Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNote: A shorter version of this essay appears in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal.
President Barack Obama takes office at a time defined by hope and fear in equal measure. To confront this nation's many challenges he will need to act swiftly, show that he is on the side of people whose homes are being foreclosed and jobs lost and invest political capital--along with trillions of dollars--in a sustained recovery program. While many caution our new President to tread carefully, the reality is that half-steps will not lay the groundwork for a new economy that is more just and fair. Only by effectively marshaling the power of government can Obama improve the actual conditions of peoples' lives--and consign anti-government evangelists to the dustbin of history.
Fortunately, Obama has a mandate for change. People support reconstruction of America's crumbling physical infrastructure, and of our society. Here are a few steps I hope President Obama will take: Reverse our deepening economic inequality by using this country's still immense wealth to assure that all Americans have the healthcare, housing and education they need; reengage the world with wisdom and humility about the limits of military power; cut billions from wasteful defense budgets that empty our treasury without making us more secure; tackle the deep corruption in a financial system that consistently favors corporations over workers; respond with urgency to the climate crisis with an Apollo-like project to make America a clean-energy innovator; restore our tattered constitution; protect a worker's right to organize; define a new spirit of sacrifice and service; clean up our elections; and reaffirm his campaign-trail commitment to end not just the war in Iraq but also "end the mindset that took us into" that war. Do not endanger the promise of this Administration by escalating militarily in Afghanistan, further draining resources that are vital for rebuilding here at home and impede critical international initiatives such as renewing the Middle East peace process.
That's a bold agenda millions can believe in. In fact, it's what millions voted for. This new President does not have to pull his punches, and Americans do not have to settle for less. As the first Community -Organizer-in-Chief, Obama understands the power of change from below. He has oxygenated the grassroots and got people believing and dreaming again. But he will only be as brave as ordinary citizens move him to be. That's why independent small d- democratic movements, grassroots organizing, online and offline, will be vital to pushing the limit of Obama's own politics and countering the forces of money and establishment power which remain obstacles to meaningful reform. A savvy inside-outside political strategy, engaging the new Administration and Congress constructively, even as progressives push for solutions on a scale necessary to deliver, will be critical if we are to fulfill the promise of relief, reform and reconstruction.
We celebrate the beginning of a new era, and we recognize that the fate of an Obama Presidency may well be determined by how audacious he chooses to be. During the campaign, our new President told us that real change comes about by "imagining and then fighting for and then working for what did not seem possible before." If Americans keep fighting for that change, we can reaffirm our expectations of our new President, and together complete the unfinished work of making America a more perfect union.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Perhaps it's more like how much audacity will Obama be allowed by those around him ... Emmanuel, Clinton, Gaitner, Gates, Schwartz, Petraeus et al ... or will they, like Brutus & Cassius, bully & cow & gang up, until he has so little room to move, so little fresh air to breathe, that's he's not much more than a star-bright front man for unelected forces, courting his own demise - at least political - if he tries to break free.
Will Tel Aviv be calling him to the phone & barking marching orders?
It will take immense audacity indeed to be his own man.
He certainly has the brains. Does he have the balls?
Posted by sloper at 01/21/2009 @ 07:20am
Bring our troops home now!
Posted by bleedingheart at 01/21/2009 @ 07:36am
Community -Organizer-in-Chief,
I would suggest you drop this "handle"...
outside of here on the far left...
it does not instill confidence of the complicated working enviroment..
It reminds too many of us of the fact he has no experience at..anything real...I know, the word "community" brings visions of Kumbayah and peace and harmony working together to "get the man" against his corporations here...but no where else. Ge woin..drop it the silly title.
He is Comander in Chief..not head social worker and the coop...
...for complicated people with sophisticated lives that actually create the jobs and funds the left needs...this handle makes most wince...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/21/2009 @ 08:23am
Here is some of what Katrina VandenHeuvel said, and my translation of what it means:
KVH: Reverse our deepening economic inequality by using this country's still immense wealth to assure that all Americans have the healthcare, housing and education they need;
Translation: Demonize those with wealth and conduct class warfare to create a new generation of people dependent on government, rather than actually helping them by promoting self-sufficiency, self-worth and success.
KVH: reengage the world with wisdom and humility about the limits of military power;
Translation: Do whatever much of the rest of the world, and the left here at home want, rather than what is in our best interest, or the best humanitarian and security interest of most of the rest of the world.
KVH: cut billions from wasteful defense budgets that empty our treasury without making us more secure;
Translation: Gut defense, but leave the rest of the bloated government alone, and add to it. More government bureaucrats shuffling paper.
KVH: respond with urgency to the climate crisis with an Apollo-like project to make America a clean-energy innovator;
Translation: More government spending and restrictions on peoples lives for something that has not been proven to be a crisis, or even real, by consensus of all scientists, not just scientists who believe in the crisis.
KVH: restore our tattered constitution;
Translation: More of Algore's Living Breathing version that can be whatever a judge wants it to be.
Continued in next post
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 08:28am
Continuation of translation of some of Katrina VandenHeuvel's remarks:
KVH: protect a worker's right to organize;
Translation: Restrict a worker's ability to vote for and advocate that his or her workplace NOT be unionized. Create situations where workers organize even if some do not want to.
KVH: clean up our elections;
Translation: Make sure in the future that if an election is extremely close, the Democrat will win through whatever means are necessary to make that happen.
KVH: and reaffirm his campaign-trail commitment to end not just the war in Iraq but also "end the mindset that took us into" that war.
Translation: Do not fight or try to pro-actively stop threats ahead of time, but engage instead in "peace processes" and resolutions and negotiations and dialogue and consensus. Develop policy that you can not fight back until America has suffered a severe attack, and you can only fight against those who have been specifically defined to be responsible for that attack, and not any future threats. Follow this policy and do NOT address the real mindset that took us into the war, which is a combined mindset of Islamofacism coupled with the mindset of a dictator that liked to run people through shredding machines and become a force for instablity in the Middle East, which would have been bad to begin with but also would have been of assistance to the Islamofacists in their goal to kill us. The new policy MUST BE, apparently, that is someone is bad or has an axe to grind against us, it is we, the United States, who made them that way and are responsbile for causing all unfairness in the world or responsible for not ending it. Also, the new policy needs to remember, Israel is to blame as well. Also blame future problems on George W. Bush, if possible.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 08:37am
Well, I wonder if our local Righties will get as harsh a rebuke for their comments here from Ms vanden Heuvel, as my Canadian liberal friend FROSTY got for daring to be concerned about the homeless on her previous post.
Regardless, their view was well predicted. In fact, SJCHER's mentor, Mr Limbaugh already stated that he "hopes Obama will fail"...thus EATING years of criticisms of the Left (and Middle) that they "only want Bush to fail so they can get their power back". (www.thinkprogress.com)
And I think the Hard Left (aka Ms vH) will somewhat disappointed as well. By "trillions and trillions", they better keep that down to 3 or 4 max. There's still this thing called a "credit rating" and despite our decades of strength, it's not totally invunerable. Oil starts getting priced in euros and we could be in big trouble.
Nor do I think Obama is going to build solar-powered monorails connecting every major city or provide free college education (Americorps scholarships...but limited).
It will be "New Deal-Lite"...not "New New Deal".
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 08:51am
Also blame future problems on George W. Bush, if possible.---Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 08:37am
You mean like CLINTON and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were responsible for the housing crises...despite being out of power or in the minority for 6 years???
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 08:54am
Dear God Katrina...how unrealistic can you be? Create a socialist state with benevolent domestic and international intentions overnight riding a wave of projected pending disaster? You're not much of a realist. Despite the new President's call for thinking and acting outside the box, change will be significant judged in light of the status quo but will not be sweeping. Could your political desires be any more unrealistic and could they be any more complete in toeing an extreme leftist line. Gut the millitary...universal health care and educational opportunities for all all as the result of a massive restructuring of wealth distribution...clean energy innovation to be imposed on our industrial complex at the point of a govermental gun...smacking Israel for being worse, self-serving, entitled ewgoists than we are...etc. I don't think you missed a trick. Four years from now, if all of this is heartfelt, President Obama is going to be a major disappointment to you.
Posted by cknob101 at 01/21/2009 @ 08:56am
Hey sjchermak, I understand that as a right-thinking person, you tend to think in code. After all, Bush and all his pals never told it straight...you had to either figure it out using twisted logic or wait to see the aftermath.
That's why you might be confused about Katrina's proposed agenda...see, she's telling it straight, but you're trying to figure out the code. It's going to take a lot of people like you time to get used to an administration that doesn't lie as easy as breathing or try to enact horrendous policies via slippery language. So, I understand your confusion.
This country has a lot of problems caused by conservatism, and now we have to clean it up. That will take a big shift in thinking, and I figure those on the right will be the most disoriented (as you seem to be). But now it's time to get to work, and I hope one day folks like you can stop looking for the nefarious code, roll up your sleeves, and help the grown ups make this country work again.
Posted by jashbowie at 01/21/2009 @ 09:21am
Mask,
1. I translated Katrina Vanden Heuvel's remarks for you, into what they really mean. That is a translation into what a leftist normally means when using language like that. It did not involve what Barack Obama will do or said he will do, nor did it involve what Rush Limbaugh thinks would happen, or hopes will happen. It is a commentary on what a leftist, in this case Katrina Vanden Heuvel means when she uses the language she was using.
2. It may not appear that Slick Willie was responsible for the housing crisis. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd certainly were. They promoted policy that drove us to where we wound up, and they were proclaiming there would be no problem, even recently. The Democrats may have been "out of power" in the Excecutive Branch, but not in the Legislative. You do remember, don't you, that just because one is "in power" doesn't mean that they have complete control over the enactment or lack of enactment of all law or policy, given that things have to go through Congress to get approved.
Remember also, this was a way of promoting home ownership for more lower income people. If one were to oppose it based on the fact that problems such as the one that occurred were likely to occur, then Democrats would scream and howl that the Republicans opposing it did not care about the poor, only the wealthy, etc.
Thus the potential side effects of the policy were overlooked, in what may have been a well-intentioned effort to help the poor. As with most Democrat policy, it just made things worse.
Of course, Republicans agreed to this as well, at points along the way. But, you do remember, don't you, that a person by the name of George W. Bush did warn about whether this was such a good idea or should be continued.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 09:29am
jashbowie,
You say: " It's going to take a lot of people like you time to get used to an administration that doesn't lie as easy as breathing or try to enact horrendous policies via slippery language. "
I have already done that in the past... when George W. Bush took office I got used to an administration that didn't lie.. in comparison with the previous one. So, been there, done that.
For what it is worth, from what I have seen, I do not see indications that Barack Obama is a liar. He seems to say what he believes, and I think he will be upfront with the country as to what he is trying to do.
That will be much better than the previous Democrat who resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel's ideas and wishes as to the direction this country should go will NOT solve any of our problems, just make them worse.
Hopefully, President Obama will ignore Katrina Vanden Heuvel.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 09:35am
WHouse stops pending Bush regulations for review Tue Jan 20, 7:25 pm ET
'WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff, halting last-minute Bush orders in their tracks.
"This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office.
The review is a tool commonly used by a new administration to delay so-called "midnight regulations" put in place by a former president between the election and Inauguration Day.'
Day #1. Very good start!
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 09:29am
1. Your translation was your own spin....and nobody's buying that anymore either.
2. How is it Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were unable to stop the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, and other agenda items of Bush and the GOP Congress....but were able to block their "strong efforts" to "save Freddie and Fannie"?!?!?!?!??
3. Do you hope that President Obama is successful...or not? (Careful, this is a paradox, because one answer means you love your country, the other means you are loyal to Rush!)
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 09:53am
President Obama is going to be a major disappointment to you. Posted by cknob101 at 01/21/2009 @ 08:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
another prognosticator. gypsy fortune tellers are green with envy.
they're all sore losers. get over it. you're done.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 10:10am
"3. Do you hope that President Obama is successful...or not? (Careful, this is a paradox, because one answer means you love your country, the other means you are loyal to Rush!)"
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 09:53am
Exactly the right question for MASK to pose to SJCHERMAK.
Not that SJ "BLACKS CAN'T BE BOTHERED WITH THE NUISANCE OF A RIGHT TO VOTE" CHERMAK answers many questions that Rush and Sean have not extensively coached him on, down to the choice of words. For example, SJ's roaring silence on numerous questions is telling to his total "dummy on the knee" shallowness. Questions like: "How was Bush v. Gore a 14th Ammendment issue", as SW insists while reading, word for word, from his rightwing cue-cards? "How was the Florida Supreme Court 'making' law (stranger still, by not imposing a state-wide standard for how to count as yet uncounted legal ballots) but the SCOTUS was 'un-making' law in Bush v. Gore"? "Is there a right to vote -- or not, as in Scaliaburgh?"
Nevertheless, I have another question for SJCHERMAK. Since he is long-winded to the point of abject dullness, I will fix it so he can just check a box.
SJ, which of the statment do you agree with?
__ 9-11 was a hideous mass murder against civilian life and if we could wind the tape back to Sept 10, 2001 we would stop at nothing to halt it.
__ Hey, wait a minute! There were some very good things about these events even if libs cannot see it yet! George Bush acted veeeeery manly about it all, very Texas, lots of stubble as he popped out of the smoke and rubble and issued he-man taunts! NYers don't vote GOP anyway and midterm elections were coming up. Would Bush have been able to control Iraq's Green Zone without 911, huh? Libs just don't think of the big picture.
So, SJ, which is it?
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/21/2009 @ 10:16am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/21/2009 @ 10:38am
Very well put!
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/21/2009 @ 10:41am
I have come to this conclusion after finding many preconceptions and concerns that I had about Obama have been lessened. I know I will still find many things to disagree with, and some very strongly, but I have fewer concerns than I held during the campaign.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/21/2009 @ 10:38am
Nice epiphany Liv!
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 10:45am
Katrina vanden Heuvel, I am happy that Obama was elected but now I see the republicans p to their dirty tricks and now that a new sheriff is online blackcoptermedia.com they will hae no room to breath, maybe GITMO should be held open for those who created it? Support blackcoptermedia.com and good luck Mr. President?
Posted by thesid at 01/21/2009 @ 10:46am
Rhetoric is one thing reality is another. Here's a dose of reality in the 50s and 60s taxes were modest and the schools, roads, and infrastructure were good. Why Katrina? Now taxes are unberable and it's all crumbling.
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 10:49am
the 50s and 60s taxes were modest
yeah right. the top tax rate was 90% at its highest and 70% at its lowest. you are clueless.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 10:58am
"Now taxes are unberable and it's all crumbling."
Unlike the 50s & 60s, tax laws now have far more many loopholes for the rich, who moreover pay at much lower marginal rates than they did then.
Also, we're paying off more debts from past wars.
Also, the Pentagon has a virtually untouchable budget that is now larger than all other depts' combined. This wasn't the case in the 50s & 60s.
Posted by sloper at 01/21/2009 @ 11:03am
Thus the potential side effects of the policy were overlooked, in what may have been a well-intentioned effort to help the poor. As with most Democrat policy, it just made things worse.
Of course, Republicans agreed to this as well, at points along the way. But, you do remember, don't you, that a person by the name of George W. Bush did warn about whether this was such a good idea or should be continued.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 09:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
The "housing crisis" is the strawman - you haven't figured that out yet?
All the money we've spent on TARP and other government loan and loan guarantee programs could have purchased every troubled mortgage in this country many times over.
Mortgages were a conduit to derivative fraud, but when you realize the extent of the derivative fraud causing our "financial crisis," mortgages are just the tip of iceberg. Derivatives (swaps) are peddled on bonds, currencies, treasury debt, commodity trades, - you name it, if there is a financial transaction between parties involving risk, there is likely a derivative for it.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by thesid at 01/21/2009 @ 10:46am
Stop it.
stopitstopitstopitstopitstopitstopitstopitstopit!
Posted by Benchrest at 01/21/2009 @ 11:22am
I didn't know anyone in the 90% tax range. Maybe I should have said that my taxes were modest compared to today. Yes the realy wealthy paid a high tax rate but most of the people paid a modest tax compared to today. You didn't have sales taxes in most states and the personal property taxes weren't so high either. Little by little the government is takeing more and more of our money to sustain there insatiable appetite which they need to pay for the retirement of all the government workers and all the other perks they want. Check out what benefits former government employees receive by reading Government Waste from A to Z
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 11:29am
Phil,
SJ, which of the statment do you agree with?
_x_ 9-11 was a hideous mass murder against civilian life and if we could wind the tape back to Sept 10, 2001 we would stop at nothing to halt it.
I will point out that only someone with a warped leftist mind would conjure up the thought that President Bush actually welcomed 9/11 because it enabled him to do things he wanted to do anyway. (according to you).
The staff at the sanitorium is not medicating you properly, you are getting psychotic.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 11:31am
Tax year Top marginal tax rate (%) Top marginal tax rate (%) on earned income, if different<1> Taxable income over-- 1913 7 500,000 1914 7 500,000 1915 7 500,000 1916 15 2,000,000 1917 67 2,000,000 1918 77 1,000,000 1919 73 1,000,000 1920 73 1,000,000 1921 73 1,000,000 1922 58 200,000 1923 43.5 200,000 1924 46 500,000 1925 25 100,000 1926 25 100,000 1927 25 100,000 1928 25 100,000 1929 24 100,000 1930 25 100,000 1931 25 100,000 1932 63 1,000,000 1933 63 1,000,000 1934 63 1,000,000 1935 63 1,000,000 1936 79 5,000,000 1937 79 5,000,000 1938 79 5,000,000 1939 79 5,000,000 1940 81.1 5,000,000 1941 81 5,000,000 1942 88 200,000 1943 88 200,000 1944 94 <2> 200,000 1945 94 <2> 200,000 1946 86.45 <3> 200,000 1947 86.45 <3> 200,000 1948 82.13 <4> 400,000 1949 82.13 <4> 400,000 1950 84.36 400,000 1951 91 <5> 400,000 1952 92 <6> 400,000 1953 92 <6> 400,000 1954 91 <7> 400,000 1955 91 <7> 400,000 1956 91 <7> 400,000 1957 91 <7> 400,000 1958 91 <7> 400,000 1959 91 <7> 400,000 1960 91 <7> 400,000 1961 91 <7> 400,000 1962 91 <7> 400,000 1963 91 <7> 400,000 1964 77 400,000 1965 70 200,000 1966 70 200,000 1967 70 200,000 1968 75.25 200,000 1969 77 200,000 1970 71.75 200,000 1971 70 60 200,000 1972 70 50 200,000 1973 70 50 200,000 1974 70 50 200,000 1975 70 50 200,000 1976 70 50 200,000 1977 70 50 203,200 1978 70 50 203,200 1979 70 50 215,400 1980 70 50 215,400 1981 69.125 50 215,400 1982 50 85,600 1983 50 109,400 1984 50 162,400 1985 50 169,020 1986 50 175,250 1987 38.5 90,000 1988 28 <8> 29,750 <8> 1989 28 <8> 30,950 <8> 1990 28 <8> 32,450 <8> 1991 31 82,150 1992 31 86,500 1993 39.6 89,150 1994 39.6 250,000 1995 39.6 256,500 1996 39.6 263,750
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 11:52am
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 11:54am
I will point out that only someone with a warped leftist mind would conjure up the thought that President Bush actually welcomed 9/11 because it enabled him to do things he wanted to do anyway. (according to you).
The staff at the sanitorium is not medicating you properly, you are getting psychotic.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 11:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
Charlie Black's Terrorist Attack Comment--a Flub or the Quiet Truth? Posted June 24, 2008; US News & World Report.........
Charlie Black, a former lobbyist and close adviser to Sen. John McCain, told Fortune that a "fresh terrorist attack 'certainly would be a big advantage' " to McCain politically. He added that the December assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto helped McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain quickly condemned his aide's remark. But some say that Black was only expressing what pols have privately been saying for months--that national security events would only underscore a natural advantage the GOP has in that area. Was Black wildly out of line? Or did he merely make the mistake of speaking the truth?
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 12:15pm
is it safe to come out?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 12:20pm
Mask,
You ask "2. How is it Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were unable to stop the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, and other agenda items of Bush and the GOP Congress....but were able to block their "strong efforts" to "save Freddie and Fannie"?!?!?!?!?? "
Nobody was in need to "save" Fannie and Freddie, nor was there efforts to save them. Less Fannie and Freddie may have been the order of the day. And I explained up above some of why Congress has a big influence on the ultimate policy.
As far as stopping the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the tax cuts.. most Democrats (and properly so) voted for them. They did not try to stop them, nor should they have.
They, of course, then went into full bore mode condemning George W. Bush for things they themselves voted for and supposedly agreed with.
Of course, one guy had it both ways!
(CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday gave an explanation for his comment that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," calling it "one of those inarticulate moments." http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ALLPOLITICS/ 09/30/kerry.comment/
SWIFTBOATING VIOLATION!! I know I have just committed an act of swiftboating, which is proclaimed to be wrong! I will call the violation on myself, to be upfront about it, since I did it on purpose to begin with, even thought I knew I was engaging in swiftboating... and I will do it again if the opportunity comes up.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 12:21pm
Liars figure and figures lie (1) do you know how many people made say 500,000 in 1960 (2) do you know what 500,000 would buy you in 1960 (3) If you made 500,000 then do you know what that would translate into today. What's your point I already admitted the wealth paid a much higher flat rate tax then. They also could write off many things as business expenses then compared to now so we could go round and round forever on this whithout addressing my point and that is I pay a much higher tax now and the services are worse
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 12:21pm
is it safe to come out?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 12:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
All clear FZ. Fire away.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 12:23pm
OneVote,
What does a comment by an advisor to John McCain have to do with George W. Bush?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 12:23pm
Nobody was in need to "save" Fannie and Freddie, nor was there efforts to save them. Less Fannie and Freddie may have been the order of the day.----Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 12:21pm
Wait a minute, SJCHER, you're deviating from the talking point. It's supposed to be "Bush and the GOP Congress WANTED to reform Freddie and Fannie, which would have prevented the housing crises...but Barney Frank and Chris Dodd with their tremendous power in the minority, stopped that effort despite all the hard work that Dubay, Hastert, and Frist put into it!"
Otherwise, you have no excuses for Bush and the Republicans for the housing crises!!!!!
and still waiting on an answer to # 3...
Do you hope Pres. Obama is a successful President?
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 12:26pm
What does a comment by an advisor to John McCain have to do with George W. Bush?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You were saying that only a warped leftist would contemplate such a thing.....Mr. Black is a conservative.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 12:27pm
the reason you pay more taxes is because corporations pay less, and the very rich pay less.
the reason for a decline in services is that we are blowing our money on foreign wars.
cost of living calculators are available on line
no need to pout.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:33pm
Mr. Obama, let me be the first:
FOUR MORE YEARS
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:34pm
Wow! Reading this column I expected Katrina Vanden Heuvel to call for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the declaration of the Peoples Republic of the Unites States at any moment. It's clear the biggest threat to a successful Obama Presidency will be from the crazy left. It will be interesting to see how he handles the nut cases!
Posted by valwayne at 01/21/2009 @ 12:39pm
perhaps i over impute, but i think obama's political ideology is much like mine...
a progressive CONSERVATIVE.
let me say that i don't really consider the term "conservative" in the context of the narrow parameters of modern american conservatism nor especially neoconservatism, but in a much broader sense, a more classical sense of the word.
real conservatives do not deny the need rfor change from time to time. in this modern american conservatives often seem more like reactionaries, desirous of turning back the clock to some nostalgized version of the past, fearful of change, and vicious in their defense of their ideas.
obama's conservatism is partly a throwback to traditional democratic party ideas, partly a throwback to progressive conservative ideas noblesse oblige - the very conservatively progressivism that undercut "socialism" in late nineteenth/early twentieth century europe (which resembles mild socialism as well).
it may appear that obama is changing a lot and rapidly but this is partially a result of the lack of change of the last administration, and the fact that the current economic situation forces change and quick.
but i suspect that in his heart, obama would prefer more incremental, gradual, change...and is suspicious of the more radical inclinations of the left.
progressivie conservative...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 12:40pm
http://gamu-toys.info/sonota/sw/obama/obama.html
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:42pm
It will be interesting to see how he handles the nut cases like me. Posted by valwayne at 01/21/2009 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
without the grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:44pm
I'm glad you finally admitted I am paying more in taxes. I can only speak for myself. I know taxes have pushed the price of everything up that's how it works. Businesses don't pay taxes per say they merely pass them on to the consumers. So raise the corporate tax on anything and the consumer pays it anyway and that's you and me.
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 12:49pm
Businesses don't pay taxes per say
no per se. hint: it's Latin
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:53pm
progressivie conservative...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 12:40pm
smarter, smaller, nicer and peaceful government, por favor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 12:53pm
'In a comprehensive assessment of systematic failures over the past eight years, the Center for Public Integrity found 128 examples of government breakdown involving 67 federal government agencies. The failures occurred in areas as diverse as education, energy, the environment, justice and security, the military and veterans' affairs, healthcare, transportation, financial management, consumer and worker safety, and more. While some of the failures are, by now, depressingly familiar--a false premise for war, torture, and the handling of Katrina--many are less well known but equally distressing, such as a dismissiveness toward whistleblower complaints, $100 billion in revenue lost to corporations' offshore tax shelters, and a backlog of Veterans Affairs disability claims.
Much of the function of the federal government shifted from public employees to private contractors, as federal spending on contractors nearly doubled from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2006, jumping from $234.8 billion to $415 billion. These contracts often lacked competitive bidding processes and effective oversight and suffered from cost overruns and poor execution.
Finally, the White House and its political appointees have frequently inserted themselves into matters of science, overruling experts and suppressing reports that did not coincide with the administration's philosophy. The nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists warned that "political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation's ability to respond to the complex challenges we face."
The picture that emerges is one of an administration unable to meet its basic responsibilities and adversely impacting the nation's citizens.'
Barack Obama Left Holding the Bag Bush administration actions--and inactions--crea
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 12:55pm
Repeal the USA Patriot Act I. Stop dead in its track the USA Patriot Act II. Repeal the FISA - Snoop Bill. Close Down Gitmo - Close down ALL the Bases around the World that Are NOT on American Soil. No More Office of Homeland Security. A NEW INDEPENDENT Investigation of what REALLY Happened on 9/11. Close down the Federal Reserve and Have Our Money Coined/Printed by those vested the Power to do so in the Constitution, CONGRESS thru the US Treasury Department. Bring Home ALL Our Troops, from Iraq AND Afghanistan. Cut off ALL Financial and Military Aid to the State of Israel!
You want to Save this country and restore our Constitution? These are the things Our New President NEEDS to Make Happen!
This And ONLY this will Save this Country From Complete Bankruptcy, from Endless WARS and From the POLICE STATE and the Loss of ALL rights for the American Citizen.
Mark my words, this IS the ONLY way to save OUR Nation and the World through circumstances.
Please visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/21/2009 @ 12:55pm
Businesses don't pay taxes per say they merely pass them on to the consumers.
this is a persistent myth. businesses charge what the market will bear. period. did prices go down when the business tax is lowered? of course not. that shoots that myth to hell.
you might try thinking for yourself, instead of parroting the neo CON line.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:55pm
Barack Obama Left Holding the Bag Bush administration actions--and inactions--create a daunting set of tasks for the next president By Bill Buzenberg Posted January 14, 2009
cite to above
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 12:55pm
Thanks for the correction I am always happy to learn something. That is not the only mistake I made in my post. I appreciate your letting the rest of them slide. Now what about my point that businesses don't pay taxes they merely collect them and pass on the cost to the consumer.
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 1:01pm
maybe the u.s. military could sell franchise's like mcdonald's does..........
over 2 billion squished!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
I have come to this conclusion after finding many preconceptions and concerns that I had about Obama have been lessened. I know I will still find many things to disagree with, and some very strongly, but I have fewer concerns than I held during the campaign.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/21/2009 @ 10:38am |
Okay, someone pinch me 'cause I must be dreaming! I actually did not have a negative reaction to a post by lv! In fact, the opposite!
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
yes, jr, i know the apostrophe is wrong.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 1:05pm
I have to go to work emile but I wanted to leave you with this
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=per+say
some of us are educated on the street
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 1:12pm
So raise the corporate tax on anything and the consumer pays it anyway and that's you and me.
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 12:49pm |
It depends. Large corporations are multinational and use every loophole imaginable to reduce their tax burden (which has declined considerably since the 1970s). They also hide assets overseas. More problematic is that CEOs and high level execs are overpaid (or rather overpay themselves and it has gone up considerably in recent decades) and so individual progressive taxes are important in this regard. American execs make considerably more than their counterparts in Japan and Europe so clearly something is wrong as I highly doubt they are worth what they are paid (same goes for professional athletes, musicians, etc.). Also, corporate corruption (which is rampant these days) must be punished and the rise of monopolies (and cross industry ownership) under Bush/Clinton/Reagan has led to rising prices as well. True competition has declined, especially when it comes to the media, for example. One way to combat corporations raising prices would be to break-up monopolies and prevent others from being formed AND work to reverse cross-industry mega-corporations, both in the US and abroad. If we had some real competitive capitalism along with strong regulation, things can be different or more like they were before the failed hands off approach was instituted.
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 1:14pm
yes, jr, i know the apostrophe is wrong. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
then you don't need me.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 1:18pm
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 1:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
did you know that professional baseball players, and others, used to have other jobs during the off season?
of course the ball players and entertainers deserve their big paychecks. they are making huge bucks for the owners.
I don't begrudge Shaq's millions, or the Ceos'. I just think they should be in the 90% tax bracket.
in the 50s stars used to brag about being in the top tax bracket, not whine about it.
of course most of the whining is done by poor shnook wannabe's, like many here. they will never be rich.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 1:22pm
but i suspect that in his heart, obama would prefer more incremental, gradual, change...and is suspicious of the more radical inclinations of the left.
progressivie conservative...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 12:40pm |
I'm guilty of labeling myself on occasion, so progressive conservative or progressive progressive or radical alterationist can mean whatever people want. But really I just want some changes in comparison to the Bush era (meaning reverse what they did). This has already begun with Guantanamo and hopefully will continue with Iraq etc. If you (and others) are progressive conservatives, then Bush's policies should be seen for what they were, radical inclinations of the right rather than anything gradual OR even conciliatory with the center-left position of the status quo Dems. I'm not sure there can incremental 'change' as that won't reverse what Bush has done.
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/21/2009 @ 12:55pm
One more self-promotion from this guy and it's Ignore pile with that "blackhelomedia" goofus....Agreed?
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 1:25pm
kristofeR!
You advised all on this site to "Please visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com"
Art. Graphic Design. Politics. And Whatever Else I Want! blog est. july 18 2008.
Well, I did that.
My comment: Three cheers for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department!!
Here is some from your blog, with my comments:
You: I kept saying that I didn't do anything wrong and that they were violating my rights.
My Comment: They didn't pay attention to you, with good reason.
You: Another sheriff had my cell phone, the one I used to take the pictures and while I was being searched he went through my phone and deleted the three pictures I had taken,
My Comment: Good for him.
You: Then they told me I was free to go, and I asked them why was I detained to begin with? They basically admitted I was profiled under "terrorist" suspicions, because little did I know taking pictures of a Homeland Security vehicle is now considered an act of "terrorism",
My Comment: Now you do know.
You: When they decided to detain me, they didn't realize that I am one of the informed people
My Comment: It seems you are quite ill-informed, not informed.
You: I was asked if I had weapons, I answered NO and then said it is you that have the weapons, not me.
My Comment: And we can all be grateful for that!
You: I am going to fight this. I am going to get a lawyer; I am going to get this story out in as many places as I can. I am going to let them know they do not have the authority to violate our rights, to invade our privacy and to violate our private property.
My Comment: I believe they do already know what they have the authority to do. It is you that are confused.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 1:27pm
I don't begrudge Shaq's millions, or the Ceos'. I just think they should be in the 90% tax bracket.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 1:22pm |
That's pretty much the only way to correct the system's excesses I'd say. My own bracket's been inching upwards and I might not like it on a personal level (if I'm honest with myself), but I can't complain given how many people are barely getting by in this current economy. At some point, people need to try to step back from their own selfish desires and look at the bigger picture. Are the majority of people improving their standard of living or are a majority seeing reversals in wages etc.? And I would just add that as the lower classes get 'more' pay and less burdens in things like healthcare, they end up spending it and making rich people richer anyway.
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 1:27pm |
Uh, SJ...while you're Commenting....
"and still waiting on an answer to # 3...
Do you hope Pres. Obama is a successful President?"-----Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 1:32pm
I knew Larry V had it in him. That was a good start, Larr, now we're all (us bloggin' lefties, in any case) gonna keep up the pressure for more of those thoughtful posts.
Now get down and give me twenty, seaman!
:D
Addendum:
I'm still tryin' to make heads or tails of KvH's rather blisterngly cold retorts over several recent "Ed. Cuts".
Maybe she just ran out of patience abruptly, since it must be damned annoying to work your tail off day in and day out, just to see some two-bit twinks like "USC1" and his tribe of mangled mindset mental masterbaiters show up and take piss-brained pot shots at your posts --that was a nice stream of invective if I do say so myself ;-).
Or perhaps, more ominously, she has close friends in the more moneyed class who have threatened to drop some of their support if these filthy blog spaces are not cleared up, and KvH was just throwin' punches around and preachin' from her chair to show that she's on the same page.
Who knows, but I thought her comments were just a bit odd. I mean, it's par for the course if us trench bloggers throw gasoline bombs, but Katrina?! On second thought, I like the idea of a more militant KvH.
Just tighten the targetting parameters and hit with more irony, KvH!
BTW, Frosty Zoom's not the enemy.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/21/2009 @ 1:38pm
As ONEVIEW earlier pointed out that, like a person on remote control, SJ "BLACKS DON'T LIKE TO VOTE ANYWAY" CHERMAK keeps saying exactly what one would want him to say in order to go postal on his own foot-in-mouth. Let me add further evidence to ONEVOTE's discussion of Black's disgraceful comments.
SJ angers: "I will point out that only someone with a warped leftist mind would conjure up the thought that President Bush actually welcomed 9/11 because it enabled him to do things he wanted to do anyway" at 01/21/2009 @ 11:31am.
Quote from The Project for the New American Century:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor..." (from "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September, 2000).
Leftist Goerge W. Loser hating sickos associated with PNAC:
Project directors [as listed on the PNAC website:]
William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman, Robert Kagan, Co-founder; Bruce P. Jackson; Mark Gerson; Randy Scheunemann;
Project staff
Ellen Bork, Deputy Director; Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow; Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow; Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow; Mitch Jackson, Senior Fellow; Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director; Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate;
Signatories to Statement of Principles (Partial)
Don Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz; Elliott Abrams; Gary Bauer; William J. Bennett; John Ellis "Jeb" Bush; Richard B. Cheney; Eliot A. Cohen; Midge Decter; Paula Dobriansky; Steve Forbes; Aaron Friedberg; Dan Quayle
Strange how the "leftists" that SJ rails about, on cue, operate. And how they so totally infiltrated Bush-43!!!
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/21/2009 @ 1:40pm
Phil,
You haven't had the right dose of medication. You need more, just like your nurses are trying to tell you.
When you look at the quote from the New American Century, you (well, apparently not you) can plainly see that it is identifying the reality of the situation at the time. (Sept 2000). It points out that a catastrophic event (which came a year later) might change things. But in no way does it say that those who put the article together were hoping for such an event.
It was a policy analysis taking a look at the current (Sept 200) defense situation and also it appears the American political climate.
There are tons of policy analyses out there that analyze situations such as national defense, national threats, world events and opinion, domestic opinion, economic aspects.
It appears to be identifying the situation that existed at the time.
Because you have not taken all your meds today, apparently, you morph that into yet one more "conspiracy" of evil and wrongdoing by those you hate to begin with.
Listen and obey your nurses more often, please.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 1:48pm
kristofeR! - I think you need to get back on the meds, buddy.
Mask - I will answer your "Obama successful?" question. Yes, I hope he is successful. However, I define what success would look like possibly in different terms than you might. Important success factors to me include: (1) no terror attacks, (2) no nuclear Iran, (3) a stop to Russian expansionist tendencies, (4) no crazy fiscal policies that cause economic harm, and (5) efforts to grow the economy by creating incentives for people to innovate and work. Failures would include: (1) increased numbers of people on welfare at increased governmental cost, (2) dismantling a health care system that serves 85% of the population effectively rather than creating a supplemental one to address the needs of the other 15%, and (3) reading the Constitution as a "whatever I want it to say" document rather than in terms of how it actually reads (and appointing judges of like mind).
As for Katrina's article, I think it is seriously misguided in what it calls Obama to do. For example, of course no one wants people having to live on the streets. Indeed, these are the very people whom public works programs would serve well by giving them an income source (assuming they actually want to work for their living and are capable - if they are physically or mentally incapable, that's a different matter - we must be compassionate to the truly needy). However, I suspect that Katrina would just cut everyone a monthly check and be done with it - problem solved! Katrina's idea of peace appears to be "I'll lay down my arms, and then world peace will appear!" Sorry, peace is a bilateral proposition. Also, Katrina's idea of foreign policy appears to be to call Paris and Berlin and do what THEY want.
Posted by boyydz at 01/21/2009 @ 1:50pm
The Theological Significance Of The Obama Presidency
While the rather flat and uninspiring character of his inaugural speech may seem to demonstrate otherwise, two heretofore contested theological questions would appear resolved as a consequence of the swearing-in of the Abraham Delano Messiah presidency yesterday:
(1) That the teaching of a pre-millenial "rapture" is conclusively disproved. Clearly, The Savior made his appearance in advance of any such glorious assumption of the faithful, and
(2) That the doctrine of reincarnation is now to be regarded as worthy of acceptance, what with the testimony of so many thousands that in him lives on the spirit of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Of particular importance in this case are the first hand reports of those in the media.
Posted by john lowell at 01/21/2009 @ 1:50pm
I find it hilarious that someone could possibly put the lines "restore our tattered constitution" and "protect a worker's right to organize" back to back and be remotely serious.
"Protecting the right to organize" here refers to the Employee Free Choice Act (paging Orwell) and its subsequent stripping the necessity for a MAJORITY of workers to determine they want to be represented by a union, followed further by the absence of secret ballots in their voting.
Not entirely sure how that does a hell of a lot other than further tearing the constitution to shreds.
Genius.
organizedexploitation.blogspot.com
Posted by aic4ever at 01/21/2009 @ 1:58pm
Mask,
You want me to answer "Do you hope Pres. Obama is a successful President?"-----"
I hope Barack Obama is a very successful President.
I hope President Obama successfully fights and defeats terror, and insures there is not another terrorist attack here at home.
I hope President Obama improves the current economic situation in this country.
I hope President Obama brings more opportunity and hope to the people of this country, by helping to create jobs and opportunity, and by improving the educational system in this country.
I hope President Obama works to insure the freedom of Americans, including me.
So yes, I hope President Obama is very successful.
To be successful, President Obama will have to deal with reality, and move ideologically more to the right, both politically and in economic thinking, and how he deals with terror and the subject of national defense.
He does seem to be "tuning out" some of the far left, if one believes some of the exasperation seen on this website by far leftists that wanted far leftist policy and thought they were going to get far leftist policy.
So the further he moves from the left would determine (based on the results that would be achieved) how successful he is.
I want Barack Obama to be successful.
Whether he is or not is up to him, in terms of how he governs, and also in terms of whether there is an unexpected event that nobody forsees right now that might impact that. (economic wise or foreign policy wise or if some foreign country creates havoc not expected).
So it is up to him. If he did turn out to be successful, and win reelection in 2012, then the inauguration date of President Sarah Palin would be January 20, 2017.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 2:00pm
boyydz,
You said " Katrina's idea of peace appears to be "I'll lay down my arms, and then world peace will appear!" Sorry, peace is a bilateral proposition. Also, Katrina's idea of foreign policy appears to be to call Paris and Berlin and do what THEY want. "
Acutally, that sounds a lot like the basic Democrat party platform.
(The Democrat party platform now, not back when JFK was President and told the communists their days were numbered and they would not be tolerated)
When Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle in that debate that he (Quayle) was no Jack Kennedy, actually Sen. Bentsen could have told the same thing to Teddy Kennedy.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 2:07pm
I don't like "progressive conservative" as a term to describe Obama. I know there is such a thing as a decent conservative and more power to them!!
But Obama needs (and I believe will be, thus is freaking out his many adversaries) to be progressive in the true meaning of That word: to make hard changes and new laws that protect our country from the destructive Greed and Hate we have witnessed by our own eyes, from the past years.
Posted by Virginia777 at 01/21/2009 @ 2:09pm
Time for nukemind's lesson on economics:
1. "...CEOs and high level execs are overpaid (or rather overpay themselves and it has gone up considerably in recent decades)." Who decides what your "overpaid" CEOs and execs get paid? Not them personally! The board of directors decides this. Most of the directors have been elected by the stockholders, and they are duty-bound to protect stockholders' interests. Indeed. most of them are major stockholders themselves. It is not in the stockholders' interest to overpay corporate executives, and this is something the board would be expected to avoid.
2. "American execs make considerably more than their counterparts in Japan and Europe so clearly something is wrong as I highly doubt they are worth what they are paid...." You have no personal dog in this hunt unless you are a stockholder, so what you think is not important. You are the one who decides to be a stockholder, so don't whine about the fact that you are one, but you don't have enough say. If you are a stockholder, you get your say by voting for directors.
3. "True competition has declined...." Nothing could be further from the truth! What do you think has driven GM and Chrysler to the wall? Why has Circuit City called it quits? Why are prices so low on Black Friday? Why did gas prices drop $2.20 per gallon?
Essentially, you want to provide false moralistic arguments to justify your desire for hyperprogressive income taxation. But ask yourself: how many people will risk their business capital for only 10 cents on the dollar? Add a state tax, and they are working nearly for free. What a great way to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that would lead to the competition that you decry as lacking today!
Posted by boyydz at 01/21/2009 @ 2:12pm
Or perhaps, more ominously, she has close friends in the more moneyed class who have threatened to drop some of their support if these filthy blog spaces are not cleared up, and KvH was just throwin' punches around and preachin' from her chair to show that she's on the same page.
Just tighten the targetting parameters and hit with more irony, KvH!
BTW, Frosty Zoom's not the enemy.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/21/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sometimes when one door closes, another opens. I note some interesting new advertisers here like Al Jeezera and IranianPersonals.Com. Holy Moly Rockie! Nothing like free speech to attract some new clients. Well done KVH! I think she has found the key to both principle and profit. Bring it on KVH....aarrrrrrrrr
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 2:21pm
sjchermak, you pointed out that Katrina's foreign policy ideas sound like the modern Democrat policies. I agree completely. I was simply responding to Katrina's article, not expanding my comments to politics in general.
I am very hopeful that President Obama will not go in this direction, but that he will recognize that governing requires - among other things - (a) deciding your own path in foreign policy and (b) having enough guns to keep the other guys from shooting at you or your friends (even if some of those friends stumble through the world apparently blithely unaware of the dangers they face). Indeed, if he follows that path, he will have alleviated at least 25% of my worries about him!
Posted by boyydz at 01/21/2009 @ 2:23pm
without the grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 12:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
wha???? whay??? oh - the diction? no grrr - just lots of distractions...
------------------------------
smarter, smaller, nicer and peaceful government, por favor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 12:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i would agree, except i believe government should expand and contract as needed.
-------------------------
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
as a progressive conservative, i favor a social safety net similar to northern and western europe, consider such the ultimate in terms of balancing opportunity with security and justice and the combination of these is a recipe for...
stability and peace...which a (pragmatic)progressive conservative likes...
who is the father of germany's social system? social democrats?
nope - otto von bismark in an attempt to diffuse revolutionary chaos...
long tradition of old style conservatism that often looks strikingly like "socialism"...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 2:24pm
Obama chooses the pragmatic rubric. This could spell trouble.
Why?
Is there such a thing as a political act that makes everyone happy? Is Obama an "end of ideology" guy--a pure pragmatist, a "what works person? Take any of the acts that need doing in the coming days: bail out the banks or help foreclosed homeowners, more troops to Afghanistan or wind down, push Israel to end the settlements or keep on allowing them, encourage unions or keep Wal-mart happy, have affordable health care for all or let the insurance companies have their way, greater Pentagon spending for Empire building and control or scaling back for peace and diplomacy?
Many choices here. It's hard to see how a country or President can do it all, square the circle and make everyone happy.
Looking historically at Pragmatism ("whatever works, is likely true") and its twin, Utilitarianism, ("doing the most good for the most people)" we get some workable notions. These seems doable but I don't think that is what the "end of ideology/Pragmatist/David Brooke" crowd wants when they want a "pragmatic president." More likely they want to help Wall Street and not Main Street, privatize health care and social security and in general have a guns rather than butter economy. This is not the end of ideology –it's more like you end your ideology but I'm keeping mine.
Posted by hkaplan at 01/21/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by hkaplan at 01/21/2009 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah - i think a lot of the now passing hatred of "libruls" results from the excesses of the more obnoxious of the breed largely from the 60's and 70's...
but they've been weak for so long it was absurd for hard core righties to continue fantasizing about how dangerous/powerful they were - though such DID serve their purpose.
i wonder if current anti-conservative (anti-right, that is) sentiment will eventually become as stale and hackneyed as the fauxnews propaganda of pre 2006...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 2:40pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 2:00pm
Then you are at odds with the unpatriotic Mr Limbaugh????
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/20/limbaugh-obama-fail/
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 2:41pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 2:40pm
I'm just curious what the Right will run on in 2012 and beyond...given they essentially face the same stereotype that the Left endured from the 60s and 70s...
that of a failed ideology, whose adherents claim that "not ENOUGH was done" (Dubya and the GOP Congress) and reminiscing about their glory days (Reagan) of a President whose memory has faded in the public mind.
For years we had "You libs just want to keep trying that failed 'Great Society' stuff of Johnson"....
do the Repubs face "You cons just want to keep trying that failed 'Ownership Society' stuff of Bush"? And how do they answer that?
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 2:49pm
i wonder if current anti-conservative (anti-right, that is) sentiment will eventually become as stale and hackneyed as the fauxnews propaganda of pre 2006...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
though the perfidy of the modern neocon movement (satano-aynrando fascists in my opinion) IS real and not propaganda.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 2:54pm
Obama proved himself to be a lefty. Left-handed southpaw, that is.
Posted by Tunnelrat at 01/21/2009 @ 3:13pm
do the Repubs face "You cons just want to keep trying that failed 'Ownership Society' stuff of Bush"? And how do they answer that?
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Some won't even try. A party truly bereft.
'Mr. Voinovich, whose more than four decades in public life included stints as the governor of Ohio and mayor of Cleveland, said in a statement that his final two years in office would be "the most important years that I have served in my entire political career."
"I must devote my full time, energy and focus," he said, "to the job I was elected to do, the job in front of me, which seeking a third term – with the money-raising and campaigning that it would require – would not allow me to do."
Mr. Voinovich follows three other Republican senators -- Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, Mel Martinez of Florida and Sam Brownback of Kansas -- who have also said they will not seek another term in two years. Another Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, has signaled that she may cut her term short to run for governor in 2010. '
January 12, 2009, 1:07 pm Voinovich to Retire From Senate in 2010 By Michael Falcone - NY Times Excerpt
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 3:16pm
Be mindful that statistically, a strong argument can be made that an overwhelming number of Blacks voted for Obama solely on the basis of his skin color. Subtract those 16 Million black votes from the total, and more Americans voted for McCain than voted for Obama on the basis of principles. So much for a popular mandate based on policy.
Regardless, the Constitution clearly defines the President's mandate: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.."
I checked the COTUS, and find no authorization for federal funding for affordable housing, healthcare or education.
Social Security, typical of government management (sic) represents outright theft of citizen funds by government, replaced by a federal Ponzi scheme.
Every penny that the federal government steals from citizens inhibits each from pursuit of the Liberty, Life and Happiness to which they are entitled, superior to any government plans or programs.
The federal government has never proven itself to be competent to handle citizen funds. Our Founding Fathers were smart to minimize the amount of money available to the federal government. We need to restore those Constitutional restrictions.
It is long past time for Citizens to hold federal office-holders accountable for honoring their sacred oath of office, in all branches of the federal government. Judges do not have life tenure, they are fit to serve only during "good behavior" which rightly is measured by their adherence to their oath to "...preserve, protect, and defined the COTUS..."
America's greatness has never originated in government. America's decline is directly attributable to the interference of the federal government in the lives of it's sovereign citizens.
I pray Obama restores the COTUS.
Posted by fbanta at 01/21/2009 @ 3:29pm
I Believe that one man can not bring the change, only show the way for us.
Posted by psihoulos at 01/21/2009 @ 3:45pm
of course most of the whining is done by poor shnook wannabe's, like many here. they will never be rich. Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 1:22pm
nor care.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:16pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 3:16pm
Oddly, 2010 would be a bad year for Dems in the Senate (more Dems up for re-election)...
but if Voinovich, Bond, Martinez, Brownback, and Hutchinson step down...that opens up a possibility for an even stronger filibuster-proof Senate and a bad time for the 2012 GOP candidte (fewer local state GOPers to stand on the platform with them).
The GOP would probably keep Texas (from Hutchinson) and Kansas (Brownback's seat)...but Missouri could be dicey and Florida and Ohio could easily flip.
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 4:26pm
I'm just curious what the Right will run on in 2012 and beyond...
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 2:49pm
diesel.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:35pm
Obama proved himself to be a lefty. Left-handed southpaw, that is.
Posted by Tunnelrat at 01/21/2009 @ 3:13pm
as are all the greats!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 1:48pm
This is exactly what we knew SJ "BLACKS DON'T LIKE VOTING ANYWAY" CHERMAK would say because he despises America and is weak at the knees for George W Loser and the signature event of his failed tenure: 9-11.
As with Charles Black's disgusting comments, highligted by ONEVOTE, SJ goes all the way in celebrating neoClown freaks when they openly, unashamedly rub their hands over the political desirability of American blood spilled in a slaughter so that they can have their "game changer" in electoral or foriegn policy terms; human sacrifice for the bigger cause.
American hating freak SJCHERMAK is an apologist for September 11. Period.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/21/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
you said, "fire away" and now i've got pat benetar stuck in my head.
HELP!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:37pm
I pray Obama restores the COTUS.
Posted by fbanta at 01/21/2009 @ 3:29pm
well, clinton restored COITUS.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:38pm
American hating freak SJCHERMAK is an apologist for September 11. Period.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/21/2009 @ 4:36pm
actually,
people like him are why it happened.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:42pm
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thats a good question. unless obama flops HARD...i don't envy republican strategists and propagandists in 12.
i personally think that a big part of the reagan economic boom was contingent on cheap gas which resulted from the decade long iran iraq war.
although as a pragmatist i also think loosening regulation and supply side economics helped too...they just forgot about the demand side completely and loosened up regulation WAY too much. fine tuning an economy takes time, it appears...
i think the reagan economic boom simply solidified the average schmo's loyalty to the republican party and revulsion to the counterculture's excesses. it linked social to economic issues...and i don't think the connection was causal, but rather incidental.
i'm thinking we'll get a showdown between the wacko anti-intellectual right, in the form of someone like sarah palin, and a moderate, perhaps someone like my governor, mark sanford.
but like i said, obama will have to realy screw the pooch to lose the oval office in 12...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 4:44pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:35pm
Nurse Diesel...from "High Anxiety"?
I hear she can dance a bit.
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 4:46pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 4:44pm
The paradox the Right is in is...to be "true to their principles" some wackadoodle like Palin or Jindal would HAVE to be their nominee in '12...
but to WIN 2012, they'd have to nominate somebody "less pure" like a Romney, Pawlenty, or Sanford. Sanford of course being the prime candidate to "re-solidify the Solid South"...but he's not a nutter ideologue even in South Carolina.
And no viable candidate is going to run on "a return to Bushonomics....re-opening Gitmo....there ain't no such thing as global warming...and I want to invade Iran and it'll be a 'cakewalk' and they'll welcome us with dates and pastries"!
But if they don't, then the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck Base admits that they are back to where they were after Goldwater...sitting in the back of the auditorium with Nixon/Rockefeller types running the show.
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 4:54pm
As a traditional Democrat, I don't want to see a limp wristed, wimpy approach to solving our economic problems. Free Trade represents the famous sucking sound of jobs, industries, and Agriculture going points South and to the Far East. No jobs, no American market. In deed, jobs should be an international concern, because without jobs, there is no market in any country. There are no, I repeat, no international solutions to this problem! Each country needs to control their own market for their own benefit, or there is no market to sell any goods or services. We are seeing major companies go bust because there is no market for their products. I want to see walls of tariffs around the world, and, for America, traditional Progressive methods of regulating business practices. I want to see some anti-trust action too. If the failure of any one business threatens the economy, it is too big to exist and needs to be in smaller pieces. This is not brain surgery, and we know how to fix this mess.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/21/2009 @ 4:59pm
Mask,
You ask "Then you are at odds with the unpatriotic Mr Limbaugh???? "
I checked out the link.
It has happened now, just like many of us conservatives said it would.
For 8 years, any of us who questioned the leftist blood lust against George W. Bush have been met with fits and screams of "Don't question our patriotism!".
But now, that a Democrat is President, it is unpatriotic to not support the President or wish him to fail!
Rush is taking issue with the possibilty of a far left agenda, growth in government that is supposed to help people but usually winds up creating more bureaucrats with guaranteed jobs the substance of some of which is an unnecesssary waste of taxpayers money.... and once this growth in government does not actually help people but in some ways makes them more dependent, then we will be told we need more Government to fix that.
And once the Government stuff is put in place, it never goes away, just drains peoples money in the form of taxes.
Rush does not want to see the advancement of "reproductive rights" which is a possibility.
Rush does not want to see the weakening of things such as the Patriot act, which has helped defend us and might have prevented another terror attack.
This kind of stuff Rush does not want to see, and he is saying that he believes Obama will push this and if he does he wants Obama to fail at it.
The things Rush feels are going to be pushed are those things he believes will weaken, not strenghen America.
So how is it being unpatriotic to speak out in opposition to it?
I am hoping Obama realizes that weakening our ability to fight terror is the wrong thing to do, now that he will be in position to have the inside knowledge as to how dangerous these terrorist darlings are.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 5:01pm
frosty zoom,
You said, about me and September 11 " people like him are why it happened. "
OK, lets go. Specify in detail how I brought September 11 about, or how people "like me" brought September 11 about.
I am not an Islamofascist who hates Jewish people and who hates the "Great Satan" (what they call America).
I do not believe in advocating the death of newspaper publishers who print cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.
I do not advocate the death of anybody who is not willing to become Islam and live by the Koran.
I do not advocate the suppression of women like the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
I do not operate shredding machines and run people through them.
Those kind of people are the reason why September 11 happened. They attacked us because most of us are not like them - and they can not tolerate that. We (America) did not make them that way.
So put your loonies (money, eh for those in the States who don't know what that is) where your mouth is and list specific reasons in defense of your statement.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 5:11pm
But if they don't, then the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck Base admits that they are back to where they were after Goldwater...sitting in the back of the auditorium with Nixon/Rockefeller types running the show.
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
if obama does not flop hard, that sounds like the most likely result.
funny how similar in an ideologically obverse way the republican dilemma is to the old dem problem, eh?
----------------------------------------
"And once the Government stuff is put in place, it never goes away, just drains peoples money in the form of taxes."
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
oh yeah...my tax money still pouring into the ccc and americorps...
more ideology driven hyperbole please!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 5:13pm
SJCHERMAK,
It sucks to be you because...it sucks to be you.
This is my final effort of the day but a couple of points.
"I do not advocate the suppression of women like the Taliban did in Afghanistan."
Really, SJ? Wow! What a stand. Wowee, you're like our new New Sensitive Man Hero now for this brave manadate. Is there anything else that you are against while we are on the topic -- say, torture or imprisoning people for years without a recognizable charge or massive $3 trillion premeptive invasion on half-assed and deceptive pretexts?
By your own stated logic, one can easily infer that this bold statement also means that you were a 100% supporter of the Soveit invasion of 1979 that demonstrably advanced women's rights in Afghanistan -- or, let me guess, you only favor the invasions that are made by the "home team" in reflexive conservaRelativism.
"I do not operate shredding machines and run people through them" while that nice, elderly Mr. Rumsfeld gives pats on the back and assurances about circumventing Congressional legislation blocking material aid to Saddam Hitler's regime.
And always, always remember that rubbing your hands and chin over the implimentation of political/electoral upside of a "New Pearl Harbor" (What's that? A beach party? A movie with Elvis? a mixed drink? All 3?) is the epitome of patriotism when creeps like Jeb Bush, Qualye, Cheney, Rummy, Kristol indulge in it in Clintonoid year of 2000. But when the NPH is delivered during Loser's watch, it is a solemn event to be construed as the blank check for the UNITARY EXEC...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/21/2009 @ 5:37pm
you said, "fire away" and now i've got pat benetar stuck in my head.
HELP!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Come On Hit Me With Your Best Shot!
Try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8rEYfK5yQ
Hang in there FZ!
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 5:40pm
Businesses don't pay taxes per say they merely pass them on to the consumers.
this is a persistent myth. businesses charge what the market will bear. period. did prices go down when the business tax is lowered? of course not. that shoots that myth to hell.
you might try thinking for yourself, instead of parroting the neo CON line
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009
Now I don't know what you do for a living but I can tell you are definately not a business owner and I hope you are not a economics professor. While prices don't usually go down you can bet they will always go up when the cost goes up and try cooling off some you don't have to always appear angry.
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 5:49pm
Be mindful that statistically, a strong argument can be made that an overwhelming number of Blacks voted for Obama solely on the basis of his skin color. Subtract those 16 Million black votes from the total, and more Americans voted for McCain than voted for Obama on the basis of principles. So much for a popular mandate based on policy.
Posted by fbanta at 01/21/2009 @ 3:29pm
2004 exit polls of black voting
George W.Bush - 11% John Kerry - 88%
2008 exit polls of black voting
John McCain - 5% Barak Obama - 95%
Both polls cite a + or - 3% margin of error
95-3 = 92% 88+3 = 91%
Perhaps black voters thought more Obama's policies. I don't see a strong argument here.
Posted by FLaim at 01/21/2009 @ 5:51pm
The GOP would probably keep Texas (from Hutchinson) and Kansas (Brownback's seat)...but Missouri could be dicey and Florida and Ohio could easily flip.
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ever closer to the Promised Land! Repubs better be good......oxymoron if there ever was one. I think you are right on Texas & Kansas......solid HappyLonghorn Country....incorrigible, even against their own best interest, and too blind to see.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 5:58pm
Now I don't know what you do for a living but I can tell you are definately not a business owner and I hope you are not a economics professor.
wrong. I have owned and operated my business, video production, for over 30 years.
sorry for any anger, but this crap has been posted here so many times it makes me puke.
if businesses only passed along the taxes they pay, it would stand to reason they would lower their prices when their taxes are lowered. since they don't, I think your argument has been refuted.
prices are set by demand. less demand, lower prices.more demand, rise in prices. the babylonians probably figured that out.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/21/2009 @ 6:00pm
Those kind of people are the reason why September 11 happened. They attacked us because most of us are not like them - and they can not tolerate that. We (America) did not make them that way.
So put your loonies (money, eh for those in the States who don't know what that is) where your mouth is and list specific reasons in defense of your statement.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Osama bin Laden's role in the events of September 11, 2001 is not mentioned on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" poster. On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11for the Muckraker Report
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." Tomb continued, "Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11." Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, "The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11."
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 6:14pm
continued.......
Haas pauses to ask the question, "If the US government does not have enough hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to ‘smoke him out of his cave?'" Through corporate media, the Bush administration told the American people that bin Laden was "Public Enemy Number One," responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to "root out" bin Laden and the Taliban, yet nearly six years later, the FBI said that it had no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
http://agonist.org/chickadee/20080408/ oops_no_hard_evidence_linking_bin_landen_to_11_fbi
I think Frosty's point is that there is a certain faction of our population that is gullible, believes everything their government tells them, believes everything the mainstream media says, and is always looking for a reason to hate and war. You seem to fit the bill.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 6:18pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 5:11pm
you'd better stop using algebra.
take a moment and think about why the "terrorists" aren't attacking new zealand.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 6:22pm
agonist?
great, great site.
my point is that
what goes around comes around.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 6:32pm
what goes around comes around.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
indeed it does.........can't remember too many New Zealand flags being burned in the streets by an angry mob lately.
kharma will have its way.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 6:55pm
Frosty Zoom,
I guess you have asked me that before.
I think it is because New Zealand doesn't really threaten the terrorists..... people in New Zealand are not in any real position to stop them from the agenda they have.
Look what is happening in Europe now. Terrorists do attack Europe... but Islamic immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into European culture seem to be taking over the place and dictating what Europe should be like.
Now thery are incorporating Sharia law, and when schools are told they must stop teaching the Holocaust, they comply and stop teaching the Holocaust.
So Europe still represents somewhat of a threat to them, but it is "manageable" in terms of them being able to get their way.
But we can stop the terrorists, and stop the advancement of Islamofacism... so we are a terror target.
But I guess what you are trying to convey is that the people of New Zealand are nice, peaceful people and we should be like them.
Except New Zealand won't be able to stop the spread of the Islamofacists. They aren't attacking New Zealand, and they may not have to. The caliphate will be a done deal by the time they get to New Zealand.
So the moral of the story is that the moral of your story should be rejected in favor of mine. We should not be like New Zealand, because we have a different role to play in world affairs.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 6:56pm
sjchermak wrote: "Look what is happening in Europe now. Terrorists do attack Europe...but Islamic immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into European culture seem to be taking over the place and dictating what Europe should be like."
let's go back in time less than a half century ago:
"Look what is happening in the New World now. Europeans do attack Indians...but Christian immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into Indian culture seem to be taking over the place and dictating what America should look like."
Posted by urmygyro at 01/21/2009 @ 7:36pm
stopitstopitstopitstopitstopitstopitstopitstopit! Posted by Benchrest at 01/21/2009 @ 11:22am
Finally had to put this dude on 'ignore' when he mentioned contributing to that website. I'm all for conspiracy stuff, but the site needs to be better than that.
Posted by ficheye at 01/21/2009 @ 7:38pm
For boyydz dubious lessons on economics:
"The board of directors decides this. Most of the directors have been elected by the stockholders, and they are duty-bound to protect stockholders' interests. Indeed. most of them are major stockholders themselves. It is not in the stockholders' interest to overpay corporate executives, and this is something the board would be expected to avoid."
Uh, yeah, a CEO being a member of the board. Congrats on stating the obvious. I'm sure my 'economic' lessons are coming though. Not in the interest of stockholders to 'overpay'? Really? They can themselves whatever they want. You really think these people 'earn' 100s of millions of dollars for what, 8-10 hours of work a day? Regardless, to CORRECT this they should be in a much higher income tax bracket as individuals like Warren Buffet agree.
"You have no personal dog in this hunt unless you are a stockholder, so what you think is not important. If you are a stockholder, you get your say by voting for directors."
Uh, right. I have a personal dog when income disparities in this country grow and corporate heads ask for public bailouts. Nor is what you think any more important than what I think (doh, it's a message-board). Stockholders don't determine the pay of directors. This is like saying we determine what Congressmen get paid as they vote for payraises on their own. Now they MIGHT get flack for it, but come on.
CONT.
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 7:40pm
More regarding boyydz "lessons"
"What do you think has driven GM and Chrysler to the wall? Why has Circuit City called it quits? Why are prices so low on Black Friday?"
Wow, way to pick and choose. The mass media in this country is primarily owned by a handful of companies and you think that's competition? GM and Chrysler did it to themselves with their short-term 'goals' to ignore what Japan (fuel efficiency) and Germany (better performance) do better. This is not to say they haven't made some better vehicles in recent years, but I digress. And guess what? While GM's performance went down, their CEO went up 40%! Wow, way to correlate based on performance. Well done board of directors and following what's in your best interest!
Hmm, given these lessons I think I'll stick to reading actual economists.
Posted by nukemind at 01/21/2009 @ 7:42pm
So the moral of the story is that the moral of your story should be rejected in favor of mine. We should not be like New Zealand, because we have a different role to play in world affairs.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 6:56pm
Excerpt from interview with Zig Brezenski and Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998; B = Brezenski
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intégrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 7:53pm
Those kind of people are the reason why September 11 happened. They attacked us because most of us are not like them - and they can not tolerate that. We (America) did not make them that way.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
If BS were gold you would be a rich man.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 7:59pm
Obama proved himself to be a lefty. Left-handed southpaw, that is.
Posted by Tunnelrat at 01/21/2009 @ 3:13pm
Is that a double-negative sort of thing?
Posted by FLaim at 01/21/2009 @ 8:10pm
Dick Cheney took one last look around his office, his hand on the doorknob. He was a happy man...between him and 'the decider' they'd done quite a job on the old place. The Nation, that is. He heard a muffled sound from the copier closet. He strode quickly over and jerked open the door. A manacled figure fell outwards onto the floor.
"CHERMAK! I almost forgot you were in there! Ready for the 'Mission Accomplished' tattoo? I'm gonna miss your twisted hyperbole and all that damn blogging! I know that I said it was annoying, but you were the master of reaching the letter limit! You should have heard the howls down in the conference room!"
He reached down to loosen the gag. "Lord Cheney... is it truly over? The regime, I mean?", CHERMAK gasped.
Dick looked out the window wistfully. "I think we may try New Zealand next year. But, you know what, CHERMAK? It's damn cold down there at times. There may be some fun left to be had in Argentina, but it may be all over. I've been thinking about a lip replacement. Cigar just won't stay put."
He yanked CHERMAK up into a standing position and unlocked the manacles. "Your a good man, CHERMAK. But I gotta go. Take some pretzels on your way out. And yes, you can have my Bin Laden coffee cup! Now get out! I've got a 'copter to catch!"
Posted by ficheye at 01/21/2009 @ 8:14pm
I don't think "left-handed southpaw" is a double-negative; just redundant.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/21/2009 @ 8:28pm
Posted by ficheye at 01/21/2009 @ 8:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I am hooked! Looking forward to further chapters.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 8:58pm
I am hooked! Looking forward to further chapters. Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 8:58pm
I promise not to write this stuff unless the poster:
Is opinionated to the point of lunacy and makes many dubious judgements, one on top of the other.
Makes so many posts on the same blog subject that even the usual calm, reasonable bloggers are getting ruffled. Five letter-limit posts qualify you for a journalistic caricature.
Posted by ficheye at 01/21/2009 @ 9:10pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 5:01pm
It works both ways, SJCHER.
Seems I remember YOU GUYS sayiing that any criticism of Bush was "Derangement Syndrome"....any criticism of his war policy was "not supporting the troops"....and that anything but abject support of his policies was "wanting America to fail so they can get their power back".
And now that's you and Rush.
Congrats.
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 10:33pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:38pm
au contraire mon frere. The Starr commission found evidence asserting that the missing adjective in your post is 'interruptus,' directly contradicting the notion of a restoration.
Posted by canaarak at 01/21/2009 @ 10:53pm
"Now thery are incorporating Sharia law, and when schools are told they must stop teaching the Holocaust, they comply and stop teaching the Holocaust."
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 6:56pm
That's terrible! Why that'd be like trying to get schools to stop teaching evolution and start teaching x-tian myths!
"I have already done that in the past... when George W. Bush took office I got used to an administration that didn't lie.. in comparison with the previous one. So, been there, done that."
At least you're still good for a laugh.
Posted by Malcontent at 01/21/2009 @ 11:29pm
Now I don't know what you do for a living but I can tell you are definately not a business owner and I hope you are not a economics professor. While prices don't usually go down you can bet they will always go up when the cost goes up and try cooling off some you don't have to always appear angry.
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 5:49pm
It depends on the tax model. Property taxes and other taxes on assets necessary for production (including payroll taxes) are a fixed cost. So if they increase, they will be passed on or, if there is no price flexibility due to foreign competition not subject to the same asset tax, it will diminish profits. But when that increases costs to the point of eliminating profits and causing a loss, the business will be uncompetitive and eventually have to close up shop.
On the other hand, taxes on net profits only diminish profits so they aren't exactly a cost. They don't affect competitiveness with foreign companies in the short term, although they can affect investment/re-investment in the long term.
Now, exorbitant executive salaries of >400x average employee salaries, those ARE costs that are passed on to consumers. If there were high rate tax brackets that incrementally limited the benefits of and incentives for those very large salaries, then both consumers and shareholders would benefit.
If companies like US car makers or the airlines are losing a billion a year, but executive compensation is a noticeable portion of that loss (or even equal to a good fraction of the profits) , that's a problem that shareholders should be screaming about.
The problem is that a lot of those shareholders are institutional investors like investment banks, mutual funds, and pension plans who originally agreed to those executive salaries because those executives has shown a propensity to sacrifice the long-term health of the companies to provide higher short term returns. So they make their bundle and then the employees and government are left dealing with the fallout of industries that are not competitive against foreign competitors. Your average investor just doesn't have much influence beyond choosing from a narrow slate of directors that are selected by the institutional investors complicit in the problem.
The big push for the privatization of social security by the Republicans was because it would have resulted in an increased demand for stocks that would have artificially continued to prop excessive stock valuations. It might even have helped hold off the credit crunch for another few years by supplying equity profits to the banks to hide the underlying problems in the mortgage-backed securities a little longer. At the expense of people losing even more retirement funds in the stock market and requiring an even bigger financial bailout, of course.
Posted by aglasnostic at 01/21/2009 @ 11:47pm
The things that KVH desires are desired by many in the United States. To attain these goals, people must be organized from the ground up, in order to have the pressure of numbers. I don't believe the far left agenda, outlined by KVH, is actually possible, because power and money, within the current politial and economic system, won't tolerate such massive change. Only if those in power can co-opt tolerable parts of these ideas, put their name on them, and get the credit for change, will they cooperate. The types of changes advocated by KVH are very slow to come about, and then only with constant massive pressure. Mr. Obama may be successful at starting some meaningful change, but it is doubtful that he will be able to see such changes through to the end, even in eight years. We shall see!
Posted by happyboy72848 at 01/21/2009 @ 11:57pm
Look what is happening in Europe now. Terrorists do attack Europe... but Islamic immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into European culture seem to be taking over the place and dictating what Europe should be like.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 6:56pm
dude, there are 4 million muslims in the u.s.
why haven't they eaten you kids yet?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 12:43am
But we can stop the terrorists, and stop the advancement of Islamofacism... so we are a terror target.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 6:56pm
islamofacism?!?!?
you truly are an ignorant buffoon.
you are a terror target because your government has fucked too many people around for too long.
and as always the innocent pay the price.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 12:45am
Obama proved himself to be a lefty. Left-handed southpaw, that is. Posted by Tunnelrat at 01/21/2009 @ 3:13pm as are all the greats! Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2009 @ 4:36pm A hearty amen to that one! Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/21/2009 @ 8:01pm
another freak?
who woulda thunk.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 12:48am
Posted by ficheye at 01/21/2009 @ 8:14pm
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 12:49am
au contraire mon frere. The Starr commission found evidence asserting that the missing adjective in your post is 'interruptus,' directly contradicting the notion of a restoration. Posted by canaarak at 01/21/2009 @ 10:53pm
tragic ;+]
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 12:50am
Katrina, you're an idiot. The only thing worse than a rampant capitalist is a naive, clueless, social idealist. Please go back to the university, where the worst you might do is to fill some student's head with your silly prattling. Please. By the way, I can't tell you how much fun it was watching George Will rip you a new one on This Week a few months ago. Loved it....
sUb, NYC
Posted by sub at 01/22/2009 @ 03:12am
Malcontent,
You have serious problems if schools COMPLYING with a demand to stop teaching the holocaust doesn't alarm you.
Frosty Zoom,
I guess in your lofty pacifist world you dream Islamofacism doesn't exist and is not a problem to be dealt with. Good thing Mr. Harper is running your country and not you.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/22/2009 @ 04:24am
Just out of curiosity, how many here are left handed? Me, I'm so left handed that my right hand can't do anything except hold stuff for my left.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/22/2009 @ 08:25am
I guess in your lofty pacifist world you dream Islamofacism doesn't exist and is not a problem to be dealt with.Posted by sjchermak at 01/22/2009 @ 04:24am
From the mouth of babes. Yes sjchermak, Islamofascism does not exist. It cannot exist for the simple reason that it is really difficult to conflate the "Muslim World" with "Industrial State Fascism". Because as messed up as many dictatorships and feudal monarchies may be they don't fit the definition of fascism. How many Muslims are running around quoting Mussolini?
Islamofascism is just another example of the neocon right trying to encite fear. It is a meaningless word. Just like your ideology.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/22/2009 @ 08:43am
Just out of curiosity, how many here are left handed? Me, I'm so left handed that my right hand can't do anything except hold stuff for my left.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/22/2009 @ 08:25am
try to become right handed (as well -- vice versus for you normaloids). it's done wonders for my playing and, though some may scoff, it's made my brain better.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 09:11am
they used to force kids to do that. not a good idea.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/22/2009 @ 09:21am
Posted by ficheye at 01/21/2009 @ 9:10pm
Literary satire is often more potent than refutation by pure factual debate.
Posted by OneVote at 01/22/2009 @ 10:29am
Posted by emile duBois at 01/22/2009 @ 09:21am
Yeah, I was born in 1953. The docs told my mom to force me to use my right hand. According to her I got violent and started throwing food and plates at her. So she gave up.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/22/2009 @ 10:32am
>>>That's why independent small d- democratic movements, grassroots organizing, online and offline, will be vital to pushing the limit of Obama's own politics and countering the forces of money and establishment power which remain obstacles to meaningful reform.<<<
Just got back from DC, and from my "perch" in the public section on the mall, it was clear that ordinary people - the vast majority on the mall - are who Obama was listening to and who he wants to govern America.
The citizen initiative I posted to END THE PAY-TO-PLAY CULTURE IN WASHINGTON on the change.gov website rose from zero to the top ten in several categories, despite having a two-day handicap in which other issues had received two days of voting prior to the posting.
In seems that the nearly all voters recognize that having government respond to our concerns rather than those with special access is the American ideal that we want to realize through Obama.
Like you said, KVH, half-steps will not do. We need to dramatically change the way government works so that it is focused on the public's business and not the narrow interests of a handful of special interest groups.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2009 @ 11:31am
Wasn't there a MORE RECENT article from Ms vanden Heuvel on "Editor's Cut"?!?!???!?! Something about Caroline Kennedy???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/22/2009 @ 12:06pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/21/2009 @ 08:23am
Can you explain how the jobs you are creating in Hong Kong are something the U.S. needs?
Posted by Mask at 01/21/2009 @ 08:51am
KvH isn't hard left, and for all intents and purposes is as mild as milk toast.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/21/2009 @ 10:38am
Translation: I am beginning to think I might have been wrong...? In short, best post I've seen from you in months - although I have found your arguments around Jordan being "Palestine" interesting.
Posted by fbanta at 01/21/2009 @ 3:29pm
And if you subtract all the white people, most people voted for Obama. See how silly that sounds?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2009 @ 4:44pm
Cheap gas in the 80's was more a function of finding new reserves, like those off the coast of England. But I agree with your point that it was part of the Reagan recovery.
Posted by waldob at 01/21/2009 @ 5:49pm
Technically, cost has no impact on price. It's supply and demand. So, for example, it is entirely possible for costs to go up and prices to go down - say if the demand for the product decreases but still enables suppliers to make a profit or if more suppliers enter the market because it is still profitable.
But, in most situations there isn't excess profit to be wrung out of the system. So from a common sense standpoint, you are correct.
Posted by OneVote at 01/21/2009 @ 7:53pm
I can only hope that LVL reads this post. Thank you.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2009 @ 12:40pm
there is also market share to consider. companies will take a loss in order to gain or hold market share.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/22/2009 @ 12:56pm
"dude, there are 4 million muslims in the u.s.
why haven't they eaten you kids yet?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 12:43am
FZ, nearly half of those 4 million muslims you cite are under "The Nation of Islam" featuring the one and only Minister Louis Farrakan and they're all African American. The rest are scattered about in the US with the largest population residing in the state of Michigan (Dearborn and Southfield, to be exact). Census figures have them between 275K to 300K.
PS. The Nation of Islam is not fully embraced or recognized by Arab countries.
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2009 @ 1:56pm
Before I put you on the "Ignore List", I just have to say how much of an idiot I think you are. Each response to KVH's remarks is either stupid, ignorant or a complete Lie. Thank God the majority of Americans, and the majority of the people around The World for that matter, don't have to listen to complete ignoramous' like you. Good By to Mr. sjchermak, and sorry I won't get to meet you some day, as I do not belong to The Nazi Party.
Posted by Enthusiastic at 01/22/2009 @ 2:05pm
Also, Sub and his Hero, George Will, are both fascists.
Posted by Enthusiastic at 01/22/2009 @ 2:12pm
I agree with Katrina.
The stage is set for Obama to be one of the greatest presidents of all time. I hope he does move America forward. He also needs to hold Bush accountable for the war crimes of torture.
Posted by noxidereus at 01/22/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by ACook at 01/22/2009 @ 1:56pm
Don't be hating on the 5% now. As a devil descended from Yakub, I will not have you disrespecting the original black man.
On a serious note: If you look at Pew Research, they estimate 1.8 million Muslims above the age of 18 and about 850,000 under 18. Of that, 20% are native born African Americans, and of that, about half identify as Sunni.
So, I think saying half of U.S. Muslims are Nation of Islam is quite a stretch - particularly when you consider that 80% of U.S. Muslims are not native born African Americans, 15% percent identified with a specific kind of Islam beyond Sunni (such as Shia or Nation of Islam) and 65% are first-generation immigrants.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2009 @ 2:30pm
I am not so convinced with Obama's Muslim and Afghanistan politics at all!!
He is about deploying I don't know how many battalions in Afghanistan and talks he would even consider unilateral military action in Pakistan. He then uses the phrase ''if we don't win over the hearts and minds of 1.3billion Muslims in the world it will be very difficult to win over the extremist''
So what is this guy trying to achieve there and how on earth is that leading to any peace?? This is not leading into any better understanding between East and West or between monotheistic fundamentalist on the whole.
What is really striking me in this context are headings like America has to achieve it's ''unfinished peace'' ..I think that is manipulative!!
Posted by Joey11 at 01/22/2009 @ 3:13pm
chaoszen,
You say "Islamofascism does not exist. .........Islamofascism is just another example of the neocon right trying to encite fear. ...."
How about when Islamic radicals got contorted and upset and rioted and killed people because of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper?
You don't take the reality of the world we live in into account....
Your sentiment plays well on this webiste, as I'm sure it would on MoveOn.org or dailyKos or Democrat Underground... but that means it makes little or no sense.
Enthusiastic,
Along the same lines as above, you have to remember that your post did not in any way refute anything I have said. According to you I am on your ignore list, so maybe you won't even see this.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/22/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/22/2009 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i largely agree with you about islamo-fascism. i challenge any apologists to watch this video and not at least wonder...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/22/2009 @ 4:51pm
Malcontent,
You have serious problems if schools COMPLYING with a demand to stop teaching the holocaust doesn't alarm you.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/22/2009 @ 04:24am
I was merely pointing out looney religious types infest the whole world.
Any actual european schools you can name that are denying the holocaust due to "islamofacists"?
Posted by Malcontent at 01/22/2009 @ 4:58pm
i challenge any apologists to watch this video and not at least wonder... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816
Well, I watched the video. And it's pretty concerning. What is even more concerning is that they have these guys on tape vocally inspiring a violent rebellion against the country that they live in, that many of them were allowed to immigrate to. They seem truly insane.
I don't know what to make of it at present. Not going to hide under my bed. Not going to slug my woman. Not going to stop making fun of CHERMAK. That guy must be able to braid his nose hairs by now. And I'd love to see what bumper stickers he has.
Posted by ficheye at 01/22/2009 @ 6:42pm
they used to force kids to do that. not a good idea. Posted by emile duBois at 01/22/2009 @ 09:21am
other way round, penguin.
"Supporting what many of us who are not musically talented have often felt, new research reveals that trained musicians really do think differently than the rest of us. Vanderbilt University psychologists have found that professionally trained musicians more effectively use a creative technique called divergent thinking, and also use both the left and the right sides of their frontal cortex more heavily than the average person."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081002172542.htm
i think you of all people would welcome an opportunity to increase your brain function ;•)
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2009 @ 10:28pm
I guess in your lofty pacifist world you dream Islamofacism doesn't exist and is not a problem to be dealt with. Posted by sjchermak at 01/22/2009 @ 04:24am
First of all, I would never put SJCHERMAK on my ignore list. As dark as he is at times, I think that it's best to know EXACTLY what the thought processes of someone like SJ are evolving into.
We do have to get something straight. A FASCIST (correct me if I'm wrong here) is someone who wants the corporate structure of a given society to be in charge of things, like Mussolini, or Bush. So, staying true to the definition, it follows that there can be no Islamofascist person or organization. Even Osama bin Laden forsook his connections to his well heeled relatives for the most part. They, the Islamoregressives, seem more obsessed with male domination, an offshoot of their chagrine and embarrasment involving their own sexuality and the denial of it's importance. And this comes from a group that, in it's most fundamentalist form, believes that since Mohammed married a nine year old, it's acceptable to marry underage girls before they reach puberty and to beat their wives as well.
Therefore, I think the term ISLAMOREGRESSIVE more exactly defines that group which Mr. CHERMAK and others find so frightening. They seek to find a path away from modernist social norms, and to 'return' to, or enforce by violence many of the traditions that society has hoped would be changed for the better.
So, Mr. CHERMAK, please go on ad infinitum about the muslim extremists, but since definitions and terminology are so important to make clear ones opinions, please consider using the term ISLAMOREGRESSIVE since it more clearly defines that group of fundamentalists that you mention. So often.
Posted by ficheye at 01/23/2009 @ 01:14am
ficheye,
God Almighty, some of the postings on this website get so intellectually deep and profound to the point of utter absurdity.
But if regarding the terrorist radicals that want us dead, the Islamic fundamentalists who attacked the World Trade Center twice and succeeded in their goals on the second try, these people who have hissy fits and kill people when they see cartoons they don't like in Danish newspapers, the group that just conducted the attacks in India, who attacked the USS Cole, etc. etc --- if identifying these people as ISLAMOREGRESSIVEs would then get you and others on the left on board that we have to fight back against them, then by all means call them ISLAMOREGRESSIVEs.
If by changing how they are indentified you and others on the left would then AGREE that President Bush pursued the right approach in fighting terror, and that President Obama should continue President Bush's policies instead of doing what the far political left and editors of The Nation want, then by all means call the terrorist darlings that want us dead ISLAMOREGRESSIVEs.
Just defeat them, whatever their "name" is!
But you and I both know:
1. You are parsing words somewhat, and attempting humor.
2. If the name is now ISLAMOREGRESSIVEs then PhillipMcCrevice, et. al. would be posting in spewing on that anybody that wants to fight back against ISLAMOREGRESSIVEs are assclowns, or neoclowns, or whatever.
So I am not sure a name change would fix things. What would help to fix things would be for President Obama to continue the policies of President Bush.
Elsewhere on this site, Katrina Vanden Heuvel wants the new senator from New York to be a The Nation subscriber.
Maybe President Obama should be also, to glean wisdom posted from us Conservatives here.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 07:19am
ficheye,
As you pointed out recently, I use up most of the word limit with my postings.
On my posting immediately above, I finished with only 4 unused characters. So only 4 went unused!!
That is pretty efficient. On this posting though, I will finish with 1452 left over - so I have not done as well. I will try to do better next time.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 07:22am
I will finish with 1452 left over - so I have not done as well. I will try to do better next time. Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 07:22am
Thanks SJ. You're a champ. Yes, I am ribbing you. But I have always thought that the term 'Islamofascist' is used as a name calling device and not as an actuality, like calling Bush a Nazi, which you wouldn't approve of.
You can take it personal if you want, but it wasn't really directed at you, but it included you. Bush, Rush, Hannity and others have used the term and it's just not correct. 'Fundamentalist' might be correct, but they also seem to be embracing older traditions. No, a name change would not fix anything and these guys DO hate America, but I also believe that there would be a lot less of them if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Hey! I'm actually engaging you in a civil 'discourse'!
Was I wrong about the use of the term 'fascist'? You have a lot of letters left over from the last post! And I promise to never call you an 'assclown'!
Posted by ficheye at 01/23/2009 @ 4:31pm
Any actual european schools you can name that are denying the holocaust due to "islamofacists"?
Posted by Malcontent at 01/22/2009 @ 4:58pm
Posted by Malcontent at 01/23/2009 @ 8:10pm
Ficheye,
To be honest with you I don't know if you are right or wrong about the use of the word "facist". My attitude is that the circumstance (Islamo-whatever) is real and a problem and needs to be dealt with. If you feel "facist" is not accurate, then call it what you want.
Because, that part of the word changing is not the concern anyway. It is the Islamo part dropping off or being downplayed that is the greater concern, to me. Some elements of the news media do seem to want to downplay that part.
I am not worried about you calling me an assclown, because Phillip McCrevice invented it, apparently - he is the only one I have seen use it, I had never seen it before.
Because he also has called people Neo Clowns I believe I asked him one time what the difference was between an assclown and a neoclown, and never got a clarification.
Maybe the definition of these terms are secrets he is not willing to give up, just like the original recipe for Coca-Cola was (and maybe still is) a secret.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/23/2009 @ 10:12pm
One of the most urgent things Obama must do, is to establish public funding of campaigns. I urge all of you who may read this comment to join me and urge the new President to outlaw corporations and private individuals bankrolling election campaigns. It ought to be obvious that as long as corporations own the congress, his agenda will languish; some items will be impossible to achieve, since feeding at the same trough is the only truly bipartisan activity in congress. I have no doubt that this is the reason why Democrats have been as spineless as they are. Ever wondered why Clinton with an overwhelming majority in both Houses in his first term could not pass universal health care legislation? All kinds of reason were advanced - Hillary made mistakes, Clinton made mistakes - nonsense. Which insurance company would continue to bankroll their campaigns if they dared to vote for single-payer health insurance? That is the question. Same with oversight. "Too bog to fail" is the excuse to pour billions of taxpayers' money down this black hole. No one asked "How did they get so big? don't we have anti-trust laws to prevent just that? Sure we do - and the answer is the same as above: which financial institution will continue to bankroll their campaigns if they dare oppose the mergers that created these behemoths? Or dared audit their books and question a 1 to 40 leverage without adequate cash reserves for bad loans? Or question the outlandish appraisals of real estate that fed that particular bubble? After every crisis we hear that at least we learned our lesson. But all these crises have occurred before - the S&L scandal came about mainly owing to overstating real estate values by bank appraisers and a lack of oversight - so, what lessons have we learned? Signoret
Posted by ffarron at 01/24/2009 @ 04:44am
There appears to be two dominant religions in the US, Christianity and Americanism--belief in the latter requires a fairytale view of American history, and its holy texts are updated each year by Hollywood.
If any other nation had the same record of lies and military aggression as that of the USA, its periodic threat, accusations and political legitimacy in general would be shredded in an instant. Not so for the Land of the Free. American invasions, bombings, coups, and covert terrorism have effectively become normalized and tacitly accepted as legitimate by much of the political Left, Center, and Right. This is a testament to the hegemonic power of the imperialist American worldview and the global US media.
From this US perspective, American serial wars of aggressions do not even politically register as aggression, but are ultimately rationalized by the nationalist ideology of American Exceptionalism and a messianic creed that the USA is a crusader for democracy. America's Manifest Destiny, it appears, is to rule the world for its own good. Hitler would be jealous of such imperial ambitions.
For in terms of military power, spending, declared strategic doctrine, geopolitical intent, and most importantly actual behavior, the American Empire has demonstrated time and again that the preeminent menace is itself.
The inauguration of Barack Obama has become the occasion for a tidal wave of media-orchestrated delusions and stupidities designed to overwhelm and chloroform public consciousness. Such events are always repellent to those who retain their critical faculties. The policies of the Obama administration will be determined not by media image-making or hollow rhetoric, but by the imperatives of the crisis and the social interests which Obama represents.
Posted by Frank_Doric at 01/24/2009 @ 07:05am
It ought to be obvious that as long as corporations own the congress, his agenda will languish; some items will be impossible to achieve
Obama was vetted groomed and bankrolled by Wall St. Why do you think he is handing over trillions in taxpayers money to corporate crooks with no restrictions on how they use the money? The big players are using the money to buy up other institutions further monopolizing the worlds finances and the rest they are stuffing in their pockets and under their mattresses.
"Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred"
With these few words, Obama gave his assurance that the "global war on terror" will remain the lasting legacy of Bush, Cheney and Co., providing the continued pretext for aggressive war abroad and the violation of democratic rights at home.
Contained in this formulation is the continuation of all the lies and political intimidation methods utilized by the last administration to foist the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq onto the American people. Principal among them is the fraudulent claim that the American military has been sent to occupy these countries and kill large numbers of their citizens in order to fight terrorism, when, in fact, the real reason for these wars is the drive for American imperialist hegemony over the vast energy reserves of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf.
Posted by Frank_Doric at 01/24/2009 @ 07:17am
Any actual european schools you can name that are denying the holocaust due to "islamofacists"?
Posted by Malcontent at 01/22/2009 @ 4:58pm
Posted by Malcontent at 01/23/2009 @ 8:10pm
Posted by Malcontent at 01/24/2009 @ 07:50am
Katrina, you're not just drinking the Kool-Aid, I can see your eyes are glazed over with bliss and you've got the glass it came in halfway down your throat. You need lessons in economics and sociology, Sister. Shoveling trillions of dollars out the door of the treasury is not going to create any kind of a recovery – it's only going to result in an inflationary spiral like we've never seen before in this country, and a corresponding crash. Tell me when, except in time of war, there has EVER been an effective marshalling of the power of government that has resulted in the improvement of people's lives? Did the New Deal work? Yes, I am anti-government, and I'm sure I will be consigned to the dustbin of history, as will we all. But I have no desire to go there having left my fate in the hands of a government that has never demonstrated any talent for the considerate management of the lives of those governed. Here are the steps that I hope President Obama will take: I hope he will reverse our deepening economic inequality by reversing the horrendous trend of governmental control over businesses, because today the single greatest enemy of all business, large and small, is the government. I hope that he will work to reinforce the notion of personal responsibility, and the idea that one is the master of his fate, the captain of his sole, because dependence on the government can only result in a slave state. I hope he will encourage community involvement by the individual, and the education of our children with full parental participation and guidance, because to sit on the sidelines and do nothing can only result in others deciding the outcome for us, and failing to take part in the education of our offspring will allow others who are perhaps not of like mind to
Posted by Elcobar at 01/24/2009 @ 12:42pm
Malcontent,
Twice now you have asked " Any actual european schools you can name that are denying the holocaust due to "islamofacists"? "
Here is an article from a European newspaper website about the subject:
From The Times April 2, 2007 Schools drop Holocaust lessons to avoid offence Alexandra Frean http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/news/uk/ education/ article1600686.ece
As long as we are on the subject of Radical Islam, and the political climate in Europe which seems to be to roll over to this, here is an article about what is going on in the Netherlands:
Special Report Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands By Brooke M. Goldstein & Aaron Meyer on 1.22.09 @ 6:09AM http://spectator.org/ archives/2009/01/22/ death-to-free-speech-in-the-ne
In Europe these days it seems that if you speak out about Radical Islam, not only are you condemned for engaging in "Islamophobia", just like you are over here, but also you can get into big time legal trouble.
You will declare the second article invalid, because it comes from the website of the American Spectator, a conservative publication.
The first article is from the Times, in the U.K. I don't know yet why that is invalid, but I will know after you post your reply and tell me.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/24/2009 @ 2:45pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/24/2009 @ 2:45pm
"Twice now you have asked..."
Three times actually.
"The first article is from the Times, in the U.K. I don't know yet why that is invalid, but I will know after you post your reply and tell me."
Being as how it is shorter than your average post, I will repost said article in it's entirety.
Of course it mentions no specific school or teachers. But in spite of not being responsive to my question, it must be factual, being referenced on "a report claims..."
"Staff may wish..." Now that's a mandate, if I ever saw one.
----------------------------
Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.
A lack of factual knowledge among some teachers, particularly in primary schools, is also leading to “shallow” lessons on emotive and difficult subjects, according to the study by the Historical Association.
The report, produced with funding from the Department for Education, said that where teachers and staff avoided emotive and controversial history, their motives were generally well intentioned.
“Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship,” it concluded.
However, it was concerned that this could lead to divisions within school, and that it might also put pupils off history.
------------------------------
Now you know.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 01/24/2009 @ 11:12pm
Malcontent,
I know what, Malcontent?
You are the one that is incapable of understanding why not teaching the Holocaust is wrong.
I of course read the article. Obviously we saw different things in the article- no surprise.
Obviously, you buy into the argument that you should not bring up a subject that might be controversial or that might offend somebody, and gee, the teachers were well intentioned in doing so.
You have got to be kidding me!
The teachers not teaching the Holocaust is OK because doing so might put pupils off of history?
THEY ARE OFF HISTORY the minute that all of the history is NOT taught.
I hope to God that you are not involved in the public educational system in THIS country.
History is what it is. It is in the public record good or bad, as to the various things that have happened on this planet Earth.
The worst thing that could be done is to start leaving out parts of history when history is taught to students. Nobody is doing anybody any favor at all if we start modifying what view of history kids receive.
Kids need to know what major events in history have occurred. History is not the same as opinion about the current issues of the day. It is simply the chronicle of what has happened before.
To shortchange kids on knowledge of all history because teachers do not want to get contentious would be totally wrong.
You say I didn't name a specific school - you are capable of researching further on this topic - obviously this is a widespread thing in the UK which makes the problem even worse.
I hope you are not involved in education in this country. God help us if you are.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/24/2009 @ 11:59pm
Katrina,
Thank you for a very timely article. Your statement:
"That's why independent small d- democratic movements, grassroots organizing, online and offline, will be vital to pushing the limit of Obama's own politics and countering the forces of money and establishment power which remain obstacles to meaningful reform."
is something with which I completely agree. There must be a leftist opposition to propel Mr. Obama's administration forward and keep it from the morass of Democratic (big-D) centrism.
My wife and I are going to join a small group sponsored by the local AFSCME chapter and I'll see if it takes us anywhere. Our local rep is the invertebrate Ellen Tauscher who may start seeing things our way now that she has verifiable cover in the White House.
BTW: If there exists some kind of award for diplomacy and forbearance in putting up with the kind of drivel I'm reading from some of these fact-challenged, brain-dead posters, you should at least be a nominee.
I really don't know how you do it, except maybe to skip reading the comments to your own articles.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by twistedboomer at 01/25/2009 @ 12:16am
Posted by sjchermak at 01/24/2009 @ 11:59pm
"Obviously, you buy into the argument that you should not bring up a subject that might be controversial or that might offend somebody, and gee, the teachers were well intentioned in doing so."
No. Dumb ass. You said;
"Now thery are incorporating Sharia law, and when schools are told they must stop teaching the Holocaust, they comply and stop teaching the Holocaust."
Posted by sjchermak at 01/21/2009 @ 6:56pm
" - you are capable of researching further on this topic - obviously this is a widespread thing in the UK which makes the problem even worse."
Why would I research further? You made the statement. You back it up.
But again, you are SJ... take some vague hearsay...add some innuendo...a splash of prejudice...and violŕ! Truthiness!
Posted by Malcontent at 01/25/2009 @ 2:04pm
Malcontent,
I have backed up my statement.
It is obvious, also what I said, that it would not pass muster with you.
You are engaging in some convoluted word parsing to try and make some case that I have not responded to you.
To start with, a phenomenon that is prevalent enough to appear as a news item (meaning it obviously is not isolated to one location) is declared by you to be hearsay.
Your response thus validates what I said would happen (about your response).
I say that people are told and people comply. I do not know who is telling, but it is obvious that general direction is being provided to leave this out of the curriculum.
Whether individual schools set their own course (that doesn't happen here, so I doubt it would over there), or whether there are even such things a school districts, or whether there is guidance from the national government, is not clear.
But at some point, it is moot.
This is not the first I have heard of this.
There is obviously guidance from above somewhere for teachers in some places, at least, to leave it out.
And it seems the teachers comply, and from the article seem to think it is the way to go.
How come they don't refuse? They don't refuse, thus they are complying and doing something that is wrong and is against what one would think to be one of the principles of their profession. (which you would think would be to teach kids an accurate chronicle of history)
I have provided one example to show that this is occurring. As I knew it would, you poo-poo it.
It would be a waste of my time to search further to find stuff that would not pass muster with you either, because:
1- You are not lord and master of the Internet that I must obey.
2- Your mind is shut like a steel trap.
Knock the B.S. off!
Posted by sjchermak at 01/25/2009 @ 8:00pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/25/2009 @ 8:00pm
Not a single school. Not a single name. No reference except one short, unclear article.
If that's all the evidence you need to extrapolate that actual schools are actually "making" any actual teacher do this, then have at it.
You said;"Now thery are incorporating Sharia law, and when schools are told they must stop teaching the Holocaust, they comply and stop teaching the Holocaust."
Who are "they"?
Which schools?
Who's complying? (C'mon man, I'm not even asking for a specific teachers name... just mention one school.)
You are so easily led. This is multiple attempts to get you to factually back up your "facts". You have no facts. Your opinion might even be correct, but you wouldn't even know if it was. I am over attempting to communicate this obvious fact to you.
Posted by Malcontent at 01/26/2009 @ 3:32pm