By Manifesto Joe
Alan Simpson, whose daddy was a U.S. senator and governor of Wyoming, leaves me in awe with his resourcefulness. He pulled himself up by his own Republican bootstraps to follow in Daddy's footsteps, serving three terms (1979-97) in the U.S. Senate from Wyoming. And his service to We the People endures. He's serving on President Obama's debt commission, and one of his big goals appears to be cutting Social Security, which is there, he says, as part of the effort to take care of "the lesser people."
Before pursuing this, let's take the time machine back to 1990. Bush 41 is president. Bush 43, the future Il Doofus, is a hapless failure in business who is sort of a White House Doberman for Daddy. Snearin' Dick Cheney is secretary of defense. The U.S. just got through pillaging Panama to abduct its unruly head of state, "Pineapple Face" Noriega, formerly of the CIA payroll. Dick Tracy, starring Warren Beatty and Madonna, is in theaters, and David Letterman jokes about how Dick hates it "when Pruneface kids him about Ishtar." Debbie Gibson still has videos running on MTV, and Rick Astley still has a pop music career.
And, Alan Simpson is a U.S. senator, Republican from Wyoming, and a member of a diplomatic mission to Iraq.
According to the senator at that time, Saddam Hussein mainly suffers from a public relations problem. This is what Simpson told Saddam:
"Mr. President, I can see that what you have here isn't really a policy problem; what you have is a public relations problem. You've got a problem with the haughty and pampered press. I know all about that, because I've got problems with the press back home. What you need is you need a good public relations person."
Here's a link to an article about the entire episode of April 12, 1990. I'm sure it will be noted that Simpson was joined by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, in licking the chemical-stained mud off of Saddam Hussein's jackboots. Republicans have no monopoly on foolish behavior -- they just seem to exhibit it disproportionately. And especially toward those nasty reporters.
Fast-forward to 2010. Simpson, now 78 and drawing the hefty pension of a former senator, is co-chairman of Obama's debt commission. And it looks like one of the things he wants to do is cut that nasty Social Security that the "lesser people" rely on.
Thanks to firedoglake.com for staying on this papier-mache man.
I fully expected, since we are mostly living longer, that someday we would see the age of Social Security claims raised. It seemed inevitable.
But now, in the "Great Recession," we're seeing a livelihood bubble developing for people ages 50 to 64, and increasingly, those older. Either we can't get Social Security, or the disincentives for taking it early are too great. And, we can't get jobs. For all the erstwhile talk about how much the baby boomers were going to be needed in tomorrow's work force, we now seem quite expendable. I still have the job I had in the '90s, but have seen massive layoffs of co-workers, and worry about my job daily. My wife had to re-enter the work force recently, and found herself lucky to be able to land a part-time job with no benefits.
And now, Simpson's beloved fellow Republicans in the current Senate are filibustering against an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. It's estimated that well over 2 million Americans are now without unemployment benefits, waiting for the job that never comes, and/or waiting for eviction or foreclosure.
This man is, at best, a naive product of a privileged background. At worst, he part of a corrupt elite that has been looting honest working people in the country for generations. We are the people who have been doing the grunt work at demanding jobs all over America so that presumptuous types like him can dine in style while "governing" us.
I have a better idea of something for Simpson to do in his old age: Go back to Iraq, disinter Saddam's rotten corpse, and lick his jackboots some more. That will do far less harm than he seems prepared to do right now to honest working Americans.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Typing This On A Dell Computer Is Evidence: Capitalism Doesn't Regulate Itself
By Manifesto Joe
We Americans are indoctrinated, usually quite effectively, in the notion that capitalism is an ultimately fair, if sometimes unmerciful, economic system. It is supposed to be merciless competition itself that disciplines the market. If you make an unsatisfactory product, your competitors, in theory, eat your lunch, and your company soon goes under.
There are many examples of why this is merely theory, divorced from reality. The latest comes to us from the company that sold me the very computer I am typing this on, Austin, Texas-based Dell.
A recent New York Times article reported that Dell employees knowingly sold millions of defective computers "from 2003 to 2005 to major companies like Wal-Mart and Wells Fargo, institutions like the Mayo Clinic, and small businesses." The University of Texas, in Dell's hometown, was another victim of this corporate malfeasance.
This came out as a result of a 3-year-old lawsuit against the computer giant. "Documents recently unsealed ..." the Times report says, "show that the company's employees were aware that the computers were likely to break. Still, the employees tried to play down the problem to customers and allowed customers to rely on trouble-prone machines, putting their businesses at risk."
To read the full article, go here.
The obvious question is: How the hell is Dell still even in business? The Times article does mention that Dell has been going through harder times in recent years, with complaints of poor customer service (I can attest to that) among other problems. That they would knowingly sell defective machines to companies and institutions big and small seems the most damning thing.
Why are they still operating? Granted, they don't have the market share they used to, and they have a few competitors. But that is a key word -- few.
For 120 years, the U.S. hasn't seen many blatant monopolies in our economy, mostly because the Sherman Antitrust Act more or less outlawed them. Intentional monopolies, such as can still be found in some places among utilities, are an exception.
But better economists understand the very strong presence of oligopolies, and also monopolistic competition, in the contemporary corporate world. "Bigness" is the defining factor here. We've seen it all too well among the banks, some of which are now termed "too big to fail," so they rate bailouts with taxpayer money. But it exists in plenty of other enterprises that don't benefit from such wide-open subsidization. (The subsidies are there -- but often indirectly, so you have to poke around to find where they are. The tax system is a good place to look.)
Dell became so staggeringly big that it could engage in this kind of malfeasance and yet still be in business, years later. Its competitors are few, and they are huge, too. All these folks appreciate a quiet life as much as anyone else. One of the crucial lessons of real competition is that you can lose.
So, Dell has lost market share, but it retains a great deal. It's so big, it almost can't fail. I still get plenty of junk mail from them, and here I sit, typing this on a five-and-a-half year-old Dimension 3000.
The marketplace discipline that competition is supposed to bring may have been very real in Adam Smith's day. There, we're talking about microeconomics at the village smithy and yeoman farmer level -- maybe small manufacturers. But today's enterprises have grown so large, they can get away with astounding things and still pay a very limited price for their misconduct. They still have the profits from the sales of millions of faulty computers; and even the aforementioned lawsuit, yet to come to trial, won't really compensate the victims.
So, what's the alternative? There aren't many good ones. But one thing seems clear. The "free market" model of popular indoctrination looks, in reality, nothing like it does in theory.
Maybe I could go to some bank, get a loan, hire techs to start building good, moderately priced computers, and put these rapacious bastards out of business. Which bank would you suggest? One of those that's "too big to fail?"
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
We Americans are indoctrinated, usually quite effectively, in the notion that capitalism is an ultimately fair, if sometimes unmerciful, economic system. It is supposed to be merciless competition itself that disciplines the market. If you make an unsatisfactory product, your competitors, in theory, eat your lunch, and your company soon goes under.
There are many examples of why this is merely theory, divorced from reality. The latest comes to us from the company that sold me the very computer I am typing this on, Austin, Texas-based Dell.
A recent New York Times article reported that Dell employees knowingly sold millions of defective computers "from 2003 to 2005 to major companies like Wal-Mart and Wells Fargo, institutions like the Mayo Clinic, and small businesses." The University of Texas, in Dell's hometown, was another victim of this corporate malfeasance.
This came out as a result of a 3-year-old lawsuit against the computer giant. "Documents recently unsealed ..." the Times report says, "show that the company's employees were aware that the computers were likely to break. Still, the employees tried to play down the problem to customers and allowed customers to rely on trouble-prone machines, putting their businesses at risk."
To read the full article, go here.
The obvious question is: How the hell is Dell still even in business? The Times article does mention that Dell has been going through harder times in recent years, with complaints of poor customer service (I can attest to that) among other problems. That they would knowingly sell defective machines to companies and institutions big and small seems the most damning thing.
Why are they still operating? Granted, they don't have the market share they used to, and they have a few competitors. But that is a key word -- few.
For 120 years, the U.S. hasn't seen many blatant monopolies in our economy, mostly because the Sherman Antitrust Act more or less outlawed them. Intentional monopolies, such as can still be found in some places among utilities, are an exception.
But better economists understand the very strong presence of oligopolies, and also monopolistic competition, in the contemporary corporate world. "Bigness" is the defining factor here. We've seen it all too well among the banks, some of which are now termed "too big to fail," so they rate bailouts with taxpayer money. But it exists in plenty of other enterprises that don't benefit from such wide-open subsidization. (The subsidies are there -- but often indirectly, so you have to poke around to find where they are. The tax system is a good place to look.)
Dell became so staggeringly big that it could engage in this kind of malfeasance and yet still be in business, years later. Its competitors are few, and they are huge, too. All these folks appreciate a quiet life as much as anyone else. One of the crucial lessons of real competition is that you can lose.
So, Dell has lost market share, but it retains a great deal. It's so big, it almost can't fail. I still get plenty of junk mail from them, and here I sit, typing this on a five-and-a-half year-old Dimension 3000.
The marketplace discipline that competition is supposed to bring may have been very real in Adam Smith's day. There, we're talking about microeconomics at the village smithy and yeoman farmer level -- maybe small manufacturers. But today's enterprises have grown so large, they can get away with astounding things and still pay a very limited price for their misconduct. They still have the profits from the sales of millions of faulty computers; and even the aforementioned lawsuit, yet to come to trial, won't really compensate the victims.
So, what's the alternative? There aren't many good ones. But one thing seems clear. The "free market" model of popular indoctrination looks, in reality, nothing like it does in theory.
Maybe I could go to some bank, get a loan, hire techs to start building good, moderately priced computers, and put these rapacious bastards out of business. Which bank would you suggest? One of those that's "too big to fail?"
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Steele and Palin: Where Do The Republicans Find These Harebrains?
By Manifesto Joe
The day after Independence Day is as good as any to breach this subject: Where the hell are the Republicans finding all these political/historical illiterates to parade before the public in high positions?
Michael Steele
Forget for just a moment what your personal views are regarding the Afghanistan war. I will grant that it's looking more and more like a stupid quagmire that can't be won, but just put that aside for a moment.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was caught on video Thursday, at a fundraiser, saying, "This was a war of Obama’s choosing. This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." Here's a link.
Um, where the hell was Michael Steele in 2001, when the (Republican) Bush administration decided to invade Afghanistan? And where the hell was he for seven-plus years after that, while the same administration neglected the pressing problems in Afghanistan while deciding to skin Saddam Hussein's scruffy ass?
This is comparable to a scenario in which some leading Democrat, in 1970, had blamed Richard Nixon for escalating the Vietnam War after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Historically, it is illiterate. Makes absolutely no sense.
So, where did the Republicans find this guy? Well, he's a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, and has a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center. I always assumed you would have to have a first-rate intellect to have made it that far in life. Silly me.
And youthful error can't explain it, either. The man's 51.
Turns out that Mr. Steele has at least one prominent defender: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Republican and erstwhile Libertarian from my home state of Texas, where we've seen for countless decades that anybody can conceivably be elected to anything. I can't say I disagree much with Mr. Paul for challenging the wisdom of pursuing what is looking more and more like a futile, stupid war.
But I noticed that Mr. Paul had no comment about the historical absurdity of Mr. Steele's statement. But then, judging from Mr. Paul's views and congressional voting record, I never got the impression that he possesses a sense of the absurd.
Sarah Palin
Youthful error might explain some of this gaffe. Sarah Palin is, quite manifestly, 46 going on 19, at least intellectually. And a very, very shallow 19 at that. I think she's still trying to get that platform speech for the Miss Alaska pageant right.
Her list of gaffes is growing long. But the latest one was a topper -- it was about a Republican hero, and one not himself known for intellectual prowess.
During a recent fundraiser at California State University, Stanislaus, Ms. Palin spoke gushingly about President Reagan being a graduate of Eureka College in California.
Reagan did indeed graduate from Eureka College, in 1932. But it was in Illinois. It was described that he took "the gut course" in economics. Eureka College isn't overly well-regarded, but Ronald Reagan could boast of this: He's the most prominent economist that the college ever produced.
But, of course, it would have been wise for Sarah Palin to check on this before including it in a speech. There is a Eureka, Calif., but there's no college of that name anywhere around there.
By the way, according to Politics Daily, Ms. Palin was paid $75,000 for her speech.
Man. I wish I could be paid that well for f**king up.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The day after Independence Day is as good as any to breach this subject: Where the hell are the Republicans finding all these political/historical illiterates to parade before the public in high positions?
Michael Steele
Forget for just a moment what your personal views are regarding the Afghanistan war. I will grant that it's looking more and more like a stupid quagmire that can't be won, but just put that aside for a moment.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was caught on video Thursday, at a fundraiser, saying, "This was a war of Obama’s choosing. This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." Here's a link.
Um, where the hell was Michael Steele in 2001, when the (Republican) Bush administration decided to invade Afghanistan? And where the hell was he for seven-plus years after that, while the same administration neglected the pressing problems in Afghanistan while deciding to skin Saddam Hussein's scruffy ass?
This is comparable to a scenario in which some leading Democrat, in 1970, had blamed Richard Nixon for escalating the Vietnam War after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Historically, it is illiterate. Makes absolutely no sense.
So, where did the Republicans find this guy? Well, he's a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, and has a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center. I always assumed you would have to have a first-rate intellect to have made it that far in life. Silly me.
And youthful error can't explain it, either. The man's 51.
Turns out that Mr. Steele has at least one prominent defender: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Republican and erstwhile Libertarian from my home state of Texas, where we've seen for countless decades that anybody can conceivably be elected to anything. I can't say I disagree much with Mr. Paul for challenging the wisdom of pursuing what is looking more and more like a futile, stupid war.
But I noticed that Mr. Paul had no comment about the historical absurdity of Mr. Steele's statement. But then, judging from Mr. Paul's views and congressional voting record, I never got the impression that he possesses a sense of the absurd.
Sarah Palin
Youthful error might explain some of this gaffe. Sarah Palin is, quite manifestly, 46 going on 19, at least intellectually. And a very, very shallow 19 at that. I think she's still trying to get that platform speech for the Miss Alaska pageant right.
Her list of gaffes is growing long. But the latest one was a topper -- it was about a Republican hero, and one not himself known for intellectual prowess.
During a recent fundraiser at California State University, Stanislaus, Ms. Palin spoke gushingly about President Reagan being a graduate of Eureka College in California.
Reagan did indeed graduate from Eureka College, in 1932. But it was in Illinois. It was described that he took "the gut course" in economics. Eureka College isn't overly well-regarded, but Ronald Reagan could boast of this: He's the most prominent economist that the college ever produced.
But, of course, it would have been wise for Sarah Palin to check on this before including it in a speech. There is a Eureka, Calif., but there's no college of that name anywhere around there.
By the way, according to Politics Daily, Ms. Palin was paid $75,000 for her speech.
Man. I wish I could be paid that well for f**king up.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, June 28, 2010
America, 2010, and America, 1934: How Are We Different?
By Manifesto Joe
The America of 1934 was much worse off than the America of today. But there are some parallels: stubbornly high unemployment, pay cuts, political polarization, a field day for demagogues, a right-wing Supreme Court confronting a liberal Democrat in the Oval Office ... above all, a general feeling among the populace of, "When did my life become a horror movie?"
Today's America has Keynesian economic precedents, and something of a social safety net, with food stamps as the centerpiece. At least few people could actually starve, unlike the situation in '34. And the official unemployment rate is hovering at only around 10 percent. Even if one factors in the underemployment and other differences of today, the job situation of 1934 was certainly worse. There are no bums coming to my door, begging to do whatever work I have here for some food. My mother, who was 7 in 1934, had vivid memories of them. And, beans and cornbread was mostly what my grandmother had to offer a Depression-era tramp. My grandfather was making about a dollar a day.
But one of today's crucial differences, the social safety net -- such as it was at the start of "The Great Recession" -- now seems in peril.
Last week, the extension of unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed failed to clear the Senate. I've created a link. The vote was 57 for, 41 against, with 40 smug Republicans plus Nebraska Blue Dog Ben Nelson blocking the bill. Nearly 1 million jobless Americans will lose their unemployment benefits because the Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.
If this had happened in 1934, I would dare say there would have been a lot of people out on the streets all over this country the next day, and quite possibly bloody violence. It's true that Americans were remarkably stoic through 10 miserable years during the Great Depression. But in those days, there was at least enough turbulence to show that people basically knew who their enemies -- and friends -- were. In the America of 2010, at least half the country doesn't seem to get it.
Because of the Senate's inaction, there will be a spike in homelessness and hunger. There will be many more foreclosures and evictions.
There are doubtless some right-wingers who think that unemployment benefits encourage people to remain jobless. I don't think that such people have ever had to try to live on the meager sum that unemployment insurance pays. But even if their notions were so, there are few jobs compared to the number of jobless. This will force many people out of their homes, into shelters, into already-stressed food banks -- and into suicidal despair.
I find it a bit ironic that the one Senate "Democrat" who sided with the Republicans on this is from the very state where a Depression-era food riot occurred. The eruption that took place in 1932 in Lincoln, Nebraska, is now barely a footnote in history. It was one instance in which the stoicism of heartland Americans was finally exhausted.
But, history doesn't exist for many Americans of today. It's interesting to note that one of the most active Communist Party cells in America during the 1930s was in Oklahoma City, capital of what is now one of the nation's most rock-ribbed Republican states, represented by two of the most dimwitted right-wingers in the Senate. Not that being a communist was an especially bright thing, even then -- but it's understandable when you realize what daily life was like for most Oklahomans during the Depression. I lived in that state briefly during the 1980s, and by then, you couldn't tell there had ever been a Dust Bowl. Nobody seemed to remember it.
So, what's the difference between America of 1934 and America today? Back then, people seemed to have a collective memory, at least of sorts. Today, many can't remember back any further than whatever Glenn Beck told them on Fox News yesterday. And, while there were indeed demagogues back then, and right-wing ones -- they seem to have more muscle now.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The America of 1934 was much worse off than the America of today. But there are some parallels: stubbornly high unemployment, pay cuts, political polarization, a field day for demagogues, a right-wing Supreme Court confronting a liberal Democrat in the Oval Office ... above all, a general feeling among the populace of, "When did my life become a horror movie?"
Today's America has Keynesian economic precedents, and something of a social safety net, with food stamps as the centerpiece. At least few people could actually starve, unlike the situation in '34. And the official unemployment rate is hovering at only around 10 percent. Even if one factors in the underemployment and other differences of today, the job situation of 1934 was certainly worse. There are no bums coming to my door, begging to do whatever work I have here for some food. My mother, who was 7 in 1934, had vivid memories of them. And, beans and cornbread was mostly what my grandmother had to offer a Depression-era tramp. My grandfather was making about a dollar a day.
But one of today's crucial differences, the social safety net -- such as it was at the start of "The Great Recession" -- now seems in peril.
Last week, the extension of unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed failed to clear the Senate. I've created a link. The vote was 57 for, 41 against, with 40 smug Republicans plus Nebraska Blue Dog Ben Nelson blocking the bill. Nearly 1 million jobless Americans will lose their unemployment benefits because the Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.
If this had happened in 1934, I would dare say there would have been a lot of people out on the streets all over this country the next day, and quite possibly bloody violence. It's true that Americans were remarkably stoic through 10 miserable years during the Great Depression. But in those days, there was at least enough turbulence to show that people basically knew who their enemies -- and friends -- were. In the America of 2010, at least half the country doesn't seem to get it.
Because of the Senate's inaction, there will be a spike in homelessness and hunger. There will be many more foreclosures and evictions.
There are doubtless some right-wingers who think that unemployment benefits encourage people to remain jobless. I don't think that such people have ever had to try to live on the meager sum that unemployment insurance pays. But even if their notions were so, there are few jobs compared to the number of jobless. This will force many people out of their homes, into shelters, into already-stressed food banks -- and into suicidal despair.
I find it a bit ironic that the one Senate "Democrat" who sided with the Republicans on this is from the very state where a Depression-era food riot occurred. The eruption that took place in 1932 in Lincoln, Nebraska, is now barely a footnote in history. It was one instance in which the stoicism of heartland Americans was finally exhausted.
But, history doesn't exist for many Americans of today. It's interesting to note that one of the most active Communist Party cells in America during the 1930s was in Oklahoma City, capital of what is now one of the nation's most rock-ribbed Republican states, represented by two of the most dimwitted right-wingers in the Senate. Not that being a communist was an especially bright thing, even then -- but it's understandable when you realize what daily life was like for most Oklahomans during the Depression. I lived in that state briefly during the 1980s, and by then, you couldn't tell there had ever been a Dust Bowl. Nobody seemed to remember it.
So, what's the difference between America of 1934 and America today? Back then, people seemed to have a collective memory, at least of sorts. Today, many can't remember back any further than whatever Glenn Beck told them on Fox News yesterday. And, while there were indeed demagogues back then, and right-wing ones -- they seem to have more muscle now.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Gulf Spill Notes: A Yacht Named Bob, And A Boob Named Barton
By Manifesto Joe
Joe's been kicking back a bit while recovering from an illness, but surely the faithful few out there knew I wouldn't be gone very long.
So, how can there be any doubt left as to why there are millions of gallons of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico?
BP Chief Executive Tony ("I want my life back") Hayward took a day off Saturday to watch his yacht "Bob" compete in a race. This man is one of the leaders of a huge multinational corporation, and he names his yacht "Bob"? This takes some of the mystery out of the disaster. There were even Republicans, namely Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who were bent out of shape about his little holiday. But it seemed to me that his day off wasn't a bit nonplussing. That he would name his 52-foot yacht "Bob" -- now that says a lot, I think.
A boob named Barton
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, based in Arlington, Texas, is sort of local phenom around these parts. Those of us who don't quite share his corporate-lackey political philosophy have long had to suffer through those silly campaign ads, with his Down's syndrome eyes and knee-jerk right-wing slogans ("We've got to stop librul ideas ...").
But hey, I didn't realize until last week that Oil Can Joe could emerge among House Republicans as one more of those gifts that just keeps on giving. He joins Joe "You Lie" Wilson of South Carolina, fellow Texan Randy "Baby Killer" Neugebauer and Minnesotan Michele (of the countless idiocies) Bachmann in the pantheon of House GOP fecal feet.
There were Republicans who came down on him hard after his "apology" to BP, in which he referred to the $20 billion damages fund extracted by President Obama as a "shakedown" and a "slush fund." Even after his halfhearted apology, there were actually Republicans who were calling on him to resign his committee post.
Don't do it, Joe!
The Democratic Party needs you, especially this November. Your "seat" is Republican-safe, there being so many insular fools residing in that generally suburban middle-class district. You'll be re-elected -- Bachmann may not be, so the Democrats need one more guaranteed buffoon. Stay the course, Joe!
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Joe's been kicking back a bit while recovering from an illness, but surely the faithful few out there knew I wouldn't be gone very long.
So, how can there be any doubt left as to why there are millions of gallons of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico?
BP Chief Executive Tony ("I want my life back") Hayward took a day off Saturday to watch his yacht "Bob" compete in a race. This man is one of the leaders of a huge multinational corporation, and he names his yacht "Bob"? This takes some of the mystery out of the disaster. There were even Republicans, namely Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who were bent out of shape about his little holiday. But it seemed to me that his day off wasn't a bit nonplussing. That he would name his 52-foot yacht "Bob" -- now that says a lot, I think.
A boob named Barton
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, based in Arlington, Texas, is sort of local phenom around these parts. Those of us who don't quite share his corporate-lackey political philosophy have long had to suffer through those silly campaign ads, with his Down's syndrome eyes and knee-jerk right-wing slogans ("We've got to stop librul ideas ...").
But hey, I didn't realize until last week that Oil Can Joe could emerge among House Republicans as one more of those gifts that just keeps on giving. He joins Joe "You Lie" Wilson of South Carolina, fellow Texan Randy "Baby Killer" Neugebauer and Minnesotan Michele (of the countless idiocies) Bachmann in the pantheon of House GOP fecal feet.
There were Republicans who came down on him hard after his "apology" to BP, in which he referred to the $20 billion damages fund extracted by President Obama as a "shakedown" and a "slush fund." Even after his halfhearted apology, there were actually Republicans who were calling on him to resign his committee post.
Don't do it, Joe!
The Democratic Party needs you, especially this November. Your "seat" is Republican-safe, there being so many insular fools residing in that generally suburban middle-class district. You'll be re-elected -- Bachmann may not be, so the Democrats need one more guaranteed buffoon. Stay the course, Joe!
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Atlas Shagged: Colorado Springs Is What Happens When Rich Twits Refuse To Pay Taxes
By Manifesto Joe
The city of Colorado Springs, Colo., has become a microcosm of what happens when those in the community who are prospering are unwilling to pay the taxes needed to fund basic government services.
I visited C.S. way back in 1984, and was blown away by what a beautiful place it was. There were gorgeous plants and flowers everywhere. You could see Pike's Peak through some residents' kitchen windows. There were mild days and cool nights even in August. And, most of all, one was taken by how pristine everything always looked. "This is Heaven!" one resident, a former Texan, told me unabashedly.
But, one other thing I noticed: I had never seen so many extreme right-wingers congregated in one place in my whole life. And, mind you, I'm an almost lifelong Texan.
It was Religious Right Heaven. It was also NORAD ex-military Heaven. When we went to the "hipper" part of the urban area, a place just next door called Manitou Springs, a seemingly cool-looking bookstore had a display case featuring the complete works of Ayn Rand, fiction and nonfiction. (I'm still trying to figure out how one tells those apart.) This place had every kind of extreme right-winger, variously theistic to atheistic, on full display. Even at a sort of dude ranch where we went to see a popular local show combining a traditional chuck-wagon meal and Western music, somebody shoved a right-wing screed in your hands while you ate your ranch beans and got ready to hear the greatest hits of the Sons of the Pioneers. ("Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds ...")
I was absolutely blown away by the physical beauty of the place, the Garden of the Gods, the Cheyenne Mountains ... you name it. But it occurred to me -- this is a place that votes for Reagan something like 4-to-1, or more. The local daily newspaper, the only one competing with the Denver-based papers, was a place where you practically had to pass a Libertarian ideology test to go to work as a journalist there.
Now we know what happens to a place when the locals become pathologically anti-tax. It's a lot like what happened, more gradually, to the state of California in the decades that have followed the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. That place, once the envy of the other 49 states, has become such a hellhole that hardly anybody wants to be the governor. There's not enough money for basic things. I call it "Atlas Shagged."
Courtesy of Truthout, here's an exclusive video of what's happening in this once-pristine city. Last fall a proposed property tax increase was rejected by a margin of almost 2-to-1, and now they can't even afford adequate police protection in this fast-growing city. It's reported that two-thirds of the streetlights are idle, like, out. A merchant was murdered at a place where a city streetlight was nonfunctional.
I went to C.S. 26 years ago as a tourist. I wonder what effect all this is going to have on their tourist trade?
Spread 'em, Atlas.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The city of Colorado Springs, Colo., has become a microcosm of what happens when those in the community who are prospering are unwilling to pay the taxes needed to fund basic government services.
I visited C.S. way back in 1984, and was blown away by what a beautiful place it was. There were gorgeous plants and flowers everywhere. You could see Pike's Peak through some residents' kitchen windows. There were mild days and cool nights even in August. And, most of all, one was taken by how pristine everything always looked. "This is Heaven!" one resident, a former Texan, told me unabashedly.
But, one other thing I noticed: I had never seen so many extreme right-wingers congregated in one place in my whole life. And, mind you, I'm an almost lifelong Texan.
It was Religious Right Heaven. It was also NORAD ex-military Heaven. When we went to the "hipper" part of the urban area, a place just next door called Manitou Springs, a seemingly cool-looking bookstore had a display case featuring the complete works of Ayn Rand, fiction and nonfiction. (I'm still trying to figure out how one tells those apart.) This place had every kind of extreme right-winger, variously theistic to atheistic, on full display. Even at a sort of dude ranch where we went to see a popular local show combining a traditional chuck-wagon meal and Western music, somebody shoved a right-wing screed in your hands while you ate your ranch beans and got ready to hear the greatest hits of the Sons of the Pioneers. ("Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds ...")
I was absolutely blown away by the physical beauty of the place, the Garden of the Gods, the Cheyenne Mountains ... you name it. But it occurred to me -- this is a place that votes for Reagan something like 4-to-1, or more. The local daily newspaper, the only one competing with the Denver-based papers, was a place where you practically had to pass a Libertarian ideology test to go to work as a journalist there.
Now we know what happens to a place when the locals become pathologically anti-tax. It's a lot like what happened, more gradually, to the state of California in the decades that have followed the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. That place, once the envy of the other 49 states, has become such a hellhole that hardly anybody wants to be the governor. There's not enough money for basic things. I call it "Atlas Shagged."
Courtesy of Truthout, here's an exclusive video of what's happening in this once-pristine city. Last fall a proposed property tax increase was rejected by a margin of almost 2-to-1, and now they can't even afford adequate police protection in this fast-growing city. It's reported that two-thirds of the streetlights are idle, like, out. A merchant was murdered at a place where a city streetlight was nonfunctional.
I went to C.S. 26 years ago as a tourist. I wonder what effect all this is going to have on their tourist trade?
Spread 'em, Atlas.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
A New Inductee Into The White Trash Hall Of Fame: S.C. State Sen. Jake Knotts
By Manifesto Joe
This "gaffe" was a most revealing one: Even a person who toes the Tea Party line can be highly suspect if they are not a good old-fashioned, right-thinking (white male Protestant) Murkan.
South Carolina State Sen. Jake Knotts, commenting on a Republican, Tea Party-backed candidate for the gubernatorial nomination who happens to be a female Christian from a Sikh ethnic background, said: "We already got one raghead in the White House; we don't need a raghead in the governor's mansion."
Obviously I live in Texas, so I'm used to encountering such prejudices. The senator wasn't expressing an unusual sentiment, and I understand that it's even more common in South Carolina than it is here.
But it doesn't hurt to bring such malignancies to the surface. Here's a link to the story.
In the category of, sometimes it's better to laugh than to rage or cry
The Onion sometimes doesn't seem to have the quality of writers it used to have, but they got a good laugh out of me with this one. "Gulf of Mexico Inducted Into OPEC."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
This "gaffe" was a most revealing one: Even a person who toes the Tea Party line can be highly suspect if they are not a good old-fashioned, right-thinking (white male Protestant) Murkan.
South Carolina State Sen. Jake Knotts, commenting on a Republican, Tea Party-backed candidate for the gubernatorial nomination who happens to be a female Christian from a Sikh ethnic background, said: "We already got one raghead in the White House; we don't need a raghead in the governor's mansion."
Obviously I live in Texas, so I'm used to encountering such prejudices. The senator wasn't expressing an unusual sentiment, and I understand that it's even more common in South Carolina than it is here.
But it doesn't hurt to bring such malignancies to the surface. Here's a link to the story.
In the category of, sometimes it's better to laugh than to rage or cry
The Onion sometimes doesn't seem to have the quality of writers it used to have, but they got a good laugh out of me with this one. "Gulf of Mexico Inducted Into OPEC."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
You Heard It Here Early: Sarah Palin Is A Semiliterate Dunce And Had No Business Even Being Alaska's Governor
By Manifesto Joe
"Gov.Jindal:to avoid ravished coast, build the berms.Ask forgiveness later;Feds are slow to act,local leadership&action can do more for coast"
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tweeted this imbecility Monday evening to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
My source? No, not Keith Olbermann -- although he is the one who most widely publicized this bit of Palin semiliteracy. I cut and pasted this off of a site called Conservatives4Palin.com. I've put a link in here, if your stomach is strong enough to read some of this moronic swill.
How titilating -- that lusty, gushing BP offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is going to "ravish" the Louisiana coast. I want to see that video on The Weather Channel.
And this person got 46 percent of the vote for vice president of the United States? Scary.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
"Gov.Jindal:to avoid ravished coast, build the berms.Ask forgiveness later;Feds are slow to act,local leadership&action can do more for coast"
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tweeted this imbecility Monday evening to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
My source? No, not Keith Olbermann -- although he is the one who most widely publicized this bit of Palin semiliteracy. I cut and pasted this off of a site called Conservatives4Palin.com. I've put a link in here, if your stomach is strong enough to read some of this moronic swill.
How titilating -- that lusty, gushing BP offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is going to "ravish" the Louisiana coast. I want to see that video on The Weather Channel.
And this person got 46 percent of the vote for vice president of the United States? Scary.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, May 31, 2010
From Joe's Vault On Memorial Day: Remembering A Real American Hero
By Manifesto Joe
Originally posted on BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, Aug. 5, 2005
In an age of faux heroism, illustrated by the swagger and tough talk of our "president," we should perhaps take time to remember a real American hero.
July 30 was the birthday of Smedley D. Butler, born in 1881. Few Americans have heard of this two-time Medal of Honor winner, who rose to the rank of major general in the Marine Corps. But history teachers ought to note that Butler probably thwarted the first serious conspiracy toward a coup in the United States.
In 1933, soon after he retired from active duty, Butler alleged that he was approached by a representative of a group of super-rich business interests, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan industrial empires, with a proposition. The representative, a top Wall Street bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire, was said to have tried to recruit Butler to lead a move to strip recently inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt of his political power.
Butler testified before a congressional committee that he was promised a militia of 500,000 men for a coup, after which Butler would assume near-absolute power as "secretary of general affairs," with Roosevelt retained as a figurehead. The men behind MacGuire feared a major redistribution of wealth by an FDR administration, and they were prepared to bankroll the force needed to prevent it.
The outcome of Butler's testimony was predictable. The press, at the time mostly owned by business-friendly conservatives, generally played the story way down. The tiny "reports" that did run ridiculed Butler and said he lacked evidence. Those whom he accused of the conspiracy, including former Democratic presidential nominees Al Smith and John W. Davis, professed innocence and did not come under public scrutiny. MacGuire -- known through his correspondence to have been an admirer of Mussolini's fascist rule in Italy -- was the panel's only open-session witness besides Butler. Of course, he told the lawmakers he never made such a proposition. The allegations are now a footnote in history.
But in 1967, journalist John Spivak vindicated Butler (who died in 1940) when he uncovered the House committee's internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed the story. The panel's public report was a whitewash and even omitted the names of the powerful men whom Butler accused.
This was not the only time Butler tangled with the early U.S. military-industrial complex. He had seen its operations firsthand many times, and blew the whistle on it. In a speech delivered in 1933, the same year he went public about the conspiracy, Butler told his audience:
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the masses. ...
"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a 'Big Boss' Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
"I helped make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Today we have other names -- Iraq, Halliburton, Diebold, Rove. We've had two Bush administrations; the first was at best legally questionable, the second possibly elected through voting irregularities in the deciding state and high-tech rigging in others. The stench of war for profit, and of crypto-fascism, is in the air.
Those who discuss this odor are being either ridiculed or ignored by the mainstream media. Perhaps they will be vindicated one day, as Butler was.
Meanwhile, let's honor a real hero, a man who blew the whistle on nascent American fascism.
HISTORICAL SOURCES: Wikipedia; excerpts from an online transcript of a 1933 speech by Smedley D. Butler
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Originally posted on BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, Aug. 5, 2005
In an age of faux heroism, illustrated by the swagger and tough talk of our "president," we should perhaps take time to remember a real American hero.
July 30 was the birthday of Smedley D. Butler, born in 1881. Few Americans have heard of this two-time Medal of Honor winner, who rose to the rank of major general in the Marine Corps. But history teachers ought to note that Butler probably thwarted the first serious conspiracy toward a coup in the United States.
In 1933, soon after he retired from active duty, Butler alleged that he was approached by a representative of a group of super-rich business interests, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan industrial empires, with a proposition. The representative, a top Wall Street bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire, was said to have tried to recruit Butler to lead a move to strip recently inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt of his political power.
Butler testified before a congressional committee that he was promised a militia of 500,000 men for a coup, after which Butler would assume near-absolute power as "secretary of general affairs," with Roosevelt retained as a figurehead. The men behind MacGuire feared a major redistribution of wealth by an FDR administration, and they were prepared to bankroll the force needed to prevent it.
The outcome of Butler's testimony was predictable. The press, at the time mostly owned by business-friendly conservatives, generally played the story way down. The tiny "reports" that did run ridiculed Butler and said he lacked evidence. Those whom he accused of the conspiracy, including former Democratic presidential nominees Al Smith and John W. Davis, professed innocence and did not come under public scrutiny. MacGuire -- known through his correspondence to have been an admirer of Mussolini's fascist rule in Italy -- was the panel's only open-session witness besides Butler. Of course, he told the lawmakers he never made such a proposition. The allegations are now a footnote in history.
But in 1967, journalist John Spivak vindicated Butler (who died in 1940) when he uncovered the House committee's internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed the story. The panel's public report was a whitewash and even omitted the names of the powerful men whom Butler accused.
This was not the only time Butler tangled with the early U.S. military-industrial complex. He had seen its operations firsthand many times, and blew the whistle on it. In a speech delivered in 1933, the same year he went public about the conspiracy, Butler told his audience:
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the masses. ...
"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a 'Big Boss' Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
"I helped make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Today we have other names -- Iraq, Halliburton, Diebold, Rove. We've had two Bush administrations; the first was at best legally questionable, the second possibly elected through voting irregularities in the deciding state and high-tech rigging in others. The stench of war for profit, and of crypto-fascism, is in the air.
Those who discuss this odor are being either ridiculed or ignored by the mainstream media. Perhaps they will be vindicated one day, as Butler was.
Meanwhile, let's honor a real hero, a man who blew the whistle on nascent American fascism.
HISTORICAL SOURCES: Wikipedia; excerpts from an online transcript of a 1933 speech by Smedley D. Butler
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
A Great Song Is Timeless: Frank Sinatra, 'Summer Wind' (1966)
It's been a while since I posted music on this site. This has been an earwig for me for a while, and for better reasons than for worse. Ol' Blue Eyes was certainly no saint, but he also certainly knew his way around a song or two. -- MJ
Songwriters: Bradtke, Hans; Mercer, Johnny; Meier, Heinz
Songwriters: Bradtke, Hans; Mercer, Johnny; Meier, Heinz
Monday, May 24, 2010
Who Is John Galt (And Why Does He Keep Saying All Those Foolish Things)? Musings On The Rand Paul Controversy
By Manifesto Joe
Why is anyone shocked about Rand Paul, and his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I confess to being a recovering libertarian, and therefore I understand that viewpoint better than most left-leaning people do. It's about absolute property rights.
John Galt, that shadowy character in Ayn Rand's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, articulated this view about as well as something that silly can be. This is from a Wikipedia article on Rand's 1957 novel:
Atlas Shrugged endorses the belief that a society's best hope rests on adopting a system of pure laissez-faire. Rand's view of the ideal government is expressed by John Galt, who says, "The political system we will build is contained in a single moral premise: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force," and claims that "no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality — to think, to work and to keep the results — which means: the right of property." Galt himself lives a life of laissez-faire capitalism as the only way to live consistently with his beliefs.
The obvious extension of this philosophy isn't much of a stretch. Nobody is obligated to pay taxes -- they would come only at the generous sufferance of volunteer property owners who realize they will have to have roads and bridges to drive on. Your neighbors would be theoretically "free" to bury dioxins in their back yards, and you have no say in the matter. A machine shop owner could hire you, require you to furnish your own tools, ignore safety issues -- and when you get hurt, well, tough, buddy. Go home and get well, and maybe we'll see you again some day. Of course, bear in mind that wage slaves are always "free" to change masters.
And, the private owners of lunch counters would be "free" to segregate, or to ban minorities altogether, as they did before 1964.
This brings to mind a simple observation: No civilized society has been able to function for long with the notion that property rights are generally absolute. It's not workable, and never has been.
I admit, long ago I thought this way, regarding property rights as more or less something that cannot be abridged in a "free" society. To get past this, one must deconstruct the underpinnings of the idea.
Libertarians, and many conservatives, often point to nature as justification for absolute property rights. Territory is visible throughout nature, and animals will fight to defend it.
But this is actually crucial to the point: In nature, there is no property, only territory. And if you're going to keep territory, you'd better be able to defend it.
If one goes back to a time before property rights were codified among hominids, territory was something that belonged to the Baddest MF in the Valley. Let's figure that he had a few rivals across the river, and that there were constant fights over water.
But a generation goes by, and the Baddest MF in the Valley sees his kids grow up. His sons aren't nearly as bad as he was. His little tribe of warriors is growing old and soft. He sees his power over territory slowly slipping away.
So, he arranges a meeting with rivals, now also aging, from across the river. "Gentlemen," he says. "Enough of all this senseless violence and killing. We must have laws -- to govern us!"
And so, the codification of property rights is born. But, who will enforce those rights? The police department and the courts are soon born. Disputes are settled peacefully for a change, and yes, civilization is born.
But are such rights absolute or conditional? It should be obvious. Property rights exist because of government, not in spite of it.
Without codified property rights, my grasp over my home and yard would be tenuous. I would have to be able to defend them, as my territory. If someone could get the drop on me, kill me, my wife and my dogs, and bury us in the back yard -- well, the territory would "belong" to that person. It is the codification of my property rights that would enable the police and the courts to intervene. But I realize that my rights are conditional. I have to pay property taxes, and I don't have the right to let my grass grow over a foot tall.
As for Rand Paul?
I'm going to toss in recent video
of Dr. Paul, now the Kentucky Republican U.S. Senate nominee, talking to Rachel Maddow.
A lot of commentators are painting Dr. Paul as a racist over this. I cannot say whether he is one, as I cannot read his mind. But he is clearly the same thing that I was long, long ago -- an ideologue who has never had the experience of driving into a town, tired and hungry, and finding nearly all public accommodations segregated or just plain closed to him.
I will take the doctor at his word that he opposes segregation. But he also clearly buys into the idea of absolute property rights, something that distinguishes his brand of libertarian conservative from the older and more pragmatic style of Burkean conservatism. And it certainly sets him apart from modern liberalism, which has evolved a great deal since the days of Manchester liberals.
The notion of absolute property rights is certainly common in America, but the idea falls apart upon proper deconstruction. No civilized society could function that way for long. In a sense, it's time for many Americans, especially the Tea Party variety, to grow up and get over it. They are part of a larger society as much as they are individuals. It's time for people to start acting like it.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Why is anyone shocked about Rand Paul, and his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I confess to being a recovering libertarian, and therefore I understand that viewpoint better than most left-leaning people do. It's about absolute property rights.
John Galt, that shadowy character in Ayn Rand's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, articulated this view about as well as something that silly can be. This is from a Wikipedia article on Rand's 1957 novel:
Atlas Shrugged endorses the belief that a society's best hope rests on adopting a system of pure laissez-faire. Rand's view of the ideal government is expressed by John Galt, who says, "The political system we will build is contained in a single moral premise: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force," and claims that "no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality — to think, to work and to keep the results — which means: the right of property." Galt himself lives a life of laissez-faire capitalism as the only way to live consistently with his beliefs.
The obvious extension of this philosophy isn't much of a stretch. Nobody is obligated to pay taxes -- they would come only at the generous sufferance of volunteer property owners who realize they will have to have roads and bridges to drive on. Your neighbors would be theoretically "free" to bury dioxins in their back yards, and you have no say in the matter. A machine shop owner could hire you, require you to furnish your own tools, ignore safety issues -- and when you get hurt, well, tough, buddy. Go home and get well, and maybe we'll see you again some day. Of course, bear in mind that wage slaves are always "free" to change masters.
And, the private owners of lunch counters would be "free" to segregate, or to ban minorities altogether, as they did before 1964.
This brings to mind a simple observation: No civilized society has been able to function for long with the notion that property rights are generally absolute. It's not workable, and never has been.
I admit, long ago I thought this way, regarding property rights as more or less something that cannot be abridged in a "free" society. To get past this, one must deconstruct the underpinnings of the idea.
Libertarians, and many conservatives, often point to nature as justification for absolute property rights. Territory is visible throughout nature, and animals will fight to defend it.
But this is actually crucial to the point: In nature, there is no property, only territory. And if you're going to keep territory, you'd better be able to defend it.
If one goes back to a time before property rights were codified among hominids, territory was something that belonged to the Baddest MF in the Valley. Let's figure that he had a few rivals across the river, and that there were constant fights over water.
But a generation goes by, and the Baddest MF in the Valley sees his kids grow up. His sons aren't nearly as bad as he was. His little tribe of warriors is growing old and soft. He sees his power over territory slowly slipping away.
So, he arranges a meeting with rivals, now also aging, from across the river. "Gentlemen," he says. "Enough of all this senseless violence and killing. We must have laws -- to govern us!"
And so, the codification of property rights is born. But, who will enforce those rights? The police department and the courts are soon born. Disputes are settled peacefully for a change, and yes, civilization is born.
But are such rights absolute or conditional? It should be obvious. Property rights exist because of government, not in spite of it.
Without codified property rights, my grasp over my home and yard would be tenuous. I would have to be able to defend them, as my territory. If someone could get the drop on me, kill me, my wife and my dogs, and bury us in the back yard -- well, the territory would "belong" to that person. It is the codification of my property rights that would enable the police and the courts to intervene. But I realize that my rights are conditional. I have to pay property taxes, and I don't have the right to let my grass grow over a foot tall.
As for Rand Paul?
I'm going to toss in recent video
of Dr. Paul, now the Kentucky Republican U.S. Senate nominee, talking to Rachel Maddow.
A lot of commentators are painting Dr. Paul as a racist over this. I cannot say whether he is one, as I cannot read his mind. But he is clearly the same thing that I was long, long ago -- an ideologue who has never had the experience of driving into a town, tired and hungry, and finding nearly all public accommodations segregated or just plain closed to him.
I will take the doctor at his word that he opposes segregation. But he also clearly buys into the idea of absolute property rights, something that distinguishes his brand of libertarian conservative from the older and more pragmatic style of Burkean conservatism. And it certainly sets him apart from modern liberalism, which has evolved a great deal since the days of Manchester liberals.
The notion of absolute property rights is certainly common in America, but the idea falls apart upon proper deconstruction. No civilized society could function that way for long. In a sense, it's time for many Americans, especially the Tea Party variety, to grow up and get over it. They are part of a larger society as much as they are individuals. It's time for people to start acting like it.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Republicans Again Rewrite History: They Were The Main 'Architects' Of Deregulation
By Manifesto Joe
Republicans either have a great sense of sick humor, or they think everybody else has amnesia, or they are brainwashed stoolheads -- or some of the above, or all of the above.
Some of us were paying attention to matters political and economic over the past 30-plus years. Deregulation was mainly a Republican idea, in all facets of the economy. The mantras were all very familiar: If you hamstring business to where it can't operate, everybody suffers; the free market is self-regulating anyway; competition will make the pie bigger for everyone. ...
There were Democrats, dating back to Jimmy Carter, who fell for all this and become accomplices. I can't blame them too much -- I'm all for leaving the market to do anything it can do better than the public sector, and that encompasses many things.
But recent evidence seems quite clear that finance and oil drilling are not strong suits for unfettered private sectors.
New Deal-era banking regulations (the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) were rolled back by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Yes, President Bill Clinton did sign that bill -- he now acknowledges that to have been a mistake. Please note that the three legislators whose names were attached to the latter act -- led by the former Senate solon of kleptocracy, Phil Gramm of Texas -- were all Republicans.
Listening to Republicans talk now reminds me somewhat of the 1970s, when you could actually hear some of them blame the Vietnam War on the Democratic Party. Remember Bob Dole's remark during his vice presidential debate with Walter Mondale in 1976, in which he talked about "Democrat wars"? I remember Barry Goldwater saying something to that effect as well.
Blaming Vietnam on Democrats is, historically, quite a stretch. Yes, they were in office during the 1965-68 escalation, and it was Cold War Democrats who crafted Vietnam policy. But was this against the opposition of Republicans?
Hardly. The main problem Republicans seemed to have with the Vietnam War was that, according to them, the U.S. wasn't fighting to win. They favored MORE aggressiveness, MORE escalation and MORE involvement, not less. With the lonely exceptions of Mark Hatfield in the Senate and Pete McClosky in the House, there were few high-profile Republican critics of the war -- only critics of its conduct. In 1964, Republican presidential candidate Goldwater even suggested that the use of "low-yield" nuclear weapons should be seriously considered. By 1968, it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, who were split up the middle over the war.
And, please recall that it was two Democratic senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, who cast the only two votes in Congress against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Neither man saw his political career survive the decade.
Yes, Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico are both a long way from Vietnam. But what is recalled is the Republican propensity to rewrite history for their own political purposes. To hear some of these people tell it, Barack Obama, with his 16 months in office, is largely responsible for the Gulf spill, for the Wall Street/subprime mortgage crackup, and for the Tate-LaBianca murders. And whatever he didn't do, Clinton and Carter did.
Let's see: Who was in office in 2005, when we saw BP's first big disaster, the explosion of the oil refinery at Texas City, Texas? Who didn't follow up with any advocacy of more stringent safety regulations of the oil industry, even after negligence on BP's part in the 2005 blast was so evident?
And, let's see: Who was in office when possible criminal prosecution of BP over a 2006 Alaska pipeline rupture was killed?
And, let's see again: Who was in office most of the time that the federal Minerals Management Service was supposed to be inspecting that Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf at least monthly, and failing to do it?
No, Republicans are not the exclusive owners of modern deregulation. But they were certainly the primary "architects" of it. And their anti-government rhetoric became a self-fulfilling prophesy: When you keep saying that government is the problem, that it can't do anything right, and then you put people of that philosophy in charge of what little regulation there is ... don't be surprised by the meltdowns. And, please don't blame it on those who sometimes just went along, in some cases reluctantly.
I'm reminded once more of something the late Molly Ivins wrote. It was something to the effect that when you deregulate something, you will often find out why it was regulated in the first place.
Republicans, enough revisionist history, please. At this time in history, we need to get busy cleaning up the messes. Obama seems willing to try, if you will let him. But so far, that hasn't seemed to be your inclination.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In
Texas.
Postscript: Please note that although this post is dated Saturday, May 15, it was not actually posted until Thursday, May 20. This discrepancy is the result of the saving of an earlier draft, and I don't think it will be worthwhile to go to the trouble of altering it.
Republicans either have a great sense of sick humor, or they think everybody else has amnesia, or they are brainwashed stoolheads -- or some of the above, or all of the above.
Some of us were paying attention to matters political and economic over the past 30-plus years. Deregulation was mainly a Republican idea, in all facets of the economy. The mantras were all very familiar: If you hamstring business to where it can't operate, everybody suffers; the free market is self-regulating anyway; competition will make the pie bigger for everyone. ...
There were Democrats, dating back to Jimmy Carter, who fell for all this and become accomplices. I can't blame them too much -- I'm all for leaving the market to do anything it can do better than the public sector, and that encompasses many things.
But recent evidence seems quite clear that finance and oil drilling are not strong suits for unfettered private sectors.
New Deal-era banking regulations (the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) were rolled back by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Yes, President Bill Clinton did sign that bill -- he now acknowledges that to have been a mistake. Please note that the three legislators whose names were attached to the latter act -- led by the former Senate solon of kleptocracy, Phil Gramm of Texas -- were all Republicans.
Listening to Republicans talk now reminds me somewhat of the 1970s, when you could actually hear some of them blame the Vietnam War on the Democratic Party. Remember Bob Dole's remark during his vice presidential debate with Walter Mondale in 1976, in which he talked about "Democrat wars"? I remember Barry Goldwater saying something to that effect as well.
Blaming Vietnam on Democrats is, historically, quite a stretch. Yes, they were in office during the 1965-68 escalation, and it was Cold War Democrats who crafted Vietnam policy. But was this against the opposition of Republicans?
Hardly. The main problem Republicans seemed to have with the Vietnam War was that, according to them, the U.S. wasn't fighting to win. They favored MORE aggressiveness, MORE escalation and MORE involvement, not less. With the lonely exceptions of Mark Hatfield in the Senate and Pete McClosky in the House, there were few high-profile Republican critics of the war -- only critics of its conduct. In 1964, Republican presidential candidate Goldwater even suggested that the use of "low-yield" nuclear weapons should be seriously considered. By 1968, it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, who were split up the middle over the war.
And, please recall that it was two Democratic senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, who cast the only two votes in Congress against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. Neither man saw his political career survive the decade.
Yes, Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico are both a long way from Vietnam. But what is recalled is the Republican propensity to rewrite history for their own political purposes. To hear some of these people tell it, Barack Obama, with his 16 months in office, is largely responsible for the Gulf spill, for the Wall Street/subprime mortgage crackup, and for the Tate-LaBianca murders. And whatever he didn't do, Clinton and Carter did.
Let's see: Who was in office in 2005, when we saw BP's first big disaster, the explosion of the oil refinery at Texas City, Texas? Who didn't follow up with any advocacy of more stringent safety regulations of the oil industry, even after negligence on BP's part in the 2005 blast was so evident?
And, let's see: Who was in office when possible criminal prosecution of BP over a 2006 Alaska pipeline rupture was killed?
And, let's see again: Who was in office most of the time that the federal Minerals Management Service was supposed to be inspecting that Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf at least monthly, and failing to do it?
No, Republicans are not the exclusive owners of modern deregulation. But they were certainly the primary "architects" of it. And their anti-government rhetoric became a self-fulfilling prophesy: When you keep saying that government is the problem, that it can't do anything right, and then you put people of that philosophy in charge of what little regulation there is ... don't be surprised by the meltdowns. And, please don't blame it on those who sometimes just went along, in some cases reluctantly.
I'm reminded once more of something the late Molly Ivins wrote. It was something to the effect that when you deregulate something, you will often find out why it was regulated in the first place.
Republicans, enough revisionist history, please. At this time in history, we need to get busy cleaning up the messes. Obama seems willing to try, if you will let him. But so far, that hasn't seemed to be your inclination.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In
Texas.
Postscript: Please note that although this post is dated Saturday, May 15, it was not actually posted until Thursday, May 20. This discrepancy is the result of the saving of an earlier draft, and I don't think it will be worthwhile to go to the trouble of altering it.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Lewis Black On Glenn Beck And Nazi Tourette's: Yes, You Can See It Here, Too
Yeah, this has already been all over the Internet. I work at a job that makes it hard for me to stay right on the cutting edge of things. But something this good bears repeating. Once again, here's Lewis Black, discussing Glenn Beck's constant playing of the Nazi card, on Wednesday night's The Daily Show:
Vy haf zeh not come for me yet, ee-zer? I am vaiting ... -- MJ
Vy haf zeh not come for me yet, ee-zer? I am vaiting ... -- MJ
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
BP Is Still Grappling With Its 2005 Texas City Disaster
By Manifesto Joe
While various officials try to sort out who's to blame for the environmental disaster, not to mention the deaths of 11 workers, in the Gulf of Mexico, it may be time for a bit of context.
BP, the London-based multinational oil giant that's behind the huge Gulf oil spill, is still paying for a March 23, 2005 disaster. An explosion at a Texas City, Texas, refinery owned by BP killed 15 workers and injured 170. And investigations have repeatedly pointed to safety negligence on the part of BP leading up to that disaster.
Here's the U.S. Chemical Safety Board video on events leading up to the 2005 disaster:
To date, BP has been forced to pay over $1.6 billion in damages, fines and repairs for their gross negligence at Texas City. And litigation is still pending. A Wikipedia article details the company's persistent failure to heed or implement safety recommendations made as long as 14 years before the explosion.
And, BP is still fighting everything it can. It it challenging an $87 million OSHA fine, the largest in OSHA history, for failing to correct the hazards.
It appears, as usual, that nothing was really learned from history. BP continues to operate as a rogue multinational, with additional fatalities occurring at the Texas City refinery since the 2005 disaster.
From what we've been hearing from the kooky, phony-populist right wing and other sundry apologists for corporate greed, what we have here is failure to regulate. Such arguments are absurd beyond belief. I used to hold Warren Buffett in relatively high esteem for his modesty about his fortune and his sometimes progressive views. But he and his business partner, Charlie Munger, had the nerve to blame regulators for the duplicity of Goldman Sachs. And there are people who will consider lax regulators, not BP, to be primarily responsible for the current travesty in the Gulf.
This is like blaming the farmhand who fell asleep while the fox was pillaging the henhouse. Is the farmhand's ill-timed nap supposed to exonerate the fox of all guilt?
It's looking more and more like time to actually re-empower the regulators of capitalism, in all its facets. But that would require a sense of history that, so far, not many people seem to have.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas
While various officials try to sort out who's to blame for the environmental disaster, not to mention the deaths of 11 workers, in the Gulf of Mexico, it may be time for a bit of context.
BP, the London-based multinational oil giant that's behind the huge Gulf oil spill, is still paying for a March 23, 2005 disaster. An explosion at a Texas City, Texas, refinery owned by BP killed 15 workers and injured 170. And investigations have repeatedly pointed to safety negligence on the part of BP leading up to that disaster.
Here's the U.S. Chemical Safety Board video on events leading up to the 2005 disaster:
To date, BP has been forced to pay over $1.6 billion in damages, fines and repairs for their gross negligence at Texas City. And litigation is still pending. A Wikipedia article details the company's persistent failure to heed or implement safety recommendations made as long as 14 years before the explosion.
And, BP is still fighting everything it can. It it challenging an $87 million OSHA fine, the largest in OSHA history, for failing to correct the hazards.
It appears, as usual, that nothing was really learned from history. BP continues to operate as a rogue multinational, with additional fatalities occurring at the Texas City refinery since the 2005 disaster.
From what we've been hearing from the kooky, phony-populist right wing and other sundry apologists for corporate greed, what we have here is failure to regulate. Such arguments are absurd beyond belief. I used to hold Warren Buffett in relatively high esteem for his modesty about his fortune and his sometimes progressive views. But he and his business partner, Charlie Munger, had the nerve to blame regulators for the duplicity of Goldman Sachs. And there are people who will consider lax regulators, not BP, to be primarily responsible for the current travesty in the Gulf.
This is like blaming the farmhand who fell asleep while the fox was pillaging the henhouse. Is the farmhand's ill-timed nap supposed to exonerate the fox of all guilt?
It's looking more and more like time to actually re-empower the regulators of capitalism, in all its facets. But that would require a sense of history that, so far, not many people seem to have.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas
Friday, May 7, 2010
At Last, An Explanation For Tea Party People ...
... And for Republicans in general. The Neanderthals walk among us. Here's the full story. -- MJ
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Noam Chomsky: On The Depression And Revisionist History
I'm going to leave a link for those who want to read the entire article, which appears to have been from a recent Chomsky lecture. But this paragraph I found priceless.
... I left home for graduate studies at Harvard, where I had my first extensive experience with the elite intellectual world. On arrival, I went to the standard faculty-run party for incoming students and was regaled by a very distinguished philosopher with an account of the Depression - which, he assured me, had not taken place. It was a liberal fabrication. There were no rag-pickers coming to our door in desperation in the early '30s, no women workers being beaten by security forces while on strike at a textile factory that I passed on a trolley with my mother when I was about five, none of my unemployed working class relatives. A few businessmen might have suffered, but there was nothing beyond that.
I guess that means I never saw the more recent problems, either, like a solid crowded city block of dudes waiting for a few day-labor employers to drive up in their pickups. It didn't happen. I never saw it. Ever. -- MJ
... I left home for graduate studies at Harvard, where I had my first extensive experience with the elite intellectual world. On arrival, I went to the standard faculty-run party for incoming students and was regaled by a very distinguished philosopher with an account of the Depression - which, he assured me, had not taken place. It was a liberal fabrication. There were no rag-pickers coming to our door in desperation in the early '30s, no women workers being beaten by security forces while on strike at a textile factory that I passed on a trolley with my mother when I was about five, none of my unemployed working class relatives. A few businessmen might have suffered, but there was nothing beyond that.
I guess that means I never saw the more recent problems, either, like a solid crowded city block of dudes waiting for a few day-labor employers to drive up in their pickups. It didn't happen. I never saw it. Ever. -- MJ
Monday, April 26, 2010
Goldman Sachs Con Artists Belong In Jail
By Manifesto Joe
At Goldman Sachs, the internal e-mails belie the company's denials. McClatchy Newspapers reported yesterday that:
WASHINGTON -- In an internal e-mail released Saturday, Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein wrote in November 2007 that the firm "didn't dodge the mortgage mess," but "made more than we lost" by betting against the U.S. housing market.
Blankfein's e-mail, which a Senate investigations panel released with three other subpoenaed company documents, appears to contradict Goldman's denials that it profited from the subprime mortgage meltdown by secretly betting that housing prices would fall. At the same time, Goldman was selling tens of billions of dollars in risky mortgage securities.
Goldman has said that its contrary bets were largely on behalf of its clients.
The release of the documents sets the stage for a confrontation on Tuesday, when Blankfein and six other present and former Goldman executives are scheduled to testify to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which will begin revealing the results of a yearlong investigation.
Here's a link to the entire McClatchy article.
More from the story:
The disclosure comes a little more than a week after the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman for civil fraud, accusing the firm and one of its vice presidents of allowing a long-time hedge fund client to help select the securities for a deal without telling the investors that the client planned to bet against the securities.
In America, the accused are innocent until proved guilty. Right now, this is just a civil case. But it looks more and more like certain officers of this corporation deliberately defrauded investors.
It would be such a pleasure to see these assholes doing the perp walk, on their way to someplace like The Tombs or Riker's Island, with bond set in the amounts that they defrauded from investors.
But alas, this is America, so I won't be holding my breath. Here, people that rich are especially innocent until proved guilty.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
At Goldman Sachs, the internal e-mails belie the company's denials. McClatchy Newspapers reported yesterday that:
WASHINGTON -- In an internal e-mail released Saturday, Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein wrote in November 2007 that the firm "didn't dodge the mortgage mess," but "made more than we lost" by betting against the U.S. housing market.
Blankfein's e-mail, which a Senate investigations panel released with three other subpoenaed company documents, appears to contradict Goldman's denials that it profited from the subprime mortgage meltdown by secretly betting that housing prices would fall. At the same time, Goldman was selling tens of billions of dollars in risky mortgage securities.
Goldman has said that its contrary bets were largely on behalf of its clients.
The release of the documents sets the stage for a confrontation on Tuesday, when Blankfein and six other present and former Goldman executives are scheduled to testify to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which will begin revealing the results of a yearlong investigation.
Here's a link to the entire McClatchy article.
More from the story:
The disclosure comes a little more than a week after the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman for civil fraud, accusing the firm and one of its vice presidents of allowing a long-time hedge fund client to help select the securities for a deal without telling the investors that the client planned to bet against the securities.
In America, the accused are innocent until proved guilty. Right now, this is just a civil case. But it looks more and more like certain officers of this corporation deliberately defrauded investors.
It would be such a pleasure to see these assholes doing the perp walk, on their way to someplace like The Tombs or Riker's Island, with bond set in the amounts that they defrauded from investors.
But alas, this is America, so I won't be holding my breath. Here, people that rich are especially innocent until proved guilty.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A Modest Proposal Of Barter For The Republican Party
By Manifesto Joe
I've been reading about a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada, and one who's being taken seriously (She's challenging Harry Reid), who suggests that one could use livestock to barter with your doctor for health care. Like, bring a chicken to your doctor.
Since we're talking about using livestock in the place of currency, I have a modest proposal for the Republican Party. Would they accept my pit bull terrier as a campaign contribution?
My pit bull terrier
I haven't asked him whether he's a Republican. But he's smarter than most of the Tea Party demonstrators, and he could be meaner in a fight. He's also housebroken.
One big problem is that he eats a lot. (Chicken is his favorite, by the way.) And, he's grown since this picture was taken. And, of course, they would have to pay for his rabies shots upon acceptance. And then there's the expense of obedience school ...
RNC, I await your response.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I've been reading about a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada, and one who's being taken seriously (She's challenging Harry Reid), who suggests that one could use livestock to barter with your doctor for health care. Like, bring a chicken to your doctor.
Since we're talking about using livestock in the place of currency, I have a modest proposal for the Republican Party. Would they accept my pit bull terrier as a campaign contribution?
My pit bull terrierI haven't asked him whether he's a Republican. But he's smarter than most of the Tea Party demonstrators, and he could be meaner in a fight. He's also housebroken.
One big problem is that he eats a lot. (Chicken is his favorite, by the way.) And, he's grown since this picture was taken. And, of course, they would have to pay for his rabies shots upon acceptance. And then there's the expense of obedience school ...
RNC, I await your response.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Teabonics: You Can't Fix Stupid, And Sadly, You Can't Keep It From Voting, Either
By Manifesto Joe
I hadn't heard about "teabonics" until the other day. There are Web sites dedicated to this new dialect of American right-wing culture.
Let's go linking:
No Amensty!
Even the copy desk at the Daily News saw this error!
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a socilist. (Or is it socialest?)
One of the big regrets of my life is that I didn't dedicate myself to larnin' a furrin lanaguage. I knows just enough Spanish to get myself into major trouble in Piedras Negras.
This hyar is clearly a fite for feedom. If I ever becomes a rich banker, I wants to charge them deadbeats a fee!
And now for something completely different...
I've been awfully busy lately. I have a night-shift job with a news organization, and it's demanding. But I try to keep up with things. The other day on one of the talking-heads TV shows on one of the cable news networks, they had a biker-looking dude who was there as a representative and spokesman of the Tea Party people.
He started his point by talking about middle-class Americans. He described these "typical" Americans as, say, a household bringing in $100,000 a year.
Hold the phone there, biker dude. Chain mail must be more profitable than I ever thought.
According to the U.S Census Bureau, the median household income in America is $52,000 a year. This man was describing a typical U.S. household as one making nearly twice that. Shit, if I were bringing that much dinero into my household, I would have absolutely no complaints and would pay my taxes gladly, hoping to get commensurate services.
This was a very revealing moment. What this is all about is ME ME ME. The profile of the typical Tea Party asshole is a white male, upper middle-class Republican, with just enough "education" to be dangerous. ("A little bit of education is a dangerous thing.") I suspect that this "education" generally consists of a lot of business administration courses. I had a couple of those during my 6-year acquaintance with the liberal arts, and if there's a place to be indoctrinated into right-wing, "free-market" misconceptions, that's where to find it.
Another revealing thing is that these people have no fundamental opposition to Social Security or Medicare. Either they or their parents have benefited from these "socilist" programs. But once more, this is obviously about ME ME ME.
These people have been vocal enough, and have shown up at enough rallies, to get themselves taken seriously by the MSM. Go back to the top and check out these links. These are the fortunate anthropoids of America. They have done just well enough, through dumbass luck, usually, to be dupes for the real elite. They are stupid enough to be the foot soldiers for people who have money stashed away in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
Such imbeciles have been overcome before. I seriously pray that it can happen again.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I hadn't heard about "teabonics" until the other day. There are Web sites dedicated to this new dialect of American right-wing culture.
Let's go linking:
No Amensty!
Even the copy desk at the Daily News saw this error!
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a socilist. (Or is it socialest?)
One of the big regrets of my life is that I didn't dedicate myself to larnin' a furrin lanaguage. I knows just enough Spanish to get myself into major trouble in Piedras Negras.
This hyar is clearly a fite for feedom. If I ever becomes a rich banker, I wants to charge them deadbeats a fee!
And now for something completely different...
I've been awfully busy lately. I have a night-shift job with a news organization, and it's demanding. But I try to keep up with things. The other day on one of the talking-heads TV shows on one of the cable news networks, they had a biker-looking dude who was there as a representative and spokesman of the Tea Party people.
He started his point by talking about middle-class Americans. He described these "typical" Americans as, say, a household bringing in $100,000 a year.
Hold the phone there, biker dude. Chain mail must be more profitable than I ever thought.
According to the U.S Census Bureau, the median household income in America is $52,000 a year. This man was describing a typical U.S. household as one making nearly twice that. Shit, if I were bringing that much dinero into my household, I would have absolutely no complaints and would pay my taxes gladly, hoping to get commensurate services.
This was a very revealing moment. What this is all about is ME ME ME. The profile of the typical Tea Party asshole is a white male, upper middle-class Republican, with just enough "education" to be dangerous. ("A little bit of education is a dangerous thing.") I suspect that this "education" generally consists of a lot of business administration courses. I had a couple of those during my 6-year acquaintance with the liberal arts, and if there's a place to be indoctrinated into right-wing, "free-market" misconceptions, that's where to find it.
Another revealing thing is that these people have no fundamental opposition to Social Security or Medicare. Either they or their parents have benefited from these "socilist" programs. But once more, this is obviously about ME ME ME.
These people have been vocal enough, and have shown up at enough rallies, to get themselves taken seriously by the MSM. Go back to the top and check out these links. These are the fortunate anthropoids of America. They have done just well enough, through dumbass luck, usually, to be dupes for the real elite. They are stupid enough to be the foot soldiers for people who have money stashed away in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
Such imbeciles have been overcome before. I seriously pray that it can happen again.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Nostalgia For 'Good' Demagogues: Remembering Huey P. Long
Demagogues are always dangerous. But once upon a time in America, at least they would sometimes fight for the well-being of ordinary struggling citizens. Louisiana Gov. and Sen. Huey P. Long (1893-1935) comes to mind.
If only Sarah Palin had done half as much for Alaska before becoming a national figure.
Standard Oil is running the state again, Kingfish. America needs you, not Sarah Palin. -- MJ
If only Sarah Palin had done half as much for Alaska before becoming a national figure.
Standard Oil is running the state again, Kingfish. America needs you, not Sarah Palin. -- MJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
