Are you old enough to remember the old show Shindig?
Related to the previous post, here's a blast from the past:
I was only 9 in 1965, watching Shindig on backwoods TV. I get the impression it would have been a pretty good time to be 29, and living someplace like London or New York.
Performed by Cilla Black. Song by Randy Newman.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Lieberman Just Wants To Keep His Chairmanship
Unless the ghost of Hanuka Past comes for a midnight visit, count on Liar Joe to be the key vote that kills the public option.
By Manifesto Joe
The one and only thing that makes the Bush presidency look good in hindsight is the thought that this man could have been a heartbeat away from the presidency. Liar Joe Lieberman voted with the Democratic majority Saturday night to bring the health care bill to debate on the Senate floor.
Barring divine intervention, consider that to be Liar Joe's ass-covering vote, the one that will save his chairmanship as a member of the Senate's majority Democratic caucus.
Don't count on any more of them. I think this man made his Faustian bargains long ago, and the time has come for Lucifer to collect the bill. Liar Joe will vote with the Republicans every time after this, I predict -- once again, unless the gods intervene. I've been wrong before, as the old Randy Newman song (a 1965 hit for Cilla Black) went. And I sincerely hope I'm wrong this time.
Liar Joe is chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, because the Democratic Senate majority accepts him as a caucus vote and permits it. I think they made a huge mistake back when. It was bad enough in 2006, when he got past the challenge of Ned Lamont. The Democratic Party should have kicked his scrawny ass to the curb when he campaigned for John McCain.
But, here he is, and here this is. Look for the upcoming vote to be, quite possibly, 59-41 "against" cloture of the health care filibuster -- with Liar Joe the deciding vote.
I honestly hope he will surprise me. Baby, I've been wrong before.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
By Manifesto Joe
The one and only thing that makes the Bush presidency look good in hindsight is the thought that this man could have been a heartbeat away from the presidency. Liar Joe Lieberman voted with the Democratic majority Saturday night to bring the health care bill to debate on the Senate floor.
Barring divine intervention, consider that to be Liar Joe's ass-covering vote, the one that will save his chairmanship as a member of the Senate's majority Democratic caucus.
Don't count on any more of them. I think this man made his Faustian bargains long ago, and the time has come for Lucifer to collect the bill. Liar Joe will vote with the Republicans every time after this, I predict -- once again, unless the gods intervene. I've been wrong before, as the old Randy Newman song (a 1965 hit for Cilla Black) went. And I sincerely hope I'm wrong this time.
Liar Joe is chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, because the Democratic Senate majority accepts him as a caucus vote and permits it. I think they made a huge mistake back when. It was bad enough in 2006, when he got past the challenge of Ned Lamont. The Democratic Party should have kicked his scrawny ass to the curb when he campaigned for John McCain.
But, here he is, and here this is. Look for the upcoming vote to be, quite possibly, 59-41 "against" cloture of the health care filibuster -- with Liar Joe the deciding vote.
I honestly hope he will surprise me. Baby, I've been wrong before.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Price-Gouging On Drugs: Another Argument For Single-Payer
By Manifesto Joe
For decades, I've heard that one big reason drug companies charge so much for their products is that they need plenty of money for R&D (research and development). Staying on the pharmaceutical cutting edge, the argument goes, is part of what has given America "the greatest health care system in the world." Yeah, it works just great -- for CEOs, stockholders and wealthy people in general.
The difference between what the drug companies are charging and what Americans pay for most other products is astonishing. Duff Wilson, reporting for The New York Times, wrote that drugmakers raised prices on their wares by an average of 9 percent during the past year, according to industry analysts. That compares with a decline of 1.3 percent in the Consumer Price Index. Read the full story here.
That's an awful lot of R&D. (And, it comes just before major legislation is anticipated. Coincidence?) So, what are we consumers getting for it?
Well, for starters, there are the drugs that don't work. Nearly two years ago, a study cast much doubt on the effectiveness of the alleged state-of-the-art cholesterol drug Zetia. Here's a report. And, more recently, a study found that a form of niacin actually had more effect on slowing the buildup of plaque on artery walls than did Zetia or a similar drug, Vytorin. That story was in a lot of newspapers today.
Another thing we consumers seem to be getting is a lot of adverse drug reactions to all these exotic new panaceas. There's now a plethora of lawsuits related to liver damage from Zetia and Vytorin regimens. And, these newer meds are more expensive than the older statin drugs, which are often prescribed in tandem. The drug companies had studies years ago indicating all of the above problems, but they persisted in misrepresenting the drugs because that meant higher profits for them.
For that matter, the statin drugs are bad enough. Three days for my mother on Zocor, and she collapsed and landed in the hospital. Three days on Lipitor for me, and I couldn't remember people's names.
So, all we seem to be getting for all that R&D we pay for are drugs that sometimes don't work, and even when they do, the ADRs can at worst kill you, and at best turn you into a zombie.
The payroll as a source of price-gouging?
On to another classic argument: "Those people have to be paid!" an obvious Limbaugh dittohead exclaimed to me during an drugstore argument back in 1992. She was referring to the assorted technicians, skilled laborers, etc., who work for the drug companies.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the rank-and-file lab workers who were pulling in the seven-figure salaries and bonuses. In 17 years we've learned a lot more about that, so forget about that canard.
The stockholders have to be paid, too, right? (Hmmm)
The third in this unholy trinity of drugmaker arguments is that the stockholders have to get a good return on their investments, otherwise they might not gamble on pharmaceuticals. It's considered a high-stakes, and high-risk, investment.
But recent studies, apparently some from the insurance companies themselves, have said that the insurers' profit margins aren't relatively high -- only around 6 percent. Why, then, am I paying more and more every year for needed medications? As the insurance companies keep jacking up co-payments and changing their preferred drug lists, why don't THEY make more money?
Based on the recent analysis, I think we know who's really raking it in. The insurers are just passing on the costs. And we, the consumers, seem to be getting about the same thing for good stockholder returns as we've been getting for all that "R&D."
The answer? Let's take the profit motive OUT OF MEDICINE.
Back in 1992, the same dittohead I mentioned earlier argued that a government takeover of medicine would inevitably lead to lower quality in health care.
I'm going to write something that might be considered astonishing. If that is the case about a "government takeover," I honestly do not give a rat's ass.
The reasons are simple. I'm not rich, and I've had lifelong health problems. I'm not satisfied with the standard of health care I've gotten for over 53 years now; I can't see how flat-out socialized medicine could make it that much worse, and at least what treatment there was would be guaranteed, pre-existing conditions or none.
If I were rich, being flown to Houston for the finest open-heart surgery would be no problem. But I'm not rich, so what good does all that state-of-the-art do me? I just want something I can afford, and can DEPEND ON.
In a single-payer system, there are probably many drawbacks. We've certainly heard all about them from the greedy interests who are fighting U.S. health care reform. But I've noticed something -- not one of the advanced nations that has single-payer, not even conservative-leaning Australia, is debating a change to an American-style "land of the fee" system. Nor do I hear any beneficiaries of Medicare -- a single-payer system for those 65 and older -- say they are willing to give up what they have.
Single-payer would get the profit motive out of medicine, on many levels, including drug prices. However long it takes to get real reform done, the debate will always take us back to that simple truth.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
For decades, I've heard that one big reason drug companies charge so much for their products is that they need plenty of money for R&D (research and development). Staying on the pharmaceutical cutting edge, the argument goes, is part of what has given America "the greatest health care system in the world." Yeah, it works just great -- for CEOs, stockholders and wealthy people in general.
The difference between what the drug companies are charging and what Americans pay for most other products is astonishing. Duff Wilson, reporting for The New York Times, wrote that drugmakers raised prices on their wares by an average of 9 percent during the past year, according to industry analysts. That compares with a decline of 1.3 percent in the Consumer Price Index. Read the full story here.
That's an awful lot of R&D. (And, it comes just before major legislation is anticipated. Coincidence?) So, what are we consumers getting for it?
Well, for starters, there are the drugs that don't work. Nearly two years ago, a study cast much doubt on the effectiveness of the alleged state-of-the-art cholesterol drug Zetia. Here's a report. And, more recently, a study found that a form of niacin actually had more effect on slowing the buildup of plaque on artery walls than did Zetia or a similar drug, Vytorin. That story was in a lot of newspapers today.
Another thing we consumers seem to be getting is a lot of adverse drug reactions to all these exotic new panaceas. There's now a plethora of lawsuits related to liver damage from Zetia and Vytorin regimens. And, these newer meds are more expensive than the older statin drugs, which are often prescribed in tandem. The drug companies had studies years ago indicating all of the above problems, but they persisted in misrepresenting the drugs because that meant higher profits for them.
For that matter, the statin drugs are bad enough. Three days for my mother on Zocor, and she collapsed and landed in the hospital. Three days on Lipitor for me, and I couldn't remember people's names.
So, all we seem to be getting for all that R&D we pay for are drugs that sometimes don't work, and even when they do, the ADRs can at worst kill you, and at best turn you into a zombie.
The payroll as a source of price-gouging?
On to another classic argument: "Those people have to be paid!" an obvious Limbaugh dittohead exclaimed to me during an drugstore argument back in 1992. She was referring to the assorted technicians, skilled laborers, etc., who work for the drug companies.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the rank-and-file lab workers who were pulling in the seven-figure salaries and bonuses. In 17 years we've learned a lot more about that, so forget about that canard.
The stockholders have to be paid, too, right? (Hmmm)
The third in this unholy trinity of drugmaker arguments is that the stockholders have to get a good return on their investments, otherwise they might not gamble on pharmaceuticals. It's considered a high-stakes, and high-risk, investment.
But recent studies, apparently some from the insurance companies themselves, have said that the insurers' profit margins aren't relatively high -- only around 6 percent. Why, then, am I paying more and more every year for needed medications? As the insurance companies keep jacking up co-payments and changing their preferred drug lists, why don't THEY make more money?
Based on the recent analysis, I think we know who's really raking it in. The insurers are just passing on the costs. And we, the consumers, seem to be getting about the same thing for good stockholder returns as we've been getting for all that "R&D."
The answer? Let's take the profit motive OUT OF MEDICINE.
Back in 1992, the same dittohead I mentioned earlier argued that a government takeover of medicine would inevitably lead to lower quality in health care.
I'm going to write something that might be considered astonishing. If that is the case about a "government takeover," I honestly do not give a rat's ass.
The reasons are simple. I'm not rich, and I've had lifelong health problems. I'm not satisfied with the standard of health care I've gotten for over 53 years now; I can't see how flat-out socialized medicine could make it that much worse, and at least what treatment there was would be guaranteed, pre-existing conditions or none.
If I were rich, being flown to Houston for the finest open-heart surgery would be no problem. But I'm not rich, so what good does all that state-of-the-art do me? I just want something I can afford, and can DEPEND ON.
In a single-payer system, there are probably many drawbacks. We've certainly heard all about them from the greedy interests who are fighting U.S. health care reform. But I've noticed something -- not one of the advanced nations that has single-payer, not even conservative-leaning Australia, is debating a change to an American-style "land of the fee" system. Nor do I hear any beneficiaries of Medicare -- a single-payer system for those 65 and older -- say they are willing to give up what they have.
Single-payer would get the profit motive out of medicine, on many levels, including drug prices. However long it takes to get real reform done, the debate will always take us back to that simple truth.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Odds Are Against Real Health Care Reform In Senate, But House Vote Was Worth It
By Manifesto Joe
The public option for health insurance probably doesn't stand a chance in the Senate. Renegade Joe Lieberman and several "blue dog" DINOs are very likely to stop it from getting to an up-or-down vote like we saw in the House late Saturday. But it was worth it to go this far, for three big reasons.
1. The debate has been educational, and the American public needed schooling on this subject.
I confess that I didn't know before this summer that private insurers, in the current system, have an exemption from federal antitrust laws. They've had it for many decades, all the way back to 1945. (Here's a link.) And yet these Tea Party imbeciles persist in bellowing about free markets, and patient choice? Unfortunately, there's no FDA-approved treatment for stupidity on the "free market" yet.
This antitrust exemption was apparently, in part, the brainchild of U.S. Sen. Pat McCarran, D-Nev. (Another link.) McCarran (1876-1954) was one of the era's notorious Red-baiters, chief sponsor of the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, which required Communist Party members and those in affiliated "fronts" to register with the government. By the way, the act was never enforced, and major provisions of it were ruled unconstitutional in 1965 and 1967, as it was decided that even commies have free-speech guarantees. This "distinguished gentleman," Sen. McCarran, was living proof that DINOs were around in the 1940s, too.
Another thing that this year's debate has made clear: The majority of U.S. bankruptcies are the result of catastrophic illnesses -- combined with a monopolistic private health insurance system that doesn't cover 47 million people, or can simply refuse to cover many others because of "pre-existing conditions."
(2) Democrats, real ones, can beat Republicans over the head with this in next year's midterm congressional elections.
The public option won in an up-or-down vote, 220-215, in the more representative and "little-d" democratic part of our legislative branch. And polls show that a majority of Americans favor a public option. There's an opportunity to pillory Republicans here, if Democrats will capitalize on it. The Republicans are ready to block something that a majority of the public had decided it wanted. Make the insurance-company prostitutes pay at the polls.
(3) If health care reform fails this time, or is diluted into just another subsidy for the private insurance industry, the eventual outcome may well be a single-payer system.
Saturday's vote in the U.S. House came against great odds -- the well-financed and ruthless opposition of the American health insurance monopoly. The vote came about because the anger that has been building among the American people for decades finally overpowered the insurance companies' almighty dollar.
If the status quo, or something like it, continues, the pressure from below will keep building. Some of the Tea Party fools may have been through illness and bankruptcy by then -- sometimes personal experience can make somebody realize that they've been a chicken supporting Colonel Sanders.
In time, we may finally get real reform: a single-payer system. If it takes misery and financial ruin for millions to get this done -- well, so be it. It took the Great Depression to turn enough Republicans into independents, and independents into Democrats, to get us something as basic as Social Security back in 1935.
I can see in this the beginnings of history repeating itself.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The public option for health insurance probably doesn't stand a chance in the Senate. Renegade Joe Lieberman and several "blue dog" DINOs are very likely to stop it from getting to an up-or-down vote like we saw in the House late Saturday. But it was worth it to go this far, for three big reasons.
1. The debate has been educational, and the American public needed schooling on this subject.
I confess that I didn't know before this summer that private insurers, in the current system, have an exemption from federal antitrust laws. They've had it for many decades, all the way back to 1945. (Here's a link.) And yet these Tea Party imbeciles persist in bellowing about free markets, and patient choice? Unfortunately, there's no FDA-approved treatment for stupidity on the "free market" yet.
This antitrust exemption was apparently, in part, the brainchild of U.S. Sen. Pat McCarran, D-Nev. (Another link.) McCarran (1876-1954) was one of the era's notorious Red-baiters, chief sponsor of the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, which required Communist Party members and those in affiliated "fronts" to register with the government. By the way, the act was never enforced, and major provisions of it were ruled unconstitutional in 1965 and 1967, as it was decided that even commies have free-speech guarantees. This "distinguished gentleman," Sen. McCarran, was living proof that DINOs were around in the 1940s, too.
Another thing that this year's debate has made clear: The majority of U.S. bankruptcies are the result of catastrophic illnesses -- combined with a monopolistic private health insurance system that doesn't cover 47 million people, or can simply refuse to cover many others because of "pre-existing conditions."
(2) Democrats, real ones, can beat Republicans over the head with this in next year's midterm congressional elections.
The public option won in an up-or-down vote, 220-215, in the more representative and "little-d" democratic part of our legislative branch. And polls show that a majority of Americans favor a public option. There's an opportunity to pillory Republicans here, if Democrats will capitalize on it. The Republicans are ready to block something that a majority of the public had decided it wanted. Make the insurance-company prostitutes pay at the polls.
(3) If health care reform fails this time, or is diluted into just another subsidy for the private insurance industry, the eventual outcome may well be a single-payer system.
Saturday's vote in the U.S. House came against great odds -- the well-financed and ruthless opposition of the American health insurance monopoly. The vote came about because the anger that has been building among the American people for decades finally overpowered the insurance companies' almighty dollar.
If the status quo, or something like it, continues, the pressure from below will keep building. Some of the Tea Party fools may have been through illness and bankruptcy by then -- sometimes personal experience can make somebody realize that they've been a chicken supporting Colonel Sanders.
In time, we may finally get real reform: a single-payer system. If it takes misery and financial ruin for millions to get this done -- well, so be it. It took the Great Depression to turn enough Republicans into independents, and independents into Democrats, to get us something as basic as Social Security back in 1935.
I can see in this the beginnings of history repeating itself.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Rush Limbaugh, Obama, Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum
By Manifesto Joe
One of the things that's remarkable about right-wingers is their chutzpah. Herr Rush Limbaugh, postmodern court jester for the Third Reich, may be the biggest, or at least the fattest, example.
Lardbaugh's latest outrage was his tirade last week against President Barack Obama. Huffington Post reported that:
During a rant in which he Limbaugh accused senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett of unfairly pressuring the Chamber of Commerce, the controversial radio host slammed Obama as "this little boy, this little man-child president whose primary job, if you will, in life has been leisure. This guy is more practiced at leisure than anything else."
You can view the video here.
Let's see, now. A "man-child president whose primary job ... has been leisure."
Perusing Wikipedia's biography of Lardbaugh, one notices things such as these:
Education
Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[1] As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[4]
It appears that Herr Lardbaugh's mouth, clearly hyperactive in more ways than one, has been his ticket to getting through life. He was no student then, and regarding his accuracy, the easiest job on the planet today would be a gig as his fact-checker.
Here's more from Wiki:
Draft status
Limbaugh's birthdate was ranked as 152 in the Vietnam War draft lottery. No one was drafted above 125. He was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to either a football knee injury or a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease.[1][5]
He came from a well-to-do family, lousy with lawyers. More from Wiki:
Limbaugh was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, the son of Mildred Carolyn "Millie" (née Armstrong), originally from Searcy, Arkansas, and Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Jr. His father was a lawyer and a World War II fighter pilot who served in the China-Burma-India theater. The name "Rush" was chosen for his grandfather to honor the maiden name of family member Edna Rush.[1] His family has many lawyers, including his grandfather, father and brother David. His uncle, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr. is a Ronald Reagan-appointed federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and his cousin, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., is currently a judge in the same court, appointed by George W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh, Sr., Limbaugh's grandfather, was a Missouri prosecutor, judge, special commissioner and served on Missouri's state House of Representatives from 1930 to 1932.[2] Limbaugh's grandfather was a longtime president of the Missouri Historical Society. Rush, Sr., died at age 104, and was still a practicing attorney at the time of his death. The Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau is named for Limbaugh's grandfather.
Let's see some more. He's been married, and divorced, three times. You wonder what's wrong when a guy as rich as he was born, and as filthy rich as he got later, just can't stay married. Does it have anything to do with the fact that he's a world-class misogynist asshole? Or maybe with his apparent need for 100-mg. Viagra pills?
More still: His weight problem has been obvious for decades. He's been addicted to illegal drugs (oxycodone and hydrocodone).
His racism has been on display regularly throughout his radio career. More from Wiki:
On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to a Los Angeles Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Barack Obama was filling the role of the "magic negro", and that this explained his appeal to voters.[39] Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon".[40]
Here's Limbaugh on NFL star Donovan McNabb:
Sorry to say this, I don't think he has been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve ...
[On "free trade"] If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, let the unskilled jobs, let the kind of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do, let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.
Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
There's plenty more along those lines. I'd say it calls into question his qualification to assess Barack Obama accurately in any way.
His misogyny is, of course, richly documented. Let's not leave out his homophobia:
The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit.
And, let's not leave out his brazen hypocrisy:
I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can't control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let's legalize it." It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish.
When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks.
There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
Finally, there's the matter of ego. The Pigman has depicted Obama as having a titanic one. Can he be serious? To wit, Lardbaugh's descriptions of himself:
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Talent on loan from GOD.
When I think of Herr Lardbaugh, somehow another, very different metaphysical region comes to mind. Well, that's enough of this for now. Barack Obama, self-made sort of guy with a JD from Harvard Law, physically fit fellow, author, law professor, married only once and still married with two kids, etc., etc. ... he seems to have accomplished quite a bit for a man of such abundant leisure.
Contrast him with a fat, thrice-divorced, draft-dodging, ex-drug-addicted college dropout who is all opinions and no background, all prejudice and no facts, who has made a fortune with his mouth. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
One of the things that's remarkable about right-wingers is their chutzpah. Herr Rush Limbaugh, postmodern court jester for the Third Reich, may be the biggest, or at least the fattest, example.
Lardbaugh's latest outrage was his tirade last week against President Barack Obama. Huffington Post reported that:
During a rant in which he Limbaugh accused senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett of unfairly pressuring the Chamber of Commerce, the controversial radio host slammed Obama as "this little boy, this little man-child president whose primary job, if you will, in life has been leisure. This guy is more practiced at leisure than anything else."
You can view the video here.
Let's see, now. A "man-child president whose primary job ... has been leisure."
Perusing Wikipedia's biography of Lardbaugh, one notices things such as these:
Education
Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[1] As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[4]
It appears that Herr Lardbaugh's mouth, clearly hyperactive in more ways than one, has been his ticket to getting through life. He was no student then, and regarding his accuracy, the easiest job on the planet today would be a gig as his fact-checker.
Here's more from Wiki:
Draft status
Limbaugh's birthdate was ranked as 152 in the Vietnam War draft lottery. No one was drafted above 125. He was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to either a football knee injury or a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease.[1][5]
He came from a well-to-do family, lousy with lawyers. More from Wiki:
Limbaugh was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, the son of Mildred Carolyn "Millie" (née Armstrong), originally from Searcy, Arkansas, and Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Jr. His father was a lawyer and a World War II fighter pilot who served in the China-Burma-India theater. The name "Rush" was chosen for his grandfather to honor the maiden name of family member Edna Rush.[1] His family has many lawyers, including his grandfather, father and brother David. His uncle, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr. is a Ronald Reagan-appointed federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and his cousin, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., is currently a judge in the same court, appointed by George W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh, Sr., Limbaugh's grandfather, was a Missouri prosecutor, judge, special commissioner and served on Missouri's state House of Representatives from 1930 to 1932.[2] Limbaugh's grandfather was a longtime president of the Missouri Historical Society. Rush, Sr., died at age 104, and was still a practicing attorney at the time of his death. The Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau is named for Limbaugh's grandfather.
Let's see some more. He's been married, and divorced, three times. You wonder what's wrong when a guy as rich as he was born, and as filthy rich as he got later, just can't stay married. Does it have anything to do with the fact that he's a world-class misogynist asshole? Or maybe with his apparent need for 100-mg. Viagra pills?
More still: His weight problem has been obvious for decades. He's been addicted to illegal drugs (oxycodone and hydrocodone).
His racism has been on display regularly throughout his radio career. More from Wiki:
On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to a Los Angeles Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Barack Obama was filling the role of the "magic negro", and that this explained his appeal to voters.[39] Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon".[40]
Here's Limbaugh on NFL star Donovan McNabb:
Sorry to say this, I don't think he has been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve ...
[On "free trade"] If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, let the unskilled jobs, let the kind of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do, let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.
Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
There's plenty more along those lines. I'd say it calls into question his qualification to assess Barack Obama accurately in any way.
His misogyny is, of course, richly documented. Let's not leave out his homophobia:
The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit.
And, let's not leave out his brazen hypocrisy:
I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can't control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let's legalize it." It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish.
When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks.
There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
Finally, there's the matter of ego. The Pigman has depicted Obama as having a titanic one. Can he be serious? To wit, Lardbaugh's descriptions of himself:
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Talent on loan from GOD.
When I think of Herr Lardbaugh, somehow another, very different metaphysical region comes to mind. Well, that's enough of this for now. Barack Obama, self-made sort of guy with a JD from Harvard Law, physically fit fellow, author, law professor, married only once and still married with two kids, etc., etc. ... he seems to have accomplished quite a bit for a man of such abundant leisure.
Contrast him with a fat, thrice-divorced, draft-dodging, ex-drug-addicted college dropout who is all opinions and no background, all prejudice and no facts, who has made a fortune with his mouth. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, November 2, 2009
H.R. 784: Confucius Say, Congress Fools Need To Pull Heads Out Of Rear Ends
By Manifesto Joe
It's nice to know that members of Congress sometimes exhibit a sense of history. I just wish they would quit neglecting the burning issues of the present while revering the ancient past.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted, 361-47, with 13 members voting "present," to honor Confucius. That's right, Confucius, on his 2,560th birthday. The resolution, H.R. 784, is one "Honoring the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius and recognizing his invaluable contributions to philosophy and social and political thought."
No one spoke against the resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Houston, and drew 40 co-sponsors. Yet, 60 members either voted against the resolution or voted "present." The breakdown by party: 234-12-2 among Democrats, 127-35-11 among Republicans.
It's somewhat reassuring to know that a majority of Congresspeople, even wingnut Republicans, realize that some of civilization's great hallmarks go back 4,500 years, predate Christianity by many centuries and often weren't Western in origin. I read that even Michele Bachmann voted for this one.
But if I'd been there, I'm not sure I wouldn't have just silently and sullenly opposed this myself, as a simple protest.
With a quagmire war in Afghanistan that's getting away from us, with the Iraq war still clearly not over in view of periodic terrorist violence, with joblessness pushing 10%, with 47 million Americans lacking health insurance, etc., etc. ... doesn't our Congress have something far better to do than spend time passing resolutions like this one?
It gets even worse. While just casually following the actions of Congress in recent weeks, I noticed resolutions congratulating collegiate wrestling and lacrosse teams on their championships, and one recognizing country-Western music as a uniquely American art form that has greatly enriched our culture.
It's all very nice, but I don't go to the polls every two years to have them piss away taxpayer money like that. Why not put some of that time and energy into advancing a health care overhaul? Or, pay attention to one of the many other pressing issues confronting America?
I'm suspicious that some of those 35 Republicans may have opposed the resolution because they thought Confucius was a Marxist or a Muslim or something. Yeah, yeah, I know such ideologies and religions didn't exist then, but do certain of them know that? I can imagine a private conversation: ("He wuz a Chinaman, weren't he? Never liked me none of them. They's atheists an' Reds.")
But, as much as I hate to think that I might have voted, out of disgust, with some of the GOP wingnuts, this is one instance in which I might well have done so.
Of course, there's about as much chance of me sitting in the U.S. House as there is of Confucius coming back from the dead -- or getting a talk show on AM radio.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
It's nice to know that members of Congress sometimes exhibit a sense of history. I just wish they would quit neglecting the burning issues of the present while revering the ancient past.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted, 361-47, with 13 members voting "present," to honor Confucius. That's right, Confucius, on his 2,560th birthday. The resolution, H.R. 784, is one "Honoring the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius and recognizing his invaluable contributions to philosophy and social and political thought."
No one spoke against the resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Houston, and drew 40 co-sponsors. Yet, 60 members either voted against the resolution or voted "present." The breakdown by party: 234-12-2 among Democrats, 127-35-11 among Republicans.
It's somewhat reassuring to know that a majority of Congresspeople, even wingnut Republicans, realize that some of civilization's great hallmarks go back 4,500 years, predate Christianity by many centuries and often weren't Western in origin. I read that even Michele Bachmann voted for this one.
But if I'd been there, I'm not sure I wouldn't have just silently and sullenly opposed this myself, as a simple protest.
With a quagmire war in Afghanistan that's getting away from us, with the Iraq war still clearly not over in view of periodic terrorist violence, with joblessness pushing 10%, with 47 million Americans lacking health insurance, etc., etc. ... doesn't our Congress have something far better to do than spend time passing resolutions like this one?
It gets even worse. While just casually following the actions of Congress in recent weeks, I noticed resolutions congratulating collegiate wrestling and lacrosse teams on their championships, and one recognizing country-Western music as a uniquely American art form that has greatly enriched our culture.
It's all very nice, but I don't go to the polls every two years to have them piss away taxpayer money like that. Why not put some of that time and energy into advancing a health care overhaul? Or, pay attention to one of the many other pressing issues confronting America?
I'm suspicious that some of those 35 Republicans may have opposed the resolution because they thought Confucius was a Marxist or a Muslim or something. Yeah, yeah, I know such ideologies and religions didn't exist then, but do certain of them know that? I can imagine a private conversation: ("He wuz a Chinaman, weren't he? Never liked me none of them. They's atheists an' Reds.")
But, as much as I hate to think that I might have voted, out of disgust, with some of the GOP wingnuts, this is one instance in which I might well have done so.
Of course, there's about as much chance of me sitting in the U.S. House as there is of Confucius coming back from the dead -- or getting a talk show on AM radio.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, October 26, 2009
On Health Care, Al Franken Smacks Down A Hudson Institute Lackey (Also, Some Related Thoughts)
By Manifesto Joe
I think a lot of people were inclined to underestimate Al Franken when he at long last took his seat as Minnesota's junior U.S. senator. Although he demonstrated quite a bit of gravitas in his wonderful 2003 book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, some can't get past the fact that Al came to national prominence as a comedian on Saturday Night Live.
I'd say the people of Minnesota can be proud in that the new senator has already distinguished himself far more than his predecessor, the former mayor of St. Paul. Here's Al in action, figuratively slapping around a stooge from the Hudson Institute.
On the Same Issue, a Question From Michael Moore
The self-styled progressive documentary filmmaker and author is nonplussed about something that, on the surface, seems like a no-brainer. Why aren't Americans pissed off enough about obstructionism to health care reform to be out in the streets protesting, raising 10 kinds of hell?
An Answer From Gore Vidal
In a recent TV appearance, 84-year-old Gore Vidal had what could have been an answer to Moore's question. Asked for his opinion of President Barack Obama, Vidal replied that he likes him, but the problem is that he tries to address the American people as educated, thinking people, like himself.
That's a mistake, Vidal suggested. The U.S. has a very poor educational system, actually a joke in many other developed countries. People laugh at us. And for this reason, Americans are very easily misled and duped. The lack of critical thinking, even among those with formal education, shows up in an array of issues, not just health care reform.
I Have Yet Another Answer
I know a man from India, now a longtime U.S. resident and naturalized citizen, who once discussed cultural differences between Americans and Asian Indians. When one ventures to the countryside in India, one finds many illiterate people, many more than in America.
But these people argue and discuss politics all the time, and they're often far more savvy on the subject than most Americans are, even when they can't read or write.
I know plenty of Americans who say, when engaged in the subject past a certain point, that they just don't care about politics. It's times like these when that attitude becomes disastrous, because so many of the people who DO care, care for just one reason -- greed.
The less Americans care about politics, the more to the delight of the aforementioned powers that be. Millions who should be fighting for reform right now are instead being led around like cattle and sheep. As nasty as politics is, politicians are making decisions that profoundly affect our lives every day. The subject is ignored at one's own peril.
It's often not so much a matter of education as it is the quality of one's thought that makes the difference. There are plenty of insular specialists out there with BBA and B.S. degrees who are wretchedly ignorant when it comes to political issues.
They could use lessons in critical thinking -- from a former funnyman, Senator Franken.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I think a lot of people were inclined to underestimate Al Franken when he at long last took his seat as Minnesota's junior U.S. senator. Although he demonstrated quite a bit of gravitas in his wonderful 2003 book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, some can't get past the fact that Al came to national prominence as a comedian on Saturday Night Live.
I'd say the people of Minnesota can be proud in that the new senator has already distinguished himself far more than his predecessor, the former mayor of St. Paul. Here's Al in action, figuratively slapping around a stooge from the Hudson Institute.
On the Same Issue, a Question From Michael Moore
The self-styled progressive documentary filmmaker and author is nonplussed about something that, on the surface, seems like a no-brainer. Why aren't Americans pissed off enough about obstructionism to health care reform to be out in the streets protesting, raising 10 kinds of hell?
An Answer From Gore Vidal
In a recent TV appearance, 84-year-old Gore Vidal had what could have been an answer to Moore's question. Asked for his opinion of President Barack Obama, Vidal replied that he likes him, but the problem is that he tries to address the American people as educated, thinking people, like himself.
That's a mistake, Vidal suggested. The U.S. has a very poor educational system, actually a joke in many other developed countries. People laugh at us. And for this reason, Americans are very easily misled and duped. The lack of critical thinking, even among those with formal education, shows up in an array of issues, not just health care reform.
I Have Yet Another Answer
I know a man from India, now a longtime U.S. resident and naturalized citizen, who once discussed cultural differences between Americans and Asian Indians. When one ventures to the countryside in India, one finds many illiterate people, many more than in America.
But these people argue and discuss politics all the time, and they're often far more savvy on the subject than most Americans are, even when they can't read or write.
I know plenty of Americans who say, when engaged in the subject past a certain point, that they just don't care about politics. It's times like these when that attitude becomes disastrous, because so many of the people who DO care, care for just one reason -- greed.
The less Americans care about politics, the more to the delight of the aforementioned powers that be. Millions who should be fighting for reform right now are instead being led around like cattle and sheep. As nasty as politics is, politicians are making decisions that profoundly affect our lives every day. The subject is ignored at one's own peril.
It's often not so much a matter of education as it is the quality of one's thought that makes the difference. There are plenty of insular specialists out there with BBA and B.S. degrees who are wretchedly ignorant when it comes to political issues.
They could use lessons in critical thinking -- from a former funnyman, Senator Franken.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Real Health Care Nazis? If The Jackboots Fit ...
By Manifesto Joe
What if a health insurance provider told you that before it would insure you, you would have to be sterilized?
That's what a Colorado woman told U.S. senators during a committee hearing last week. McClatchy Newspapers reported that Peggy Robertson read a letter from her insurance company. Here's an excerpt from the McClatchy report:
Robertson testified that because she had already given birth via cesarean, when she tried to get an individual policy in Colorado, her insurance company considered it a pre-existing condition and wouldn't insure her unless she could prove she had been sterilized.
The report said that the chairperson of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said that the woman's account "put me on the edge of my chair," and called the provider's position "offensive and morally repugnant."
"No one in the United States of America, in order to get health insurance, should ever be coerced into getting sterilized," she said.
Aside from the obvious gender bias exhibited in this incident, the Nazilike condition that this woman was confronted with reeks of totalitarian eugenics. This is something one would imagine happening in some futuristic dystopia, with common folks marching around in quasi-military uniforms and such. It was just being done in the private sector, and that's the only real difference.
Is Health Care a Right? Perhaps Not, But Neither Is Eating
Granted, the Earth is rife with sick people, and with hungry people -- millions and millions who have access to neither adequate medicine nor food. When you get down to fundamentals, I suppose there is arguably no intrinsic human right to either.
Consider, though, that the U.S. is, among developed nations, the lone holdout when it comes to providing universal health care. "We" (in the editorial sense) even do better when it comes to food. Although some, such as the homeless, are undoubtedly missed, food stamps are a savior for most of our indigent people.
So what happened with medicine? The simple and obvious answer: Money, and lots of it. There are several groups that are making a killing off the status quo, and those groups are prepared to do just about anything, even kill (the uninsured), to keep that money machine rolling.
There is no law I can think of, anywhere, that mandates that I personally provide medicine, or food, for anyone, anywhere, anytime. At a fundamental level, those things would have to come from the goodness of my heart.
Yet, I am forced to pony up tax money for wars I oppose, year after year. When it comes to paying for deadly force on an international scale, suddenly I am confronted with a collective responsibility. Call it "socialized militarism."
But when it comes to providing medicine and food for people, that ideology is turned on its head, and it's once more every fool for himself.
Chickens Who Still Support Colonel Sanders
Speaking of fools -- last week, before I read the aforementioned newspaper report, I saw an old, weather-beaten pickup truck with "Health care is not a right" painted in the rear windshield, apparently with white shoe polish.
No, and neither is eating -- until you've actually gone hungry. Circumstances like that can jolt even the most demagogued moron back into reality. Too bad such things can't happen more often. And yet, this rube's argument is with precisely the people who are trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening to him.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
What if a health insurance provider told you that before it would insure you, you would have to be sterilized?
That's what a Colorado woman told U.S. senators during a committee hearing last week. McClatchy Newspapers reported that Peggy Robertson read a letter from her insurance company. Here's an excerpt from the McClatchy report:
Robertson testified that because she had already given birth via cesarean, when she tried to get an individual policy in Colorado, her insurance company considered it a pre-existing condition and wouldn't insure her unless she could prove she had been sterilized.
The report said that the chairperson of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said that the woman's account "put me on the edge of my chair," and called the provider's position "offensive and morally repugnant."
"No one in the United States of America, in order to get health insurance, should ever be coerced into getting sterilized," she said.
Aside from the obvious gender bias exhibited in this incident, the Nazilike condition that this woman was confronted with reeks of totalitarian eugenics. This is something one would imagine happening in some futuristic dystopia, with common folks marching around in quasi-military uniforms and such. It was just being done in the private sector, and that's the only real difference.
Is Health Care a Right? Perhaps Not, But Neither Is Eating
Granted, the Earth is rife with sick people, and with hungry people -- millions and millions who have access to neither adequate medicine nor food. When you get down to fundamentals, I suppose there is arguably no intrinsic human right to either.
Consider, though, that the U.S. is, among developed nations, the lone holdout when it comes to providing universal health care. "We" (in the editorial sense) even do better when it comes to food. Although some, such as the homeless, are undoubtedly missed, food stamps are a savior for most of our indigent people.
So what happened with medicine? The simple and obvious answer: Money, and lots of it. There are several groups that are making a killing off the status quo, and those groups are prepared to do just about anything, even kill (the uninsured), to keep that money machine rolling.
There is no law I can think of, anywhere, that mandates that I personally provide medicine, or food, for anyone, anywhere, anytime. At a fundamental level, those things would have to come from the goodness of my heart.
Yet, I am forced to pony up tax money for wars I oppose, year after year. When it comes to paying for deadly force on an international scale, suddenly I am confronted with a collective responsibility. Call it "socialized militarism."
But when it comes to providing medicine and food for people, that ideology is turned on its head, and it's once more every fool for himself.
Chickens Who Still Support Colonel Sanders
Speaking of fools -- last week, before I read the aforementioned newspaper report, I saw an old, weather-beaten pickup truck with "Health care is not a right" painted in the rear windshield, apparently with white shoe polish.
No, and neither is eating -- until you've actually gone hungry. Circumstances like that can jolt even the most demagogued moron back into reality. Too bad such things can't happen more often. And yet, this rube's argument is with precisely the people who are trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening to him.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Governor Goodhair's 'Saturday Night Massacre' Of The Forensic Science Commission
By Manifesto Joe
If it were possible that your state had executed an innocent man, it would make sense to keep the same people on the main panel that's investigating the matter. Wouldn't it? But alas, this is Texas. And our governor is Rick "Governor Goodhair" Perry.
By now, it isn't news that at the end of last month, Perry decided to clean house at the Texas Forensic Science Commission, just two days before the commission was to examine a report challenging the arson findings that resulted in the state's 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.
The news now is what has come out since then. But first, here's the background.
Perry's decision to remove Chairman Sam Bassett and commission members Alan Levy and Aliece Watts (who happens to be a forensic scientist) was announced Sept. 30. The three quickly questioned the governor's motives -- he was in office at the time Willingham was executed, and he's running for re-election next year. They also said that the commission's investigation could be slowed by the governor's actions.
The case stemmed from a 1991 fire at Willingham's Corsicana home. His three daughters died in the fire, and Willingham was charged with capital murder, as the fires were believed to be arson. Willingham said he was asleep in the house when the fire started, and denied that it was arson.
The Willingham case had become a kind of cause celebre for death penalty opponents and advocates for clearing wrongfully convicted inmates. Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, called Perry's actions "troubling" and compared them to "the Saturday night massacre," when in 1973 President Nixon fired a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal.
The nine-member commission had agreed last year to review the case after defense attorneys said Willingham was convicted on flawed scientific evidence. Craig Beyler, an expert on fire investigation, was hired and submitted a report in August saying that he could not fully support a finding of arson.
Perry and his spokespeople have repeatedly told news media that the timing was nothing out of the ordinary. The removed members' terms officially ended Sept. 1, and Perry has kept saying it would have been business as usual to replace them anyway.
Then, on Oct. 9, Perry removed a fourth member, Sridhar Natarajan, a Lubbock medical examiner. Two appointments were announced the same day.
Now we have the latest development.
Former Chairman Says He Was Pressured
Bassett now says that Perry's office called him into meetings twice, during February and March, and that he was told by Perry's top lawyers that the Willingham case was not the kind of work the Legislature had intended the commission to do, that the case should be given a low priority in lieu of higher concerns, and so forth.
Here's a link to the full story, from the Chicago Tribune with contributions from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
If it weren't already obvious, Governor Goodhair doesn't want any more people to know that he may have Cameron Willingham's blood on his hands. That could be very damaging in a re-election campaign, especially since Perry was approached in February 2004, just days before the execution, about possibly flawed scientific evidence in the case. The execution went on as scheduled.
Perry has presided over the Texas Death Row killing machine for nearly nine years. Over 200 inmates have been executed since he took office. I know of one instance in which he commuted a death sentence, and in 2004 he defied the pardons and parole board's recommendation of clemency in one case.
Is Perry really more concerned about his own political career than about the possibility that he allowed an innocent man, and perhaps more than one over the years, to die by lethal injection? You be the judge. It looks pretty clear to me.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
If it were possible that your state had executed an innocent man, it would make sense to keep the same people on the main panel that's investigating the matter. Wouldn't it? But alas, this is Texas. And our governor is Rick "Governor Goodhair" Perry.
By now, it isn't news that at the end of last month, Perry decided to clean house at the Texas Forensic Science Commission, just two days before the commission was to examine a report challenging the arson findings that resulted in the state's 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham.
The news now is what has come out since then. But first, here's the background.
Perry's decision to remove Chairman Sam Bassett and commission members Alan Levy and Aliece Watts (who happens to be a forensic scientist) was announced Sept. 30. The three quickly questioned the governor's motives -- he was in office at the time Willingham was executed, and he's running for re-election next year. They also said that the commission's investigation could be slowed by the governor's actions.
The case stemmed from a 1991 fire at Willingham's Corsicana home. His three daughters died in the fire, and Willingham was charged with capital murder, as the fires were believed to be arson. Willingham said he was asleep in the house when the fire started, and denied that it was arson.
The Willingham case had become a kind of cause celebre for death penalty opponents and advocates for clearing wrongfully convicted inmates. Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, called Perry's actions "troubling" and compared them to "the Saturday night massacre," when in 1973 President Nixon fired a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal.
The nine-member commission had agreed last year to review the case after defense attorneys said Willingham was convicted on flawed scientific evidence. Craig Beyler, an expert on fire investigation, was hired and submitted a report in August saying that he could not fully support a finding of arson.
Perry and his spokespeople have repeatedly told news media that the timing was nothing out of the ordinary. The removed members' terms officially ended Sept. 1, and Perry has kept saying it would have been business as usual to replace them anyway.
Then, on Oct. 9, Perry removed a fourth member, Sridhar Natarajan, a Lubbock medical examiner. Two appointments were announced the same day.
Now we have the latest development.
Former Chairman Says He Was Pressured
Bassett now says that Perry's office called him into meetings twice, during February and March, and that he was told by Perry's top lawyers that the Willingham case was not the kind of work the Legislature had intended the commission to do, that the case should be given a low priority in lieu of higher concerns, and so forth.
Here's a link to the full story, from the Chicago Tribune with contributions from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
If it weren't already obvious, Governor Goodhair doesn't want any more people to know that he may have Cameron Willingham's blood on his hands. That could be very damaging in a re-election campaign, especially since Perry was approached in February 2004, just days before the execution, about possibly flawed scientific evidence in the case. The execution went on as scheduled.
Perry has presided over the Texas Death Row killing machine for nearly nine years. Over 200 inmates have been executed since he took office. I know of one instance in which he commuted a death sentence, and in 2004 he defied the pardons and parole board's recommendation of clemency in one case.
Is Perry really more concerned about his own political career than about the possibility that he allowed an innocent man, and perhaps more than one over the years, to die by lethal injection? You be the judge. It looks pretty clear to me.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Do You Miss Chimpy Yet?
By Manifesto Joe
THE GHOST OF IL DOOFUS STILL WORKS HERE.
I have a right-wing relative who provided me with this priceless photo of Il Doofus. It has been circulating on e-mail among right-wingers. It's odd -- I couldn't have gotten a better favor from a left-wing blog bud.
The main problem I have with Barack Obama is that he's been entirely too nice. So far, he's erred mainly on the side of good manners. As so many Democrats have unfortunately done over the years, and decades, he brought a pair of boxing gloves to a knife fight.
But, even with Obama's early foibles -- do I miss The Monkey Man? Do I miss being crudely lied to, fleeced in taxes for a war that would have been ludicrous had it not been so deadly for so many? Do I miss the wholesale looting of the country for the benefit of the superrich? Do I miss cringing when I hear a man who is supposed to be our president, and he can barely speak English?
The answer, quite unequivocally, is NO, NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
THE GHOST OF IL DOOFUS STILL WORKS HERE.I have a right-wing relative who provided me with this priceless photo of Il Doofus. It has been circulating on e-mail among right-wingers. It's odd -- I couldn't have gotten a better favor from a left-wing blog bud.
The main problem I have with Barack Obama is that he's been entirely too nice. So far, he's erred mainly on the side of good manners. As so many Democrats have unfortunately done over the years, and decades, he brought a pair of boxing gloves to a knife fight.
But, even with Obama's early foibles -- do I miss The Monkey Man? Do I miss being crudely lied to, fleeced in taxes for a war that would have been ludicrous had it not been so deadly for so many? Do I miss the wholesale looting of the country for the benefit of the superrich? Do I miss cringing when I hear a man who is supposed to be our president, and he can barely speak English?
The answer, quite unequivocally, is NO, NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
At Last, A Democrat With Juevos To Fight GOP Hypocrites: Alan Grayson
By Manifesto Joe
He apologized -- to the uninsured dead. Freshman U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., showed REAL Democrats the REAL way. Don't pull punches with these hypocrites, and call them out on their double standards. After all the right-wing Republican rhetoric about death panels, government takeovers, the "free" market, so-called "choice," and such, we finally saw a Democrat stand up on his hind legs and give as good as "WE" have been getting.
Alan Grayson for President, 2016
I like Barack Obama enough to put up with him for two terms, and I understand that he can't afford to be the sort of attack dog that Grayson was Wednesday.
But what the Democratic Party has desperately needed for decades has been a dude who was willing to get this mean in the clinches. President Obama is arguably the most talented politician the Dems have fielded in a long time, even better than Bill Clinton. But what Democrats lack right now is someone like this who will give the other side HELL of this kind, and never, ever back down.
Compromise is beginning to seem futile, especially after the spectacle of "Heartland" Democrats spreading their posteriors for Big Insurance during that Tuesday Senate Finance Committee vote. These are not even good DINOs, and the party needs to field primary opponents, real Democrats, to run against every one of them.
I think Mr. Grayson is showing the way. This isn't a game that can be won with compromise or bipartisanship. The Baucus bill seems more and more like just another giveaway to Big Insurance. If I were a Democrat in Congress, I'd vote against it and reluctantly condemn America to a couple of more years with the status quo until we can get something that makes sense.
Here's a link to Alan Grayson's solid left hook to the Republican solar plexus, courtesy of the CBS News Web site.
Right-Wing Yellow Bellies' Hypocrisy
Now, let's look at the Republican crybabies' hypocrisy. After all the swill we've been hearing this year about "death panels," health insurance for illegal aliens, and funding of abortion, THEY now have the unmitigated gall to compare Alan Grayson's brave candor with the subhuman mendacity of Joe "You Lie" Wilson? Here's Keith Olbermann on the subject of Mr. Wilson, from last month:
I think the American people heard enough contemptible lies, for eight long years, that some candor is now sorely needed. After eight years of Il Doofus, Mr. Grayson is magnificently refreshing.
Now, maybe Obama can carefully, studiously find his way closer to this path.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
He apologized -- to the uninsured dead. Freshman U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., showed REAL Democrats the REAL way. Don't pull punches with these hypocrites, and call them out on their double standards. After all the right-wing Republican rhetoric about death panels, government takeovers, the "free" market, so-called "choice," and such, we finally saw a Democrat stand up on his hind legs and give as good as "WE" have been getting.
Alan Grayson for President, 2016
I like Barack Obama enough to put up with him for two terms, and I understand that he can't afford to be the sort of attack dog that Grayson was Wednesday.
But what the Democratic Party has desperately needed for decades has been a dude who was willing to get this mean in the clinches. President Obama is arguably the most talented politician the Dems have fielded in a long time, even better than Bill Clinton. But what Democrats lack right now is someone like this who will give the other side HELL of this kind, and never, ever back down.
Compromise is beginning to seem futile, especially after the spectacle of "Heartland" Democrats spreading their posteriors for Big Insurance during that Tuesday Senate Finance Committee vote. These are not even good DINOs, and the party needs to field primary opponents, real Democrats, to run against every one of them.
I think Mr. Grayson is showing the way. This isn't a game that can be won with compromise or bipartisanship. The Baucus bill seems more and more like just another giveaway to Big Insurance. If I were a Democrat in Congress, I'd vote against it and reluctantly condemn America to a couple of more years with the status quo until we can get something that makes sense.
Here's a link to Alan Grayson's solid left hook to the Republican solar plexus, courtesy of the CBS News Web site.
Right-Wing Yellow Bellies' Hypocrisy
Now, let's look at the Republican crybabies' hypocrisy. After all the swill we've been hearing this year about "death panels," health insurance for illegal aliens, and funding of abortion, THEY now have the unmitigated gall to compare Alan Grayson's brave candor with the subhuman mendacity of Joe "You Lie" Wilson? Here's Keith Olbermann on the subject of Mr. Wilson, from last month:
I think the American people heard enough contemptible lies, for eight long years, that some candor is now sorely needed. After eight years of Il Doofus, Mr. Grayson is magnificently refreshing.
Now, maybe Obama can carefully, studiously find his way closer to this path.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Untold Story: Regressive Taxation, State And Local
By Manifesto Joe
Debates about taxes tend to be dominated by federal income tax policy. That in itself has become a scandal because of myriad corporate and personal tax dodges. But it ignores what lies at the base of taxation in America. At the state and local levels, taxes hit the poor and the working class hardest, in terms of percentage of income.
My home state of Texas has a special history of this. Sales taxes, user fees and other levies are mostly directed at people with lower incomes. Courtesy of state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, here are some recent statistics:
State and Local Taxes as a Percentage of Household Income in Texas
Over $109,182: 4.7 percent
$69,614 to $109,182: 6.0 percent
$45,271 to $69,614: 6.4 percent
$24,899 to $45,271: 7.6 percent
Under $24,899: 12.8 percent
Source: The Center for Public Policy Priorities, May 2008
If you were to examine all the states, it might even get worse in some of them. In Texas, most groceries are exempt from sales taxes. I lived in Oklahoma for a while, and there, NOTHING is exempt from the sales tax.
The next time you encounter some anus-head doing the Rush Lardbaugh talking points about how the rich are so oppressed with their income tax burden, hit them with some of this. You won't change their "minds," but you might get the pleasure of seeing them stammer and look confused for just a moment.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Debates about taxes tend to be dominated by federal income tax policy. That in itself has become a scandal because of myriad corporate and personal tax dodges. But it ignores what lies at the base of taxation in America. At the state and local levels, taxes hit the poor and the working class hardest, in terms of percentage of income.
My home state of Texas has a special history of this. Sales taxes, user fees and other levies are mostly directed at people with lower incomes. Courtesy of state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, here are some recent statistics:
State and Local Taxes as a Percentage of Household Income in Texas
Over $109,182: 4.7 percent
$69,614 to $109,182: 6.0 percent
$45,271 to $69,614: 6.4 percent
$24,899 to $45,271: 7.6 percent
Under $24,899: 12.8 percent
Source: The Center for Public Policy Priorities, May 2008
If you were to examine all the states, it might even get worse in some of them. In Texas, most groceries are exempt from sales taxes. I lived in Oklahoma for a while, and there, NOTHING is exempt from the sales tax.
The next time you encounter some anus-head doing the Rush Lardbaugh talking points about how the rich are so oppressed with their income tax burden, hit them with some of this. You won't change their "minds," but you might get the pleasure of seeing them stammer and look confused for just a moment.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Rick 'Governor Goodhair' Perry: Recession? 'We're In One?'
By Manifesto Joe
In case there is any lingering doubt that Texas Gov. Rick "Governor Goodhair" Perry is an authentic fool, here's what he said during a Thursday appearance in Houston:
"Why is Texas kind of recession-proof, if you will? As a matter of fact ... someone had put a report out that the first state that's coming out of the recession is going to be the state of Texas ... I said, 'We're in one?'"
His remarks at a luncheon for business representatives came as the Labor Department reported that unemployment in Texas has hit a 22-year high. You have to go back to the oil/real estate bust of the 1980s to find the last time the state had 8 percent joblessness.
A report from WFAA.com on the remarks concluded:
Forty-two states lost jobs last month, up from 29 in July, with the biggest net payroll cuts coming in Texas, Michigan, Georgia and Ohio, the Labor Department reported Friday.
Texas lost 62,200 jobs as its unemployment rate rose to 8 percent in August for the first time in 22 years. The state's leisure, construction and manufacturing industries were hardest hit, losing 35,500 jobs.
Here's a link to a report that also features YouTube video of Perry's remarks.
It's almost needless to say that U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison, Perry's opponent in next year's Republican primary, was all over this pretty quickly. Not that Kay would represent much of an improvement over Governor Goodhair for ordinary Texans, but she at least appears sensitive enough to refrain from gaffes like this one during a time when people are losing livelihoods, life savings, and homes.
Our 2010 gubernatorial campaign is already off and running, and having a dolt like Perry as the GOP incumbent stands to make this one really interesting. Stay tuned.
In case there is any lingering doubt that Texas Gov. Rick "Governor Goodhair" Perry is an authentic fool, here's what he said during a Thursday appearance in Houston:
"Why is Texas kind of recession-proof, if you will? As a matter of fact ... someone had put a report out that the first state that's coming out of the recession is going to be the state of Texas ... I said, 'We're in one?'"
His remarks at a luncheon for business representatives came as the Labor Department reported that unemployment in Texas has hit a 22-year high. You have to go back to the oil/real estate bust of the 1980s to find the last time the state had 8 percent joblessness.
A report from WFAA.com on the remarks concluded:
Forty-two states lost jobs last month, up from 29 in July, with the biggest net payroll cuts coming in Texas, Michigan, Georgia and Ohio, the Labor Department reported Friday.
Texas lost 62,200 jobs as its unemployment rate rose to 8 percent in August for the first time in 22 years. The state's leisure, construction and manufacturing industries were hardest hit, losing 35,500 jobs.
Here's a link to a report that also features YouTube video of Perry's remarks.
It's almost needless to say that U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison, Perry's opponent in next year's Republican primary, was all over this pretty quickly. Not that Kay would represent much of an improvement over Governor Goodhair for ordinary Texans, but she at least appears sensitive enough to refrain from gaffes like this one during a time when people are losing livelihoods, life savings, and homes.
Our 2010 gubernatorial campaign is already off and running, and having a dolt like Perry as the GOP incumbent stands to make this one really interesting. Stay tuned.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Tea Party Bozos: Brown Shirts, Or White Sheets? Neo-Nazis, Or The Klan?
By Manifesto Joe
You didn't see this kind of blatant disrespect for the office of the presidency, even back in 1993-94, when the Clintons were trying to put across a version of national health care. President Bill Clinton, an indiscreet man, always caught hell from a lot of directions; but no congressman ever called out during one of his speeches to a joint session, "You lie!"
President Barack Obama is, from all evidence, a good family man, so they can't get him there. Other than cigarettes and an occasional chili dog, he has no major vices. So, why all the vitriol?
I'd really hoped our society had matured beyond this. But I think the general disrespect comes from one very ugly thing: To millions of white Americans, this is President N----r. That's the big difference between Bill Clinton in 1993 and Barack Obama in 2009.
During the past weekend, "Tea Party" bozos gathered in large numbers in Washington, D.C., and in cities around the country. They reportedly carried signs showing Obama depicted as the villainous Joker in the Batman series, with a Hitler mustache, and with a Pinocchio nose. "You lie!" appears to have become a mantra with these people.
Imagine that, during some speech back during the 2002-03 run-up to the Iraq war, that Rep. Dennis Kucinich had called out, "You lie!" to Bush's horseshit about weapons of mass destruction, now clearly one falsehood among a vast number from the Il Doofus administration. Or, that some Democratic congressman had been playing with his Blackberry during such an event. (Rep. Eric Kantor, R-Va., was caught on video doing exactly that during Obama's speech.) I can imagine the bulging neck veins on Fox "News" the next day, and the calls for resignation.
In case anybody thought that these Tea Party protests were some kind of spontaneous grassroots uprising, this article from veteranstoday.com by Gordon Duff gives a list of the corporate sponsors of this organized trashing of the president. It's quite a list, and would make up a good boycott.
This is from Mr. Duff's commentary:
Did you notice the pile of insurance companies, the defense contractors, the US Chamber of Commerce and the NRA? Check the list carefully. Look into who these folks are. This is the group funding, what they hope will be, a civil war in America.
These are the folks sending out gun toting protestors talking about "watering the tree of liberty."
These are also the richest people in America and the most powerful and include some of the biggest polluters, the biggest protectors of illegal immigration and thousands and thousands of lawyers working for big business against everyday Americans.
This is the single biggest group of "Washington insiders" ever assembled, if not insurance industry or defense, all are directly aligned to the Republican Party and help formulate failed Bush policies.
Let's face the truth. There is only one reason all those uneducated white people are out yelling and screaming, guns left in their luggage on busses paid for by taxpayer money sucked in by the biggest pack of corporate thieves that ever bribed a congressman.
Its all about the "N" word. We are having a convention of Americans in love with the "N" word, people who use it every day, folks afraid of black people they don't know, people easy to scare.
Joe Wilson for Grand Wazoo: If the sheets fit ...
In case there was any remaining doubt about U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson (KKK-S.C.) and his background, here's a tidbit from The Daily Beast. Before Wednesday night, Joe seemed to be someone who could pass as just your typical Southern Republican congressfool. But he may not be so typical.The "You lie!" outburst was unprecedented, and there's no way it would have happened to a white president, however liberal.
This is the very first time on this blog that I have "played the race card." Sometimes one has to play the cards that are dealt, and I sure as hell didn't deal them.
I'm not going to go far into the accuracy of what Obama said, because it's virtually irrelevant. The crux of it appears to be that although the House version of the health care bill expressly forbids noncitizens from getting services under this measure, there's no explicit provision for enforcement by requiring proof of citizenship. That, of course, is something that could be added during the process. But no disagreement like this can possibly justify such blatant disrespect for the office of the presidency.
Throw shoes at Joe?
No, not at me. I'm talking about Joe Wilson. I challenge someone out there to throw a pair of shoes at Joe "You lie!" Wilson. There's no direct parallel, but it would be interesting to compare the U.S. reaction to such a thing with the one regarding Bush in Iraq.
The Obama school speech
In Arlington, Texas, school Superintendent Jerry McCullough apologized Friday for administrators' decision not to show Obama's speech to local schoolchildren live on Tuesday morning. There were many other districts that did the same, but Arlington's decision became national news when it was reported that 500 fifth-graders would be bused to a Sept. 21 event with former President George W. ("Il Doofus") Bush speaking at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium.
If the hypocrisy weren't clear already, it ought to be by now. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who have no problems with being hypocrites.
Or racists.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Big Problem With The MSM: TV Journalists Are Often Political And Economic Illiterates
By Manifesto Joe
It caused me great pain and consternation to see a CNN anchor trying to interview a Tea Party leader during the big 9-12 march on Washington on Saturday afternoon. The anchor stammered something about the U.S. being a "democracy" and that capitalism is our system of government, or something to that effect.
It was appalling that the Tea Party fool had at least been paying some attention in high school civics and was half-right about one thing, in contrast to the anchor. He said that the U.S. is a "not a democracy," but rather "a republic." He was somewhat right on that point.
The U.S. is generally described as a democratic republic, with the former word the modifier in that there is a great deal of democracy, direct and indirect, codified at different levels. As a republic, it is offset by federal checks and balances, and by the fact that we are largely governed by representatives rather than through direct referendums and such.
But then the Tea Party fool veered off in the usual phallus-headed direction, saying something to the effect that the Constitution does not allow things that should be personal responsibility, such as the provision of health care. The CNN anchor kept stammering and was totally ineffectual at shooting down this pig dung, which is precisely what media professionals are supposed to be trained to do.
The U.S. Constitution does not address issues such as health care, one way or the other. It is silent on the subject, neither prohibiting nor institutionalizing a federal role.
If there were anything there that the federal courts could construe as a prohibition of any kind, then Medicare and Medicaid would both have been declared unconstitutional long ago. Even when the Supreme Court has had conservative majorities, as it has mostly had in recent times, there's no way they were ever going to go there, because it simply isn't there.
Medicare and Medicaid are both single-payer systems for specific groups, and could therefore be described as "socialized medicine" for the benefit of qualifying people. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids certain sectors of the U.S. economy from being "socialized."
This brings me to some of the salient points that this CNN anchor, and the Tea Party cretin with whom he was botching an interview, fail to grasp in the least.
Democracy, and Republics, are POLITICAL systems. Capitalism and socialism are ECONOMIC systems.
There is no intrinsic relationship among any of the above. There are democratic republics that one would characterize, in economic terms, as semi-socialist -- to wit, the Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser extent the rest of western and central Europe. There have been many dictatorships that have not only tolerated capitalist enterprise, but have encouraged it.
Moreover, redistribution of income does not constitute socialism. ANY sort of taxation and appropriation redistributes income. It is strictly a question of to whom. The basic definition of socialism is ownership of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION by either government or cooperatives.
Contrary to wrongheaded right-wing attempts to link socialism with all authoritarian governments, Nazi Germany operated with the loyal support of Germany's industrialists, such as IG Farben. In fascist Italy, Mussolini, a one-time socialist, outlawed strikes, hammered down wages and put a lot of socialists in jail. Capitalist enterprises had no problems operating, with gracious deference, in Franco's fascist Spain.
To summarize, there are:
1. Semi-capitalist dictatorships
2. Semi-socialist/mixed system democratic republics
3. Socialist dictatorships (the old USSR, etc.)
4. Countries like China (commies-in-name who make American capitalists look like warm fuzzy liberals)
5. Mostly capitalist republics like the U.S., with lightly mixed economic systems and which feign democratic institutions, but are mostly ruled by big-ass money (plutocracies).
In short, political and economic systems, while related, are to some extent two very different animals. They can, and have been, mixed and matched in all sorts of ways, according to the mores of their populations and ruling elites.
Now here is a point that will modify most of what I've written above:
There has never really been, and probably never will be, an economic system in the world that is either purely capitalist or purely socialist.
Read your history, and check out the current world situations. They are pretty much all mixed systems, merely differing in the mix. The U.S. is the perhaps the world's prime example of a system weighted very much toward capitalism. But even here, much has changed in about a century, and it was arguably of necessity. Can you imagine what daily life would be like for a very large minority of the population if we had no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? No GI Bill? No workers' comp? No OSHA? Or even lacking some of the less-popular programs, such as food stamps and AFDC?
I can tell you one huge truth -- the fact that we eventually got those things is the main reason that communist movements never took hold in this country the way they did in other parts of the world. To wit: During the 1930s Depression/Dust Bowl era, Oklahoma had a surprisingly large and active Communist Party membership, inspired no doubt by a lot of hungry bellies. About 75 years later, that state is one of the most Republican in the country.
Want a vivid picture of what America looked like, circa 1905, from the viewpoint of an underclass worker? Read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. It's on a lot of American literature reading lists.
You want to really fight communism? Support a measured, reasonable welfare state.
To wrap up, it was very dismaying to see a "professional" TV journalist getting his ass pathetically kicked by a Tea Party half-wit. It doesn't take a degree in either economics or political science to grasp most of these concepts. The 100-200 level of courses, plus some common sense and a willingness to read a few of the pertinent books, is what I would expect of any person professing to become a real journalist.
Unfortunately, what we largely have on the current scene are a lot of pretty-faced DJs with amnesia.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
It caused me great pain and consternation to see a CNN anchor trying to interview a Tea Party leader during the big 9-12 march on Washington on Saturday afternoon. The anchor stammered something about the U.S. being a "democracy" and that capitalism is our system of government, or something to that effect.
It was appalling that the Tea Party fool had at least been paying some attention in high school civics and was half-right about one thing, in contrast to the anchor. He said that the U.S. is a "not a democracy," but rather "a republic." He was somewhat right on that point.
The U.S. is generally described as a democratic republic, with the former word the modifier in that there is a great deal of democracy, direct and indirect, codified at different levels. As a republic, it is offset by federal checks and balances, and by the fact that we are largely governed by representatives rather than through direct referendums and such.
But then the Tea Party fool veered off in the usual phallus-headed direction, saying something to the effect that the Constitution does not allow things that should be personal responsibility, such as the provision of health care. The CNN anchor kept stammering and was totally ineffectual at shooting down this pig dung, which is precisely what media professionals are supposed to be trained to do.
The U.S. Constitution does not address issues such as health care, one way or the other. It is silent on the subject, neither prohibiting nor institutionalizing a federal role.
If there were anything there that the federal courts could construe as a prohibition of any kind, then Medicare and Medicaid would both have been declared unconstitutional long ago. Even when the Supreme Court has had conservative majorities, as it has mostly had in recent times, there's no way they were ever going to go there, because it simply isn't there.
Medicare and Medicaid are both single-payer systems for specific groups, and could therefore be described as "socialized medicine" for the benefit of qualifying people. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids certain sectors of the U.S. economy from being "socialized."
This brings me to some of the salient points that this CNN anchor, and the Tea Party cretin with whom he was botching an interview, fail to grasp in the least.
Democracy, and Republics, are POLITICAL systems. Capitalism and socialism are ECONOMIC systems.
There is no intrinsic relationship among any of the above. There are democratic republics that one would characterize, in economic terms, as semi-socialist -- to wit, the Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser extent the rest of western and central Europe. There have been many dictatorships that have not only tolerated capitalist enterprise, but have encouraged it.
Moreover, redistribution of income does not constitute socialism. ANY sort of taxation and appropriation redistributes income. It is strictly a question of to whom. The basic definition of socialism is ownership of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION by either government or cooperatives.
Contrary to wrongheaded right-wing attempts to link socialism with all authoritarian governments, Nazi Germany operated with the loyal support of Germany's industrialists, such as IG Farben. In fascist Italy, Mussolini, a one-time socialist, outlawed strikes, hammered down wages and put a lot of socialists in jail. Capitalist enterprises had no problems operating, with gracious deference, in Franco's fascist Spain.
To summarize, there are:
1. Semi-capitalist dictatorships
2. Semi-socialist/mixed system democratic republics
3. Socialist dictatorships (the old USSR, etc.)
4. Countries like China (commies-in-name who make American capitalists look like warm fuzzy liberals)
5. Mostly capitalist republics like the U.S., with lightly mixed economic systems and which feign democratic institutions, but are mostly ruled by big-ass money (plutocracies).
In short, political and economic systems, while related, are to some extent two very different animals. They can, and have been, mixed and matched in all sorts of ways, according to the mores of their populations and ruling elites.
Now here is a point that will modify most of what I've written above:
There has never really been, and probably never will be, an economic system in the world that is either purely capitalist or purely socialist.
Read your history, and check out the current world situations. They are pretty much all mixed systems, merely differing in the mix. The U.S. is the perhaps the world's prime example of a system weighted very much toward capitalism. But even here, much has changed in about a century, and it was arguably of necessity. Can you imagine what daily life would be like for a very large minority of the population if we had no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? No GI Bill? No workers' comp? No OSHA? Or even lacking some of the less-popular programs, such as food stamps and AFDC?
I can tell you one huge truth -- the fact that we eventually got those things is the main reason that communist movements never took hold in this country the way they did in other parts of the world. To wit: During the 1930s Depression/Dust Bowl era, Oklahoma had a surprisingly large and active Communist Party membership, inspired no doubt by a lot of hungry bellies. About 75 years later, that state is one of the most Republican in the country.
Want a vivid picture of what America looked like, circa 1905, from the viewpoint of an underclass worker? Read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. It's on a lot of American literature reading lists.
You want to really fight communism? Support a measured, reasonable welfare state.
To wrap up, it was very dismaying to see a "professional" TV journalist getting his ass pathetically kicked by a Tea Party half-wit. It doesn't take a degree in either economics or political science to grasp most of these concepts. The 100-200 level of courses, plus some common sense and a willingness to read a few of the pertinent books, is what I would expect of any person professing to become a real journalist.
Unfortunately, what we largely have on the current scene are a lot of pretty-faced DJs with amnesia.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Furor Over Obama Speech To Schoolchildren Is Epitome Of Right-Wing Lunacy
By Manifesto Joe
Reagan did it, in 1988. So did Bush I, in 1991. So, why is it controversial for President Barack Obama to address schoolchildren tomorrow about working hard to become good scholars?
Today the White House released a Web page with Obama's address. Here's the link.
Now, here's a video of President Ronald Reagan's address of Nov. 14, 1988. If this wasn't at least a generically political speech ... well, compare it with Obama's personal, rather than ideological, tone.
My first impression about the White House releasing Obama's speech a day early is that perhaps the intention was to embarrass the right-wing goons who have stirred so much feces about this. But you can't embarrass insane people.
And when insane people -- at least, the right-wing brand -- become vocal enough, authority figures listen. School districts around the country have been opting out of carrying Obama's speech in their classrooms.
Among these are a number in my home state of Texas. A bunch are in Tarrant County (Fort Worth, Arlington and suburbs), which, unlike neighboring Dallas County, was carried by McCain-Palin in 2008. Here's some of what the chairman of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, had to say in a recent e-mail:
As you may have heard, President Obama is planning to deliver an address to the young people of our nation, on Tuesday, September 7. The message he will deliver is one of hope, of encouragement and of importance. President Obama is a shining example of what can be accomplished in this country by anyone willing to dedicate themselves getting an education, and has the willingness to pursue his or her dreams. This is the message he wants to deliver to the school children On Tuesday, the President will encourage students to care about their education, to apply themselves, to stay in school and to graduate. I believe this is a message our kids cannot hear enough.
There can be no more effective promoter of such a message than the President of the United States.
Unfortunately, some local radio hosts and Conservative activists have interpreted this as an attempt to indoctrinate students. Predictably, schools have received numerous complaints. As a result Arlington ISD, Aledo ISD, Mansfield ISD, Eagle -Mountain Saginaw ISD and Grapevine Colleyville ISD are all declining to show the speech live.
And then, there are those parents who have declared that they are simply going to keep their children home tomorrow so that they don't hear the simple story of an African-American who, against great odds, became a law professor, a U.S. senator and finally the leader of the "free world."
It's been said that it's often better to laugh at, rather than weep over, a sad and grotesque situation. So I'll leave you with a bit of morbid humor gleaned from YouTube:
Here's one of the comments this comedy video got:
Tell me something then, WHY does Obama need to address the CHILDREN?!? WHY??? Their own parents and teachers can't tell them to try hard and be good little communist fascists? Hitler did the same fucking thing. Ever heard of the HJ? The Hitler Jugend or Hitler Youth.
That's coming next. Obama has already laid out his plans for MANDATORY civil service or community service. Either you are too stupid to see it or you approve of BIG BROTHER OBAMA telling our CHILDREN what to do and think.
Sigh ...
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
2009: A Right-Wing Odyssey Of Spaced-Out Idiocy
By Manifesto Joe
The right wing seems to have gone completely into orbit this year, outdoing itself at every turn. The galaxy of Goonville stars is lit up with names old and new.
Pat Buchanan: This mainstay of the kook right is often good for laughs, albeit pretty dark-hued ones. I have to confess that in 1996, with Clinton up for re-election and nothing interesting going on in the Texas Democratic Party, I actually held my nose and cast a disingenuous protest vote for Patsy in hopes that a good showing from him would help shake things up in The Party of Satan. ("I'm going to vote NAZI this time!" I exclaimed gleefully to one of my very few Republican friends. That comment didn't make us any friendlier.)
I was doing the same thing, in reverse, that a lot of nasty little Republicans have been doing here in Texas for many decades. If there's no pressing reason for them to vote in their own primary, they cross over and pollute the waters in ours. The idea is to vote for the candidates you figure are the most likely losers in the pack, or who would cause the most organizational trouble.
By the way, I gave up on that kind of subversive cross-voting, in large part because of all the Republican junk mail I would get in the ensuing months. (You know, polls from the local Congressfool that feature questions like: "Do you think that baby-murdering Supreme Court justices should be impeached? Yes/No)
I had to hold my nose to vote for Patsy, but I admit that I was actually (and pleasantly) shocked when I read parts of his book The Great Betrayal. Although the motives behind his economic nationalism were suspect back then, I was astounded by the opening chapter. It read like it could have been written by Jesse Jackson.
Unfortunately, Patsy didn't really, truly change his stripes. He's still a 1940 edition America Firster. He's not a neocon, because he's not even that evolved. He's a neolith.
The newest hardback offering from Patsy is a Nazi apologist treatise that was explained in shorter form in a recent column. Here's an Air America review of all this. I always smelled 1930s anti-Semitism behind Patsy's "thinking," sort of like the notion that the problem with World War II was that "we fought the wrong people." I actually heard a ranking editor at a newspaper I once worked for say exactly that. He noticed that I was looking at him funny, and he explained that "Hitler was the more pressing problem, but" look at all the horrors and atrocities of Stalinist Russia and other communist regimes.
This is not to minimize the enormities committed by the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and from all evidence, Mao Tse-tung as well. But to slough off the clearly murderous and insane Adolf Hitler as merely "the more pressing problem" is itself insanity. And, tragically, there are millions of Americans who would agree with that assessment.
Michele Bachmann: It will be a curiosity for the ages as to how a person this imbecilic ever got elected to Congress, and especially in a state like Minnesota that has produced the likes of Hubert Humphrey, the Farmer-Labor Party, Paul Wellstone and Al Franken. One thing I have noticed about Minnesotans is that there aren't many moderates from there, at least none that I've met. I love and admire the progressives from there (even you, Jack Jodell!); but, in contrast, one of the most demented and intractable religious-right fanatics I've ever known was from the Minneapolis area. And this is a state that actually elected Jesse Ventura governor. It's a place given to some extremes.
Onward to Michelle: She has repeatedly argued that while diversity sounds like a good thing, not all cultures are created equal. Some are apparently anointed by God His Own Self, and others just aren't. Here's one of her statements. And then, here's a link to the World of Health Care According to Michele, again courtesy of Air America.
The odyssey continues. The idiocy, too. Stay tuned.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The right wing seems to have gone completely into orbit this year, outdoing itself at every turn. The galaxy of Goonville stars is lit up with names old and new.
Pat Buchanan: This mainstay of the kook right is often good for laughs, albeit pretty dark-hued ones. I have to confess that in 1996, with Clinton up for re-election and nothing interesting going on in the Texas Democratic Party, I actually held my nose and cast a disingenuous protest vote for Patsy in hopes that a good showing from him would help shake things up in The Party of Satan. ("I'm going to vote NAZI this time!" I exclaimed gleefully to one of my very few Republican friends. That comment didn't make us any friendlier.)
I was doing the same thing, in reverse, that a lot of nasty little Republicans have been doing here in Texas for many decades. If there's no pressing reason for them to vote in their own primary, they cross over and pollute the waters in ours. The idea is to vote for the candidates you figure are the most likely losers in the pack, or who would cause the most organizational trouble.
By the way, I gave up on that kind of subversive cross-voting, in large part because of all the Republican junk mail I would get in the ensuing months. (You know, polls from the local Congressfool that feature questions like: "Do you think that baby-murdering Supreme Court justices should be impeached? Yes/No)
I had to hold my nose to vote for Patsy, but I admit that I was actually (and pleasantly) shocked when I read parts of his book The Great Betrayal. Although the motives behind his economic nationalism were suspect back then, I was astounded by the opening chapter. It read like it could have been written by Jesse Jackson.
Unfortunately, Patsy didn't really, truly change his stripes. He's still a 1940 edition America Firster. He's not a neocon, because he's not even that evolved. He's a neolith.
The newest hardback offering from Patsy is a Nazi apologist treatise that was explained in shorter form in a recent column. Here's an Air America review of all this. I always smelled 1930s anti-Semitism behind Patsy's "thinking," sort of like the notion that the problem with World War II was that "we fought the wrong people." I actually heard a ranking editor at a newspaper I once worked for say exactly that. He noticed that I was looking at him funny, and he explained that "Hitler was the more pressing problem, but" look at all the horrors and atrocities of Stalinist Russia and other communist regimes.
This is not to minimize the enormities committed by the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and from all evidence, Mao Tse-tung as well. But to slough off the clearly murderous and insane Adolf Hitler as merely "the more pressing problem" is itself insanity. And, tragically, there are millions of Americans who would agree with that assessment.
Michele Bachmann: It will be a curiosity for the ages as to how a person this imbecilic ever got elected to Congress, and especially in a state like Minnesota that has produced the likes of Hubert Humphrey, the Farmer-Labor Party, Paul Wellstone and Al Franken. One thing I have noticed about Minnesotans is that there aren't many moderates from there, at least none that I've met. I love and admire the progressives from there (even you, Jack Jodell!); but, in contrast, one of the most demented and intractable religious-right fanatics I've ever known was from the Minneapolis area. And this is a state that actually elected Jesse Ventura governor. It's a place given to some extremes.
Onward to Michelle: She has repeatedly argued that while diversity sounds like a good thing, not all cultures are created equal. Some are apparently anointed by God His Own Self, and others just aren't. Here's one of her statements. And then, here's a link to the World of Health Care According to Michele, again courtesy of Air America.
The odyssey continues. The idiocy, too. Stay tuned.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Listen American: This Country Has Produced Great Unheralded Composers: Roy Harris
Roy Harris conducts the ABC (American Broadcasting Company) Symphony Orchestra in his own composition Phantasy c.1945. Watch this one -- the still visuals are wonderful. One is the famous painting Nighthawks, by Edward Hopper (1942). -- MJ:
Roy Harris 1898-1979. Posted by Gordonskene on YouTube, March 14, 2009.
Roy Harris 1898-1979. Posted by Gordonskene on YouTube, March 14, 2009.
Glenn Beck Suffering Psychotic Episodes On The Air
Our master of ceremonies here is Keith Olbermann. Take it away, Keith:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
