Another similar take on my basic concepts

In wandering about the Net looking for something else I ran into Robert W. Fuller, Patient Revolution: Human Rights Past and Future which is an hour long video about his self named "Dignitarian" ideology. His elite background shows, and seems to me to be a major difference I have with him. But by talking from the position of the management, and his academic credentials he does provide a place and perspective that can allow managers to create a more humane and profitable system.

Of particular interest to me is the way he, as I have, actively differentiates what he is talking about from the Communist/Socialist unnecessary monopolies that are not different from the same thing that is "privately" held. He talks about managers treating others with dignity because it is ultimately in the manager's self interest, while my focus is to have a method to make sure that he does so, because few people can see their real self interest. He does make a point that social embarrassment is a mechanism of accountability, but history has often shown it weak and assuming the person can be embarrassed.

In memory of Jeanne Kirkpatrick

The one speech that I remember By Ms Kirkpatrick while she was still a Democrat, was a spirited defense of why our thugs were better than their thugs (she used that term.)

Her contention was that while thugs the world over murdered and tortured their people, all of America’s pet thugs (like Saddam) were basically simple kleptocrats, who just wanted to rape the financial well being of these countries, and as long as you didn’t get between them and power or money, you were pretty much ignored.

She claimed that the only alternative was the “other guy’s” thugs who did the same thing but also insisted in controlling people’s social actions and opinions, thus imposing them selves on peoples daily lives, beyond keeping them in abject poverty. This was why Totalitarians were worse than garden variety authoritarian dictators.

Now it is a standard thing to accuse your enemy of tactics you plan on using, but I wish I had a text of the speech because almost immediately she did just that, it was hypocrisy even then, but has only gotten worse.

I have thanked her for pointing out the difference early, and I have used her talking points ever since. I only wish John Dean would read them.

It is indeed bad enough that the Gang Of Predators have gone on a kleptomaniacal spree, it is worse that they have gutted the Constitution and the Magna Carta, but it is worse yet that they are going completely Totalitarian that opinions and thought crimes are threatened, and in some cases carried out.

Ms Kirkpatrick did indeed call an early warning of what we should really fear, and the spent the rest of her life in support of that very evil.

Focusing On The Reality

It would appear that regardless of any other principals laid out in any part of the law, if there is a democracy, the majority of voters would wish that the majority would prosper. As most of the arguments was not if they would prosper, but how, such would be the wish of nearly all the voters.

It would seem a reasonable guess that few would deliberately decide that they should do worse. Those who have achieved a level of prosperity, and were greedy enough to want to benefit from the impoverishment of the majority however might well work to reduce what the majority had to say about it, and work to convince them of concepts that would cause them to work against their own interests.

Whatever smoke and mirrors, the results are the ultimate judge of reality. That reality is that the power and prosperity of the majority of Americans has been in decline since the '50's with a gain at the top equal in total but divided among very few. Sometimes the pace is slower sometimes faster, but breakneck in the past 6 years. But the result can be seen here.

Thom Hartmann lays it out in great detail in his book and fairly well in his discussion here. As I point out in the basic concepts in the upper corner of this blog, that all group actions need to be seen as the reality it is and how benefits are assigned and how the folk in control are held accountable. It is this accountability that government needs to be the final force, with the elected democracy the final accountability on government.

This is a very different proposal than that the government actually be the unaccountable monopoly, but that there be no unaccountable monopoly of any type. All the Orwellian twisting of this point is no more than fraud and fakery.

A quick thought

Until we reframe how we think about group actions, the Sharpies will continue to rake in the gold and give everyone else with the shaft.

All group actions, Government, global trade, any corporation, etc., have the stakeholders who are affected and shakers who have the operational control of the enterprise. If the stakeholders cannot hold the shakers accountable, they will give themselves more of the benefits and the rest of the stakeholders more of the costs. If they can the shakers will weasel out of what accountability there is. As indeed they have done, till there is hardly any left.

The new Congress has its work cut out for them, I can only hope they will be able to focus on that prize.

The Origins of Tyranny

This is an important documentary shown on BBC in 2004. Needless to say I cannot imagine that any American Media would ever run it.

I would pick on a few points to disagree with, mainly that Liberal thought failed because crime went up. Their own detailing of the Straussian method, would indicate that much of that "failure" was due more to programs being cut off at the knees, and of rules inserted in them to create something to attack. This is exactly what is happening to a school system that has worked well for over 200 years, but is now, suddenly, failing.

They also fail to connect the thought of the Religious Right (Dominionists) as having more than similar interests to the Straussians, when they have such a similar thought process as both Strauss and the Islamists. As well as how the Straussian created fantasy has infected all aspects of Republican politics.

Their point, particularly in the first of the three movies, is that the founding thought of both Islamist, and Straussian,(and Dominionist)is that freedom is corrupting and ultimately lead to Nihilism and Hedonistic animal debasement (obviously understanding animals as badly as humans).

Their very detailed point that should be made stronger is that ALL these groups, Islamist, Neocon,(and Dominionist) truly Hate Freedom and Democracy, and are the real enemy of Humanity and Civilization. They also make well the point that Islamists as a group and AlQueda in particular, are mostly an annoyance at best, and would be rejected even in their strongholds without being pumped up by the Neocons, who need them as much as Bin Laden needs the Neocons.

Just .......WOW

Here indeed is what Ed Murrow would sound like if he were alive today.

Here is what a real honest press would sound like.

It is a pity that only those who have cable or the internet will see such things.

No wonder that there is such a reality divide in this country.

Where did all the money go

Starting with the Kennedy tax cuts money was bled from American business into the CEO class. That is not the investors, who were increasingly as screwed as the workers (as many were the workers, Pension plans etc. ). Small businesses have always struggled, but high taxes forced them to reinvest or pay the taxes. Most reinvested.

The high taxes were not high as long as the money removed was small so the differences in salary from top to bottom was as low as seven fold with the big boss making $35,000 and the janitor making $5,000, and most of the value went into increased production, better quality etc. I recall reading there was a new record breaking wage (after the Kennedy tax cut) of $800k and the race was on.

Since most giant businesses were managed by a tight ole boy network at the top salary was a matter of power, and CEO salaries leap ever skyward, with top management close behind. The stockholders were either in Mutual funds with infinitely diluted control, or if they were investing individually, had neither the clout or the ability to investigate adequately, and in nearly every business the rules were crafted to lessen the power of investors.

As smaller businesses tried to keep up there was a perception that their own leadership was slipping into second class status, and having the power to do so they also began to siphon off needed investment moneys. Never put in such stark terms (mostly), still there was an orgy of "consolidation" where good businesses were mined for their assets (worker pension funds among them) and the husk tossed away.

Many Billionaires were thus created, but it was the wealth of the thief not the hard worker. Many folk owned bonds with AAA rating one day and junk status the next, and as most of those moneys were hidden, so were the losses. Everywhere where folk did not have power, on the job, in a pension, or mutual fund, even many small businesses, they were robbed.

Even in the Government, when Reagan took office, the government was the largest landlord, mostly in public housing with trillions in assets. In one of the most under reported stories of the time, the man in charge had had a fire sale to all his friends at pennies on the dollar, in theft unmatched till the current administration. Then even that was defaulted (with much more theft) as these same friends cratered most American Banks.

With all that theft, how did Americans manage? Savings were eliminated, most American middle class had a lot of savings, today they don't. Real wages were cut in half, where there had been only the father working, now both father and mother had to work to keep the same lifestyle. Benefits like pensions and health care were "HMO'd" "down sized" or eliminated altogether (vacation times and rules included).

Many former or "would have been" workers spent their life savings to "buy themselves a job" and became "small businessmen" but that did not solve the problem and in many cases made it worse, providing intermittent services that used to be full time jobs, and competing on price, did the job ever cheaper, and even if they employed others and made money from them it only spread the pain.
Europe and Japan did not, at first, get this disease. Low top salaries and heavy reinvestment cratered American market share, and high taxes meant that wealth was shared as shorter work hours and longer vacations. I met with a German executive about some shared technical issues that we needed to work out, and he was aghast at what Americans put up with. The very idea that an 8 hour day did not include the lunch hour and a couple of breaks was the ultimate in management chiseling.

If today Europe is sickening from slow business it is not just that workers are well treated (and ever less so) but that in the global economy the kleptocrats at the top are ever less satisfied with salaries first at seven times average, then the next I heard 27 times, now hundreds of times the salaries of the folk on the shop floor. The investors aren't getting the money, stock prices and dividends have risen slowly if at all.

It is kleptocracy that is ruining the world.

Swiftboating nearly everybody

I first noticed the dangerous strain when they "swiftboated" Frank Church. A reletively conservative Democrat who thought that mayhem and murder done in America's name and kept secret only from Americans was a bad thing. (those on the pointy end had the info first hand)

When I was in high school, the partisan conservative (Paleo) admin. had a complete class on propaganda, and subversive techniques, so we could recognize Communist influences. I wish I had better notes, as Techniques like Subversion, & Terrorism can be used in any ideology.

I watched in slow horror as these folk subverted groups from Baptists to Republicans, using the very methods I was taught, and made them all something they never were.

Another technique was to change the definitions of the arguments, that all who oppose you have this wild, straw dog agenda, making liberal a bad word, but also assigning the most extreme case of it in proportion to the awareness of the subversion rather than to any policy beliefs, marginalizing and suppressing embarrassing reality debate in one move.

Pre-accusing others of what you are doing, is another tool, like the pained winger cries of excess partisanship, even though arriving at the opposition 30 years late.

Well the Fascist straw left, like genuine Satanists, is at best only a few odd deluded folk, and if one feels the least extreme among extremists, it is only that these others have been "swiftboated" about their thinking as well.

Actual policy attitudes would be the same progressive libertarian range they always were, if we can ever get back to those happy days of being the major issues.

For now, as we fight for air, self actualization will have to wait.

Hat tip kuffsworld

Libertarian Dream, Human Nightmare

Well they have gone and done it, or rather started to do it and will finish it if not somehow stopped. If there were only one "liberal" thing that a Government aught to be doing, against which the least argument could be made, it would be the building and maintenance of streets roads and highways.

Without which you would not be able to step away from your house without being in a foreign country that could decide everything from taxes to whatever rights (if any) you might have, or even if you could be outside your house at all, or perhaps only on Tuesdays. And then there is the bit of road beyond that.....

And you would have NO say in the matter.

In short if a private person owned the roads YOU needed to travel, they would have more to say about your daily life than any other official government.

But our new world Republicans are busy doing just that! That bridge that was built usually with all or part your taxpayers dollars? Sold to the highest bidder. Not the highest bid in the price of the bridge paid to the formerly legitimate government.... but the highest creative bribe to the folk who vote on the sale. (can I point to the exposure of any particular secret bank account?, no, but like wildly divergent counts between an official election count and exit polls, or number of voters, the fact of a criminal outcome is evidence enough that a crime is committed)

Many of the first sales are apparently already toll roads, and in some cases there are "Commissions" that operate them in the states name, often enriching themselves with legalized (or not) embezzlement by any of the tried and true methods. But at extremus, every citizen has the right and capability to find the facts, and expose and punish such persons.

"Sold" to a private person or Corporation there is no such accountability, if 90 cents out of every dollar of your multidollar toll, goes directly into the CEO's pocket, you have no way of finding out, and no way to hold him accountable if you did. It is all secret and private. And without accountability, you can bet that your pocket needs will not be considered.

Of particular interest is..

Some experts welcome the trend. Robert Poole, transportation director for the conservative think tank Reason Foundation, said private investors can raise more money than politicians to build new roads because these kind of owners are willing to raise tolls.

"They depoliticize the tolling decision," Poole said. Besides, he said, foreign companies have purchased infrastructure in Europe for years; only now are U.S. companies beginning to get into the business of buying roads and bridges.

These are the guys that wail and cry over official government "Taxes", but jump with joy when they are "Profits". When it comes to that sucking sound from your pocket the only thing you might notice is the increase.

Oh, and that nice sounding "depoliticise" that is the sound of YOUR RIGHTS to hold them accountable going up in smoke and mirrors. Before they are finished all you will own is the Debt.

Crunch Time Coming Soon

I haven't published much recently. It has been like watching a car crash that has taken agonizing years, instead of seconds. Bush's first words after the Nov 2000 elections chilled me to the bone, as all that has happened since was painted in the body language, and unstated threat that he was the new king and would never be held accountable for any action.

The Internet was young then, and only those who had gone there to see what was really happening about the impeachment debacle had a clue to how badly we were screwed. Even two years later many senior Democratic leaders did not have a clue about information that was commonplace on the 'Net.

Even now most people don't seem to be able to get their minds around how drastically their world has changed, taking many freedoms for granted because they haven't tested them, or themselves been at the pointy end of the loss. Instead each outrage is not enough in itself to galvanize and organize the opposition, except in a few rare and mostly insufficient cases.

Most Americans are somewhat aware that their lives are not as open as they were, but still have hope that it can be fixed without themselves standing out too far from the crowd and turning a bad situation instantly, personally, horrid. This is the mindset that allowed so many Jews to find themselves in the gas chambers.

Robert Kennedy is one opposition figure that has at least brought open facts in some detail into a focus that is just such a terrifying fact that we are a long way down a road most wish to think that we haven't gotten to yet. In response many "Uncle Tom" Democrats are still trying to treat hemorrhaging Democracy as "barely a flesh wound", fearful that confronting the bullies will only get us all beat up more.

Mark Crispin Miller has deeply researched the problem and stood to defend Kennedy from liberal "Uncle Toms" (specifically Salon and Farhad Manjoo) and in doing so better defines more reality in fewer words than I have seen recently.

Specifically

We also hear that Democrats have been reluctant to speak out about election fraud because they fear that doing so might cut down voter turnout on Election Day. By such logic, we should henceforth utter not a peep about election fraud, so that the Democratic turnout will break records. Then, when the Republicans win yet again, because they've rigged the system, how will all those Democratic voters feel? Maybe those who haven't killed themselves, or fled the country, will recover just enough to vote again. Would it then be prudent for the Democrats to talk about election fraud? Or would it still seem sensible to keep the subject under wraps?

The argument is idiotic, yet the people who have seriously made it -- Bernie Sanders, Markos Moulitsas, Hillary Clinton's and Chuck Schumer's people, among others -- are extremely bright. The argument, as foolish as it is, does not bespeak a low I.Q., but, I would suggest, a subtler kind of incapacity: a refusal and/or inability to face a deeply terrifying truth. The Democrats refuse to talk about election fraud because they cannot, will not, wrap their minds around the implications of what happened in 2004, and what is happening right now, and what will keep on happening until we, as a people, face the issue. In short, whatever clever-sounding rationales they may invoke (no doubt in all sincerity), the Democrats won't talk about election fraud because they're in denial, which is itself based on a lethal combination of inertia, self-interest and, above all -- or below all -- fear.

Such fear is understandable. For the problem here is not simply mechanical or technological, legal or bureaucratic, requiring that we merely tweak the rules and/or build a better mousetrap. Any such expedient will naturally depend on a consensus of "both sides" -- and there's the rub, because in this great clash the "other side" detests American democracy itself. The movement now in power is not conservative but radical, intent on an apocalyptic program that is fundamentally opposed to the ideals of the Enlightenment, on which, lest we forget, this revolutionary secular republic was first founded. The movement frankly disbelieves in reason, and in all the other worldly goods that every rational American still takes for granted: pluralism, checks and balances, "the general welfare," freedom, progress, the pursuit of happiness. For this movement, condom use is worse than death by AIDS, however many millions the disease may kill; the ruination of the planet should be hastened, not prevented, as it means that He will be returning soon; the "war on terror" is a matter not of geopolitics but metaphysics, as our national enemy is "a guy named Satan"; homosexuals should not be citizens, the US having been conceived as a "Christian republic"; and -- most relevant to this debate -- the movement's adversaries, which means all the rest of us, are not human beings with divergent interests but literal "agents of Hell," demonic entities against which any tactic, however criminal or sinful, is permissible, because they are likely to use any tactic, regardless of its sinfulness or criminality, to force their evil program on the Righteous Ones.

Of course, that theocratic bloc does not comprise the whole Bush/Cheney movement, which, at the top, is heavily dominated too by frank neo-imperialists, corporate profiteers, careerist sociopaths and livid paranoids compelled by the intense self-hatred typical of such perennial types as Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover. Revolution tends to work by unifying the energies, or bile, of only roughly complementary interests. This revolution certainly is no pure upsurge of religious fervor, for its plutocratic animus is just as powerful, apparently, as its crusade to "Christianize" the world. However, while it would be very foolish to ignore the movement's secular agenda (i.e., the avarice and power lust of Cheney/Rumsfeld and their corporate cronies), it is just as foolish to imagine that the movement's theocratic program is mere smoke, calculated just to daze the pious masses so that Congress and Wall Street can rob them blind.

This theocratic program is no secret, as the conquest of the GOP has been the top priority of US Christianist extremists since the early Nineties. It was their aim to put George W. Bush in office, and then to keep him there, despite the will of the electorate; and having done so, they have rapidly transformed our government into an instrument of their crusade. "George W. Bush is our agenda!" as the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition, boasted candidly to Salon's Michelle Goldberg a few years ago. He had every right to crow. The executive departments and top federal agencies are now in theocratic hands, and this government pursues no policy, foreign or domestic, that has not been devised or vetted by the party's theocratic apparat. The government now generously subsidizes many theocratic groups that proselytize explicitly, pushing both their own creed and the interests of the Bush Republicans. And now that Congress too is full of theocratic militants (who seem to have no strong opponents), the Supreme Court is just one seat away from an entrenched majority as frankly hostile to the church/state separation as it is to voting rights for all Americans.

The power and fury of the US theocratic movement have been amply documented by a range of keen observers, including Esther Kaplan, Paul Craig Roberts, Kevin Phillips, Stephenie Hendricks, Max Blumenthal, Frederick Carlson, Katherine Yurica, Michael Lerner and Salon's Michelle Goldberg, among others, as well as in my own books Cruel and Unusual and Fooled Again. The threat has also sounded strong alarms on solid Christian grounds, in writings by Jim Wallis, John Danforth, Jimmy Carter, Davidson Loehr, Rich Lang and Bruce Prescott. (Of course, the theocratic program is explicit also in the oratory and writings of the theocrats themselves.) It now remains for us to face the crucial fact that this regime's miraculous "re-election" in 2004 depended heavily on the countless block-the-vote activities of theocratic true believers, who did whatever they could do, from coast to coast, to cut the Kerry vote and pad the Bush vote. That effort was essential to the regime's inexplicable political success. Of all the interests collaborating in Bush/Cheney's drive against democracy, the theocrats alone have a grass-roots constituency -- not large enough, by any means, to sway elections honestly, but large enough, and fierce enough, and with sufficient funds and discipline, to help Bush/Cheney disenfranchise the majority. Although the corporations and the neo-cons wield awesome clout, they have no grass-roots muscle. The theocrats alone can claim that necessary asset, and it has given them enormous power.

The Republicans are indeed at a tipping point. If an honest government were to achieve power, sufficient to expose even what is common 'net knowledge, much less what is as yet still secret from everyone, a genuine house cleaning would land them all poor and in jail at best. They will not allow that to happen without violence.

If the propaganda cannot convince most people that what is sure to be surprising Republican victories are legitimately gotten, then the reaction could itself cause more reaction and bring on the worst "Uncle Tom Democrat" fears, and indeed would make some very unhappy times, and what has been a somewhat covert overthrow of the American Democracy overt.

With approval ratings in the 30% range, stealing an election is no less easy, but it would be harder to keep from being obvious to even the thickest dunderhead. And what happens then, be it whimper or boom, will not be at all pretty.

Update: I was wrong, while there was tremendous voter suppression and other dirty tricks, I think that the Democrat expectation of fraud actually reduced it in places like Ohio, and massive voter revulsion at late breaking sex scandals and similar incidents overshot Republican planning. Do the Republicans think that they can weather the next two years and let the massive Gerrymandering return things back? Only the next Congress will tell, it will be very dicey. With so much work and only two years, every action will have to be effective, rather than just feel good. (and there is so much more that would feel great, but might be less effective).

Totalitarians in Libertarian clothing, and how Conservatives became their "Fellow Travellers"

(This was published a year ago but still speaks well.)

It would appear to me that either Libertarians are deliberately framing issues to obscure reality or have not actually thought their obsession through.

Now my understanding of a Straussian is that they have thought it through and decided that it is good to be the King, as long as it is just them as king and a few cronies to keep them in power, and the rest of the World can just KMA. But they also realize the rest of the World considers such people to be pure evil, and even their fellow travelers would prefer each of them be king.

So in order to avoid sharing a cell with Saddam, they invent elaborate propaganda structures, while looking intently how to stab others in the back, and avoiding others doing the same to them. This is pretty much how Saddam operated, as well as the Bush Administration, and all the other more obedient Saddams in all the Tajikistans about the World.

That the Bush Administration has not yet demonstrated all the excesses that Saddam & Sons exercised on their private property they called Iraq, is limited only by their perception of being held accountable for their actions. And therein lies the rub that actual Libertarians have not thought through.

Now it is my understanding that a Libertarian believes in absolute freedom of personal action and property rights, and that the only legitimate activity of Government is to protect such happy folk from losing those things. Now such thoughts are fine if you happen to be Saddam, but the rest of the Iraqis did not find such free exercise of property rights so enjoyable. No matter how much less dramatic you make it, universal freedom and universal property rights cannot coexist. Just the definition owning anything means that someone else cannot mess with your stuff beyond the limits of your freely given permission.

The actual reality is that any action done in concert by two or more people, or the divvying up of the assets of the World are matters of power and those who exercise it. The only real issue is what controls those who are acted upon have on the actors. While it is an old saw that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the less pointed out corollary is that ALL power corrupts to the limits of its accountability to other powers.

Libertarians are quick to point this out of Government De Jure, but totally obsficate the fact that any exercise of power is Government De Facto and is even less immune to such corruption because of its stealth quality. This is how the Republicans hoodwinked the nation by saying they wanted "to get the Government off our backs" when what they really wanted was to fire all the cops. The prisons are full of people with the same complaint, but without the massive funding required to exercise their "Free" Speech.

Now actual Liberals, unlike Straussian straw liberals, believe in the maximum freedom for every individual to decide as much as possible about their own life. They even believe in "private" property and what personal power it gives to have your own stuff to help structure your life. The issue is one of accountability and who is going to stop any person from abusing the power to exploit, injure, or otherwise limit other people from exercising their own freedom.

Now there are many issues that honorable people can differ on, as to who guards the guards, and how much accountability and what kind is appropriate, but there should be agreement that stealing millions of dollars, or horribly killing thousands or millions, should get a lot more accountability than your average street criminal (though he should be stopped as well). That such power is excercised as the choice of serious injury / forking over your wallet, or paying the power bill / living without heat cannot be considered a free will choice, nor so if the facts are hidden/twisted to cause you to make a choice you would not make had you known them.

There was a time when people of Straussian attitude feigned being Liberals, and called themselves Communists, today they are almost all Conservatives, finding their power base in Bigotry, Theocracy, and Corporate Megalomania (often referred to as Fascism or Kleptocracy). All are Totalitarian at their black heart, and all need to be recognized as the pure evil that they are. In the United States all such folk with any power are Republican, and why the World is at greater danger than anytime in the past, with nine months to decide its fate.

Stupider than Screen Sided Submarines

What about this picture would make one immediately suspect that this trailer was not likely a Secret Biological Weapons lab?

Well duh, Biolabs need secure space, lest the pathogen escape and wipe out ones own side, much less the researchers themselves. They also require a controlled temperatures, and a clean environment, not only for safety but to keep the critters happy as well.

Lets see, 120 degree plus outside temperatures, check, dark brown canvas to keep the contents cool in the sun, not check, canvas sides as clean room siding, I don't think so, canvas tarps as level five pathogen security system, ROFL!

And still to this day these things are trotted out as proof Saddam had WMD or planned to use them for such. They even had drawings showing the canvas when Powell gave his speech.

If lies of this stupidity are believed what is the hope of seeing any actual fact.

Crazy Nakita was right

I watched The Frontline program about the depth of horror of the crushed Tianamein spring, including depths I had not known about. I was also struck by the discussion of the new Chinese economic situation, for the winners and losers in that situation, and how control of information is the knife edge they walk on.

In this there was much information I am aware of, and this contribution raised a thought far more chilling than the individual points you made, chilling though those were.

The first Image is of Crazy Nakita banging his shoe at the UN and saying that "your Grandchildren will grow up under Communism". Those who did not laugh rushed through Trillions in wasted money on massive military fantasies of Russians invading and going through the U.S. like the Nazis through France.

But the real invasion started at the University of Chicago. Because from there came the new Marxism, with Leo Strauss as the new prophet. Actual Communist governments were built on a populist base, however fascist the reality, the populist pro formas had to be observed.

But where the old Marxism had seen evil and spoken against it, if only in a shadow of the promise. The New Straussian Marxism saw evil and embraced it, turning many ideas 180 degrees, without changing the intent of domination and control by an elite.

Mao had created a fanatic Jihad, all belief and energy, but ultimately failed a changed belief or behavior. Tianamein showed the power of an idea, and the threat to the elite, and when the blood was washed off the street I believe they adopted the new University of Chicago Marxism. Already being in absolute power, they could implement the plan swiftly and completely, while in the U.S. and Europe the plan had to proceed slowly, lest their true nature be outed.

Among the pieces of the puzzle missed by the Frontline story is how the Chinese Military became the biggest partner in the major Industries. It would be speculation on my part, but it is an obvious guess, that those who were among the murderers at Tianamein have been among the most blessed by the new economy, especially the leadership. Actual details of this would be most interesting.

In your outrage that "American" Multinationals, particularly Yahoo, Microsoft, and Sisco would be actively complicit in the suppression of freedom, you failed to notice that, for these companies specifically, their actual politics is not opposed to such suppression, and actively support the same in this country ( the role of Google appears much more complicated).

All of this leads up to the bone chilling realization that the program created. Look at this program and realize that THIS IS THE NEOCON PLAN FOR AMERICA.! Look at this Frontline view of the life of the Chinese worker, exploitable, and disposable, no rights, and hidden reality, covered over with a "free" enterprise fantasy. Of necessity there must be millions of used up workers, too injured, or physically broken, to take part in the "New China" anymore. Where are they? What has happened to them? Will their deaths bring about the population control that China has desperately sought?

Is this the way you want YOUR Grandchildren to grow up?

Its not Hypocrisy (its worse)

NeoCon's reason d'être requires deception. It lies at the heart of their philosophy, and is inseparable from it. The very core of philosophy is two faced, one for public view and one, so satanically nihilistic they dare not show it, reserved for co-conspirators, that instructs their actual behavior.

Outsiders call it hypocrisy, but that makes way too lite of the matter, far more Joe Stalin than anything remotely Churchillian. Churchill spoke as any true leader, doing what was right, and knowing that every word would follow him through history and beyond death, and would stand by those words even now were he still alive.

NeoCons, like the Communists many were in an earlier part of their life, have no respect for words. Statements, and even sentiments, made today are only "operable" in the current context, and could be, and often are , a complete flip-flop when a new context requires it. Not because they have discovered a new insight, but simply because the new situation requires it.

In the Y2K debacle they even managed both sides at the same time, taking one side in one courtroom and the opposite in another, depending on the results expected. Famously even the Bush-v-Gore decision denied "operability" beyond the moment, and even in a context where every word is written in stone for the ages, it could be expected that the Roberts Court would do a 180 on that decision if the need arose.

Like the Russians, Americans do have memories, if somewhat short and faulty, and some have access to information the State has not controlled as yet. A certain amount of deception can be tolerated, if it appears reasonable and debatable. When it becomes absurd on its face, and provably stupid at the moment, no amount of spin can stand for long.

At long last, the sheer volume/ridiculousness is beginning to be noticed by all but the most ideological and/or stupid. The big question is whether a big Republican win in Nov. in the face of contrary reason and exit polls will cause enough gagging from within or outrage from without to bring Democracy back. Perhaps the gagging will start before Nov. Hope is a good thought but an unreliable plan.

Down The Hatch

Yup Censure of the Emperor isn't just wrong, it is unconstitutional--- Hey Whaaat!

Orrin (nut) Hatch is often off the wall, even when on message and the message is getting wider off reality every day. As reported in Hatch friendly home town paper in a hometown School Ole Orrie really let his hair down on his legal expertise.

At times his language was humorous -- he talked of "Sith judges on the Dark Side wielding their gavels like sabers" -- but he was also stern, warning that an unchecked judiciary could usurp the powers of other branches of government and spell doom for liberty.

That some of those powers are actually spelled out in the constitution as being Judicial, is not a fact that he would let get in the way of the official spin.

"The Constitution governs the Supreme Court, not the other way around," Hatch said. "The Supreme Court does not have the last word. The people do.

"I would like to restore the Constitution to what it was."

Uhhh, The constitution says the Supremes have the last word, no matter how crazy (unfortunately) short a constitutional amendment to the contrary. If that were not true, we might still have both a Democracy and (likely) a Democrat as President.

"Judicial activism represents a radical departure from the way we govern ourselves in this country," Hatch said. "If it continues, it means the Constitution won't be worth the paper it's written on."

While Bush said "its just a piece of Paper" and in Bush vs Gore The Supremes wouldn't even stand behind their reasoning in "newspeak" activist judges mean those who actually respect, the constitution and law much less honor.

Of course for Hatch, as all Republicans, talking is mostly just making noises. Coherence, much less reason, much less actual principals, are not part of the agenda, but a means to an end that has nothing to do with what the founders of the country had in mind.

I wrote this and cross posted it at the links noted:

I recall when the meme was "us versus the Communists" there were many speeches about why the Communists were different than a usual party, and why even if we supported a lot of thugs in the world "our thugs were better than their thugs"

Top of their list was that the Communists were Totalitarian. It was not enough to do as you were told, but they expected you think as you were told as well.

High on the list was that "their" principals were for the current situation only and could rotate 180 degrees if the situation was different.

Another point was that there was a spin of the day and everyone was supposed to stay "on message", only one voice allowed no matter who was talking.

A fourth was an obsession with party loyalty, people who disagreed, or worse, changed their minds were dealt with harsher than even critics.

Those are all now typical Republican descriptions. I guess it is that part about making principals fit the situation. It is not hypocrisy- it is the totalitarian way of thinking.

The Great Libertarian Fallacy

A good place to start is the Libertarian Mantras. All the wingers recite them, even when they are flying directly in the face of even the agreed base of the thinking.

But the mantras actually promote Progressive values if you correct just one bit of raging illogic (probably deliberate). That is the Libertarian very narrow definition of what is government.

Try this
"Government is what government does"

"Someone Deciding about your life (what medicine your doctor can prescribe, how your electric is produced,etc)"? Yes? Then they are government!

"Do they charge you for the privilege (Insurance bill,power bill, etc")THAT is TAXES! And then the key Question.

"can't hold them accountable for their decisions?" THEN THAT IS TYRRANY!!!!!

If you doubt it, try changing your power company, or your health insurance. Worse, your health insurance is often changed for you, with a whole new set of rules (LAWS!)about what you can and cannot do. And every year the laws are more oppressive and the taxes more obscene (over 60% of my not fabulous income, last I looked) They usually hide those costs in the salary you are not paid, so people don't know what they are really paying.

Also Libertarians usually talk about Free Enterprise and Capitalism as though they were the same thing when they are actually opposing things. I thought I was the only one who saw this till I read the Halloween Documents that should be required reading in every high school as they are as important to the nature of the country as the writings of the founding fathers.

Essentially if your business is a commodity {Free Enterprise (say building computers in the '90's)}your prices (and profits) are limited by what your competition will accept. The only way to control (raise) profits is to own (control) the market {Capitalism (think Microsoft)}. No real capitalist would knowingly invest in a business market that had real free enterprise because they could not make a profit beyond what everyone else is making. This dosen't mean they might make the mistake, or buy into such a Market and "De-Commoditize" it.

In any case Capitalism is "government by other means" and DeJure Government the means by which those governments are held accountable.

I am all in favor that the government governs best that governs least, but any action that involves several (or millions) achieving a single goal involves a de'Facto government, no matter what the name is on the door.

There are many things that need no government.
1.Who I engage in sex with, or how, as long as they are willing, aware, and old enough.
2. What (or if) I think about the Metaphyisical and how I want it to affect my life. (this does not include my actions that include others who don't wish to be included)

The list is much longer but again Libertarians are very selective in how far they let their logic go, it is up to progressives to show that freedom cannot be so limited. As soon as your action affects someone else in space or time you become a Government limiting their freedom, and thus must be accountable to them, or become the hated tyrant.

Whoa! ... You Go Girls!

The Dixie Chicks were never my kind of music, you could find it here but never on a MSM station, so If my favorite musicians made those comments(and I suspect most would ) you would never have heard of it.

An I suspect that even the Chicks did not contemplate the depths of depravity so much of the country fan base had sunk to. But there is nothing like the dose of cold water a ton of depraved hate mail, and few hundred death threats can do to wake you up and make you pay attention. I guess if I had been a fan, the steel in their spine might not have been a suprise. But their new song aught to insipre even the "Boss" with these words.

Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting

I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

I know you said
Can’t you just get over it
It turned my whole world around
And I kind of like it

I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting

The Democrats should make it their Anthem
or at the least invite the Dixie Chicks to do the National Convention.

Mr King was never this scary

Stephen King always bored me because most of his scenarios were not good enough for even suspended disbelief. Maureen Farrell's article might be the same except for all the links backing up all her points, like several per paragraph.

Her story is no less surreal, but there has been a lot of surreal since Nov 2, 2000. It has been like somebody hijacked reality and stuck us in this bad novel. Well here is the punch line to that bad novel.

Legislation to Turn the US into a Theocracy is Introduced in the House

Remember when Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt said that we need not worry about depleting our natural resources because, thanks to End Times prophecies, future generations wonÂ’t be needing them anyway? Or when Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said he believed that "time is running out ..." as in Armageddon is approaching?

Back then, Frank Zappa appeared on Crossfire, shocking panelists when he said that the US was gearing up to become a fascist theocracy. More than two decades later, legislation to complete the transformation was introduced in the House.

"If enacted, the Constitution Restoration Act will effectively transform the United States into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a 'higher power' can override law," Chris Floyd wrote. Columnist James Heflin warned that "If the Act passes, Iraqis would have stronger protection from religious extremism than Americans."

Cosponsored by Sen. Brownback, whose rent is subsidized by the "secretive" religious organization, the Fellowship, the legislation is the work of Dominionists, or Christian Reconstructionists, who call for the "universal development of Biblical theocratic republics."

The crusade to Christianize America in order to prepare for Christ's Second Coming is not one that is going away any time soon. The Act, which was reintroduced in 2005, is currently being marketed by the media-savvy Concerned Women For America, which was founded and is headed by Rev. Timothy LaHaye's wife, Beverly.

and as a key part of their support forIsraell

In a starkly honest essay, Christian Reconstructist Gary North pointed to the elephant in the revival tent. "In order for most of today's Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement's support for Israel, he wrote, regarding fundamentalists' defense of "the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust."

Fun times ahead

The Unsinkable Molly Ivins....

Another cat bell, Another windmill. No one can say Democrats don't have ideas or that the Ideas are not practical. Only the problem is that without a way to hold congress critters accountable, they won't install any other way to hold them accountable.

I do like the idea of supporting democracy, however, and think we should try it—especially here in the U.S. of A. To this end, a couple of dandy ideas are now circulating, and I think they’re worth your support and excitement. For ages, all good reformers have wanted to get rid of the Electoral College and have direct popular election of presidents, instead. The disastrous election in 2000 finally culminated in Bush v. Gore, a Supreme Court decision so bad even the court disowned it at the time.

Every nightmare scenario about just how screwed up things could get with the Electoral College all came true. What a giant mess: a textbook case of why the Electoral College is toxic piffle. But the desire to Do Something about the mess in 2000 burned itself out. The Republicans who took over Congress are just not natural reformers.

Trouble is, the system has just about “ruint” presidential elections, which now turn on a handful of swing states, while everyone else is ignored. While millions of dollars, hours of political ads and hordes of politicians descend every four years on the swing states, you can barely tell there’s an election going on in the rest of the country. Should you live safely tucked into a solidly red or blue state, your vote is unsought, uncounted and unnecessary—we know how your state’s votes will be cast whether you vote or not.

...snip....

The Campaign for a National Popular Vote has a dandy new approach. Instead of trying to amend the Constitution through a long, difficult process that can and will be stalled by small states, the campaign proposes a simpler, elegant solution. According to the Constitution, each state legislature can instruct its own electors to cast their votes however the state decides, usually as winner-take-all for whichever candidate carries the state. But there is no reason a state legislature cannot instruct its electors to vote for whoever wins the popular vote.

Democracy! What a concept! The states can do this one by one, subscribing to an interstate compact that would take effect when enough states join to elect the actual winner—a majority of the 538 electoral votes.

....

The possibilities for unintended consequences here is boggling, to say nothing of evil intended consequences. A covert Republican campaign to get Dem States to pass such lege would guarantee a Republican switch but not necessarily one to the Dem side. Even a Maine type proportional voting scheme, could have similar consequences. The Florida lege even threatened to go the other way before the Supremes beat them to it, and there is nothing too keep them from doing it again for partisan gain.

In any case I wrote this to Molly's article....

What with computers and technology beyond the horse drawn wagon, why not try for a more direct democracy? While I might agree that having everyone vote on every issue might have some bad results (though an improvement on the present), a biannual bid that actually made EVERY vote count might actually work.

What if everyone voted for a favorite person to actually represent them? That person would usually come from where their supporters were, but not necessarily, but would have personal contact with nearly every voter who supported them.

So what if they get only say 10k votes, they could formally form a coalition of like minded fellows till they reached some magic number (say 1 million) and that coalition would put one of their number as the official representative in congress. The rest would essentially be the office staff, and thus still have a day to day impact. Those coalitions with the most votes would get the best chairmanships etc., evening out those with big excess votes with those barely over the line.

The result would be total representation all the time for each and every voter. Gerrymandering would be impossible, and no longer would nearly half of all actual voters, (much less the rest) go unrepresented.

Of course such a plan is as like my plan to staff the entire government bureaucracy with drafted conscripts, forced to do 4-6 years of patriotic service for their country, and then back to the real world, not setting up some lifetime program of empire building or cozy relationships, just go in, do your job for patriotism, and get out. Short a Wiser Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et. al. the chances of a real, thought out system are all but nil.

Even such reform as banning voting district pseudopodia, or width to length maximum ratios, is out of reach if there is no accountability.

And as the Majority of states get an extra edge of Three Electoral Votes when their population only justifies one, they would still over rule, unless the state voted against the actual vote count of that state. Say an Ohio that had a plurality of votes for the Democrat, putting all their votes for the Republican. Then two or three swing states could pull it off, but the partisan acrimony from which ever side got the short end would be deafening. Also a New York and California for instance could throw the vote Republican , but not Democrat as they would (presumably) have a Dem winner in any case.

Myself, I would be happy just to have an honest vote count. Without that, nothing good is possible.

Habeas Schmaebeas

Check out the long version, apparently Bushco was handing out your tax dollars like drunken sailors to anyone who had a captive. So criminals just grabbed people off the street and sold them as AlKaka.

As a result there wasn't any evidence secret or otherwise, except what was beaten out of them. Real AlKaka got shipped off to secret black sites to have done what even Gitmo folk couldn't stomach, so it would appear that a high percentage at Gitmo were at best low level and more likely just folk.

The REAL reason against abortion

Labored logic

Democrats have been buzzing about comments made by state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville) at a recent eggs-and-issues breakfast in Hart County. We quote from the Hartwell Sun newspaper: "Commenting on illegal immigration, Schaefer said 50 million abortions have been performed in this country, causing a shortage of cheap American labor. 'We could have used those people,' she said."

It has always amazed me that these folk made such a thing about abortion. There are no graveyards for stillbirths or miscarriges. There is no history of counting one's age from earlier than birth. And all early literature I have seen is more concerned with the life of the mother for what was iffy medicine.

It is only when women get to the technical capability of controling reproduction that suddenly several religions decide that such is a bad idea, but show little concern for life after birth, much less the majority of "unborn" as yet unconcieved.

For this I cannot believe that there is any actual concern, at least at the leadership level. What then would make them so vociferous?

The only possible explanation is the desire to have as many desperate people as possible to exploit. That is why the Repiblicans are so conflicted about immigration. If they actually stop it, a prime group of exploitable folk is lost, but if they bacame legal they wouldn't be so exploitable. So they come up with halfway measures that keep them exploitable, and perhaps create another exploitable stash of folk neither legal or "Guests".


Have been keepin busy so posting less.
Had link to article but lost it.

Winger homophobes harass funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq

The Westboro Baptist Church first gained national notoriety when they picked the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998 for being gay.

They have since picketed the funerals of Frank Sinatra and
Bill Clinton's mother, celebrated the terrorist attacks of September 11 as an act of God's wrath, and have even targeted Santa Claus and the Ku Klux Klan.

But it was the callousness and cruelty of harassing the grieving families of soldiers at dozens of funerals across the country that has sparked a grassroots movement of bikers determined to drown out the jeers and taunts.

Like Ann Coulter they stand beyond the mainstream, even of Republicans, not because of what passes for their Ideas, but because they give open voice to them, and in Straussian Ideology that is as great a sin as opposing the likes of these idiots.

Anatomy of Terrorism

Oldish article very smart and indepth as to why BinLaden and Bush are joined at the hip, each the perfect foil for the other, and why that is a VERY bad thing for the rest of the world.

What can we expect Bin Laden to do next?


As the Iraq War drags on, it is becoming less and less popular. The Afghan War is mostly out of the public view, but to the extent that it also drains American lives and money with no end in sight, it also is losing support among those who are paying attention. The memory of 9/11 is starting to fade, as years without an attack convince more and more Americans that we are safe.


All of these factors threaten Bin Laden's plans. If President Bush is tempted into pulling our troops and TV cameras out of Iraq, Bin Laden loses. He needs the United States to continue playing the Great Satan role, because there are many secular Muslims who still hope to fit into the globalized world economy. He needs an enemy to focus their fear and anger, and only the United States is up to the job.


What's more, if he is going to bankrupt the US economy, he needs a wider war. At this point the US military is stretched thin, so a wider war would require a draft or some other unpopular measure for swelling the ranks. The American public would have to be very, very riled to agree to such a thing.


All of this points in one direction: Another attack on the United States, probably within the next year. Ideally, the trail would lead back to some area where the US doesn't currently have troops, and where there is an attackable enemy. Iran is an obvious choice, if Bin Laden can engineer it. But Syria would work as well, and may be easier to manipulate. Egypt, Pakistan, and/or Saudi Arabia could fill the bill if the attack on the US were coupled with a revolution against the corresponding US-supported government. So, for example, an attack on the US coming from Pakistan could be synchronized with the assassination of President Musharraf to draw American troops into that country.

Tamim Ansary penned a letter that went all over the internet that put the whole thing in shorter form, but as the above article points out Bush wants to have an enemy in BinLaden and solving the issue is what he would like least to do.

For his really scary prophecy..

Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done," they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Pushing aside moral qualms and killing innocent people, what's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

And guess what: that's bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that?

Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Mr. Ansary might have been too optimistic about the horse sense of the administration.

Who is the real enemy here?

It is the Stupid Ideology

This is cross posted in response to questions concerning the relevance a teacher of the classics can have. His point is that Rich folk get what they want because they are rich and exploit the poor because they poor, and classic socialism is a cure for this.

There are so many ways to respond that I picked two....as follows...

It is not Dead Professors I am concerned about, nor have I forgotten the Classics, but just as Marxists took a skewed logic and made it a (more skewed) ideology, The results of Mr Strauss' teaching is a new ideology, combining Plato and Social Darwinism, that denys even a modicum of Social Responsability, that is at least paid lip service, in other schemes. The only lip service is in deliberate lies to cover true purpose as far beyond Orwell as Orwell is beyond Machievelli.

Leo Strauss and the American Right by Shadia B. Drury is a very detailed disertation on the point and should be required reading for those who would fight the Bushivicks. As it puts a very different perspective from where your comments would indicate.

As for the Socialist model, it is only as good as the ability to hold the leadership accountable, and has the same disadvantage of bigness when it tries to be a Government run Conglomerate.

I would much rather see an actual Free Enterprise Model where there was a strong, but complex Government that could enforce Honor, and make entry into any business as easy as possible, and making sure no "Captains" arose in any industry, maintaining a situation similar to the state that existed when people were able to become PC maunfacturers in their garages in that industry.

As Bigness became a problem taxes based on size could be a very effective weapon to incourage freedom and discourage empire building. Where there is a natural Monopoly, then that is government, and should be held to the same rules, if not actually a ministry of the main government, and that monopoly should be limited to the minimum necessary expanse, and allow competition where someone thinks they can. A good example is maintaining power poles and some power production but allowing anyone to sell to the grid (managed of course, to avoid the California worst case )

Of course as I pointed out, the current government, and the current voting system makes all such discussions academic, untill there is another chance to restore Freedom and democracy. Perhaps even then the gulf between best and possible would still be problematic.

I suppose that as yet most folk have still not figured out that the voting system is toast. They still think that the Republican Corruption Culture, will wash Democrats in like a Tidal Wave. I can only wish it so, but I will be as Flabbergasted as I would be pleased if it is.

Ion Sancho, American Hero

Apparently Republicans believe that they can turn the country into something like Serbia under Molosivic and nobody would notice. Well not quite nobody, but finally there is somebody in a position to do something with both a spine and a gag reflex, namely Ion Sancho. I wrote this to the elections supervisor....

It would appear that Mr Ion Sancho should have a statue along side Paul Revere for PROVING that the three approved electronic voting systems are hopelessly flawed and any believable election on them impossible no matter the result.

I understand that Vote-pad and Auto-mark have both better records but are not authorized. And in the interest of saving Florida Taxpayers, I understand that the Austrailian system is absolutely free and open source, eliminating any questions of security, or fraud, and saving taxpayers millions of dollars to boot!

Why is it, after all this time, with so much PROVEN chicanery, the Greatest country in the world still is talking about a voting system a THird World country would reject and the WHOLE World is laughing at us about?

CC-Brad Blog-FreeDem blog

Prolly Bev Harris deserves a statue niche as well

Libertarians are wienies

Freedom for all but this got banned from posting on their blog

Perhaps we are not liked (or more properly the local American face) because we keep stealing their stuff, and kicking sand in their face. Sometimes more one, sometimes more the other.

A Libertarian may see a difference between the US Government, and a Mulitnational Corporation full of Americans. But most folk only see power structure with the pointy end sticking them in the face.

60min and for that the DEA might look harder at the Narco-nightmare on the sothern border. As far as I am aware Mark Emory is not about murdering even toking opposition.

Perhaps the problem is that he is cutting into the Mexican profits.

60 Minutes--What should be astonishing, now almost ho-hum

There was a bit of news here, I figured that hospitals were most abusive on folk who could least fight back (more of that Orwellian "faith based" and "non-profit") but at perhaps three to five times normal but CBS is reporting up to ten times normal prices to the uninsured. What with CBS fighting back the people highlighted got a break, too bad they can't do that for the millions of other suckers. Worse ..well read down.

The rest was not even a three on the astonishment meter, being old outrage on the web, and not even the strongest case at that. Though I suppose that the avarage Faux listener would be suprised, but then they would just take it as another reason to hate CBS and Canada, without even a clue to the narco-nightmare to the south.


This is what I wrote to them

Nice teasers, it is too bad you only scratched the surface of issues that have been on the web for years. It is true enough that Uncle Ed lived in a time when folk had a better idea of what news and honor is, and outrage was easier at a time when there seems there was so much less of it, though perhaps there was mostly less awareness. Now perhaps even he would get outrage fatigue.

The Hospital thing was best. I had figured that Hospitals and insurance companies were slicing and dicing the patients, but the hidden fact is that most people judge how much the insurance company pays, by how much the Hospital charges, and insurance companies rag on to emphasize those ideas. But for every uninsured the Hospitals rip off, the insurance companies are ripping off dozens. You could do a week of shows and barely touch the problem.

I am amazed at how much Mr Emory upsets the DEA, Perhaps he is cutting into the profits of the massive narco-nightmare on the south border. The connections to the Bush Administration and worse are all over the net, perhaps CBS could look into that, though it would be a more dangerous assignment than interviewing Zarqawi.

And speaking of him, I am glad you alluded to Wilkerson's wistleblowing, but of what I have read of what he said, much less what else is out there, you seemed to low ball it.

Even Uncle Andy seemed to walk softly::waves to Andy:: hey Andy They HAVE outsourced the government. Foreign (and Domesticish) corporations write all the laws, the guys in Washington are just the secretaries. And the little $400,000 stipend we give them is nothing compared to the money their REAL bosses pay.

Typical Doublethink

Winger partisan attack disguises itself as an expose' of partisan attacks. To say that the teacher failed to offer a balanced view in an atmosphere overwhelming with right wing propaganda, it would appear that he was supplying actual balance, otherwise lacking, and that was why he was attacked.

In the 20-minute recording, made on an MP3 player, teacher Jay Bennish described capitalism as a system "at odds with human rights." He also said there were "eerie similarities" between what Bush said during his Jan. 28 State of the Union address and "things that Adolf Hitler used to say."

The United States was "probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth," Bennish also said on the tape.

Strong language, but less beyond the relm of fact than SOTU itself. The history of capitalism is a history of fighting abuse of workers, customers, enviornment, and more recently even the investors.

The SOTU speech reminds me more of Orwell than Hitler, as Hitler's bombast was far more obvious than speeches crafted today. But knowing the truth behind what he said, it is easy to hear Hitler in the plans, and certainly in the results.

The Violence point is not hard to make as well, though the competition from the later Hitler years, Cambodia, the Inquisition, and many others beats the US easily in sheer brutality, Technology and Gun laws has given us a lead in shock and awe violence....And the plans in the works makes Cambodia look outright mild

The 20-minute recording of only a portion of the class was made by 16-year-old sophomore Sean Allen the day after the president's speech. The recording has raised questions about
what level of academic freedom is acceptable for high school teachers. It also has generated discussions about Bennish on dozens of websites.

A quick check of Google show them all to be Right Wing Web sites. All a part of a pre-organized attack that the Newt himself called the "Mighty Wurlitzer" to hype and expand partisan attacks nationwide before sensible people are even aware of the attack

Sean, who appeared on Rosen's show Wednesday morning, said in an interview he had been disturbed by the "political rants" he heard in Bennish's class. He added that he wanted to tape the session for his father, who later shared it with the media.
Sean, who described himself as a political independent, said the comments seemed inappropriate for a geography class.

Secret partial recordings by activists, blasted nationwide by the "Wurlitzer" are SOP, as are the standard obscuring of the partisan nature of the attack. I would be quite not amazed to find the young man in question is part of a church youth group recruited for this purpose, the self described political independent is not credible, but I am not there to check it out.

AP , it appears reported on the real reaction as.....

At least 150 Overland High School students walked out of class today to protest administrators' decision to put a teacher on leave while they investigate remarks he made about President Bush during class, including that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.

I wrote the following to Ms Rouse in response

It would appear to me that your attacks on Mr. Bennish are actually part of a partisan attack by people who hate American Democracy and Freedom. It you were actually reporting on partisanship in high schools you would have found and reported partisan rants from both sides. Instead you hide the partisan nature of Mike Rosen, who has actually guest hosted for Rush Limbaugh, and allow Sean Allen to claim that he is an independent when he is obviously part of an open conspiracy to only allow right wing partisan speech in schools.

This operation is openly promoted and advertised looking for volunteers to attack anyone who speaks outside the new PC. Many of these operations are part of a Dominionist plan to install a Totalitarian Theocracy in our country that makes the Taliban look easygoing. It is particularly revealing that your byline was not on the report when 150 (more?) students walked out in support of the teacher, and against the partisan attacks.

These folks have no honor.

Update:
It would appear that there is quite a bit of support for the teacher locally But I suppose that the facts will be reversed again by the "Wurlitzer" and they will blame what has to be spontaneous support as some sort of liberal conspiracy, while their conspiracy is framed as just a lone independant against overt PC by the left. Here's betting that young Mr. Allen is active in the local winger religious organization on campus.

Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?

Even mild mannered Garrison Keillor is calling for Impeachment

Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go for it. How about turning over American ports to a country more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was? Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey, you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And your blue button-down shirt--it's you.

But torture is something else. Most people agree with this, and in a democracy that puts the torturers in a delicate position. They must make sure to destroy their e-mails and have subordinates who will take the fall. Because it is impossible to keep torture secret. It goes against the American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is comingout now.

I am reminded of the story of the preacher, citing a long list of crimes and perversions that had become commonplace in his parrish, but cites one as just over the top. Well Mr Keillor they are all over the top, if they have the bit in their mouth, torture may end up the least of it, not because it is not soul killing, but because there is so much worse they could go and perhaps have when folk are so dishonorable nearly anything can be believed.

It looks more and more like the law is toast.

On The Nature of Honor

The basic problem with behaving with secrecy, and dishonor, is that anything might be believed, not matter how crazy.

It all reaches to the real nature of honor. Not the honor of the guy who gets the medals and ticker tape parades, the ones most deserving are usually the ones most embarassed by such things, and the ones who most chase it least deserve it. Honor can only be achieved by each individual in service to themselves, even if no one else knows about it.

Such honor is almost never the easy path. The person who speaks out against blockheadedness while everyone else rushes for the Kool-ade has not taken the easy path, and is hardly the traitor to that group. People who have taken what is obviously the hardest path are the most likely to be following their honor, even if you disagree with them.

Honor requires strength of will, but streangth of will, or body, is hardly a measure of honor. If you posses great strength, your honor is most at risk. People will always root for the underdog even if the underdog is the bad guy, there is a reason for this.

There are obviously times that temporary operational secrecy is necessary, but real honor would justify a movie about it. If such a movie about the real story would be an embarassment, then that embarassment is a measure of negative honor, if the movie would be boring honor would not have been much tested.

There is sometimes less honor in secrecy than the truth of dishonor. When the Nixon tapes were released any expletive he used (even "damn") was replaced with "expletive deleated". Everyone who read the transcript automatically assumed the worst expletive they could think of . So it is with any secret if a person suspects that the secret exists (even if it dosen't). Only transparent honor can make such thoughts

Did Neocons order 9/11, The idea seems preposterous on its face, as even the mechanism of doing so would be as likely as Saddam ordering those attacks. But Neocons made much of the need for such an attack to advance their agenda, and they certainly have flogged it at every turn to squeeze the last bit of horror out of it to their advantage.

Would AlQueda benefit from the destruction? Certainly, but like the old days when "Commies" were the enemy Each side feeds upon the other to raise power money and recruits.

It was AlQueda's fondest dream that we would invade Iraq and have benefited greatly by our doing so. But his Mechanism for ordering Bush to invade, or even to persuade Saddam to be sufficiently secretive and dishonorable enough to allow others to say he was planning what he clearly could not do, is a similar stretch.

It is enough that Dishonor and Secrecy are the hallmarks of Right wing thinking, be they fascist or theocrat of any stripe or brand. The secrecy (as opposed to discretion) alone is prima facia case for dishonor, and dishonor when writ so large is reason for enmity from any and all humans who care a whit for even the concept of honor.

Bush Hatred or something else?

this was published elsewhere but dropped here to get the blog started

I see very little hatred for Bush personally. True listening to him is like fingernails on the blackboard, as much for bungled nonsense as outright lies, but if he vanished from the picture, nothing would change. A change of Sock Puppet would only divert responsibility, as indeed seems to be the plan Of the "reform" Republicans (who are the unindicted coconspirators of the indicted "culture of corruption" Republicans).
IMO there are three evils threatening "Truth, Justice , Freedom, and the American Way"

#1 Fascism- not the jackbooted thugs (though that was often a method)- but the privatization of government.
The Libertarian/Randist logic has a major flaw that somehow government ceases to be that if it is called something else. It simply removes accountability, and any notion of public responsibility.
As bad as Government waste, fraud, abuse has been, Enronization, WTO, etc. has been worse.
The Mechanism of group effort (Free enterprise, communist, capitalist, socialist) is irrelevant, but without accountability you have tyranny.

#2 Theocracy- It is one thing to hold an opinion in an absence of evidence, It is perhaps the nature of faith to hold an opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But when policy is contrary to the evidence, enforced on those who do not even hold those beliefs, tyranny can be the only adjective. If forced to believe, Totalitarian must be added as well.

#3 Bigotry- More than just black and white, the concept of caste by any division that places barriers, removes Freedom, and hurts not just those who would profit by their contribution but all the rest for whom the contribution would never be made.

There was a time when these evils were variously scattered in both parties, but today they are in alliance, and taken over the Republican Party, and true to their tyrannical nature tried (mostly successful) to stifle any path of accountability.

This is what lies at the basis of "bush hate" and other than opposing Tyranny/Totalitarianism has nothing to do with policies reasonable people can disagree about.
I think that this is why there are so many "opposition" voices. Only Totalitarians can have the discipline and stay on message, because that is their nature.

Purists versus reality

This is part of a long post at Open Democracy.com. I am putting up many saved thoughts to get this blog started...

Democracy in a pure "everybody gets a say and a vote on everything" is clumsy even in small committees, much less in giant nations or the world. That does not mean that representational democracy is an oxymoron, or that the existence of a leader is proof of a lack of democracy.
Even in said committee someone has to count and announce the votes. The real trick is [b] how you hold the representative responsible [/b] to do the will of those he represents.

When the US was founded there were few examples of representational democracy, and none that encompassed such a large geographic area. On top of that there were well known evils that never the less had a strong constituency, and not a few lesser ones that no one had thought through because they were so pervasive. How and how quickly such evils should be addressed are the historical base of real Liberal and Conservative discussion but no longer.

Given all that, the result was amazingly strong and effective, but many Democracies since have added a few bits to prevent some of the rougher edges that experience taught. Foremost among these is various ways to avoid "winner take all"that has been a constant problem in American politics, that forces any third party to assist the side they like least.

And while many evils have been addressed by amendment or law or legal ruling ( basically by any means possible) many structural flaws, and unintended consequences have been impossible to address. As well Technology has changed the world with good and evil consequences the would give the founders headaches just to think about.

To recognize that old and new evils exist, is not to "Hate America", but to try and make every level of life better than we found it. To support thuggery because they are "our thugs" is hardly patriotic, even when the enemy is real. Nothing makes an enemy more so, than his outrage at your thuggery, and the expectation he would be treated similarly. Even if his side does worse, as he usually also "patriotic" and blind to his own evil as any who substitute gut for brain.

The outrageous thuggery of 9/11 had even Iran on our side for a bit, and aware skillful actions, by a legitimate leader, might well have set the world to scouring out those who would act so brutally, no matter the particulars of ideology or theology. Sadly the Ship of State had a bumbling fool of a fake captain at the helm to drive the ship into Iraq.

Sadly I only wish they went in for "only" oil. It would seem that there was to be an enemy of the month club, of a couple weeks to build up, a couple weeks to take over and a couple weeks to build and plan the next one. That this might not work beyond a crazed fantasy, did not stop them from applying it to the first two before getting bitch slapped by reality.