enact it. They do not bluff. This was no posturing. This is what they believe good government is, and it is what they will do to the country if they ever get the power. This was the trailer for the eventual disaster movie.
The big concern that I have is that Obama is just coasting right now-hoping he can just hold on till 2014 and maybe, just maybe, he might get a favorable election result. Fat chance of that.
Meanwhile, I get stuck with a 20% pay cut-and the very real possibility of losing my job next year-because he has yet to dramatically take on and call the GOP agenda what it is: an agenda " infected by an almost pathological mean spiritedness".
The drift cannot go on -for this year or for the remaining 3 years. And much as it pains me to admit it-the President bears a part of the blame for this. His speech the other day was a good start-where in he bluntly pointed out what we have known since 2009:
"Once upon a time, in the middle of the last century, America had a thriving economy in which the middle class was at the center and everyone — poor and rich alike — did better. But then, starting in the late 1970s, a group of self-serving rich people began to sell a promise that if we took better care of them, their wealth would trickle down, and that would help everyone else prosper. The country bought that line. And for three decades both parties yielded to it. The results were great for the very rich — and disastrous for everyone else. Wages stagnated. Inequality became extreme. Mobility slowed. By 2008, things were so upside down and we had so lost our way that the economy collapsed. Out of that ruin, many began to remember the old ways: the truth that lasting growth and shared prosperity come from the middle out and not the top down. Now we are joined in a battle of ideas to see whether middle-out economics can dethrone trickle-down."
But with out execution-its nothing. It's all well and good to say it. But the crazy loons like Ted Cruz et al-they don't care, they will just wait the President out and hope they take the Senate in 2014. Meantime-the disastrous drift would go on.
The popular viewpoint among the Teabagger set is that its all the President's fault-as witness James Taranto's latest stupid unhinged rant over at the Wall Street Journal. ( Zimmerman could have shot him instead of Trayon Martin-then it really would have been justifiable homicide). But its not true-both sides could find a reasonable middle ground, but they won't.
And so the slide towards my eventual unemployment will continue…………
Like I said-at this point in time, Mr Pierce may have it right:
By now, though the president is loath to point it out, it's obvious that, in terms of addressing the country's real problems, there was no particular point in having elected him twice, because there was no serious intention on the part of the opposition to recognize his administration as being possessed of a legitimate mandate to do anything, and no serious attempt on the part of the courtier press to push back against the very real danger of what that situation implies.
Anybody know of a bar for sale in Pattaya? Or what the number of that truck driving school was?
Mar 05 2013
Mitt Romney seems to be having trouble adjusting to life as
a worthless piece of shit an also ran.
First, here's Willard, reminding us again that he only lost because he wouldn't give the Poors all the nice things, like the things he gave all of us here in Massachusetts, when he was pretending that he wasn't such a privileged, entitled dick.
The president had the power of incumbency. ObamaCare was very attractive, particularly to those without health insurance. And they came out in large numbers to vote. So that was part of a successful campaign.
You bet. It was going to be the part of your successful 2008 campaign, too, until the entire Republican party decided that it would rather inject itself with Ebola than spend eight years listening to you.
"It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done," Romney told Fox News in an interview broadcast on Sunday, his first since losing to President Barack Obama last November."
Yeah…..sure….asshole-whatever helps you sleep at night in your gold covered bed.
Take it away, Charles Pierce: "Somebody's still got the baaaaad butt-sting. The country decided you were a walking lump of cream cheese that it wouldn't sit next to on the last cattle car to Hell. Go away again now."
Nonetheless it always humorous to watch Rmoney try to pull off the common touch.:
The one thing I can say for absolute certainty, after watching Willard Romney try to impersonate a carbon-based life-form for over a year, is that "people" got as good a look at who he really is as they have of any candidate in the past 20 years. His problem was that he couldn't even fake being a fake well enough. I look forward to many more appearances from America's Fun Couple in the weeks and months to come, as they keep digging that hole with both hands.
Rmoney arriving for his Fox interview.
Mar 03 2013
I have been reading the reactions to the sequester-and I am truly coming to the firm conviction that the United States of America has gone insane. Not only did Congress not avoid this abomination-but they didn't even stick around and try to work it out even after the deadline has passed. That astounds me beyond all belief. Even more so is the reaction of some in the proletariat who actually believe that this approach to budgeting is a good thing and are saying we need even more cuts ( without offsetting revenue restoration).
There are a whole host of lies and distortions out there-and that is what bothers me the worst. One cannot even correct the record-because there is no willingness to understand, much less believe the facts.
Lets review the facts shall we?
1) It is not just "a 2 percent cut" in federal spending. Its an almost 9 percent whack in defense and a combined 8% whack in non defense when the various non defense cuts are aggregated. And even more importantly-because the Congress did not act to allow the Administration to execute reprogramming actions, the various departments cannot do what common sense says they should do-make vertical cuts and tough reductions in programs wholesale. ( Like cancel LCS for example and move the money to other accounts). Yet there are people-I've argued with them who just go on saying that we can do this and no one will get hurt. Well, they are wrong-and deserve to be beaten for their inability to understand. Yes I said that-its how I feel.
2) The GOP insistence that there can be no restored revenue-even when it makes sense and will better spread the burden around-is total lunacy.
Ezra Klein mans up and admits he was wrong. He had written a piece suggesting that if only Republicans knew how much Obama has been willing to offer, they might be willing to make a deal. Jonathan Chait set him straight, informing him that no matter what Obama put on the table, Republicans would find a way to say that it’s not enough. And sure enough, a Twitter exchange lets Klein watch that process in real time, as a top Republican consultant, confronted with evidence that Obama has already conceded what he said was all that was needed, keeps adding more demands.
So Klein admits that Republicans just don’t want to make a deal. Their objections to the deals on the table aren’t sincere; if convinced that Obama has met their demands, they just make more demands.
I think it’s important here to understand the broader implications.
The whole push for a Grand Bargain has been based on the notion that we can reach a fiscal deal that takes the whole fight over the budget off the table. What Klein has belatedly learned is how unlikely such a Bargain really is; but the same logic tells us that any Grand Bargain that might somehow be struck, via Obama’s mystical ability to mind-meld Star Trek and Star Wars or something, wouldn’t last. In a year — or more likely in a minute or two — Republicans would be back, demanding more tax cuts and more cuts in social programs. They just won’t take yes for an answer.
Meanwhile, it’s not just Republicans who refuse to accept it when Obama gives them what they want; the same applies, with even less justification, to centrist pundits. As people like Greg Sargent point out time and again, the centrist ideal — deficit reduction via a mix of revenue increases and benefits cuts — is what Obama is already offering; in fact, his proposals have been to the right of Bowles-Simpson. Yet the centrist pundits keep demanding that Obama offer what he has already offered, and condemn both sides equally (or even place most of the blame on Obama) for the failure to reach a deal. Again, informing them of their error wouldn’t help; their whole shtick is about blaming both sides, and they will always invent some reason why Obama just isn’t doing it right.
This is the whole false equivalency thing again. "Both sides do it". No, in this case only one side has-and since they don't experience any consequences for it-they do it again and again. The fiscal scolds and whack jobs in the GOP should have their balls in a vice right now-being squeezed until they pop. But no one is inflicting the pain on them to get them to do what is right. America only has two branches of government right now. Congress for all intents and purposes has ceased to exist. The founding fathers never intended for that to happen.
Basically its a continuation of the total freak out 30% of America had when Obama won in 2008 and when he won again in 2012. Unlike others its not about race, but it is about his proposing ideas that that show compassion for the non-wealthy. The 30% on the teabag side of the aisle don't really believe in the two party system anymore. They only know that if they can't be in charge than they are going to whine and cry like the selfish spoiled children they are.
Fact 3-Congress bears the bulk of the blame. Between the filibusters on the Senate side and the GOP in the house proposing nothing of substance-they created this situation and what's worse, they like it.
Meanwhile, budget cuts or no budget cuts, the military budget is being hollowed out from within by rising military health costs. Over the past decade, the military’s health-care costs have tripled, surging from $19-billion in 2001 to $53-billion in 2011. Health costs are projected to rise to $63.9-billion by 2015. An additional 6% cut atop those previous problems begins to look like a serious challenge to readiness and effectiveness.
Yet this serious challenge is not being taken seriously by the very people you’d most expect to be concerned. According to a Gallup poll released last week, 80% of self-identified Republicans feel it is very important for the U.S. to have the world’s strongest military. Only 48% of self-identified Democrats think so, as opposed to 51% of Democrats who say military predominance is “not that important.”
In Washington, however, it is the Republicans who are behaving cavalierly about the defense budget…….
The trouble is that the new Tea Party congressional GOP no longer minds defense cuts as much as it used to — or as much as the rank-and-file Republicans surveyed by Gallup. Congressional Republicans increasingly welcome the sequester as a good thing, or anyway, an acceptable thing.
According to Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana and chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee: “[This] shows we’re finally willing to stand and fight for conservative principles and force Washington to start living within its means. And that will be a big victory.”
It should be stressed: The Republican Study Committee is an important group within the Republican caucus. These are not Ron Paul style isolationists, but mainstream conservatives. Unfortunately, mainstream conservatives are increasingly willing to risk national security to score points in the Washington partisan competition.
Americans sense the decline in their country’s strength. Gallup finds that only 50% now express confidence that the U.S. military ranks number one, the lowest number since the end of the Cold War. Such pessimism is exaggerated of course. But it’s not completely ill-founded. Not since the 1970s has Congress taken the kind of risks with national security that it seems ready to incur today.
I am becoming more and more pessimistic-and less able to control my anger. Ronald Reagan would weep at what his party has become, and Tip O'Neill would weep at the state of Congress today. No matter how polarized the discussions were in the 80's they were still able to negotiate compromises. But now-then, the debate was about the policies. Now, its about Obama. The useless people in the crazed 30% of America who make up the teabagger village cannot come to grips that there is a better and different solution than to give in to their inherently selfish instincts. And I am at a loss as to how to make them understand it short of depriving them of oxygen and letting them suffocate.
The truth is, most of what "conservatives" believe to be true is false. And there is no one in America who can convince them other wise. Such is the result of 10+ years of an alternative world-led by Fox News-that makes up its own facts, distorts the truth and allows shills to gain positions of prominence. The US has become what it says it despises-a 2nd rate power. It has no one to blame but itself. you can't cut, cut, cut-and not pay the bill. We can have less government spending-but do not kid yourself, it comes at the cost of global retrenchment. By deciding not to decide-Congress has decided. Let the withdrawals begin. But please don't complain when the results are not what you wish.
Mar 01 2013
douchebags elected representatives in Congress have once again failed miserably at their jobs..
You will notice the Countdown clock to your left, counting down the days till my furlough and or layoff-whichever comes first.
One of my favorite writers, Charles Pierce has summed up the situation quite well:
Whatever happens tomorrow, the utter failure of sequestration to do what it is designed to do is of a piece with the previous failures of the Gang Of Six, the Gang Of 12, and the king of all revered utter failures, Simpson-Bowles, which still has most of official Washington feeding Vaal at every turn in service to a commission that couldn't even muster a majority of its own membership, Whatever happens tomorrow, the utter failure of sequestration to do what it was supposed to do — namely, to be so utterly horrifying that it would force a deal — should bring an end to government by gimmick.
Government by gimmick is a dodge. Government by gimmick is a way for politicians to protect their status as politicians without actually doing the jobs they were elected to do. Government by gimmick depends vitally on the fundamental Beltway anti-democratic heresy — that the system as designed is inadequate to present circumstances and that the only way out of this is to go put together the proper group of bipartisan Very Important People to apply common sense to the problem. It was government by gimmick — the Tower Commission — that probably bought Ronald Reagan out of the Iran-Contra scandal because the gathering of wise men determined from the start that holding the president responsible by constitutional means would scare the children and disturb the horses. This is the principle that was applied to the useless Gang Of 14 solution to the "problem" of judicial filibusters. And, ever since the American people elected a Congress full of right-wing chew toys in 2010, government-by-gimmick has been the way the American economy has been directed, and now all the duct tape is failing, and the balsa's cracking, and the whole thing is coming apart, and the people in charge are spending long hours talking about how they couldn't have foreseen any of this.
The great thing about Pierce is that he does not succumb to all the nonsense about "both sides do it". He puts the blame squarely where it belongs-on the selfish children who inhabit the tea party crazed GOP.
Feb 28 2013
Tomorrow night I plan on getting really loaded after I go to Hebrew class. I should have been on a plane to Tel Aviv tomorrow-there to look at nice Israeli women with big knockers and drink Goldstone beer, but thanks to the lunacy known as the sequester-and the impending layoff I am expecting to receive because of it, it was decided they could not afford to send me. Even though there is a lot of work to be done on my project-that cannot be thrashed out by that bane of my existence-the video teleconference. ( If I could uninvent that abomination, believe me I would.).
So as we count down the hours to yet another fiscal disaster our GOP Galtian overlords have put upon us-I thought it would be a great time to point out that most of what they are telling you about the "problem" is wrong. If they are not outright lying-they are leaving out important bits of context and detail out that change the picture rather dramatically.
Lets start with Lie # 1: Obama was the father of the sequester. It is a complete and utter untruth to say that because it ignores the background and the context. What the House Republicans fail to tell you are that Republicans had threatened to crash the economy on purpose unless their debt-ceiling demands were met, and in the hopes of resolving the crisis, President Obama offered Republicans an overly-generous, $4 trillion "Grand Bargain," which included entitlement cuts and new revenue. Boehner was inclined to accept it, but his caucus balked, forcing the Speaker to walk away from the table. Eric Cantor has admitted this, twice. Instead of a Grand Bargain, Cantor and the House Republicans made a grand bet. The bet failed spectacularly. Obama won the election.
Now lets move on to lie number #2-under President Obama, federal spending has exploded and as a result he has added 1 trillion a year to the deficit. "Its the spending stupid-we have to cut spending! We are robbing from our children".
Well, first of all, "Your children are going to be just fine", and second-its not true. Either on the spending side or the deficit side. Oh there was a President that exploded federal spending-most of it for stupid wars for worthless Arabs and for a lot of things we didn't need, but his name began with a B, and not an O. Consider the fact that for the last several years, federal spending has actually declined.
Now if that were not enough to refute the critics-then consider this little tidbit, federal hiring has also declined significantly too:
And of course there is always my favorite-which shows definitive that it is the tax cuts-combined with the recession and the wars that have ballooned the deficit. Not that deficit scolds like the evil man himself-Paul Ryan-have been paying attention.
Dec 29 2012
One of the most frustrating things about this whole silly "Fiscal Cliff" nonsense is that the people supporting our Galtian overlords never tell you the whole story. They just point out the things that they want you to hear-and hope that you are not smart enough, or knowledgeable enough on tax laws to spot the obvious holes in their narratives.
Take this story that appeared in the NY Post and was taunted forth by Phib.
The Post showed a chart and then told "horror" stories of how very well off people are going to "suffer". Lets look at the chart shall we?
Oh the horror! The misery! Someone making 300,000 dollars a year might be reduced to the ruin of drinking Gallo with dinner instead of a fine French Burgundy! Oh the unfairness of it all!
It must be the fault of those goddamned moochers.
Except of course its not one bit true. The chart is one of the most misleading ones I've yet to see in the recent month-and trust me, I have seen a fair share.
Let's take a couple of the "horror stories" that are cited in Phib's post and dissect it a little more shall we?
Give me a fucking break, you, whiny, selfish, bastard.
First of all, you work for Merrill Lynch and you can't get decent tax advice? Then you deserve to pay more taxes for being stupid. And second-by your own admission my dear Vikas, you are not going to see your taxes go up by 9730 dollars. Or have you forgotten that Post did not take your dependent deductions into account? Or that it also doesn't factor in many of the probable tax deductions you will take because being a high earner, you have the ability to take them. And lets not forget the Post chart has deliberately left off the tax sheltering effect of even putting the maximum allowed into your 401K-which at 250K per year should be pretty easy to do.
Factor all of those things in, I'm willing to bet your taxes only go up about 5600 or so. 400 dollars a paycheck on someone receiving a pay check of almost 11000 every two weeks. ( Before taxes and other withholding). 21000 a month.
Yes that is the right number of zero's.
God damn it all-it must really suck to be you. Oh the heartlessness of having to make ends meet on at least 13000 dollars take home a month.
When is the last time I ever saw that much money in a month? Oh right, never. And I still take vacations and drink premium quality beer-and have a piece of my hard earned retirement stolen from me every month by a thankless, fuck less, fat shrew.
But I'm supposed to feel sorry for you and your plight. Uh-huh. Right…………………………………………….
Now journey to the top end of the scale-someone making a million dollars a year is forced by the hand of a draconian government to get by on a paltry 650,000 a year. So much for that new Lexus or my business class ticket to Paris. Good God Man, just how unreasonable can you get?!?
As Mitt Romney showed us-the odds of the 1 million dollar earner actually paying the amounts listed above are slim to none. And that's what this pointless whining fails to highlight-effective tax rates are what really matter. And those tend to be statistically higher for those in lower income brackets. Furthermore, its not going to help anyone if all the country does is continue to just hold down already low tax rates on the rich without addressing the real issues that are at stake in today's economy. And all of this tax talk ignores the fact that neither side is doing what it needs to about addressing seriously the issues of income inequality, wage stagnation, and the forces that are crushing the American middle class. This is why I am not crying any salt tears about the plight of rich people working for Merrill Lynch or business owners who are too stupid to take advantage of incorporation rules that would lower their tax liability. And I am not afraid of the "cliff" except in how it will affect the stock market. The market of course will be affected, primarily because of the whining by people who actually have a lot to be thankful for.
AND TAX RATES WILL STILL BE THE LOWEST IN THE US IN 50 YEARS. The repeal of the Bush tax cuts will, however, restore much needed revenue to balance the budget.
That is something these morons crying about tax cuts conveniently forget.
The social costs of an austerity agenda — and, certainly, all the available evidence from those European countries wherein one was imposed — are profound. Whether you like it or not, there has been a general political consensus for the paste eight odd decades that a social safety net is one of the legitimate products of that creative enterprise of self-government, that it is part of what we agree to when we form the political commonwealth. To have an austerity agenda imposed from above, and by a relatively unaccountable political elite, and because of the damage done to the nation's finances by an absolutely unaccountable financial elite, is to make an obvious mockery of that political commonwealth, and to do so hard upon an election in which the existence of that safety net was so directly and democratically validated, is to spit in the eye of a self-governing people. This, in turn, will engage all the worst popular instincts, including ill-directed and abandoned popular wrath.-Charles Pierce.
Nov 04 2012
John Hinderaker and the rest of the contemptible
cocksuckers members of the Liars Club, are all up in arms over an offhand remark that Obama made in a stump speech a day ago. In a speech Obama mentioned his opponents and the crowd quite understandably began to boo-and Obama said, "No, no, no — don’t boo, vote. Vote. Voting is the best revenge.”
Hinderaker and the rest of the echo chamber seem to think that shows some sort of "dark side" to Obama. In the twisted universe they inhabit, only supporters of Rmoney are supposed to have emotions and proud convictions. They are all up in arms about it, making a huge issue over nothing. Obama was right.
I got news for Mr. Hinderaker, worthless bit of slime that he is, in a democracy governed by laws-voting is the only revenge. As much as they might deserve more. And as much as I would like to see them receive some well deserved suffering for the damage these folks have done to American political discourse-in a proper society that simply is not done.
I voted by absentee some two weeks ago. And yes I voted for Obama. Because he is the guy on the ballot, and a vote for him is a vote against dismal view that Hinderaker constantly sets forth. As my favorite news magazine points out-in far better form than any word Mr. Hinderaker has ever written:
Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
When I voted for Obama, it was a clear knowledge of the things he hasn't done that I wanted him to. A clear knowledge that he has not gotten out of both stupid wars Bush got us into-he's gotten us out of only one, and that was only with the help of the worthless Iraqis themselves; with the clear knowledge that he has been stymied for the last two years by a group of worthless people in Congress, all of them Republican, who were more concerned about torpedoing the economy for their own political advantage ( witness the debt ceiling debacle); with a clear knowledge that the ACA while a great step forward is not the best legislation that could have been produced-and had the American people and the Republicans in Congress not been so stupid we could have had much better. I voted knowing all of these things. But in the end the choice came down to this and this alone:
Hinderaker and the rest are, in part, responsible for that extremism. Being the grifters that they are they are, they live to keep everyone stirred up so that more money flows into their pockets. By voting against the things that he advocates and for a vision for the country that accepts the world is changing-no matter how much William Jacobson refuses to accept it-I am getting my revenge. They deserve it too-and if it makes their cherished "conservatives" take a hit, then I will have done my civic duty well.
UPDATE! It would seem the money grubber in Chief, old Mittens himself is jumping onto this line. "For revenge. Instead, I ask the American people to vote for love of country,". Ok. Fine.
For love of country, because I don't want it screwed up by yours and the "zombie eyed granny starver's" twisted vision of it, and for revenge on the stupid people who enabled the hollowness of your ideas. Either reason works for me-so long as Mitt Romney loses.